Please give specific examples. I keep seeing vague comments like this about her, but very little in the way of specifics. Without specifics, this is just ad hominem rumor mongering.
Extreme specifics: her comments on work out of MIT on Color Center Qubits was basically "finally an example of actual progress in quantum computing because of reason A, B, C". That statement was in the class of "not even wrong" -- it was just complete non sequitur. People actually in the fields she comments on frequently laugh at her uninformed nonsense. In this particular case, the people that did the study she praised were also among the ones laughing at her.
This is still extreme vague without A,B,C and an explanation why there is no connection, i.e., specifics re why she was wrong. Just more vague reference to other people's reactions
She said "because the color centers are small which would enable miniaturization". Miniaturization is the last thing these are good for, and while they are "small" for a human, they are gigantic for an electronic device. She had absolutely no idea why these new devices are useful but made sweeping comments about how they will change the field. She hyped up something silly while at the same time she complains about hype over actually interesting results. She betrayed complete incompetence on the topic while pretending to be an expert. And she does that constantly, over such trivialities, that it is just exhausting to argue about it.
So it's not "because of reason A, B, C", but just "A", and "small which would enable miniaturization" is also not "non sequitur", let alone "complete".
By the way, the "B" was the ability to "target individual qubits more easily". In what way is this "complete non sequitur"
And you also "forgot" to specify "why these new devices are useful" so that we can't check whether she even mentioned it to asses whether she has no idea (is it interconnectedness of the modular systems ("C"), single-step ease of transfer on the CMOS, compatibility with modern semiconductor fab processes, remote control, something else entirely?)
> while pretending to be an expert
Where was that? Could you link to her statement pretending to be an expert on quantum computing?
> that it is just exhausting to argue about it.
Indeed, it's much easier be very vague in your arguments, because then you can't verify any claims and don't have to respond to when such verification fails to match
