4 ms·

The rationale of that falsehood¹ addresses that point: >> It wasn't even that long ago that mobile phones didn't exist, and it was common for an entire househo

The rationale of that falsehood¹ addresses that point: >> It wasn't even that long ago that mobile phones didn't exist, and it was common for an entire household to share one fixed-line telephone number. In some parts of the world, this is still true, and relatives (or even friends) share a single phone number. Many phone services (especially for businesses) allow multiple inbound calls to or outbound calls from the same phone number. ---- ¹ https://github.com/google/libphonenumber/blob/master/FALSEHOODS.md https://github.com/google/libphonenumber/blob/master/FALSEHO...

Dylan16807 2y ago
Your quote disproves you. That explanation does not address the point of who pays. It addresses what point 4 is actually about, multiple people sharing a number, which is not happening here.
pyuser583 2y ago
Mobile phones date from the 1930s.
thaumasiotes 2y ago
How does that address the point? They've got nothing to do with each other. Our example user isn't sharing a phone number with his mom. He's having his phone bill paid by his mom. It is correct to believe that the number uniquely identifies him. Explaining that "all phone numbers uniquely identify a single individual" is false doesn't matter in any way, because it isn't false as applied to the phone number that's giving us trouble. That number uniquely identifies an individual. This should be a hint that you've misdiagnosed the problem... shouldn't it?
- yellowapple 2y ago
  > Our example user isn't sharing a phone number with his mom. He's having his phone bill paid by his mom. Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default; it's then shared with him, making it a non-unique identifier. That's why it falls into Falsehood #4 (and likely into Falsehood #3, assuming that his mom has a separate phone number that she doesn't share with anyone else).
  - snowe2010 2y ago
    > Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default; No, it makes his mom the account owner. Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. It’s nonsensical. The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.
    - yellowapple 2y ago
      > No, it makes his mom the account owner. Which makes the phone numbers under her account hers. > Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. It absolutely does mean that her number is actually your number. That you choose to share it with her doesn't change that; you can revoke that sharing at any time, or even cancel the line entirely. (And of course, if both of you jointly own the account, then the numbers therein would simultaneously belong to both of you.) > Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. Is the phone bill under the accountant's name and paid from the accountant's personal bank account in this hypothetical? Or is it under her employer's name, and paid from her employer's bank account? The answer to that question determines the owner of the CEO's phone number, and in neither case is the CEO himself personally the owner of that number. > The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill. And if that assigned person was the son then it would've been the son's name that Google pulled instead of his mother's, and Google's ignorance of its own advice would've gone unnoticed.
      - snowe2010 2y ago
        You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post. Just like shipping addresses are different than billing addresses, account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees. Google is tying to account payers, not assignees. This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.

Dylan16807 2y ago

Your quote disproves you. That explanation does not address the point of who pays. It addresses what point 4 is actually about, multiple people sharing a number, which is not happening here.

pyuser583 2y ago

Mobile phones date from the 1930s.

thaumasiotes 2y ago

How does that address the point? They've got nothing to do with each other. Our example user isn't sharing a phone number with his mom. He's having his phone bill paid by his mom. It is correct to believe that the number uniquely identifies him. Explaining that "all phone numbers uniquely identify a single individual" is false doesn't matter in any way, because it isn't false as applied to the phone number that's giving us trouble. That number uniquely identifies an individual. This should be a hint that you've misdiagnosed the problem... shouldn't it?

yellowapple 2y ago
> Our example user isn't sharing a phone number with his mom. He's having his phone bill paid by his mom. Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default; it's then shared with him, making it a non-unique identifier. That's why it falls into Falsehood #4 (and likely into Falsehood #3, assuming that his mom has a separate phone number that she doesn't share with anyone else).
- snowe2010 2y ago
  > Having his phone bill paid by his mom makes it his mom's phone number by default; No, it makes his mom the account owner. Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. It’s nonsensical. The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill.
  - yellowapple 2y ago
    > No, it makes his mom the account owner. Which makes the phone numbers under her account hers. > Just because I pay the bill for mine and my wife’s phones doesn’t mean her number is actually my number. It absolutely does mean that her number is actually your number. That you choose to share it with her doesn't change that; you can revoke that sharing at any time, or even cancel the line entirely. (And of course, if both of you jointly own the account, then the numbers therein would simultaneously belong to both of you.) > Imagine operating a company and the CEO isn’t the one paying the phone bill, it’s the accountant, and you claimed that it’s not the CEO’s phone number, it’s actually the accountant’s, but it’s shared with the CEO. Is the phone bill under the accountant's name and paid from the accountant's personal bank account in this hypothetical? Or is it under her employer's name, and paid from her employer's bank account? The answer to that question determines the owner of the CEO's phone number, and in neither case is the CEO himself personally the owner of that number. > The number is assigned to a person on the account which has nothing to do with who pays the bill. And if that assigned person was the son then it would've been the son's name that Google pulled instead of his mother's, and Google's ignorance of its own advice would've gone unnoticed.
    - snowe2010 2y ago
      You don’t know how phone numbers work… and you’re making really bad assumptions through your entire post. Just like shipping addresses are different than billing addresses, account owners are different than account payers are different than account assignees. Google is tying to account payers, not assignees. This is clearly incorrect to everyone else in this comment section.