Also, the last section of your post appears to imply that if the attackers have bigger guns then the only possible solution is to give the defenders bigger guns. You're openly supporting an arms race towards the most capable, least restrained models put in the hands of the most possible people. That's extremely concerning.

[1]: https://openai.com/index/scaling-trusted-access-for-cyber-de...

The source for the point I made is a Wendover video - Why Budget Airlines are Suddenly Failing

For the past year I've only had three direct reports, which would have been too few to keep me occupied if I wasn't also acting tech lead.

IMHO, if you want engineering managers who can occasionally do hands-on things, you probably want a ratio around 6/7:1

I'm not the reason my teams need to do software supplier risk assessments, or fill in at least 4 different surveys about their wellbeing and functioning as a team, or provide forecasts of their cloud spend for the year, or manage data usage agreements for the consumers of their data in our data lake. Nor is my people leader. But I am accountable if we don't stay on top of these responsibilities which are expected of all teams.

Crazy contrast to me having spent the past weekend wondering if cloud gaming services like Geforce Now are matured enough that I can fully move to a thin client - fat server setup for the little bit of gaming I still do.

In the scenario that I sketch, the stalker runs zero risk while obtaining the information. Hell, they don't even have to log in to this tool, so there's zero record of who accessed location information for which parking warden.

And yes, it is absolutely incumbent upon the creators of tools to take into account how they might be misused. To pretend that all humans are of right mind and incapable of doing harm and only design for the case of ethical use is laughably naive.

Let's say someone sees a parking warden they find physically attractive. They follow them for a bit and when they write up their next ticket, the stalker pulls up this app to get the officer's ID. The next day they pull up the app to see where the warden is working that day - they drive over there, and it takes them maybe half an hour to find the warden based on the lag between last-ticket-location and real-time-location. They strike up a creepy conversation and the parking warden eventually leaves, disturbed. The next day, the parking warden is working a night shift - they've been told to patrol a dark neighborhood where there are plenty of alleyways that nobody can see into...

See where I'm going with this?

Anything which allows someone to get ongoing location data for a person who they've just come across on the street is inherently a danger to the surveilled person.

As a hiring manager in a big company, salary isn’t really much of a consideration for me. The company has salary bands per role that I have very little control over. If a candidate is above that band and unwilling to come down, then I probably won’t even hear from our recruiters that that person applied. So in our process, somebody wouldn’t accidentally price themselves out of an opportunity.

So it’s possible that job seekers are making themselves uncompetitive via high salary demands, but I have my doubts whether its a major factor.