I haven't found anyone using Windows X that thinks it's better than Windows XP. Windows 10 is better than Windows 8 but still worse than XP. My father-in-law was pleased that his Windows 8 was replaced by 10 automatically because he hated it and was about to return his laptop.
I think Internet is great in it's current state. The most popular sites are among the worst in my opinion, but there are others. Internet offers diversity. Internet would be pretty much the same without Google, Facebook and Apple because there are equivalent alternatives out there.
I bet that study won't replicate. Reproducibility issues in psychology are an established fact. I think at least two studies reproduce the problems with reproducability in psychology.
There are a lot of hard work being done that is personally rewarding (money and fame) and either meaningless or destructive in a broader sense (ecological destruction, social destruction, unethical activites, fraud). Lehman brothers were very successful and was greatly rewarded before the financial crash.
I think most people have a missconception about the mutation-process, recent research find that it's not very random and environment influences a lot. That is a radical difference from previous evolutionary-biology which was a missconception about the evolution process in itself, the new neo-evolutionary theory is closer to reality.
The old evolution-theory is spread more than other scientific theories primarily because it has inferences onto politics, society and religion. It acts as a scientific narrative of life, most often the information spread is inaccurate according to the theory itself, but it's primarily used to justify politics.
While the old evolution theory had inferences in beginning of 1900 of anti-race, anti-weakness and anti-homosexuality (nazi, racial-biology) after 1970 the inferences instead change to be pro-race, pro-homosexuality (homosexuality is created by evolution for a purpose instead of a error now). The interesting thing is that while the inferences from evolution theory changed, the theory itself was the same, it's just the politics around it that change. Evolution theory is used to support politics as a contemporary narrative. You can pretty much justify anything by creating a purpose of why evolution wanted something to occur, like "The evolution wants us to create babies and progress technology.", "The evolution theory wants women to be better at hearing baby screams."
The new neo-evolution theory instead brings a whole range of new inferences. If the environment can change mutations and progress itself then environment becomes important. Inferences from the old theory was that people were predefined from birth by their biology and this became the basis for many sciences today like psychiatry. When the premises of other sciences become questioned, the sciences need to updated.
Without having a discussion about epistemology I think it's impossible to understand the difference from fact, theory, hypothesis and truth. Just because predictions from a theory is true it doesn't mean that the theory is the truth, it just means that it does accurate predictions. Most of scientific theories have been revised and it would be naive to think that neo-evolution theory is the definitive end definition about evolution.
If evolution-theory would be distributed without inferences on politics I don't think it would be a hot topic at all