This, and also: all the discoveries that don't immediately help solve our problems rarely make the news, or if they do we gloss over them and forget them immediately.
You're right on some, but I have to say that some of those are indeed common (instead reminding me that these things may not be common outside of Japan).
Including: the calculator on ATMs (at least Mitsui-Sumitomo ATMs usually have them), the all-in-one sink with soap, braille on top of cans (just checked my fridge and all alcoholic beverages have it), the paper in bubblegum boxes (always bothers me when I'm in Germany), that most restaurants (including fast food) try to make the dish look like the ad, and reading glasses at city hall.
I'm not opposed to fasting, but many things are wrong with this. Just to point out a few:
(1) A general "naturalistic fallacy" where the author believes that people of the past must have been more healthy.
(2) I assumption that there is an increase of cancer in modern age solely because of humans change of diet - ignoring factors such as environmental pollution, ozone depletion, increase in radioactive particles from weapons testing and accidents...
(3) Assuming that a change in mean is brought about by changes in every individual to the same degree. Differences in the mean can be produced by just a subset, even a minority of outliers. Today, many people are overweight, which is known to increase all kinds of risks. So caloric restrictions applied to the whole society will always cause a rise in mean life expectancy. But that doesn't mean that it will have any benefits for the people who aren't overweight.
(4) Confuses brain size with brain function. I guess the author then must also believe that women are significantly more stupid then men. Also fails to explain that people can sometimes lose a big chunk of their brains and still perform well on tests.
Again, I'm not saying fasting is bad, but that the author just throws together some unrelated scientific studies with a bunch of common fallacies (and, it seems, bias towards his own lifestyle choices).
I think that's a pretty contrived "after-the-fact" explanation for why it's called "~punk", that reduces the whole of punk culture to just mean "rebellion".
But the truth is, just like every scandal is now called "~gate", new genres are just called "~punk" because it sounds good. Not because they have anything to do with punk culture.
Where is the "rebellion" in "steampunk" or "dieselpunk"?
Whether or not that's the case, they are not perceived as such. Europeans may be mistaken in believing Ukrainians just want temporary shelter and Syrians are coming to stay, but whether it's true or false doesn't matter. It's this belief that affects their attitude.