I don't quite appreciate having my answer referred to as "empty" in a Meta post, which has now attracted more negative votes. We don't spend so much time answering things just to get a bunch of negative votes. I spent the entire work day on that answer.
The answer was probably accepted because it was one of the only ones (along with some others) that addressed each individual sentence by the OP ending in a question mark. The difference between mine and other people's answers was that other people seemed (at least in my opinion, maybe also the OP's opinion) to have an unrealistic impression of how successful quantum computing will be without any concrete reason for it.
I gave a concrete reason for why quantum computing (and other areas in academia in general) are over-hyped which attempted to be fair to both sides (the academics and the QC skeptics). It is not an "empty answer" just because you did not like it. It is about a page and a half long and addresses all points in the original question.
I also gave examples of ways in which QC is not "just hype" such as the quantum chemistry example, and I did give a reference, which means accusations that I didn't provide any evidence are false. I ended the answer by saying that I don't feel QC funding should be aborted but that many of the points addressed by the OP are true.
The comment on my answer is defamatory and has led to a lot of malicious downvoting. It violates the new CoC, and it falsely says "nowhere in this answer is any evidence given" which is not true since I gave the link to the evidence about Google's efforts in quantum chemistry. The comment should be deleted.