This is a rather common misconception about sensitivity, it is only true under the constraint where you are unable to increase the amplitude of your measurement.

Aren’t there plenty of situations where you can’t increase the amplitude of your measurement? Isn’t that why we use SQUIDS for high sensitivity magnetic measurements for example?

Quadrature squeezing is great, but I don’t think it’s the only way (or main way?) quantum sensors compete with classical sensors.

You don’t. Any appropriately sensitive/accurate accelerometer or magnetometer is sufficient to do this.

There are limits to sensitivity and accuracy that can only be overcome by quantum sensing though. So yes, you’re right, but that’s actually the point of the quantum part.

To be fair, if you ask a doctor there is not much reason for drinking water beyond when you’re thirsty.

That trailer goes hard. Looks like D&D soulslike?

Guessing it’s this: https://f-droid.org/packages/com.tristinbaker.idlefantasy

I want any LLM I use to choose the very best, most precise words at every single decision point.

What a strange article. They realize that LLMs choose words based on chance, right?