The people who are being enticed to buy these tickets are often those who can least afford to do so.

...they only cover it when the jackpot becomes newsworthy.

...you can apply those principles in whatever publication you'll be publishing.

I think it's really not good for the news media to give coverage to lotteries as often as they do.

I don't buy lottery tickets, so I have zero envy of any winners. And I wish that winner best of luck.

Unfortunately, some huge majority of winners are bankrupt within a few years. I think the problem is that they think the money is unlimited, which it is not, and they never get decent financial advice.

If anyone can blow through that kind of money, they deserve to be broke

not everyone is careful about financial planning. If they get a sudden windfall they get excited and overdo it on big purchases.

The ones who give most it to charity are usually happy and financially stable.

oh well, back to work on Monday.

Because gambling has existed for millennia and always will. Prohibition taught us that you can't legislate away unhealthy behavior.

without ever leaving your laptop

Write covered calls as an investment strategy. Keep the asset, rake in the "rental" fees.

instead of giving it all to one winner.

So, every time they raised $100m, they'd have a drawing and give out $1m to 100 winners. Seems better than just giving a shitload of money to one winner.