> I like that Facebook is now a glorified version of OAuth
I don't. One company should not have the power to decide whether I should be recognised as a legitimate individual or not, and they should not act as a gatekeeper between me and my online identity. I don't care how benevolent that one company genuinely is.
If an intermediary is necessary (like an email provider for mere mortals), I should be able to choose a service provider.
If you go here https://www.facebook.com/settings?tab=applications you can see all your logins. You can migrate each login, one by one, using an app like 1Password to generate new passwords that you don't have to remember.
Some services/apps may be able to transfer stuff to a new account. When I deactivated my Facebook account, I had Spotify linked to it. I created a new Spotify account with an email and contacted their support to transfer everything to the new account and deactivate the old one, it was quick and worked flawlessly.
What is the pros/cons between this and something like Realty Shares?
Wouldn't sending an email to a bunch of RE buyers create demand for a cheap property, which would (in theory) raise the bid, which would cascade to making the listing "not cheap"?
- Playing devils advocate on this one since I'm sure not everyone would bid for the same properties.
I think it had a big (and net positive) impact on me, but anecdote is not data - If you think the advice would have been bad for you, I'd love to hear how - not because I think it's impossible or that you'd be wrong, but because I have no idea what is probable without more people weighing in.
I never thought of the CEO angle (not sure what that says about my intelligence, but hopefully it says something good about my morals). I know that my thinking as a 10 year old was that if I got caught robbing a bank, my mom wouldn't have been bothered that I tried to rob a bank, she'd have been bothered that I _failed_.
As an adult I realize that she'd not have been happy in either case. (I think. Probably.) But it was exactly that shift of thinking from "should I do this" (prone to peer pressure) to "is the payoff worth the risk" (which leads to "what is the risk?") that kept me from doing anything particularly stupid and why I brought the story up in relation to the article.
As adults we normally relate "should I do this" to "what is the payoff" and "what is the risk". As a preteen/teen the life experiences to encourage those connections aren't there, so the decisions will be different from the average adults'. This crazy advice (my mother doesn't remember making it, so it was probably an off-the-cuff attempt at humor that altered my life) created a temporary bridge between those concepts until I had the experiences to build my own bridges.
In retrospect it's actually similar to how certain religious doctrines provide reasons for moral decisions when you wouldn't necessarily have those morals on your own. mindblown.
Wait, what? What if you had a Coca-Cola and decided to have another every day for 30 years? Or have sex without a condom - why does it have to be marijuana leading to violent crime? Where are my laughter emoticons my adolescence has made me dependent upon! :)
I think you misread me. Smoking marijuana is committing a crime that one can't retire on (it's not even profitable, which doesn't really speak to whether it's a good idea but certainly means its not in line with the mother's advice). A bank robbery, at a large enough scale and if successful, could easily provide enough money to retire in some poorer non-extradition countries - but the attempt is almost certainly a worse idea than smoking marijuana with friends.
