[stymaar]

> This assumes good faith, which doesn't match reality. It's about control, not protecting children.

“Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

> Given your idea of a physical card, kids will find a way to use the card of their parents.

Sure there are kids who have access to their parents credit card with the PIN, but how frequent is that? In every system, fraud will exist, but that doesn't mean the system is worthless. “The optimal amount of fraud is non-zero”: https://www.bitsaboutmoney.com/archive/optimal-amount-of-fra...

[ball_of_lint]

I linked it in my direct reply, but - we don't need to guess at why these bills are being introduced or who by. We have evidence. It's malice. https://old.reddit.com/r/LinusTechTips/comments/1rsn1tm/it_a...

[applfanboysbgon]

> “Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.”

This is not an argument, it's just a stupid quip. And I would sooner suggest that you "never attribute to stupidity that which is adequately explained by malice". Humans are overwhelmingly selfish and more than willing to harm others to serve themselves.

[Telaneo]

Given the amount of malice in the world, that's not even an unreasonable statement. Even more so if you agree that being in a position of power while not having the expertise needed to fulfil it is itself malicious.

The traditional quip works well on small-scale stuff, but if there's loads of money or power to be gained, malice and greed tends to be fairly prevalent.