You should not assume that women are more pro-woman. Many female managers will tell you they have a lot more problems with female subordinates than with males. This is especially true if there is a significant age difference: if a talented young woman is put in charge of a team that includes older women, you will often have a lot of friction.

Well, she is a lawyer, so that is stating the obvious.

Not in any legal sense. Just because you imagine it to be a threat because of rabid foam-at-the-mouth manufactured outrage, doesn't mean it really is. If a clause in a contract is unenforceable, it is not illegal to put it in the contract, it just can't be enforced. Amazon has made NO effort to enforce this clause against any warehouse workers, so there is no actionable tort against them.

There are real problems in the world to get outraged about. You should refocus on something less ridiculous.

No. Because of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, there can never be a complete vacuum. Even if there was, you couldn't measure it without destroying it.
 

Indeed. I don't think that any of this is new. The reason dark matter was hypothesized in the first place was because of the behavior of colliding galaxies, such as the Bullet Cluster. The missing mass couldn't be stars, because it didn't emit light, it couldn't be gas or dust, because it didn't experience drag, so it must be either WIMPS or MACHOs. Further observations ruled out the MACHOs. So what is new about this observation?

Technically, you would need at least two. So far, the count is zero.

Except Amazon hasn't actually threatened anyone. No rational person would believe, in light of complete absence of evidence to the contrary, that the intent of this clause is to prevent someone from working as a cashier at Walmart. Preemptively suing Amazon because there is an infinitesimal chance that they might sue you, is not going to get very far. The judge should throw the case out and order you to reimburse Amazon for their legal expense. We have enough frivolous nonsense in our courts.

... and your problem is a completely broken development process. Code should be tested as it is written. You should never waste time reviewing code that has not passed unit tests, functional tests, regression tests, etc. Hallway usability testing should be done even before the design review.

Testing is an integral part of every development step, not something you tack on the end.

More likely they would pay out $0 to all zero of the plaintiffs that actually have a case.

Even a "slap on the wrist" would be excessive, since there isn't any evidence that they have done anything wrong. It is not a crime to be big, and nobody should be fined just because they can afford it.

Yup. All the lawyer has to do is find all zero of the warehouse workers that were actually sued or damaged in any way.

I realize that we are all supposed to be outraged, and equate this to the blood of the workers being used to lubricate the machinery of capitalism. But this is just some standard legal boilerplate, that nobody noticed before, because it has no actual real world consequences.

... which is about as useful as saying that the sky is blue. That nothing is 100% safe is already obvious to anyone with a functioning brain.

You seem to implying that "one in a million" is basically the same as "one in a trillion" because either is "not perfect". There are more than 100,000 flights per day. So "one in a million" is once every ten days. "One is a trillion" is once every 27,000 years.

Much less frequently than they urinate, and even less frequently with proper planning, like pooping before the flight and avoiding foods likely to cause gastrointestinal problems. For instance, military rations (MREs) containing beans, are specifically marked as "not for pre-flight use".

I have flown dozens of trans-Pacific, trans-Atlantic, and trans-continental flights. I had to urinate on all of them. I don't recall ever needing to crap inflight.

If a $10 pilot urinal solves 90% of the problem, it shouldn't be rejected just because it isn't a 100% solution.

... and when they do commit suicide, they are far less likely to kill other people as they do so. Murder-suicide is an almost exclusively male predilection.

Btw, I have flown on several commercial flights with female pilots.

The military has had mix gender flight crews for decades. They are professionals. They deal with it.

In practice, no. New technology almost never is applicable to only a single product. It allows many products to be made more efficiently, and allows new products to be made that didn't even exist before. So there is a broad advance in demand for labor that can employ that technology.

Another was to see that this is true, is to open your eyes and look at the real world. Countries with high productivity are uniformly prosperous. Countries with low productivity are uniformly poor. Higher productivity not only results in higher living standards, but it is the ONLY thing that results in higher living standards. To claim that it causes poverty, is not only profoundly ignorant or economic theory, but also indicates an astoundingly weak grip on reality.