Can't read past his first insipid table (Left biases, right biases), which is about as insightful as a C- undergrad humanities term paper from a community college student. I didn't know you qualified for a six figure income with that level of "education". What a country!
Humans are both inherently cooperative and inherently competitive. Disparities are natural, but justice does not exist in nature. And while some few conservatives might argue that all authority deserves respect, I would argue that many of them lost the right to that argument over the course of the previous two presidential terms. (In other words, almost nobody actually practices this so called belief.) Snore...

People who are highly specialized in their skill sets should learn to recognize that their intellect may be much more limited in other areas.

Well, we can't figure out how to get computers to think like humans, so let's see if we can train humans to think like computers... what could go wrong?

Whoever came up with that is as confused as an economist about how science works.

Of all the confusing and uninformative signs along the entire GWB, this is the one you fixate on? At least it tells you the correct direction to go in!

These numbers don't add up. The entire NSF budget (NSF is the primary federal source of funding for science research... individual state funding combined contribute around a third what the NSF does) for 2016 was just over 7 billion, with 6 billion of that for research. The allegation seems to be that about a third of that went to AWG research. I find the prospect that a third of their funds go to any single category difficult to believe without any evidence. (Reasonable minds may differ. Unreasonable minds believe whichever trending social media story best agrees with that they already think.)

By the way, I'm pretty sure the second largest source of federal funding for science comes from the NIH. They offer greater detail regarding their budget on their website. They spend about 7 million on climate change research each year.

This gets my vote for most inaccurate statement in a wikipedia article (and I'm sure there are plenty to choose from):
"In the United States, views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common in the biological sciences although controversial"

While it may be true that "views of race that see racial groups as defined genetically are common" among lay people and the uneducated, I would bet that you would have a hard time finding actual biologists with this view, and an even harder time finding geneticists. From a genetic perspective, the concept of race is meaningless.

Would you believe that there are actually some people (some of them who are men even) who think women can have value beyond being wives or girlfriends?

So he mocked able-bodied men and women's able-bodiedness? Please, provide evidence of this. Sounds like fake news to me.

Bringing up "abnormal" (your classification) humans is irrelevant to a discussion about someone who would fit that classification? If that's the way your mind works, I've got an abnormal classification for you, and a current DSM to back it up.

Well, you know what they say about military intelligence...

Ambassador appointments have a very long history of being handed to political insiders with questionable qualifications. Cabinet level positions are a completely different matter. Your point might be valid, but it would be better served by a less weak example.

Um, there have been 45 presidential elections which were bigger "landslides" than Trump's. 77% of past presidential elections had bigger margins. (Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...)

When you consider that Trump lost the popular vote by a relatively large margin, it is a huuuge stretch to call his election a landslide.

Aesthetics are subjective. In my opinion, Windows has been just plain uglier than the defaults in Gnome, KDE, and Unity for quite a number of years.

Also, I guess you don't count hanging, freezing, lost windows and dialog boxes, inconsistent or inaccessible user interfaces (try reinstalling the default photo viewer, or the calculator app in Windows 10) as rough edges. Windows is way behind on these also.

I am baffled why Americans believe that corporations have a "right" to a lower tax rate than individuals. After all, the Supreme Court has decided that they are persons, a position most corporations have supported.

I'm sorry to inform you that free markets are a human invention.

The belief that one should enforce the use of a human invention, without any attempt at improvement even when it leads to undesirable outcomes, strikes me as a rather shallow form of "thinking".

oh yes, and it should be "for whom".

I hate to be a grammar nazi, but you used the phrase "the people" to link to a statement made by a single person. "the person" would be more correct usage in this instance.