While adaptive UI can be done right (and yes, that's the correct name for it, "responsive" typically refers to reaction lag, not screen size), and is definitely a nice tool in the designer's toolbox, it's very telling that various "responsive evangelists" keep popping out of everywhere talking about the virtues of "responsive" where no one asked them. Say like the poster I was replying to here.
This behavior is typical for something at peak hype. They're just so excited about it, they can't comprehend why everyone isn't getting a boner about "responsive" so they have to talk about it non-stop to clue us in on the awesomeness we're allegedly missing. It's like Ruby on Rails all over again.
Which is to say the "responsive" movement right now is 80% bullshit and 20% useful technique (when used in moderation). And I have examples to support that.
Part of "responsive" is the horrible practice of rolling menus into obscure hamburger buttons, outright hiding panels with useful content and functionality, or presenting bizarre interaction patterns that some harebrained designer thought are more smartphone-ey.
This is not helping your users, it's pissing them off and making them spend a lot of time hunting for the "desktop version" link on your site.