The USA is $40T in the hole because (1) Americans are greedy and want lots of stuff, and (2) Americans are selfish and don't want to pay taxes.

These traits are multiplied one-hundred fold for the super-rich, which is why the super-rich are still getting handouts and tax cuts while everyone else is getting shafted.

Want to cut the deficit? Tax the rich a lot more. Tax everyone else a bit more. Cut spending on the military and other high-cost but limited-benefit items.

And then spend strategically by lowering the cost of university education and spending more on R&D to make the USA competitive again.

Trump, of course, is doing the opposite of all of these things and is sending the USA straight down the crapper.

I think you need to reduce the unit of time to HOURS. Or maybe even MINUTES.

Seconded, with the proviso that there's still room for high-quality content that you have to pay a subscription fee to see.

I subscribe to a few sites. LWN, The Globe and Mail, The Beaverton and Macleans

But those are rare sites with really good content. I don't think it would be a terrible thing if the number of web sites that make their living off of content dropped by a factor of 1000, so only those with high-enough quality to attract subscribers survived. We'd then have the quality subscription sites and the labor-of-love hobby sites that aren't trying to make money (and hence don't fling ads in your face) and the Web would be so much better.

Oh, while we're at it, let's kill off Meta, TikTok and Reddit. :)

But I will gladly visit a site that is designed for USERS rather than advertisers.

Sure, but Google never sends traffic to such a site, so what's the incentive to create it in the first place?

Don't get me wrong... I'd love to see the ad-supported web go away. But how do we support web sites, then? Subscription fees? Micro-payments? We need to solve that problem to kill the surveillance-capitalism ad-infested mess that is most of today's web.

I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not, but the litter box thing is total crap (and not crap in a litter box... just unadulterated crap.)

Meta has metastasized and must now be destroyed, IMO.

I don't just mean regulated or broken up. I mean completely eliminated. Its code repos must be erased, all backups deleted, and all servers wiped clean to the bare OS.

It's the only way to address to true scale of the threat.

When a corporation is powerful enough to even contemplate building its own nuclear plants to power its data centers... it's time to break up that corporation.

Sorry, but feeding the maw of a monopolist is not a good use of energy.

Slashdot doesn't do UTF-8. Yeah, I know... pathetic.

Obviously, I'm not 100% sure that every single one of my emails has made it through, but I can't think of a case where I sent an email that required a response and I didn't receive a response, except to a correspondent who uses Apple's email services.

Oh yeah, it'd be totally catastrophic if "Sausage Party 3" were made outside the USA. That should set the F-35s scrambling!

Also never had an issue. I have SPF, DKIM, FCrDNS and DMARC set up and for bonus points, I also set up DNSSEC.

The only provider I have deliverability problems with is Apple ("foo@me.com" addresses.) No issues with Google, MSFT or Yahoo.

So, if you don't have DKIM, SPF, etc. set up, and you send spam from different IP addresses using different sender domains... how will MSFT know who to attribute the 5000 emails to?

Seems silly to me. You either demand correct SPF, DKIM and DMARC from all senders, or you don't. Either way, it won't make much difference to the volume of spam.

Measles outbreaks are completely preventable, at least in wealthy developed countries. There's absolutely no excuse for them to happen other than human stupidity.

And yes, there are some people who legitimately cannot take vaccines for medical reasons, and they rely on most other people being vaccinated for their protection. So not only are stupid people harming themselves and their kids, they're also harming other people.

And also yes, there are very occasionally serious side effects from vaccines. Those are unfortunate and the people who suffer them should be compensated, but the number and seriousness of those side effects is much, much lower than the number and seriousness of the diseases that occur when people are not vaccinated. Everything is a tradeoff and it's unquestionably true that vaccination against diseases like measles, mumps, rubella and polio is much better than skipping that vaccination.

Has Wikipedia done any of that?