It's like math at school. You prove the minimum isn't sustainable. You don't care for how far things go. If the minimum isn't viable the rest isn't either.
I may accept an algorithm IF I can know what and why things have beem filtered. A private algorithm which could be observed and manipulated would have my vote.
I want to know what are the bubbles I am in snd and be able to remove them so see something perhaps less biased.
For me, the need it: when production is on fire, as a responsible person, I want to be able to understand why the change of this commit has been made. Perhaps also what were the drivers of the implementation.
I also have this onliner to commit and push each 10min:
But those commits would never be merge as they are to master or main. It's just if I loose work on my laptop. Worst case a git rebase HEAD~ has to be done before the PR review.
I understand the basic reaction. I don't see the safety problem. It would have been sad to have to drive back. I perceive the risk way too high in comparison to the damage.
And you trust the ower of the establishment, of the softwares, of the Internet, and the bank to not steal your data. Right. I wish you to be correctly assured. At least by your bank.
And don't forget, in case of data breach, change your palm.
At least it's a different packaging, not owned by Hasbro, and it shows that something else exists.