I also enjoyed that book, though it's rather dated now. It's about the development of the Data General Eclipse, one of the first 32-bit minicomputers. It also includes descriptions of and stories about some of the people who worked on that project. Review in Wikipedia.

When parents get divorced, typically the father's income goes up, while the mother's goes down, and women are on average (in the US) paid less than men anyway. Could that possibly be a factor?

Google AI also suggests you have your inference backward: "Single fathers are statistically a self-selected group who have actively sought custody, meaning they generally possess higher levels of financial and emotional stability than the broader demographic of single mothers, who are often single parents by default."

"twice the likelihood" is also questionable and is in fact debated.

I don't have strong opinions about this one way or another, and I surely don't claim to have any answers, but I'm sort of compulsive about numbers and statistics. So:
* "Facebook Knows Instagram Is Toxic for Teen Girls, Company Documents Show" -- but do they?
* "'Thirty-two percent of teen girls said that when they felt bad about their bodies, Instagram made them feel worse,' the [Facebook] researchers said in a March 2020 slide". But what about the other 68%? Did they feel better? Or were they unaffected? If Instagram makes 32% feel worse but (hypothetically) makes another 32% feel better about themselves, is banning it justified?
* A later slide shows that 25% of UK girls said Instagram made them feel "somewhat worse (23%) or much worse (2%), while 44% had no effect; and 30% felt "somewhat better" or "much better".
* And what does "when they felt bad about their bodies" mean? Does it mean they felt bad for ten minutes? Or all the time?
* "Sylvia Colt-Lacayo, a 20-year-old at Stanford University .... uses a wheelchair, and in the past Instagram made her feel like she didn’t look the way she was supposed to, or do the things that other teen girls on the app were doing, she said. ... She said she began following people who use wheelchairs, or who are chronically ill or refer to other disabilities, and the platform became a place she could see images of older disabled people just being happy." So is that a good result or a bad result?
* What about people who use social media to get support and reassurance?
* So Instagram shows unrealistic body images; what about TV, movies, paper magazines, and other Web sites? If they also make people feel worse about themselves, should they also be banned? Wouldn't that eliminate virtually all advertising? Isn't the main point of advertising to make people feel bad about themselves and provide a purported solution?

A Clockwork Orange only ever represented a small minority of the British youths. Most hardly ever visited the Korova Milk Bar or went for a bit of the old ultra-violence.

I wondered whether you had had some kind of bad personal experiences or were just repeating biased sources of information. Could be both, but a quick Google search partially answered the question: 10 out of 11 Scholarships are EXCLUSIVELY for Women.: Reddit r/MensRights, four years ago.

Later in that same discussion: "Title is misleading. The majority of scholarships are open to everyone. Of the few that are restricted by gender, 10 out of 11 are exclusively for women. ... The reality is that only a few percent of scholarships are exclusively for women. But a headline like "3% of scholarships are exclusively for women" wouldn't get the same amount of clicks."

Some alternative facts, Women in Academia Report: "A new report from the U.S. Department of Education finds that in the 2019-20 academic year, immediately before the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic .... While men and women were about equally likely to receive grants from the educational institution that they attended. Women were more likely than men to receive grants from the federal government by a margin of 45.1 percent for women and 34.7 percent for men. ... Despite the fact that women were more likely than men to receive grants, on average women received lower amounts."

Nothing in that report suggested anything close to the 10-to-1 ratio of the Reddit topic, more like 5 to 4.

I generally prefer not to give terrorists any ideas. They have their own; there's no need to help. And I assume you meant "overstate".

Good to know! Thanks!

Remember that second-hand smoke can also be dangerous.

Never actually seen any, since they're idiotically expensive.

It may be "new" in the sense that cerulean could be the hot new color, but the Apollo astronauts already had LCVG's in the 1970s (example here).

"In an independent space suit, the heat is ultimately transferred to a thin sheet of ice (formed by a separate feed water source). Due to the extremely low pressure in space, the heated ice sublimates directly to water vapor, which is then vented away from the suit."

Not to mention operating a mouse.

Where do you get these facts, if not from people?

... and yet they're hanging out on Slashdot. This does not strike me as an efficient strategy to destabilize the West.

Heat and, what's that other thing? Oh, yes: radioactive waste. Let's not forget that.

There was a time when white people thought the whole continent was "nothing but space", except for those pesky Indians. Took care of that problem real nice. Now there are people who complain about solar farms taking up desert space, displacing "the endangered desert tortoise and Joshua trees".