Amoral means not morally relevant. Something that is morally neutral is not amoral, it's morally neutral.
E.g it is morally neutral to pet a dog, it is amoral to like the colour blue.
Normally in moral philosophy one would avoid this confusion by classifying morally relevant actions/outcomes as "bad","neutral", or "good".
Government programs are literally no better when it comes to administrative costs. In fact way worse in the vast majority of cases.
CEO's are only a thing with very large charities on the order of the Red Cross, (or rich people money laundering charities). Your local shelter or food bank isn't going to be having a high overhead, in fact it's going to be much lower than the government agencies because of almost entirely free volunteer work. The point where the government is more efficient is due to the fact that welfare fraud is a crime, so people are naturally less inclined to lie to receive benefits.
And none of this addresses whether or not giving money to panhandlers helps them.
I've lived on the street before, it sucks, but what the typical visibly homeless person does isn't sustainable and doesn't help them. It's just a rut of wasteful and irrational behaviour, if you are panhandling you're not engaging in productive behaviour that will result in long-term changes.
"AI applied to things like 'against the computer'"
Coding an adversary in a game is generally very easy. If anything it's oriented around making them beatable by humans rather than actually intelligent. (And that's even ignoring lazy tricks like reading player moves).
California HSR has been a zombie project for a while. Even before Musk was a factor, there were annual plans but nothing ever got done, year after year. It's probably going to take intercity projects to become popular and economical for something as ambitious as long-range passenger rail to actually receive serious attention.
Splitting individual atoms isn't that difficult, you just need a neutron supply and some material (paraffin wax works) to slow them down and it will eventually happen at least with uranium. Doing it reliably and efficiently is a much harder problem.
"From computer science papers/academic texts I know this method of reading works perfectly"
This is almost certainly due to pure familiarity. CS papers are just as indecipherable to unfamiliar persons. Possibly even more since things like complexity are heavily used, without any explanation of what it is. Data structures are another common one that the vast majority of non-CS people would not understand when referenced.
I know because this is exactly how I felt coming from an intermediate mathematics background.
"So many papers are extremely hard to read because the formulas are obfuscated like that"
This isn't really an issue though, of you don't have enough foundational knowledge to understand what the formula means or how it could be conceivably derived, does knowing how it's calculated matter?
Mathematicians are good at writing algorithms, but not at the development aspect, which is basically building for different systems, packaging software and documentation.
I would disagree on the performance part, the vast majority of software developers aren't writing high performance software and the ones that are tend to be computational mathematicians or physicists.
"no experts"
I never said that, I said that you are cherry-picking the handful of related people who agree with you, most of whom are not experts in anything relevant.
Clearly there are going to be a handful of subject matter experts that believe claims with extraordinarily weak evidence (see Nobel disease), the game of science is not played by fishing for individuals with degrees that support your beliefs. It's by looking at the evidence, engaging in a fair amount of epistemic and abductive reasoning and arriving at the most useful conclusion. In the case of people like you who don't have the skillset to do so, you can defer to the consensus of relevant experts. (Eyewitnesses are not subject matter experts, and I certainly wouldn't cite my vision as an instrument in a paper).
"Some scientists and even Harvard"
You realise you are talking to a physicist right? All your appeal to crackpots and generic "find more information" statements aren't going to convince me unless you rigorously explain why you think the data is better explained by theories that you can't formulate (nobody seems to be able to, because the theory is just "it's beyond our understanding", the most epistemically worthless statement ever) versus very well known sensory and psychological phenomenon.
"An overwhelming body of government documents"
Which you don't understand.
"You're a random internet stranger"
You're a random internet stranger as well (actually neither of us are, both of us have public works that is easily findable, and let's say mine are far more topically relevant). Why on earth are you supposed to treated credibly? Especially when you cite your expertise in QM to explain data, like every single crackpot.
"I am a skeptic after all"
How? If you were a skeptic you would have already been aware of my criticism that the data observed does not match any physical theories, AND that we have no reason to believe that these physical theories are wrong. You are confused by the fact that "diagnostics" merely shows that the software/equipment is working as designed not that it is interpreting the data correctly. (We also don't know what "diagnostics" were performed, in actual physics we don't say "we checked for errors" we give explicit descriptions of what errors we conjecture and how we accounted for to them, so saying "diagnostics were performed" is scientifically worthless).
I've already given several reasons to doubt the results: unreliability of eye witnesses, faulty interpretation of information, and failure to correspond with existing extremely well established theories. All of these are well-established facts and I gave an example of each one, some of which are so common they are open problems in remote sensing, and regularly exploited. The fact that you are so unfamiliar that you just deny them as being irrelevant, is entirely on you.
"Project Blue Book ..."
Sure, there is something of interest in recording UAP, just like any other data. This does not produce any credible theories about them corresponding to the data. In fact essentially every report I've read can be summarised as "we can't determine why we have this data", that's it.
"All of the experts"
You mean the people that agree with you and have decided are "all of the" experts?
So can you explain to me why "Q" is NOT the expert on internal politics, but the handful of organisations and witnesses are the experts even though you admit that their views aren't mainstream in science and can't refute any argument.
It's quite hilarious that you complain about this brother, when you are engaging in the same faulty reasoning to defend a conspiracy theory that you want to believe.
On a similar note, you don't seem to grant parapsychology the same level of credibility even though all the same arguments would lead to conclusions like telepathy actually being real.
External compression isn't exactly the normal mechanism of blood circulation.