While genes seem to play a role in one's inclinations, capabilities, and traits, the environment and upbringing are crucial as well. It's also often hard to circle out the determining factors because in real life everything is intertwined.
Of course, if someone has an inherited disorder that significantly impairs one's intellect, it can be hard to grasp what Bitcoin is and how to use it (just as it would be hard for such a person to grasp many things that most people are capable of learning). Addiction is another thing that seems to have a genetic predisposition, and trading can be a very bad idea in that case. So there are things that can make it worse for a person than average people have it, but I don't think there are things that can truly help one out that are determined genetically or by personality traits.

I don't think relying on newborns when thinking of Bitcoin adoption is very helpful because, well, they're newborns (so it'll take 18 years till they're allowed to invest), and because of child mortality.
Of course, knowing about Bitcoin is necessary for investing in Bitcoin, but it's also insufficient. Education is important, and telling people here and there about Bitcoin is useful, but only if they want to hear about it and if it feels safe to tell them about it. Introducing Bitcoin into school education (as some are doing) is a great way to reach the children and make them aware of Bitcoin. Bitcoin being mentioned in movies and TV shows is also helpful to at least spark initial interest.

Bitcoin is indeed volatile, but my main concern isn't with that. I just feel like having any single income source is risky and something that makes you a very dependent person. You can get fired from a job, or you may want to quit but feel too insecure about doing that because then you lose all of your income. I don't do any particular thing full-time and don't intend to do it, unless it's a case of extraordinary circumstances. Doing a bit of this and a bit of that helps to be a freer person, I believe, and it helps mitigate the risks that come with any jobs or from BTC's volatility.

Will the bull run happen in the next 2 years? Nobody knows. Is it possible? Absolutely. Is it likely? Let's think about it.
In December 2013, Bitcoin went very close to $1k before gradually dropping. The price started consistently rising near the end fo 2016, and then there was a bull market throughout 2017. So, it took Bitcoin 3 years to start consistently growing, a bit more for the price to fully recover and then go up from there. Then the price had its occasional ups and downs but was largely down enough to call 2018-2020 the bear market years, till around October 2020 when the price started rising. So it took almost 3 years for the bull market to come and 3 years for the full recovery (and then some). Then it was pretty much the bull market till the beginning of May 2021, then a few unfortunate months and the price went up again, so August-November 2021 were months of the bull market. Then the bear market started, which also had its ups and downs, but 2022 wasn't great and 2023 is so-so. We've been 1.5 years into the bear market, and the previous two times it took the price around 3 years to recover and to definitely show the signs of the bull market.
History doesn't have to repeat itself, and there isn't enough data to make strong predicitons based on what we have so far with Bitcoin. But it's the only thing we have, so to me it seems that the next 2 years should be enough, and a bull run is likely.

I'll tell you about my approach to my own life, and it will get clear why I disagree with Musk. I'm okay with going somewhere and working there if it's something that can't be done from home or can be done worse from home. So, for example, when I worked as a school teacher, I was okay going to the school to physically be in the classroom with children because that's not something that can be done from home. There are online schools, sure, but I do see the benefit of physical presence of people in one room during lessons and additional benefits it brings like socialization of students during the breaks. But I also tried a job for a short time where I went to an office to just literally sit in from of my laptop and do stuff on the laptop. That's a kind of job to me where I don't see why I need to be physically there. I quit that job very fast and since then I never agree to jobs that require going to an office for doing something that can be done just as well from home.
So, if I apply it to myself, I don't think it's wrong to apply it to working from home or not from home in general. And thus I don't see it as morally wrong to work from home. It's also not the best choice for everyone, as some enjoy socialization at work, some prefer a strict work-life balance where the work stuff doesn't enter the home space, and some have kids or something else that makes it uncomfortable to work from home.

Argentina's economic situation has been terrible for a long time, and huge inflation is among the issues that have been around for a while there as well. It's a vicious circle, as they keep printing the currency, trying to make the situation better, but that only makes it worse because the inflation keeps rising.
I'm not an economist, so I don't know how such a terrible situation can be reasonably managed, but I'd try something experimental, such as adopting Bitcoin as a legal tender (El Salvador style). Bitcoin's instability is actually likely to be a big relief compared to the fiat inflation there, and it's a currency that's at least very different and can't be driver to hyperinflation. I honestly think that while it might not solve everything, it won't hurt and might even help.

Let's start with what a financial pyramid is, and here I'm relying on my understanding plus Investopedia. A financial pyramid is a centralized project where those closer to the top can benefit by taking the money of those below them. It relies on promising unrealistic returns, and people who fall for it become the victims. It eventually collapses when no new victims (or not enough new victims) are found.
Bitcoin is decentralized, not a company, not recruiting anyone. When the price goes up, all investors benefit equally (if it's a 10% rise, it's a 10% rise for everyone). I don't think that new investors are necessary for the price to go up, even though it generally helps. More demand can be generated within a given number of users, and an increase of users doesn't directly lead to an increased price.
'Cryptocurrency' is a very general term, too broad. Some crypto projects may be scams, perhaps even built as financial pyramids. But it doesn't make the whole market or a concept of cryptocurrency a pyramid in any way.

I don't think it's purely propaganda, but I don't believe in the default either. There's always a risk to money printing and raising the debt ceiling, and something should be done about it. Unless there's a perception of a big threat, things normally don't change. So I think the default rhetoric is meant to big this big issue that unites people and their political representatives, pushing for more financial accountability of the state and stopping to rely on borrowing even more money (even though in this particular situation it may be the fastest or the only way out). The US will be fine, even though they're playing with fire.

If we look at economic direction on the level of a country, I think it really depends on a specific country. Some are rising, some are getting worse, some are just in stagnation. But if it's about the global economy, I think that it's growing, and the direction of growth is quite clear. Recessions are temporary setbacks, pauses or slowdowns of this process. The issues I see are not those of recessions. It's an issue of the wealth gap growing, the issue of huge distribution problems. The world is making enough overall, enough to cover the basic needs of the total population. But apparently the idea that nobody must die of hunger, suffer from malnutrition, die due to incapability to afford basic medicine or have no roof under which to sleep is just too radical, leftist, woke, or whatever. That is disturbing to me.

But that's if it's about investment. Teaching kids what money is, how it works, and how it can be used is IMO totally normal and can be done at a very young age. Kids need to understand money, what it can buy and what reasonable spending it, and getting some basic notions of different kinds of money (including Bitcoin) seems like a very neutral and age-appropriate topic to me.
Oh, the op mentioned that it was a maths lesson, and I've remembered that I teach the basics of maths and logic to a 7-year-old, and one of the official books for the subject actually has tasks that work with money denominations (like dollars and cents), how they add up etc. So money can already be in the program, and mentioning Bitcoin is just a reasonable addition from a teacher in such a case.

2% isn't a lot, but can we really know whether the figure is true? I don't believe they really back up all their USDT with something like fiat cash and other meaningful things. But Tether's market capitalization is nearly $82.8 billion, so I suppose they need decent reserves to keep the coin afloat, and $1.5 billion worth of Bitcoin isn't a big share of that. Well, Bitcoin is available to anyone who's willing to invest, regardless of their faith in Bitcoin or intentions. If they want to buy more, it's a very abstract notion. If they announced a multi-billion-dollar investment, that could give a boost to the price.

Aside from off-chain solutions, I really think a reasonable solution is to simply wait. If a person needs to send a lot of money, the fees won't seem that high. If it's a smaller thing, there's a good chance it can wait for some time when the fees improve. I waited out the high fee period and made my first transaction a couple of days ago, paying aroung $5 worth of BTC. It's not ideal, but not very high either.
Also, many people use Bitcoin as an investment rather than a currency, which in that case doesn't need to be regularly moved from one address to another.

1.  Loma
2.  Round 11
3.  2

Financial education is something people usually want in order to earn a lot of money, and no financial education guarantees getting $1 million. However, the argument about losing the money without the education is also relevant. If I got to choose, I'd choose the latter, but only because I feel like I'm financially educated enough to start managing the money and because I can self-educate once I get the money.
And the money is absolutely life-changing, even though being rich isn't among my life goals. It's truly enough for many things in life.

That sounds like a nice achievement in distribution of coins, and I hope we'll see even better distribution in the future. The op acknowledged that some addresses can hold funds of many people and some people can have several wallets, and with that, I still think it's largely not pointless info.
As for the past few weeks and the fees, I think it's really great that Bitcoin bounced back pretty fast, and while the fees are still not low, they are reasonable and can be expected to fall even more. It's been two years since the last fee spike, and that one was way worse. I'm okay with such occasional situations, and grateful that they are rare and temporary.

The forum largely describes events I didn't know about earlier, so it was informative, but it also seems that it's not really the history of the forum, as much as it is about hacks and financial discussions related to donations (and how they were used). To me, these are not the most important aspects. The article doesn't talk about the life of the forum, prominent members, popular topics, features that were added at certain points in time (like the merit system), signature campaigns etc.
As for the author, I tried finding the info on the website, but couldn't find anything.

I'm sorry your father passed away, and it's so nice that he was supportive of your Bitcoin investment and endurance through the hard times of the bear market. Experts make mistakes, and it's really hard to predict how well a starting industry would do in the future. Online gambling is clearly big, and so is Bitcoin. The price isn't as good as in 2016, of course, but still pretty good. That being said, I think that people who have fear over Bitcoin and doubts about its potential should not invest in it because investments should be made based on personal decisions, given that the responsibility and financial risk are personal as well.

I don't think Bitcoin will ever fully stabilize, but it doesn't mean it can't function as money, and it also doesn't mean it can't be both an asset and a form of money. I didn't come to Bitcoin because of potential gains or the positive hype. I came more out of curiosity for some new type of money that's fully digital and independent. I do believe Bitcoin will continue slowly growing over time, but I'd also gladly have it if it instead somehow froze in value, and we knew it won't ever go up again. But that's not the case, and of course many are drawn to Bitcoin because of it being a good asset.

19k views, not bad at all. I haven't heard of the channel before, but their mission of educating kids seems nice, and the animation style reminds me of typical TV shows for kids. I can see how preschool kids or elementary school kids would watch it, I've seen much worse plot development and dialogues on TV channels for kids.
Honestly, I didn't expect to like a kid's show, my expectations were pretty low. And, to be honest, it was a bit too long for me, even though I've watched the whole episode. But it has many references, small jokes, and small lessons as well. Like how the kids say they won't ask about Satoshi's identity, which sort of shows you should respect one's privacy and desire to stay anonymous. It also teaches the history of money nicely, although I'm not sure small kids would understand it well. And there's a caution against wanting to get rich quick with it.
It's a wonderful effort to explain Bitcoin to kids, and I'm really happy stuff like this exists.

I like the image you've made. To me, it's sort of a mix of the Statue of Liberty and Themis (the goddess of justice). The latter comes to mind because her eyes seem closed, and closed eyes symbolize impartiality of justice. Just as liberty is relevant because of the financial freedom that Bitcoin provides, justice with closed eyes is relevant because Bitcoin is pseudonymous and decentralized, and as a result people can use it without fearing biased treatment.
I also agree with the op's sentiment that Satoshi's identity isn't important, and we should focus on the gift of Bitcoin instead.