Turn off the auto-OMB. I can tell you first-hand, the source of the lack of efficiency in procurement is NOT too few regulations. Non-beneficial bureaucracy permeates the FAA, adding cost and time. Rebel Trump blasphemed by trying to have GS's apply common sense and initiative and panicked the PTB in DC.

I prefer the efficiency of Amazon any day over the efficiency of the DMV, but you can make your own choices.

Well, there are certainly instances where being LESS of a dick is preferable, so there's that...

I have used Brunch to bootstrap Chromeos on old laptops, and it quite useful to create a “no support” platform for my senior relatives—they should relabel it “JitterbugOS”

Anyone who has bought a Chrysler in the last 30 years already has this technology built into their dashboard...

The actual news is: Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube hacked the 2020 election with propaganda filters...
It's all well and good for readers/viewers to view endless posts and determine what is truth and what is crap, but when the pipeline pre-determines their version of the truth and POV and censors information (yes, even lies are information), this is a serious flaw in the ideal of ubiquitous data access, and hurts us all.
Crap posts should be refutable with truth. If we can't counterpoint an argument, then maybe it has merit. If we can, we all get collectively smarter.

The problem with this assertion is that it assumes that, sans plexiglass, that normal interaction between 2 people would result in a spray transfer that could spread infection from one to the other. That is not obvious, not proven.
It is possible, potentially, but I have not seen any true study, with controls to give proof.
Many things that seem obvious are counter-intuitively false, and relegated to myth upon study.

The net result is that this will end better for employers than former employees. A small percentage of vital folks may negotiate work perks, but the majority are not irreplaceable, and until applicants to jobs drops below 1:1, employers will survive, with a little growing pain.

I agree to the extent that the IT infrastructure folks need to do a better job of employing the "least privilege principle", abstract users from the app, data, and OS configuration permissions. People are habitually the weak link, so putting their operating environment role in in a position to effect catastrophic change maliciously or accidentally is bad engineering. We're one mouse click or found thumb drive from the next ransomware attack.

I also know equally well that grandiose US Government gestures, like those outlined will likely be manifested with fat government contracts to the usual suspects that will plod at the speed of government, not the speed of the Internet. "Fed-Corp" will spend the next 18 months requirements gathering, do a scope of work analysis, then "plus up" the contract 4 years from now citing significant changes to the requirements capture...contract for life. A different kind of ransomware...

I agree that we need to reduce censorship and bigotry--which is becoming preeminent on Slashdot.
Whether misinformed or lies, intelligent discourse is founded on using facts and data to debate, not ad hominem, sweeping attacks.
Some still follow the high road, but we seem to have attracted a lot of folks that think snark and insult is proof, which does nothing to further a cause.
Truth will ultimately shine through if there is indeed a single correct answer for a topic.
Often, many life choices are a lesser of two evils path, and one man's values leads him to a different decision than another's.

Some may refuse the shot for political reasons, conspiracy theory, or some due to good or bad risk assessment. Some legitimately feel that FDA trials and approval protocols are there for an important safety reason, and simply don't feel good taking a technically unqualified vaccine. You may disagree, but that doesn't make you "right" or "wrong".

I would encourage you to find common ground. If you're an expert in Big Data, then you should be aware of the real dangers of big data and the benefits, too. Rather than being dismissive in disagreement, which is called bigotry, we should understand that overwhelmingly most of dichotomies are lesser of two evils arguments. Very little political or even scientific discussion is pure right and pure wrong, but what the person holds in highest esteem.

Most of our political divide boils down to security versus freedom discussion. One is held higher than another by people.

I say most, because there is a percentage of prejudice with little or no basis in fact that people adhere to because it supports their world-view, but finding some common ground helps to introduce persuasive facts without beating them over the head with insults and dismissal.

Just my opionion...

You mean that the US underwrites providing defense to the UK on our own dime, as we do for NATO at large. The point is, our hosted forces are not a one-way street. Britain benefits, though you can legitimately debate on both sides of whether the cost is worth it.

Finally, someone posting intelligent comment. I agree with your observation and the need to pursue nuclear energy--no downside, and a good idea, regardless of your take on AGW.

There was no "insurrection". That label for 10's of unarmed people committing criminal trespass and some vandalism is laughable. Our government was under no threat. This is not "capture the flag"--walking unauthorized through the Capitol does not make you the new government of the US.
Look beyond the hysteria to the facts. Like all large crowds, there are a few fringe folks that take it too far, but they don't define the stance of the larger group. What they did do was make a convenient target for media and Dems to whip up a frenzy of overreaction to further their agenda.

The absent discussion in the feigned outrage (and real outrage from the duped masses) is to wonder why a significant percentage of this country have lost faith in our voting system.

Appearances count in politics, especially in a heterogeneous society like the US. A common mantra regardless of your political stance should be that all groups get fair representation even if you disagree, and fare by the power of their arguments.

I agree in principle, with a reasonable alternative voting mechanism for exceptions. Te ad hominem attacks cite some fictional "voter suppression" for ID requirements as established fact, while dismissing concern for election integrity in the 2020 election as deranged conspiracy.
The problem is, to those with powers of observation and critical thinking skills, the former is an assertion with no historical evidence, or even a logical explanation to back it up, while the latter has a large volume of evidence to promote a concern. Given the concerted blockage of any investigations into observed irregularities, it isn't possible to be certain if they are legitimate and innocent anomolies or fraudulent crimes.
My concern is less on what transpired--which could theoretically be a legit set of oddities, but more the unwillingness to assuage the feelings of disenfranchisement of 70M voters.

Not targeting the article, but I'd like to point out that many commenting assume that all or most Trump voters are "far right" and qanon people.
I suspect it is an extremely small percentage, certainly in the low single digits.
Intelligent people can disagree politically. It doesn't make either side of an issue automatically bad or even wrong. This includes Trump supporters. Politics is often boiled down to a lesser of two evils decision. Given the alternatives--Clinton, then Biden, it is understandable that, for many, Trump only had to be perceived as not as bad as... to secure the vote.