To avoid the 20% to 40% power loss when converting from DC to AC

...they're doing it wrong. DC to AC conversion is easily achieved in the high 90% range. For instance, a typical solar inverter is around 95% efficient. And you can do better, it just gets more expensive (although that's a one-time cost, whereas energy loss is a constant concern.)

Someone is pushing some other agenda here.

Sure. Did it to myself decades ago. Offspring of my genetic line aren't of the least bit of interest to me; perfectly happy raising kids of other birth who needed parents (5 so far, mostly excellent results.) Plus that whole "all the bareback sex with my SO we want, any time" thing is awesome.

Which, again, is just how I approach feline guardianship. Don't need new kittens from them. Plenty of kittens out there that need to own their own human.

I have seen some research if we had an Even number of ranks. It prevents people from getting lazy and giving straight average. Either it will be above average or below it.

If you are competing to be #1 there are two strategies.
Make sure you perform better than the rest.
Make sure the rest performs worse than you do.

If your goal is to be #1, the easier strategy will be the one taken.

If say the US is more focus on just advancing then being #1 then our efforts will be to build up other countries, and at the same time we will grow much further.

10 quid says the next mass extinction is the 1% purposefully "culling" the heard

So... if you stay quiet, you should be okay.

Health care system give too much power to the Doctors, and they get their hands into everything. They figure because they went to medical school they seem to be an expert on all thing. But because they are in such a position of power other non-clinical departments need to kiss up to them. We can get a 5 minute pitch to say why we may think it may be a bad idea (usually out of the blue as it becomes a surprise change) but if it technically can be done it will end up having to be implemented. And they want it now with no patients for testing, and way too cheap to setup a good testing environment.
Then we have issues because we were forced to implement a bad design, then it is a case those IT guys screwed up again! Even the fact it mostly worked is a near miracle that it even works.

We can have better and safer health care IT if the doctors shut up and take what we make for them. They can state there problems on the high level, but they will nitpick into a crap system.

Disrupt no, change yes and it always will. Globalization will also change it.
When they started to make drums they found a way to make music louder so it can be heard hundreds of meters away. So music changed.
Additional instruments created new sound so the singer wasn't always needed. Then we have forms where the singer emulates the sound of the instrument.
We get to the point were instruments can be fine tuned then music can be played as written allowing wider distribution of music.

Streaming will change music, being that the artist are not bound by media lengths. They can have a short 30 second song or a 3 hour long song.

Also the fact that music is now listen more privately over headphones, increases the music diversity, you don't need to feel guilty that after some heavy metal music you can switch to music theater without people looking at you funny.

Government is rather good at infrastructure. Companies are not so good at it. Why do you think Cable Companies are so bad in terms of customer support. Because they need to manage this infrastructure. That means they will keep the more profitable zones in better condition, or zones where they have some competition with. But in other areas where it is a profit loss zone, or they know customers don't have an alternative, they will just do the bare minimum. Government infrastructure seems to value the last mile user a bit more. Making sure they get their coverage as well.

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.

Now now, environmentalists only live where there is a temperate climate, thus have no need to consider the finer details of real world application. Those who have real world needs are just wrong or corrupt.

Scale: charging your phone with 5 volts compared to a car at 120/220 volts.
Safety: that much current floating around means if a child wanders in the wrong area they are fried
Efficiency: If it is half efficient to charge our phones. No big deal its conscience makes up for the cost. But to power a car you will feel the extra cost. Besides you get a electric car because it is better for the environment and if we need to create extra coal plants to power these cars its carbon footprint gets bigger.
Reliability: a car goes threw a lot of stressed. Rain, snow, ice, wind, salt, bugs, animals nesting in it.

It isn't the same as making a wireless charger to charge a 2 ton cell phone.

Oh no, we can -- and should -- speculate. Consider everything we can think of. Consider.

What we should NOT do is create a self-fulfilling prophecy by taking the verbal fecal output of doom-criers as the inevitable or even as the likely.

Since you mention cats, would you like an AI treating you like you treat the cats?

Frankly, that would be awesome.