Watching Youtube videos can make us believe we understand a topic better, but that's not necessarily the case. And without a good understanding of that topic to begin with, it's hard to know why we're wrong.
Imagine watching a super compelling Youtube video explaining why dinosaurs never existed, and so you now think that's a credible hypothesis. You would probably know more facts about dinosaurs and paleontology than the average person, but I'd argue that your understanding of dinosaurs has actually gone down.
I see a similar thing happening here. You and Paul are able to cite lots of facts about Linoleic Acid. But there's a whole body of experimental human research showing that, if anything, LA-rich oils probably slightly improve insulin sensitivity, inflammation, lipids etc. But Paul either isn't aware of this or chooses not to show you because it contradicts his claims. So you're left with the wrong impression about LA and seed oils, despite thinking that your understanding has gone up.
Paul Saladino isn't a credible source of information or theories. He's a non-practicing psychiatrist and social media influencer who's gotten rich making contrarian videos and selling supplements.
I'm not following the point of this comment? TurboTax's correctness is battle-tested by millions of people every year- the odds of you making a mistake carrying over numbers by hand are way higher than TT making a calculation error.
Can we please keep these low-effort flames off of Hacker News? 1password is clearly offering value to somebody, as they have millions of users. Feel free to criticize it, but at least give specifics.