Is there anything significant? I haven't looked that hard but I haven't really noticed anything substantial in that bit other than his potential solution of CEV and that seems to be the most dubious bit of the claims.

For me FOOM as advertised is dubious, so hard to tell. That doesn't change my point: it requires intelligence to prepare CEV arguments, but the fact of his support for FOOM scenario and his arguments break consistency of high quality of ideas for people like me. So, yes, there is a lot to respect him for, but nothing truly unique and "consistency of good ideas" is only there if you already agree with his ideas.

This won't do much to most people's daily decision making the same way that say the danger of confirmation bias or the planning fallacy would.

Well... It is way easier to concede that you don't understand other people than that you don't understand yourself. Freakonomics gives you a chance to understand why people do these strange things (spoiler: because it is their best move in the complex world with no overaching sanity enforcement). Seeing incentives is the easiest first step to make which many people haven't made yet. After you learn to see that actions are not what they seem, it is way better to admit that your decisions are also not what they seem.

As for planning fallacy... What do you want when there are often incentives to commit it?