I'm trying to explain how articles often conflate "intuition" with "breaking physics", and you're making your argument by conflating them. We're having different conversations.
Thw very same comment specifically states that physics itself is not broken.
OC: Is it broken?
Me: No, they make generous interpretations to claim that it's broken.
You: With a generous interpretation, they can be said to break ...
Like I said, we're not having the same conversation.