Well they do in a sense. It's the difference between growing up in a family like Roald Dahl's 'Matilda' and in a family that encourages growth. I also think that having a family member in the software development would make the transition into the world of work quite a bit easier. But in the end the right attitude can trump any of these things, which is what the author discovered. I am happy for him.
I believe body fat estimations based upon weight and electrical conductance measurements are really flawed, especially for individuals outside of a quite narrow 'normal'. It's only a little better than a BMI measurement in my opinion. If you want to know, get yourself to a bodpod or some other accurate measurement system.
If this is a real effect, it does not necessarily involve magic. I find it quite easy to imagine an organism evolving to subtly alter it's physical state according to the function of it's nervous system. Why is it so hard to believe that the mind controls the body at a cellular level? Even if this is a magical effect, it can still be codified and brought within the bounds of scientific discourse.
I agree, machine learning currently requires huge globs of knowledge to wield. As such it is a tool for an intelligent entity to use, it is not intelligent in it's own right. I disagree with Michael about the correct way forward for machine learning, the problem is not one of piecemeal engineering. If you are spending your time developing algorithms to solve a particular class of problem, you are wasting your time(in terms of pursuit of GAI). The overarching problem needs to tackled, what is the correct framework within which to think about intelligent systems? This is, as mentioned in the article a question of insight - we need the metaphorical apple to fall on some bright sparks head. But if all the bright sparks are fully engaged in chasing the short term problem it might take a long time.