OK, done, but I'm expanding the quote because I think it has additional relevance:

I see nothing in there that, in itself, rules out MACHOs causing the observed gravitational lensing of the Bullet Cluster; the limits he references only rule them out in because MACHOs are expected to be homogeneously distributed at large scales, which he treats as implicit, without stating. Now we can pinpoint the other 75% of the universe, the dark energy that should be homogeneously distributed at large scales. It's necessary for observed expansion acceleration at great distances because large masses can't be causing it since the universe should be homogeneously distributed at large scales. Can you spot the established principle all of that logic deliberately avoids re-evaluating? Again, I'm not saying that principle is invalid, just that there might be cause to re-examine it. That's not my main point here (though it's a consequence of my overarching one in this thread).

That the article doesn't tackle MACHOs directly isn't my main point here either, but what it DOES tackle instead. The sections I bolded above, as the others I bolded below, unequivocally state exotic dark matters existence as a fact observations of the Bullet Cluster prove. Dr. Carroll takes pains to make clear he's saying that; he explicitly says some form of MOND might still be valid, but that exotic dark matter is a fact and reality regardless. His use of words like "definitely" and "confirms" isn't figurative and doesn't come with attached qualifiers; when he says, "we have established beyond reasonable doubt that we need a substantial amount of dark matter to explain cosmological dynamics" that's just what he means. In my very humble opinion, I don't think the case has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, only by a preponderance of evidence. MACHOs may have to sell their Heisman and give exotic dark matter the profit, but no death penalty.

I wish I were as confident that's all he's saying, but his language reads more like those hypersensational publicists you (rightly) disparage than a cautious methodical researcher. In fact, it reads like the very thing about which I remain concerned despite your assurances that it's now rare to the point of being negligible: Someone who, rather than diligently collecting and analyzing all the data to determine what it says, has relentless sought out the specific data that "confirms... beyond reasonable doubt that we need a substantial amount of dark matter to explain cosmological dynamics". That sounds like fitting data, or in this case datum, to ones curve; a single point makes a lousy curve. He doesn't say there remain things we don't know, explicitly says the opposite, but he DOES say exotic dark matter is something we DO "know" as certainly as anything can be known. I simply can't agree with that; exotic dark matter is not, in my admittedly non-professional opinion, established on the same level as, say, the Laws of Thermodynamics, or wave/particle duality. It's probably valid, and you HAVE convinced me that's the way I'd bet if pressed, but I don't consider it the fact that he does.

That is indeed the rub; I don't think the probability is near enough to 100% yet for me to treat it as equal. If you (or Dr. Carroll) want to say exotic dark matter is 95±5% certain, I won't argue with that, but 100% is too much for me at present.