Really, you have no clue. "Looking reactionless" and being reactionless are two entirely different things. And pressure from radiation is a well-known and established physical principle and not reactionless at all.

If they had anything real, they would not demonstrate a drive, they would create a minimalistic, clear and reliable lab-setup that demonstrates the effect beyond all doubt and that could be recreated by other teams. Instead, they insist on a relatively complex set-up that cannot easily be recreated but can easily be manipulated. This is the hallmark of scientific fraud: Make grand claims and demonstrate them in a way that looks good but could be entirely due to measurement errors, hidden energy sources and effects, etc. and that cannot be validated by other teams.

Furthermore, if it violates established physics, it needs more than simple scientific proof (i.e. an experiment that other groups can repeat), it needs extraordinary proof. It does not even have simple scientific proof.

For some nice other fraud in this venue, look up the Rossi E-cat or centuries of perpetual motion machines.

Likely this paper was abysmal trash and the reviewer never anticipates his sarcastic remarks could have this effect.

The authors may have proudly declared to be both female and hence may have tried to curry favor.

As a reviewer, I think it is very likely this paper was utterly biased and did not meet sane scientific standards. While it is unprofessional for a reviewer to snap and put in sarcastic remarks like these, they will almost never be the result of sexism, but the result of the pure stupidity of the "research" presented. Also notice that a paper is never rejected based on just one review except in utterly crappy venues.

Personally, I have written reviews that suggested the authors read an undergrad book on the subject or that an undergrad semester thesis may not be the right base for publishing at a good conference. Yes, many, many submitted papers are really that bad.

You know it is a fact-based statement. We cannot have that when gender inequality is discussed! It may turn out that all the severe problems being decried are not actually true (like the gender pay-gap)!

What this will do, obviously, is that papers with all female authorship will now be held to a lower standard, and consequentially will be of worse quality.

Learning the skill to do your job well? Naaa, that is not the management way. These people are all self-perceived geniuses from a certain level upwards.

Seriously, I am surprised the world is not in an even far, far worse state, as the amount of grossly wrong decisions on even simple things I have seen from "upper management" are staggering. Fortunately I am a technology-consultant, so when they have (again) wasted 50-70% of my work-week due to dysfunctional administration, demented strategy and processes that seem to be designed to create the maximum level of problems and waste, I just bill them for the full time and that is it.

A police state is what happens when the citizens forget that police-people always want more control and power that is good for society and forget to kick them in the nuts from time to time. The mind-set of most people joining the police and similar (like the FBI) is not compatible with a free society, hence oversight and democratic control. They literally cannot police themselves. Of course, many police states an even quite a few totalitarian regimes where cheered in by the people that later suffered under them.

If they have no agreement, but both their DNA is in there, then each of the two rightfully has a veto on their use. I do really not see what the issue is here, except some delusional "think of the children" nonsense.