Sounds good in theory. But it is inoperative in a capitalist society. Here’s a thought exercise:
Management might have a salary of $5 million but stock worth 1 billion. Maybe you expect they divest their stock? Okay, who buys? Who has control of the company? Does it become a societal asset? Can’t have a company run by a million-person committee.
Your wealth cap works where someone has liquidity over 100million. I suggest that few do as it’s not a tax-advantaged strategy.
Huh, that’s really interesting ( and makes sense ). Appreciate you taking the time to write it out.
Can you please expand on point 3? With reference only to anecdotes, I thought LLM summarised extremely well, albeit with certain hallucinations.
Sorry, what? I’m high as balls and have no idea what you’re saying
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
Sounds like we are violently in agreement then, that all of those fields should be removed.
Good outcome.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
I think you might be replying to wrong conment
I do understand that, but I think you are applying a post hoc rationalisation to the change.
For example, examining the change through the lens of intended use -> you can’t as there is no such use of the field today - it’s tomorrow’s use that is potentially problematic.
I don’t want to wait until a bad actor applies the field, I want to stop the field from existing.
This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust ANY use which may be later enabled by this change, my answer is ‘less’.
I get it, but I believe it to be a false equivalence. This change is not happening in isolation. There is currently a general trend towards de-anonymising users, and this DOB field is a step in that direction.
The only real question is, do I want my computer storing more, or less, personally identifying information. Given that I don’t trust the intended use, or ANY use which is later enabled by this, my answer is ‘less’.
Hard disagree. This represents the pot getting turned up on the frog.
I acknowledge you are factually correct. However, once this field exists, it enables later reference and/or mandatory dependencies.
There is no positive use case , but lots of possibly negative use cases. For that reason, it shouldn’t exist.
There’s a hyperlink in OP comment (this one) that has the study linked through a download button.
Appeal to the high road. What a child.
Your blithe refusal to engage my constructive rebuttal of your uneducated and intolerant opinion (linked here for your convenience) renders this pearl-clutching statement irrelevant.
Let’s take a moment. I want you to understand that the opinion you offered is precisely what the OP article references. More than that, the opinion you offered is factually wrong.
I would like you to hear from me - an anonymous poster - the most likely outcome (of that opinion you offered) is a lonely, sad, and bitter existence for you.
Your preferences for certain kinds of women are yours, and yours alone. I wish you luck in finding a woman that fits your preference. However if you truly believe in that opinion, i strongly recommend seeking professional help.
How on earth did you stumble across a comment that is 5 days old?
No objection with your framing. In fact, I tend to agree. My disagreement was the narrow / binary lens applied by the previous commentor. Their perspective (‘your responsibility to learn’) is/was an extremely dismissive approach.
It’s not their responsibility to teach but it’s also not my responsibility to keep abreast of all social developments. It’s inappropriate to gatekeep due to someone’s naive ignorance.
Picture this. Sitting at a table game and someone drops a term or phrase that I don’t recognise. Am I going to run to the toilet and google that term? Or am I just gonna say 'yo, what’s that mean?"
Pacified by $$$ signs. Counter culture doesn’t pay for Bezos next yacht.
NOW you’re cooking with gas!!