Not Good for Straight Forward Understanding of Advances   Without clear categorization of advances tracked through time how can one get any meaning out of the article  For example tracking the maximum number of quantum bits in a single entanglement according to date would be much more meaningful than the current listing of ad hoc haphazard and arbitrary achievements   Also comparing the number of quantum bits needed for various types of tasks such as breaking encryption would be very informative in comparison to current accomplishments because it would expose how little progress we have really made  A great example of this would be to show how many quantum bits the DWave machines achieve in individual entanglements  This would expose the misguided impressions generated when DWave talks about the number of quantum bits on a single board as that has almost nothing to do with the number of quantum bits achieved in a individual entanglements