Because these idiots are comparing it to the normal sized flats, that are more expensive due to the deficit they created.
If truly masked, it might be fine. But the site has to gather that data in order to append it to the API call and it, therefore, mean that they could keep it (even of they actually may not). There are ways around it, such as with session tokens passed between the social media's page and the bank's official API page. But, knowing fb, they won't use the latter.
That's a good question. I'm not sure. Well, guess I'm firing up the Wireshark.
Ah. Sorry. I misunderstood 'tenants' in terms of the civiz who would rent the tiny flat, and not as the businesses who would rent the entire floor.
Right. But Facebook shouldn't have that number.
Interesting. I wonder if that's an iOS requirement that Teams is forced into. Somehow, I doubt it.
You jest, but this may actually be an effective argument with the tech incompetent execs. Hopefully the FTC is more competent, but, somehow, I doubt it.
Edit, Autocorrect
No. It's not a lack of existing housing. It's lack of available housing. Millions of homes sitting empty, owned by these firms as investment properties.
I'm not negating the benefits here. But this answer is to a problem created by the very people providing the answer, except it only truly benefits the causes. Millions of empty homes, owned as investment properties by these firms. They're causing the housing market deficit, and are now providing a "generous" 150sqft closet for $850us per month.
The same investment firms. That's my point. They own too much, and need regulation.
That's kind of the definition of a slum lord, though, isn't it?
It depends how it's implemented. If they implement correctly, then you're right. But not all do. That's a fact that bit me in the arse once, and I no longer use those features for lack of trust.