Studies have shown that most women leave STEM programs because of harassment, not because they aren’t drawn to the field.

Do you consider your workplace woman-friendly? I’ve never avoided a field because it’s dominated by men but I can anecdotally say that economics, which is VERY male dominated, is a hell of a hard nut to crack for a young woman. I’m quite assertive though so perhaps more inclined to take on a male-dominated culture.

If women are the top making decisions and setting corporate culture, planning happens, work life balance happens, and results are achieved.

I really think that engineering (as in hardware, not software) isn’t something that women find as interesting as men do.
I can’t say why for sure. It could be a bias carried over from childhood nurture. It could be correlated to genetic differences like spatial thinking affecting interest in CAD/CAM software. Or it…

Economist here - it hasn’t been debunked.

I’m not so sure women are less likely to go into certain high-paying industries.

I see jobs that say “we pay $XYZ” and anyone is welcome to apply, no adjustments for gender.

If I can add, switch up where you run. I did the entire program on packed dirt trails with few hills. The first 10K I ran was on hilly streets which tired me out quicker but still managed to finish.

My biggest problem with detailed programs is that they tend to limit the participant. If you are told you should run for 30 minutes, you will do your best (presumably) to run for 30 minutes and then stop. Not 20 minutes times two if your body (or spouse) tells you that you need a break, and not 60 minutes if your body…

On your first day, you run for one minute. Just one! Then you walk for 90 seconds. Then you run for one minute again. After 20 minutes of this back-and-forth, you’re done running for the day.

Another question: “What’s the total cost?”
Too many people have bankrupted themselves due to medical costs.  Even with insurance, just the deductible can put people on the street.

Show me any research showing that anyone has developed peanut allergy without exposure to peanuts.  Or shut up and go away.

Not like I could use marmite as an alternative lamp fuel source or sex lube...

“at risk for developing a peanut allergy” is unambiguously not “have developed” peanut allergies.

That’s actually where you are dead wrong. The original research study out of Israel (that the new NAIAD recommendations are based off of) was actually conducted on children who were at risk of developing full-blown peanut allergies.

Desensitivization through exposure is likely only a remedy for those who have developed a sensitivity in the first place, not in preventing the sensitivity from occurring in the first place. Kids in countries where peanuts are uncommon and part of neither kids meals nor candy have lower allergy rates, not higher.

That said, it’s better than marmite.

In 20 years wireless charging could potentially make any thought of batteries in ANYTHING a moot point.

There was a time when it was inconceivable to anyone in the world that disease wasn’t caused by ghosts in your blood. I think science can tackle this one. It’s not exactly time travel.

You have no basis for this take whatsoever. You can not fathom a currently unavailable technology that could deliver superior sound quality to wired headphones in the future IN YOUR WILDEST DREAMS? You are 100% certain this is a thing technology can not achieve within the realm of physics?