7 ms·

What technology has brought is choice and options: A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. A person can choose to live hundreds of mi

What technology has brought is choice and options: A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. A person can choose to live hundreds of miles away from their family yet still visit them every weekend. A person can choose to move to a new country, halfway around the world, and still have their parents be able to see and converse with the grandchildren every night. I can choose to talk to a person who speaks another language and have a computer translate for us. On a more serious note: I can choose to have my tooth decay treated without experiencing horrific pain. A compound fracture is not an automatic sentence of death or lifelong severe disability.

smokel 3y ago
Great. Now I only need something to make the right choices.
- lifeisstillgood 3y ago
  That is incredibly insightful. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler advocates "Libertarian Paternalism" - a sort of liberal society that has good "defaults" - such as automatically taking 10% of salary each month and putting into tax sheltered index funds. We will find ourselves using iphones across millions of people to identify "the right choices" over millions of lives - behavioural empidemology
  - schneems 3y ago
    I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia: > Libertarian paternalism is similar to asymmetric paternalism, which refers to policies designed to help people who behave irrationally and so are not advancing their own interests, while interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. Though it sounds like that’s not the same conclusion you came to. Maybe you can say more. > interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. The problem I have with this is most bad actors are quite rational, and the most successful not only play within the rules, they shape them (regulatory capture).
    - jacobr1 3y ago
      >I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. The position is that many people do _not_ act rationally. So the argument is make the choices that are best for most the default, but at the same time don't force that choice, for those that would pick an alternative. It does set up an incentive to influence that choice, but often that is the case we already have today. Making the choice of a default explicitly part of how both public and private services are delivered, including both the data-driven analysis of better outcomes and the UX work expose the default seems to be worth it. The alternative is a choice still getting made, but getting made either arbitrarily or with more nefarious influence.
      - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
        yeah that's my interpretation too - government ensures defaults are best interests of (almost all) individuals and yet allows deviation by choice. It's like, you can choose to sign up for adverts on facebook and youtube but they should be off by default (ok maybe that's my paternalism).
- chung8123 3y ago
  You joke but that is how recommendation engines, reviews, and discussion forums have changed how we make choices.
- Condition1952 3y ago
  Somebody who helps you make right choices is called a mentor
  - vjk800 3y ago
    Good to know. Now how do I get one?
    - toomuchtodo 3y ago
      Ask in the right places. Be investable.
      - vsareto 3y ago
        Ironic since the people who are "investable" are the ones to least likely need a mentor
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Perhaps I misspoke. When I said be investable, it’s okay to need help, it’s okay to need direction, and it’s okay to need support. Be motivated as well as ready and willing to cultivate grit would’ve been a better statement. I have mentored people who made the most of my time contribution, and people who fucked off and wasted my time. My time is non renewable, every hour spent is an hour gone forever, and I want to provide as much value as possible with the time I have left (hence my position).
        chinchilla2020 3y ago
        your time is definitely non renewable if your username is 'toomuchtodo'. (btw hackernews is a waste of all our time)
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Doing things that bring you joy and enjoyment aren't a waste of time. Those are the point, everything leads to that. The nickname is sourced from the idea that there is never enough time to do everything worth doing, and sadness about what will get left behind undone on the journey. "Too Much to Do, Not Enough Time"
- nlawalker 3y ago
  This is the next frontier. Today, older generations of folks often marvel at (both the positives and negatives of) the way that younger generations depend on connectivity, made possible by their phones, to navigate their lives. My major prediction for the future is that my generation, once we're old, will marvel at (the positives and negatives of) the number and magnitude of decisions that younger generations will let their technology make for them. When to leave the house; what's on the grocery list; what colleges to apply to; where to buy a house; who to pursue a relationship with - people will be guided to answers to these questions the way that our maps apps guide us to our destinations today, and many people will simply follow those guides without thinking about it too much.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - ekanes 3y ago
    I've thought the same, and it'll make perfect sense. If the LLM knows you very very well, and it knows the world better than any human could, it can match those up well. The effects on broader society could be interesting. If everyone knows about some secluded beach that's cheap and great, that would quickly change... I wonder if we'll see a "smoothing out" of everything so that the big outlier advantages and disadvantages will go away, because everything is known by everyone('s LLM).
    - chinchilla2020 3y ago
      The LLM does not know the world better than human could. It know how to rapidly search an encylopedia better than a human could.
    - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
      Or alternatively, when everyone is special, no one is. When the supply of genius goes up, the demand goes down. Everyone is a genius, so genius is no longer valued, and even those who were very naturally gifted are valueless to those who have already mopped up all the resources that control the society made up of LLM-infused geniuses. I hope the future doesn't look like the lovechild of Brave New World and Flowers for Algernon, but I have a feeling that it may...
schneems 3y ago
That reminds me of another: the butter churn. For the first time many women produced a product that allowed them to leave the house and earn money that’s not associated with their partner. The butter churn was a huge step towards women’s liberation and was seen as hugely fashionable. Marie Antoinette had a creamery built so she could imitate this hugely popular activity. > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible. I think you’re right that many technologies do provide choice. My interpretation is that when the choice is “live easier” or “go faster” it’s not really a choice.
- Izkata 3y ago
  > > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. > Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible. Who is trying to make condoms illegal?
  - acwan93 3y ago
    The Catholic church has tried: >On New Year's Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned any "artificial" means of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps were defined as artificial, since they blocked the natural journey of sperm during intercourse. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-catholic-church-and-birth-control/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-ca...
    - schneems 3y ago
      The reason we know that infants can die when they’re not held is because of a law that made both abortion and birth control illegal. A truly gruesome lesson learned in the most awful of ways. Romania Decree 770 Happened in 1967 and is the stuff of nightmares.
  - starttoaster 3y ago
    > > > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. > > Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible > Who is trying to make condoms illegal? It would seem fairly obvious to me that the original poster of that comment was referring to either abortions or the morning after pill, not condoms. A condom would be a man choosing to decouple sex with having a baby, and I suppose an argument could be made that it's both partners' choice (by proxy of the consent from the woman.) And I suppose another argument could be made that there are condoms that women wear, but those generally seem to not be recommended compared to the male-worn variety. Not that this is an important distinction. I just thought it a stretch that they were talking about condoms and you took it there.
vjk800 3y ago
But I don't want to choose. I'd like there to be only one option.
- WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
  Toss a coin, stick with whatever comes out, pretend other choices don’t exist. Amounts to the same thing.
  - jacobr1 3y ago
    I find this position is usually more along the lines of "I want my choices curated for me"
thsksbd 3y ago
And we've ignored all the externalities of those choices
- dijit 3y ago
  Capitalism relishes in ignoring externalities. So thats not surprising really. Its coded into our brains.
- dottjt 3y ago
  Exactly. I watched a good video recently which describes this phenomenon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOie4GCI40I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOie4GCI40I
aimor 3y ago
I agree with you but I think you've ignored the economic part of the argument. These aren't choices between equal options, we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive. The technological option is required to tread water because the world is no longer designed for having children young, or living with your parents, or isolationism. We are, according to the argument, not seeing a just portion of the gains technology brings.
- chii 3y ago
  > not seeing a just portion of the gains but who paid for and took risk to create those gains? Why should the gains be "just" (aka, shared equally i presume), if the cost of said gains (such as the R&D cost, the risk, etc) wasn't also shared equally?
  - TeMPOraL 3y ago
    I think GP is talking about gains at scale of society. And at this scale, everyone's heavily missing out on what could be. Even admitting that entrepreneurs and investors should get more of the gains[0], that's only gains on the particular thing a given enterprise brought. But even those people, at the same time, are short-charged by all the other tech being brought to market. There's a lot of ratcheting going on here, key aspect highlighted by GP: > we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive This is the nature of markets and society as dynamic systems: they adjust to change, incorporate and fixate and eventually become dependent on any new capacity. And since we're not in Star Trek economy just yet[1], the cheapest things are the ones we're doing at scale. If a simple thing is displaced by complex one, over time that simple thing becomes more expensive and less available, until it's all but gone. -- [0] - I have some issue with them getting it exponentially more, indefinitely, way after it paid back the risk - it doesn't seem fair. For extreme examples, see Disney, or various estates, (ab)using copyright to maintain passive income from works of art decades after their authors died. [1] - With replicators and energy too cheap to meter, turning almost all physical problems into "print this document" problems, eliminating supply chains behind almost everything.
monological 3y ago
> A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. How does that change the social dynamics of mating? Is increasing promiscuity a good thing? > A person can choose to live hundreds of miles away from their family yet still visit them every weekend. > A person can choose to move to a new country, halfway around the world, and still have their parents be > able to see and converse with the grandchildren every night. Why did this person choose to move physically away from their tribe? To slave away at a job they don't care about? Would they have chosen to move away if the tech to communicate long distance didn't exist? > I can choose to talk to a person who speaks another language and have a computer translate for us. Is it good to use translation tech as a crutch and not emotionally immerse yourself in the culture? > I can choose to have my tooth decay treated without experiencing horrific pain. Why do you have a poor diet? Why do you consume so much sugar? Why don't you brush and floss? > A compound fracture is not an automatic sentence of death or lifelong severe disability. Do you take more risks because you know that a fracture won't end you since medicine can heal you? It seems to me that technology is often used as a band-aid solution. Or it enables certain types of behaviors that when proliferated on a societal level can have drastic consequences.
- whateverman23 3y ago
  People often confuse society as a whole with individual choices. An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard. But when talking about society as a whole, that breaks down. Society is going to have a percentage of people who don't brush and floss. Who aren't managing their diet and weight. Who are taking risks beyond what you find acceptable. When talking about society as a whole, it's a dead end to just say, "well people should just be better". It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't fix anything. Society will always have people who have a lot of sex. Making it safer is better. Society will always have people who have teeth issues. Not having them die or be in massive pain is better. Society will always have people who can't maintain a healthy weight. Making it easier is better.
  - monological 3y ago
cornfutes 3y ago
I was just logging into the IRS website to check the status of my tax balance. You used to be able to login with IRS credentials, but now it's a hard requirement to use ID.me credentials. So I created an account and had to verify my identity. The automated verification failed, so I waited 20 minutes on the phone to talk to one of the representatives. There was a checkbox to consent to having the meeting recorded. I opted out but the submit was disabled. Even before this, they took a 3d scan of my face. None of this seems like choice and options. By the way, ID.me is a private company. They're even squatting on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13831921& https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13831921&
- pb7 3y ago
  Thanks for calling this out. Didn't realize they rolled back the rollback of forcing ID.me usage. Despicable and the astroturfing even more so.
- redstonefreedom 3y ago
  Lmao what a pathetic attempt at astroturfing. Absolutely shameless, god damn. Literally every single comment on that thread is a single-use account. "u/VeteranCrowd" points out that the founder is a veteran... ( ⌐■_■)
- paws 3y ago
  Yeah, the current situation is pretty terrible. Deprecating the old credential-based auth flow, before adopting login.gov was a massive misstep. Five months ago I noticed the alert about deprecating the classic username/password auth, and posted about it [0]. As far as I know login.gov is a viable solution, already in use at the SSA, that is government-run aka doesn't require users to kowtow to an EULA, capricious arbitration, etc. The problem is there was apparently interagency squabbling that messed up the original deployment schedule. So it's not available. I do hope that changes because the current situation, of mandatory id.me seems pretty terrible. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519938
powerapple 3y ago
I feel that we also lose a lot of options and choices: I choose a place to live because it is close to work. Maybe I will have a choice after I retire, maybe there won't be a choice.

smokel 3y ago

Great. Now I only need something to make the right choices.

lifeisstillgood 3y ago
That is incredibly insightful. Nobel prize winner Richard Thaler advocates "Libertarian Paternalism" - a sort of liberal society that has good "defaults" - such as automatically taking 10% of salary each month and putting into tax sheltered index funds. We will find ourselves using iphones across millions of people to identify "the right choices" over millions of lives - behavioural empidemology
- schneems 3y ago
  I looked it up and found this on Wikipedia: > Libertarian paternalism is similar to asymmetric paternalism, which refers to policies designed to help people who behave irrationally and so are not advancing their own interests, while interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. Though it sounds like that’s not the same conclusion you came to. Maybe you can say more. > interfering only minimally with people who behave rationally. The problem I have with this is most bad actors are quite rational, and the most successful not only play within the rules, they shape them (regulatory capture).
  - jacobr1 3y ago
    >I think that the article posted is people acting rationally based on the incentives and markets in their life. The position is that many people do _not_ act rationally. So the argument is make the choices that are best for most the default, but at the same time don't force that choice, for those that would pick an alternative. It does set up an incentive to influence that choice, but often that is the case we already have today. Making the choice of a default explicitly part of how both public and private services are delivered, including both the data-driven analysis of better outcomes and the UX work expose the default seems to be worth it. The alternative is a choice still getting made, but getting made either arbitrarily or with more nefarious influence.
    - lifeisstillgood 3y ago
      yeah that's my interpretation too - government ensures defaults are best interests of (almost all) individuals and yet allows deviation by choice. It's like, you can choose to sign up for adverts on facebook and youtube but they should be off by default (ok maybe that's my paternalism).
chung8123 3y ago
You joke but that is how recommendation engines, reviews, and discussion forums have changed how we make choices.
Condition1952 3y ago
Somebody who helps you make right choices is called a mentor
- vjk800 3y ago
  Good to know. Now how do I get one?
  - toomuchtodo 3y ago
    Ask in the right places. Be investable.
    - vsareto 3y ago
      Ironic since the people who are "investable" are the ones to least likely need a mentor
      - toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Perhaps I misspoke. When I said be investable, it’s okay to need help, it’s okay to need direction, and it’s okay to need support. Be motivated as well as ready and willing to cultivate grit would’ve been a better statement. I have mentored people who made the most of my time contribution, and people who fucked off and wasted my time. My time is non renewable, every hour spent is an hour gone forever, and I want to provide as much value as possible with the time I have left (hence my position).
        chinchilla2020 3y ago
        your time is definitely non renewable if your username is 'toomuchtodo'. (btw hackernews is a waste of all our time)
        toomuchtodo 3y ago
        Doing things that bring you joy and enjoyment aren't a waste of time. Those are the point, everything leads to that. The nickname is sourced from the idea that there is never enough time to do everything worth doing, and sadness about what will get left behind undone on the journey. "Too Much to Do, Not Enough Time"
nlawalker 3y ago
This is the next frontier. Today, older generations of folks often marvel at (both the positives and negatives of) the way that younger generations depend on connectivity, made possible by their phones, to navigate their lives. My major prediction for the future is that my generation, once we're old, will marvel at (the positives and negatives of) the number and magnitude of decisions that younger generations will let their technology make for them. When to leave the house; what's on the grocery list; what colleges to apply to; where to buy a house; who to pursue a relationship with - people will be guided to answers to these questions the way that our maps apps guide us to our destinations today, and many people will simply follow those guides without thinking about it too much.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- ekanes 3y ago
  I've thought the same, and it'll make perfect sense. If the LLM knows you very very well, and it knows the world better than any human could, it can match those up well. The effects on broader society could be interesting. If everyone knows about some secluded beach that's cheap and great, that would quickly change... I wonder if we'll see a "smoothing out" of everything so that the big outlier advantages and disadvantages will go away, because everything is known by everyone('s LLM).
  - chinchilla2020 3y ago
    The LLM does not know the world better than human could. It know how to rapidly search an encylopedia better than a human could.
  - cooper_ganglia 3y ago
    Or alternatively, when everyone is special, no one is. When the supply of genius goes up, the demand goes down. Everyone is a genius, so genius is no longer valued, and even those who were very naturally gifted are valueless to those who have already mopped up all the resources that control the society made up of LLM-infused geniuses. I hope the future doesn't look like the lovechild of Brave New World and Flowers for Algernon, but I have a feeling that it may...

schneems 3y ago

That reminds me of another: the butter churn. For the first time many women produced a product that allowed them to leave the house and earn money that’s not associated with their partner. The butter churn was a huge step towards women’s liberation and was seen as hugely fashionable. Marie Antoinette had a creamery built so she could imitate this hugely popular activity. > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible. I think you’re right that many technologies do provide choice. My interpretation is that when the choice is “live easier” or “go faster” it’s not really a choice.

Izkata 3y ago
> > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. > Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible. Who is trying to make condoms illegal?
- acwan93 3y ago
  The Catholic church has tried: >On New Year's Eve 1930, the Roman Catholic Church officially banned any "artificial" means of birth control. Condoms, diaphragms and cervical caps were defined as artificial, since they blocked the natural journey of sperm during intercourse. https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-catholic-church-and-birth-control/ https://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/pill-ca...
  - schneems 3y ago
    The reason we know that infants can die when they’re not held is because of a law that made both abortion and birth control illegal. A truly gruesome lesson learned in the most awful of ways. Romania Decree 770 Happened in 1967 and is the stuff of nightmares.
- starttoaster 3y ago
  > > > A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. > > Minor point: Unless that act is criminalized or mad illegal or otherwise inaccessible > Who is trying to make condoms illegal? It would seem fairly obvious to me that the original poster of that comment was referring to either abortions or the morning after pill, not condoms. A condom would be a man choosing to decouple sex with having a baby, and I suppose an argument could be made that it's both partners' choice (by proxy of the consent from the woman.) And I suppose another argument could be made that there are condoms that women wear, but those generally seem to not be recommended compared to the male-worn variety. Not that this is an important distinction. I just thought it a stretch that they were talking about condoms and you took it there.

vjk800 3y ago

But I don't want to choose. I'd like there to be only one option.

WesolyKubeczek 3y ago
Toss a coin, stick with whatever comes out, pretend other choices don’t exist. Amounts to the same thing.
- jacobr1 3y ago
  I find this position is usually more along the lines of "I want my choices curated for me"

thsksbd 3y ago

And we've ignored all the externalities of those choices

dijit 3y ago
Capitalism relishes in ignoring externalities. So thats not surprising really. Its coded into our brains.
dottjt 3y ago
Exactly. I watched a good video recently which describes this phenomenon https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOie4GCI40I https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOie4GCI40I

aimor 3y ago

I agree with you but I think you've ignored the economic part of the argument. These aren't choices between equal options, we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive. The technological option is required to tread water because the world is no longer designed for having children young, or living with your parents, or isolationism. We are, according to the argument, not seeing a just portion of the gains technology brings.

chii 3y ago
> not seeing a just portion of the gains but who paid for and took risk to create those gains? Why should the gains be "just" (aka, shared equally i presume), if the cost of said gains (such as the R&D cost, the risk, etc) wasn't also shared equally?
- TeMPOraL 3y ago
  I think GP is talking about gains at scale of society. And at this scale, everyone's heavily missing out on what could be. Even admitting that entrepreneurs and investors should get more of the gains[0], that's only gains on the particular thing a given enterprise brought. But even those people, at the same time, are short-charged by all the other tech being brought to market. There's a lot of ratcheting going on here, key aspect highlighted by GP: > we're strongly pushed to the technological option because last-year's default is now significantly more expensive This is the nature of markets and society as dynamic systems: they adjust to change, incorporate and fixate and eventually become dependent on any new capacity. And since we're not in Star Trek economy just yet[1], the cheapest things are the ones we're doing at scale. If a simple thing is displaced by complex one, over time that simple thing becomes more expensive and less available, until it's all but gone. -- [0] - I have some issue with them getting it exponentially more, indefinitely, way after it paid back the risk - it doesn't seem fair. For extreme examples, see Disney, or various estates, (ab)using copyright to maintain passive income from works of art decades after their authors died. [1] - With replicators and energy too cheap to meter, turning almost all physical problems into "print this document" problems, eliminating supply chains behind almost everything.

monological 3y ago

> A woman can choose to decouple having sex with getting pregnant. How does that change the social dynamics of mating? Is increasing promiscuity a good thing? > A person can choose to live hundreds of miles away from their family yet still visit them every weekend. > A person can choose to move to a new country, halfway around the world, and still have their parents be > able to see and converse with the grandchildren every night. Why did this person choose to move physically away from their tribe? To slave away at a job they don't care about? Would they have chosen to move away if the tech to communicate long distance didn't exist? > I can choose to talk to a person who speaks another language and have a computer translate for us. Is it good to use translation tech as a crutch and not emotionally immerse yourself in the culture? > I can choose to have my tooth decay treated without experiencing horrific pain. Why do you have a poor diet? Why do you consume so much sugar? Why don't you brush and floss? > A compound fracture is not an automatic sentence of death or lifelong severe disability. Do you take more risks because you know that a fracture won't end you since medicine can heal you? It seems to me that technology is often used as a band-aid solution. Or it enables certain types of behaviors that when proliferated on a societal level can have drastic consequences.

whateverman23 3y ago
People often confuse society as a whole with individual choices. An individual can independently choose to brush, floss, engage in less risky behaviors, have a good diet, maintain a health weight, etc. It's not hard. But when talking about society as a whole, that breaks down. Society is going to have a percentage of people who don't brush and floss. Who aren't managing their diet and weight. Who are taking risks beyond what you find acceptable. When talking about society as a whole, it's a dead end to just say, "well people should just be better". It doesn't work that way, and it certainly doesn't fix anything. Society will always have people who have a lot of sex. Making it safer is better. Society will always have people who have teeth issues. Not having them die or be in massive pain is better. Society will always have people who can't maintain a healthy weight. Making it easier is better.
- monological 3y ago

cornfutes 3y ago

I was just logging into the IRS website to check the status of my tax balance. You used to be able to login with IRS credentials, but now it's a hard requirement to use ID.me credentials. So I created an account and had to verify my identity. The automated verification failed, so I waited 20 minutes on the phone to talk to one of the representatives. There was a checkbox to consent to having the meeting recorded. I opted out but the submit was disabled. Even before this, they took a 3d scan of my face. None of this seems like choice and options. By the way, ID.me is a private company. They're even squatting on HackerNews: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13831921& https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13831921&

pb7 3y ago
Thanks for calling this out. Didn't realize they rolled back the rollback of forcing ID.me usage. Despicable and the astroturfing even more so.
redstonefreedom 3y ago
Lmao what a pathetic attempt at astroturfing. Absolutely shameless, god damn. Literally every single comment on that thread is a single-use account. "u/VeteranCrowd" points out that the founder is a veteran... ( ⌐■_■)
paws 3y ago
Yeah, the current situation is pretty terrible. Deprecating the old credential-based auth flow, before adopting login.gov was a massive misstep. Five months ago I noticed the alert about deprecating the classic username/password auth, and posted about it [0]. As far as I know login.gov is a viable solution, already in use at the SSA, that is government-run aka doesn't require users to kowtow to an EULA, capricious arbitration, etc. The problem is there was apparently interagency squabbling that messed up the original deployment schedule. So it's not available. I do hope that changes because the current situation, of mandatory id.me seems pretty terrible. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519938 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35519938

powerapple 3y ago

I feel that we also lose a lot of options and choices: I choose a place to live because it is close to work. Maybe I will have a choice after I retire, maybe there won't be a choice.