I agree with you last point, and I really, really want to with the first.

Sometimes science feels more like an art, for chemistry at least. I suppose the counter-point to this is: if you provide sufficient detail to reproduce but your results are still difficult to reproduce reliably by others, then your process wasn't very robust and should have undergone more development before publishing. Those details may be so minor that you don't even realize that you overlooked something.

Alternate PhD

Spoken like a round leaf.

Some megacorp called Stellantis as of 2021.

It's often the same for science, though there are actual experts who occasionally weigh in too.

And the jolly rancher.

That's assuming they are competent enough to even use a PDF.

Exactly. Just like the "water isn't wet" argument, it all comes down to semantics such as how you define terms.

Define genocide how they want, they're still a bunch of ghoulish war criminals.

All of my time is my free time, but sometimes I choose to do things that make life easier. Most mistakes can be fixed, so I don't worry too much about the things I forget anymore.

Read the manual and if something's broken, give fixing it a shot even if you end up breaking it more.

When you read the manual, you learn things (often including how to fix them without breaking them more). The more things you know how to fix, the more everything starts to look familiar. This is how those people who seem to be ridiculously good at fixing everything learned to be good.

They never got rid of the first one, now they'll just grandfather in Israel.

Lol, it's been "rules for thee, not for me" for quite a long time. In particular, look at the US's 2002 Hague Invasion Act that basically says they don't give a fuck what the court says and if they mess with the US or US military, they'll do anything in their power to stop it, including taking military actions.