I am not trying to play devil's advocate, but I am going to make a simple analogy.
You are blindfolded in the middle of an unknown number of people. You could send a broadcast asking them to respond with their full names... or clap their hands once.
Both methods will enable you to count how many there are. One is gathering more information than strictly required, the other just enough.
Of course, in the above case it could swing both ways, so there's no way to know for sure, all I'm saying is that both ways are possible.

Adults don't stop playing games. As a matter of fact, humans never stop playing games throughout their entire lives. Haven't you seen old men playing chess or backgammon? Football, soccer, even courting are all games. Even haggling is a game in a certain sense.

I am on-site, full time role. That means I am in an office and have physical colleagues around me but we support people based across the pond.
The irony is that although we're 5-10 times cheaper than an US-based similar position, the management is still tightening the crew on salaries, totally unjustifiable if you ask me but hey, I'm not calling the shots so there you have it.

My expectations are based on what should be fair, and of course that contradicts reality, but that doesn't mean reality is fair. After all, this "reality" we talk about is imposed by human beings who have the power to shape it to their advantage.

Measuring count citizens passing through only needs to account for whether a signal exists and signal strength. If citizen A comes from east, exists west and comes back a second later, he will be counted again, which is correct, according to the scope of the metric.
Measures are:
- how many items are in an area at a given time;
- how many items are in the area on average over X time period.
None of which requires items to be uniquely identified.

...And that's how CToS starts.

The hardware itself could be designed in such a way to be incapable of capturing that information.

Because they exist, are valuable for the job and it's a proven fact. It's not as if I ask 20% more because my garage band can rock the 'hood. I bring extra stuff that's valuable to the company in the first place and indirectly saves thousands of dollars per year. The problem is that the hiring process members don't see that value because they are blinded by "OMG 20% more fuck it" fallacy.

That's because small companies can't even be measured in such a way. There is no algorithm applicable there. The hiring process is raw and unfiltered (e.g. you talk to the CEO directly and he's usually your direct manager as well). Small companies were never the problem and yes, age discrimination is never a problem there (unless the owner is a stupid dick which is a different discussion entirely). Age discrimination is visible in large companies which are a different kind of animal.

That's because I live and work in Europe and my customers are all located in the USA.
I build reports and analyses (Business Intelligence), big data stuff. Currently looking to expand into realtime analytics using big data stuff as well.

It's not the field per se, it's the fact that the field addresses almost exclusively to very large companies, and very large companies are horrible when it comes to taking care of their employees. It's the way it is. I tried small companies but they're either not needing big data analyses (they don't have big data to speak of) or they already have established analysts who don't leave because life is good there.

Strictly from a mathematical point of view, yes, what you are saying is correct. With that being said...
Companies value soft skills at ZERO. You can churn code just as fast as a 22-year old, but you are more experienced from a team player perspective, you have finished more projects in the past and bring a set of recommendations the size of a bible. hence you are asking for 20% more than the 22-year old. Then, your resume goes to some HR manager who only looks at how much code can you churn and thinks "bah, we can teach the 22-year old the soft skills in time" so you're fucked.

Not to mention how much can you sacrifice from a personal perspective, aka life-work balance. There are things a 22-year old would do for free but a 35-year old wouldn't or couldn't unless he would be okay with his work-life balance being screwed big time. A 22-year old will have the stamina and naivete to work in shifts, be on call and stay late for 0% increase from what he's asking, whereas a 35-year old with family, kids and other obligations would find this sacrifices a lot harder for objective reasons.

I am 35, have a family and my work-life balance is fucked because I have to make sacrifices to stay competitive. I work from 5 PM to 2AM, my soft skills are valued at zero by the company, my work doesn't bring direct revenue and if "switching careers" would not be needed if companies would account for factors other than simply "can he produce more of THIS". my biggest disadvantage in the line of work I have is that pretty much nobody from my LoB understands exactly how much effort is behind the end result of my work, despite my attempts to explain. And other companies which I interviewed for appear to have the same lack of understanding on the matter. Also, the fact that I really enjoy what I do also has zero value, but in practice it translates to high quality results. It's the kind of outcome nobody cares about unless it's missing. To make a stupid analogy, it's like realizing what your wife does for your home only after she leaves and your house becomes a mess.

There is no algorithm telling you exactly how much you're worth. None whatsoever.
Some companies split salaries by "levels". You are Individual Contributor (IC) or Manager (M). As an IC, you have levels, from 1 to 6, where 1 means "worthless piece of shit" and 6 means "a God in your field". Your value is calculated, roughly, based on some generic metrics, and each of those "levels" has a minimum and a maximum threshold for salary size. Those thresholds vary by company, state, country, etc. A Senior Database Administrator job will have different thresholds based on where they work (employer name and geolocation), which LoB are they in (internal support is usually where the shit salaries are because that LoB doesn't directly generate any income), whether you work remotely and so on.
e.g. a Senior DBA in the SF Bay Area will have a minimum salary threshold higher than the maximum salary threshold for exactly the same job in Alabama, and probably someone from Romania would have to do the same thing for 10% of that.
Not to mention that these thresholds overlap through levels, e.g. the upper salary limit for an IC1 is only slightly higher than the lowest threshold for an IC3, so that management could fuck you in the ass by "promoting" you across levels with no salary change whatsoever and laugh in your face because they're covered by "procedures". You wanna quit? Good, they'll finally get to bring that 20-something year old who'll do the job for exactly what you were getting, but will be happy and grateful, unlike you.

So you tell me your value and I'll show you a gazillion counter-examples which make your point moot.
That's why I said "what you think you're worth". And even given two equal people living in the same area, doing the same job for the same LoB in the same company, their value, even if equal in theory, will be different in reality based on subjective factors: how young/old they are compared to their team, how tall they are, how their character is and how does it fit within the team, etc.
e.g. I don't drink, but my former manager used to heavily drink. he never fully trusted me because "I can't trust a man who doesn't drink with me until we both pass out", as he was saying. Yell "discrimination!" all you want, fact of the matter is that there's a huge amount of subjective things you can't prove and which could affect our salary and your prospective salary for that matter.

TL;DR: there is no such thing as "absolute value" for a job.

"it's". Many times over.

Let me know when you find one.

But it doesn't matter what you THINK you're worth, and not even what you're worth in theory. All that matters is what the upper management is willing to pay someone who's performing activities that are vague and many times incomprehensible for the said upper management. In other words, upper management doesn't really know what you do and they don't really care. They look at things like this:
#1: Should we keep X?
- Is X being paid $Y for doing Z?
- Is T willing to do Z for $Y-n%?
Yes: Hire T.
No: Keep X.

#2: Is X asking for a raise?
- Can we find T who's willing to do Z for the same amount X gets?
Yes: Hire T, Fire X
No: Tell X he ain't getting nothin'.

#3: X didn't get a raise and wants to leave.
Let him leave, hire someone else even for a higher salary because "we don't negotiate with terrorists".

So what you think you're worth doesn't mean shit. Sad but true.

Last I checked, Kuwait is not in Europe, Japan or Australia. It's a country in the Middle-East. it's also the place where, if your dog wants to bury a bone, he'll be splashed by a tiny jet of raw oil coming out that tiny hole he dug.

So, to you, "attractive" only means "good looking"? I must be getting old.
When I'm attracted to a woman who's smart, outgoing, enthusiastic about her work, we become friends. Same goes for a man. Maybe because I'm happily married, have kids and like what I do for a living.

Are you sure high schools afford that type of equipment? I think it's more likely that high schools can only offer antiquated analogic equipment for their photography classes. Maybe it's more a lack of choice thing, rather than a conscious analogic photography choice.