The International Publishers Association spent the past year promoting the slogan "Democracy depends on reading," but Atlantic senior editor Adam Kirsch argues that this utilitarian pitch fundamentally misunderstands why people become readers in the first place. The most recent Survey of Public Participation in the Arts found that less than half of Americans read a single book in 2022, and only 38% read a novel or short story. A University of Florida and University College London study found daily reading for pleasure fell 3% annually from 2003 to 2023. Among 13-year-olds, just 14% read for fun almost every day in 2023, down from 27% a decade earlier. Kirsch says to stop treating reading as civic medicine. "It would be better to describe reading not as a public duty but as a private pleasure, sometimes even a vice," he writes. When literature was considered transgressive, moralists couldn't stop people from buying dangerous books. Now that books are deemed virtuous, nobody picks them up. He points to Don Quixote and Madame Bovary -- novels whose protagonists are ruined by their reading habits. Great writers, he notes, never idealized literature the way educators do. The pitch to young readers should emphasize staying up late reading under the covers by flashlight, hoping nobody finds out.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

An anonymous reader shares a report: Only the government could spend 20 years creating a national ID that no one wanted and that apparently doesn't even work as a national ID. But that's what the federal government has accomplished with the REAL ID, which the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) now considers unreliable, even though getting one requires providing proof of citizenship or lawful status in the country. In a December 11 court filing [PDF], Philip Lavoie, the acting assistant special agent in charge of DHS' Mobile, Alabama, office, stated that, "REAL ID can be unreliable to confirm U.S. citizenship." Lavoie's declaration was in response to a federal civil rights lawsuit filed in October by the Institute for Justice, a public-interest law firm, on behalf of Leo Garcia Venegas, an Alabama construction worker. Venegas was detained twice in May and June during immigration raids on private construction sites, despite being a U.S. citizen. In both instances, Venegas' lawsuit says, masked federal immigration officers entered the private sites without a warrant and began detaining workers based solely on their apparent ethnicity. And in both instances officers allegedly retrieved Venegas' Alabama-issued REAL ID from his pocket but claimed it could be fake. Venegas was kept handcuffed and detained for an hour the first time and "between 20 and 30 minutes" the second time before officers ran his information and released him.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Instagram head Adam Mosseri closed out 2025 by acknowledging what many have long suspected: the era of trusting photographs as accurate records of reality is over, and the platform he runs will need to fundamentally adapt to an age of "infinite synthetic content." In a slideshow posted to Instagram, Mosseri wrote that for most of his life he could safely assume photographs or videos were largely accurate captures of moments that happened, adding that this is clearly no longer the case. He predicted a shift from assuming what we see is real by default to starting with skepticism and paying attention to who is sharing something and why.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

A large-scale study tracking more than 27,500 middle-aged and elderly people over roughly nine years has found that poor sleep quality is associated with accelerated brain aging, and chronic inflammation appears to be one of the key mechanisms driving this effect. Researchers at Sweden's Karolinska Institute assessed participants' sleep across five dimensions -- chronotype, duration, insomnia, snoring and daytime sleepiness -- and later scanned their brains using MRI to estimate biological brain age through machine learning models. The results? For every point decrease in healthy sleep score, the gap between brain age and chronological age widened by approximately six months. Those in the poorest sleep category had brains that appeared roughly one year older than their actual age. Night-owl tendencies, sleep duration outside the 7-8 hour sweet spot and snoring were particularly strongly linked to brain aging. The researchers measured low-grade inflammation using biomarkers including C-reactive protein levels and white blood cell counts. Inflammation accounted for more than 10% of the association between poor sleep patterns and brain aging. The glymphatic system, which clears waste from the brain primarily during sleep, may also play a role, the research added.

Read more of this story at Slashdot.

Determining how "successful" Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) truly was depends on who you ask, but it's increasingly hard to claim that DOGE made any sizable dent in federal spending, which was its primary goal.

Just two weeks ago, Musk himself notably downplayed DOGE as only being "a little bit successful" on a podcast, marking one of the first times that Musk admitted DOGE didn't live up to its promise. Then, more recently, on Monday, Musk revived evidence-free claims he made while campaigning for Donald Trump, insisting that government fraud remained vast and unchecked, seemingly despite DOGE's efforts. On X, he estimated that "my lower bound guess for how much fraud there is nationally is [about 20 percent] of the Federal budget, which would mean $1.5 trillion per year. Probably much higher."

Musk loudly left DOGE in May after clashing with Trump, complaining that a Trump budget bill threatened to undermine DOGE's work. These days, Musk does not appear confident that DOGE was worth the trouble of wading into government. Although he said on the December podcast that he considered DOGE to be his "best side quest" ever, the billionaire confirmed that if given the chance to go back in time, he probably would not have helmed the agency as a special government employee.

"I mean, no, I don’t think so," Musk said. "Would I do it? I mean, I probably … I don’t know."

On another recent podcast, Musk suggested that he learned his lesson after trying and failing to make the US government run like a business, The Guardian reported. “Best to avoid politics where possible,” Musk said.

As Musk simultaneously fans the flames with fraud claims while de-emphasizing DOGE's ability to address them, Musk's allies in government, in Silicon Valley, and on X continue to tout DOGE as the wrecking ball government needed.

But while Musk continues warning of fraud that can supposedly be easily found, critics are raising questions about whether DOGE cuts might have inflicted lasting damage by chasing Musk's fraud fantasies.

Estimates vs. reality

When Musk first proposed DOGE, he was on the campaign trail with Donald Trump, vowing to help end government waste and fraud. At an October 2024 rally, Musk claimed DOGE could save the federal government "at least $2 trillion," The Guardian reported. But immediately after Trump's inauguration, he slashed his goal in half, vowing to cut $1 trillion in government waste from the federal budget. Later, as DOGE efforts faced immediate backlash, the goal was reduced again, this time to a much more modest $150 billion, the Cato Institute reported.

In reality, The Guardian reported, "much of what the agency has done remains a mystery." Although Musk promised DOGE would be transparent, the government has impeded lawsuits seeking discovery documents to create paper trails on DOGE cuts. And DOGE's cost-cutting tracker on its website can't be trusted, The Guardian reported, as it contains "egregious errors" and DOGE's accounting methods are unreliable.

Even setting aside that the tracker and "wall of receipts" are likely "overblown," The Guardian noted, DOGE claims to have cut about $214 billion in government spending and saved about $61 billion in cancelled contracts—far from reaching Musk's extreme waste estimates. Meanwhile, Democrats investigating DOGE reported in July that the agency "may have caused around $21.7 billion in waste." As to DOGE slashing about nine percent of the federal workforce, the Cato Institute estimated that it may have triggered more costly federal contracts, perhaps increasing costs and possibly degrading services down the road.

The bottom line is that government spending increased under DOGE, and there was no noticeable impact on the month-to-month budget after DOGE cuts began, the Cato Institute reported. "The federal government spent $7.6 trillion in the first 11 months of calendar year 2025, approximately $248 billion higher by November of 2025 compared to the same month in 2024," its report said.

Over time, more will be learned about how DOGE operated and what impact DOGE had. But it seems likely that even Musk would agree that DOGE failed to uncover the vast fraud he continues to predict exists in government.

DOGE supposedly served "higher purpose"

While Musk continues to fixate on fraud in the federal budget, his allies in government and Silicon Valley have begun spinning anyone criticizing DOGE's failure to hit the promised target as missing the "higher purpose" of DOGE, The Guardian reported.

Five allies granted anonymity to discuss DOGE's goals told The Guardian that the point of DOGE was to "fundamentally" reform government by eradicating "taboos" around hiring and firing, "expanding the use of untested technologies, and lowering resistance to boundary-pushing start-ups seeking federal contracts." Now, the federal government can operate more like a company, Musk's allies said.

The libertarian think tank, the Cato Institute, did celebrate DOGE for producing "the largest peacetime workforce cut on record," even while acknowledging that DOGE had little impact on federal spending.

"It is important to note that DOGE’s target was to reduce the budget in absolute real terms without reference to a baseline projection. DOGE did not cut spending by either standard," the Cato Institute reported.

Currently, DOGE still exists as a decentralized entity, with DOGE staffers appointed to various agencies to continue cutting alleged waste and finding alleged fraud. While some fear that the White House may choose to "re-empower" DOGE to make more government-wide cuts in the future, Musk has maintained that he would never helm a DOGE-like government effort again and the Cato Institute said that "the evidence supports Musk’s judgment."

"DOGE had no noticeable effect on the trajectory of spending, but it reduced federal employment at the fastest pace since President Carter, and likely even before," the Institute reported. "The only possible analogies are demobilization after World War II and the Korean War. Reducing spending is more important, but cutting the federal workforce is nothing to sneeze at, and Musk should look more positively on DOGE’s impact."

Although the Cato Institute joined allies praising DOGE's dramatic shrinking of the federal workforce, the director of the Center for Effective Public Management at the Brookings Institution, Elaine Kamarck, told Ars in November that DOGE "cut muscle, not fat" because “they didn’t really know what they were doing.”

Read full article

Comments

On Tuesday, US Secretary of Energy Chris Wright issued a now familiar order: because of a supposed energy emergency, a coal plant scheduled for closure would be forced to remain open. This time, the order targeted one of the three units present at Craig Station in Colorado, which was scheduled to close at the end of this year. The remaining two units were expected to shut in 2028.

The supposed reason for this order is an emergency caused by a shortage of generating capacity. "The reliable supply of power from the coal plant is essential for keeping the region’s electric grid stable," according to a statement issued by the Department of Energy. Yet the Colorado Sun notes that Colorado's Public Utilities Commission had already analyzed the impact of its potential closure, and determined, "Craig Unit 1 is not required for reliability or resource adequacy purposes."

The order does not require the plant to actually produce electricity; instead, it is ordered to be available in case a shortfall in production occurs. As noted in the Colorado Sun article, actual operation of the plant would potentially violate Colorado laws, which regulate airborne pollution and set limits on greenhouse gas emissions. The cost of maintaining the plant is likely to fall on the local ratepayers, who had already adjusted to the closure plans.

The use of emergency powers by the DOE is authorized under the Federal Power Act, which allows it to order the temporary connection of generation or infrastructure when the US is at war or when "an emergency exists by reason of a sudden increase in the demand for electric energy, or a shortage of electric energy." It is not at all clear whether "we expect demand to go up in the future," the DOE's current rationale, is consistent with that definition of emergency. It is also hard to see how using coal plants complies with other limits placed on the use of these emergency orders:

The Commission shall ensure that such order requires generation, delivery, interchange, or transmission of electric energy only during hours necessary to meet the emergency and serve the public interest, and, to the maximum extent practicable, is consistent with any applicable Federal, State, or local environmental law or regulation and minimizes any adverse environmental impacts.

At the moment, coal-fueled generation is more expensive than anything other than nuclear power, and is far and away the dirtiest form of generation. Its airborne pollution is responsible for a significant number of deaths in the US, and it leaves behind solid waste that is rich in toxic metals. It's difficult to square those financial and health costs with serving the public interest.

Yet the Trump Administration has relied heavily on declaring energy emergencies in its attempt to keep coal afloat despite the economics. A check of the use of similar emergency orders shows that, in the past year, the Administration has declared 16 energy emergencies—more than the entire total declared between 2008 and 2024.

The Administration's reliance on this sort of emergency declaration is in the process of being challenged in court, though. Several states and a collection of environmental organizations recently filed a suit that argues that the administration is misusing what's meant to be a response to temporary emergencies by simply renewing the orders indefinitely, as it has with a coal plant in Michigan that has been forced to remain open well past the summer demand surge that the DOE initially used as its justification.

Read full article

Comments