"If you want to make a joke about all the guys who are total idiots, and"
As I've said before, there is no excuse for the so-called 'Oxford' comma — it is a sign of illiteracy and should be discouraged in favour of educating people in the use of the semicolon after having re-written their paragraph-long run-on sentence (or sub/clause), such that it is now a well-formed piece of language instead of the linguistic equivalent of not so much an infinite number of monkeys armed with an infinite number of typewriters, endless supplies of paper and ribbons (and the technical support staff necessary to introduce them into the process as, and when, necessary) as of that of the efforts, insofar as they might be so termed, of two monkeys with one typewriter for ten minutes.
If you find yourself in need of a so-called ‘Oxford comma’ it’s because you need to phrase your poorly constructed sentence properly in the first place, not bodge it up with some half-arsed attempt to polish a turd.
"and yes,"
If the 'yes/no' is parenthetical (as it is here) then, as well as being succeeded by a comma, it must be preceded by one.
"there is no amount of total idiots. There are a number of total idiots."
Although 'impactful', the use of active language is no longer de rigeur; the 1980s are long past and it has since been recognised that audiences are not necessarily best served by the approach — the tabloid press may find it expedient to cater for a reading age of eight years old and younger but, not only is it stylistically impoverished, it does nothing to educate by example and your less able readership does not improve its comprehension and literacy skills as a result, condemning you to write, ever after, in the style of the lowest common denominator of forty years ago; never progressing yourself. The same can be better said with fewer words and, furthermore, without unnecessarily splitting one idea into two.
Moreover, and with reference to your previous remark about the overly liberal use of parentheses, (N.B. the previous subclause is an example of the parenthetical use of 'and', not an Oxford comma), the use of commas in lieu of brackets does not mean there are fewer parentheses in a particular construction and, when they aid legibility, the latter are to be preferred to rendering what becomes an effectively run-on sentence with innumerable commas that hinder comprehension.
Finally, 'number' is singular: "There is a number of", not "There are a number of".
This section would be better written as:
"If you want to make a joke about all the guys who are total idiots (and, yes, they are legion), whilst there is a number of total idiots, there is no amount of total idiots."
Number being singular, somewhat ironically, renders your observation re there being no amount of total idiots grammatically incorrect (if there is a number then there is, and can only be, an amount as well) and my advice would be to rephrase things to convey the same educational point with a different example (as you subsequently did with water, raindrops, humanity and people).
"Much as I might want to I can't correct such problems for you, I won't. I am too busy uncurling my toenails."
You seem to have mixed two ideas up here.
You missed the trailing parenthetical comma after the 'to' (it should read "Much as I might want to, [...]").
Once that has been corrected, your options are as follows.
1. a full stop ('period') after "for you" and a semicolon, or a hyphen (it's your choice), after "you" and "won't".
Either "Much as I might want to, I can't correct such problems for you — I won't; I am too busy uncurling my toenails."
... or "Much as I might want to, I can't correct such problems for you; I won't — I am too busy uncurling my toenails."
Alternatively, you need to excise either the"'I can't", making it "Much as I might want to correct such problems for you, I won't — I am too busy uncurling my toenails."
... or the "I won't”, with the resultant phrasing being "Much as I might want to, I can't correct such problems for you; I am too busy uncurling my toenails."
Naturally, the "can't" is strictly incorrect, because, actually, you could; you'd just prefer to uncurl your toenails. This is the same as the criticism of the use of 'can' in lieu of 'may' when making a request: yes, you can get a cup of coffee with that, but you're not going to, because you may not.
Okay, I get it; exaggeration literally makes you figuratively mad! What is the youth of today going to do when it runs out of the last totally awesome vestige of hyperbole that has any remaining impact? One way to reign in U.S. teenagers would be to treat hyperbole as a finite resource and tax it appropriately.
But ...
Only the person using it can decide whether their experience of something was truly awe inspiring and, if something is awesome then people should be at liberty to say so.
" ¹ If that link doesn't work you are using the phone app."
You need the parenthetical comma to mark the boundary between the main and sub clauses:
" ¹ If that link doesn't work, you are using the phone app."
If unsure of whether a comma is appropriate, ask yourself if you could replace ti with "then" without transforming the sentence into gobbledigook.
e.g. "If, when running, you stumble, you might twist your ankle" does not meaningfully translate into "If then when running then you stumble", but "If that link doesn't work, you are using the phone app" does successfully translate into "If that link doesn't work then you are using the phone app."
Okay, this has been a fun, tongue-in-cheek exercise and you shouldn't take it as criticism in any way (you know I agree with your points) but, hopefully, it will enhance your readers' linguistic efforts even further nevertheless — learning can be fun and humourous, after all.
[More grammar-Nazism and linguistic pedantry]
