Mann will sue your ass off, an innovation he has personally added to the scientific method.

Mann didn't sue anyone for hurting his feelings, or claiming he was wrong - he sued them for claiming, very explicitly, that he had committed fraud, and for calling him "the Jerry Sandusky of climate science".

Work harder! Millions of Americans depend on YOU!

Sure... in exactly the same way, and to the same degree, that I depend on them. Actually, I may depend on them slightly more, since they provide a disincentive against foreign countries just laying claim to my home. But otherwise, great point.

Regression? What the hell is that??? Everybody attack!!!

The problem with voting is the same as the problem with Facebook: It doesn't capture dislikes. The majority of voters who liked a candidate in 2004 may have liked Bush, but maybe more people disliked him than liked him. Capturing dislike would allow people to go to the polls and register their displeasure with the candidate(s) offered, even if they don't like either of the choices. If someone can't exceed the number of dislikes with likes, then they probably shouldn't hold office, regardless of whether or not they have the most likes in absolute terms.

It's how we operate. We all know that overeating is bad for us -- down the road, but does that stop us? No. It takes a heart attack that we (hopefully) survive, or that of a loved one to make us change. We don't change behaviors just because we know we should, or demand change that we know is good for us. It takes a crisis.

Once these technologies are abused wholesale, then we'll see change. Until then, I wouldn't hold my breath.

Because we affect what they want. There is no a-priori desire for Happy Meals. Surprise! -- after genetics, we're all an effect of our environments.

"fathers encourage young women to study CS more than mothers"

In other words, *women* don't want to be programmers. But we already knew that because there is no grand conspiracy keeping them out of the field. The reason this is a "problem" is because there's money on the table. Nobody cares that garbage collectors are almost entirely men, or that daycare providers are almost entirely women. Nobody is shocked that most men would -- quite literally -- rather pick up other people's dirty diapers than deal with children all day, or vice versa. It's not a crisis that men don't want to go shoe shopping. But somehow it's a crisis that women don't want to stare at screens making sure implementations conform to interfaces and creating custom data structures.

It's probably safe to assume that the CIA doesn't have an interest in furthering China's political agenda.

Not necessarily.
Pay may be part of it. However there are other motivations. The degree of artistic control, Sometime a fancier title means you get more say on your ideas. Creative types are known to take positions for less pay where they have more control of their work.
Inclusions at the C level meetings. Sure meeting are boring, and most of us really don't want to be there. But it is sometimes nicer to get the information before it becomes a surprise, and have the power to shoot down stupid ideas earlier.
Sure Apple is a huge player. But Google may want Ives, or Samsung, or Sony. Perhaps some little known startup company will get him.

My view is they should split up the infrastructure and the content providers.

Perhaps the municipal governments having control of the infrastructure, and we can have a choice of ISPs and other content providers.

"Publish or Perish", Degrees that require new original ideas, Strict hierarchy structure...
Academic institutions are culturally stuck in victorian times. So if you want to work up, get the choice projects and research, you need to publish. The more your publish, the higher the chances you will move up. Because there is so much published material, people don't read it much, so they found that they can get credit for half ass work.
Your name becomes your brand, so when you try to get a grant your name+institution you will work for will get you the grant money.
There isn't any reason why Say State University of New York Buffalo can't get a grant to study seismology, but chances are it will go to University of California Berkeley not because they will do a better job, but because of the name.
Finally institutions haven't learned how to deal with today's political climate with the attempt for breaking news. Every Hypothesis is sold to the public as a new Theory... Then if that Hypothesis is shown false (as it is common in science) then the media who may have a political slant will go and say see Science is Wrong again, just like our political stance has predicted!

Science for the most part is quite work, collaborating with like minded people, with checks and balances to try to filter out strong egos. But it has gone commercial so these checks and balances are weaken as strong egos will win out.

They did it in Argo.. why not make a company with irresistible tech that makes everyone give the company their secrets

well, I guess that's one reason why Facebook exists at all.

or Directors of Diversity and Inclusivity.

Which is maybe why girls are studying English Lit instead of STEM courses - why work hard when you can spout a load of bull from a cosy office and get paid far more?!

They always said girls were more intelligent than boys, if they've seen the way the world works and are exploiting it while the boys are shouting "your code is teh sux0r, n00b" at each other, its probably true

That'll have been Babbage. Turns out Ada wasn't the first programmer, but the first computer operator, feeding in programs Babbage wrote.

Still, so what - Babbage was a truly great man, we shouldn't denigrate his position in history just because he didn't have boobies and some people today want to rewrite history to suit their own newthink.