That article seems OK on it's own, but what a weird title, it's not at all supported by the article. Nothing in the article says vaporware or describes anything

That article seems OK on it's own, but what a weird title, it's not at all supported by the article. Nothing in the article says vaporware or describes anything that could be said to be vaporware. V could maybe use "misleading marketing" at best, but it's in no way vaporware, as if it was, the author would not be able to perform all the things they did in the blogpost. It's also over a year old, would love to see the author to revisit the claims of V like they did in the post, but with the latest versions.