TL;DR-TL;DR: says the opposite of your implied claim, "atom-gyros are set to outperform light-based gyros"
TL;DR: this is a StackExchange question with 1 answer, noting it is indeterminate if a quantum gyroscope would be more accurate than a laser-atom-based one.
It looks like you rushed through and missed that in this context, TFA is describing an atom gyro.
That leaves conversation at a point where either A) we assume the scientist interviewed knows what they're doing, or B) following your unstated lead, assume they're a crackpot and the whole article is irrelevant because they're untrustworthy, and thus in an ideal world, there's 0 comments on the article.
TL;DR: this is a StackExchange question with 1 answer, noting it is indeterminate if a quantum gyroscope would be more accurate than a laser-atom-based one.
It looks like you rushed through and missed that in this context, TFA is describing an atom gyro.
That leaves conversation at a point where either A) we assume the scientist interviewed knows what they're doing, or B) following your unstated lead, assume they're a crackpot and the whole article is irrelevant because they're untrustworthy, and thus in an ideal world, there's 0 comments on the article.