erez

• Can't have the wifi and hotspot on and the same time
• Can't record calls
• Can't make homepage icons small
• Can't remove the default keyboard
• Worse apps

That's a very condescending comment. Maybe I came across as condescending too. Either way, if your criticism was supposed to be helpful, I'm sorry to say that it isn't. You didn't provide any evidence that I'm wrong. From my perspective, it sounds like you just don't understand me, so you decided to give up.

Anyway, I'm not that enthusiastic about debating strangers over the internet, I only replied because you sounded curious. So I'm equally happy to bid you farewell.

Sorry for the delay, I don't visit here very often. But thanks for engaging, and excuse my know-it-all tone.

I think there's a basic misunderstanding regarding meritocracy. It is not something that only occurs in the top branches of the government. It's something that should occur in every level of every organization, in every office and in every pay-grade. It's not meant to solve the question of "who is the supreme leader", because such a question is impossible. It's meant to describe how should society function.

And which will continue until “most capable” is better defined

That is sophism imho. We don't have to have the perfect definition, we just need to be closer to it than the alternatives.

The foundation of every democratic, republic, and individual choice based system today.

Popularity contests are a bad way of making choices, and it's a big reason for why modern democracies have so many problems. Also, they are very often rigged, which is how you end up with "shit sandwich" situations (or Putin).

all people under any one governing system would never agree on what is virtuous, worthy, valuable, honorable, or respectable

There will never be a 100% agreement on what is true, or what is beautiful, or what is virtuous. But if we aim there, we can get closer than if we don't.

How are resources distributed between groups?

Free market. Bid on problems. There are many possible algorithms. Right we do the worst option, in which the governing body distribute funds based on political power.

Or is this still an ownership system where you can hold on to any property indefinitely

I definitely believe in private property, if that's what you're asking. I think anyone who doesn't is either dumb or delusional. Indefinitely is a bit much, but it should last long enough to be worth the effort.

A good workhorse is rewarded with more work. A never truer statement. Merit sounds exhausting today.

The idea is that you get enough rewards (money, social capital, etc.) that you will find the work worthwhile. Also, a lot of people enjoy doing things that they are good at. Either way, there is a point when you contributed enough that you can just peace out for the rest of your life, aka retirement. This is already semi-possible even in today's broken system.

they just want the government to solve their problems or get out of their way

That's a problem by itself. Governments are very bad at solving complex problems.

all seem to think voting for anyone other than rubbish R or rubbish D is throwing their vote away

That's kind of true, because Americans refuse to implement a secondary choice. Just one little change would solve so much. (not that there aren't 1000s of other problems).

If the meritocracy is not the law, who is the law?

I don't really understand the question. The law is a bunch of rules, chosen by people in power. Ideally, those people would be competent, and create good laws. In my view, any system of law that doesn't periodically remove or refactors outdated laws is incompetent. Yes, that's basically everywhere.

You could try to enforce meritocracy in law. It would definitely help, but I don't think it would be sufficient without cultural adoption.

It's like you keep trying to find "who's on top", but in a perfect world no one is. Power should always be checked, and balanced. Monopolies should always be curtailed, both in the private and public sector. Meritocracy is just one algorithm out of many, like the free market, in order to have a better and more efficient society.

Hope that clears things up.

All of these arguments try to argue that implementing meritocracy perfectly is impossible.

But ask yourself, what is the alternative? A system in which the most capable person isn't in charge? Should we go back to bloodlines, or popularity contests, or maybe use a lottery?

I agree it's very difficult to determine merit, and even more difficult to stop power struggles from messing with the evaluation, or with the implementation. But I would still prefer a system that at least tries to be meritocratic and comes up short, to a system that has given up entirely on the concept.

I'll try to answer some of your questions, as best as I understand it:

Who determines merit, ability, and position?

Ideally, a group of peers would vote for someone within the group, who is the most capable, with outside supervision to prevent abuses.

Popularity contests in determining merit

Popularity shouldn't factor into it. Only ability. (and there's no doubt Depp is the better actor :P )

Are Athletes or Artists more worthy

Each one is worthy within the scope of their domain of expertise, in which they have demonstrated merit.

Power corrupts

Always true in every system. That's why we need checks and balances.

Save the entire planet, then start kicking cats. Still a hero?

If kicking cats is wrong, it should be against the law, and no one should be above the law. All other things being equal, whoever has the most capacity to save the planet should be the one to do it.

How long does a merit last?

For as long as you can demonstrate it. If someone better comes along, they should take your place.

Brilliant mathematicians get rewarded with what?

More mathematical problems. And ideally, also lots of money and babes.

At the end of the day, it's a cultural problem. Meritocracy can only work if there's a critical mass of people who believe in it, understand it, and enforce it socially. The same can be said of democracy, capitalism, and basically any other social order.

There is a polish on their platforms that is best in class

As someone who was an Android user and tried switching to an iPhone, I see lots of weird bugs and behaviors I never had with Android. Sure, the OS is slightly better, and rarely crashes, but everything else is a little bit worse.

Literally every Google app is better than Apple's. Be it Google maps, keyboard, mail, calendar, etc. But because they aren't made for iPhone, there's all kinds of little bugs, mostly visual/UI related.

And then there's all these nonsensical decisions that make my life harder. Hotspot can't run with wifi on, you can't record your calls (very useful when talking to banks, government, etc.), can't even arrange the icons in "home" screen to fixed locations or make them smaller.

I finally figured out that when Apple fans talk about polish, they just mean it looks pretty and feels high-end. Which, sure, I can concede that. But that's not what I actually care about.

Anyway, rant over, sorry to take it out on you!

So I guess you're still using it?

It's too early to know what was the cause of the intelligence failure. But I wouldn't be surprised if it was because Iran introduced new technology and protocols, that went unnoticed below the usual chatter.

Israel Defense Forces say women and children have been taken hostage.

Odd phrasing. Hamas confirmed it, and there are videos and photos proving it to be the case.

There is something a bit contradictory in saying that there is a level above us that we are not aware of, but by taking drugs we can become aware of it. If it's a separate layer than ours, how can we move towards it while remaining ourselves? And why can't we go lower, and become aware of the consciousness of our organs or cells?

The way I see it, our consciousness is like a hot air balloon, always floating upwards, but our brain (specifically the ego) tethers it to the here and now, so that we can survive in the physical world. What psychedelic drugs do is loosen the rope, weaken the ego, and let us float higher. If you get high enough, you experience "ego death", which in this metaphor just means that you can't see the ground anymore.

(in contrast, some drugs, like cocaine, make the ego even stronger)

It's all pretty much from the same ridiculous kung-fu movie, as far as I could tell. There's even some similarity in the plot.

I think it holds up, especially if you watch the original movie it was based on.