Category: Technology

Many children gamble on their parents’ cell phones – the mother of a seven-year-old now had a nasty surprise: the boy spent a total of 2753.91 euros on a game for in-app purchases.

His mother allowed him to play the online game “Brawl Stars” and also to spend small sums on a gift card. But the woman no longer remembered that her credit card was also on file. Your son then continued to play secretly, according to a message from the Lower Saxony consumer center on Monday.

Minors are only allowed to make purchases within the scope of their pocket money without the permission of their parents. “It is therefore usually worthwhile to contradict the demands,” says the legal expert at the consumer association, Kathrin Körber. In the case of the seven-year-old, the mother had not signed a contract with the game provider. According to a letter from the consumer advice center, the company waived the majority of the claim – a total of 2654.31 euros, reported Körber.

In times of pandemic in particular, she can understand parents who – for example, when they work in the home office themselves – occasionally give their children their own cell phones, says Körber. However, parents should definitely check the settings of their devices beforehand. Password protection for purchases or a third-party lock at the mobile phone provider can protect against unwanted costs.

For years, the major platform providers such as Google, Facebook and Amazon were able to grow and accumulate power largely undisturbed. Now lawsuits and new laws are supposed to break their influence – in the USA authorities and politicians are even considering breaking up. This is how they want to prevent a handful of companies from permanently seizing control of competition on the Internet. Heike Schweitzer, antitrust law expert and professor at the HU Berlin, explains how large platforms could pose a threat to competition and what can be done about it.

SZ: Ms. Schweitzer, why did it take so long for the cartel guards to take action against the platforms?

The impression is deceptive. The competition authorities in many jurisdictions have been working on the platforms for a long time. The EU Commission’s proceedings against Google Shopping, for example, were initiated in 2010 before a decision was made in 2017. In fact, the discussion about the large platforms has come to a head in recent years. There is now consensus that they have a special kind of power, that this power has solidified in a special way and is at the same time designed to expand. We must act against this if we want to protect competition and enable innovation.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

If, for example, Google displays its own offers such as Google Shopping higher up in the search results, this displaces other competitors – and thus prevents their innovation. But on the part of the antitrust authorities, there was also the insight that they cannot react quickly enough to abusive behavior with competition law proceedings alone. When the EU found after seven years that Google had violated competition law by favoring Google Shopping, the damage to competition was already done.

In December, the EU presented its draft of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In January, the 10th amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB) came into force in Germany. How should these laws facilitate the work of the antitrust authorities?

With Section 19a GWB, the Federal Cartel Office can in future issue a outstanding, cross-market position determine and make their behavioral requirements. The EU’s Digital Markets Act takes a similar approach: the Commission determines what is known as gatekeeper status for platforms of a certain size, for which a long catalog of behavioral guidelines then automatically applies. So the goal is not to trace past violations. It’s about behavioral requirements for the future.

Why is that an advantage?

Up to now, the authorities have had to prove in individual cases in competition law proceedings that a dominant position exists and that abuse has taken place. Both can be extremely time-consuming. For example, the EU Commission not only demands that damage to the competitive process be proven, but also probable damage to consumers. With Paragraph 19a GWB and the DMA’s obligations of conduct, you save yourself this proof in individual cases. Certain behaviors of gatekeeper platforms are per se considered to be detrimental to competition, for example if they derive a competitive advantage from their dual role as provider of a marketplace and provider on this marketplace.

Open detailed view

What effect will this have on the online market?

The big platforms will have to rethink their business models. Because DMA and GWB do not eliminate the competitive advantages that result from the size of the platforms, their network effects and access to the data. Many users will continue to choose Facebook in the future because so many other users are already there. But with both sets of rules it will be much more difficult for the platforms to transfer their competitive advantages to adjacent markets. When a new messenger comes onto the market, Facebook will not be the winner of the competition between the new messenger and its own messengers such as Whatsapp. Because both laws put the gatekeepers’ economies of scale into perspective, they will have to reckon with significantly more attacks from the fringes. For consumers, this means more innovation and more freedom of choice.

What makes online platforms a problem from an antitrust law perspective?

Platform markets have existed before. For example, shopping centers are platforms that mediate between retailers and buyers. But platforms have taken on a whole new meaning on the Internet. The competition economists and lawyers had to understand that first. Online platforms benefit from particularly strong network effects and extreme economies of scale. In this way, they can become gatekeepers on whom other companies are becoming increasingly dependent. A company that is not found on Google does not exist online. Many companies only find their customers through Amazon. This gives the platforms such great market power that they can control entire markets through their rules and behavior.

The dominance of some platforms also reduces the innovative strength of a market, which can be observed in Silicon Valley. At the same time, the major communication platforms such as Google and Facebook can also exercise political power. Both are being discussed very seriously in the USA at the moment. The two sets of rules – DMA in Europe and GWB in Germany – are intended to create free space around the platforms in which innovation can take place.

The American competition and consumer protection agency FTC has filed a lawsuit calling for Facebook to be broken up. EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager rejects such measures: “That will not happen.” What do you think of a break up?

In Europe we want to try clear rules of conduct as a milder means. Of course, there is also a political aspect to this: when the Americans disentangle their own companies, it is different from when the Europeans try. But it’s also not clear to me whether unbundling would help at all. For example, Facebook could launch a new messenger after splitting off WhatsApp and would be the winner immediately. On the other hand, a break-up could also lead to the loss of the so-called scope advantages that result from the interaction of various services on a platform. These bundled offers can also be attractive for consumers. That speaks in favor of a more cautious approach. We definitely need new and clear rules of conduct.

Basically, competition law should not destroy the big platforms. They provide services that are very useful to all of us without us having to pay any money. But we have to ensure that the platforms’ positions of power can still be challenged. Competition law maintains the pressure to innovate and the freedom of choice that we all benefit from.

For years, the major platform providers such as Google, Facebook and Amazon were able to grow and accumulate power largely undisturbed. Now lawsuits and new laws are supposed to break their influence – in the USA authorities and politicians are even considering breaking up. This is how they want to prevent a handful of companies from permanently seizing control of competition on the Internet. Heike Schweitzer, antitrust law expert and professor at the HU Berlin, explains how large platforms could pose a threat to competition and what can be done about it.

SZ: Ms. Schweitzer, why did it take so long for the cartel guards to take action against the platforms?

The impression is deceptive. The competition authorities in many jurisdictions have been working on the platforms for a long time. The EU Commission’s proceedings against Google Shopping, for example, were initiated in 2010 before a decision was made in 2017. In fact, the discussion about the large platforms has come to a head in recent years. There is now consensus that they have a special kind of power, that this power has solidified in a special way and is at the same time designed to expand. We must act against this if we want to protect competition and enable innovation.

What does that mean in concrete terms?

If, for example, Google displays its own offers such as Google Shopping higher up in the search results, this displaces other competitors – and thus prevents their innovation. But on the part of the antitrust authorities, there was also the insight that they cannot react quickly enough to abusive behavior with competition law proceedings alone. When the EU found after seven years that Google had violated competition law by favoring Google Shopping, the damage to competition was already done.

In December, the EU presented its draft of the Digital Markets Act (DMA). In January, the 10th amendment to the Act against Restraints of Competition (GWB) came into force in Germany. How should these laws facilitate the work of the antitrust authorities?

With Section 19a GWB, the Federal Cartel Office can in future issue a outstanding, cross-market position determine and make their behavioral requirements. The EU’s Digital Markets Act takes a similar approach: the Commission determines what is known as gatekeeper status for platforms of a certain size, for which a long catalog of behavioral guidelines then automatically applies. So the goal is not to trace past violations. It’s about behavioral requirements for the future.

Why is that an advantage?

Up to now, the authorities have had to prove in individual cases in competition law proceedings that a dominant position exists and that abuse has taken place. Both can be extremely time-consuming. For example, the EU Commission not only demands that damage to the competitive process be proven, but also probable damage to consumers. With Paragraph 19a GWB and the DMA’s obligations of conduct, you save yourself this proof in individual cases. Certain behaviors of gatekeeper platforms are per se considered to be detrimental to competition, for example if they derive a competitive advantage from their dual role as provider of a marketplace and provider on this marketplace.

Open detailed view

What effect will this have on the online market?

The big platforms will have to rethink their business models. Because DMA and GWB do not eliminate the competitive advantages that result from the size of the platforms, their network effects and access to the data. Many users will continue to choose Facebook in the future because so many other users are already there. But with both sets of rules it will be much more difficult for the platforms to transfer their competitive advantages to adjacent markets. When a new messenger comes onto the market, Facebook will not be the winner of the competition between the new messenger and its own messengers such as Whatsapp. Because both laws put the gatekeepers’ economies of scale into perspective, they will have to reckon with significantly more attacks from the fringes. For consumers, this means more innovation and more freedom of choice.

What makes online platforms a problem from an antitrust law perspective?

Platform markets have existed before. For example, shopping centers are platforms that mediate between retailers and buyers. But platforms have taken on a whole new meaning on the Internet. The competition economists and lawyers had to understand that first. Online platforms benefit from particularly strong network effects and extreme economies of scale. In this way, they can become gatekeepers on whom other companies are becoming increasingly dependent. A company that is not found on Google does not exist online. Many companies only find their customers through Amazon. This gives the platforms such great market power that they can control entire markets through their rules and behavior.

The dominance of some platforms also reduces the innovative strength of a market, which can be observed in Silicon Valley. At the same time, the major communication platforms such as Google and Facebook can also exercise political power. Both are being discussed very seriously in the USA at the moment. The two sets of rules – DMA in Europe and GWB in Germany – are intended to create free space around the platforms in which innovation can take place.

The American competition and consumer protection agency FTC has filed a lawsuit calling for Facebook to be broken up. EU competition commissioner Margrethe Vestager rejects such measures: “That will not happen.” What do you think of a break up?

In Europe we want to try clear rules of conduct as a milder means. Of course, there is also a political aspect to this: when the Americans disentangle their own companies, it is different from when the Europeans try. But it’s also not clear to me whether unbundling would help at all. For example, Facebook could launch a new messenger after splitting off WhatsApp and would be the winner immediately. On the other hand, a break-up could also lead to the loss of the so-called scope advantages that result from the interaction of various services on a platform. These bundled offers can also be attractive for consumers. That speaks in favor of a more cautious approach. We definitely need new and clear rules of conduct.

Basically, competition law should not destroy the big platforms. They provide services that are very useful to all of us without us having to pay any money. But we have to ensure that the platforms’ positions of power can still be challenged. Competition law maintains the pressure to innovate and the freedom of choice that we all benefit from.

A team meeting on Teams at 10 a.m., four “conf-calls” with clients in the afternoon, not to mention Skype with the family at 7 pm to celebrate the birthday of the youngest… With the health crisis, videoconferencing has become essential in our daily lives. Last spring, it even became essential to maintain the social link in our confined lives.

But since then, the Zoom aperitifs have given way to the phenomenon of “Zoom fatigue” *, a feeling of exhaustion in the face of the accumulation of these virtual meetings. Because oanother visual fatigue, linked to prolonged fixation of a screen, videoconferencing is above all a source of mental fatigue, explains to franceinfo Nawal Abboub, doctor in cognitive sciences. And for good reason: a video chat requires much more concentration than a face-to-face exchange. But how to explain it?

First, by the difficulty of relying on the body language of the interlocutors. When we are in the presence of someone, a nod of the head indicates, for example, that we are listening to them. Posture and gestures can translate our desire to speak. So many non-verbal signs, often unconscious, which “facilitate a clear understanding of messages and intentions during an interaction”, But less numerous in videoconference, analysis for franceinfo Marie Lacroix, doctor in neurosciences. It is indeed difficult to discern the gestures of a person in a video call if his camera is framed at shoulder level. “And then, to avoid parasitic noises, we tend to mute our microphone when we don’t have the floor, adds Marie Lacroix. So we get even fewer signals. “

The brain must therefore concentrate more to rely on other indicators, such as tone of voice or facial expressions. But even with an optimal internet connection, technology still renders this information with a slight delay, and makes it even more difficult for our brains. This is what Nawal Abboub calls “desynchrony”.

“It’s a lag that maybe calculated in milliseconds. But it’s enough to require extra effort for the brain to reconstruct reality.”

Nawal Abboub, doctor in cognitive science

to franceinfo

The reduction and poor quality of signals “obliges us[nt] to be more attentive to follow and ready[nt] at times of confusion in the conversation “, confirms Marie Lacroix. Videoconferencing thus disrupts the fluidity and rhythm of the exchange, underline the two specialists. You have certainly already encountered this situation: a silence suddenly settles in the video discussion, and in a few seconds causes a feeling of embarrassment among you and your colleagues, before two of them finally speak in same time.

“The distribution of speech in a group is regulated unconsciously, thanks to non-verbal signals. In video, it becomes very difficult to find a spontaneous rhythm.”

Marie Lacroix, doctor in neuroscience

to franceinfo

Above all, video calls deprive us of “synchronicity in the exchange of glances”, reports Marie Lacroix. To give the impression to the other party to look him in the eyes, you have to fix the camera, which de facto prevents observing his reaction at the same time on the screen. In videoconferencing, each participant therefore tends to keep their gaze on the screen, not looking directly at the others, but only their filmed rendering. However, during a discussion, visual contact with others stimulates the attentional system and reinforces memorization. So, when faced with a video where an individual is speaking, “our attention is drawn more when the person speaking gives the impression of looking at us about 30% of the time”, indicates Marie Lacroix, citing a study conducted by two British academics *.

Even more surprisingly, the absence of eye contact is interpreted by the brain as “eye avoidance “, notes the expert. This unconscious and automatic reaction gives “the impression that the person is on the defensive or inattentive”, she explains. Likewise, delays in sound and image cause a negative interpretation of the interlocutors. In 2014, German researchers showed that a lag of 1.2 seconds could be enough to be perceived as less friendly or less focused *.

If videoconferencing upsets the perception of others, it also changes the way you look at yourself. Seeing yourself onscreen while chatting with others plays on anxiety and mental fatigue. “When you are on a video conference you know everyone is watching you. You are like on stage which causes social pressure and the feeling that you have to act.”, highlighted Marissa Shuffler, Lecturer in Organizational Psychology at Clemson University in America, with the BBC *. In addition to having to manage the conversation, the mind keeps wondering what posture to adopt or focusing on its own face.

And in the current context, where professional and personal spaces become one, lhe brain is all the more on the lookout for the slightest situation that generates discomfort with our colleagues: what if one of the children burst into the camera view? Or that the cat was climbing on the desk?

“You are putting your brain in a double task: you focus on both the person you are talking to and yourself.”

Nawal Abboub

to franceinfo

“However, the attentional system does not process information in parallel, but in series”, adds the specialist. And each round trip between your face and that of your interlocutor consumes energy. “The attention you pay to your image also depends on the person in front of you, however specifies Nawal Abboub. When you chat with a colleague, collaborator or superior, you are not on the same levels of resources. ”

The situation is further complicated when there are many participants in the meeting. Gallery mode, where faces appear in small thumbnails, is difficult for the brain to manage. “It’s like we have to play ‘Where’s Charlie?'”, illustrates Marie Lacroix. “We can pick up fairly general things, see if the audience seems receptive or loses interest, but it’s more difficult to pay attention to each one”, she nuances. Not to mention that a video call is not just about a screen with one or more faces. “IThere is also a chat on the side and notifications may appear, details Nawal Abboub. There are many sources of distraction and it makes the space even more difficult to concentrate. “

Faced with this influx of information, the brain is therefore “continuous partial attention”, analysis National Geographic*, and juggles a multitude of tasks, without fully concentrating on one of them. As if you were trying to cook and read at the same time, notes the media.

In addition, with the health crisis, moments of life, usually separate, are now all brought together by videoconference. “Imagine going to a bar, and in that same bar, chatting with your teachers, meeting your parents, or having a date. That’s exactly what we’re doing right now. [en visioconférence]“, argues Gianpiero Petriglieri, professor at the European Institute of Business Administration, with the BBC.

“Remote work imposes on us a single channel which is the computer.”

Marie Lacroix

to franceinfo

“Mental fatigue is generated by the accumulation of time spent on the same task”, explains the expert. Even when juggling business meetings and video calls with friends, the activity remains similar and therefore causes burnout. All the more so if the participants are not very active during these videoconferences. “It may sound counterintuitive, but remain passive [face à un ordinateur] is even more demanding of energy “, adds Nawal Abboub, comparing this situation to work “very exhausting” video surveillance professionals who constantly scan screens.

So how do you protect yourself from this fatigue? Consider taking visual breaks first. “Every twenty minutes, you have to lift your eyes from your screen and look twenty meters in front of you for twenty seconds”, recommends Marie Lacroix, who co-founded Cog’X, a cognitive science consulting agency for businesses. Another possibility: to set shorter meeting times to allow time for recovery.

Exit also the systematic use of the camera. “On can turn it on at the start of the meeting, to hear from others, keep this moment of interactions, suggests Marie Lacroix. Then cut it off when you get into more technical aspects of the discussion so everyone can focus on the content. “

To compensate for the absence of some of the non-verbal signs, Nawal Abboub, co-founder of the consulting agency Rising Up, suggests “play more on the voice “ or“amplify facial gestures” to capture the attention of the audience. Establishing explicit rules also makes it possible to facilitate exchanges: raise your hand to speak, ask questions in the chat space.

“We must not fall into the syndrome of visionitis either “, Continues Nawal Abboub, who encourages people to alternate with other modes of communication. “We can also call each other by phone, send each other messages, work on shared documents”, she explains. According to the expert, the best advice to adapt is to learn to “know the way our brain works “. “It’s not a computer that can run Powerpoint and Excel at the same time”, smiles the scientist.

* Links marked with an asterisk refer to articles in English.

“The platforms” help us “self-regulate” in our use of the mobile phone, explained Dominique Boullier, professor of sociology at Sciences Po-Paris, on franceinfo on Sunday, February 7. The digital specialist, author of How to get out of the grip of social networks (Le Passeur editions), reacted on the occasion of the world day without mobile phone.

franceinfo: Are we all really addicted to our cell phones?

Dominique Boullier: When we remember that at one time we still thought of the cell phone as a telephone, that time now seems very, very far away. That is to say, we do a lot of things with our phone, but which is in reality a multifunction tool, now including activities to pay, to access, etc. Everything we have in our wallet, for example, ends up being in the phone. So we understand that we have a fairly frequent use. But when we are especially worried about our possible addiction, it is not so much about these functions, but it is mainly about the rhythm of conversations, relationships, networking and the fact that our attention is without stopping requested with the applications that it is used. This is especially what we highlight. And so, all of these things are ways of tightly pairing us to a device. It is very difficult to part with it, even when we are in bed, it must be close to hand, almost. These are things that show that we have been transferred. I say, me, that we are a mutant species: humans with phones.

Do you think this mutation is harmful?

We can see that there are functions, as I said, which can be more general, which are quite useful. And then, we can see that there is also a way of designing applications by social networks mainly, but not only, by platforms in general, which are not necessarily what we would have liked, and which are in particular oriented by the fact that they are remunerated by advertising. Being paid by advertising, they need to create a network activity and make us react. And these platforms are going to be condemned, I was going to say, almost, by their algorithms, to provoke us and to ensure that we favor everything that is a little new, what is called the novelty score and that will get our attention. There, it starts to be negative because it captures our attention and above all it chops our attention, that’s the difference. It’s not just volume, it’s not just duration, it’s also rhythm. This rhythm, when it invades all our mental space, it becomes difficult to survive in this environment. Individually, but also collectively.

The telephone is a great tool for us. But we also now know that it is a tool for operators, for manufacturers, for sellers, the tool that allows us to know everything about us. We use the smartphone, but the smartphone uses us.

It is true that this is one of the paradoxes of this coupling with this tool. We could say that ultimately, we end up inhabiting the mobile. If you want, it becomes something where you should feel at home. In reality, not at all. We are always with others, in this case the platforms. Indeed, we capture the traces and we recover all the behavioral elements that will allow us to analyze, anticipate, make predictions, as we say, and which will also allow us to make micro-targeted advertising placements.

“It’s a drift that was not really necessary in the digital system in general, or even in the phone or in the smartphone version. Now it’s very difficult to get out of it.”

Dominique boullier

to franceinfo

That said, we are starting to realize that we will have to take control of this again, regulate all of this because we cannot allow our data, our traces, to be exploited in the way they are currently.

Hence the interest in cutting yourself off from these machines from time to time. One day, why not. But if I follow you, it is especially on a daily basis, during the other 364 days, that you have to try to control yourself.

It’s a good exercise, a day without, it shows that we are still able to do without. But the idea would be rather to have every day with less phone. You have to be able to regulate yourself. It’s a collective affair too, because if you have a friend bombarding you with text messages or messages or Facebook posts, obviously you tend to have to react. And then, you have a hard time saying no to him. But in reality, the platforms, the interfaces, the way we interact with all of this should also be really designed to tell us ‘self-regulate, we will help you do it’. However, we can see that this is not at all in their interest. We can imagine a design that allows you to be alert to the fact that we have sent too many messages, that we react too quickly, etc. What Twitter does when it says, for example, that you should still read your tweet before retweeting it. Because that’s what’s happening now: 60% of those who retweet haven’t read the tweet they are retweeting. You can see what is at stake: platforms could help regulate all this more. But this is not the case. It is not necessarily really their interest, in their economic model.

It is consulted an average of 210 times each day. The smartphone has become essential for many French people, even creating a situation of dependence for 70% of users, according to UFC-Que Choisir.

Jean-Noël Lafargue is one of those who are still resisting. To find him in the streets of Paris, it is better to take precautions and learn about the dress of this fifty-something. “I have to be punctual but that forces my correspondents to be punctual too”, laughs Jean-Noël Lafargue, blue cap on his head. “People with phones allow themselves to be late, notice this Parisian. It also amuses me to see people with phones lying about where they are when you are next to them and see that it is not true. “

Living without a cell phone is however a shame for this professor in new media who develops applications. “When people started to equip themselves with phones, I was already on the internet, he recalls. When the smartphone arrived, I could have paid for it without a problem, but that didn’t interest me more than that. It’s more the world that changes than me, but I don’t have the impression of being in resistance in the face of something “, he concludes.

This choice allows him to “to find oneself” with himself, assures Jean-Noël Lafargue. “When I go for a walk, I like to be with my thoughts and not be connected to something, not be able to be reached”, he explains.

It’s nice to go off the radar a bit, and maybe it’s a luxury today.

Jean-Noel Lafargue

to franceinfo

Living without a cell phone can also confront Jean-Noël Lafargue with funny everyday situations. “The first problem I had, by not having a cell phone, were the digicodes. Because when you are invited to a party in Paris, people expect you to be at their door and that we call them to ask for the digicode. It is therefore up to me to think about requesting it in advance “, he emphasizes.

Without a cell phone, the 52-year-old professor also took the opportunity to observe the behavior of phone users. “We are more and more hampered, he analyzes. A friend told me it’s the ultimate geek snobbery not to have a phone. “ In any case, Jean-Noël Lafargue still does not have the project to acquire one.

The mobile phone is now an integral part of the daily life of many French people. “You can spend the evening on your phone and miss out on a book or a movie”, Admits a passerby to the teams of France Televisions. “It’s always in my pocket”, Confides another.

So how do you take back control? First step: be aware of the time spent on our devices. “It’s full of micro-interactions“, explains Thibaud Dumas, neuroscientist and president of the Attention Hyperconnexion association.”That is, you’re going to take a second, ten seconds, a minute … And at the end of the day you don’t realize you’ve spent four or five hours” on the phone.

To no longer be distracted, it is preferable to turn off notifications as much as possible but also to store it out of reach as often as possible.

The JT

The other subjects of the news

Emmanuel Macron presented on January 21, 2021 a national quantum plan, which aims to make France a leading player in this sector presented as revolutionary. Quantum computers already exist. Example, in Saclay, in the Paris region, within the young Pasqal company.

franceinfo: What is a quantum computer?

Christophe Jurczak, President of Pasqal : A quantum computer takes advantage of the quantum properties of matter, that is, at the microscopic level, which allows calculations to be performed much faster than with a standard classical machine. At Pasqal, we do not “make” our qubits, but use “natural” atoms which we process with laser light.

How powerful is your quantum computer?

We are in the 100 to 200 qubit range. Google or IBM are around 50 to 60 qubits. But, beyond power, what is important is what is called loyalty. Today it’s difficult to fully control the qubits, so it’s not yet fully programmable. This is where we are concentrating most of our work today.

What is the “perfect” quantum computer that Emmanuel Macron spoke about when presenting the quantum plane?

The perfect quantum computer is a computer that no longer makes mistakes. It’s like the holy grail of quantum computing. Indeed, today all machines still make mistakes. As far as we are concerned, they are in the range of 0.1 to 1 or 2%. It doesn’t sound like much, but it’s still too much.

To date, we are implementing algorithms that are tolerant of these errors and we are not yet doing active error correction. But it is a research subject that we are working on. We expect to have a perfect computer at Pasqal in 5, 6 or 7 years.

AT what is your quantum computer for?

We worked with EDF on problems of combinatorial complexes to optimize the recharging of fleets of electric vehicles. For example, when you have hundreds of vehicles, what is the best strategy to best recharge them, in what order, with what priorities, etc. ?

Does a quantum computer consume a lot of electricity?

No. A quantum computer consumes very little energy. This is one of the big advantages over traditional computing. Our computer consumes just 7-8 kW, or the equivalent of a few hair dryers.

(This interview is a partial transcript of the audio interview to listen to above)

The Constitutional Council validated, Friday, February 5, the legislative measures “anti-Huawei” aimed at preserving “the interests of defense and national security”, in particular in the context of the operation of 5G mobile networks. For several months, some observers have estimated that the security of user data cannot be guaranteed in the event of the Chinese group’s deployment in France. At the end of August, the National Information Systems Security Agency (Anssi) had very largely restricted operating authorizations, in accordance with the provisions of the law of August 1, 2019.

These texts had been contested by the French telecom operators SFR and Bouygues Telecom, which half built their mobile network with Huawei. The two operators had therefore filed priority questions of constitutionality (QPC) in the face of the damage linked to the severe restrictions imposed on the Chinese supplier. Bouygues Telecom, for example, explained that it had to remove 3,000 Huawei antennas by 2028 in areas with very high population density, without obtaining compensation in return.

But the Constitutional Council decided to validate these provisions for the summer of 2020. It considers that the legislator wished “to protect mobile radio networks from the risks of espionage, piracy and sabotage which may result from the new functionalities offered by the fifth generation of mobile communication”. The provisions therefore put “implement the constitutional requirements inherent in the protection of the fundamental interests of the nation”, adds the Sages in their press release.

Huawei, one of the world leaders in 5G equipment, is in the crosshairs of the United States, which suspects it of potential spying for the benefit of Beijing. After the United Kingdom, in mid-July, Sweden at the end of October became the second country in Europe and the first in the European Union to explicitly ban Huawei from almost all of the infrastructure necessary to run its 5G network. .