I didn't say the IRS was perfect, just better. Thank you, AC, for proving my point for me.

You cite one report, from 2016, that affected less than one million people. What's the track record of the typical bank, credit bureau, state government, employer, hospital, cell provider, or mail-order club with similarly sensitive information?

Dead end for me.

You're complaining that a pilot program wasn't large enough to include you? Do you whine about every closed beta, too?

What purpose does it serve to make it hard and expensive for people to file taxes?

Republicans have made it a matter of cultural identify to hate and distrust the government, and the IRS is one of their favorite whipping boys. Keeping it hard and expensive to file taxes is kind of the point - people will like their government less because of it.

otherwise they take a hit on revenues

That's all part of their strategy to "starve the beast", so as to justify cutting social programs or other things they don't like in the name of fiscal responsibility. Nevermind that when they're in power they're just as profligate and irresponsible as they always claim Democrats to be.

spend inordinate amounts of money chasing people who fail to file correctly

Yes, but they like to pick on those people. Those people are not people who failed to file correctly due to our byzantine tax system: they're moochers and freeloaders (and probably commies!) trying to stiff Real Americans (TM). Besides: it's much easier to shake down those people than to go after the more difficult and complicated tax avoidance schemes of high earners, who like to make big campaign contributions as well as stiffing the Treasury.

but not being able to handle itemized deductions (at least not yet) will make it a non-starter for many people

I guess it depends on what you consider "many people". Only about 10-12% of filers itemize; the vast majority use the standard deduction. ([1], [2], [3]). Most of those who itemized are the highest earners. Granted: 10% of filers is still millions of people. But as a share of taxpayers, it's still small.

This doesn't have to be a 100% solution for it to still be a tremendous public benefit. And anything that lands a blow against Intuit or H&R Block (seriously, fuck those parasites) seems OK to me.

The thing is that the IRS should do all the paperwork, fill out the forms, and send us a bill or a check. Let's put service(serve us) into the Internal Revenue Service.

The IRS would agree. Feel free to take it up with Congress, and particularly Republicans, who love nothing more than to hamstring the IRS, then complain about what a terrible job they're doing.

I'm not a Republican and I'm wondering who I sue when the IRS online tax software suffers a data breach and my personal information is made public?

You do realize the IRS already has vast motherlodes of data on you and everyone else in the country? Anyone with a SSN, bank account, employer...the IRS receives and keeps records of all of that. They seem to do a much better job safeguarding it than just about anyone else.

Anyway, more importantly, if that's so easy and economically viable, where is it?

By and large, you don't see it, because nearly every single EV battery ever produced is still on the road, or has been converted to stationary storage. A lot of the recycling that happens now is being done on consumer goods (e.g., smartphones, laptops) or the rejects from battery plants, not end-of-life vehicles. Here is one video inside an operational Li-Cycle plant.

And here is a list of announced or operational battery recycling facilities as of Sept 2023.

I'll flip the question around: if you think it EV battery recycling is so non-viable, where are the stories about truckloads of sad EV batteries going to landfills?

What will happen is they will be replaced by more heat tolerant variants while other stretches of ocean too chilly for corals generally will now become habitable.

Ah yes, the this is fine coping mechanism.

Most of our space tech components are made in China

Close, but you're thinking of the other China:
American components, Russian components...all made in Taiwan!

In seriousness: when it comes to "space tech" - that's largely an outgrowth of the aerospace and military, which still largely sources domestically.

I don't think these have replaceable batteries either. The article seems to think so, but the actual "repairing your fairbuds" video from the company shows replacing the battery in the *case*.

That is not correct: the earbud batteries are user-replaceable. The Lilliputing article embeds a second video that provides and overview of most of the repair processes. Here at 1:19 you can see opening the bud's battery tray to replace the battery.

Unless they're being specifically targeted...

Nuclear missile silos are targeted by our adversaries. That's a given. In the madness of MAD, the idea is to try to neutralize your adversaries' counter-strike capability with a quick first strike.

Alaska is just in too good of a spot for me to find what you're saying likely.

Geographically it makes sense. Due to that proximity Alaska is a key part of early warning radar, interceptor aircraft, and anti-ballistic missile deployments. In times past, bomber-based nuclear weapons were deployed there.

But what you are suggesting - that Alaska's location is so awesome we just have to have missiles there, but also somehow have hidden it from everybody for decades - makes no sense if you've ever tried to keep a secret between more than one person.

We would somehow have had to construct the silos and bring ICBMs there without anyone - neighbors or adversaries - noticing. Then deploy soldiers there to man the silos - hundreds of them over decades - without a single one of them ever spilling the beans, even accidentally. And also never let Congress catch wind about this huge expenditure and massive treaty violation - cause you know they sure as hell can't keep a secret.

Oh c'mon, you honestly think we wouldnt station nukes in the most isolated part of our country that also happens to be the closest spot geographically to our two main adversaries (China and Russia) and try to keep that secret? It would be incredibly stupid if we didnt have nukes there, a quick trip over the pole and you can hit any target in Russia and China is awfully close as well.

Oh c'mon: you honestly think we could possibly have kept that a secret for decades?

Two strategic reasons why we don't have missiles in Alaska. 1) we have submarines and aircraft that can get even closer undetected, and 2) having silos in the middle of the continent makes them harder to reach by our adversaries. Or, at least, it'll take longer for a surprise first attack to reach them, providing more surety of a counterstrike.

Anybody read "Nuclear War: A Scenario"?

Probably not: it was only officially released about a week ago, 26 March 2024.

Before getting too deep into your critique, though, bear in mind that it's subtitled "A Scenario." Meaning that it's just one of any number that one could game out. The book is marketed as non-fiction, meaning that the scenario is just a hypothetical that allows the author to explore what current nuclear policy and plans are, in the US and other nuclear powers, based on interviews and documentary research. In other words, it's meant to be a very, very sober version of End of Ze World.

Think the scenario is too farfetched? There are plenty of others that could lead to an all-out nuclear exchange. And that's the whole fucking point! People think the threat of nuclear annihilation ended with the Cold War, and they're wrong. Tit-for-tat with rogue states or terrorists isn't our only nuclear fear, because it's easy to see how any attack anywhere can rapidly and irretrievably escalate.

I expect most comments in this thread will be along the lines of "China will favor candidate X!" And then project their own political fears or hopes accordingly.

I don't really know if China prefers Biden or Trump, and I doubt that it really matters. China's approach is likely to be more holistic than that: they can quite happily play all sides against one another. The American electorate is already primed for such games. Fear, uncertainty, doubt: these are desirable outcomes for their own sake, even if they don't determine the ultimate outcome. Anything that weakens U.S. cohesion or makes democracy look messy and unreliable is a tactical win for China, regardless of who's in Washington. And China's got plenty of company.

And it is not just the top of the ticket, which requires a national influence campaign. China can make plenty of trouble in smaller down-ballot races at the state and local level. There are plenty of staunch China-hawks in Congress, for instance, some from states with fewer than one million voters.

Where the inventors of this - along with all advertising executives - where the inhabitants are tied down and forced to watch adverts for eternity.

Someone queue up Beethoven's 9th.