> Excellent reporting by Wired. I've been impressed by the depth of their coverage in the past year. Depth of reporting is not accuracy, and there may be a bit

> Excellent reporting by Wired. I've been impressed by the depth of their coverage in the past year. Depth of reporting is not accuracy, and there may be a bit of illusion here. For instance, the bit you cite (their reporting on Schedule A) is a great example of lazy reporting for a cheap "gotcha" to amplify ragebait with misinformation -- the Wired reporters either couldn't be bothered to look up the various forms of Schedule A hiring (in this case, Schedule A (r) [0] vs. Schedule A (u) [1]), or they are intentionally mis-reporting in order to add more outrage. Only section U deals with disabilities -- section R deals with temporary hiring. I think you and I are walking away with very different impressions of the quality of Wired's "depth of coverage". [0]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/part-213/subject-group-ECFR2a2db745208d125#p-213.3102(r) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/part-213/subject-group-... [1]: https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/part-213/subject-group-ECFR2a2db745208d125#p-213.3102(u) https://www.ecfr.gov/current/title-5/part-213/subject-group-...