In terms of the "I don't speak the language and need to get where I'm going/eat/not die" we're pretty much there. In terms of the scifi "I can carry on a totally normal conversation with someone because of this fancy schmancy universal translator", that will likely never exist. Basic sentence structure means that you're always going to be a full sentence behind and it would make most social interactions pretty irritating.

The point is a robot that does basic household tasks slowly is possible, at least in the somewhat foreseeable future and has a reasonable use case for early adopters, even if it does cost in the five figures. Think about how many households own a second car just to make somebody’s commute shorter. Time is really valuable.

That's just it though, a robot that is fast enough and flexible enough to cook in a household kitchen can likely do everything else pretty effectively too. Low level household chores, done slowly, is something we're getting close to actually accomplishing.

One advantage household robots have over a lot of other automated technologies is that they do not need to be fast or particularly efficient at their jobs. People work for roughly 8 hours a day working and sleep for roughly 8 hours a day, a robot might have a total of 16 hours in which to do maybe one to two hours of household chores. I think a lot of people would pay significant amount of money for robot that straightens up, folds some laundry, dusts, and unloads the dishwasher. Maybe puts away the groceries too. None of these have to be done especially quickly either.

Depending on exactly how the process works, the ability to treat a lot of degenerative diseases fairly simply and presumably fewer beds required for long term care, the economics of life extension might work out as a net positive. Dying is expensive, so if you largely eliminate that cost it can change things and the current “cure aging in mice” research looks to be a fairly simple process that may scale quite well.

Hydrogen may still see more widespread adoption, but definitely not in the next five years. As for trucks, they tend to rely on more centralized infrastructure and have a better use case for hydrogen over batteries (energy density).

1. "Elon..." Sure, that seems likely. He's seems to have gone off the rails recently and Tesla's stock price is pretty inflated.
2. "Moon base..." I doubt this. Russia isn't in much of a position to invest in it's space program and is generally a liability in terms of international partnerships. China may try, but it would likely take longer than 5 years.
3. "Hydrogen..." Definitely not. Hydrogen infrastructure is expensive and complex, EV technology (for cars) has already covered almost every use-case in terms of range and performance and the infrastructure is developing rapidly. Hydrogen for truck traffic is entirely possible though.
4. "10-1 EV to ICE" BYD is already partnered with Toyota so Toyota will probably survive but more importantly BYD isn't even close to the scale required to dominate the auto industry. I'm sure they will move quickly in the next five years, but not to that extent. 10-1 EV to ICE sales will probably be achieved in markets with significant subsidies (Norway is almost there, if you include plug in hybrids).
5. "Flu" I guess? That said, H5N1 is well researched and already in the influenza vaccine mix so while its a major risk, it's probably not in the "millions dead" level of pandemics. (There have been a few influenza pandemics in the ~1 million range)
6. "Earthquakes" Japan isn't high on my list of potential collapses. That said, a major series of earthquake could bring that about. It would also bring a significant international response in terms of aid before the unrest got too bad. That generally means a major military presence, often the US (Helicopter Carriers are great humanitarian aid vessels). The US who has a mutual defense treaty with Japan that explicitly includes the Senkaku islands. It would be a very bold move.

Can I buy you a drink? Perhaps a glass of grain alcohol and rain water?

As a serious answer, absolutely no one knows. It can be a useful thought exercise but it is rarely if ever accurate beyond a few decades, if that.

Fair, the operations were profitable regardless of how it came to be that way, but that doesn't say much looking forward. If any of the companies claiming to be working on a new SST actually produce and sell one in meaningful quantities, I will eat my hat (right after I buy one).

They didn't just not pay the development costs, BA bought the program from the UK government for pennies on the dollar (pound, I guess).

The Concorde was profitable to operate, but that’s at least partially because the airlines did not pay a realistic price for the airframe.