Using economics terminology doesn’t make this insensitive opinion any more valid.

Technology is for people, not the other way around.

Nobody gets to decide what's more or less sensitive. Younger generations can argue being rendered homeless due to mass housing affordability issues is also insensitive.

It is incredibly useful to powerful people to keep at this generational war narrative, as it keeps people who might otherwise work together from doing so with an aim of crushing the power of the wealthy.

The fact is, anti-human attitudes to both housing and technology are harmful everywhere. Nobody has to "win" at the other side's expense here.

Some games are zero sum and some aren't. Everyone is more secure if a large bank replaces 2FA over unencrypted SMS, even though some may be inconvenienced.

Leveling down on everyone's security in exchange for usability for a segment of the population is not a realistic long-term strategy.

As opposed to encrypted SMS? I'm genuinely intrigued at the idea that's a thing.

As for the rest, is there any actual evidence of widespread interception of SMS 2fa actually being a problem?

Not sure if you're arguing that it's a great idea to run 2FA over SMS or if you're just acting up

Calling such people “technological deadweight” and “free riders” is the insensitive thing, regardless of the veracity.

That's your opinion. As a NYKer my personal opinion is that people are, if anything, too sensitive in interpersonal communication.

Yet akin to the article, because of the overly sensitive, everyone's expressive creativity must be dulled down. Who's the intolerant one?

Ah, that’s fair. My comment is phrased as though I’m presenting a fact. Perhaps “the things which are seen as insensitive” is better phrasing.

I can agree that people are often over-sensitive but I wouldn’t expect that calling a person deadweight is likely to garner their thoughtful attention, precisely because it is disrespectful. Indeed, it would be foolish of me to expect them to start (or continue) listening to my words.

Maybe you have better luck in New York but I bet you could find people (read: strangers whom you’ve never met or spoken to) there who are personally offended when you call them deadweight. If you’re walking somewhere and you see someone whom you think is homeless, do you let them know they’re deadweight to society? Do you think one is being over-sensitive if they become offended after they are simply called “stupid”? It might be worth explaining an opinion more instead of using such terminating cliches.

Maybe because the one commenter used the phrase “insensitive opinion” there is a misunderstanding. I’m not trying to suggest that the opinion is insensitive, only the way it’s expressed. This opinion can be presented in a friendlier way, despite the topic. (It may also be worth pointing to four words in my initial comment: “regardless of the veracity”.) One can be tolerant of opinions while being intolerant of name-calling in a way that is compatible with not being the “tyrannical minority”.

Take it or leave it, I do this on my dime

> Nobody gets to decide what's more or less sensitive

That's simply incorrect. Everyone gets to decide.

The existence of the attention economy demonstrates that your statement is blatantly false.

Technology is not for people. It ought to be, but it is not.

Technology exists so that the aristocracy can line their pockets and control the populace more efficiently.

Good sir, if we're going for fantasy/conspirological themes, we have to go deeper than this distasteful banality.

People and technology and aristocracy are for the memes. It's just one huge anthill where the ideas evolve, living on biological (and then technological) foundations.

Power hubs (be it aristocracy or any other form of government) is just a convenient mechanism for spreading ideas - politicians and millionaries are just superspreaders (in their respective ages, but they're losing it to the technological platforms - and of course there's a struggle). So is technology. So are people. It's all an evolutionary process - just notice how designed systems rarely win, nearly always giving to chaotic blind evolution - whatever catches more brainspace truly matters, not what works best. If the memetic winds will blow in a certain direction, LLMs may make us obsolete, but not in the way we think they would.

This comment is sponsored by "You think the moon is real?" meme. Sorry (not sorry).

I let people set their own password. This is like canary letter for them to know if anyone accessed their data. If sysadmins need access they take it and go through a new password rotine with the user.

I also have no password requirements (other than non-blank)

I do this because I see it as user centric. I have never had a problem.

One environment requires no privacy expectation. That environment we use simple nouns all in the same category.

All the environments are full SSO they only need to login.

Yeah, shape up and learn to code, grandma!

In all seriousness, tech must adapt to humans. Engineers are at their best when they aren’t dictators

Yes, the abject failure of the tech industry to create usable and secure software is the fault of...checks notes...retirees.

Gosh, you're fun.

> There's a cost to society to carrying over such a technological deadweight loss and these people are free riders.

The same capitalistic analysis can be said for fetuses, infants, and children up to working age.

Is your proposal for infanticide the same as your gerontocide?