FWIW, UChicago is known for having one of the most conservative economics departments in the country/world. Over 50% of UChicago students major in econ (often as part of a double major), though most UChicago students are liberals.
Nitpick with #16: I don't like when there is no "why" associated with a style rule. I'm speaking specifically to #3, "Capitalize the subject line". Why is this preferred to not capitalizing a subject line? Is there a reason, or is it an arbitrary decision (which would be fine - sometimes a style decision is, "We need a standard, and we chose this one." But I think the author of the style guide should explain that that's what they're doing).
But in general I liked the article. It's under-appreciated how helpful a good commit log is.
This is my concern as well - if I want to use Org Mode for everything, including "random thing that just occurred to me that I need to do," then what do I do if "random thing that just occurred to me that I need to do" occurs to me while I'm on my phone, not my computer? I want one unified way to organize my TODOs, and it seems like org-mode isn't great for that.
As a candidate, I would be a little wary of this process. You're asking me to put in multiple hours of work, but you only put in 7 minutes. So the incentives are misaligned: you are incented to give these challenges to many people, even if they have a low chance of passing through. But as a candidate, I don't want to sped multiple hours if I have a low chance of passing through. This is one reason why full-day on-site interviews aren't so bad - if I've gotten to that stage, I'm probably pretty likely to get an offer.
Many of the bootcamps are relatively young with not that many attendees per year. Back-of-the-envelope calculation: ~50 per cohort, 6 cohorts per year is 300 students per year, times 3 or so years is around a thousand total enrollees. 100 reviews is 10% of people reviewing - that seems pretty high to me.
FWIW: I did a bootcamp, loved it, never wrote a review. Just laziness/generally don't write reviews for things. I would guess many people don't write reviews for the same reason.
At the end of the day, the most electable candidate tends to get nominated. Not always, but typically. And Hillary, even despite her challenges, is much more electable than Bernie, because she's much closer to the center. Of course, continuing email controversies could change that. But unless they do, Bernie's chances of winning are near 0.
In 2000, both Gore and Bush were always the frontrunners, and then they both won the primaries in landslides. I believe they both won every state, except Bush lost New Hampshire to McCain.
Also in 2008, you're exaggerating the extent to which the punditry favored Giuliani; he was a frontrunner, but not at all considered a shoo-in the way Hillary is.
The problem with Bernie is that he has very limited appeal outside of the areas where he's campaigning (overwhelmingly white, also a lot of college towns). He has a chance if he can improve his standing among minority voters somehow, but even then it's a long shot.