Rest assured it is perfectly feasible in other ways (such as FP for example).

You obviously care a lot about excelling at what you do. Been so laser-focused has a few disadvantages though: there are a lot of really good ideas / metaphors / patterns out there that you will miss if you don't diversify a bit.

I'd only add that salaries and passion or hours put into the job are only correlated in a very narrow sense. Salaries are a function of supply / demand (in an fictionalized scenario) but also of gender bias / connections / corruption / other stuff in the real world.

Coming from Mexico city, my experience with traffic cops is this: they really are corrupt. But they usually won't stop you without a reason (like making an wrong turn, or going the wrong way). I would just tell them something like this: "I'm sorry officer, I didn't see the sign. If you're going to give me a ticket it's Ok. But I'm kindof in a hurry". They of course don't want to give you a ticket, what they really want is that you produce some cash to avoid the fine. After 20 min - half an hour they realize there not going to get money from me and rather be chasing somebody else, and just let me go.

Oh, come on, even I can see that this plan has some ...uh ... flaws...

And here I was thinking all jews have superior IQ.

One problem here is comparing python vs C/C++/Java only. Because those languages are very verbose on their own. An interesting comparison would be python vs Scala, for example. In my own very limited testing of scala, I'd say it requires marginally more code than python (for simple things, at least).

won the peace nobel prize, I say: what the hell.

I vote for "so?".

The guy's name is "Miguel Alcubierre", not "Michael Alcubierre".

Dawkins does not claim that science can "prove" de non-existence of god (as in a mathematical proof).

That would be silly. What science can do is consider the idea of god as an hipothesis with physical consecuences and investigate about it. As in, "gather evidence for or against it".

And for the record, the fact that dawkins does "science" for a living has nothing to do with the fact that he can discuss and analyze religion rationally.

He could sell cars or write poetry or develop video games and still could use his intellect to think critically and cuestion dogmas and arrive to rational answers.

He would still arrive to the conclusion that there is zero evidence of a supranatural entity resembling "god".