Based on your own comments here, it sounds like the reporting is entirely accurate. You're attempting to justify why you're tracking your users, but you're still tracking them.

You've highlighted many of the hard problems in this space: how do you achieve anonymity and unlinkability while doing things like IP hiding, spam filtering, and relevance matching? The issue is that you haven't solved the problems, and are instead suggesting you should get a pass because the problems are hard. It seems simple to me: if you haven't designed something that gives you truly unlinkable anonymity, don't claim to provide it. If you have to track your users to make your app work, don't claim not to track your users.

There are projects like Tor that are approaching these types of problems seriously, but apps like Whisper or Secret end up poisoning the well and confusing users. There's a huge difference between "can't" track and "won't" track. Right now you're claiming "can't," but it sounds like you're squarely in the "won't" category of having your servers "avert their eyes." I think this understandably makes people uneasy, particularly given the data mining direction it sounds like the company is headed.

Thank you, Apple!

They put the "Retina" display in the iMac. This means people will buy it. Higher volume means whoever (LG, I think?) is manufacturing the screens will have to produce more, driving the cost down. That means they will sell variants. Then their competition will also sell competitive options because nobody will want 1080p on a computer screen anymore.

Monitor technology has been stalled for years. This is going to be a gigantic kick in the pants to the industry!

The problem with differentiating between the "good investor" and the "lavish lifestyle guy" is that the good investor is actually the one that you (rather, Piketty) need to be most worried about.

People worried about inequality aren't (just) worried about the morality of consumption -- a fat cat sitting atop a mountain of cash drinking champagne and eating caviar while the peasants starve. They're worried about maintaining a democratic society, where everyone gets roughly an equal say in how things go. Highly concentrated wealth is a threat to that. Someone with enough money can single handedly change the course of politics (by funding candidates, lobbyists, or directly bribing various parties), public discourse (by controlling media corporations and through them who says what on TV or in print), and even science itself (by funding some researchers and not others).

The sleazy but short-sighted hedge fund manager bringing in a million plus a year but spending it all on yachts and McMansions isn't a threat. Bill Gates and Warren Buffett, the good investors, are the ones walking around with nukes. They could choose to blow us up at any time, and it's only through their continuing mercy that they haven't.

Wealth taxes are about disarming everyone -- good and evil -- for the safety of us all, not about morality.