The problem is apparent on both sides. Yes, Republicans are doing that.
But then instead of coming up with a timeline on introducing IDs into the voting process (e.g., passing a legislation requiring offering a free-of-charge state ID to people below poverty line which I would happily support), the Democrat answer is "NO".

Really? I mean are there really millions of Americans who will be prevented from voting by requiring an ID?
Am I that disconnected from the people that a significant number of them do not have any ID? You need an ID for everything! They started hard-requiring an ID to buy a bus ticket (e.g., Concord Trailways) years ago, even if you come to the counter and pay cash.

You think the goal of the scheme to keep kids safe? Ah, sweet summer child...

The goal is to 1) collect data and 2) generally de-anonymize people on the internet. This scheme will achieve both goals (with remaining Discord users, anyway).

Most people will not bother. Children will probably use their parent's info as bypass -- which will not prevent children from going on Discord, but it will de-anonymize these children.

Right. So these people will also be de-anonymized because they tried following the procedure and provided their id.
They'll probably get access to Discord eventually through customer support, but that's secondary.

I work at a big US-based university (R2 but I am guessing that you may be at R1?).
I can confirm that there is absolutely no such thing in my university. IT is mostly concerned about blocking off external access (sans VPN) and adding 2FA to absolutely everything. I had to argue for them to allow port 80 on one of my NAS devices in a lab

If there is a single group or person who would help with data organization and preservation, I am yet to meet them (in my 14 years).

How could a workforce cut ever result in strengthening sales or marketing operations?
Best case scenario -- it saves money and doesn't tank the remaining sales too badly.

Wow.
Even if all of the things you assert are true... Are you really trying to imply that he and Biden had the same access to medical care? So the only thing that differentiated them was the choices on whether or not to trust medical science?
Indeed, I am sure every cartoonist has the same access to medical care & science as the President of the United States. Sure.

Can you think of a good ad?
I certainly clicked on Google ads but I don't know that I have seen a tolerable video ad on the Internet. You'd think that statistically a few of them would be tolerable or amusing. But the only ads I remember is when I'd rather pay a little extra to a competitor than give money to a company whose obnoxious ad I saw.

If that were the case, the article title would be "Employers choose to hire community college graduates instead of Stanford"
You think they are hiring more non-Ivy-league students instead?

You know, when I want to do an anonymous (no names are preserved) survey of security professionals, I have to go through multi-week or even multi-month IRB (Institutional Review Board) approval, explaining how I protect the data I collected and the subjects, etc. IRB members often have opinions on my survey questions and also on whether I am sufficiently clear about how and where the data is stored in the survey header.
And that's when I don't keep the names of my subjects nor do I collect anything personal about them. Personally, I don't know about all the extra paperwork for the underage subjects because my research doesn't touch that. So... did they fill out a big IRB form and got releases from all parents to perform a giant experiment? Did they properly explain and disclose all of the risks to the students if the experiment fails?

Maybe there is some pushback for people with such attitude?
I mean no offense -- shouldn't asylum seekers who feel this way go to another country which they don't consider vile and racist?

Yes, I believe this is where it's coming from, regardless of who actually did it.

My understanding is that this generally accounts for the diversity/representation gap between movies and TV shows. In movies, representation is either absent or very contained (like a throw away sentence that can be easily cut out in international release). Movies have to cater to many countries, including China. TV shows have nothing but representation because they are mostly targeting USA or maybe Europe and don't have to deal with all countries.

If I wanted to log into my MS account as soon as I get to a computer, I would have already upgraded to Windows 11.

So you are saying that Trump should have just threatened ABC behind the scenes and then everything would be ok?
My problem is not with the how this is executed but with the fact that the government is unduly influencing the media.

I don't think there is a University/College in the country that doesn't receive state support money in some form. Private is of course far less, but still significant.
I suppose only the local student receive state funding, but undergraduate students are often locals (vs graduate students).

100%, just like car emissions.
The difference (I think) is that you can have electricity prices vary from state to state. Different level of AI development from state to state seems impossible (and different level of AI use from state to state will also be tricky, if technically possible).
As an example, CA can outlaw certain types of AI in self-driving cars, but then how does that work at the state borders? Banned AI cars know not to cross the state boundary? There are state border checkpoints that audit the code in your car at the crossing?

Admittedly, I have not read the article, so very possible that it totally misinterprets the bill.
But I would consider the merits: Is it a good idea to allow states to regulate AI (whether it comes from R party or D party)?
Personally, I doubt that because I cannot think of a good reason to let a state regulate AI. What could it possibly achieve? But I'd be interested in counter arguments for why it is useful.