> According to haveibeenpwnd, the email address I've used since gmail was invite-only is in at least 39 data breaches.
This is a stupid nihilistic take. Gmail hasn't been breached that many times. Your original credentials from the first breach were passed around from black market to other black market and were repackaged. They didn't get your newest password 39 different times. The black markets are a lot like middle quality data brokers -- they don't actually care if their data is the most accurate or up-to-date.
If your credit profile was completely hovered, that's another story. Credit bureaus are simply a knowledge database and are a massive liability. But my credit hasn't been similarly destroyed so there is likely another major variable between our risk profiles. Maybe your physical mailbox has been breached multiple times.
Security hygiene is a lot like physical hygiene. You just need a few rules and you are mostly good. Don't sleep around too much, choose your partners wisely, and use protection when you do find a new partner until you both trust each other enough.
As it pertains to Meta, nobody should trust this company after what they did with iOS contacts on the original Facebook app.
And nobody needs to use Muse. You aren't opting out of society on a Unabomber level if you choose not to use this one AI agent app by a less than trustworthy company.
The person you are replying to never said Gmail was breached 39 times, they said their email was in 39 different data breaches, meaning 39 different sites where they used an email login were breached.
I think the point is, even if you attempt to do everything securely, someone along the chain will mess up.
Look at the Equifax breach - most of the US SSN's, addresses, & more released, and they get a little slap on the wrist and continue doing business. I was in there, I never signed up for equifax, I signed up for companies that signed up with equifax.
That said, it is still a slippery slope argument, just because there will be more data breaches, doesn't mean we should give everything out freely and just give up.
I currently have alternative versions of these tools. I would rather run the latest qwen model or SOTA models than whatever outdated model Apple wants me to use.
1/ lower housing costs. Singapore has the same chinese mindset when it comes to marriage: boyfriend needs a house (and car?) before he is suitable.
19 year old Singaporeans within a year of dating must sit down with their partner's families to put a $200k sgd deposit on a house to join the 7 year waiting list so they can get married by the time they are 27.
2/ Singapore does a decent job at this, but further normalize domestic workers. Domestic workers drastically soften the blow women experience in their careers, especially with kids.
If they can push costs down further (like housing a worker is expensive), this would enable more Singaporean women to have more free time to date, get married, etc.
3/ Male Singaporeans have a mandatory 2 year service, which detracts from their time to date. Potentially offer more benefits to marriage or more time off to date.
this is pretty much exactly what I would have said too. they could fix these things but it would cost a lot of money and/or impact the economy and defense and they just dont want to boost the birth rate that badly.
only thing I would add is the size of HDBs - they've been shrinking which I'm sure puts psychological pressure on young adults to not have kids.
The USA has a flavor of this: tax discounts for married couples and kids.
But your proposal really f's over people with real trauma and medical conditions that prevent them from having kids. I've met several people that don't want kids due to the trauma they endured as children or men and women that are just infertile.
Married filing separately (MFS) tax brackets are just MFS divided by 2, which is worse than Individual tax brackets.
Also various things get cut in half e.g. SALT cap phase-out income limit, mortgage deduction limit that MFS is almost never worth it except in a few niche situations and it acts as a last resort option if you are no longer on speaking terms with your spouse but haven't divorced yet, yet need to file taxes for the year.
I don't understand how a government app fixes the problem.
I've talked with women about this offline and they usually fire back with: "You expect women to lower their standards?"
Women would rather delay pregnancy until they find a suitable partner, than risk being with the wrong guy.
The only thing I _maybe_ can think of is governments could only show profiles in your 'tier' (looks, social economic class, etc), whereas private dating apps found that showing everyone pretty people keeps people coming back.
I built something similar, but mine used asymetric encryption.
It allowed people encrypt files and then the only person that can decrypt is the person with the private key, which may or may not be the person the encrypted the file.
In 2019, my SSN was used to purchase 4 iPhones, open 2 credit cards, and used to buy perfume in another state.
In 2026, almost mainstream messaging app monitors your private messages (yes, even Whatsapp now [0]).
Society decided that to be in it, you must give up your privacy along time ago.
[0] - https://engineering.fb.com/2026/08/12/security/how-were-buil...
reply