As someone strongly critical of the "transhuman" religion I find the "Amor Mundi" blog equally misguided and void of any with or insight.
One example: we have an increasing amount of real world AI capable of real world tasks - that includes self driving cars and (projects for) autonomous UAE. Yes, that's weak AI - not the (idea of) strong AI the singularity people worship. But it's AI.
And still Mr. Carrico claims one shouldn't be afraid of algorithms - but any sane person should!

Any assembly language programmer would disassemble the ROM anyway to learn tricks and locate useful routines. Programming microcomputers at that time was much more hands on than nowadays.

False.
Do a comparison of the 8080 and 8086 instruction formats to be enlightened. The 8086 isn't binary compatible with the 8080.

Nope, x86 isn't 8080 compatible - the instruction set is encoded in a different way. X86 can't execute Z80 code either.

But why would anyone want a Star Trek system? It is just something that looks good, not something that is efficient or practical for the real world.

Voice control and dictating etc. have valid uses but only for a few specific cases. General computer use isn't one of them.

Which in many cases are protected by excellent armor. Headshots tend to be more permanent.

Which is a form of democracy...

Less ergonomic: the middle "button" isn't shaped right and it can be hard to position a finger to be in the correct position.

Less exact: the button mechanism works different than the other buttons, partially because it tend to use a different kind of micro switch (often actually a collapsing dome switch for the middle button) and partially because of the mechanical design required for the scroll wheel.

Less reliable: a middle-click can be translated to scrolling or tilting unless pressed exactly right.

But then you ignore that he shouldn't have asked - as a professional he shouldn't have. In fact most places of education have an explicit policy against any kind of relationship between a teacher and a student.

Here's this in a version even you should understand:

Let's say I have a "do not pee in my kitchen" policy (actually I have).

A friend decides that he should pee in my kitchen. He does so.

I say "that's it - you can't go into my kitchen anymore".

--

Substitute pee with sexual harassment according to the MIT standard. Substitute kitchen with courses associated with MIT. Substitute me with MIT.

There is no need to apply the rules of the juridical system for something like this which should be obvious for someone that actually have some social skills. The level of proof for someone to hinder someone else of peeing in the kitchen is less than the level of proof required by a criminal court.

Some women do. But so does men. And people often misinterpret simply being nice as some kind of sexual attraction.

Right... If one can find a position where the screen glare doesn't ruin it all. I personally can't use an Apple as the glare drives me insane unless seated in a pitch black room - not the best way to do some work...

In fact that isn't true at all - PCs often have better colors, contrast and/or brightness. Just don't buy the bargain basement level of stuff, select computers with IPS screens.

Remember: that includes you. Yes me too. The only difference is _how_ a person is a gullible idiot.

Fanatics that think the real world is a sci-fi soap opera. Or at least want it to be.

Women can and do rape other people, men and women according to taste and/or circumstances. Thinking otherwise is ... ignorance.