I requested my report using the link in the OP. The only place Equifax could have gotten this information, with this granularity, is my employer. It's not just a ballpark number or anything like that; it's detailed salary information for the last 10 years, broken down by category (salary, bonus, equity). For the past year, they have granular information for each pay period, including both gross and net.
At least in my case, the number/email they were willing to send a one-time passcode to were the ones I gave to my employer, not the ones I had entered earlier in the form.
Related: the idea of income pooling schemes amongst baseball players.
"Income pooling is a concept for up and coming baseball players who would come together and contractually agree to contribute a small portion of their future earnings to the shared group. As their careers progress, even if only one person from that pool “makes it big,” everyone in that pool would receive a certain percentage of the income, thus creating a safety net for the rest of the players, ..." ([Forbes])
"Nobody has to pay a cent until they've made it to the majors and they've made $1.6 million. Then that guy has to kick 10% of his salary back to his pool mates." ([NPR])
As a data point: I pay Google $5/month to accomplish essentially the same thing.
I pay for Google Workspace, have a handful of domains configured, a single "real" user account and a catch-all rule that forward all mail to that real account.
Other than inertia and pricing (I have >10 domains, so I'd fall in the enterprise tier), there's one key feature that keeps me from switching: I can set up custom routing rules.
For example, when I RSVP'd for a wedding last year with a plus one, I set up a custom rule for that alias so that my plus one also got any updates.
I suspect you could build a significantly better UX around that, where someone could link additional recipients to an alias with some sort of special reply to the email, see that those other recipients are included when receiving messages (as a reminder they're "linked" to the alias), etc. I'm probably over thinking it, but I'd love to be able to somehow react to an email with "+friend@example.com for 2 hours". (Example use case: you place a food delivery order for a group of friends and want them all to get the rest of the confirmation emails until the meal is actually delivered.)
Random ideas:
It'd be interesting to have an easy way to "bind" aliases to a domain/sender. Most of the time when I invent a new alias, I only expect it to be used by whoever sends the first message to it.
It'd also be interesting to be able to have a "snooze" feature for an alias. I use this a lot on social media (e.g., Facebook makes it easy to say "don't show me anything from this person for 30 days") when I don't want to totally unfollow someone. I think I'd do that with some merchants' emails.
Maybe these could take the form of message headers that get added? That way, it's easy to configure a client-side skip-the-inbox rule (or mark it as low priority or whatever), so it's not in your face, while ensuring you can still search for stuff you think you might have missed.
I haven't had success with no meeting days because it just leads to cramming more meetings into the other days that week.
I suspect this would be less of a problem with a no meeting week.
I wonder though how broad it needs to be to work — can a single team do this successfully, or does it need to be coordinated across an entire organization?
The PDF linked from the post clarifies the rule for PA: "Wearing a t-shirt or button supporting a candidate, campaign, or political party (except voters in the act of voting)"
(Other jurisdictions may have other rules, of course)
One of my favorite benefits was the ability to take a 3 month paid pseudo-sabbatical.
You had to spend the time doing some sort of work, but it's flexible. It could helping another team out (intern style), focusing on a useful side project, taking a trial run at a new role (or just walking a mile in someone else's shoes), or volunteering with a non-profit ("technology pro bono").
You needed 5 years of tenure to qualify (it's not an annual thing). I think the bar is a little too high, but I understand the intent – looking forward to it was definitely a source of motivation and factor in retention during my fourth year.
It'd be interesting to be able to use size or color to indicate additional dimension(s). I like to measure “return” in terms of impact/urgency and “investment” in terms of cost/complexity, and then maximize “ROI” instead of just maximizing “return”.
The ability to sequence things seems to be the biggest thing you lose with the no-list representation, but I think that's easy to fix: let the user add “edges” between “nodes” to indicate dependencies.
