Oh God,

Your post seems like nothing but that "genre" of hn post someone pointed out recently. It's the "let me show you I'm smart by pointing the article is technically incorrect in how it states things even though its statements are how both informed laymen and experts tend to express thing" Post

OK, for "Quantum state", substitute "states requiring a specifically probabilistic/quantum-mechanical description" and for "classical states" substitute states amenable to a classical description.

And someone else can explain the other things for you if you need it.