Comment by Psillisp Comment by Psillisp 5 days ago 4 replies Copy Link View on Hacker News You are going to need to clarify more. I have no idea what you are for.
Copy Link rationalist 5 days ago Collapse Comment - Why does a person have to be "for" something? Reply View | 3 replies Copy Link Psillisp 5 days ago Parent Collapse Comment - [flagged] Reply View | 2 replies Copy Link Volundr 5 days ago Root Parent Next Collapse Comment - The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. Reply View | 0 replies Copy Link rationalist 5 days ago Root Parent Prev Collapse Comment - "sleaze"? Reply View | 0 replies
Copy Link Psillisp 5 days ago Parent Collapse Comment - [flagged] Reply View | 2 replies Copy Link Volundr 5 days ago Root Parent Next Collapse Comment - The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. Reply View | 0 replies Copy Link rationalist 5 days ago Root Parent Prev Collapse Comment - "sleaze"? Reply View | 0 replies
Copy Link Volundr 5 days ago Root Parent Next Collapse Comment - The statement was made to point out that this is an example where a phone number is enough metadata to to problematic for privacy. It stands on its own. It doesn't need more context or purpose. Reply View | 0 replies
Copy Link rationalist 5 days ago Root Parent Prev Collapse Comment - "sleaze"? Reply View | 0 replies
Why does a person have to be "for" something?