I guess I missed last years announcement of the 65 qubit one.
So okay we have a 127 qubit machine, what did they do with it afterwards?
The Q3 financials were released so this article can't have been released to pump up the stock price.
I assume you're saying classically infeasible to refer to the O(n*7) scaling of some QM basis functions?
It is less known that a Russian scientist made similar remarks at the same time.
This "Science" news blurb pops up on google as an intro as well https://www.science.org/content/article/quantum-computer-sim... . Although it makes you laugh when you notice that the principle was suggested in 1981, formalized in the mid 90s, initial experimental successes in late 00s, and today we are barely simulating 3 atom molecules. In our defense, it was a 100 years between Babbage, passing through Turing, and getting to something like ENIAC. And a few more decades before the PC.
Characterize it's performance, review what they've learned, and start on the next design.
We're either thousands of qubits, or a major theoretical breakthrough in error correction away from using a quantum computer for something other than learning about building quantum computers.