Indeed!

Also, the CDC's mortality statistics also show that people up to 44 years old represent ~30% of COVID-19 deaths so far, so it's not like being young is great either.

https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Prov...
accessed Aug 28, 2020

So, your argument is to:
* ignore what I found to be better and faster
* ignore the others that provide input to the articles
* ignore requests for money
* ignore what the Wikimedia Foundation says
* especially ignore Wikimedia Foundation content presented on Wikipedia.org (because they don't control the content I just saw)
all because you said so.

I have to ask: Is this research tool or a cult? (I also wonder if you are you a Trump supporter?)

Wikipedia may be a perfect resource for you, After all, Wikipedia is the ideal platform for someone who simply cannot accept the opinions of others because any person can make changes without a consensus. So, by all means, keep using it because peer review is obviously not a good fit for you.

I find it particularly telling that you proudly profess that you don't bother to read any of the discussions about the articles before making changes. You must go in and change anything on a whim, making you one of the biggest problems with Wikipedia. (Ironic, considering the OP.)

Also your overt attempts at shaming anyone who doesn't fawn ans swoon at your clumsy attempts at altruism by proxy speaks volumes about yourself. You obviously have self esteem issues. So, get off your high horse and deal with the fact that people will disagree with you---especially when you are delusional. Yes---delusional. After all, you just want people to simply accept what *you* say is the truth and you tell people to ignore what doesn't fit your delusion.

Well, they did have the link to the GBWR. What more do you want?

I see that CNN is trying to write articles for Trump supporters. Why else would an article on space and bacteria include a reference to the Guinness Book of World Records?

I didn't realize that was done with CPUs.
TIL

What is Gilhooley?

I have asked you to prove it at least once. Show me one case. (Only one is necessary.)
Until then, you are just hand waving without any substance.

It's called hyperbole. That's when you use exaggeration for emphasis.
(I am not trying to be condescending---using a patronizingly superior attitude---but your reply makes me think I need to be quite specific do to your lack intuition and perception in these matters.)

So what. All of the Intel Xeon chips I use say "made in Costa Rica". Last time I checked that wasn't part of the USA.
Aside from prototypes, does Intel make any serious CPUs in the USA?

Now, I do my own research elsewhere.
It's not my job to fix Wikipedia. I stopped providing any input or fixes to Wikipedia because of the often toxic "talk" discussions. The final straw was when I started getting pop-ups asking for money. I looked at the Wikimedia Foundation's annual report and just stopped contributing my time and efforts.

Maybe they should have used AMD?

Good luck with that.

There's nothing "these days" about it. One of the best examples of people intentionally and systematically destroying information is the Catholic Church. They have been doing it for centuries, and they are relative newcomers to the scene.

I have encountered too many articles on Wikipedia where almost all of the cited sources are dead links.
It's just quicksand held up by quicksand.

So, what about the Wikipedia articles without citations that are cited?