Yes, it is.

A lot of the mindblowing stuff (serialized arcs) is humdrum these days, but they were genuinely executing a lot of fantastic stories on a week-to-week basis. You'll be surprised at how good a lot of the episodes are, and by season 3 or four the black comedy elements are building and the Twin Peaks vibe start to rise. You'll probably end up looking forward to the monster-of-the-week episodes, and you should pay attention to the episode writers, you'll start developing favorite writers.

Additionally, the rapid onset of negative health outcomes was because individuals had been HIV positive for much longer than a clinical definition for HIV positivity was developed. Treatment has improved, but for the early days of the AIDS epidemic there were people who had HIV for years before there was an official diagnosis, so the rate of time from diagnosis to death/disabling symptoms appeared shorter. Now HIV testing is part of established STI screenings, so there's (on average) less time for the virus to inhabit a person before diagnosis.

I'm working on the operating theory that Santa is not primarily a physical phenomenon, as the energy expenditure from his travel should have significant effects on atmospheric conditions as yet unseen, and so the radar trace monitored by NORAD is a distraction. An adjustment of Santa's EW capabilities evolving in lockstep with the development of sensor technology would, given Claus's clear advantage in technological development, be supportive of such a counter intelligence strategy. If I had to guess, there has been no relative change in sensor signal responses from Santa over the period of this tracking program.

What are your plans for adjusting to evolution in sensor defeating technologies deployed by Santa? Are reports of his radar cross section reducing each year accurate? Has there been any success in drone deployed IRST assets to determine the efficiency of Claus's propulsion system?

I'm sympathetic to this interpretation, and I agree that human experience is centered too often when dealing with these kinds of notions. The trouble is that causality is necessary for any and all science, including the science that's leading you to doubt causality. The nice thing about experiment is that it can allow you to get out of the human experience.

So there's no experimental results to clarify what's going on with quantum mechanics and gravity, but we've also never seen anything travel faster than the speed of light. It has never been observed, ever. Every time we think there's an FTL phenomenon, it turns out to not be FTL. Energy levels are vastly higher in cosmological situations, so it stands to reason that FTL, if possible, would occur in nature. While absence of evidence is not proof of absence, it informs theories. Likewise, proving a negative is difficult or impossible.

The real problem with FTL are the implications it has for the rest of physics. There's a saying: "FTL, relativity, causality, pick two." Built into the logic of relativity is the idea that <c is the maximum velocity for anything with mass, =c for massless particles and >c for negative mass. It's unclear if negative mass is physically meaningful, it has also never been observed.

More than that, built into the logic and math of relativity is the idea that information can only travel at speeds less than c; there are a number of situations in relativity that can arise with superluminal travel that would undermine causality completely; even at near c, time dilation will never alter the order of events, causes will never follow effects and information can never arrive at a listener before the speaker says it.

Relativity is a very well researched and experimentally supported theory. It's only exceeded in predictive power and experimental agreement by quantum mechanics. But neither of them is anywhere near as important to science, logic and reason as cause and effect.

Basically, without proof of FTL that is ironclad, there's every reason to believe that all the rest of science is more accurate, because thre's no explicit experimental proof of FTL and the implications of FTL conflict with all other observations of basically everything.

tl;dr because of the implication

1. Gibson's particular prose style was revolutionary in genre fiction when it was introduced. Remember, the default in genre was 3rd person omniscient and American SF was not receptive to the New Wave that happened in Brit SF a decade earlier. It was a legitimate shock to average readers, introducing them to a lot of literary devices that were foreign to readers at the time, and that reputation stuck a bit.
2. Neuromancer actually marks a split in mainstream SF, especially in America, where "hard" becomes a more contentious label than before. For around 20 years, mainstream SF was predominantly "hard" science fiction in the tradition of Asimov and (to a lesser degree) Heinlein; it wasn't until the Cyberpunks started getting published that the "space ship story with elaborate physics" was challenged in genre publishing, after the New Wave failed to change American SF publishing in the late 60s and 70s.
3. Neuromancer was one of the first novel length products of the Cyberpunks. We don't really remember it now, but the Cyberpunks were a literary movement, with a manifesto and social network, a lot of editors and publishers, and an explicit goal of changing what was published in SF. In that context, the "difficulty" of Neuromancer was exaggerated in order to add literary cache to the movement as a whole.
4. So much of what was revolutionary in Neuromancer is now commonplace. The way Gibson builds worlds (with throwaway details that give a sense of lived in settings), the way he obscures parts of his narrative or leaves details out, the sociological layer added to SF and the removal of the "technobabble" that had come to dominate the genre are all common place now, part of the regular tool kit of SF. We're two, maybe three revolutions on in SF (Cyberpunk, New Space Opera, MFA science fiction), and Neuromancer has been a must read for every one of those waves, so it's DNA is basically like Genghis Khan's is in the real world: all over the place.

If you want to see what he's been up to lately, I think the Peripheral is his finest work since Count Zero, and melds his newer style of work with his more SFnal early stuff. I'm not a fan of the second book, but Peripheral is the purest distillation of what he adds to the genre as a whole, even decades later.