As can be seen in this table (from the FA), ASIF is considerably faster than the current UDRW.

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.

At one point they gave it the algorithm and it still failed. My guess is that the large majority of humans could do it if you showed them how.

I think you just described humans. WE are the danger to this world, and provide no value to it :)

No one eats viruses but quite a lot of species depend on mosquitoes to survive, or eat the mosquito-eaters to survive.
You don't have to kill any mosquitoes, just replace them with a genetically modified version that is resistant to parasites?

Quite a lot of animals feed on insects, and then some carnivores might feed on them.
If you overfish sardines, anything bigger than a sardine may also suffer a population decline, as it is a staple food for lots of yummy fish and also marine mammals..

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.

What killed it for me was the hoops I had to jump through to post a question. I gave up on it long before the AI bots came around.

A Russian asset does not mean he's Russian, it's a claim that he's an asset used by Russia.

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.