Boost is very relevant to the language's standard library, as it is the research ground for features that eventually end up in ISO C++ standard library.
Should we go through the ISO C++ features that were born in Boost?
Boost is an external library and it is known for its overly complex templates and long compile times. It isn't part of C++. The features that were adopted from being tested in boost do not have the same dependency problems. Your initial criticisms didn't hold, now you are trying to criticize external libraries as a failing if the language. Maybe you just want to criticize c++ with anything you can think of, no matter how ridiculous.
Ironically there are probably an endless streams of criticisms that could be lobbed at it, but everything you've mentioned are things that just aren't problems in practice.
This is a logical fallacy called appeal to authority. There is no resume that magically makes the stuff you are saying true. It's bizarre that you would say something like that, as if you don't want to explain or walk back what you are saying and think that you can just state that you are an authority.
Should we go through the ISO C++ features that were born in Boost?