Who are these "some"? The article linked to by the sentence makes no mention of any claims of it being a warp drive.

And then this from the Forbes article:

The linked announcement makes no mention of warping space, so the bolded section seems inaccurately disparaging.

It sounds to me like the guy who wrote the article has fooled himself into believing that someone has claimed it's a warp drive for the purpose of being able to find something to write indignantly about.

Come to think of it, the writer doesn't even seem to be sure of who's who in this scenario. "When you come across an announcement [...] you'd better make sure you aren't fooling yourself." Why would I be fooling myself by simply reading an announcement? Surely it's the people who make the announcement that should make sure they're not fooling themselves. Which I might think they were, if they'd said anything about warping space. Which they didn't.

So just who are these apparently imaginary people that the summary/article is railing against?

You don't.

No-one - that is to say, no-one with an ounce of scientific credibility - is claiming it's a warp drive. There's no reason to even start to consider the idea that it might be a warp drive. The article linked to by the summary with the words "some are claiming this means things like warp drive..." doesn't even mention any claims that it's a warp drive.

The Forbes article links to another article with these words:

And that linked article also doesn't even mention warp drive. Seems to me like some journalists need to calm down a little. "ZOMG! It's not a warp drive!!!" - yes, thanks, but no-one seems to saying it is.

It's a thing that appears to produce thrust by unknown means. That's all. It's very interesting, but it has nothing to do with anything that anyone would call a warp drive.

With that level of pedantry you must be quite a hit with the [your preferred gender].

You do know there are other people on this planet who aren't you, right?

And I imagine that... well, you can make your own joke there. But it doesn't make it true.

Yeah. Wish I could be that kind of underdog.

If you're too stupid to spot a joke, maybe you should, as you so kindly put it, fuck off.

I'm sorry, I have a cold.

The same mixed results you'd probably get with people doing it.

Just look at those two photos of Obama - he really does look older in one than the other. If you didn't know who he was, or if you found similar looking images of two distinct people, those age guesses would not seem wildly inaccurate.

Why wouldn't they? It's right there, on their computer, the moment they buy it.

Forgive them, for they know not what else they can install.

My hobby: repunctuation.

Nuh uh. Doctor, not Dr.

And that's not quite just pedantic nerdrage talking. Dr. Who is similar-but-different character from a separate fictional universe.

So there.

Interesting nerdfact: they were planning to refer to the Dr. Who films in the 50th anniversery episode as having been inspired by the real Doctor, but they couldn't afford the rights to use the posters.

Who's "we"? All sorts of people use it for all sorts of things, and plenty of them do so only because it's traditional.

From a purely technical POV, it's never seemed like a great test image to me. It's soft, the red channel is washed out, the blue channel is noisy, there's absolutely no green or cyan (in the sense of pixels where green is the strongest channel, or red is the weakest channel) and very little blue.

Also, they cropped out her knockers and bum.

That's why I always use unsigned integers like a boss.

The summary fails to mention that it didn't all go to plan:

I read "did not go as planned" as "ended in a spectacular fireball," but they haven't released any images or video of that.

Incidentally the BBC's headline was:

which sounded to me like he'd gone up in the thing.