And the "meritocracy" people claim this is in pursuit of more educational opportunities for American students without a molecule of irony.

I own a tiny indie studio in Chicagoland and my peers own the some of the huge studios in Chicagoland.

Cinespace is dead right now. It has ONE show active. The other studios are so dead that they're secretly hosting bar mitzvahs and pickleball tournaments for $1500 a day just to pay property taxes.

My studio is surprisingly busy but I'm cheap and cater to non-union folks with otherwise full time jobs.

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.

I've started leaving off the prepositions, pronouns and such from sentences, and my 'pro' writing is starting to look more like casual writing - more terse. "You've got to lean into it." becomes "Lean into it."

Or I'll just resort to what an idiotic feminist college English lit prof used to call "antiquated 19th century writing style": writing long, syntactically complex but linguistically communicative sentences which convey a complex yet nuanced thought, something AI will absently and superfluously munge.

Often these are interspersed.

Somewhat. I watched some old episodes from the 70s recently and they were pushing feminism back then but it was never the focus of the show.

But I didn't stop watching this 'new, improved, better!' version because of the Woke. I did get annoyed by the way the Doctor was regularly getting bossed around by annoying English women but it was mostly just that after a few great episodes early on the stories just started to suck.

I only watched about half of Matt thingy's shows and then just one of Capaldi's was enough for me to go find something better to do with my time. So I missed most of the complete collapse of the show into what I'm told by people who suffered through it is now basically Woke Hell In Space.

Another problem was the conversion of the show into a scifi soap opera. As exemplified by this very story here, because I have no idea who most of these characters are and probably couldn't jump back into the show now if I wanted. I was also never a big fan of Billy Piper so I'm not enthused about seeing her come back yet again; I was glad to see her go the first time.

In the long run, we'll lose out on more people being able to do the "hard" things. Sort of like when schools start hiring on non-excellence criteria, you end up with students who can't do the coursework and the field suffers as a result. That's what's happening here.

In 5, 10 years when people are like "we fucked up, quick, hire good developers again" - or good voice actors, or good whatever - there won't be anyone in line to take those jobs. They'll have moved on - either finding different things to pay their way, and are no longer looking, or they'll have fully checked out. Either way, they won't be looking for the jobs. You'll probably have a mess of H1B types take their role instead.

It's going to be a huge mess.

Is this software company, by coincidence, trying to be purchased or IPO? Because that's the kind of behavior that you see before a company's founders bank out...

Every single one of Amazon's hardware products is used to siphon your data and bilge pump ads and product placements to you.

You can argue that's true for all of Amazon's properties at this point.

They've become a behemoth of a company like Microsoft did in the 90s - starting in earnest about 2 years ago, based on what I've seen from those who work there. Their culture has changed and the leadership has all but abandoned the leadership principles.

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.

Not lucky for the poor San Franciscan kids, that's for sure.

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.