Mostly the behaviour is determined by tangible external benefits rather than any kind of real belief that gender ratios should be acknowledged.

It's easier to explain reality than to try and change it.

As long as possible might be shorter than you would like.

Roads are public in a way that introducing a toll on an existing road is not politically viable, and maintenance issues are easier to spot.

Segregated services for commuters are great, but catching a bus to shop/recreation/restaurants is miserable and restrictive.

As as aside, developing mass transit always has the problem of being at the whim of the next political goal (subsidised bus routes especially). Roads are physical easy to understand, so less subject to political vs.

Also devices that allow easier access to an apartment are more acceptable in Japan. In the US there is a much greater need for security oriented design.

It's not obviously bad from a finance point, it's just significantly shorter term thinking than the original owner.

I always saw it as a technological consequence of allowing people to view their work; training a model is no different to an individual looking at it.

You have failed to understand that the value of the service is fundamentally different, providing open source software costs a human effort.

Providing art no longer requires the same amount of human effort, if AI is acceptable, so it's not at all comparable.

It never makes sense to import someone who has less earning potential than any other candidate; at least not in a long term context (it makes plenty of sense for a current business for their own short term profit).

I think a wage threshold and weighting would be best, but others think a controlled random mixing of labour markets is better for the overall economy.

The patent system is not very compatible with highly regulated markets, it changes the game from choosing to buy something innovative to a non-voluntary overreach.