He's trying to prevent poor people from voting.

Requiring poor people to pay a hefty fee, which they probably don't have, to get a passport seems a fairly competent way to go about making sure poor people don't vote to me.

If I don't want poor people voting, then attaching a fee to voting doesn't mean I'm incompetent. It means I'm smart enough to know poor people don't have money.

By the way, I think all of this is horrible. Everyone should be equal before the law and should have their vote count without having to pay for that right. I'm just pointing out that this is a really good way to eliminate the vote of the poor.

Under the SAVE act, you kind of have to have a passport or don't vote in some states.

Which is why I'm pretty sure it's not gonna pass. Both republicans and democrats depend heavily on mass votes from, let's just say, a lot of people who are, generally speaking, not the sort to have passports.

You shouldn't be surprised.

How else would they train the LLM PR reviewers to their standards?

I've never personally been in the position, because my entire career has been in startups, but I've had many friends be in the unenviable position of training their replacements. Here's the thing though, at least they knew they were training their replacements. We could be looking at a potential future where an employee or contractor doesn't realize s/he is actually just hired to generate training data for an LLM to replace them, and then be cut.

The question was not why did the IRS amalgamate those organizations.

The question was why did Charity Sense amalgamate those organizations.

What value is it adding if it does nothing other than report data we could get from the IRS in any case? Saying, "Hey man, we just re-post the data we get from the IRS." Is the same thing as saying, "We didn't really do any analysis."

The people claiming to be making sense of charities are the people who are supposed to be teasing that data out.