purple_turtle

Yes, it is an excellent reason to discard it as a slop.

There is difference in taking pride of not knowing things and considering it as regrettable necessity.

> Properly budgeting and analyzing costs takes a lot of time

For family? Not really

This post seems misplaced.

Giving access to the same info to more people is reducing privacy.

I prefer to not give to even more people.

In the same way as my doctor knowns some private health info but to keep it private I would prefer to not give it to my employer.

Giving access to the same info to more people is reducing privacy.

I prefer to not give to even more people.

Some banks at least are selling customer data.

I am still waiting for something that would support your claim rather than mention something sort - of - related.

Links to materials that would support your claim.

And at least mention terms you used.

No, ones that would support your claim.

And at least mention terms you used.

Can you link any evidence supporting this claim? This term sounds like a standard-issue woo.

Can you link any evidence supporting this claim?

Your first linked page has no word "depression" on it

Note that I am not saying that "throw away regulation, always less regulation is better".

That would be asking to drop all regulations.

I am saying that regulations have cost so you should have as little as regulation as possible to achieve wanted effect.

And wanted effect often should not be literally zero of accidents or bribery or corruption. As it may be either impossible to achieve or extra side effects not worth it past certain point.

In other words minimisation of how much regulations you have should be one of targets.

Sadly, sometimes people are wrong.

This applies also to enacting monstrously stupid regulations. Or even ones that were introduced entirely as revenge or to create opportunity for corruption.