This upsets people because it implies that the most fundamental parts of their existence are not "real", but to your point it is very helpful to approach them as if they are not "real" regardless of what is actually fundamental to reality.
In fact, it could be argued that this inherent complexity is precisely what makes these ideas so fascinating. Just as an entrepreneur might embrace uncertainty and forge new paths in uncharted territory, the scientists delving into these perplexing aspects of reality are pushing the boundaries of our collective knowledge. And in doing so, they may uncover new insights that will fundamentally reshape our understanding of the universe and our place within it.
So while it's natural to feel skeptical or even incredulous when confronted with such seemingly "outlandish" ideas, I encourage you to remain open-minded and curious. After all, the history of scientific progress is replete with instances where established ideas were overturned by new discoveries, often spurred by those willing to entertain the seemingly impossible.
I think GP was objecting less to the substance of what you said than that it's non sequitur-ness, if I had to guess they viewed it at disrespectful because the original commenter had put a lot of effort into creating a thread on a certain topic and they perceived you were hijacking it to talk about something tangential. The connection between these topics may be clearer to you than it is to us.
While I do know of some people who refuse to accept any form of fundamental relativism or uncertainty, I honestly think they're pretty rare, and it's unnecessarily confrontational to start a conversation asserting your views are "too hot to handle". It's sort of like asserting that some people are too dumb to agree with you - it's getting off on the wrong foot, and more likely to incite an argument than a discussion.
I don’t think quantum stuff will ever make sense to me…
Like all subatomic particles, electrons don't seem to have a discrete location; when we try to measure their location, we get different results each time, as you said. However, these apparently-random results follow a predictable pattern, so we describe it using an equation predicting where it is most likely to be found (the Schrodinger wave equation). For electrons in some stable states, that area is roughly spherical, meaning that there is some point where it is most likely to be found, a fuzzy area near that point where it is fairly likely to be found, and a distance from that point past which it is very unlikely to be found. We can therefore model the electron as being a tiny discrete thing that whizzes around in a roughly spherical area, which is the "cloud" in this article.
All that "can be modeled as" stuff is unwieldy, so people say the electron "is" a spherical cloud when they mean that modeling it as a spherical cloud is useful for understanding the matter at hand. What this article is describing is an attempt to measure whether that spherical region is perfectly spherical. If it weren't - meaning, if the electron was slightly more likely to be found on one side of the sphere than the other, then it would have an electrical dipole moment, which is what they were trying to find.