Probably not. But their original papers are still too radioactive to touch without wearing protective equipment.

You could do the same already using scuba tanks made from carbon-fibre-titanium-nanotechnology (yeah I'm just adding buzzwords here). Those would be able to hold much more than 300 bars of pressure. You now why no-one's done that? Because during a normal plain-air dive with a 10 L 300 bar, you're not limited by the tank capacity. You're limited by how long you can stay submerged before you need to do decompression stops.

Yes, pure oxygen becomes toxic below 6 meters.

Very good point. Pure oxygen becomes toxic below 6 meters.

Also, looking at TFA and following the links, this looks like premium-class bullshit. No actual science, no pictures of the proposed device (just 3D renderings), this is just science-fiction.

That doesn't rule out the possibility that the sport only allows the helmets to be removed in cases where the risk of a serious collision is much lower (e.g. an ascent, like you mentioned, where the speed is much lower).

Not quite. In addition to a crash helmet, you would also need a HANS (head and neck support) system, six-point seat belt, a net along the window like you see in NASCAR, and a roll cage. And since it would take you longer to exit the car, you would also need an automatic fire suppression system. At that point it's quite a lot more impractical and expensive compared to a normal car than the difference of bike helmet vs. no bike helmet.

Also, you can get full helmets for bicycling. It's standard issue for downhill cycling, see e.g. here. That manufacturer (POC) have been making state-of-the-art crash helmets for skiing (used by many athletes in the Alpine World Cup) and biking for about 10 years now, so I suspect they've got a much better idea of how to do it than some random guy who tried to improve over $10 styrofoam helmets.

If wearing a helmet didn't make any sense, why do all professional cyclists wear them?

Holographic: I do not think it means what you think it means.

You're very wrong on all points I'm afraid. This will have zero impact on any CFD codes. And where did you get the (slightly ridiculous) idea that CFD programs only solve for special cases? It's true that most restrict themselves in some way, e.g. "subsonic and non-turbulent", but otherwise they are completely general. Source: my PhD work consists of writing a CFD code for Navier-Stokes. (The summary talking about rewriting textbooks is also way off on their understanding. This will likely be incomprehensible without a PhD in the right area of mathematics.)

How about my code that uses 1000 CPU cores to solve the 3D Navier-Stokes equations using a spectral element method?

Yeah, this again. IIRC, Lincoln and Cadillacs used to have this feature in the 80s. There's a reason it never caught on then, and that's because it's not very useful.

All HID systems are self levelling. It's just that self levelling only works in 90% of the cases. Pothole? Doesn't work. Going over a gradually changing slope? Doesn't work. And perhaps the worst part: car becomes ~10 years old and self-levelling system has experienced sensor failure? You're officially a safety hazard.

And it only takes that one second to spoil your night vision for the next two-three minutes. In a city, it may not be a problem, but when you're driving through the forests of northern Sweden and you really want your night vision at its best to spot any moose crossing the road, it's bloody dangerous to have someone's low-beam HID blind you.

IMO, HID should be disallowed for all low beams, and should be freely available for all high beams. This would solve all the problems, except new cars would not look as "cool" as they do today.

If you say "other electric cars", perhaps no. But it is well known that production of electric cars is much more polluting than production of ICE cars. See e.g. this recent peer-reviewed article.

Here, let me point you towards a recent article in the Journal of Industrial Ecology which shows that the production of batteries for the longest-range Tesla S emits roughly as much CO2 as driving 50 000 miles (depending on the car you compare with).

[citation needed]. Better make that "Life cycle analysis needed". I agree with your points regarding reducing local emissions, which is very important in many cities, but I haven't seen a single complete life cycle analysis of any current production electric vehicle that gets significantly better than an equivalent gasoline powered car.