Reposted by wordsbydumi.bsky.social
‘Leaning into an admission system that benefits opportunity hoarding for the affluent & closing doors of opportunity to talented students no matter where they’re from is not the way to excellence.’
Great read about admissions tests & misidentification by @dumilm.bsky.social & @oiyanpoon.bsky.social
wordsbydumi.substack.com
Test Scores and Money Are Not Accurate Measures of Soccer Talent or College Readiness
What the US can learn from the rest of the world on talent identification and development
![As the Supreme Court has noted: “A method of competition which casts upon one's competitors the burden of the loss of business unless they will descend to a practice which they are under a powerful moral compulsion not to adopt, even though it is not criminal, was thought to involve the kind of unfairness at which the [unfair methods of competition] statute was aimed."
3. The highly concentrated and interconnected structure of these markets could be creating major risks and conflicts of interest. We had started investigating these partnerships and cross-investments across the stack (and released a preliminarily overview of some findings: https://ftc.gov/news-events/news/press-releases/2025/01/ftc-issues-staff-report-ai-partnerships-investments-study).
Both federal and state enforcers should be scrutinizing these opaque relationships and inter-dependencies. We are already seeing how these relationships could undermine accountability. For example, OpenAI could face liability given the Hugging Face incident, but Hugging Face being bought up by Nvidia means that we’re unlikely to see it file a lawsuit over this — given Nvidia’s strong incentive to see OpenAI continue full speed ahead.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:azpq3hfq3llpowyqpjkqwgxs/bafkreibpynfdssvr5aehvgzmcuerbo3romumydje4qsdhog7a3tnazrh2u)
![Case 3:23-cv-00571-TAD-KDM
Document 219
5979
Filed 07/01/26 Page 1 of 23 PagelD #:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
MONROE DIVISION
JILL HINES ET AL
VERSUS
ALEX STAMOS ET AL
CASE NO. 3:23-CV-00571
JUDGE TERRY A. DOUGHTY
MAG. JUDGE KAYLA D.
MCCLUSKY
MEMORANDUM RULING
Before the Court is a Renewed Joint Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject
Matter and Personal Jurisdiction [Doc. No. 191] filed by Defendants, Alex Stamos,
Renée DiResta, the Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University, the
Leland Stanford Junior University, Kate Starbird, Graphika, Camille François, the
Atlantic Council, and Graham Brookie (collectively, "Defendants"). Plaintiffs, Jill Hines ("Hines") and Jim Hoft ("Hoft") (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), filed an Opposition
[Doc. No. 207]. Defendants then filed a Reply [Doc. No. 209].
For the reasons set forth, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND
This case is before the Court on limited remand to determine jurisdiction.
Hines v. Stamos, 111 F.4th 551 (5th Cir. 2024); see also [Doc. No. 112]. On May 2,](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:5bnbgj7gwebt6hhub4pa5c7n/bafkreih6kcz2ednyviypovpsbo3zbyl4xticv54avmgap4e2q6vpdgxyqm)
