Love the Hossenfelder reference (though she really needs to move to Bluesky...). That said, I'd love if someone could explain some physics to this noob:

If you jump out of a plane, at t=0 you'll not be moving (relative to the earth), at t=1 you'll be moving a bit (relative to the earth), and at t=2 you'll be moving even faster. How is that not acceleration? A quick wikipedia rabbit hole from "Accelerometer" --> "Inertial Reference Frame" --> "Fictitious Force" led me to this:

  A pseudo force does not arise from any physical interaction between two objects, such as electromagnetism or contact forces. It is just a consequence of the acceleration a of the physical object the non-inertial reference frame is connected to, i.e. the vehicle in this case. From the viewpoint of the respective accelerating frame, an acceleration of the inert object appears to be present, apparently requiring a "force" for this to have happened. 

They use the example of a passenger in an accelerating car, which makes sense. And there's some discussion of how the earth is rotating and thus has angular (?) acceleration, which also makes sense. I think this is what Hossenfelder is referencing by "the earth is accelerating you upwards". But the rotation discussion seems completely unrelated to gravity, no? An asteroid that isn't spinning would still exert gravitational (pseudo-)force, as all massive objects do of any size. Surely a person standing on a non-spinning asteroid in deep space isn't being accelerated upwards?

At the end of the day, I guess I'm missing why exactly "free fall" is the same thing as "no forces acting upon you". To my cynical arrogant brain, this reads like the physicists are harping on an unnecessary terminological thing, namely that a "force" is defined as "a physical interaction between two objects". In other words, its quantum bias, in the original sense of quantum; why can't objects interact with the continuous field of spacetime?

I'm commenting on your quote because her explanation especially "we have a machine with acceleration in the name, thus that's what acceleration is" set off a million alarm bells in my head, philosophically speaking!