That’s not necessarily true. It’s ridiculously easy to find, especially in this example. Simply change your pickup address to the house next door.

Do you think that fools Uber into believing that the user using the same mobile-computer, the same account, the same data-connection and within the same travel patterns is now a completely different person?

No government is going to enforce a universal flat-rate. However that doesn’t prevent what I’m talking about. Uber can give everyone a different flat-rate. How would you know? You wouldn’t. That’s the problem. A friend gets charged a different flat-rate? Ok, now you know, but when the government goes to investigate Uber says, “well the flat-rate had to increase. It’s now XXX.” Again, the imbalance is enormous between the businesses that have the data and any external regulatory body that has to do footwork to get any data.

The same item sells for two different prices at separate stores? “Oh, that store just had a sale.”

The issue is that these are black boxes. No one but the authors of the system know what’s happening. Law prevents Uber from increasing the price on a nearly flat mobile-computer? They didn’t. That’s just the normal price. Who has all the data? Only Uber. No one else. How then can you enforce such laws?

Oh no a socialist ‘planned’ economy via computers. Argentina don’t you dare! … I’m sure glad we have capitalist ‘planned’ economies now. Their plan is to fuck you till you die. More surveillance please! Surveillance-capitalism demands it!

It’s the government’s money, not republican’s money. A different party inherits the government and therefore can do what you’re proposing. They’d be in the same situation.

Would you care to elaborate?

The pet industry sustains genetic-mutations that would naturally die out. Lineages are kept alive in a state of suffering for people’s narcissistic needs–oh that looks cute! I want that! What’s the wrong reason here: it’s not narcissism? It stems from something else?

You can quibble with some of the language. Maybe they don’t see themselves as power tripping abusers, but “lovers” with so much love to share that they enslave another sentient creature to be a proxy for a human-baby, a lover or a friend. I’m disgusted with pet owners. They’ve taken another sentient creature and they keep it in bondage–mechanical restraints and then rationalize it with them as the center of the universe. “Oh, he needs a lead or he’ll just run off and injure himself.” No. These are sentient animals that need to be with their own kind. Keep a dog locked up, alone inside a human-dwelling whilst the owners are at work. It’s purely for the owner’s narcissism that this situation even exists. “I want something to love! I want something to love me!” It’s barbaric and brutal for the other sentient creature.

I can’t even begin to make a rational argument for keeping birds in tiny cages. There’s none. The same goes for fish and I’m sure a large number of other animals I haven’t even considered. Life’s magic. Seeing fish in a tiny fish-tank attached to mechanical equipment that vibrates incessantly… it’s nothing but depressing. They don’t belong here.

The majority of ‘funny’ pet videos are videos of distressed animals.

Then you have the lamest defenses: “oh, I didn’t enslave them.” “I want to improve their lives.” “I adopted them from a shelter.” “I’m doing good!” “I’m a good person; I would be the best owner!” Yea, yea… absolve yourself from the situation. It’s not at all honest. It’s slavery of another species to satiate human-needs. Most often done by the ‘mentally-ill’.

I need to expand on that last part. It’s more accurate to say it’s done by people who feel (real or not) that their needs are not met. An elderly person might buy an animal to soothe their isolation. They’re not ‘mentally-ill’, but I would put such an individual in that category.

It’s something I despise Christianity for as it very clearly states that animals are for us, humans. Every time I’ve expressed this opinion people always react negatively. Their culture is an entitlement to other beings and I think the largest backlash is cultural. I think it’s a true and accurate perception of the relationship between humans and pets though.

Pet owners are mentally deranged power tripping abusers. Animals can be your friends and you can form symbiotic relationships with them, but “owning” and controlling them via mechanical restraints is immoral and is in fact an abusive relationship. It’s sick. The owners need to be rehabilitated and shown it’s safe to form friendships with other people who can reciprocate their human emotions. Their need to enslave animals for emotional support should be treated as the problem it is.

But at what cost?

This isn’t a good article @ouch. It’s dull, meandering and conflates issues.

Both Apple and Google want your identity anchored to their operating systems.

That’s true regardless of passkeys and why is Microsoft excluded here?

Logging into accounts on devices you own is the ideal scenario for passkeys. When you have to handle a colleague’s computer, it gets much more inconvenient. You could plug in a hardware key, but you don’t always have access to the ports.

What sort of drivel is this? Is anyone reading the article? I doubt it. Sorry, I’m not logging into important accounts on a colleague’s computer, regardless of being unable to squat and plug in a usb-dongle. The last statement even concedes that passkeys are an improvement for 99% of the user-population. It’s an improvement for 100% of the user-population. Like usual this is just drivel generated from friction around ‘newness’. It’s different–which automatically becomes scary for some users. The writing is just not coherent and there’s zero critique on passkey’s design and technicalities, of which there are things to criticize.

Get a physical passkey and if you have more than 100 accounts you have a problem. Buy two and use one as a backup in case you lose your first. Keep it in a safe and if you forget your safe’s combination… well, I guess we should abolish safes too: terrible account recovery support there. Yikes!

Passkey’s themselves can be protected with a PIN–the software I’ve used does not limit it to numbers. It can be your ‘master password’ if you want. This is a technical complaint of mine as all software I’ve used reference it as a PIN (personal identification number), which means numbers only. Except other characters are allowed. I’m not sure what the official spec. states.

But children don’t have credit cards…

People are goldfish in your reality?

They don’t care. Just another tally to add to their spreadsheet under the column titled “collateral”. The Americans realized they could greatly reduce that total number with a very convenient assumption: any male of a certain age was probably in service to the taliban so they’re a legitimate target.

There’s blood on their hands. Either they keep the hype up or go to jail regardless of any of their statements being true or not.