I'm sure environmental issues aren't going to slow down conservatives in the least. Given that 80% of people vote the same way their parents did, I suspect we're in for some amusing election results in about 18 years.

This is a problem all first world nations will have to solve eventually. If Japan solves it first (and they will, by necessity), they're going to be at a distinct advantage, aren't they?

Given that they're the ones having the babies, who do you suggest stops having them? The nations with collapsing populations?

"Electric cars are already upending America," argues a new article in the Atlantic,

This might be more convincing if this was published in Car and Driver. I submit the automotive expertise of the Atlantic is somewhat suspect.

I finally lost it when the cashiers started putting tip jars in front of their registers. Now, a waiter or busboy might have some direct influence over your dining experience, and the amount of effort they exert may make a difference. But tipping the cashier for collecting the payment? Are you kidding? For what?

Worse, the practice has escaped the restaurants, and every small shop in town has tip jar by the register. Apparently these days people feel entitled to a tip whether they're providing a service or not.

And I can't think of a better reason as to why they should be discouraged from collecting unnecessary date in the first place. If they're going to subject their customers to unnecessary risks, I see no reason they shouldn't share in them as well.

I'm going to quibble with the "reasonable" standard here. If we're talking about data that is necessary for the transaction to be performed, then I'm fine with "reasonable", as there's no way to avoid collecting the data.

But optional data that the company is collecting for it's own convenience or profit? Nope. If you're collecting it, you're responsible for it, and if you can't guarantee it's security, then you have no business collecting it. If you're going to go above and beyond, then you have voluntarily assumed a risk you could have avoided. I see no reason to cut any slack for that.

Maybe instead of diplomas, we should be giving our graduates a severe beating, just to reming them that, no, you really aren't the center of the universe, and the rest of us are not here to serve you. Deal.

The first problem with your analogy is that a residence requires a door to function, the companies collecting the information do not need it to function, they simply wish to monetize it. And I'm fine with that, with the provision that if they're going to collect it, they had better secure it, preferably under pain of legal penalties.

This isn't exactly a novel or radical proposal. Pre-internet, the assumption was that the individual owned his own information. If a media company caught you on camera, they couldn't broadcast or publish it without you signing a release. When was the last time you saw that happen?

The point here is, the commercial entities are holding something that reasonably should belong to you, not to them. And if they're exposing you to risk by holding it, they need to be held accountable when that risk materializes.

I perfectly understand the trade-off of surrendering your personal information in return for goodies. And that's all well and good. But I don't see why the companies collecting it should be getting a free lunch, either. The trade-off on their part is that if they collect it, they're responsible for protecting it. After a few companies pay some staggering fines for data breaches, I'll bet they either learn to secure their customer's data, or they get a lot less enthusiastic about collecting it.

If the Times doesn't like OpenAI training their AI's on the Times, I wonder how they'd feel about training them on the Post? I expect it would make for a more entertaining Ai, anyway.

What actually needs to happen is the people collecting this information to be held liable when it's stolen. When the cost of taking responsibility for holding it becomes prohibitive, companies will stop collecting it. As you pointed out yourself, most of the information collected is unnecessary for completing the transaction. Information that isn't collected isn't available to be stolen.

If the polls hold up, it's a lot more likely old Joe himself will be banned in 2025.

Given that according to the article, the companies mentioned leaving Austin were destined for other locations in Texas such as Houston, or other conservative states such as Oklahoma, I am skeptical of your conclusion.

Perhaps they find Austin too progressive.

People are moving away from there, too.

Bezos will never hear the end of this. Even if it was the reasonable thing to do.