I contend that these results are "often" irrelevant. I think this may be a case of survivorship bias. You point out examples in which the theorems are side-stepped, but the side stepping was gained after most of human history was finished. They are also still unsatisfactory to researchers (NP-P isn't even proven). There are combinatorially difficult problems everywhere. Everyday problems with relationships, jobs, business ideas, governing, are technically too hard and are pretty much trial and error. You mention humans being smart, which is true, but we ar...
I appreciate this idea. It happens way too much. I find it is an issue of confusion instead of discourtesy. Ideas become messy and unclear when expanded arbitrarily to a person's subjective tastes. Finding new terms for the intuitive extensions help with clarity.