That was pretty interesting. I was expecting cost/benefit on adopting quantum computing, which I suspect isn't going to be terribly useful to the everyday person soon. But it was refreshingly targeted on the Cybersecurity impacts, which are valid for the everyday person, already.

TL;DR - Quantum computing is great, if you're the bad guy. For the rest of us, there's a cost/value tradeoff in defending against quantum computing threats. People will tell us it's too much hassle to upgrade our encryption, but it can be done with reasonable effort.
- TL;DR - Quantum computing is great, if you're the bad guy. For the rest of us, there's a cost/value tradeoff in defending against quantum computing threats. People will tell us it's too much hassle to upgrade our encryption, but it can be done with reasonable effort.
  
  And a big point is, it is a technology that we have to develop anyway, since big targets like governments, military or big financial or economic companies would want to defend against anyway.
- Bruce Schneier has been saying for something like 25 years that technological advances always favor attackers over defenders.
  
  Well yeah, that's why red teaming is so much fun.
"We'll form a committee to devise an action plan to inventory current usage of cryptography to support future assessment of the steps needed to build a best-practices playbook for meeting the performance challenges of upgrading to post-quantum cryptography, with a target date after I retire."

Reminds me of Futurama

I co-chaired the committee that reviewed the recommendation to revise the color of the book that regulation's in.