I realize where you are coming from. And those examples are largely true. But it could be argued that some even much of that could be accomplished with CM. That is, despite the claims, some/much does not *require* QM.
For instance, semiconducters I've read, do not. But only a certain aspect of some of them -- a gateway. (I'm obviously foggy, I'll try to find it.)
It's clear there is hyperbole at work in some of your quotes. Such as "Even the light entering your eye from this computer screen requires quantum mechanics to understand!"
In fact, some (like Einstein) would even claim that QM keeps you from "understanding" such things, since "the quanta are a mess."
But even accepting all of those instances as fact, arguendo, my point still stands. And again, I was originally talking about relativity (this thread is about Einstein versus Newton) not QM. And I did say that things were quickly changing.
Even so, the overwhelming vast majority of things being done/made using applied physics can be (and are done) by using Classical Mechanics as opposed to QM.
Since QM subsumes CM, you could say it is still involved. But my point is that they do not *require* QM.
Fair enough. :-)
(However, I use QM and relativity in my field so I am prob a bit biased here :-))