I thought the greeters were an anti-shoplifting technique, "hello someone saw you here" kind of thing.

And putting a seat in the checkout station means they can't be packed quite as closely and also gets in the way when someone else needs to tag in to ring up booze or whatever.

A higher fraction of money going into the system is lost to navigating adversarial processes. And probably the occasional person getting in legal trouble for not validating their LLM output before feeding it to a formal process.

For customer-funded things (eg home insurance), this means higher prices for the same in-practice benefits (as distinct from nominal benefits; any gap between nominal and actual benefits will probably end up smaller).

For publicly-funded things (government benefits), this could show as increased budgets for the same result or decreased results on the same budget.

.

> So I suspect this will lead to a much more formally rigorous system with various “certificates” proving, e.g., that you lost your job or that a doctor has confirmed you have a disability.

Well, maybe standardization of how employers or doctors or whoever are required to report things to the government.

Limits on how much parents can spend other people's resources on their kids. Which goes with civil office being a job rather than a special privilege.

Also, define "success". Even if it's just about being exceptional in economic terms, AIUI a bog-standard swdev salary is enough to be in the top 10% with no favoritism needed. And if it's about being able to retire and have grandkids come visit sometimes, I think that might be more common than not.

Since these practices are inferred from their effects rather than directly observed, there's no list.

The current rules are that [in specific listed contexts] you are not allowed to treat individuals differently on the basis of [explicit list of characteristics].

That's essentially your (a), except it's not up to interpretation. Pretending that it is up to interpretation is how you get things like what the article is about (in that case by measuring group statistics rather than comparing individual experiences).

No, but maybe this highlights that it's never accurate to conflate "open source" or "free (as in speech) software" with end-users having power over the people providing resources to the project.

Being almost more boring than the thing that caused Malthus to become wrong is quite an accomplishment.

The age-gate / anti-anonymity laws popping up everywhere are because there are enough people who would answer "yes" to that.

I found a 5+ year old half-full bag in the back of the pantry once; that was quite noticeably bad even though I usually can't tell the difference between kinds beyond recognizing that there is some sort of difference.

1. Snail-mail

2. Public cork-boards

3. E-mail