Do you have a reference for any of this? USB 80Gbps uses PAM3 to get to actual 80 Gbps and even with signaling overhead and other throughput constraints 70 Gbps should be attainable. Your units are all over the place but 13.2 gibibit/second is 14.17 gigabit/second and that's just way off. And 275.4Gbps cited for USB 40Gbps is somehow much higher than your number for USB 80Gbps and higher than 40Gbps? There is nothing I can find for the 17.4W number cited and it seems like a weird number because charging phones and laptops at higher power loads and doing data exchange while charging actually works well in real life.

For realz :)
Old fogies represent.

The mean score of 60 out of 200 does not mean the professor is bad nor that the students are idiots. It just means the professor made the exam a little harder than they probably intended. Ideally the mean score should be 50% of max score to allow the most dynamic range for grading. 30% of the max, as in your example is a bit low but not terrible. The professor probably still has enough spread in scores to tell who did well vs who did poorly. The problems arise when the mean score is below 10% or above 90% of max. At that point assigning letter grades is problematic. But in any case, exam scores never reflect anything about teaching or learning. They just reflect how well the professor intuits the mean or median level of preparation in the class.
Your second example with the labwork is indeed indicative of a problem. This does happen but is not supposed to happen. The teaching assistants were not supervised properly. It is a legit complaint which needs to be made to the department, especially if this can be documented and is not just hearsay.
You last example works well in an engineering class. In a math class, the same idea might run as follows: tell students about some lengthy complicated derivations. Then ask them to do more derivations where the same principles need to be creatively applied and the student must get the correct answer following correct reasoning. In your words "that's where you can see the quality of the work". So if the student gets part of the way to the answer but stumbles we might give them partial credit. If they get the right answer and every step to the answer is right then we might give them full credit. We might even call such a procedure "an exam" and we might call the assignment of credit "grading". I wonder why nobody thought of doing that.

The numbers are much happier than your panicked view [https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sachverstaendigenrat-wirtschaft.de%2Fen%2Feconomic-outlook-2022.html]:
"Germany's GDP is likely to increase by 1.8 % in 2022 and 3.6 % in 2023."
Generally, there is nothing to worry about structurally until you see double digit percentage declines of GDP and Germany is nowhere near that. It might even avoid any GDP decline. Like I said, Germany is in good shape and will come out of this stronger.
But yes, for best economic future, Germany must make sure Russia loses the war, falls apart and their gas is again available for cheap without the unreliable despot controlling the supply.

But there is plenty of gas now. There was a short hick-up and that's it.
And actually for most companies that were mentioned, like bakeries, the issues that were cited in their filings were things like the inability to heat their spaces due to high gas prices. I am sure they have natural gas as an input somewhere in the chain but most businesses use intermediates which are available from places where gas is not as constrained (like the USA and Asia) or from storage. Chill out. Rejoice. European economy will be ever stronger after a bit of a challenge. Challenges are good. They make the industry evolve and become more efficient and in this case they also promote renewable alternatives.

Nope. Totally wrong. If you research further you will see that most of these companies are fully operational. Their filings are to reduce debt or some such but these companies (at least the ones I looked at which is not all of the ones you listed admittedly) are operating normally. Much of the demand destruction for gas is because people and businesses find a way to reduce their energy usage and due to the move to renewables (or coal or nuclear).
It is totally misleading to point out that some businesses are in trouble when you can see that most of them were already weak or worse due to the pandemic. All things considered, the impact of the energy spike in August is actually minor.

You have it backwards. Nobody is against EVs. We need more charging infrastructure, faster charging cars and bigger batteries and the only way to get there is for people who can afford these cars and who have the infrastructure to use them to pave the way.
The issue we are discussing is that the vast majority of people are locked out of EVs for legitimate reasons and their use cases must be considered legitimate rather than vilified as phobias. You cannot exclude people who drive a lot or people who want to make sure their car is robust against some emergency and claim that these are phobic idiots. Your public policy must aim to accommodate these people and you cannot consider you EV adoption and infrastructure satisfactory until these rare use cases are addressed.

Wait, what? It is indeed imperative to base policy off rare events. For example if you build a bridge without considering rare wind events you get Tacoma Narrows disaster. Our very notion of "quality equipment" in almost every area of technology is based off the ability to perform far outside the norm. We absolutely do want a significant margin of error in every human endeavor, especially as a matter of broad public policy.

Most people who live in apartment buildings or private homes with older wiring cannot charge at home. For those people, going to a charging station and waiting an hour or two to charge is a problem. It may be doable once a week but not more often than that. People work until they drop nowadays so even a half hour extra to charge is too much for most, other than on a day off.
So let's say your commute is 50 miles per day. Now you need 7*50=350 miles to go through the week. But of course batteries degrade fast if you discharge below 20% and charge above 80% so for an EV to be a reliable long term solution the battery capacity needs to give just about 600 miles range. More in colder climates.
A more honest calculation would use actual numbers.
https://ancillary-proxy.atarimworker.io?url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.researchgate.net%2Ff...
We can see that the average distance driven per day is 40 miles but to alleviate range anxiety we need mean+2*sigma roughly and that looks to be about 75 miles. Repeating the above calculation we see that the EV range above which range anxiety could be seen as irrational is 900 miles. In colder climates where one runs the heater a lot we get a nice round 1000 mile range. Cars today are at 1/4 of that so range anxiety is fully justified.
Now, if charging could take 5 minutes and car batteries could withstand being charged every day for at least 10 years (about 4000 charge cycles) with literally no range loss then many people would find EVs palatable with one day's range and in that case 75/.6=125 miles would be a decent range for an EV. We have had many reports in the last year of Li-ion batteries being pushed to being able to charge to 80% in 5-6 minutes. So if existing 200-250 mile EV could be iterated to have batteries with similar capacity but use the fast charging versions then this could solve a lot of people's issues and range concerns. The 200 mile range would allow for using heaters in the winter and provide cushion for range loss over time.
Bottom line is that faster battery charging and more charging infrastructure would make a huge difference. We are not there yet, but within a few years your logic may apply to the real world. Not right now though.

Well, once the infrastructure is built and is ubiquitous even in less urban areas, then maybe a dislike for EVs could be classed as a phobia. For now it is not.

This logic always baffles me. First of all, population studies are suggesting that worldwide population is leveling off. By the end of this century, we will top out at about 11 billion people on the entire globe. We are near 8 billion now. That's 40% growth before we reach the max. Population doubling is unlikely. Tripling and quadrupling is just batsh*t insane stuff not supported by any available demographic data.
So yes, meat may become more expensive and get out of price range of some small percentage of world population. That will not make it go away as a major food product. There is nothing unsustainable about meat other than its relatively low current price.

No. There is no notable grift and nobody is making billions off ITER. One has to be careful about throwing around words like "lying" and to her credit, Dr. Hossenfelder has done a good job of careful wording. The scientific progress may not be communicated perfectly but the actual planning of investments in science is clearly done by policy-makers with a full understanding of where things are at.
To see this consider the aims of ITER. We can even just go to Wikipedia for this. "ITER's goals are to achieve enough fusion to produce 10 times as much thermal output power as thermal power absorbed by the plasma for short time periods; to demonstrate and test technologies that would be needed to operate a fusion power plant including cryogenics, heating, control and diagnostics systems, and remote maintenance; to achieve and learn from a burning plasma; to test tritium breeding; and to demonstrate the safety of a fusion plant." There is no expectation that ITER would be a usable power plant. It is a testbed of technologies and scientific advancements with no commercial viability. This is totally understood and has been understood during its planning. This is why there are already plans for ITER's successor: DEMO. To quote the relevant Wikipedia page: "DEMO refers to a proposed class of nuclear fusion experimental reactors that are intended to demonstrate the net production of electric power from nuclear fusion. Most of the ITER partners have plans for their own DEMO-class reactors." So to summarize: policymakers have never been misled about the steps needed to achieve fusion. The planning and financial allocations have always been based on ITER being just a stepping stone. But yes, the wording of way too many people connected to the ITER project has been way too vague and imprecise and Dr. Hossenfelder is right to call them out on it.

Honestly, in a choice between meat-free meals and civilization collapse I would choose the latter in a heartbeat. And I am very certainly not kidding.

The author misses all of the important aspects. First, a folded phone is more convenient to carry. It just fits in smaller pockets. And second, the plastic screen in foldables may be more fragile but is also thinner and lighter than a gorilla glass screen. The foldables therefore can and must be thinner and lighter than regular phones. So far, the industry has not figured out how to make either of these two potential advantages work, but things are moving in the right direction.

The only thing that can be done meaningfully is to increase subsidies and tax breaks for renewables. As fossil fuel prices go up, bring the cost of renewables down. Make it not just competitive but a no-brainer choice. Let the markets take care of the rest.