Agreed

I used KMC for years since they were cheap. Stopped that a few years ago when the Friction Facts reports came out showing they were slow. Went exclusively Shimano for a while, with good success (drivetrain is Shimano except for Quarq PM). Started using Wipperman sometimes last year because I got some for a good price, but they don't seem quite as smooth or quiet as the Shimano chains. Found a YBN for pretty cheap, so going to try that as soon as my current chain wears out.

Does Shimano use a quick link yet? Or do they work perfectly with quick links from KMC or Wipperman?

Yes and yes. The new ones have one, and they also work fine with those two brands. I have not tried other brands' quick links (e.g., SRAM, YBN).

Thanks. That explains the low number of hours compared to what I get.

I usually use Campy chains but I tried a YBN when Molten Speed Wax was suggesting them. I rode one on my TT bike for a season. This winter I got out a new chain and waxed it to replace the YBN. When I laid them both on the floor to measure the length, I couldn't see ANY difference in length over the 100+links. I have never had that happen before. I was so impressed with the YBN that I got a second one for my Campy road bike. I can't tell any difference in shift quality and I kinda like the gold finish.

Nice! I've got one on order, hope my experience is as good as yours.

You need to include more data. Power and force are different things. One cannot be considered equivalent to the other without stating some assumptions.

....Okay, I was curious so I had a quick look at the article and that comment.
I haven't had a chance to watch the video and maybe there's more info there, but on a quick read of the text, I didn't see anything stating the 600N load mentioned was describing pedal force. Does it say this somewhere? Frankly that would seem odd in a chain test. A load on the chain and a chain velocity would be far more sensible IMO.

Anyway, that commenter took it as pedal force and assumed constant pedal force and a cadence of 90rpm to come up with:
"~960 – 990 watts for most crank arm lengths"

He clearly used crank lengths of 170mm (would give 961.3W) and 175mm (would give 989.6W) for his calculations. That would be fine IF 600N was a constant pedal force, IF 90rpm was reasonable, and IF those crank lengths were appropriate. I have no major problem with the crank lengths, 90rpm seems very low for the high power levels he's finding, but as I said I'm not so sure 600N is pedal force and even if it was, it's not going to be representative of a real cyclist since in a real case pedal force is far from constant.

If the 600N value corresponds to chain load rather than pedal force, the calculation is invalid. Chain load would be considerably higher than combined pedal force at any given moment, unless your chainring diameter is similar to or bigger than, your crank length - not something I've ever seen on a conventional bike.