We could have a system where I authenticate myself against a government service only, or also licensed third party providers, they then provide me with signed proof-of-age certificates that can also be single use, and then I use them to proof my age with a particular service.

What about liquor shops or strip clubs? They ask for ID, which makes sense; we're not expecting parents to make sure their children don't go into these places. But the liquor shop takes a look at the ID and then doesn't collect the data.

Being entirely against age verification is not a good stance I think, but we should definitely have a hard stance on the privacy issue. There are systems that preserve privacy while still making it possible to verify you're old enough to use a service.

But also maybe the parent post and you refer to kids of different ages?

I didn't have access to a computer until I was 9, and then also we didn't have tables and smartphones, so there computer was only available at home as well.

I think below a certain age the limit is fine to be set as 'not at all'.

Give me one example, where consumer behavior really changed anything. Usually what follows from large boycotts is political action or the company succumbing to pressure.

Just stopping to spend your money there might make you feel good but don't kid yourself, it barely does anything if you're not turning it into an organized action.

"The purpose of a system is what it does" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_purpose_of_a_system_is_wha...)

Great idea though! I got inspired to listen to some stuff by it, even though it wasn't really what I wanted to find.

IMO it's the same when we're asking:

"Should I implement X from scratch, or import a small library to do it?"

vs

"Should I add feature X to the codebase or bring in another dependency for it?"

In the first question, it sounds like a good idea to not reinvent the wheel, in the second it sounds bad to have dependency.

The important part is the stuff happening in the physical world.

I think, to the economist, these are just SMEs and a start-up is about making money, an IPO, an exit, the unicorns. And of course London as one of the largest financial hubs will be a good place to start such a business.

But I've always thought of these "SME"-type start-ups as belonging to the start-up category too; after all they "start up" a company and often have ambitious goals and creative, tech driven approaches to solving problems. This is how I've thought it would work when I was younger, and it is how I still think it'd be good to do today, and how I'd try to build a company if I have a good idea to pursue.

Anyways, the point I want to make re the article is that I think the definition is narrow, leaves out a bunch of interesting companies, and thus skews the picture towards London. There are plenty of innovative places around Europe, it's just a different model of doing start-ups. IMO this overly financially motivated view onto the start-up world is quite a bit less interesting than a the broader (maybe harder to quantify) picture.