So what do you think, Rabbi—are the Ethiopians exempt from the law of the Talmud since it is based on acceptance, or are they drawn after the majority?

I’m not sure they are obligated, but it would be good for them to accept it upon themselves for policy reasons.

Rabbi Michi, apropos of the Shulchan Arukh and the Yemenites, when did the Ashkenazim accept the Shulchan Arukh upon themselves, if at all?

I’ve already written several times that not really. That was brought only as an illustration of the principle.

[I wrote the post.] The Yemenites do not need to accept the Shulchan Arukh, since the Jewish people as a whole did not accept the Shulchan Arukh upon themselves. Even according to Rabbi Ovadia, who is the most extreme on this issue, there are times when he departs from the rule of the Shulchan Arukh, which means there is no absolute acceptance here, unlike the acceptance of the Talmud, whose acceptance is absolute (just to clarify the difference—if many later authorities disagree with the Shulchan Arukh and show that his words are unconvincing, people will not rule in accordance with him. If all the Geonim and medieval authorities disagree with the Talmud, their words are rejected, not the words of the Talmud). And what the Rabbi wrote about policy considerations—that is exactly my second claim in the post.

That doesn’t matter. One can also speak about accepting a specific Jewish law, and not a book.

That really is what you wrote; I only emphasized that this is not a claim that obligates them, because they are not obligated. It is a recommendation that they accept it upon themselves and thereby obligate themselves for the sake of integration.