Questioners are expected to do a minimal amount of homework before asking their questions. One aspect of that homework is to find the purpose of the element of the StackExchange network where the question is being asked, and whether the question they want to ask fits in that framework.
Another aspect of what is appropriate to ask is that questions should ideally ask for answers that are neither too short nor too long. A question for which the correct answer is a simple "yes" or "no" is not an appropriate question for any element of the StackExchange network. At the other extreme, a question that asks for a book to be written also is not an appropriate appropriate question for any element of the StackExchange network. Those of us who do answer questions are not paid to do so, and we are not going to write a book for free.
The question about neutrinos posits that "neutrinos are crucial to space exploration". No, they are not. The questioner was conflating "space exploration" and "astronomy". A tiny, tiny bit of homework by the questioner would have led the questioner to What topics can I ask about here?, which says that "Space Exploration is primarily about spacecraft, how to send them to space, and their functions there."
This question was anything but fine. It was off-topic and overly broad. To make matters worse, the question very explicitly broadened out from the initial premise and asked us to write a book, multiple books in fact. This was about as far from a fine question as could be. I'm surprised that it received as few downvotes as it did.
The question about Starship flex during the flop maneuver was definitely on-topic. This question however inadvertently ran into a pair of issues that are somewhat unique to this site, dual use technology and intellectual property.
Regarding dual use technology, the USA has the convoluted concepts of International Traffic in Arms Regulations (ITAR), Export Administration Regulations (EAR), and Foreign Trade Regulations (FTR). One key aspect of these regulations is that anything that can improve non-military launch vehicles can also improve military launch vehicles, and that includes launch capabilities of countries that are potential enemies of the US. Flex, along with the somewhat related concept of slosh, resulted in a number of launch mishaps in the early days of rocketry. Instructing foreign countries how to avoid those mishaps is not a good thing in the eyes of the Department of Defense or the Department of State.
Regarding intellectual property, every launch vehicle manufacturer with any credibility whatsoever will necessarily have done lots and lot of analyses regarding flex and slosh. (SpaceX definitely qualifies as a launch vehicle manufacturer with any credibility whatsoever. They have lots of cred.) While SpaceX sometimes views ITAR, EAR, and FTR as absolutely annoying nonsense, it has a different view regarding the intellectual property that it has spent hundreds of millions of dollars to develop. The question of interest asks for data that SpaceX would almost certainly deem to be essential intellectual property. Anyone who could answer this question would be fired, at a minimum. Being sued for every inch of their net worth is a possible outcome. There is no way that this question of interest will receive a definitive answer.