YMMV, but in general when I have looked at CE compliance and the Directives attached, they generally are surprisingly well written, with a view to actually being implemented. They seem to aim at not killing your customer, so not IMHO a bad thing.

Blumlein wasn't first, but its a name that's often forgotten in the history of television. From Wiki: "Blumlein was also largely responsible for the development of the waveform structure used in the 405-line Marconi-EMI system – developed for the UK's BBC Television Service at Alexandra Palace, the world's first scheduled "high definition" (240 lines or better) television service – which was later adopted as the CCIR System A."

"There is well established theory that posits that prediction markets are more accurate than the most accurate expert (who is basing their opinion on publicly available information). It has been empirically validated numerous times, and you can do this yourself, that these markets are very accurate."

This is almost the perfect example of magical thinking. I don't know just how you are using the word theory in that sentence, but its almost certainly not the scientific usage. If it was you would need to show the mechanics as to how the market makes that "more accurate" prediction.

In fact there seems to a touch of contradiction in the statement. If the "well established theory" is that which the "most accurate expert" would use to provide a result. Then if the statement was true, then the prediction markets would make a "more accurate" prediction, which would contradict the idea that the "most accurate expert" was in fact the most accurate.

"This means that the bottom 10 drivers were responsible for the remaining 17, making them nearly twice as likely to crash."

While what you say may well be true, you also have to account for being mid pack, especially on the first lap, means you are much more likely to get tangled up in another drivers error, or just both go for the same space. Also, if you happen to be one of the front runners coming through the midfield, its likely that you will face far less active defending because the defending driver knows its going to happen, and fighting it will just cost them time. A mid field driver against another mid field car are actually racing for position, so its worth extra risks to defend.

"Not unless there's only one way to make a ribosome ... which too is a provably ridiculous and incorrect assertion."

But there may have been an optimal ribosome for the conditions at the time, and even in disparate populations that one optimal (or a close enough version of it, the word "nearly" is doing a lot of work in your post) could have displaced all other versions, until the initially separate populations merged and created the consistency in origin we see today.

"These are all at the same level of likelihood."

I disagree, we know that billionaire's exist, so that is at least a non zero level of likely. AFAIK, there is no documented case of monkeys flying out of anyone's butt, so I don't think it would be unreasonable to assign a zero level of likely to that.

"If you told me that eating strawberries will kill me and I see you eating strawberries at every meal"

I told you that eating strawberries will kill you. The fact that I could eat strawberries does not make what I told you false. It may be (to use what you are suggesting) that the rich can in fact safely eat strawberries (because, well, they are rich). That doesn't make them being harmful to you false.

"Why should I listen to a hypocrite?"

Well, perhaps because it would be in your own best interest?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3m5qxZm_JqM

The problem that comes to mind is you will need some way to guarantee that the signal is not being influenced by an external EM field.

"all of the above which won't react negatively to the irrational and otherwise bad things humans might do to them. What's not to like?"

Well, the first thing that comes to mind is that it will normalize that behavior when dealing with real humans.

"Morality is "principles of right and wrong"; animals and plants don't have right and wrong, they just act as necessary in order to survive."

You say that, but you provide no evidence to prove that assertion. There is evidence that wild animals do have exactly what you claim they don't. However, they may still just be acting in a way to ensure survival, as you suggest, but you would then have to provide some evidence that what we call kindness or evil in humans is in some way more than just acting as necessary to survive.

Try owning a dog and then tell me it doesn't understand "right and wrong".

https://xkcd.com/1791/

"where they don't belong"

What does that actually mean? Its almost as if you believe there is an absolute correct that we can compare against.

I think you may be thinking of particle spin as something spinning, so it would have angular momentum, so from there you assume there is energy and its somehow conserved. But I don't think anything is actually spinning.

Also, think about what would be happening if they were actually spinning, like a wheel. If you have a spinning wheel and magically split it in half perpendicular to the axis of rotation, you have the same energy in the system, the two parts still spin in the same direction, one doesn't suddenly start spinning in the other direction.

Or take the other way of looking at that. You have a pair of wheels. both spinning in opposite directions, and join the axles together.The energy doesn't cancel out, it sums and gets converted into a force twisting the axle and eventually into heat.

Don't want to pick a fight, but you were the one that invoked "extension of conservation-of-energy", so you are the one that needs to explain what that means. Not sure what other information or understanding is available without that explanation.