What I really liked about the show was the subtle attention to detail. In the interior shots of the research ship, every monitor looks like it's a CRT, because that is the display technology that we had in 1979. The ship was supposedly launched before the Nostromo encountered LV-426. However, the displays in the Prodigy compound were flat panel or holographic. You couldn't buy a CRT monitor today even if you wanted one, at least one that worked well enough to be on camera. At least they made it LOOK like they were CRTs. Any other movie probably wouldn't have bothered.

More to the point, what *is* merit? Even if you knew what it was, why should it matter in the context of elite higher education, where those institutions reject enough students of *every* demographic that would succeed at those schools to fill their freshman classes with nothing but that demographic?

That GAO post seems to be an exercise in irrelevance to me. I don't think I understand why we should care "how long" in time a bill or coin might last, but rather how many transactions they are used in before they are effectively retired from circulation.

For instance, if the Mint issues a $1T coin- or 40 of them I guess- I'm willing to bet they all "last" effectively forever, even though they'll also only be used in exactly one transaction in the next half millennium.

Good thing this will be running Linux, then.

Your honor, every smartphone currently in existence has tools built in to accommodate people with vision loss, ranging from 'increase the font size' to 'magnifying glass functionality' to 'screen reader' to 'attach a braille output screen.'

You can buy a whole actual phone for the price of that ugly-ass bag.

Yeah, but you see, from marketing perspective what sounds better? The Line or the Dot or the Pimple?
They had these 3 choices, they made the more sensible one even though it has nothing to do with a good or sensible city outline.

That you don't self-identify as a racist, doesn't mean that you're not one. You insist that members of a certain race should have benefits above others, for no reason relevant to the people concerned.

- market is a collection of all people involved, who is better suited to decide on what the value is other than all of the people as a collective vote?

- they are removing the money from the gullible, which may be argued is a better way to redistribute the money (all done willingly even though misguidedly).

- the market has already decided that the parents of heirs were productive enough, that even their heirs can now enjoy the fruits of the labor of the people who made the money.

- dangerous by what measure?

I don't think that's the only thing. When your human capital has become more responsible for your organization's enterprise value, productivity, and opportunities for growth over time, why shouldn't it take more human resources to manage it?

I think this kind of misses the actual problem. "AI slop" is no worse than "human lawyer slop." The underlying issue is that the vast majority of lawyers take a position or come up with an argument and *then* look for cases to support it, quite willingly citing cases that may even be realistically neutral on the question. That, in turn, has perpetuated the idea that there is no value in mere argument without direct precedential support. While I'm well aware of the intended benefits of predictability and consistency, I can't see the point in the typical brief- surely the public doesn't need citation X to consider whether one side of an adversarial argument is more just or fair. If the AI's or human lawyer's actual reasoned argument is good, I feel like that should be enough far more often than it actually is.

Sure, if you wanna go down the road of whether, say, it's constitutionally necessary that St. Cyr apply to actual pre-IIRIRA and -AEDPA convictions rather than just guilty pleas as a form of 212(c) relief from deportation, that is a deep, complicated rabbit hole, and I would be willing to entertain the contention that it should be comprehensively briefed based on dozens of obliquely-related cases. But I don't think it gets us any closer to fairness and justice than asking "If you thought that some guy that pled guilty shouldn't be subject to changes in immigration law, why should the guy that contested his charges instead be out of luck?"

DEI is advertised by its proponents as "anti-racism". And as such, it's to racism as antimatter is to matter: weighs the same, behaves the same, looks the same, has some colors flipped, acts violently when in contact with its counterpart -- but as long as all of the flipped "colors" remain flipped, indistinguishable from it.

So here's a math exercise: assuming a normal distribution (which is incredibly "infectious" as long as the scores have multiple different causes), generate a population of scores for group A and for group B, with group B having the average lower by X points. Now select the best candidates, using any of the following strategies:
* quotas: reserve A/(A+B) spots for group A, B/(A+B) spots for group B
* Affirmative Action: give every candidate from B X extra points, pick from the global population
* meritocracy: pick from the global population based only on the scores, completely blind to race/gender/zodiac sign/odd-or-even date of birth/etc
* penalty for the "inferior" group: subtract X points from every candidate from B, pick globally
* traditional racism: pick from only group A
Now compare the total score of candidates you picked for every strategy.

It doesn't matter if groups A vs B differ by race, gender, etc -- the mechanism is the same.

I thought it was going to be the evolution of building a monster truck, but turned out to be an inchworm with wheels.

Two wrongs don't make a right.

But three lefts do.

I think they mean sink.