ISTM that any IT system that requires an internet connection - either directly to function or for support / maintenance has exactly zero independence.

I guess you didn't get as far as reading "the sort of ..." rather than focusing on one single example. And SO is a hostile environment. That is precisely why they had to start policing the ruder and abusive elements.
But it is still full of passive-aggressive responses, senior users who use it to denigrate newbies and unhelpful "already answered" replies that do nothing to make it feel welcoming or supportive.

And this is exactly the sort of antagonistic and aggressive (and unnecessary) response that turned me off trying to contribute to Stack Overflow

I use an ad blocker on my browser. Seemingly every few days it pops up it's own interruption telling me how many ads it has blocked and begs for money.
Do the creators really not understand?

Maybe it should be reclassified as comedy. Before it descends into being a joke. Like most BBC current affairs has already become

Will that be all of it leaving the Earth behind?
Though I suppose if they miss the target of going during Trump's second term, they can always make it during his third, or later term.

The idea that one country can develop a technology that no other can, is as flawed as it is arrogant. And by refusing to sell advanced technology, the reasons to produce domestic alternatives get stepped up a gear - or several.

Once you accept that a competitor or adversary has both the ability and the will to create technologies domestically, that they would be prohibited from purchasing, you have to accept that the originator has lost control. What is worse is the possibility that they might just make a better version than you have.

If those who are given an advantage due to their disabilities result in them as a group having a results profile that is the same as the un-disadvantaged, then the level of compensation seems just.

However, if they perform significantly better (or worse) than their class mates, something needs fixing.

Looking at the methodology and results, it seems that the researchers chose a monoculture (the USA) and that the results they got, reflect the concerns and weaknesses of that.

I suspect that if they conducted the same survey in a country that had a free health service (or a very low cost one) then the priorities would be very different. Likewise, if they performed the same analysis in an autocratic country, their results would be skewed by that, too.

potentially making spam emails easier to identify in a sea of unread messages.

Apart from some rigorous courses where it is important to separate best from the mediocre, it probably doesn't matter.
For many arts and humanities courses, that don't have demonstrable facts and everything is based on consensus and opinion, giving everyone an A is probably an honest assessment. At least it removes the human element and avoids conflict with students who feel they should have got a better mark

It also seems to me that when someone calls, it is not because the call will benefit me, but because they want something.

And this non-expert attributes the trend to the number of SPAM phone calls. Trying to sell things that nobody wants. Or tricking you into committing to something.

So that would be considering the PR disaster rather than the purely financial cost?

Maybe playing video games turn good looking people into uglies?