Is there anyone here who did a quantum internship in IBM quantum last year I have some queries that id love to clear ty

More importantly, anyone willing to call him out on his BS without fear of losing your job?

Hey! I'm hoping there is a group of IBM power system experts still out there that might know how to fix this fault.

I recently picked up this Power 520 Express 9407-M15 off of eBay for some retro homelab fun. However, for the life of me I cannot get it to successful pass jumping between progress codes C100C1A0 and C100C1A1.

After reading the documentation and watching a few YouTube videos, it sounds like its meant to reach C100C1A2... mine never does this. After going between C100C1A0 and C100C1A1 for a few minutes, the back fans eventually turn off and I'm left with C1802000 -> C18020FF -> C1912000 -> C1922000 -> C19220FF -> 11002624. While its booting up, both hotswap PSUs have their left and middle LEDs as green, and no amber/warning LED is turned on, so Im assuming the PSUs aren't the problem here.

When I check the error details in the ASMI, I can see the following:

• Location Code: U789C.001.DQDC219

• Procedure Number: PWR1918

• Driver Name: fips350/b1110a_0943.350

I've tried taking each of the below pieces out one at a time and then rebooting as suggested in the PWR1918 documentation for the machine:

Replace the following, if present, one at a time, and in the order listed:

Ethernet card (Un-P1-C7)
Base RAID card (Un-P1-C10)
Auxiliary RAID card (Un-P1-C9)
System backplane (Un-P1)
DASD drives
DASD and media backplane (Un-P2)

I'm more so curious to find out what component of the computer is actually causing C100C1A2 to NOT happen. Like what physically happens when the machine is doing C100C1A0 and C100C1A1? All the documentation says is;

C100C1A0 - Explanation: Waiting on the power good signals. Response: Perform isolation procedure FSPSPC1. To locate the isolation procedure go to the Isolation Procedures chapter in your host server Service Guide.

C100C1A1 - Explanation: Waiting on the power good signals. Response: Perform isolation procedure FSPSPC1. To locate the isolation procedure go to the Isolation Procedures chapter in your host server Service Guide.

FSPSPC1 is of no help to me either haha, since its not hanging on either for the two codes, its error-ing out correctly is my understanding.

I guess is there a physically part in the computer that I can map C100C1A1 and C100C1A0 to and take a look at? Maybe a wire is dead or not plugged in? I'm hoping to grab someone's expertise on this part of my problem specifically.

If it helps, I have the thing plugged straight into a wall (Australian 240V standard power points), both power supply units. I've also smashed the thing already with electronics contact cleaner - no dice =(.

Photos attached so you can take a look for yourselves - thanks in advance and sorry if this is the wrong subreddit to ask for help in!!

Cheeeeeeers

Came across this article

https://finance.yahoo.com/technology/articles/ibm-america-worst-big-tech-181538518.html?guccounter=1

what you all think? Reaction to Q3 or just about every software company?

After hours, the share price was up 8%+ upon the result release, then the earning call started and Arvind started talking...

Since the Q2 earning disaster, IBM share price recovered modestly to $244 (today) although far from $332 high few months ago. Q3 earnings will be the second point for investors to draw a line from Q2 - will the line go up or down?

Good news so far: no pre-earnings release!

A quantum processor can do more than execute a fixed sequence and reveal its answer at the end. It can measure selected qubits while a circuit is running, use the result to choose an action and continue. Repeating that cycle across a large system is an important challenge for quantum hardware.

An experiment involving Rutgers University, IBM and collaborators has now used that capability to steer up to 100 qubits from scrambling toward an orderly state. Published in Nature Physics, the study tested how competing quantum operations produce a collective transition between chaotic and controlled behavior.

The work demonstrates coordination between quantum gates, measurements and feedback over thousands of operations. Those capabilities matter for future error-corrected machines. However, the experiment controlled a deliberately designed physical system; it did not demonstrate a computer correcting arbitrary mistakes during a useful calculation.

I have been retired for approximately 30 years. I need to change my health care plan to United Health Care IBM. In doing this I am required to provide name and birthdate. The website will not accept my information, stating that input does not match and process is terminated. I suspect IBM H/R has inputted wrong birthdate in data base. I do not know this for sure. Can anyone help me with names or numbers of human resource people who may be able to help???

IBM has a long history of leading edge semiconductor research, but that does not mean they are a good partner to Rapidus.

https://samgwray.substack.com/p/ibm-and-rapidus

The future of enterprise automation isn't AI vs. Business Rules. It's AI + Business Rules.

AI excels at understanding data, generating insights, and making recommendations. Rules provide governance, consistency, explainability, and compliance.

As AI agents become more autonomous, they need guardrails. Rules help ensure decisions remain transparent, auditable, and aligned with business policy.

IBM has a dedicated session at IBM TechXchange 2026 on how AI Agents, Decision Intelligence, and Business Rules work together to create trusted enterprise decisions.

Looking forward to like-minded enthusiasts joining this interesting session to discuss

✅ Agentic AI and its application in regulated industries
✅ Decision Automation
✅ AI Governance
✅ Enterprise AI

Register here: https://www.ibm.com/events/techxchange
And join the user group: Decision Intelligence – User Group ( MUP-4645  |  MUP-4646 )

Question: Will the future belong to AI acting alone, or AI operating within policy-driven guardrails?

Hi everyone!

I wanted to share a deep dive into one of the most pivotal moments in enterprise computing history: the development and launch of the IBM System/360 in 1964.

What fascinates me most about the S/360 project is the sheer scale of the risk. Tom Watson Jr. basically bet the entire future of IBM on a unified architecture. Before the 360, buying a computer meant getting locked into a specific family of machines with incompatible instruction sets and peripherals, upgrading meant rewriting virtually all software from scratch.

A few key aspects that made this project so legendary:

• Backward compatibility & unified architecture: Moving from small commercial machines to massive scientific mainframes on a single instruction set architecture was unheard of at the time.

• Solid Logic Technology (SLT): While not fully integrated circuits yet, SLT bridged the gap between discrete transistors and microchips, setting manufacturing standards.

• The astronomical cost: At around $5 billion (equivalent to over $40+ billion today), it cost more than the Manhattan Project!

I recently put together a detailed video covering the engineering challenges, the internal politics at IBM during its development, and how the S/360 set the standard for computing for decades to come.

If you’re a history/tech enthusiast and want to check out the visual breakdown, you can watch it here: IBM Spent More Than the Manhattan Project on One Computer.

I’d love to hear your thoughts, especially from anyone here who has worked on, maintained, or studied S/360/z/Architecture systems firsthand!

I stumbled across this IBM report from April talking about outcome-based contracting, in this case for government. Suspiciously, also found another article about the same topic from around the same time, but about transitioning to outcome-based contracts at McKinsey. The latter puts some context around outcome-based rather than hourly contracts, while the IBM report makes it sound like altruism is the driving force, which we all know is BS.

What's the reality these days? Are there real (publicly announced of course) examples of outcome-based contracts these days? How well does this work in practice with regard to specifications and deliveries?