Technically, yes.
In practice there are but a handful of people with an IQ at or above 200 (the rarity of that is less that 1 in 4 billion - source ).
Even if we do take in account that the bottom of the IQ in live humans is in fact a bit higher than zero, because the extremes are so incredibly rare, the deviation of the mean from the median is in practice minuscule.
In this day and age, accepting cash payments is the least shady and most customer friendly thing of all.
It's the ones who want to know ALL about you and partner with payment processors who want to know ALL about you that are shady.
Surelly the right answer would've been "Go back to Europe".
(Mind you, as an European, please don't).
The Neoliberal ideology, with its core principle of making Money the greatest Power, above the State which is the Power controlled by the vote of citizens, was always meant to destroy Democracy.
Whilst the theatre used to distract us has been different, we've been going in the same direction as Russia when it comes to the vote: making it a meaningless act whilst we're told it's "democratic".
Unsurprisingly as people felt more and more powerless, pushed around, exploited and unfairly treated all the while being told this is Democracy, they turned more and more to those selling something else than Democracy.
It seems the natural end state of Neoliberal Capitalism is Fascism.
Books, lots and lots of books.
Mate, the horse whip and the wheel were Technology back when they got invented.
It's a massivelly generic word.
Absolutelly some Technology has reduced drudgery. Meanwhile some Technology has managed to increase it (for example: one can make the case that the mobile phone, by making people be always accessible, has often increased pressure on people, though it depends on the job), some Technology has caused immense Environmental destruction, some Technology has even caused epidemics of psychological problems and so on.
Not only is there a lot of stuff in the big umbrella called Technology, but the total effect of one of those things is often dependent on how its its used and Capitalism seems especially prone to inventing and using Technology that's very good for a handful of people whilst being bad for everybody else.
One can't presume that just because something can be classified as Technology it will reduce drudgery or in even that it will be overall a good thing, even if some past Technologies did.
Best Windows built-in way to open files with Unix end lines.
Pfew ... I moved to Linux just in time!
Is that but on the side of the head. It can also be tapping on the side of the head.
The Dutch gesture for intelligent is touching the side of the head with the index finger, which can be confused with the second version of the Portuguese one for crazy.
Mind you, I just realized I'm not sure about those things anymore (I lived for over 2 decades abroad) and had to google to make sure.
Related to that, the whole physical signalling stuff is quite a mess.
For example there are cultures were waving your head up and down back and forth does not mean "Yes", it means "No".
I found this kind of stuff out when I moved from my homeland, Portugal, to The Netherlands: it turns out the signal for "he/she is crazy" in Portugal is the same as the signal for "he/she is intelligent" in The Netherlands. Mind you, for me it was a great source of humour.
That's Me IRL!
Yeah, the 1 in 4 billion seemed exaggerated on the low end when I read it. I went ahead with it anyway since, even if there are 1000 people with an IQ at or above 200, that by itself would not pull the curve upwards much (because it's 1000 out of 8 billion people) and hence your original claim that the mean is not the same as the median "because the distribution is skewed as IQs can be higher than 200 but not negative" was bollocks.
My point stands untouched that the justification you originally gave backing your claim that the IQ mean not being the same as the median was mathematically unsupported or, as you so colourfully put it: "opinion dressed as fact".
As for this paper you linked, it curiously doesn't back your claim either. From the abstract, we get that whilst the mean is 100 and the mode is indeed 105, the statistical distribution of IQs is NOT a Normal Distribution but rather the sum of TWO Normal Distributions. This means that you can't in fact make claims about the median from the mode (as you would be able to for a normal distribution, were mean = median = mode) because a sum of two normal distributions has TWO peaks so you can perfectly have one at 105 and another one below that which can yield a median which is equal to or even below the mean.
Again from the abstract those two distributions are "one reflecting normal variation in general intelligence and one refecting normal variation in effects of genetic and environmental conditions involving mental retardation", which seems to imply that the second has a peak at an IQ value below the first.
That said, I don't even disagree that your claim that the median is above the mean might be right. What I have yet to see from you so far is something other than "opinion dressed as fact" or quoting of papers which don't mathematically back your point.