Let us not forget that as a female artist, there is more than 1 option for sticking stuff into.
What kind of looks like a selfie stick at first glance before I focus enough to see zipper, could be either.
I've also read enough EMT stories to believe it.

Swap 'EV' with 'car'.
The powerplqnt doesn't matter at this point.

Ever consider that with their tech level that you wouldn't see trans people? We only see them today because the transformation isn't perfect.
Dr. Bashir was apparently able to pull a sex change operation on Quark within hours as an out patient procedure. Then reverse it. Now, I know, not human, but you should get the point. Other things we see are artifical eyes, hearts, and cloned spines.
Basically, one of the main cases could have had a sex change and we'd never know it unless it came up in the background.
As for TOS, that would be a Doyalist explanation - not an issue yet even on people's minds. Racism still was. True through TNG at the least.

Indeed. For that matter, it just occured to me that it fits the "communist manifesto" pretty good.

Consider that Earth, that became a founding member of the Federation, had to suffer through WWIII and the Eugenics wars. Depending on the writers, those might have been separate or the same conflict. And if you follow the backstory, they had to be bad. Worse than WWI and WWII put together, higher casualty rates.

And what did Marx put in his writings? That the utopian communist society would have to be put in place through revolution - let's see, they eliminate money after an extremely damaging world war...
Though later writers did tend to moderate stuff a bit. I always keep in mind that we're seeing the Federation primarily through the lens of Starfleet, effectively the Navy. Of course, it's going to keep its crews fed and happy. It's probably not going to worry about money, though apparently, they do have "credits" - transporter, replicator, that sort of thing.
The Vulcans and most other races still seem to have money, so the lack is mostly human/earth based. Despite the Vulcan's backstory actually being worse, war wise.

That said, I have to disagree on "woke" and transhumanism. I'm a scifi nerd. Woke isn't even dipping its toe into that.

Perhaps, but the other side can display all the science showing that the specific event in question was casused by the emission of way too much global greenhouse gas emissions.
Then remember that civil trial evidence standards are not "beyond a reasonable doubt" but "preponderance of the evidence", IE "more likely than not". With a criminal trial the defense can win by injecting enough slivers of doubt to reach "reasonable doubt" to get a not guilty verdict. With a civil trial, they have to go much further and reach "probably not us", which is much more difficult.

We've always had "preaching" stories. What do you think the Bible nearly entirely is?
90% of stuff is crap. Survivorship bias means that you don't see the crap produced hundreds of years ago and forget about the crap produced dozens of years ago.

The problem with "woke" stuff is that they lose track of needing to "tell a good story" in order to successfully sell their morality play.

That reminds me of an actual deployment. USAF, our backup generator had a blown regulation system. Our solution was literally that whenever we had to go onto it, we'd station an airman at the generator manually turning the adjustment knobs to keep it at 240V@60Hz.

That's a bit like asking a new company with heavy manufacturing infrastructure to turn a cash profit the first year.

The whole idea is that with the base software done, they keep adding the extra features necessary for more people to file, with more and more able to each year.

Okay, I think that you're too close to the experience - you made it, why can't others?
Basically, I'm taking more of a statistical approach - in the sense that for each obstacle you put in front of a bunch of students, a percentage will fail. You don't want to give students any more excuses to fail than you can.

I think that I 'm not going to use high school scores as a hiring metric, period. Heck, not even a college degree.

The real question would be whether de-emphasizing homework and weekly testing improves performance or not. "Too much testing" is a refrain I heard a lot a few years ago.

In this case, note how I said "I'd object" not "I object", IE "I would object to"
Basically, race was not mentioned in the article, but I could see somebody trying to use it in the actual system, so I addressed it.

Indeed. When I started high school, besides the teachers, they had 1 principle, 1 vice, 1 secretary, and 4 counselors who handled things like college applications, technical schools, and such.
When I graduated, they were up to 4 vice principles, 12 counselors, 6 secretaries, and 8 security guards.

I'm well used to exams that will give you a C if you score only a 41 out of 100 from college. Called "grading on a curve", though some classes have been around long enough that they're averaging over multiple classes and multiple years. Then you have tests like the ASVAB, SAT, ACT, etc... They're all curved and otherwise adjusted from raw score to the final.
Depending on the teacher, the curving system can be extremely complex. They can chuck outliers like the student who regularly scores 20 points over everybody else, decide that 10% of the class is getting an A, declare that 80% of the class is getting at least a C, etc...

That said, I'd object to using color of the skin for padding purposes.

Eliminating homework actually makes some sense - in the age of AI, it is too easy to fake much of the time, and is one of the things that tends to separate out the low income types from achieving as well as high income types, because one of the things high incomes enable is time savings. If you have to get a job as a teen to keep your family housed, well, that's less time for homework. If you can afford to be driven everywhere, that's time saved over the bus. If you have to visit the library for internet access, that's extra time needed. Etc...
Same deal could be argued for weekly tests. Performance capability at the end is what matters.
Mind you, I remember my parents talking about the New York Regency tests, which wasn't 100% of the grade, but could replace your grade if you did better on that test than what the teacher awarded.
Had an uncle who hated one of his teachers, and it was mutual. He got an F in the class, which was upgraded to an A because he aced the regency test. Note: This was so rare that he got investigated for possibly cheating, because the test was deliberately harder than the class.

Lost my grandmother to lung cancer that metastasized to the brain. There is some urge towards violence, yes.

Well, in this case rsilvergun is actually right about long prison sentences not deterring crime.
Well, that's the "short" simplified headline, at least.
The more correct statement would be that the deterrence effect of long sentences is minimal compared to the other factors.
It's basically a triangle:
Certainty of punishment: The more certain they are to get caught, the more effect it has.
Immediacy of punishment: The faster the punishment takes place, the more effect it has.
Severity of punishment: The harsher the punishment, the more effect. At least in theory.
What research has shown is that that certainty and immediacy beat severity every single time.
Even the NIJ agrees:
1. The certainty of being caught is a vastly more powerful deterrent than the punishment.
2. Sending an individual convicted of a crime to prison isn’t a very effective way to deter crime.
3. Police deter crime by increasing the perception that criminals will be caught and punished.
4. Increasing the severity of punishment does little to deter crime.
5. There is no proof that the death penalty deters criminals.

I think they're still using faxes for legal purposes even today in Japan.