As I wrote, it is not required YET.

>>~First a convenience, then a requirement.

It is starting at this stage as a convenient option [0][1]. The stage to be concerned about is when it becomes ubiquitious, then default, then mandatory. Might not be soon, but it is a large round rock rolling downhill. Might be stoppable, but that's usually the default progression.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobile_driver%27s_license [1] https://www.cnet.com/news/your-future-drivers-license-could-...

Your language said "they require [that you run] apps" -- in the present, not future tense.

Okay, but that was speaking in the abstract context, and you're right, I was assuming the future tense and not unambiguously forcing it there in that line.

That said, another part of it was clearly in the future tense. >>At that point, we'll need two devices.

So, thanks for the alert, I'll try to be more clear next time.

All good, thanks for clarifying.

My main concern was the assertions made in the comment I initially responded to, several layers up. Whose author seems to have ghosted us, since making them.