OCD and substance use disorder (and the gambling and social media analogues) are distinct although they are frequently comorbid. The defining feature of OCD is using compulsions (physical or mental) to cope with the anxiety brought about by obsessions (contamination, harm, checking etc...). The defining feature of addiction is withdrawal and using a substance or behavior to satisfy cravings. Where they intertwine is when a person with OCD starts using addictive behaviors (substances, gambling, social media) to replace the compulsions, or an addict starts doing compulsions to ward off their cravings.

We built the LHC, so large scale feats of engineering are possible.

And this is why science is awesome!

Passing an exam with a score of 95% means a whole lot more than passing with a score of 55%. Passing and exam is NOT necessarily an indication of deep understanding.

Although there are a large number of science and engineering students that take Linear Algebra 1 for a general audience (which is mostly computation), very few outside of mathematics and physics students take proof oriented Linear Algebra 1 and even fewer take Linear Algebra 2 (this is anecdotal, but I imagine it applies more broadly) . I did not dig up the stats for physics majors, however this calculation should be a close approximation. According to the stats below, math majors account for only ~2.28% of total of all BS degrees are awarded per year. If you include physicists 2.5% is still probably an upper bound. Most people are simply not equipped to handle the abstractions in higher mathematics. There were about 75 people in my first year proof-based linear algebra class. In my second year there were about 15. Sure there might be people who take history or philosophy or whatever who would do well, but the statistics about such people are probably much harder to find
See:
https://datausa.io/profile/cip...
https://educationdata.org/numb...

Literally!

Datum is the correct singular version of data.

You can get better estimates of the position and orientation of objects by using more measurements. Remember these neural networks are susceptible to sensor noise and environmental effects. I worked on an object recognition and tracking system once during my undergrad. When we boosted the frame rate it drastically improved the performance of the system.

A book I read when I was young: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... Prescient perhaps?

I a had a "perfect moment" on mushrooms. Out on a camping trip with friends, I dropped mushrooms and I looked out over the water and into the sun. All of a sudden everything just seemed to "fit" and I felt a sensation of warmth and wholeness envelope my body. Anxiety, fear, and doubt dropped away and briefly, for the first time in my life I felt completely at peace. I imagine some people search their entire lives for such a moment. It didn't last and, for various reasons, I haven't attempted to duplicate the experience, but I will always remember it.

Furthermore, "do dragons exist?" is an open question too and no amount of evidence will ever "close" it.

Sure it's an open question, there could be more than just matter and energy (I never said otherwise). But, claiming or implying that there is something else without evidence is not science. Being highly skeptical of such claims (as I am) is very scientific since it doesn't fit with what we observe. So, either make an argument or provide evidence that something else exists (other than what is currently unknown to modern physics), or only gullible people will take you seriously.

Do you have evidence to suggest that there is something other than what we presently observe in the universe? If not then you not being very scientific.

The why is important. From the second paper you linked,

If you throw a dozen darts at a dart board blind folded, you might just hit something. You might also put somebody's eye out in the process.