Damn, this is such a disingenuous take it's hard to believe.
Firstly, every fork produces two chains. Just because one chain has 90-95% support doesn't mean that other chain does not exist.
Secondly, the proposed soft fork is already agreed upon by every node because it's not adding new rules. That's kind of the point.
Thirdly, this project was not rushed. It has been talked about for going on three years now. Not only is the "this is rushed" narrative false, but also it has little bearing on such a small code change.
I don't care about BIP110, I think it's fine. Not good or bad, just fine. However, Mike here is pretty biased.
For example, saying Bitcoin Core takes a lot of time and does a lot of testing, yet activated Taproot, which allowed for inscriptions. Meanwhile saying that BIP110 is causing a problem. It basically makes Bitcoin like it was in 2022.
This is kind of the problem with having a non-technical person interview a technical person because the technical person can lie either directly or by omission and the other person can't call them out because they don't know any better.