Why? You don't understand what it is, so we must pick one from your false dichotomy? This dismissive and derogatory attitude of "if it's not Nobel Prize level,

Why? You don't understand what it is, so we must pick one from your false dichotomy? This dismissive and derogatory attitude of "if it's not Nobel Prize level, it's bullshit" is one of the root problems with regards to public perception of science: when some people don't have a clue about the science, they turn to "pageant" committees to tell them what is good science, and from there extrapolate that everything else should be "bullshit" (and it's funny to remember that special/general relativity is "bullshit" by your "measure" as it never got Nobel either, which is mostly a "politically" cherry-picked prize). There's a lot of good scientific progress which don't have the blessing of some fancy authority committee, and you can't simply label them as total bullshit just when you don't even understand the importance of their work (and nonetheless astonishingly call it "just a capacitor with delusions of grandeur"). Anyway, it's neither. It's the experimental demonstration of an incremental improvement in silicon quantum dots. The idea is basically that instead of loading a single electron to a quantum dot and using its spin as the qubit, loading more electrons can actually lead to better coherence times (=higher fidelities) due to an increased resilience to charge noise (one of the most significant source of errors in these devices), and one can still use the spin of an "outer shell" (in analogy with atoms) as qubit.