Those were both meant to be macguffins to stand in for things not yet possible. The whole argument is purely hypothetical.  Because it has to be as we have no idea what the future holds.  (Notice I never mentioned the video games and focused on technology as a whole.)

Fair enough. However, you’re kind of just reiterating my point. Which is, “we don’t even know what the tech or product is yet.” It might be be something totally foreign as a concept they’ve concocted.

But people liked to latch onto the quantum hyperbole at the end just for a chance to argue online.

I hear ya. I get that argument. I’m not mad about it. I just think it makes more sense to call it what it is. We might as well quit obfuscating and just argue the point.  Might actually get somewhere then.

I’ll also divulge that I’m not looking at this from a “abortion as a right” viewpoint because I think Roe vs. Wade…

I think both sides are obfuscating.

The only choice being argued over is abortion. Framing the 2 sides as Pro Abortion and Anti Abortion makes more sense.

Lol. I feel ya. I’m not a huge advocate for either side. In fact, if I were to pick a side I’d probably be pro-life if the scenario ever came up.

I’m just agreeing with you that this protestation might be achieving the opposite of what it’s intending.

Yea. There’s a reason pro choice groups don’t like it when fetuses are humanized.

That’s a better statement. But still an absolute. Think bigger. The tech might not even be some mainframe based in a city like everyone is assuming. Who knows what the future brings!  Fun to think about!

God you’re a pedant. So I should have qualified FTL differently than Quantum. You must be fun at parties.
(You can take this as your win. I feel engaging with negative people excessively brings me down. So I know when to quit.)

C’mon friend. Think bigger. Who says electrons or light have anything to do with the future’s limitations?  (You are right about the government dealings though.  Governments always seem to hamper progress. Don’t they?)

Let’s recap.

I’m saying there’s a possibility of FTL in the future and we’re always moving forward towards finding that possibility.

You’re saying we’re so far away from knowing how to do it it’s like it’s like there’s no chance.

Sounds like a glass half full argument, no?

Don’t be so negative friend.

You’re taking a healthy objective look at this though. I’m just being the optimist to all the “this is bad and will never work” pessimists here.

The word “never” does not, in any way, imply in the next 5 years friend.

Notice I was critiquing his use of the word “never.” That means never. Not in 5 years. I’m really just playing optimist to most others’ pessimist here.

Laws are meant to be broken!

(Who knows what’s around the corner. Breaking the quantum physics puzzle could change us overnight.)

My point is, “who can say what the future holds.”
All this conjecture before the product is even presented is silly.

Your statement contradicts itself. Finding out what the limitations and difficulties of a problem is a step in the direction of solving it.

It is one my favorites of Princes’

Your comment here does nothing to debate my point. The future is the future. You can’t predict it 100%.

“But otherwise, there’s no magic coming in the future to get past the speed of light.”

Maybe I’m just more of an optimist.  Technology has a way of surprising.  Quantum and FTL isn’t such a pipe dream anymore.

That’s always a risk the company takes when pushing new tech. If they believe this is the future, putting out a 95% experience to a competitor will inevitably make them lose some $$. However, they’ll have a massive leg up on the competition when the market flips to the new tech.

Making an absolute statement about the state of technology or physics as we now understand it is a very facile thing to do.