> Typically we think of "speed" as observed from outside the moving

Is it? We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution.

This isn’t a Star Trek warp drive. But dismissing it as “hardly a warp drive” seems categorically wrong.

> We don’t colloquially consider the Earth’s rotation or revolution.

Wasn't this choice of reference frame the basis for that whole drama with Galileo, or am I misunderstanding?

We discovered a couple of centuries later that there's more than one reference frame, you can choose, and the choice matters. It's been a pretty interesting development!

Sub luminal speeds are in an entirely different category than super luminal speeds. It's hard to overstate how different it is, so the original objection is completely appropriate. You can argue about the wording, but what's the point in that? Everyone with half a brain agrees on the facts.

I don't recall having considered this point before, though granted I will call half a brain a good day.