I agree mostly, although as a counter-example, about a year ago Nutella released a new "extra cocoa" variant which was much tastier, and a bit less unhealthy (lower sugar content).
It was so good that I refuse to buy regular Nutella anymore, even though the "extra cocoa" edition seems to be no longer sold.
I'm mad that as an Italian (where Nutella was created) this is the first time I'm hearing about this +Cocoa version. Apparently it's not even marketed/sold in Italy at all! It's for the US market only.
It might differ between countries, but I've found that physics is one of the most valued degrees. It's a demonstration of problem-solving skills that are very desirable for a variety of jobs (e.g. software development).
SpinLaunch's website claims: "To date, we’ve conducted tests over 6x the speed of sound."
However, that doesn't seem possible because the centrifuge is not in a decent vacuum (as Thunderf00t points out in his second video) due to the whooshing sound of the centrifuge 'blade', and the speed can be estimated as just less than the speed of sound. If they have the ability to do hypersonic tests already, why would they not show it in their promotional video?
The fact that they intentionally blurred the data on the screens during the demo is also odd.
---
Regarding your final point, it's much easier to pretend to be a genius than to actually be one; Elon Musk is a master at it. Additionally, debating skill is a very misleading measure of intelligence.
He...encourages caution. It's one thing to call a technology "debunked", another to say it's very difficult or that it has a low probability of success.
Thunderf00t is not a credible source, even if he's right sometimes, it's in the "a broken clock is right twice a day" sense. So these aren't good videos.
He is a scientist with published papers, and he seems to have a decent understanding of physics.
Obviously scientists are not perfect, but you seem to imply that most of his videos are incorrect. I can't see any evidence to support that, but I'm happy to be contradicted.
A child dying robs them and the world of 60+ years of human life. An 80 year old dying of COVID-19 was not going to live much longer anyway, so the loss is less severe. Old people have already had the opportunity to live a "full" life.
Imagine two societies – one where a disease kills 50% of < 10s every year, and another that kills 50% of > 70s every year. Which society would do better? Which society would you rather live in?
In the US, more people in the 55-74 age range have died than the 85+. Those are people who are taking care of grand children, or are still working. These are people that society has spent decades making fully functioning parts of society. A child has had none of that investment.
A society of just children wouldn't work, just as a society without wouldn't work.
Is your goal to just be as misleading as possible in this conversation?
Yes, of course more 55-74s have died – there are far, far more of them than there are >85s. Normalized, COVID is far more lethal (8x more lethal) for >85s than for your range. Here's the mortality rates:
Same as in any other area, assume malaria isn't killing babies and do the math. Your question sounds rhetorical but is too simple to answer, so I'm confused.
In a QALY sense, yeah. The most valuable to society are the workforce but children are almost as valuable.
My parents are 60+ yr old surgeons. They work during the pandemic not because they have to. It's because you run the QALYs and the morality is clear. You participate or make way.
People aren't offended by the change; they're irritated.
I'm irritated because it was an unnecessary change based on unsound reasoning, made by people who claim to represent a minority while not belonging to the minority or understanding its members.
I'm irritated because I can't give instructions to junior developers as easily: no longer can I rely on all of my instructions working, and documentation now requires clarifications and caveats which used to be unnecessary.
I'm irritated because it appears that GitHub has made it intentionally difficult to change the main branch in the "new repository" page; while it shows an option to change the default branch name, this requires refreshing the page and losing the repository name and description which you've already written.
It was so good that I refuse to buy regular Nutella anymore, even though the "extra cocoa" edition seems to be no longer sold.