So does this lead to the possibility that black holes are actually hidden (from our view) universes? And therefore that our universe is also inside a greater universe's black hole.

I watched the video and there isn't much to criticise about it.
However, we must remember that being a particle physicist is first and foremost a job, like any other. Those in the field have to earn a living and that requires they perform research. If that requires them to postulate new, exotic particles that "need" to be discovered in order to create a GUT, then so be it.

Although as Hossenfelder says, there is no fundamental principle of nature that demands a single, unified theory.

Maybe the real problem is that there are sources of funding available for this work? Ones that seem unaware that every search for particles outside the standard model (for the past 50 years) have failed. But at least with that failure, those involved in the search have managed to make a career out of it.

Knowing your data is being appropriated is not the same as being empowered to control it.

Although the idea that a car's brakes would be under software control does not seem to me to be a great idea.

I tried it with the final paragraph of this story, it returned that it needed at least 1,000 characters. I foresee a lot of people asking ChatGPT to write content in less than that lower limit

It doesn't have to help them, in order to meet the criterion of the poll. If that innovation helps a newborn (someone who is alive today) then that works for them.

Look at the development of open heart surgery as an example. For a long time it was thought to be impossible - until it wasn't. So can we expect something similar to address the factors that cause death today? No we can't expect them. But we can hope.
And in that respect it is likely that life-extending treatments of some form (even if it is just eating a healthier diet and taking more care of ourselves) will emerge.

Known as "bureaucratic entanglement". It involves red tape rather than dark matter and slows down any physical process, from the quantum up to the intergalactic, to immeasurably slow speeds.

I would find claims like this more believable if the pundits in question could prove that they have invested heavily in the crypto's they are backing and that they won't redeem them until they reache the peaks they have forecast.

Then it might just be ready in 26 years.

I think the big question for national security agencies will be how to corrupt these sources of open intelligence. Not just to obscure and divert away from their real plans, but also to feed misinformation about other states and what they look like doing.

Using this sort of data will rapidly become unreliable as agencies put out dummy / bogus information just as sources of FAKE NEWS abound.

and then create an objective test to demonstrate its existence or lack thereof.

However, it is not enough to say "what humans can do" as there are many groups of humans who can do little or nothing: babies, those in a coma and many more who would not reach the abilities (cognitive or physical) of what might be considered normal behaviour. The problem then is how to separate the rights that any human can expect from the rights that stem from intelligence.

And then see if the AIs agree

Having large chunks of metal flying around in an uncontrolled way, very close to thousands of tonnes of propellant and SRBs is not optimal. Especially if NASA is intending to put people on top of that mess.

The only "positive" is that none of that shrapnel destroyed the rocket. Next time might not be so lucky.

Yet so many people do! I suppose you don't need to rely on banks, you can just keep your cash, or gold, or whatever, under the mattress.

But the other point is that no matter where your crypto is, it is still vulnerable to enormous price instability when a lone individual does something like this on an exchange that you have nothing to do with. Just as every crypto holder gets hit by the downsides when there is a massive hack or anything else that causes a loss in confidence in the system as a whole.
It simply isn't a mature ecosystem. It lacks the checks and balances we all expect from those who look after our money. It seems to have few, or no, controls and is just too risky.

When one individual can make transfers of this size with neither scrutiny, transparent reporting nor another person's approval, it is impossible to have any confidence in any crypto exchange - and by extension crypto, itself.
Is "compliance" even in the crypto dictionary?

and since it appears none of those senior executives blew the whistle, there should be quite a few jail cells being prepared.

I would agree with you. However, SLS has not demonstrated that it can perform the missions it was designed for, either.

As soon as SpaceX gets their Starship into orbit, the two outfits will be at roughly the same point. The difference being that NASA does it at extreme (taxpayer) cost and under the capricious control of politicians. While SpaceX demonstrates a scalable, commercially viable, solution.