Actually, what you just said is the equivalent of saying, "We just developed a quantum computer that allows us to solve not just every physical world question we have, but every metaphysical one as well."

Since you're literally comparing the end of most life on Earth, I think its fair for me to compare the development of a computer that provides limitless understanding.

They're both equally ridiculous, in other words.

To be clear i am not saying they are equally likely.

In the near term (next 5-10 years) the end of the world/WW3 is much more likely than a quantum computer that can solve crypto as in use today (Say RSA 2048bit). I would say orders of magnitude more likely. That's not saying that nuclear war is likely, its just a statement about how unlikely practical implementation of shor algorithm is in the near term based on where we are today.

However, that said, its kind of besides the point. The point of the comparison is both events are really unlikely. Quibiling if its 1 in a million or 1 in hundred thousand is besides the point.

The news is interesting because its a step in that direction. Just like how news about destabilizing world events are interesting even if they aren't literal full war. Its a step on a path. The destination is decades away.

I feel like a nuclear war is a much likelier (yet very low probability) event than your computational straw man.

It's not like political news. It's like new battery tech news.

If this was the 1600s and nobody had made a working battery yet, i would find battery tech news very interesting even if it was of the quasi-theoretical, only works in a lab, variety.