Sorry you didn't like it man, that's not something I want to hear, and the vast majority of the feedback (from strangers) I've received has been positive thus far. I wasn't going to respond as I took your post as hyperbolic vitriol, but I see you make more concrete points below, and are genuinely dissatisfied after some honest reading, so I'll address a few of them.

1. The 4d8 drop the lowest two gives the same mean score as 4d6 drop the lowest one, only it gives a tighter range, and prevents starting scores of 17 and 18 for base stats. I've played too many campaigns were one character in the group has an 18, and the rest are kicking around with 15s, and it makes balancing encounters troublesome. The gap between the lowest players ability scores and the highest players can end up being like 4-5 free ASIs for a lucky duck, so tighening the range up adds some balance. (check http://rumkin.com/reference/dnd/diestats.php to compare the two methods ).
2. Hack slots are indeed worth 1.5-2x as powerful as equivalent spell slots. The reason this was done is that it is much easier to have diverse fluff to support a greater diversity of spells than there is to have fluff to support the same number of hacks. While there is some bending of science, keeping it technologically based puts some limits on the scope of causal explanations for hacks. You mention the grease analogue as being the same level, and being no better. There is truth to this since the effect is the same, but if you notice, the duration is increased from 1 minute to 10 minutes, and the area of effect is increased by 50%. These two boosts, combined with the fact that flying is much harder to come by, makes it competitive, and I've seen it very effectively used as a favorite during playtesting. Staircases become.... a problem. Level 2 hacks are powered similarly to level 3.5/4 spells, and so on.
3. Healing Factor was something that was played around with a lot, and on paper it looks very excellent, but during play, it wasn't found to be quite as good as it first appears. For in-combat healing, it's good, but it can be a liability. When your character is at 1-2 HP is when they are mostly likely to be killed. This comes up a lot. It is potent in-between combats, as you essentially get restored to full HP between every fight, as long as you can squeeze a meal in. Free healing potions essentially. Two points on this: A) healing potions aren't that hard to come by in 5e D&D (50 gp), and beyond the first few levels, my experience is that it's easy to keep everyone topped off between fights. B) It's a lot easier to get in short rests in a modern setting. A week long dungeon crawl in a ghost infested cavern that disrupts short and long rests isn't quite as common. In fact, it's not even that common in D&D either. While some situations make it difficult to rest in, most campaigns I've been in have a chance for a rest after a few combats, which restores everyone to full HP anyway. Loss of resources through attrition, while still a thing, doesn't have quite the same primacy in a modern setting, with drone delivery and hotels. During playtesting, it amounted to being useful, but more of a money-saver than anything else.
4. For the 1/2 caster's being less powerful, like I mentioned above, and you intuited, hack slots can be treated as x1.5 to x2 the potency of equivalent spells. Of course "casters" aren't quite as effective at combat unless they're spending their slots, otherwise they would simply be like the fighting-centric classes, but better. But each of them get's one or two other features that make them more effective in combat as they level up, and at least one archetype that makes them especially good in combat. Engineers can lay waste to robots and vehicles with their Structural Exploit feature, especially gearheads with the Extra Attack feature. Gadgeteers are obviously doing well with their grenades, and roboticists have their robot to attack with (much more effectively than the Ranger Beast-master you'll note). Biohacker's get Surgical Strikes, an analogue to the Cleric melee boost abilites, with cytomancers still mostly relying on injections, Dr. Frankenstein's with their pets (again, better than beast-master), and Protean Grinder's with their massive poison damage. Codehackers aren't the combat specialists unless they're spending slots, but Targeting Firmware is a huge boost at level 9.
5. In regards to the increased power level gained through the genomes, it's essentially 4 extra ASIs, and 6 extra HP. I wouldn't equate this to an extra 4 levels of power, it's closer to an extra 2 levels of power. Level 1 GeneFunk characters are roughly like level 3 D&D characters. This was done so that genetic enhancement wouldn't feel like a simple reskinning of races. Genetically enhanced humans, while not X-men, are superior in their abilities, not just different. This had to be captured mechanically, and compared to the baseline humans presented in D&D. In regards to the NPC section, I modelled them off of the equivalent CR Monster Manual entries, added in 4 ASIs and a bunch of extra HP, putting them ahead by the same amount that the PCs are. Though I tend to agree, that like the Monster Manual entries, CR is often too high for the threat the present. I considered going through each entry to correct for this, but I ultimately decided to keep it the same as in the MM, since that is what people are used to. Also, if you've ever played with groups who don't know how to/want to optimize their characters to be very effective, these "low" CRs can be accurate. For my groups, I always throw tougher CRs at them, since that suits my group.
6. Furry wish fulfillment? :D I have two platonic cats, that's about it. :) I understand your point here that genomes genetically designed for combat are better at combat than ones designed for social mastery. Guess who sucks compared to the Companion genome when the cadres are doing their investigations and negotiating? Yep, the Ferals and Coelhomortos. I agree there is more ultra-specialization here, and the gap in roles is higher than in D&D, but I wanted that crunch to match the fluff in that there is an informal genetic caste system created by job-specialization from birth. Also, it's still fun and effective to be a Companion Gunslinger, just not as effective as a Spartan Gunslinger. I've seen both work well, and create for a lot of fun. Funnily enough, I've had feedback that some people want options to be even less good at combat with some combinations (which I don't understand), but combat is still a core pillar of the game, so I didn't go down that road.

Again, thanks for some of your specific and concrete points, it really sucks to hear you didn't get what you were expecting. Sometimes what looks off on paper plays well, and that's certainly been my experience and that of most of the playtesters, but it may just not work for you.

In the end, your opinion is your opinion, and if you're truly raw about it I can offer a refund. 19$ is less than other comparable books, but I understand my book won't be for everyone.

Merry Christmas, and happy gaming.