OK, two things:
1. Stadler can read this first part if he so chooses, because no spoilers in this first paragraph. I view the questions you posted as "nitpicking" because...well, because that's my opinion of what you posted, that's all. Most of those are simply unanswered questions. But none of them do anything to somehow make the film of any lesser quality. You are certainly entitled to feel that they are more than that. And you are certainly entitled to not like the film because of that. But to feel that anyone who disagrees must somehow lack your mental faculties or level of discernment is pretty rude and pretentious. But no need to beat a dead horse on that.
Many of the issues you raise are simply unanswered questions. Yeah, you and others might find it unsatisfactory that some questions are not answered. But most of those just aren't a big deal to me, and I don't see them as a reason to criticize the film. It's kind of like getting wound up over a particular unnamed beach goer in Jaws, and criticizing the film because certain questions about that person aren't answered. "But WHY was the woman in the blue jacket on the beach to begin with? Why was she wearing a jacket if she was at the beach in the first place? That makes no sense to me whatsoever! And what is her story? Why doesn't she have a name in the end credits? She is clearly important or she wouldn't have been in the film, so why isn't her back story explored at all?" If someone has a burning desire to know the answers to those questions, and no knowing has an impact on their enjoyment of the film, so be it. But those questions aren't important to me and do not impact MY enjoyment of the film.
2. SPOILERS BELOW! Too many points to use tiny font, so just avert your eyes from the rest of this post if you haven't seen the film yet! You've been warned!
Keep in mind this guy also literally said Rise of Skywalker has no flaws, so either he's got blinders on or his ability to critically think has taken a beating.
Not sure I follow.
Explain C3PO's Sith block. Why on earth would Anakin include that as a little kid? HOW, even, would he program him with that information?
Are you asking ME to explain it, or expressing that there is no explanation? If the former, I can't. There was no explanation given, so how could I? It wasn't explained, but I also don't feel like we, the audience,
needed it to be explained. See my "unanswered questions" point above. If it bothers you that it wasn't explored or explained, that's cool. The film makers did not see fit to provide an answer, and at least some in the audience, myself included, do not feel that one is needed. If I were to dwell on it and posit possible explanations myself, a few come to mind. But as a preliminary point, none of them
necessitate that Anakin provided that programming. He was put forth as someone who was adept at
building, not necessarily programming. I never really put any thought into
how he would have programmed C3PO. But if I had to go back and retroactively speculate, I would assume that he put the parts together, and the protocol droid processor had all the intricate layers of 3PO's programming already installed (or maybe he got a chip or a download after the fact or something), and then he just custom tweaked a few basic things to make 3PO "his." I dunno. Truth be told, I think the whole plot point of Anakin building 3PO was kinda dumb to begin with. But that is a
prequel problem that the SW universe is stuck with now. But in any case, that particular protocol seems like it would logically have been one little bit of programming that came as part of the "protocol droid software package" that would have been installed at some point (whether initially, or a later "software package upgrade," or after his memory was wiped, or whenever), and not something Anakin would have had any reason to custom install.
Why does the Sith dagger magically fit the wreckage of the Death Star, from that very convenient specific location, like an Indiana Jones fanfic?
See "unanswered questions" above. No biggie. And, again, my answer is: I don't know, and don't really care. My speculation, if I felt the need to speculate, is that either (1) [seems to me more likely] the dagger was created, or at least modified to also serve as a map to the wayfinder,
after the Battle of Endor and thus
after the wreckage found its way there. Or (2) the force guided its past creator to make it a certain shape because it would correspond to that future wreckage and play a part in the series of events the force was guiding to happen. But again, I don't really need to know the answer to that. It doesn't impact my ability to enjoy the film. And I'm going to stop repeating that now, because it applies to all of these points.
Why do they act like flying Storm Troopers is something new?
Because...from what we've seen in the SW films up to this point, storm troopers using jet packs (or, at least, that type of jet pack)
is something new. Why is that, of all things, a problem? I don't understand.
What purpose did Finn serve in this film?
What do you mean by that? There are a lot of different directions to go with that, and I'm not sure I want to speculate about what you mean and write a treatise that I don't have time to write. Suffice to say that, if he didn't play the role you thought he should have, so what? If he was underdeveloped and "wasted" as a character given the potential they set up in earlier films, then yeah, kind of a bummer. But, again, so what? Why is that a HUGE problem vs. a mere annoyance that a character you like or think should have been developed a certain way wasn't?
Where did they set up Palpatine's connections to this trilogy in the other two films?
They didn't. At least, not directly. Again, why is that a major issue? They didn't set up in IV or V that Ewoks would have a connection to the OT prior to them magically appearing on the scene in ep. VI either. That's just how things work. Yes, this is perhaps more of an issue, because many feel that it was not decided on until after ep. VIII, and they are bothered that such a major plot point was not already decided upon by Kathleen Kennedy or others when they were mapping out the whole thing. Maybe that's true. Maybe they DID decide on that, or were at least leaning that direction earlier, but didn't want to even give the slightest hint beforehand. I can't say. But I also don't really
need for that to have been the case to enjoy this film or any of the ones that preceded it.
What was the point of introducing Zorii Bliss, who served zero purpose in this film?
Well, I think your point isn't that she served "zero" purpose, because she obviously served as a plot device. I think your point is that her purpose was so minor that we didn't need a new character to do anything she did, and that it could have been anybody. That's a completely fair point. She didn't need to exist as a character. But, again, so what? Neither did Blue Jacket Beachgoer in Jaws. And on and on. So what? Yeah, as a creative decision, in retrospect, the film could have been trimmed down and been more streamlined and had less distractions if a
different creative decision had been made. But at the end of the day, again, that's just a creative decision that arguably might have been done better. You don't like it. Some do. Some don't care one way or the other. So what? How is any one of those opinions somehow superior to another?
How did everybody on the Resistance's side make it to Exogol and back when it was shown to be a massive PITA getting there in the first place?
Dunno. See "unanswered questions" above. I think it was kind of implied that when they sent out the "we need everybody to come and fight" message, they sent it with instructions on where to go and how to get there, which were derived from the wayfinder. Or something like that.
Why is the Death Star wreckage even there after we all saw it vaporized?
Because, although not believable given what the explosion looked like, it served a plot purpose and they expect us to suspend our belief somewhat.
Yeah, that may be a bit of a cop out. But films, whether Star Wars or not, ask us to make those sort of suspensions of belief all the time. If that leap was too big for some, I get it. But it seems like a relatively minor one in comparison to others the SW films have asked the audience to make. Honestly, expecting wreckage of something THAT large to end up on nearby moons after it was blown up seems a lot LESS of a stretch than, say, humans and human-sized aliens having developed on COUNTLESS worlds throughout a galaxy. At some point, you have to either accept these kinds of things or just admit that this genre of films isn't for you.
Kind of a related point: To me, if anything, viewing parts of the wreckage being on nearby moons of the same planet as a "flaw" is less a flaw
in Rise of Skywalker as it is simply making us retroactively understanding that there was a flaw
in Return of the Jedi for having it look like the reactor exploding would have completely vaporized all parts of that gigantic space station in the first place. But, again, I'm willing to overlook that. Those kinds of things are just inherent in this type of film and you either roll with it or you don't.
Why bring back a character who had no reason to be back if not because they had no idea where they were going with this trilogy's story?
I'm not sure I understand. Are you talking about Palpatine, or something else? If Palpatine, didn't we already address that point above? Or am I missing something?
EDIT: Well, shoot, others posted while I was typing that, so apologies for any duplication if others have said anything I am now saying.