I had a similar thought. In a lot of jobs, people aren't 'commodities.' Person A is not the same as Person B, and so you can't just directly swap between them. That means, if you're hiring a person, and not just filling a commodity role, that you'll need to have this negotiation, and room to allow the negotiation.

Except that there's no central 'hiring app' it would be interesting for that negotiation to start before the interviews did. Both sides present their salary range, and if they aren't compatible, then everything drops before it even gets started. But both sides would be locked. If they say 30k as the low, then they can't offer less than that. If you said 90k as your high, then you can't ask for more than that.

I'm trying to decide who that helps most. :) Whoever publishes their range first gets to set the outside boundaries. The one that comes second has to fall inside those boundaries, but they can choose to match exactly if they want.

(Company says 30k - 90k Application responds with 70k-90k)
(Applicant says 80k - 150k Company responds with 80k-90k)

The narrower you make the range, the less likely you'll find a compatible deal, but the more likely you'll be happy with it.

At that point you need a living wage.

The overlap is interesting. You want a job, but you only need a 'half-job' because you're still a dependent.

As soon as these 'half-jobs' exist, people who technically need a 'real-job' will be taking them because they need at least 'something.'

I left my phone in an Uber last month. 9 out of 10 of the 'recovery' options were tied to logging into the app. (especially when you include all the '2-factor' logins I needed for email access and the like.)

I eventually found a simple flat form that just asked for a phone number and they'd look it up on their logs. (It was not easy to get to.)

The modern world has taken 'single-point-of-failure' to the extreme. Now it's the same single-point for 80% of the processes in your life.

Developers of phone apps might be able to answer this for me.

Maybe it's just HTTPS they don't like? Maybe it's the 'Web' (as opposed to the 'Internet.')

"Banking Apps" on the PC are almost entirely websites being run in a browser. Having actual clients for things hasn't been common for many years....(if it ever was for 'banking' apps.) That means everything happens through a web-server over web protocols.

Are apps on the phones better? You're not using a web-browser anymore, you're using a dedicated app; you could use a dedicated protocol. Or, for convenience/familiarity, do the Apps just use REST APIs in the background and it's all just web-traffic still anyway?

It seems like a LOT of effort is being put into it.

Scanning for WiFi/devices seems almost beneficial to the user. It's like 'preloading connections' in case you want to display something.
Delaying the report until you're online also seems like a standard reliability feature. (ignoring the content for now.)
But other parts of the report, like "recording audio when you're playing through other devices" sounds completely illegal, and 'over the top.'

Are there a lot of EULAs that you have to click through to turn on your TV these days? Is there a shrink-wrap agreement on the box?

Not saying you're wrong..... but

Why would you generate pueudonyms? Just delete it. Delete the To: From: fields for all email.
Delete the passenger name/number from every listing. This isn't information that's going to be used to follow trends, debug software, or optimize an airline. Instead of 'anonymizing' by replacing or obscuring. Anonymize it by simply blanking it out.

There's no need for them to know that 'Person A' communicated with 'Person B' this many times. It's not that kind of data analysis.

BUT!!
Interesting that you brought up email. Anonymizing a data field is easy. However anonymizing a free-text field (especially a long one) is frankly impossible. There are so many name/grammar variations, you'll never find them.

Ironically, you'd need an AI to even attempt it (hah) and at that point you've defeated the purpose.

Sometimes on my 'Duolingo dailies' it tells me to get 3 Perfect lessons.
Perfect isn't unusual. There are stretches when I'll go for days and all my lessons are perfect. However, perfect is also unforgiving. Just one accidental button click, or a couple words transposed as I drag them in the app, and all of a sudden, there's no more 'Perfect.' It doesn't mean my skill is less or I'm not learning. It just means it wasn't 'Perfect.'

And there's no way to 'regain' perfect. I often just cancel that lesson and start over. That's definitely not the goal for them saying 'get 3 perfect lessons.' (I guess it might be...more ads play in the middle.)

The point is, 'Perfect' as an idea is flawed. GPA, and having a 'perfect' result be available is flawed. I kinda like the changes they made to gymnastics, with difficulty and execution scores. There's no more 'perfect 10' because even if you did your routine perfectly, the other person can add another 'twist' and now they have the opportunity to do better.

Grading is definitely one of the things that needs to be overhauled as far as 'schooling' goes. (I didn't say 'education' because 'education' is great...it's 'schooling' that's broken.)

Those first 10 are all the same one. 'the.web'

But you're right, it's a cool one. You should grab it.

I don't see a lot of people responding to this nuance. I'm not sure why.

Switching to permanent 'Daylight' time seems incorrect. Switching to permanent 'Standard' time seems like the right answer.

I've seen a lot of these bills come through and it always seems to be the 'Daylight' choice that people fight against. Why is that always added?

If the bill was simply "get rid of 'switching times'" there are few (but there are some) that fight against it. But instead it says "Get rid of switching times and leave it at "Daylight"" It's like they are torpedoing their own bill.

And 'Names' make it worse than 'Numbers.'

Trying to pretend the words on your account somehow mean that's who you are is the problem. This idea that if someone has "Michael Jackson" next to their post then its the actual famous person talking isn't something that can work.

It's better if that name next to people's posts is known to be just 'self-selected words.' Nobody will be fooled into thinking it's Michael Jackson, if there are 5000 different accounts claiming they are Michael Jackson.

Actual 'authentication' shouldn't be done based on your username or any other 'self-selected words.' Instead, there's a 'behind the scenes' unique identifier, and you keep track of the ones you care about.

---

The problem becomes, not one of 'identification', but one of 'discovery.' How do you find the real one? You go to the official source, and they tell you who they are. Then you only care about that one particular "Michael Jackson" and ignore the rest.

Hmm, the Summary does mention Offline payments. So I guess I need to read better.

(Not European, and not a banker.)

If the problem is American companies doing the transactions, why is the solution a 'Digital Euro' and not use an EU backed transaction processor? Why don't you keep using 'normal Euros' in 'debit-card like transactions' but have the processing be done by a more acceptable organization?

In short...what's the difference between a 'digital Euro' and any sort of 'digital monetary transaction?'

Is it the 'wallet?' Instead of having your money in a bank, it's in a 'wallet' (where it can get tossed in the rubbish and make you dig about a landfill?)

Do these wallets support 'offline transactions?' Can I walk up to the guy in the middle of a forest and give him 5 Bucks? (5 quid?) Or, do I have to have access to the network to authenticate the transaction? If these 'digital Euro' had support for offline transactions, that might be a way they are different from normal electronic banking.

At least in my neck of the woods, we have ZERO spare water. We're in a 'negative water' situation. Using any water is a problem. That makes the narrative that data-centers are 'water hungry' very effective at causing unrest.

I've been using Moto phones exclusively for as long as I can remember. No real reason except habit, (and they are inexpensive.) That's fun to learn they are consumer friendly as well.

... and it messes up my video game playing.

I don't know that I've performed a rigorous study, but I do find myself going the 'other' direction from everyone else.
That means when I play a game requiring exploration or 'maze solving' that the clues which were obvious to the level designer are often invisible to me, because I turned the wrong direction.

I've noticed the 'not the same' part for a long time. I just don't know which direction I turn by default....cause it's just 'default.'

(BTW, I happen to be left-handed, but the summary seems to say that's not statistically relevant.)