This “oscillation” is called quantum superposition. In practice, the qbit doesn’t oscillate but really has both values at the same time. We call this the quantum state of the qbit.

This is a rather strong metaphysical claim that seems somewhat out of place in an introductory article. It would be like if I’m presenting GR and I say “but spacetime really is like a physical fabric that is actually physically bending and stretching.” You will find many people in the literature, including Einstein himself, who disagree with this notion and would insist that you shouldn’t reify the geometry in spacetime in GR as if it’s a literal physical fabric but is instead a geometric tool used to predict the dispositions of particles. QM has even far more camps on how to properly conceive of the mathematical implications of the mathematics and it’s probably best to not take such a strong stance in an article that is just introducing it, especially since you’re not making it explicitly clear that is just your opinion and so it might mislead people to think that there is some academic consensus that the qubit “really has both values at the same time,” which there is simply not.

You must bombard it with photos. And at quantum scale, a single photon is really huge.

Should this be “bombard with photons”?

If a particle doesn’t interact at all with its environment, it just doesn’t exist by definition.

This is again a metaphysical position, and it’s a bit strange because this is one of the metaphysical postulates of relational quantum mechanics–that all that exists are interactions so if you speak of something independent of interactions then that thing doesn’t actually meaningfully exist–yet relational quantum mechanics has an epistemic view on quantum states and not an ontological view that the particle is in “two states at once.” The contradiction here is clear: you say the particle, when you aren’t interacting/measuring it, is “really has both values at the same time,” but then you also say if it doesn’t interact, “it just doesn’t exist.” Which is it? You have to pick one. There are views that say it “really has both values at the same time,” and in those views it does indeed exist, it exists in a physical superposition of states. There are views that say it does not exist: the particle only exists when it interacts with something, which in those cases it only ever has a single state in relation to what it is interacting with. There are also views that it just has one value and we don’t know what it is.

The particle is in a superposition state, which can be described as “50% 0, 50% 1”. But when we measure it, we won’t have something like 0.5. We have either 0 or 1. And the crazy thing is the qbit then keeps this value after the measure. Meaning several values in a row will all give the same value.

As an interesting side note (not really a critique), if it was just real probabilities, you could actually reproduce a similar effect in a classical model with oscillations. It might indeed be possible to formulate in terms of oscillations, although you would need to introduce something like superdeterminism, time-symmetry, or nonlocality to not run into contradictions with Bell’s theorem. There is already a formulation of quantum computing in the literature that is in terms of classical pendulums with nonlocal connections between them.