lol, totally! Or we'll have no secrets from our grandchildren. I'm actually surprised how much the data still supports the old 1996 study that said 90-bits is necessary +2/3 bits per year to maintain strength. It's less than a decade for anything under 100bits, which is kinda the generally secure duration if I remember correctly.
I agree, it's a bit sensationalist, but I think it's accurate to say that it is exponentially easier to apply brute force than expected generally, with no real specific relation to AES. And maybe the lack of expectation is really the issue - we just don't look at the changes in compute capability enough, which doesn't change how strong AES is, just our perception of it and how to design security? But yeah, you're right, its not the same thing, and it can be misleading.
Interesting. Calling yourself a "start-up" is a form of PR messaging. Some companies leverage "start-up" style messaging to form great value - look at Tesla - they're over 10 years old, they're 4 times the revenue of Aston Martin and build more cars per year than Aston builds in 50 years, and yet everybody still calls them a startup. But Twitter and Google rarely referred to themselves as startups publicly, they were more "institutional" messaging - always considering themselves the sole source for their service. So I guess, using "startup" style messaging can be valuable, but only if you can leverage to your advantage, otherwise go with "institutional" messaging like you suggest.