1. 21

  2. 4

    Names are a bit like addresses in that I almost prefer the idea of just using a UUID or something instead of whatever damn fool thing the meat space cultures prefer.

    It’s for the computers anyways and it isn’t like it actually matters what your name is…we are going to serve the same shitty ads to you anyways.

    1. 3

      „What is there in name? It is merely an empty basket, until you put something into it.“

      – Charles Babbage, Passages from the Life of a Philosopher

      1. 4

        I’m sorry, your basket has the wrong shape and won’t fit into our narrowly constrained schema.

      2. 3

        “Literally ten billion people whose surnames start with “O’” live in Ireland”

        There are fewer than 5 million people living in Ireland. Makes me worry about how well researched this is…

            1. 6


              It’s literally in the dictionary that using “literally” to as a generic intensifier for figurative statements (i.e. to mean “not literally”) has been part of the language since the 1800s.

              1. 3

                It also says that anyone who isn’t a complete savage rejects this, although not literally.

                1. 2

                  Only if you take a prescriptivist view on language; descriptivists have no choice but to accept it.

            2. 2

              If I was doing some research about how to write my schema, I wouldn’t apprechiate unnecessary rhetoric and exaggerations.

              EDIT: To clarify, I’m not making the same argument as adsouza, I don’t doubt that the article is well-researched.

              1. 8

                I don’t think that’s the point though, this isn’t a well researched, peer-reviewed document, this is somebody expressing frustrations with existing systems, and pointing out some good “you should do this” points, in contrast to the existing articles which are all “don’t do this thing”.

            3. 1

              They only have to fill in 6 web forms a day to hit 10 billion O' a year :~)