This thing is a proof-of-concept, mostly designed to let other people get started and improve it. I don't see anything about the technique itself that couldn't be miniaturised.
It's a complex problem. Without question, pension provision should *somehow* arise from compensation paid for your work. The problem is that you are squirelling away money for long periods, with uncertain returns, and then when you start paying it out, no-one is quite sure how long you'll live for. For the company, paying enough money up front to guarantee a particular level of pension would be a drain on resources, so we let them catch up later. Alternatives, such as just paying a fixed amount into a fund and letting the employee deal with it are easier but don't lead to better outcomes.
This stuff happens. I used to work in a food distribution company that was located in a subdivided warehouse. We ran half a dozen industrial walk-in fridge units, so no-one ever noticed it was a little higher than it should have been, since the joiner next door had been getting free electricity ever since the subdivision.
Corrected - not necessarily. They do, however, need to be explained. And then, if required, corrected.
I don't think anybody (with any scientific training) is seriously suggesting that sex does not have some impact on neurology. What they do object to is the idea of pre-judging brains due to them having a pair of tits dangling off them. Oh, and people positing differences without evidence.
What the hell? No. Yes, it's possible that measuring various attributes and examining correlations by gender may show up distinct joint distributions that can be used for classification, but there is absolutely nothing that guarantees it.
A lot of pen-tester companies will do some initial work for free. At my work, the company who was asked to present to the responsible committee went round each person and handed out a little slip of paper - with their password on. They got retained.
No, you are talking bullshit. The difference that is larger depends entirely on the variance of the underlying distributions. Your own example of weightlifting disproves your own point. Just shut up.
Your point would probably have a lot more validity if the experience of women in IT wasn't so uniformly negative.
Given that most cars >10 years old wouldn't pass modern safety tests, yes, they are "too dangerous".
No, because the design features are in place for a reason and there are other products available with those features altered. So if you bought this thing, you wanted a high powered unstable killing machine.
Yeah. I for one would be all in favour of capturing one of these beasties.
So drive a truck full of octocopters to an area, send them off, ten minutes later they're all back. And something like 80% of deliveries are 2kg. As for wind, obviously it's only useful in suitable climates. But I suspect you're overestimating the amount of wind you get in many majro urban areas.
Two beers is more than enough to impair your driving performance. I don't give a shit about you, but I have to share the road with people like you. Fuck off and don't do it.
No, the marginal value of one bitcoin may be $1k, but that is not the aggregate value the market will place on the whole supply. At best it is the value the market places on the daily or weekly volume of bitcoin bought and sold.