There are real issues with meritocracy, mostly that people who say they are unbiased in their evaluations are often among the most biased individuals. This leads to systematic biases in hiring and compensation where, despite the promise of decisions being purely merit-based, they often slant against women and minorities. See this article for more details. This article argues that subjective evaluations are often biased and these biases need to be corrected for to ensure that we really are rewarding those with the most merit. I wholeheartedly support this approach to diversity and inclusion.

The SAT is flawed evaluation that has very limited predictive value in determining a student's readiness for college. It needs to be improved or replaced with another system that is a better predictor of success in college. However, the SAT does not have subjective biases like those discussed in the prior link. There is also no strong reason to believe that an adversity score will improve the ability to predict a student's success in college.

It doesn't do any good to admit students who have not been adequately prepared to succeed in college. These students may well struggle and spend lots of money or go into debt while receiving little value in return. We do need to ensure that students in less affluent neighborhoods have access to high quality primary and secondary education. Those children didn't choose to be born into less affluent areas, and they deserve equal opportunity.

An adversity score isn't the solution. It masks the problem and admits students whose time and money may well be wasted. Solutions like an adversity score make it appear like these issues are being addressed while ignoring the underlying problems. If there is any significant negative correlation between entrance exam scores and adversity, it is indicating that these students don't have equal opportunity because of a lower quality of primary and secondary education.

I don't think all odd-numbered Star Trek films are bad at all. TMP and III are far better than ST V or Generations.

TMP's biggest issue is the pacing, or the complete lack thereof. But it has a great score, composed by Jerry Goldsmith. It has some really great visual effects, though many of the sequences (especially inside the V'ger cloud) are drawn out too long. Some sequences like the transporter accident and the wormhole could be better connected to the story and the plot points, namely that Kirk is rusty and the (gorgeous) refit Enterprise is nowhere ready to launch. The part about Kirk being rusty sets up a major plot point for the remaining movies, especially TWOK and Generations, that Kirk hates being an admiral. He wants to be a starship captain because it's what he loves and he believes that he can make a difference as a captain. TMP is a lot like the Star Trek version of 2001: A Space Odyssey. It's not a great movie, but it's a lot better than people think. And some of the slow pacing can be forgiven: the five minute flyby of the refit Constitution class is actually pretty cool -- if you ask me, it's the most beautiful ship in all of science fiction.

As for ST III, this is actually a pretty good movie. It suffers from being between TWOK and The Voyage Home, two great movies. The score is really good, an update by James Horner to his score for TWOK. There is some pretty good action, namely stealing the Enterprise from spacedock and then fighting the Klingons. It also sets up Kirk's hatred of Klingons, something that he has to address in ST V and VI. It's a pretty good middle in a trilogy where the first and third movies were just outstanding movies (especially TWOK).

And let's be honest, they're a lot better than anything that came after Enterprise.

If you had a transplant from a pig, would it become cannibalism to eat bacon?

I agree that YouTube has to remove content upon receiving a DMCA claim. However, it's not clear that, upon receiving a counter notification, YouTube has to immediately share the identity of the person submitting that counter notification. That's covered in subsection (g)(3)(D). It seems like they could agree to promptly disclose the identity of the person submitting the counter notification when a lawsuit is filed. In that situation, the lawsuit is filed and a subpoena is issued according to disclose the person's identity in accord with section (h).

If, indeed, filing a counterclaim led to a swatting (this is alleged, not yet proved), adopting this approach would limit the ability to carry out such retaliation. I doubt the defendant in this case would have been willing to sue to obtain someone's identity for the purpose of swatting.

I believe YouTube could change their policy in that respect and still comply with the law. Please correct me if I've misinterpreted the law, but that's how I understand it.

The DMCA requires that claims be submitted under penalty of perjury that the claimant has legal authority to make the claims. That's obviously not the case here, and the intent is obvious in this situation. It seems like this involves perjury and extortion. This seems like it should be a criminal matter, not just a civil one.

If I was trolling, I wouldn't have followed up with a "bullshit moderation" comment. If you think I'm wrong, I'll be happy to debate and/or clarify. But I think the opposing position needed to be clarified because the summary doesn't explain why anyone would perceive this as anticompetitive.

Yes, Apple develops the OS and gets the location data anyway. True enough. But the OS collecting the data doesn't mean the data needs to be sent to Apple. On the other hand, Apple Maps would have a reason to send location data to Apple. Apple Maps was criticized upon its release, and I can definitely see why someone would want to use a third party app for navigation. If privacy is a concern, that app should not be Google Maps. In my opinion, the OS should treat permissions from an app that's produced by a company like Garmin the same way they would treat permissions from an in-house app. The same goes for many fitness trackers that are alternatives to Apple's health app. Yes, Apple already has access to location data via the OS, but that doesn't mean the location data should get shared with Apple's servers. Other apps would have reason to send the data to Apple.

It seems like it would be easier to have the same permissions popup for both Apple and third party apps. It seems like it should take more code to treat Apple apps differently. Why? Perhaps it provides a better default experience for the user. But I'm always skeptical when tech companies are involved.

There was a story last year, and I linked to it elsewhere in this thread, that Apple wants to enter the smartphone advertising market. Handling location data this way would potentially give them a competitive advantage over other advertisers because Apple would have access to more location data than other ad companies. I don't feel sympathy for any advertising company that tracks and targets individual users. I don't want my location history going to Facebook, Google, or Apple. Read this story about Apple forcing developers to provide an option to sign in through their Apple account.

Google controls Android. The OS can collect location data, record from the microphone at any time, turn the camera on, or any number of other things. Given that Google controls Android, should we fully trust Google Play Services, Google Maps, or other software they provide? As I said, I think the reaction would be very different if Google was doing this rather than Apple. I don't particularly trust either of them.

Your knowledge is a bit out of date, actually. Please see these Slashdot stories from 2018 and 2019:

1) Apple Is Reportedly Eyeing the Ad Business
2) 'Apple Wants To Kill the Ad Industry. It's Forcing Developers To Help.'

From the second article:

Apple may not have an ad network at the moment, but they're clearly considering reestablishing one. It would seem simple enough for Apple to restrict the permission choices for their own apps, too. That would make the whole issue go away.

It is not off topic to discuss the basis for the claim that Apple is engaging in anticompetitive behavior. The issue is discussed in TFA and was quoted by the OP. Furthermore, the fact that the companies objecting produce spyware invalidates the specific complaint an ad hominem logical fallacy. It is reasonable that the most permissive setting presented to the user without going into the phone settings is to allow location access only while the app is open. However, there are apps that legitimately have a reason to get location data while running in the background. Some fitness/workout trackers would have a legitimate reason. Background access could be a separate permission and Apple could restrict the type of apps that could even request such a permission. A fitness tracker might need background location access but a browser does not. Another issue is coarse or fine access to the location. A weather app would work just fine with coarse location access, perhaps enough to know what city I'm in, or within the range of a couple of miles, but not the precise location. It could tell what city I'm in, to give me an accurate forecast. It could know an approximate location, to know if I'm in a severe thunderstorm or tornado warning polygon. But it doesn't need my location precisely enough to know which store I'm shopping at. On Android, location data is divided into coarse and fine detail, which is a good idea. A workout tracking app or a navigation app probably needs a finer level of detail than most other apps. This is an intelligent way to provide location data. The problem is not with restricting the options presented to the user. That's actually a good idea because most users will accept the top or default option. They also don't want to be hassled with popups, so they might click "always" if presented with the option. The problem is that Apple's built-in apps are treated differently, which is why this behavior is alleged to be anticompetitive. I actually agree with restricting the available options for all apps, and not providing an exemption to Apple's built-in apps. The complaint about anticompetitive behavior would be made null and void if Apple imposed the same policy for their own built-in apps.

I suppose my comment was modded down for disagreeing with the pro-Apple echo chamber in this article.

Apple wants to expand their own ad network on iOS devices. Location data is valuable if you intend to track users and build profiles for marketing to them. Apple wants in on this because smartphone sales are declining. The hardware business is less lucrative so they want to offset it with advertising.

I understand that a "Find my iPhone" app probably shouldn't be prompting users once the service is enabled, because that defeats its purpose. However, that data should only be shared when a user explicitly makes a request from their Apple account.

But why should the OS other Apple apps be permitted to harvest location data? Why should Apple, a company that wants to expand its advertising revenue, be trusted with location data? It wouldn't surprise me if this move was done partly to give Apple an edge over competitors in building an ad network for iOS apps. I don't feel any sympathy for advertising and spyware companies. However, I don't see why Apple should be trusted, either. I can't imagine that people would give Google a pass on this type of behavior.

While the "Find my iPhone" is a lousy example, there are other built-in apps that do have competition. There are lots of calendars, cameras, health/fitness tracker apps, messaging apps, browsers, streaming video (the TV app), weather apps, etc... These apps do compete with Apple's built-in apps. Why should Safari be treated differently than Firefox, for example? There seems to be a legitimate case that this behavior is, indeed, anticompetitive. The same limitations should apply to Apple's apps. I don't see why Apple should be trusted with location data.

Keep in mind, Trump was concerned about the cost of supporting Puerto Rico after Hurricane Maria devastated the territory. Micronesia is an independent republic associated with the United States, but hasn't exactly been supported well. I see nothing to convince me that the US would be any more willing to support Greenland.

I've heard the issue about disregarding canon many times and it just doesn't make sense. We're talking about TOS-era canon, which frequently hasn't been treated as being canon. There was little consistency among the writers in TOS. For example, stardates are pretty much all over the place in TOS. In TNG, stardates began with 4, the second number was the season of TNG, then the remaining numbers were increased throughout the season. For example, stardate 43996.1 would be near the end of TNG season 3, or right around the time of The Best of Both Worlds. Starship speeds were much faster in TOS, as indicated in Let That Be Your Last Battlefield, in which two aliens take over the Enterprise and take it to a planet on the other side of the galaxy, in uncharted territory. Perhaps the aliens had Q-like powers, but it leaves the problem that the Enterprise would have been stranded on the other side of the galaxy. They were back in Federation space for the next episode, rather than being stuck 75 years away from Earth like in Voyager. In That Which Survives, the Enterprise was hurled 990 light years and is able to travel back in a matter of days. For comparison, in Q Who, the Enterprise-D was hurled 7,000 light years to system J-25 in the Beta Quadrant and was over two years from the nearest starbase. Other TOS-era things like the galactic barrier and the great barrier (Star Trek V) appeared. In TOS and Star Trek IV, time travel is possible by slingshotting around a star to attain faster speeds than can be produced by the ship's engines under normal circumstances. These things were never spoken of again after TOS and the TOS-era movies. By the time of TNG, there were more formal rules for the writers to follow. That's why TNG and later series are generally more consistent. TOS-era canon was already disregarded in some ways by TNG. I just don't think canon is the issue here. Instead I propose that Gene Roddenberry established standards for Star Trek and rules. An example of this is not showing conflict between members of the crew outside of rare situations. For all the criticism of Rick Berman, he was very strict at following Gene Roddenberry's standards. Many people would say he was far too strict about this. It included things like insisting that Voyager follow an episodic format rather than larger story arcs. Berman is criticized for refusing to deviate from Gene Roddenberry's standards enough, causing the franchise to become stale. Alex Kurtzman and others have been willing to ignore Roddenberry's standards and break many of his rules, things that fans became used to in the Rick Berman era. The result is a product that no longer looks and feels like Star Trek. I have no problem with the updated aesthetic of Discovery, and the bridge of the Enterprise looks amazing. Ignoring canon makes sense in some instances, otherwise TNG wouldn't have done it. But the writing is so different and that's why it just doesn't feel like Star Trek.

Does this explain why Slashdot disabled AC posting? Are they concerned they could be liable, particularly if one of the crazy people like APK were to commit violent acts? Is that also why they're deleting some comments, including where whipslash acknowledged that AC posting was disabled? I think there should be liability if the site hosting the content should have reasonably known about the content and that it was illegal. In the above context, many of us have flagged APK's posts, yet they weren't deleted. Other users egged him on to do things like committing suicide. If those things actually happened, since Slashdot should have known (due to the content being flagged), then yes, there should be some liability. Also, intentionally not having a way to report abuse shouldn't be an excuse for not knowing. On the other hand, a site that gets thousands of comments per day can't be expected to review everything, especially if it's never reported.

I want to report a possible Slashdot bug. I'm not sure how else to do so, which is why I'm posting here. I thought Slashdot had banned anonymous posting. If so, how was the parent comment posted anonymously? This may be a bug, and I want to bring it to the attention of the editors.

Why should Amazon automatically be denied?

By default, the FAA places a number of restrictions on UAS operation, including flying no higher than 400 feet above ground, remaining in visual line of sight of an operator, not flying over people, and not flying at night. These requirements exist for safety reasons.

There are plenty of reasons that a UAS operator may want to exceed these default restrictions. The operator doesn't simply ask that the FAA ignore safety restrictions, and that's not what Amazon is doing. The FAA requires that anyone wishing to exceed the default restrictions demonstrate that they can safely operate the UAS under those conditions. The FAA thoroughly review such applications, and the process can take months to obtain an approval. If the application is approved, you're granted a certificate of authorization (COA), which permits the operator to exceed some of the default safety restrictions within a defined geographic area.

Anyone can apply for a COA, and I doubt that Amazon's request will be treated any differently. The FAA reviews a large number of COA requests, so Amazon isn't getting special treatment. It sounds like Amazon has simply applied for a COA, and is waiting on the FAA review process.

COA requests are so common that the FAA has posted a video on Youtube about how to apply for a COA. There are additional videos about how to request waivers from specific requirements like the visual line of sight requirement. Why should Amazon be denied the opportunity to apply for a COA in the same manner that everyone else does? They're not getting special treatment, but rather following the same process that applies to everyone. I fail to see the problem here.