Obviously, the further back you go, the less able they would be able to cope.

I'm not sure that's true. People from the recent past have already formed opinions on many subjects of modern interest, like transgenderism. Someone from the 50s would probably be quite bigoted against homosexuals and transgendered people. Someone from ancient Greece not so much, particularly since homosexuality was more accepted then.

A person who has no experience with such things would at least be able to form their own opinions rather than conform to societal norms from their time. The further removed from their time they are, the more adaptable they will be to new social norms. I imagine the same will hold for people frozen now. They'll be able to adapt more readily if they wake up 500 years from now rather than 100 years from now.

I hope you realize you just agreed with my point.

He's more like a little boy who has no idea what to do or how to do it.

Little boys and girls are tyrants. Children are sociopaths who must be trained to be civilized human beings [1]. Sometimes training doesn't take, ergo, Trump.

[1] There's a quote around there that says this better than I could, so if anyone knows it please let me know!

It is even, we might say, unreasonable and without sufficient evidence... employing logic to consider the concept reveals that there could be no such thing... First, experts usually don't know nearly as much as they think they do. They often get it wrong, thanks to their inherently irrational brains that -- through overconfidence, bubbles of like-minded thinkers, or just wanting to believe their vision of the world can be true -- mislead us and misinterpret information...

Except politicians know even less, and mislead and misinterpret even more than scientists. So basically, the suggestion isn't to move to a system of perfect rationalism, which as you've said, doesn't actually exists. The proposal is instead to move towards more rationalism driven by empirical justification. It would almost certainly be better than what we have now.

"Whatever magic ingredient determines our sexuality was different for Sulu in our timeline. I like this idea because it suggests that in a hypothetical multiverse, across an infinite matrix of alternate realities, we are all LGBT somewhere."

Except this reinforces a false narrative that sexual orientation is a choice, when it's really not. The point of divergence for the new Trek verse is after Sulu was born, and he was almost fully grown. That's not how the "magic ingredient" that determines our sexuality works.

The fact remains that women do worse on interviews than men, and hence it's not surprising that companies hire them less.

I don't think that's what it's saying. It's saying that 1.4 times as many men get a job through their site because they stick with it longer, where 7x more women than men just leave after 1 or 2 failed attempts.

[...] we need to give women the same levels of false confidence that men have in the face of constant rejection.

I can certainly support the idea of instilling more confidence despite rejection because that's perfectly rational, but I don't think the insulting label of "false confidence" is warranted.

male dominated offices/teams/companies have a higher probability of disfunction

Evidence? Specifically, what evidence exists that whatever dysfunction may exist in the common office/team/company directly follow from gender?

What happened to the party of small government and suspicion of government interfering with people's personal lives?

Otherwise two historical novels of same period would be derivative works of each other.

Now you're just being obtuse. Such historical novels didn't invent the history in which they're told. If one novel invented something which wasn't actually historical, like Sherlock Holmes, and the other novel included it, then the latter might indeed be a derivative work (depending on the extent of inclusion).

Which is all beside the point, because Star Trek is clearly an invented universe, and as such, any work taken place in that universe is derivative. Even creating a documentary about Star Trek would get into trouble if it weren't covered by fair use provisions of copyright law.

After reading exact piece of text you're linked to. It tells me that it must be same work transformed to other medium, or somehow extended or expanded a bit.

"Extended/expanded a bit" = uses the same settings, characters or other inventions of the original work, but in a substantially new way that it counts as a new work. This movie is clearly a dramatization, fictionalization, or motion picture, as described in the very first sentence quoting the copyright act from my link. It's plain as day.

Using the "same setting" qualifies as a derivative work. I'm not sure why you think otherwise.

Personally, I think that the money would be better used to ensure everyone had a job

And where do these jobs come from? Are we paying them just to dig holes and fill them up again? Doesn't this just recreate the wasteful social assistance bureaucracy UBI is designed to eliminate? Why not just pay them to go to trade schools instead? At least that's useful work being done and improves future prospects for more taxable income.

Except now you're deciding in advance how the money should be spent, when decades of economics have already told us that exploiting local knowledge is always much better than centralized planning. Which means letting people decide how the money would best benefit them. For instance, only paying someone to go to school won't benefit a new single mother who needs to spend some time at home. What's she going to do in your world? UBI addresses all of these problems.

- that way they'd also feel like they had some worth to society, rather than just accepting handouts.

If this is how you think they feel, I don't think you truly understand the psychology of the poor and disenfranchised.

Only the most stupid of idiots would change their employment situation in response to a temporary monthly stipend.

What a ridiculous assertion. Of course some people are going to quit their job. This is exactly what happened in the mincome experiment in Canada: new mothers spent more time at home with their newborns instead of immediately rejoining the workforce, part time students quit their jobs to finish their school earlier, and others quit their jobs to get training for a job they'll like more. And this all makes perfect sense.

Inflation depends on the size of the money supply. In this case, the money supply isn't growing, it's still the same size, it's just redistributed differently. So there will be some price fluctuation, both up and down, as demand shifts slightly and production shifts to compensate on a slight lag, but nothing major.