I coordinate an academic makerspace at a college.

Technically, you could say we're the ones who set since it's the Earth's rotation causing the change.

California also isn't an island, but it's named after a fictional island in a Spanish novel, and was once thought to be an island.

Die Another Day was meh, but I really didn't care for Skyfall and No Time to Die. The plots were too contingent on inorganic and out of character details. Q wouldn't be stupid enough to plug a USB drive into an MI6 networked device found on a known hacker supervillain. The convenience of the targeted DNA nanobots just magically being declared to have no solution without anyone doing any testing of theories was unbelievable and just revealed the obvious "we need to kill Bond in this one so come up with a reason for him to die nobly" pitch meeting pitch. It ruined the suspension of disbelief entirely. I feel like they just tried too hard to keep upping the stakes and outdo themselves that it just got ridiculous.

"The simple idea of a 13-month perennial calendar has been around since at least the middle of the 18th century. Versions of the idea differ mainly on how the months are named, and the treatment of the extra day in leap year."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Fixed_Calendar

Generally, no, but context and approach matter.

The ability to notice a flaw isn't the same as the skill, experience, and background that might be necessary to design a useful solution for a particular issue, especially complex issues. It's generally reasonable to say, "I don't know of a better solution, but I can predict that x and y problems will likely result from your proposed solution."

It's especially valid to warn someone when their proposed solution will harm people or make things worse. You don't have to have a better solution to try to prevent someone from doing something ill-conceived or hasty or reckless.

If the stakes are low or the person proposing a solution is likely to be sensitive to criticism, it might work better to try to approach your response as an attempt to help them refine their solution, rather than just opposing it outright. Be considerate of their feelings and make it clear you're working together.

The easiest answer is that the plot and themes required it. The same way horror movie victims do stupid things like splitting up or checking on noises in a dark basement. It's necessary to advance the plot or maintain the status quo of the character relationships. Mulder needed a foil to his eagerness to embrace aliens and conspiracies as the explanation.

A handheld time machine

No, I read yesterday (Lightning McQueen) as juxtaposed with today (Thomas the Tank Engine), as if you were implying that Lightning McQueen predated Thomas the Tank Engine and TTTE was a newish show.

You have it backwards. It actually used to be the standard.

"Until the 18th century, the apostrophe was extensively used to indicate plural forms. Its use for indicating plural "possessive" forms was not standard before the middle of the 19th century."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apostrophe

But in language, generally, usage can alter standards, so you may see a shift of grammarians saying it's acceptable if enough people see it as valid.

Bled Zeppelin, and they would open a dining establishment with their quest rewards called the Bard Rock Cafe.

You were excited to get email because it was almost always from a human being who put meaning and intent into their message. It was like getting a handwritten letter compared to all the random terms of service update emails from a service you haven't used in four years and emails from a service you didn't sign up for because someone else thinks your email address is their email address and the outright spam in the filter.