That author is entitled to his perception of women in the valley and being sexually attracted to women. If you don't like him, simply avoid hanging out with him. It seems a lot of men don't like him, either. Presumably they simply avoid him.
If men being attracted to them is a reason for women to avoid tech, I wonder what realistic job openings are left for them. They'd better choose an all-female occupation.
You are wrong. Yes individuals are not always completely rational, but in the long run the rational action usually prevails. It's more like an evolutionary attractor.
True AI would perhaps know the user well enough to know their intent (even Google already knows the user and perhaps even know they have a likelihood for a person being more interested in musicals or in maths).
It could also actually understand web sites and create meaningful summaries. And all sorts of other things.
As for speed, I don't know - it seems in many applications AI is way faster than traditional approaches. Also things can be parallelized. DeepMind trained for many years (measured in computing time), but it was parallelized so it didn't actually take years to train.
If that's the case, I don't think it is their fault. The tax collectors should then distribute the taxes they collected in a different way.
Also, it stands to debate of the kids are forced to live in the pollution.
While the article mentions that the school was there before the highway, the students were probably not born yet. So they (or their parents) made a choice to live there and go to that school.
I think the argument that they should pay extra taxes for that specific road is very strange. I think in generally they pay fuel tax and maybe something on cars (don't know the US system), and in theory that should pay for the roads and other externalities. It could just be distributed so that places with more pollution get more money.
Of course it's possible they don't pay enough, but that has nothing to do with that particular school.
You could argue if roads should be paid for by the government, and I would be sympathetic to it. But you could at least make a case that roads benefit everyone (even people who don't drive buy the goods that trucks deliver via roads), and that it would be too impractical to privatize all roads. In any case, it would be a different discussion from "rich people are ruining the health of our kids". That's what I criticize about the article - the spin. Personally I actually hate cars and think they are given too much space in modern society.
Not collecting property taxes for roads would be just another way of the government paying for the roads.
As for 1, I think it wouldn't be the fault of the drivers. They pay for using the roads. If the tax system isn't distributing it properly, how is it their fault? You could argue they don't pay enough, but there is no info about amounts they pay in the article.
As for 2, i was assuming there are specific taxes for cars, or at least for petrol. That's the case in my country, don't know how it works in the US.
"The researchers compared those companies to firms with 25 to 34 employees that didn’t have to release their data"
So they are comparing two different types of firms (with > 35 employees and between 25 and 34 employees): Doesn't that invalidate their study right there?
If men being attracted to them is a reason for women to avoid tech, I wonder what realistic job openings are left for them. They'd better choose an all-female occupation.