How Beige Took Over American Homes - <AUTHOR> http://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/how-beige-took-over-american-homes <comment><USER2> It's an entertaining article, but I feel like a bit of intuition can make the answer obvious: it's hard to sell a home with rooms that are bright, unique colors. Not everyone likes red/green/blue, but everyone can agree with blank- slate colors or colors that mimic raw building materials (beige for wood, gray for stone/metal, white for marble/slate/clay). They're not objectionable, therefore they can attract the largest demographic of interested buyers.

<comment><USER3> > it's hard to sell a home with rooms that are bright, unique colors

I hate people that think like this. You are living in this house, correct? It is your home isn't it? Why are you so scared to make it yours.

First thing I did when I moved into my house was paint it. Every room. It didn't matter what the colour was before because I made it mine.

And I can't stand Beige.

<comment><USER4> It's costing you future money when you paint it a 'non-natural' color in the lost prospective buyers. This is fine if you're loaded with disposable income, but for the vast majority of the US it's not worth it.

<comment><USER5> This is false (or at least, is not universally true, and is false pretty frequently). It's costing you some of the future buyer pool, but making it more desireable to another portion of the buyer pool: those who have similar taste to you. Because these are exactly the people who are most likely to like other (non-paint-color) aspects of a house that you also like, this is a positive trade off (unless you anticipate needing to sell on short notice, in which case, yes, be as generic as possible).

Make the house you want to live in. There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it, too, and in the meantime you'll be happier.

<comment><USER4> No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a house when they buy it anyway.

>There are enough people that someone else will want to live in it,

Sure, but not nearly as many as would want to live in it if it didn't have a purple shag carpet and black walls.

Anything you do to reduce your buyer pool costs you money. You either accept a shallow pool of offers or repaint it to undo whatever it was you did to start with when you're ready to sell, which also costs money.

<comment><USER5> > No, if people like to have funky colors, they would be expecting to paint a > house when they buy it anyway.

This argument applies equally to people who like beige, if they even exist. Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not. Of the latter group, some like bold colors. None of this should be controversial at all.

<comment><USER4> >Some people are good at imagining what a house will look like after painting. Most are not.

Baseless conjecture. If what you were saying was true, we wouldn't be in the situation of having so many "blank slate" colors as the housing standard.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The OP is Kate Wagner. She also writes the hilarious and informative McMansion Hell tumblr:

[http://www.mcmansionhell.com/](http://www.mcmansionhell.com/)

<comment><USER7> She needs an editor. I can't even tell what she's trying to say here.

"In order to keep up with the Joneses, grew dramatically during the period between 1973 and 2009."

??

<comment><USER8> The trend of "keeping up with the Joneses", grew dramatically during the period between 1973 and 2009.

I agree it could use a rework, but it's not that hard to figure out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> nommm-nommm Can anyone tell me where the American trend of decorative non-functional shutters came from? It annoys me to put fake shutters on windows because they look fake, which makes them look odd. Especially ones that are _too small to actually cover the window_. That is soon weird and I can't imagine how you can make that mistake! Why not just real shutters?

Now on topic, I bought a beige couch because it was cheap, wasn't thinking about design. I have now learned beige is the worst color for a couch because it shows the stains from when I inevitable spill something on it.

<comment><USER9> A lot of houses nowadays are full of fake and/or non-functional features. The faux brick facades slapped over top of cheaper materials (plus the ultra-tacky "faux brick on only the front of the house" trick). Columns that support nothing. Faux-finished surfaces and fake wall treatments to give the illusion of age. Faux sandblasted wood beams. Faux stone panels (even entire fake fireplaces). I've seen fake chandeliers. They all exist so customers can have a "style" without paying for substance.

<comment><USER10> And the weird thing is, you can immediately tell a "premium" house (e.g. a Passive House) from a mass market one by the simplicity and lack of pretense.

<comment><USER11> Yes, the same thing is true of the real traditional buildings. They are not overdone, they just are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is a paint recycling service around my town (Portland) that filters and mixes old paints of different colors. It is very affordable, less than 1/2 the price, but as you would guess most of the batches turned out to be a bland beige-like color. Its performs as well as new paint and many people I knew who flipped houses would use it. These houses ended up mostly beige, such as in this article. It was a practical decision for them, not based on trends on TV or anything just trying to save cost and make more profit!

</comment><comment><USER13> Beige is a neutral color, harmless, inoffensive -- but less harsh than white and more distinct than gray. It's a default we settle into when we want to convey some sort of utilitarian appeal that's bound to find purchase with the masses. It's not just homes or furniture: consider PC cases before about 1998 when the iMac came out. Consider the background of this very web site.

<comment><USER14> > It's not just homes or furniture: consider PC cases before about 1998 when > the iMac came out.

Beige PCs were more of an '80s thing. In the early '90s, most manufacturers shifted to gray.

Honestly, though, I miss the colorful iMacs of the late '90s. Now they're all this boring white. I like seeing computers that come in a variety of color options. It's actually influenced my purchasing decisions for phones: my current phone is an ice blue Nexus 5X, and my last one was a bright red Nexus 5.

<comment><USER13> As I recall it, beige was the standard PC color -- even for Apple kit -- until well into the 1990s. I remember rows of brand new beige Dells running NT4 one place I worked in 1997.

Colorful iMacs hail from a time when Apple was a computer company. These days, PCs are a secondary concern for them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Makes you yearn for the aesthetic of the 1950s where items of furniture or appliances would add a splash of color. I'd even take the 1960s when things got a bit nuts, or the 1970s when people were willing to _take chances_.

The stuff they sell these days is designed to be as inoffensive as possible and yet seems so utterly sterile and devoid of personality and life.

<comment><USER10> I might be wrong, but I thought that 1970s house design was pretty similar to today, except with orange and brown everywhere instead of beige. There are few McMansion features as tacky as popcorn ceilings and dark brown fake vertical floor-to-ceiling wood paneling.

<comment><USER15> There was a lot of carry-over from the psychadelic 1960s where green and yellow were still in play, though oppressive levels of dark woodgrain and heavy use of brown were creeping in.

You wouldn't go all-in on that palette though, you'd have a colorful lamp, couch, or artwork to offset it.

Of course, those that played it very conservatively would go all-in. It just seems that more people are using a very restrained palette today for no other reason than bizarre conformity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I _like_ beige and neutrals. Minus a soft teal accent wall, my whole house is various shades of blue-grey and beige. (Excluding the yellow guest bedroom and faux-painted basement I haven't gotten around to painting.)

I think some of this is current "modern" aesthetics: in the same way we don't have avocado refrigerators and brutalist architecture. I think TV reflects those trends rather than the other way around.

And sure, resale has something to do with it. I'm going to budget $5k to have my next house repainted, because _that 's what it costs_. But I'd make the same aesthetic choices no matter what.

</comment><comment><USER17> I can't help but notice that this very website on which we are writing comments is beige. ;)

</comment><comment><USER18> An earlier article that looks at beige walls in YouTube videos: [https://medium.com/message/the-american- room-3fce9b2b98c5](https://medium.com/message/the-american-room-3fce9b2b98c5) "The curtains are drawn. Some light comes through, casting a small glow on the top left of the air conditioner. It's daytime. The wall is an undecorated slab of beige. That is the American room."

</comment><comment><USER19> Is this any different from the '80s and '90s? I'm no fan of beige-everything in houses but it sure doesn't seem like a phenomenon of the 2000s to me (which the article claims it is). US apartments and homes have defaulted to being oppressively beige for pretty much my entire life.

</comment><comment><USER20> FYI, a very subtle grey is the new beige.

</comment><comment><USER21> You should also watch the commercials on HGTV. The ones for paint never show anyone painting a wall beige. It's always something more vivid.

Personally, I prefer beige over white, which probably still dominates as a wall color for homes undergoing sales prep.

So to a certain degree, HGTV has doubled the palette for us casual decorators.

PS -- I haven't watched HGTV for a couple of years - cut the cord. Are they still pushing granite counters / stainless steel appliances?

</comment><comment><USER22> Beige is warm, cozy, and has a natural feel, simple as that. Perhaps its been overdone for sales purposes, but you are free to customize as you see fit upon purchase.

</comment><comment><USER23> My favorite term for this style is BeigeHaus, as coined by McMansionHell.

Edit: Who apparently is also the author of this article. Fitting.

</comment><comment><USER24> Seems every decision people take in regards to their Homes is based on a perceived resale value. Thats the reason average homes have useless features like formal dining room or large fireplaces. Most people seldom use those and those spaces can be repurposed for better use.

</comment><comment><USER25> " _Beige. Now there's a committment to colour._ "

— Alf, Season 2, episode 24, " _Tequila_ " (1988).

</comment><comment><USER10> Here in New England, there are a lot of 100-200 year old houses with beautiful green/red and green/blue color schemes. Much prettier (and better resale value) than beige, IMO.

<comment><USER26> Some New England towns, almost every single house is that white clapboard with green shutters and trim pattern.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I bought a cookie-cutter house that came in beige, and after a few years I picked a dark red and repainted my living room. Everyone said I was crazy when I told them what I was doing, but after it was finished and I invited them over to have a look they inevitably said "that looks a lot better than I was expecting." Most of them even said it was a marked improvement.

Beige is boring. I'm no interior designer, but just about anything is better than beige. Pick a color, give it a shot. I picked out a couple of shades of red and painted a few large patches on the walls just to see how they'd turn out, then used that to narrow down which one I would prefer.

</comment><comment><USER28> Same reason we have a proliferation of white, grey, and black cars. The resale value is less likely to be adversely affected.</comment>


Instapaper is temporarily shutting off access for European users due to GDPR - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2018/5/23/17387146/instapaper-gdpr-europe-access-shut-down-privacy-changes <comment><USER2> Hey all – Brian from Instapaper here. We worked really hard to try to avoid a service interruption in the EU, but unfortunately we were unable to. We continue to work hard to ensure that the service interruption is as brief as possible.

Let me know if you have any questions...

<comment><USER3> You know that you're still liable for European customer's data, even if you're offline, right? Going offline won't change anything. You can't effectively grab the database and run away.

<comment><USER4> It still seems like the safest option given the massive risk this legislation is exposing companies. Especially low margin per user businesses like Instapaper. From The Verge:

> because it's not entirely clear right now what information residents will > request, what format that information needs to be in, how to locate it and > package it, and whether new infrastructure needs to be created to manage > this request pipeline.

So in the meantime they can at least stop the flow of new data from the EU into their system until they are 'compliant' and have systems in place to deal with the existing large amount of EU users/data they already have.

It makes sense to me to be cautious here, plus it has the dual benefit of drawing attention to the real costs/risks the bill has on smaller firms without teams of lawyers and internal human resources (developers, CSRs) to deal with the new obligations imposed on them.

<comment><USER5> >It still seems like the safest option given the massive risk this legislation is exposing companies.

The safest option was actually to comply with the GDPR during the two years it has been in force now. I refuse to believe that the changes required were impossible to perform in two years.

I'd love to know when exactly did Instapaper start looking into the GDPR.

<comment><USER4> The founder has said that he underestimated the amount of work it was going to take. Anyone who has ever worked on software knows how this stuff happens. You don't truly know how long something is going to take until you dig into the hairy details of implementation.

Plus there are still tons of unknown variables at play with GDPR... even among companies who did spend sufficient time beforehand, as I quoted from the article above. So additionally, the non-obvious requirements further makes the underestimation make sense.

<comment><USER6> Marco Arment is the founder of Instapaper. He sold it after building it into one of the first successful iOS applications/services.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Obviously, IANAL, but my company talked to a few over the past week.

This move is, in my opinion, a bad read on the odds and European culture.

First, culture. The goal (at least in France, but that's probably the same in other countries) is to get you in compliance, NOT to fine you. What this means is that before you get lawsuit and fines, someone will talk to you and work with you to see how you can get compliant.

Second, the odds. Unless you are a big company that thrives on GDPR violations (doesn't seem to me Instapaper is one, but I could be mistaken as I never used the service), you aren't likely to be targeted before a while, at least until a big case is done and over (let's take the odds Facebook is first).

Third, the delay. While the GDPR takes effect tomorrow, you have a grace period of a year for part of it (for example, getting consent for newsletter). I would really be surprised if enforcement start tomorrow.

Well, at least that's my read on the situation. And that's how I intend to do it: pro-actively work into getting in compliance without rushing it too much, and handle things properly as they come.

<comment><USER8> > _Well, at least that 's my read on the situation. And that's how I intend to > do it: pro-actively work into getting in compliance without rushing it too > much, and handle things properly as they come._

A lot of the responses to the GDPR shutdowns have been like this - "you don't need to shutdown, because you won't be fined yet."

But I have to ask, isn't shutting down a better alternative to knowingly breaking the law? Weather the fine is $2 or $20M, shouldn't following the law be most important?

<comment><USER9> Problem is - a shutdown doesn't really make any difference. Dropping the data would make a difference, but just shutting down access could potentially (very unlikely though) mean additional infractions - the customers' requests for data access, corrections, removals etc. still need to be handled, and this could be seen as an attempt to skirt those rights.

<comment><USER10> I would say that a shutdown essentially freezes the data and prevents it from being used internally, hacked, misused, disseminated, etc. For all intents and purposes, at the moment it doesn't exist. Once they believe they are back in compliance with the law, it will be "unfrozen" and users will be able to retrieve their data or opt-out completely by cancelling their accounts.

And who's to say that Instapaper did not contact the authorities and discuss a plan such as this to mitigate the problem temporarily?

<comment><USER11> > And who's to say that Instapaper did not contact the authorities and discuss > a plan such as this to mitigate the problem temporarily?

If that's the case, why can't they simply tell this?

I side with the GP: Preventing access doesn't absolve you from complying with the law.

<comment><USER12> Does GDPR make it illegal to shut a site down for a period of time? While they are shut down, what could be noticeable that they are not complying with?

<comment><USER13> GDPR doesn't care about your site, it cares about user data.

The big thing with shutting the site down is it might make it impossible for users to request information about their data and/or request to have it deleted. That would violate the GDPR and could land the site in trouble.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Asked a lawyer: If Instapaper doesn't delete the data from its EU users tomorrow, all the rules of the GDPR might still fall on their head. Most likely, they are then storing EU user data without given consent and have to follow all the requests about data storage, use, deletion and so on. Denying service without data deletion is not an option.

<comment><USER15> Also: how they are going to decide who is EU user. GDPR apply to all EU citizens living abroad.

<comment><USER16> GDPR applies to data processors in the EU or for data subjects in the EU. Citizenship is irrelevant.

<comment><USER15> It might be not. But those falls into weird space and we will see how things are going to be played out in practice. I still think they have to conform GDPR, especially having prior data on EU users and involvement of parent company.

<comment><USER17> There are many unclear things in the GDPR, but the relevance of citizenship is not among them: Nothing in the text of the GDPR or any official guidance mentions citizenship or nationality.

The only sources which do mention those are informal and imprecise third-party summaries. But yes, this mistake has been spread widely.

The more precise compliance guides from, say, European law firms don't mention citizenship or nationality either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My impression is that Instapaper team is terribly understaffed and probably lost control over it's code base. They had changed hands twice over the years (Betaworks (Digg) 2013 and Pinterest 2016) with practically zero changes in code or the app. Zero progress, zero updates. That says something.

And the instapaper.com when downloading is sharing data with third parties like there is no tomorrow. Simply it is downloading a lot of crap from original sites (images etc.) which could be used for tracking - no way they could be compliant with GDPR and let user decide which third parties to share data with.

<comment><USER2> Hey – Brian from Instapaper here. I've been at Instapaper since the betaworks acquisition in 2013, so I have a lot of context here.

We've made tons of progress since I joined, redesigning the apps, websites, launching highlights, rebooting our business model, text-to-speech, speed reading, re-writing our parser, re-building our full-text search engine. The list goes on.

We currently don't have an image proxy for Instapaper, so yes when you visit the site we load the original images. We have discussed adding an image proxy but felt it would be a lot of overhead in server costs and maintenance for minimal value.

Additionally, I'm not sure it's fair to represent that fetching images from the original sources that a user saved is tantamount to sharing data with third parties, which has a different set of implications.

<comment><USER18> Of course, that was just my impression and not really an accusation based on facts. I apologize if I got it wrong.

I actually liked it that way, that Instapaper stays the same and reliable while other feels the urge to 'innovate' giving it's loyal users only trouble. Scripts that I have written years ago for uploading articles still work and Instapaper is still my Read-It-Later of choice.

As for images - I had to accept that Instapaper works that way - but always had been little annoyed that it is possible to turn off images but that's not persistent option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > But because the fines are so steep — violating GDPR will cost a company 4 > percent of its global turnover or $20 million, whichever is larger — no one > really wants to be caught non-compliant.

Can everyone just stop repeating this, pretty please? That is the _maximum_ penalty. You'd have to try really, really hard to get that kind of penalty. For minor transgressions, you're likely to get away with a reprimand.

<comment><USER20> Why would a government impose anything other than the maximum?

<comment><USER21> Because the regulation is meant to enforce lawful behavior, not make the government richer. If they break out the maximum penalty for a minor violation, it will _obviously_ stifle business and cause economic harm to the EU.

But they do need a credible threat to really punish wilful disregard of the law, for companies that profit from breaking the rules. We see how well it works when the fine costs less than the profits from breaking the rules. The EU is making sure that this will not be the case for the GDPR.

<comment><USER22> Is what you say actually written into the law, or is it left up to the discretion of the enforcer?

Because I'm sure EU companies will be given lots of leeway, but non EU companies will not, and no one wants to be the example.

<comment><USER23> Fines must be "effective, proportionate and dissuasive", and there are various factors that the authorities must take into consideration. If you feel they _haven't_ taking the relevant factors into account, you can take it to the courts (especially if there is a history of fining non-EU companies more, as that would suggest they are taking irrelevant factors into consideration.

[https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/](https://gdpr-info.eu/art-83-gdpr/)

<comment><USER22> Um, those three words "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" together mean "as high as possible".

So yah, people are right to block the EU first, and figure out the details later.

<comment><USER24> > Um, those three words "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" together > mean "as high as possible".

No they absolutely do not.

<comment><USER22> Really? "effective" = large amount, so company won't do it again, "proportionate" = relative to revenue, "dissuasive" = make them an example so no one else will dare.

I bet you are going to tell me proportionate somehow makes it all better, but for companies that make money this way, the amount of money they make this way in proportion to their income is basically all of it.

So you can bet regulators will go for the full amount.

No company in their right mind is going to rely on the mercy of an EU court toward a non-EU company.

<comment><USER23> > "effective" = large amount, so company won't do it again

Generally true, but it should be read with proportionate as meaning as large as necessary to be effective -- if a warning is sufficient to ensure compliance, then the effective clause suggests a fine is NOT warranted.

> "proportionate" = relative to revenue

_Absolutely_ not - proportionate to the _infringement_. There is no other reading that makes sense here.

> "dissuasive" = make them an example so no one else will dare.

Dissuasive also encompasses encouraging companies to cooperate with regulators and make a best effort to comply. If they are going to get the maximum fine for a minor breach, even if they made a full effort to comply and merely overlooked something, they are _not_ dissuaded from ignoring the GDPR in its entirety.

> So you can bet regulators will go for the full amount.

Certainly not. Going for the full amount, regardless of the circumstances and ignoring the factors they MUST consider, is going to result in the fines being overturned by the courts, which undermines their position, doesn't fulfill the purpose of the fine (if the company successfully challenges it), and doesn't fulfill the aims of the GDPR. Ignoring the law to go for the maximum fine would be a terrible decision for a regulator to make, and you can look at the history of enforcement of the DPD to see that regulators _don't_ generally go for the maximum fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm still struggling with the fact that the EU can compel me to add what will be a funnel shattering dialog to my onboarding.

I've shelved a bunch of side projects that I was excited to work on because I have no interest in dealing with any of this ambiguous law. Implementing it would most likely cause a large percentage of users to uninstall my app, because who wants to be greeted with a scary sounding dialog as their first experience in an app. I know many folks here are privacy oriented, but unless this tiny slice of the population is willing to fund my app, I have 0 interest in pandering to them vs the majority of users that would get scared away by it.

I know that there's an almost 0% chance of any repercussion for not being compliant in a tiny app that'll probably never get anywhere, but I'm just so sickened by this whole thing that I don't want to deal with any of it.

<comment><USER26> If you were going to make apps that didn't safeguard the users data, and this law deterred you from doing so, then the law is working as intended.

<comment><USER27> I think it's pretty easy to argue that such an intent could be described as "stifling innovation", if it's preventing people from trying new things because of the overhead associated with an impact analysis and continued maintenance of e.g. responding to data requests indefinitely.

<comment><USER28> I agree, we should also get rid of copyright and property laws in the name of not "stifling innovation". It is absolutely ridiculous that I can't just walk into a peoples homes and install my 'adtreckr' eye tracking cameras on their TVs, even though that has the potential to revolutionise the amount of engagement and make sure that they only receive the most engaging, most relevant ads for their tastes./s

Less satirically, you are free to innovate by coming up with new tech, then selling to people who care enough to deal with regulations. The 'stifling innovation' copout is so utterly overused by people who want to ignore negative externalities like pollution or the surveillance state we are building up. I am starting to think of it as a type of rent seeking: "I am currently in the privileged situation of having the technology and network effect necessary to exploit this unguarded treasure of X without dealing with the fallout. Please don't pass any regulation requiring me to actually pay my dues"

<comment><USER27> I think there's a very specific motivator behind people who build tech with the intent to sell, and that motivator doesn't cover every reason behind other people who build tech. If I want to start a project and think, "cool, if this works out, i'll sell it 6 months from now so it can actually do cool stuff", I'm just not going to work on that project at all.

Honestly though, I would _love_ to live in a world where you could walk into my home and install your 'adtreckr' eye tracking cameras on my TV. What you're describing is "trust", and I think the amount of it that each person has (for people in general, but also for companies) is a big influence in how they view GDPR (and other regulations that some might argue are unnecessary). Obviously, we're very far away from that world, so this isn't consent for you to come waltzing into my home in the near future. :)

In my eyes, the satirical representation of what's happening here (from a consumer's point of view) is me placing an order for your awesome new eye tracking cameras, looking forward to the delivery and installation, and then seeing delays and delays as you repeatedly come back with, "well, are you sure you want this? are you sure I can enter your home? are you sure I can touch your TV? are you sure I can modify your TV?" I signed up, I paid for it, I told you I want it, just do whatever you need to do to give me it.

From a business POV, I already treat user data with utmost regard, and my users know that. Similarly, I trust that the companies I willingly give my data to do the same. There are probably some bad actors in the mix, but I doubt they're going to bother with compliance anyway. Having to go out of my way to prove that data trust is there to a third party completely uninvolved with the contract I have with my users, and to spend hours and hours implementing new workflows and pipelines for out of scope functionality that needs to be maintained indefinitely -- this is not good for a business. It's bad for small businesses because it sucks up time, money, and other resources, and it's bad for big businesses because it opens up such a huge area for litigating non-issues. It might have some value to users, as I said elsewhere, but it's a heavy-handed regulation that is too overreaching in its implementation, in my personal opinion.

<comment><USER28> > Honestly though, I would _love_ to live in a world where you could walk into > my home and install your 'adtreckr' eye tracking cameras on my TV. What > you're describing is "trust", and I think the amount of it that each person > has (for people in general, but also for companies) is a big influence in > how they view GDPR (and other regulations that some might argue are > unnecessary). Obviously, we're very far away from that world, so this isn't > consent for you to come waltzing into my home in the near future. :)

Anarchy is always ruined by all those people! (I'm a big fan of trust, and not a big fan of Hayek,but Hayek had an insight when he talked about the micro and the macro cosma. People are to diverse that we can rely on "trust" to solve things, we need agreed on official rules)

> In my eyes, the satirical representation of what's happening here (from a > consumer's point of view) is me placing an order for your awesome new eye > tracking cameras, looking forward to the delivery and installation, and then > seeing delays and delays as you repeatedly come back with, "well, are you > sure you want this? are you sure I can enter your home? are you sure I can > touch your TV? are you sure I can modify your TV?" I signed up, I paid for > it, I told you I want it, just do whatever you need to do to give me it.

No. If you opt into buying my camera, since it is explicitly necessary to do all of that stuff, the consent is given as part of the buying contract. I just need to clearly state and explain that. If you had to gain access Facebook or instapaper via a huge opt in order form (let's say a pop-up detailing exactly what happens to your data), then it is equivalent...and that is exactly what GDPR requires

> From a business POV, I already treat user data with utmost regard, and my > users know that. Similarly, I trust that the companies I willingly give my > data to do the same. There are probably some bad actors in the mix, but I > doubt they're going to bother with compliance anyway. Having to go out of my > way to prove that data trust is there to a third party completely uninvolved > with the contract I have with my users, and to spend hours and hours > implementing new workflows and pipelines for out of scope functionality that > needs to be maintained indefinitely -- this is not good for a business. It's > bad for small businesses because it sucks up time, money, and other > resources, and it's bad for big businesses because it opens up such a huge > area for litigating non-issues. It might have some value to users, as I said > elsewhere, but it's a heavy-handed regulation that is too overreaching in > its implementation, in my personal opinion.

If you already do everything that is commonsense data protection, which is the bulk of what is required by GDPR, then all you have to do is documen that. If you cannot guarantee that the data is not shared, then the third party isn't uninvolved in the contract you do with your users.

Honestly, think of my data as something I own, like my house or my car, and GDPR becomes easy. Think of it as something you "create" by tracking me on your site, and your point of view becomes easier. I like my world better

<comment><USER29> I have a hard time seeing any justification for your view. Why would you own data about yourself? Do you own your name? Do you own the fact that you went to taco bell for dinner last night? Can you sue someone else for knowing you went to taco bell last night? Should it be a crime for someone who knows your name to tell someone else your name? What if they do it for money?

"Owning" data about yourself is a very strange concept to me.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Jesus christ, these cookie warnings are getting out of control. I'm not in EU, stop blocking half of my screen with them!

<comment><USER31> Those of us in the EU hate them too.

<comment><USER27> I wonder why someone hasn't created a browser extension to just automatically accept them, yet.

<comment><USER32> Because AFAIK there's no standard way to identify them because each website comes up with its own design...

This is all rather silly, given that the choice to allow/refuse cookies, and the prompt, could have been better implemented at the level of the Web browser...

<comment><USER33> Like Do Not Track (DNT)? Oh, wait, that exists, and almost all companies ignore it.

<comment><USER32> The cookie warnings are about refusing cookies, which is something that is completely up to the Web browser.

Specifically, Web browsers could warn when a website sets a cookie and ask for user consent before storing it (and if the user does not consent then the website becomes unavailable).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> How does shutting down fix GDPR issues? Does all user data magically disappear by shutting down?

<comment><USER35> It doesn't. But if you notice you might be doing something illegal, it's a great first step towards compliance to stop doing _more_ of it.

Here, Instapaper is likely not misusing user data, but has to catch up on compliance documentation and small details (e.g. signing data processing agreements with services they use, raising the age limit from 13 to 16, …)

<comment><USER36> Um, no - The GDPR treats the simple act of storing personal data as 'processing', so turning off the service while still keeping the data resolves nothing. It doesn't even matter if you take the data offline, or temporarily obfuscate it.

<comment><USER12> But what would you be violating exactly? How could those violations be detected? It seems if the EU is so generous in not wanting to fine and you and walking you through the process, then shutting down would look like a reasonable thing to do if you are still attempting to comply.

<comment><USER5> >How could those violations be detected?

You can tip off the regulators if you believe that there is a violation and they will then investigate it.

Instapaper is giving a pretty good reason to be suspicious.

<comment><USER12> What would be in violation exactly? Not clear on this. How would regulators investigate? Do they require full access to your database/ backend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> They had years to prepare for that. I don't feel comfortable with them not being ready. Time to move to Pocket.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm sad to see that as I am an avid Instapaper user living in EU. The whole GDPR issue caused a lot of changes and friction, but hopefully that's a good thing on the long term

</comment><comment><USER39> One days notice, pretty shitty treatment of customers.

</comment><comment><USER40> A general question for the GDPR experts: If user A does a request of their data and user B added a page their Instapaper account that had user A listed, does that page have to be included in the response to user A?

</comment><comment><USER41> Cloud flare needs a feature that let's you ban all EU ips

<comment><USER42> They do. You can do that with their WAF (and maybe without it).

[https://www.cloudflare.com/waf/](https://www.cloudflare.com/waf/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Not-So-Related question: How can I shut off access for European user to my service?

Blocking IPs ? Ask if they are European? What if they lie? What if they become European citizen later but fail to notify me?

</comment><comment><USER44> Maybe The Verge should sweep around its own door: [https://imgur.com/a/0r28SZb](https://imgur.com/a/0r28SZb)

<comment><USER45> Yes - but never mind the requests, what's up with that "GDPR bar"? Where's the 'No, I do not want you to do this' button?

<comment><USER45> Ah, never mind! It's a simple 56-step opt out process:

[https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/cookie-policy#your-cookie- cho...](https://www.voxmedia.com/pages/cookie-policy#your-cookie-choices-and- how-to-opt-out)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> If anyone is looking to export a list of their saved pages the links for this are on the Settings page: [https://www.instapaper.com/user](https://www.instapaper.com/user)

A list of all saved pages in all folders can be downloaded in CSV or HTML.

</comment><comment><USER15> What are good alternatives to Instapaper? There is Pocket, any other recomendation?

Maybe it is also time for somebody to create new app as tiny side apps owned by corporations seems to be sunseted sooner or later.

<comment><USER47> Creating new apps has just become more effort, while monetization options have become more difficult.

<comment><USER48> So? Profit maximization of the developer is not the only thing that matters, users deserve to be protected as well.

Applications have become terrible in this respect. I use Little Snitch and see many _paid_ applications report to Google Analytics. I don't want the developer to know how often and how I use the application, let alone Google.

Technical users know how to use an application firewall, uBlock or uMatrix. But the average user was robbed of their privacy without them even knowing, let alone having any choice. The GDPR finally corrects this.

<comment><USER20> Google Analytics isn't usually used as a revenue stream, but instead for analytics and telemetry.

<comment><USER48> One motivation for doing analytics/telemetry is being able to set optimal price points, etc.

For example, i f 80% of your user population uses your app daily, it is more attractive to switch to a subscription model than if most people use it very irregularly.

<comment><USER47> Oh my god, that sounds like capitalism.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Theoretical Question, If I am a startup now and has an global audience, does that means I need to enforce GDPR from the get go? Or are there time limit before I have to comply?

</comment><comment><USER50> For people living outside of EU, this should scare you, Instapaper are unable to take care of your personal data...

</comment><comment><USER51> I could not find Instapaper addon for firefox anymore, is it somewhat related to this news?

</comment><comment><USER14> This is a terrible move. They had effectively years to prepare for the GDPR and they already have some sort of rudimentary export and delete options.

This step removes all the trust in Instapaper that I had in the past: They either are mismanaged or are not willing to tell the users what data they are collecting and how they use and monetize this data. And it should worry all users, not only users from the EU.

<comment><USER52> > They either are mismanaged or are not willing to tell the users what data > they are collecting and how they use and monetize this data. And it should > worry all users, not only users from the EU.

I don't know a ton about GDPR, but the article makes it look like it has less to do with Instapaper (aside from risk tolerance) and more to do with the ambiguity of the law. Some relevant quotes:

> it's more than likely to be the GDPR's data subject access request, which > allows any EU resident to request any and all data collected and stored > about them. As The Verge reported yesterday, that's causing companies > trouble because it's not entirely clear right now what information residents > will request, what format that information needs to be in, how to locate it > and package it, and whether new infrastructure needs to be created to manage > this request pipeline. Personal info is a somewhat nebulous concept, and the > fact that experts are describing the GDPR as "staggeringly complex" is not > making it easy to cover all the bases.

> It's clear that few companies, if any, will be 100 percent compliant when > the law goes into effect. But because the fines are so steep — violating > GDPR will cost a company 4 percent of its global turnover or $20 million, > whichever is larger — no one really wants to be caught non-compliant. So > that's why companies are rushing and, in the case of Instapaper, literally > shutting down.

<comment><USER53> > it's not entirely clear right now what information residents will request,

If they ask for something specific in an informal way, that can be provided

But from the GDPRs data portability point of view, it's everything that's linked to the account. Export your Facebook data for a good example of this.

HN example: it would be the information in your profile, the links/text you submitted (but not the content of the link itself), the comments (the comment IDs) you upvoted, stories flagged/upvoted (for the lenght of time this is kept, for example, if after a while user ids that upvoted a comment are erased and only the score is kept, that's fine) and maybe some other background information (for example: password hashes/access logs/etc)

> what format that information needs to be in,

Machine readable format. HTML/XML/JSON is fine.

> how to locate it and package it, and whether new infrastructure needs to be > created to manage this request pipeline.

Well that's not the problem of the law, is it?

You know your data scheme. You know whether you can run this in your existing infrastructure or not.

        for TABLE in YOUR_TABLES
            SELECT * from TABLE where UserID == $user_id;
        end for

<comment><USER54> From the HN example, does this include other comments that referenced my username? What about comments that might have linked to my GitHub profile? What if there are server logs that include my IP and a time which can correlate to when I posted a comment or something? What about this information on Algolia, must I contact them separately? Also, I wasn't aware...I can ask for my password hash? Can I request all of this information be deleted? (genuine questions btw assuming I were in the EU, not trolling)

<comment><USER53> Starting from the end

> Can I request all of this information be deleted?

Yes, the ones that are on HN. I'm not sure how it works for 3rd parties that obtain your data

> does this include other comments that referenced my username?

I don't think so, this is unlikely, especially as you didn't create it and HN doesn't link this (as opposed to reddit)

> What about comments that might have linked to my GitHub profile?

I'd say that being required is even less likely as HN has no way of knowing what's your GH profile

GDPR is what they _know_ about you. If they're actively trying to link pasted GH profiles and usernames then this would apply, otherwise no.

> What if there are server logs that include my IP and a time which can > correlate to when I posted a comment or something?

That thing with IPs being PII I'd say this would apply, but then again, this doesn't bring any new information.

So if they keep track of users access times then yes, but if this information is rotated, sent to /dev/null then no.

You're not obligated to connect all the dots, or track user login times. That being said, IP (especially + times) are PII so better anonymize it and discard once not needed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> _that's causing companies trouble because it's not entirely clear right now what information residents will request, what format that information needs to be in, how to locate it and package it, and whether new infrastructure needs to be created to manage this request pipeline. Personal info is a somewhat nebulous concept, and the fact that experts are describing the GDPR as "staggeringly complex" is not making it easy to cover all the bases. (Granted, companies have had two years to prepare for this.)_

That is bollocks. The most stupid excuse I have ever read.</comment>


Back to the future of databases - <AUTHOR> http://yinwang0.wordpress.com/2013/04/05/database/

<comment><USER2> Very nicely written. With key value stores and NOSQL we correct the mistake (a bit)?

Things just develop and afterwards you can explain (the failure). My Professor said, it's with people that had success with one thing and then everyone expects their next thing to also be great</comment>


Welcome to Socialism - new pricing structure- Canadian Internet  - <AUTHOR>

Usage Based Billing-UBB (Canada)
As some of you know, the CRTC recently rendered a decision forcing all independent DSL and Cable Internet providers to substantially match incumbent (like Bell) usage rate caps. This will influence all of our internet service packages eventually, but DSL residential customers in Ontario and Quebec first, as of March 1. Along with you, we are not pleased with this, and our view is more fully expressed in our press release which you can find here: http://www.teksavvynews.com/
From March 1 on, users of the up to 5 Mbps packages in Ontario can expect a usage cap of 25GB (60GB in Quebec), substantially down from the 200GB or unlimited deals TekSavvy was able to offer before the CRTC's decision to impose usage based billing.  Users who were on unlimited package rates will be returned to $31.95 capped rates although larger blocks of bandwidth can be purchased.*
In order to facilitate this transition we have constructed a new easy-to-navigate portal at https://myworld.teksavvy.com where our customers can choose from the amended and new packages. The details of our new rate plans and charges can be found there. You will be able to register using the account information found at the end of this email.  More on the portal below.  In addition, in order to accommodate these changes, we have amended our Terms of Service, primarily regarding implementation. The amended Terms form part of your Agreement with TekSavvy and can be viewed at https://secure.teksavvy.com/en/termspolicies.asp.
Please note if you do not choose a new service before March 1, 2011, your existing package will be transitioned into an amended package. Existing packages and the ones they will be replaced with in each case can be found at http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_on.asp for Ontario and http://teksavvy.com/en/faq-ubb_qc.asp for Quebec.
Content and data like Netflix, YouTube, IPTV, large file downloads or other streaming services can consume large amounts of bandwidth and place your cap limits in jeopardy very quickly.  We encourage you to monitor your usage carefully, as the CRTC has imposed a very high overage rate, above your new monthly limit, of $1.90 per gigabyte ($2.35 per gigabyte in Quebec).
The CRTC did however provide an option for insurance usage blocks at $4.75 per 40GB block per month, which can be purchased if you want to reduce your cost for use above 25GB (60GB in Quebec).
Ontario and Quebec up to 5 Mbps users with a monthly limit of 25GB and 60GB respectively:
Insurance Blocks Offered:

   * $4.75 - 40GB extra usage
   * $9.50 - 80GB extra usage
   * $14.25 - 120GB extra usage (maximum 3 blocks)
   * $55.00 - 275GB extra usage (maximum 240GB extra usage in Quebec)
 To select a new package please visit https://myworld.teksavvy.com You will be able to register using the account information found at the end of this email.
Unhappy With the UBB Decision?  So Are We!-Join Us!
The CRTC decision to impose UBB on the whole market is a big win for Bell and other major carriers, but a big hit to everyone else. To view the CRTC decision, go to:
http://www.crtc.gc.ca/eng/archive/2011/2011-44.htm
Like our customers, and Canadian internet users everywhere, we are not happy with this new development. We will continue our efforts to fight the imposition of exorbitant  bandwidth charges on usage with virtually no incremental cost to Bell and other UBB carriers, and we will develop strategies to restore the usage levels and costs our customers have come to expect. But we need your support to succeed, and get back to the cost structure we have a right to expect.
If like us you are disappointed with the CRTC's decision, make your views known on UBB and what it means to you (and Canada frankly) by going to www.stopthemeter.ca, where you will find a petition against UBB. Sign it, get involved, and together we will make a difference!  Let everyone you know understand that Canada is about to become the most expensive internet market in the industrialized world!
We will keep you informed of our efforts, and look to you for your help.
If you would like to get more involved go to these links to make your thoughts known and join this battle:
*         www.stopthemeter.ca - signing the petition will now automatically send our Minister of Industry, Tony Clement, the person politically responsible for the CRTC, an email. *         Join the twitter campaign at http://act.ly/2kw *         Join the Facebook campaign http://www.facebook.com/notes/openmediaca/stop-the-meter-on-your-internet-use/455248704798 <comment><USER2> Surely a socialist pricing policy would be based on how much its customers earned, not how much they used? ("From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs.") Or simply subsidised?</comment>


Pollution from tire wear is worse than exhaust emissions? - <AUTHOR> https://www.emissionsanalytics.com/news/pollution-tyre-wear-worse-exhaust-emissions <comment><USER2> Hold on:

The claim is this:

> "Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated > tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles."

It does not seem to be a mistake:

> "Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per > kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a > factor of over 1,000."

A tire might way up to 15 kilograms for a 20 inch type. Lets assume 10 kilograms for a normal tire which is on the high side. 4 tires is 40 kilograms. Even if we assume half of the particals are not coming from the tire (but from where?). That still leaves 40,000 / 2.9 = 13793 kilometers for the tires to be completly consumed (weighing nothing anymore). That is definitely not happening.

So without an explanation on where the matter is coming from this does not read right.

<comment><USER3> They're torn up from the road and rubbed off from the tyres themselves. The majority is obviously coming from the road.

There's been studies done here in Sweden since we've banned studded winter tyres in some areas of Stockholm in an effort to reduce road wear and improve air quality. I don't know of any sources in English off the top of my head though.

The last time I read an article about it though (2+ years ago, during Diesel- gate), the findings was that the danger in the particles comes from their size with smaller particles being more dangerous for humans. And that road particles were something like an order of magnitude larger than exhaust fume particles from diesel engines.

We've since banned diesel engines inside Stockholm as well so the whole thing is moot here.

<comment><USER4> >They're torn up from the road and rubbed off from the tyres themselves. The majority is obviously coming from the road.

Not sure even that adds up to believable.

The Sydney Harbour Bridge is about 500m long between the pylons. It has "more than 150,000 cars per day" on it (according to the snippet from a google search). If all of that was from the road, that'd mean there's about 160 tons of road getting torn up per year. It looks to be ~30m wide on Google Sat view, and "google first hit" research indicates road base weighs 1.9tons per cubic meter. It's be losing almost 6cm of depth along the whole span every year if all those numbers hold, or 3cm per year if "only half" of that comes from the road and the rest from the tires. They don't resurface it anything like often enough for that to be true...

<comment><USER5> Perhaps it's mostly existing particles laying on the road that are thrown up by the next vehicle's tyres as it passes?

<comment><USER4> That's a pretty long stretch from the claim: "we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles".

<comment><USER6> But is it a long stretch from the claim: "Non-exhaust emissions (NEE) are particles released into the air from brake wear, tyre wear, road surface wear and resuspension of road dust during on-road vehicle usage."

Resuspension of road dust is literally one of the 4 things they defined as the NEE they're measuring.

<comment><USER4> OK, I missed that bit.

But counting "resuspended road dust" as "emissions" seems pretty far fetched to me. Especially if that's a significant portion of the "5.8 grams per kilometer of particles", and you then push out a press release with the hyperbolic headline claim "Pollution from tire wear 1000 times worse than exhaust emissions."

And they then have the audacity to claim: "Emissions Analytics seeks to bring transparency to a confused market sector."

Pretty sure I know who's funding them now, without even bothering to google it...

<comment><AUTHOR> Who's funding them? Radical balloonists? Big Rail? Maybe it's the Hovercraft Lobby! I never did trust them.

<comment><USER4> Fossil fuel industry.

(But if it _is_ the Hovercraft Lobby, I'm _totally_ in!)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Maybe offtopic but a surprising bit of extra information regarding wear and vehicles:

Road wear scales with the _fourth_ power of axle load, so heavier vehicles do much more damage than one might expect.

Take a 40t truck with 5 axles vs. a small car with a weight of 1t and two axles (e.g. VW Polo, maybe an older VW Golf might only weigh 1t as well):

(8t axle load / 0.5t axle load) = 16^4, i.e. the truck puts 2^16 (65536) times as much wear on the street as the car.

(8t axle load / 1t axle load (SUV)) = 8^4 = 2^12, even comparing it with an SUV and an axle load of 1t each, the truck is still 4096 times worse.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Road#Maintenance)

[https://books.google.de/books?id=7Yqxyefv- VAC&pg=PA252&dq=4t...](https://books.google.de/books?id=7Yqxyefv- VAC&pg=PA252&dq=4th+power+of+axle+weight&redir_esc=y&hl=de#v=onepage&q=4th%20power%20of%20axle%20weight&f=false)

<comment><USER8> > Road wear scales with the fourth power of axle load, so heavier vehicles do > much more damage than one might expect.

Yes. Electric vehicles with their heavy batteries also make things worse.

<comment><USER9> Except no. The heaviest Tesla Model 3 weighs 4,100 lbs. The heaviest Ford F-150 (the most popular vehicle in the US) weighs 5,600 lbs.

<comment><USER10> Right but people buying F-150s are not buying Teslas. The use case is quite different. My Subaru Outback (a rather large car in comparison to the Tesla) is 3,600 lbs. But I doubt the increase in weight is a huge factor in environmental concerns.

<comment><USER11> > Right but people buying F-150s are not buying Teslas. The use case is quite > different.

Have you been to a Texas city? They're full of F-150s driving around a single person and an empty bed on paved roads.

Sure, farmers and contractors use trucks as trucks, but thousands of people use them as commuter cars. Most pickup trucks are used as trucks once in a blue moon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> They fitted brand new tires and called it a read world test, as if people get new tires every week. Then they measured particulate weight and compared it to ICE emission regulation as if weight was the deciding factor: 5800 ug of rubber particles vs 4.5 ug of PM soot. The rubber could be 1x 5g chunk or 1000x 1ug or whatever. New cars produce mostly small soot, so 4.5 ug can be about 10 000 000 particles¹.

I'm not saying non-exhaust emissions are irrelevant, but I am quite sure exhaust is a much bigger issue, overly so in eastern EU, where people often even remove DP filters and enforcement is lacking.

¹ PM count estimates:

coal density: 929 kg/m³

PM10 particle size: 10 um

PM10 volume: 4/3 * pi * (5um)^3 ~ 4 * (5e-6 m)^3 ~ 5e-16 m³

PM10 mass: 5e-16m³ * 1e3 kg/m³ = 5e-13 kg = 5e-7 ug = 0.5 pg

If exhaust PM was PM10, 4.5 ug would be about 4.5 ug / 5e-7 ug ~ 1e7 = 10M particles, give or take an order of magnitude.

</comment><comment><USER13> > Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated > tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles.

So this is based on n=1, very suspicious.

If tires really were this big a source of PM emissions then how would levels in US cities gone down through vehicle pollution control measures. Something is not adding up here.

<comment><USER14> At that rate you would burn through the whole set of tires in less than 50,000km, so how is it possible? Could it be those nubs on new tires are accounting for a majority of the waste up front?

<comment><USER15> Do most people's tyres last longer than 50k kms? Maybe I'm doing something wrong...

<comment> o-__-o Yes. A high UTQG rating will mean your tires will last forever at the expense of traction, road noise, etc. The last set of tires I bought at Costco lasted 70k miles, but also increased wet stopping distance and introduced a roar to cabin noise. My latest set have a UTQG near 0 and will only last about 10k miles but they make no noise and have insane amounts of grip (think race car tire)

<comment><USER16> If you drive less and have separate summer/winter tires, it has the odd side- effect of making long-wear tires not worthwhile, as the life of the tread depth will exceed the life of the rubber due to age.

<comment> o-__-o I drive about 3.5k miles a year, the OEM tires would have given me 70k miles but I would have never got there. the michelin pilot sport 4s where $5 more per tire and would survive just about 7 years (i'm planning 3-4 with the occasional track day). the tradeoff was DEFINITELY worth it, but now i'm deathly afraid of potholes and road hazards lol!

(after 1000 miles on the MP4S you're already more than 1/16th worn and would need to replace the entire set to keep the AWD system happy)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Having lived next to a freeway, I found everything in my apartment covered with a sticky black dust that took hours to remove. I found embedded on books and other items years later. So, I think this has been true for a long time.

What I didn't find mentioned is these emissions were more or less localized to a small distance from the road. For example when I moved it went away. That said I'm sure it's a nightmare for the watershed.

<comment><USER18> How do you know if that soot came from exhaust, tyres, or something else ?

<comment><USER19> We moved a young coworker into a first floor appt in downtown and there was black soot on all the windowsills. I taught him about soap and vinegar and we suggested an air filter and being judicious with opening the windows, or finding a window fan with a prefilter.

It had just not occurred to me that the busses and trucks were pumping out that much soot in the modern era.

<comment><USER20> It's not always soot, a lot of it is also simply dust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> All these articles are important, but they end up missing the point of the auto industries weightiest concern.

At the end of the day, it really comes down to the weight of the vehicles. There is absolutely zero justification for any standard-use car to weigh more than 3,200 pounds, and that's for a SUV.

More weight affects EVERYTHING.

Material logistics/sourcing/shipping/construction costs and emissions/waste- disposal, end-product shipping/distribution/operating-costs and emissions/repairs/waste-disposal, as well as infrastructure construction/maintenance. That's just hard costs. I could go on in more granular fashion and add soft costs like less traffic and less road noise as well.

I drive a very loaded gasoline powered Fiesta hatchback. It's got cruise control, a great entertainment system with car play, even stupid neon lighting I didn't want. It weighs only 2,600 pounds and even though it isn't fast, I don't have any issues getting up to speed. My mileage is consistently 29 in LA traffic and 34 driving fast on long highway trips. It's nearly 2 feet (22 inches!!) shorter than a Camry and I can park it basically anywhere. Because it weighs so little, tires last forever. It cost me less than $20,000 brand new. My point is that a freaking heavy and large 3,400lb sedan, or 4,500lb SUV is 100% supremely unnecessary.

Multiply hundreds or thousands of weight savings per-car over millions and millions of new cars sold in the US alone would insanely positive and tangential effects on the planet. Eventually those gains would reach the economy and infrastructure too.

It just infuriates me that there is a relatively simple way to mitigate so many issues and it's so blatantly ignored or not even known.

<comment><USER22> Unnecessary for you and your usage, but there a lot of situations, environments, and applications where a heavier, larger vehicle is necessary. If you live rural you aren't driving a small Fiesta hatchback everywhere. If you have a large family, an SUV is a basic requirement of modern living to move the family around.

Conversely if you live in a city with tight quarters as a single person with no kids, an SUV or pickup may not be necessary at all.

There is a reason we don't dictate choice or consumption with something as necessary and basic as transportation because it isn't one size fits all. People buy what they generally need.

<comment><USER23> "Basic requirement for modern living" – what an absurd claim to justify a SUV. I wonder how people in most non-US countries even get by, if the basic necessities of life aren't met. /s

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I also wonder about pollution from shoes with plastic soles - pretty much every pair I have ever owned, the sole just wears out gradually until there's nothing left. Where does this plastic go? It's just ground into fine powder and stays on our pavements? Is then washed with rainwater and goes into our soil? How come this isn't a problem yet? Or if it is - why isn't anyone talking about it?

<comment><USER25> Because plastic is not a significant pollutant. What's next, we're going to remove soil from the environment? Soil is full of, mold, bacteria, virus, metals, minerals, fungi, urine, feces, decomposed insects, thousands of chemicals like rust, alumina, silica, heavy metals, many carcinogens, lung irritants etc. It can give you "Farmer 's Lung" and it's _everywhere_ in nature. Plastic is quite clean and tame by comparison.

<comment><USER26> Can someone substantively reply instead of just downvoting this comment?

<comment><USER27> Look man anyone trying to convince you in 2020 that "plastic is not a significant pollutant" is not arguing in good faith.

Please, for the love of god, learn about the climate and the impact of human industry on it.

<comment><USER25> I honestly believe the anti-plastic movement as well as the recycling movement are at best mass confusion and at worst a way for corporations to divert environmentalists energy away from focus on reducing consumption, reducing travel and reducing human sprawl which would have actual environmental benefits but would hit business growth much more than "buying reusable containers".

This whole, I travel thousands of miles every year but that's ok because I bought a reusable bag shows a complete lack of proportion and perspective. On top of this, the reusable bags take more resources to produce and often they aren't machine washable so they're thrown out anyways once they're soiled, but that doesn't matter because both carrying options have insignificant impact to the environment compared to most forms of consumption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The claims here seem dubious. They tested _one_ type of _brand new_ tire. Then they conclude that "high-quality" tires are somehow better without providing any evidence to support that claim. While tires may very well be a source of pollution I have to wonder where the money for the work came from.

<comment><USER29> Shitty tires start with the same tread depth, but wear out in 25-35k miles. High quality tires usually go 50-60k.

<comment><USER30> The $400/corner tires on a sports car usually last about 5-8000 miles. They're about as high quality as it gets.

<comment><USER31> Tyres are designed on a performance - life continuum. High performance means softer rubber, with better grip, but thus lower life. Long life means harder rubber, with less grip, thusly reduced performance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Headline

> Pollution From Tyre Wear [is] 1,000 Times Worse Than Exhaust Emissions

Article

> But tyre wear pollution is unregulated and _can be_ 1,000 times worse

<comment><USER33> It's true that they weakened the wording in that section of the body, but the description of the actual research does make it sound like the factor of 1,000 was a typical case, not the worst case:

> Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated > tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles. > > > Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per > kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a > factor of over 1,000.

Of course, this assumes that the tyre particles captured by their methodology are (on average) equally bad as exhaust particles, and maybe brand-new tyres wear especially quickly or something. It does seem hard to square the factor of 1000 from this study with the estimate that non-exhaust emissions account for a mere 60% (rather than 99.9%) of PM2.5 emissions.

Would be curious to hear from anyone who understands emissions testing better.

<comment><USER34> 5.8 grams per kilometer would mean in only 10,000 KM your tyres lose 58 Kg. Seems way off.

<comment><USER35> Yep.

Life of car tyre is ~40e3 km. 5.8g * 40e3km = 232 kg. Or 58 kg per tyre. A new tyre weighs about 8kg. I guess it might loose 3kg. So I think they've over estimated by about 20x.

<comment><USER36> Keep in mind too that a tire that has no usable tread life left is still quite heavy compared to the full tread life, new, version because there is so much left for the sidewall and the steel belts inside of the tire. They must be getting this number from measuring something else in addition to the tire

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Presumably they meant 5.8 milligrams/km rather than grams - thats 290 grams over 50,000km.

The following literature review(2014) mentions an estimate of 0.1-10% tyre wear becoming airborne - because the majority is relatively large particles:

[https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/J...](https://publications.jrc.ec.europa.eu/repository/bitstream/JRC89231/jrc89231-online%20final%20version%202.pdf)

<comment><USER38> They must have meant grams because that is the basis of their 1000X statistic. The other number is also single digit but is in milligrams.

That doesn't mean they're right, but it's the only way I can interpret what they're saying.

<comment><USER37> But 4.5g/km implies 225kg after 50000 km which doesn't seem possible. Something definitely smells fishy.

<comment><USER39> That seems to be some heavy tyres, that's for sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Worse for what? For the humans nearby? For climate change?

It would be nice if such articles stated their premises.

<comment><USER41> A higher number is, in terms of emission, worse.

<comment><USER38> Of course higher numbers are worse in an apples-to-apples comparison. The question is whether this is that.

For example, maybe tail pipe emissions make climate change worse, but kicking up dust on the road gives people lung disease.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated > tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles.

>Compared with regulated exhaust emission limits of 4.5 milligrams per kilometer, the completely unregulated tyre wear emission is higher by a factor of over 1,000.

This is approximately as reasonable as declaring that a crossbow is more dangerous than a gun because it fires a heavier projectile. How large are the particles? What's their expected lifetime in the atmosphere? What proportion are smaller than 10 micron? 2.5 micron?

</comment><comment><USER43> Considering a mazda with tyre size of 215/45 R18 with 1/4inch useable tread depth, that lasts 30K miles:

The mm^3 of rubber lost over lifetime (circumference * how wide the tire is * tyre tread depth) is approximately 2375922.431

Considering density of rubber at 650kg/m3, the weight lost over 30,000 miles is 1.54kg, which equates to 31mg/km and nowhere near 5g/km as claimed in the article. What am I missing?

</comment><comment><USER44> Testing only a brand new tire seems like a serious limitation. What if, for example, tires shed particles in a bathtub curve, or exponential decay?

I find myself slightly suspicious they knew a new tire to shed the most and were going for that shocking headline.

</comment><comment><USER45> So to visualize this I'm thinking of a rectangle 2.5 feet long, 8 inches wide, and a half-inch thick times 4. That is what comes off my tires every 5 years so that I have to replace them. Every set of tires sold is to replace that.

<comment><USER46> The numbers don't seem to add up. If an average set of tires lasts (roughly) 50,000km to 100,000km, and the average tire weights around 10kg, and you have 4 tires, then the (totally unrealistic) maximum loss per km is 4 * 10 * 1000 / 75,000 gms/km. This is 0.5g/km (and it assumed that there was _no_ tire left). While these numbers are rough, I don't see any way to get to 5.8gm/km as quoted in the article. The brake pads aren't going to contribute all the rest (they aren't that heavy to start with).

What about the road surface? Maybe you can erode 1cm of surface over 10 years with 2,000 vehicles per hour (average down to 20,000 per day. Volume eroded (per km) in cc is 400 (width) * 1 * 100,000 (length) = 4e7 cc. Density is around 2.5 gm/cc. Mass eroded is 1e8 gms. Cars is 20,000 * 10 * 365 = 73e6. Amount eroded by each car is around 1.3gm/km.

Maybe someone could check my assumptions (and my math), but I still don't believe the numbers in the linked article.

<comment><USER47> To look at it the other direction, 5.8 g/km times 75,000 km means they have to somehow produce 435 kg of pollution per set of tires.

Without some more explanation (are they building some kind of model to extrapolate to the entire supply chain?) that seems more than a little implausible. It seems most likely from the context that they are measuring shedding of brand new tires and trying to pass that off as a representative value.

I guess the idea is that it's a contributor to the acute dose in the car's immediate vicinity, but without that context it seems like another misleading detail.

<comment><USER48> As quoted by another poster:

> Using a popular family hatchback running on brand new, correctly inflated > tyres, we found that the car emitted 5.8 grams per kilometer of particles.

Could it be that tire wear drops off? Initially it's shedding a lot, I dunno, due to surface layer being porous or something, and then the wear drops off to the normal rate?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Yes, the tires wear, and the wear can be easily measured by the mass difference between a new tire, worn tire, divided by the distance. Plausible that the total wear is 1-3 orders of magnitude total mass greater than modern tailpipe emissions.

A huge question that is never answered is how much of those worn particles actually become airborne, how many stay airborne for how long, and what is their effect on organisms breathing them.

While the Precautionary Principle says we should assume harm, this entire article seems to assume that every microgram is automatically the most harmful possible pollutant, which is likely untrue, unnecessarily alarmist, and undermines their thesis.

<comment><USER50> It will be dose dependent.

<comment><USER49> Exactly.

Question is, what is the dosing level that would cause harm, and what are the routes that this material takes that might rise to such a level, vs how much is, e.g., stuck on the pavement and washed into the ditch with every rain?

<comment><USER12> > stuck on the pavement and washed into the ditch with every rain?

This is also an important problem - there is a lot of synthetic rubber particulate in waterways and oceans - a notable fraction of all microplastics.

<comment><USER49> Exactly, so while the authors are ringing alarms about the particles from a health POV, they might be a irrelevant to that threat, but a major threat to certain ecosystems, or nothing at all.

Certainly bears good investigation, but far too soon for conclusions (an I'm usually biased towards acting based on Precautionary Principle, but this just seems far too indirect to even make assumptions, let alone conclusions).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> For those people wondering about what percentage of PM2.5 and PM10 are caused by non-exhaust emissions.

"NEEs are currently believed to constitute the majority of primary particulate matter from road transport, 60 percent of PM2.5 and 73 percent of PM10 – and in its 2019 report 'Non-Exhaust Emissions from Road Traffic' by the UK Government's Air Quality Expert Group (AQEG), it recommended that NEE are immediately recognised as a source of ambient concentrations of airborne particulate matter, even for vehicles with zero exhaust emissions of particles – such as EVs."

</comment><comment><USER52> Weigh used tires, compare to new, divide by distance used for. Wash them thoroughly if you want to be extra precise.

</comment><comment><USER53> This talks specifically about particle pollution ( not CO2 emissions ) which has already been largely regulated out, "up to" 1000x of a very small amount can still be quite insignificant.

Given the misleading nature of the press release title I think I'll avoid reading the actual result and mentally mark "Emission analytics" as one of those companies.

</comment><comment><USER54> This is the perfect opportunity to link people to Robert Heineken's story: the Roads Must Roll. In it, there are a series of road towns, where roads are more like moving sidewalks. Very neat stuff, I read it as a teenager and then re- listened to a great audiobook version recently too (bundled with the man who sold the moon, which is the prophecy foretelling of Elon musk)

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Roads_Must_Roll)

<comment><USER55> > Robert Heineken's story: the Roads Must Roll.

One beer too many? Or an illiterate autocorrector?

Should be Robert Heinlein.

:-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I used to live about 4 blocks from CA-17 (a 6 lane freeway) and when we'd leave the windows open a layer of black soot would form on the window sill after a few hours. I always thought that this soot was a combination of rubber from tires and diesel soot. When we moved away, we can leave our windows open and there's no black soot. I've always felt like living near the freeway was like living next door to a heavily polluting factory.

</comment><comment><USER57> OT: I was thinking: Imagine how easy self driving trains are to make. Then I naively pondered if air filled tires are all that efficient. I cant imagine bending the rubber gives back a lot of energy? I just looked it up: "An average truck gets around 150 ton-miles per gallon of diesel. Trains get around 600 ton-miles per gallon."

</comment><comment><USER58> Cecil Adams of "The Straight Dope" had a column about this issue back in 2006:

[https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2661/when-the- rubb...](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2661/when-the-rubber-meets- the-road-where-does-it-go/)

</comment><comment><USER59> Non-exhaust, _particulate_ pollution.

</comment><comment><USER60> I live next to a very busy road (6-lane). When I moved in, the closets were filled with black stains. My brother-in-law cleaned it and said he never saw that kind of dirt. The closets are dirty again.

As time passed I also never encountered that amount of dust. The dust was also extremely different from the dust when I lived in the forest, dark colored and plentiful.

It accumulates very quickly, it gets abandoned-house-dusty in a week.

My breathing also got worse compared to the forest, especially during nights. So there's definitely something dusty around the road.

It was also quite interesting to see that the bathroom gets dusty as quickly too, despite being closed most of the time. It's like the whole ventilation system of the building naturally permeates dust.

<comment><USER61> If you have a central air heating system like most houses do, you should add a filter near the fan. You won't catch all the dust, but you'll collect a lot of it, making your air healthier to live in

<comment><USER50> I would run a couple standalone couple hepa aircleaners as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> When I first moved to the SF bay area I didn't have AC in my apartment so I had to leave the windows open during the summer. After a year of leaving them open there was a thick coat of tire dust all along the windowsill since my window faced a road. :x

<comment><USER63> How do you know it was tire dust and not just regular dust?

<comment><USER64> I had the same experience, in SF too. Second floor corner apartment on Fell St, a wide and busy road along the park. The windowsills on that side accumulated black dust unlike the other side of the corner.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> The German Post designed the Streetscooter a while back which is an electric delivery van. They also claim "zero fine dust driving". But how does that work? It is quite hard to have a fully closed system so no particles can escape. Well, their solution is quite clever: They are filtering the air in general, so can also consume particles emitted from other cars, even when the vehicle is not moving. So they could even get to net negative fine dust emissions :)

[https://www.dekra-solutions.com/2018/01/fine-dust-free- drivi...](https://www.dekra-solutions.com/2018/01/fine-dust-free- driving/?lang=en)

<comment><USER31> Streetscooter is in the process of being shut down.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> PARTICULATE pollution. big difference. CO2 and methane and unburned hydrocarbons are not particulates.

this article is playing fast and loose with terminology and math. (1000 times worse, they claim...)

<comment><USER56> Particulate pollution has a big impact on human health and children in particular.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Assuming that this really is a problem (which other comments have thrown into doubt), I see potential conflicts between vehicle safety and fixing this.

One obvious solution is harder tires that don't wear as much. But these tend to have worse grip, which means worse braking performance (and cornering, etc.).

They also mentioned that reducing the weight of cars would help, but one of the reasons cars have gotten heavier over the last few decades is the addition of a bunch of safety equipment.

</comment><comment><USER67> This article, and the whole website looks so suspicious. Quotes come mostly from its own organization, "Emission Analytics", and there is no reference to an existing or upcoming publication.

In addition, and I realize I'm nitpicking, the stock photo, the composition of the copy and the general... feel of the website seems off.

The overall effect is to make me actively distrust their conclusions and want to ask about their agenda and source of funding.

</comment><comment><USER68> If the idea is to focus on tires, then why not just look at how many tires are manufactured each year? 100% of tires end up polluting something, somewhere.

Or, again if the focus is tire wear, there must be pretty good data about how much of a tire gets worn off before replacement, and how often they're replaced. It doesn't seem like it should be very complex to calculate how much tire is being emitted due to road wear.

</comment><comment><USER69> Fake news. Smaller particles from exhaust are way worse for you than larger particles from tires. Within a category like PM2.5, mass is a terrible metric. A given mass of fuel exhaust will contain orders of magnitude more particles because they are tinier. Smaller particles can penetrate deeper into your lungs and can go into your bloodstream.

</comment><comment><USER70> Tires contain fossil fuel products like carbon black and synthetic rubber.

The roadway contains bitumen, another fossil fuel product.

The numbers in this experiment seem dubious and are probably not representative, but they do reflect our over-dependence on refined petroleum. We have to find new ways to make these things.

</comment><comment><USER71> Wow the hit pieces against EV adoption are getting more desperate and creative. This blog is just comical.

</comment><comment><USER72> Here in Seattle folks are starting to look at salmon "pre spawn mortality" suspecting chemicals from worn tires.

[https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b03287](https://pubs.acs.org/doi/10.1021/acs.est.8b03287)

</comment><comment><USER73> What I'd like to know is who this "leading authority" is. Release is a bit vague.

</comment><comment><USER74> What does "worse" mean?

Are tire particles, more than exhaust gases, contributing to the greenhouse effect that causes global warming?

How about the total carbon? How many tankfuls of gas does a car incinerate in between tire changes?

</comment><comment><USER19> Last time I looked at tires, Michelin was advertising tires with natural oils in them that somehow improved handling at 50% wear level.

I wonder if that even moved the needle on environmental footprint of their tires?

</comment><comment><USER75> I can definitely believe tire wear is a significant contributor... but is Emissions Analytics a reputable source?

It feels like someone grabbed a domain and wrote a post with minimal experimental rigor.

</comment><comment><USER76> This is a press release. Is there a link to the underlying research this press release is talking about? I can't really do anything with this.

</comment><comment><USER77> I wonder if the pollution from electric vehicles is worse because of their torque curves...

</comment><comment><USER78> If someone had told you that this would be the case in the 1960s, they probably would have jumped for joy. It's more a positive signal for how much emissions technology has advanced.

Obviously it's something worth looking at and improving, still, but it's definitely not a sign that things are getting worse, but rather the opposite.

<comment><USER79> Challenge is, can we make tired that don't wear or are made of friendly materials.

<comment><USER80> No. When things roll very tiny pieces break off both the rolling thing and the thing rolled over. If we want to travel by rolling (which seems like a yes) along the ground then that's going to produce PM 2.5 air pollution.

Flying is definitely worse, for at least the medium term and perhaps forever, and magnetic levitation is so expensive you're just not going to do it at scale.

The effect from pushing a stroller will be greatly (much more than linearly) smaller than from a goods delivery truck or a railway train, but it's there. We just have to consider this when deciding what's a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> Expect this in a Greta speech soon. We need to stop using Tyres on our cars!

</comment><comment><USER82> We need more hovercrafts!

<comment><USER83> Or walking draglines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER84> This is, as it stands in the headline, classic "fake news" that is being spread by people who want to exaggerate the problems with cars.

<comment><USER85> We don't know who it is being promoted by. Possibly the oil industry or the legacy gasoline car industry.</comment></comment>


We're living in the Age of Curation - <AUTHOR> http://okvivi.com/?p=324

<comment><USER2> This is a rambling jumble of thoughts. I'm not sure what the take away is.</comment>


First stable version of Firefox 64-bit for Windows - <AUTHOR> https://ftp.mozilla.org/pub/firefox/releases/42.0/win64/ <comment><USER2> The Waterfox Project has been building a 64-bit Firefox for Windows for quite a while:

[https://www.waterfoxproject.org](https://www.waterfoxproject.org)

<comment><USER3> Based on the 64-bit code included in the main Firefox tree which has not been considered stable enough for release builds by the Firefox builders. Firefox has had 64-bit compilation capability for a long time. I think Firefox 42.0 - these builds are uploaded now to mirror for tomorrow's release - will be the first time they do an official release version. Note that until they are announced, you shouldn't start using these builds.

<comment><USER2> I've used Waterfox for quite a while and have found it to be a very reliable browser.</comment></comment></comment>


Paul Krugman: Fighting off depression - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/01/05/opinion/edkrugman.php

<comment><USER3> I've long had a hobby interest in economics, but it's only in the past couple months that I've really dug into macroeconomics and monetary theory (motivated, of course, by current events). It's weird: there's bizarreness at every turn---it's like studying astronomy for the first time, only to discover that the astrologers are in charge. The inmates are running the asylum.

 _To wit:_ take a look at "Baby-Sitting the Economy" (<http://www.slate.com/id/1937/>), an article Paul Krugman wrote in 1998. It describes a simple example: a co-op with a coupon or "scrip" currency redeemable for baby-sitting. By Krugman's own admission, this example inspired his understanding of monetary policy, recessions, and Keynesian economics. In the story, a "recession" occurs when co-op members start hoarding scrip in anticipation of future outings; the result is that the whole system freezes up; and the solution was an injection of liquidity through scrip inflation.

Exercise: discover the flaw in Krugman's analysis. _Hint:_ consider what would happen in a real economy with hard currency by allowing the price of baby- sitting to fluctuate and by replacing "scrip" with gold. Contrast this situation with the long-run effects of the inflationary "solution" on savings and business investment incentives.

I have two predictions: the economy will continue to tank despite (or because of) attempts to "stimulate" it, and Krugman will blame the resulting depression on the stimulus being insufficiently bold---i.e., on not being Keynesian enough.

<comment><USER4> "Hint: consider what would happen in a real economy with hard currency by allowing the price of baby-sitting to fluctuate..."

You are confusing two different types of analysis. If you had taken a (more rigorous) macroeconomics course you would have learned that there are two types of analysis: long-run and short-run. In the short-run prices are inflexible due to unions, preexisting contracts, menu costs, etc. In the long- run prices can fluctuate and recessions are impossible (we don't worry about some recession that happened in 120 A.D. for example). Keynesian economics only deals with the short run, and only in the short run can the economy be trapped in a temporary disequilibrium. Even though the economy should eventually recover on its own in the long run it can cause a lot of pain in the process, which is why Keynesian economics advocates government intervention.

"I've long had a hobby interest in economics... The inmates are running the asylum."

Maybe a hobbyist shouldn't be suggesting that Nobel prize winners be put in an asylum ;).

<comment><USER3> Thanks for the explanation. It helps me to understand why so many economists (and politicians) seem to treat our present situation as some sort of short- term technical glitch that can be straightened out with the right kind of fiscal kick. I suspect they are wrong, and that we face deeper structural problems. Indeed, it seems obvious that we do.

I have little confidence in the putative experts because of a long list of seemingly elementary fallacies promulgated by many mainstream economists. Notable among these are the idea that spending causes prosperity, the notion that economic "stimulus" is beneficial, and a persistent conflation of trade deficits with indebtedness. Perhaps most damning is the simple observation that, though people have long been spending beyond their means, and saving more is the obvious antidote, this solution is vehemently opposed by the conventional wisdom. They seem immune to the argument that, while increased savings will result in a contraction of consumer product companies, this is not a bug, but a feature---a painful one, to be sure, but ultimately unavoidable. Seen from this perspective, the present attempts to limit the severity of the recession are not only misguided, they are probably counterproductive.

I do expect to take a course in this at some point, by the way, just for fun (and it really will be only for fun; I'm a 35-year-old physics Ph.D. with little to gain from further formal schooling). Unfortunately, my intuition is that "rigorous macroeconomics" is an oxymoron, and that much of the subject as presently taught is a hopeless lost cause. I hope I am wrong...

 _Maybe a hobbyist shouldn't be suggesting that Nobel prize winners be put in an asylum ;)._

Oh, I've read too many of Krugman's essays to heed that warning. :-)

<comment><USER4> You should check out Macroeconomics by Mankiw. It's very short and sweet. You really shouldn't judge economics by a few articles aimed at lay audiences just as you wouldn't try to learn about quantum mechanics from the NYTimes. Economics is filled with clever little insights that makes you go "Ahh!".

I'll take the time to explain some of your complaints:

"spending causes prosperity": well, obviously if you don't spend any of your money obviously you don't have prosperity. If you borrow money to spend economics assume that you are rational and that it is because you prefer having a good time now to later. This seems more like a value judgment though, which most economics tend to avoid.

"conflation of trade deficits with indebtedness": well, if country A wants to consume something produced by country B, it can only do so in three ways: 1) give B something A produced, 2) give B a chunk of A (e.g., real estate) or 3) borrow from B. Since most countries don't like 2), trade deficits are settled using 3)

Most economics will say that a higher savings rate will be beneficial in the long run but if people suddenly saved more because of government policy there will a aggregate demand shock and the economy will go into a recession since the price level cannot easily adjust in the short run. (When people save more they have less money to spend and thus all prices become "too high" for them.)

Check out the book for more information. You will find that while economics may have flaws, it is internally self-consistent. It just doesn't take into account that most people are not rational :(.

<comment><USER3> N.B. Regarding trade deficits: if Alice from A wants to buy something from Bob in B, she typically pays for it with money. The source of that money is either production (your option #1) or debt (option #3). (Option #2 is just past production, since people usually buy real estate with money.) In either case Alice's purchase increases the A's trade deficit with B. But it's totally beside the point that Bob lives in B. Indeed, the analysis is identical if A = Atlanta and B = Boston.

There's a rough correlation between trade deficits and debt, just as there's a correlation between the number of movies people see and debt: there's a correlation between _spending_ and debt. Focusing on foreign trade---and using the loaded and misleading word _deficit_ \---simply feeds people's xenophobia and distracts from the underlying issues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Krugman shilling for Keynesian get-rich-quick schemes and insisting that what Obama(read The Executive Branch) needs is simply more power to spend our way out of The Greater Depression? Say it ain't so!

All kidding aside Krugman accurately points out that the Republicans are simply posturing themselves as "champions of careful Congressional deliberation." The big problem I find with his line of thinking, however, is that he assumes Obama is not posturing himself as the "champion of quick and decisive action." Krugman further magnifies his blind-spot in the following excerpt:

"The biggest problem facing the Obama plan, however, is likely to be the demand of many politicians for proof that the benefits of the proposed public spending justify its costs — a burden of proof never imposed on proposals for tax cuts."

That is, we are likely going to be unable to spend our way out of this mess because people are unsure about this whole magical plan that spending and printing money will actually be a viable plan toward recovery. Secondly he firmly plants his flag in statist territory by insisting that tax cuts are never held to this same standard. By this he seems to be suggesting that when government spends money what rulers need is nearly carte-blanche ability to spend as they see fit; but when we want to steal less from citizens then we had better have some careful deliberation that this tax cut is going to positively effect them!

</comment><comment><USER6> Anna Schwartz - Bernanke Is Fighting the Last War [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html?mod=...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122428279231046053.html?mod=special_page_campaign2008_mostpop)

"The Fed," she argues, "has gone about as if the problem is a shortage of liquidity. That is not the basic problem. The basic problem for the markets is that [uncertainty] that the balance sheets of financial firms are credible."

Reading NY Times for their business/economics opinion is like reading Playboy for the articles -- curiously unsatisfying.

</comment><comment><USER7> "Friedman's claim that monetary policy could have prevented the Great Depression was an attempt to refute the analysis of John Maynard Keynes, who argued that monetary policy is ineffective under depression conditions and that fiscal policy - large-scale deficit spending by the government - <USER2> needed to fight mass unemployment. The failure of monetary policy in the current crisis shows that Keynes had it right the first time. And Keynesian thinking lies behind Obama's plans to rescue the economy." -- From the article

Just because Keynes wasn't proven wrong doesn't mean he is right. I don't think he has put enough thought into this. The fact of the matter is our financial system pretended there was whole lot more wealth than there really was and not mention the fact they continued to trade based on that.

Niether trickling down money top down nor spending can solve this core issue in my opinion.</comment>