I do have concerns about debt, but this is essentially clickbait. The headline also seems to be factually incorrect. If you check out the Treasury report that they linked, the outlay category "net interest" is actually lower than "national defense".
> The headline also seems to be factually incorrect.
69 v 70? If anyone wants to try and seriously use that as a debate point I wish them the best but don't like their chances of landing a good rhetorical hit. And signs suggest it'll sound a hollow in 6 months at the rate the spending is chugging along.
Also the headline is presumably correct. Gross interest would be higher than net.
I doubt it. As explained by GitHub user tbrandirali, the stated goals seem to be inherently contradictory. Quoting in part:
"This internal contradiction is further demonstrated by the fact that the proposed solution to prevent misuse by websites - holdbacks - is to simply sabotage the functionality of the system itself, by making attestation probabilistic. This is not a workable solution to the problem: if the holdback rate of requests is low enough, the denial of service to legitimate users will simply be a cost of business that websites will accept; if instead it is high enough, websites will not use this system as it does not provide meaningful enough information, even for analytics purposes, due to the high uncertainty. There is no goldilocks zone where this system is useful but not open to abuse by implementer websites. You're either implementing a feature that can - and most likely will - be used by websites to exclude unattested clients, or you're implementing a useless feature."
Why wouldn't a 10% holdback work? Would a company consider it "simply a cost of business" to block 10% of people at random? That's going to cause a huge amount of support load and probably a lot of negative press. 90% of data will still be good for analytics.
Has Sarkeesian made a "call to end any kind of specific artistic expression", though? Last I heard, she just wants to make a documentary or two exploring the treatment of women in video games.
If she's trying to highlight a disgusting trend of misogyny in gaming culture, I would say she is doing an excellent job.
It will probably just end up like her last Tropes vs Women series where she banned all movies and television and forcibly castrated every male director and screenwriter. How do we keep letting her get away with this stuff? /s
