You hope not to have to explain how weather or nighttime changes the color of the sky, after I already mentioned the seasons sometimes painting it white, meaning you're unable to keep track of what was already said here.
You ask me if I'm "broken", and accuse me of inventing things about your life, clearly demonstrating that you fail to understand metaphors, examples, hypotheticals, and other forms of figurative speech. Or at least pretend to, only when it's me using these constructions.
You engage in goalpost moving with the Windows rewrite example, given the very well reported on examples for rewrites of countless old games and even entire suites of productivity tools, like Adobe software. You further accused me earlier of ad hominem, after engaging in ad hominem, then just made an appeal to your authority below, referencing a GitHub you do not link, not here, not in your bio.
You refer to physical things not being helped by a software, and somehow that being surprising to you. You explicitly make a claim that things are only awesome if they solve world hunger for children specifically. Then flip flop to fixing the climate, then flip flop to eliminating "chemicals" in food. This is an utterly insane worldview and there's nothing to disprove on it, for they are opinions, of the outlandish and nonsense kind, not arguments. You nevertheless do insist on wanting me to do so, of course, meaning the very basics of mathematical logic are somehow unfamiliar to you, despite your proclaimed programming experience (only logical statements have truth values).
You explicitly conflate advertising, evangelism, and cult behavior, clearly demonstrating your inability of grasping that as societies scale, information needs to travel, which makes advertisement, news reporting, promotional activities, and so on a necessity. You thereby fail to recognize you're laundering in your judgement regarding the nature of the promotional activity, even after many examples demonstrating so, and a logical derivation explaining how. People may feel compelled and motivated to convince someone of something, yet you explicitly only consider malicious or otherwise degenerate motivations as existing.
You fail to grasp basic dilemmas, like how an autopilot doesn't need to have zero death rate to be a potential human replacement, it just has to have better-than-human death rate. A corvid could make this judgement correctly, yet your historied programmer self apparently cannot.
And you ask me why I'd insult you? You wonder why your observations go unaddressed? The cause is one and the same, now robustly evidenced, and it's very simple: you're unable to process what I'm telling you. And even if you were able to, you'd still be unable to make a point coherently and cogently. Even knowing your epistemic limits escapes you.
I give up. I cannot reason with what doesn't.