<story><title>A $1.2B law to boost US quantum tech</title><url>https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612679/president-trump-has-signed-a-12-billon-law-to-boost-us-quantum-tech/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jMyles</author><text>Link to the actual legislation: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.congress.gov&amp;#x2F;bill&amp;#x2F;115th-congress&amp;#x2F;house-bill&amp;#x2F;6227&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.congress.gov&amp;#x2F;bill&amp;#x2F;115th-congress&amp;#x2F;house-bill&amp;#x2F;6227&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, whoa - I hadn&amp;#x27;t even heard of this.  Had y&amp;#x27;all?&lt;p&gt;$1.2B on an exotic tech field - with implications that bigly threaten online privacy and security - seems like an incredible thing to get through both houses and signed into law without it being a story in these parts.&lt;p&gt;Amash unsurprisingly voted no (joining only 10 others in the house, while 348 voted aye).  A quick perusal of his twitter doesn&amp;#x27;t show me any of his thoughts on it.  I&amp;#x27;d like to hear them.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>jchw</author><text>&amp;gt;with implications that bigly threaten online privacy and security&lt;p&gt;Well, it never hurts to start researching post-quantum crypto even if large quantum computers were to prove impractical. I recall Google ran an experiment with a post-quantum key exchange algorithm [1], though I have no clue what came of said experiment.&lt;p&gt;[1] &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;security.googleblog.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;experimenting-with-post-quantum.html?m=1&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;security.googleblog.com&amp;#x2F;2016&amp;#x2F;07&amp;#x2F;experimenting-with-p...&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>
<story><title>A $1.2B law to boost US quantum tech</title><url>https://www.technologyreview.com/the-download/612679/president-trump-has-signed-a-12-billon-law-to-boost-us-quantum-tech/</url></story><parent_chain><item><author>jMyles</author><text>Link to the actual legislation: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.congress.gov&amp;#x2F;bill&amp;#x2F;115th-congress&amp;#x2F;house-bill&amp;#x2F;6227&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;www.congress.gov&amp;#x2F;bill&amp;#x2F;115th-congress&amp;#x2F;house-bill&amp;#x2F;6227&lt;/a&gt;&lt;p&gt;So, whoa - I hadn&amp;#x27;t even heard of this.  Had y&amp;#x27;all?&lt;p&gt;$1.2B on an exotic tech field - with implications that bigly threaten online privacy and security - seems like an incredible thing to get through both houses and signed into law without it being a story in these parts.&lt;p&gt;Amash unsurprisingly voted no (joining only 10 others in the house, while 348 voted aye).  A quick perusal of his twitter doesn&amp;#x27;t show me any of his thoughts on it.  I&amp;#x27;d like to hear them.</text></item></parent_chain><comment><author>meritt</author><text>There was a bit of discussion back when this bill was introduced: &lt;a href=&quot;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=17524928&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;https:&amp;#x2F;&amp;#x2F;news.ycombinator.com&amp;#x2F;item?id=17524928&lt;/a&gt;</text></comment>