That's not a realistic worry. The gargantuan share of all trips is people to the office or stores. All of these cars are going to be sufficiently large to make all of those trips without need for repetition.

It's always the fittest who survive, you're just unhappy about who that turns out to be.

People do this. Most management decisions at my company are made with at least two, if not more, managers involved.

#2 is considered one of the main benefits of pair programming. You're making the other coder better, and the value of having two good programmers on staff in the long run is much more valuable than the delta in productivity due to pairing.

We make enterprise software for fortune 500 insurance companies using agile and pair programming, and we've delivered new versions year after year for a decade now.

Go google human centipede. I assume you just didn't get the reference.

Code reviews are out of context. By the time you execute one, the cost to make a change is potentially very high, and will incur resistance (/the temptation not to fix something because of the high cost of doing so). Pair programming catches those same issues at the time they are created, and offers the opportunity to fix said problems at a much lower cost. Code reviews also deal with a potentially unmanageably large batch of code. The reviewer can get tired, lose focus, etc, particularly since he's not invested in the development of the code.

Bottom line, there are all kinds of human factors going on there that 'be disciplined' can only fight to a minimal extent.

If you can make those decisions at design time, it's time to write a code generator.

As is getting pointed out all over the place, XP is more than just PP.

Seems like for work that you just need to knock out, you might be even better off offshoring, or at least hiring new grads instead of seniors.

I'd be very curious to know how you're measuring productivity. Our experience has been that pairing results in more than 200% productivity.

(For our definition of productivity, which includes the long-term maintenance effort on the resulting code).

No, implying that useful capital requires a minimum number of atoms to provide said lifestyle. There aren't enough atoms, no matter how you arrange them.

That's only because the brain doesn't remain pliable, and we're closing in on understanding how to fix that.

Want the really bad news? One human brain isn't big enough to know all there is to know.

There will have to be very few immortals for that to work, so you probably won't be one of them. Otherwise, there isn't enough capital to go around (and there never will be, at least on this planet).

There are portions of an airport that are more or less public. If he'd had a problem in the gift shop area, that would be one thing. But he was at the Delta gate before he had any issue. That's past the checkpoint, where your freedom to travel, for example, has already been severely restricted (no one allowed without a boarding pass). That's pretty clearly not public space anymore. And he still didn't get anything more serious than questions until he tried to board the plane, and that's private property plain and simple.