Why Economic Growth Will Fall - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2016/08/18/why-economic-growth-will-fall/ <comment><USER3> I agree that it's impossible for the rates of economic growth and lifestyle improvements we saw since the late 1800s to continue indefinitely, but the key to growth is investment. And from the late-1800s till the mid-1900s, there were huge government investments made in building new and innovative infrastructure in the US--railroads, the phone network, state universities and K-12 public education, electricity generation and distribution, highways, airports. Those investments in common infrastructure allowed private investment to piggyback and provide the enormous success the US economy has had in the time detailed.

But today, we've forgotten the formula. Education funding is falling, basic maintenance isn't being performed on much of the infrastructure, and we aren't investing enough in the new things that can provide growth for the next hundred years. High-speed and light rail could help address the limits of airport and highway capacity, and provide better mobility in and between cities. Investing in clean electricity generation, a national power network, and improved battery technology could revolutionize how our homes and cars get their power. Very-low cost higher education was a thing in mid-20th-century America--it was possible to attend your in-state university for a few thousand bucks in today's dollars. What happened? As long as we pretend these things are too expensive to invest in, then we're sure to enter a long slow decline.

<comment><USER4> > What happened? As long as we pretend these things are too expensive to > invest in, then we're sure to enter a long slow decline.

I'll go on the Marxist side of things and say that "quantitative differences have turned out into qualitative ones". What I want to say is that scale matters. Regarding investment in higher-education, it was relatively ok and feasible to give Government subsidies for all the students attending university when only 1%-2% of the students finishing high-school were going to university (I think that happened up until the mid-50s, but maybe I'm wrong), but once you've got 30-50% of the students finishing high-school going to university then the money just isn't there anymore.

And to add to that, it always baffled me how Malthus's name has always had such a bad reputation. The economics for handling a planet inhabited by 1.5 billion people in the late 1800s (we only reached 2 billion people in 1927) are totally different from the economics of a planet inhabited by 7+ billion people, going on 10. Our resources are finite, no matter how much we try to hide it.

<comment><USER5> > _And to add to that, it always baffled me how Malthus 's name has always had > such a bad reputation. The economics for handling a planet inhabited by 1.5 > billion people in the late 1800s (we only reached 2 billion people in 1927) > are totally different from the economics of a planet inhabited by 7+ billion > people, going on 10. Our resources are finite, no matter how much we try to > hide it._

I still don't get how Malthus's name got that bad rep in the first place. As for the difference between the late 1800s and now, it's smaller that one may think. Back then people were hitting the ceiling of Earth's capability to feed people. We got through that, and grew beyond 2 billion people, thanks to a series of scientific and technological flukes, like Haber–Bosch process[0]. We were lucky then, this doesn't imply we'll be lucky this time.

[0] - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haber_process)

<comment><USER6> The implication is that some sort of population control _might_ be necessary, if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves. Population control is antithetical to western individualistic values, so people reject the premise because one of the potential policy consequences (population control) causes an emotional melt-down. If desire to believe in an abstract principle is strong enough, facts will be rejected.

<comment><USER7> "if psych/soc pressures don't stabilize the population by themselves."

Since at the moment, the evidence strongly suggests that they are, "population control" measures sound even more evil to me than they did before.

The problem is that when you go to concretize the abstract question, you end up with the question " _Who_ gets the power to decide who lives and dies?" (or reproduces) and one need not study history for very long to become _very nervous_ about the possible answers. Those of you who casually assume you'd be on the "live" side are unjustified in your confidence.

<comment><USER8> Well, China did have such a policy:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One- child_policy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One-child_policy)

<comment><USER9> It has been of questionable utility since the decline in fertility began before the policy was implemented. In fact, the policy was conceived to counteract Mao's pro-natalist policy where a large(r) population was supposed to be a hedge against nuclear war with the Soviet Union.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Our economy depends on growth, and I think this will cause lots of problems.

I saw a quote by a US congressman blaming young people today for our financial problems because many of them are unwilling to put themselves into debt for homes, cars, etc. An outrageous statement, blaming people for doing what they believe to be in their own self interest.

If the value of production mostly stayed with the people and local businesses then I can imagine our society thriving with minimal growth.

In my opinion, the requirement for growth to keep the financial sector going is like a cancer. Wall Street, central banks, etc. grow in power and consume more of the productive segments of society like a cancer.

<comment><USER11> Why and how does our economy depend on growth? I've head this claimed a lot but never understood it.

<comment><USER12> You buy a stock, create a company, build a house, because you expect it to increase in value and be a worthwhile investment. If growth stops it will be increasingly hard to do this, because all stocks that are still increasing in value will be bought up, until they cannot anymore. So you keep your money. Deflation. System collapse.

<comment><USER11> OK, that's a rough argument that needs fleshing out. Has the rigorous argument actually been made and is widely accepted by economists or is this just a meme that's accepted and repeated without much basis?

<comment><USER13> Adam Smith makes the argument well in A Wealth of Nations. Essentially, the only reason to invest is that you expect to earn something above on top of the risk. Then add that up over everybody in the system. They cannot all get something extra, unless there is growth. That growth is spread over everybody as return on investment. So, if there is no growth, then investment stops earning that extra, so there no point in investment, so nobody hires anybody or builds new machines.

Importantly, it's growth in total value, not growth in number of things. Hence, it's okay that growth is infinite without gobbling up the universe - <USER2> can always be better. Stuff can always be sexier.

<comment><USER14> You may invest to meet your basic needs. People used to build a house so they could be sheltered from them elements, not just to flip it.

<comment><USER12> But houses are already there. Especially when populations are shrinking.

<comment><USER14> Same goes for food, etc. my point was that not everything has to be for financial gain -- we have basic needs that are higher in the priority stack and will always be there.

About homes specifically - they have a life span too so they eventually have to be rebuilt or, as others have pointed out, maintained.

<comment><USER12> But who would want to own a company producing food, when owning cash would be a better investment?

<comment><USER15> There has got to be some ways in which this basic economic assumption is wrong. Like with cars, I can buy a car and when I sell the car it will be worth much less. But I will buy that car anyways because I need a car.

Or for a business perspective, I buy a dairy cow as an investment, when I sell the cow it will be worth much less than what I bought it for, but I don't mind because the cow has provided a steady stream of milk based income over the years.

So in these ways at least, it doesn't seem like economic prosperity is always dependent on growth.

Maybe in some economic circumstances cash might be a better investment or worth more than my dairy cow, but such a circumstance can't last for long because supply and demand affect money too right - so if enough people get rid of their dairy cow for the cash, eventually that would decrease the supply of milk, increasing price which would put me and my milk business back on top again would it not?

<comment><USER12> Owning a new car seems like a good investment. You get a bit more car than when buying a used car plus you get a bit more status. When prices of cars drop and better means of transportation arrive you would just keep your cash and use an Uber for example.

With the cow I think the problem is that many people would buy a cow to fulfil the basic need so margins would be extremely thin. People would soon stop buying cows again.

I think this would be generally the case in such a situation: Everything would be a commodity and margins would approach zero. You need only very few people to produce commodities. The majority of the population would be unemployed.

This is not a bad outlook per se, my argument is just that our current system needs growth. We would have to gradually adjust the system once we realize that there is now way to create growth any more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Bill Gates' review of this book takes a techo-optimist view of it.

[https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Rise-and-Fall-of- Americ...](https://www.gatesnotes.com/Books/The-Rise-and-Fall-of-American- Growth)

"Most reviews have focused on the "fall" indicated in the title: the last hundred pages or so, in which Gordon predicts that the future won't live up to the past in terms of economic growth. I strongly disagree with him on that point, as I discuss below. But I did find his historical analysis, which makes up the bulk of the book, utterly fascinating"

<comment><USER17> Excellent read. Thanks.

Something I've always tried to understand is the value of these digital things. How much would it cost, in 1970, to have a library of all the worlds music? Today it's 10 bucks a month.

How much value do we put on information? What is the value of the bits of information that make up the Wikipedia page "Smallpox vaccine"? How about in 1960? Can you even put a dollar value on it?

<comment><USER18> The answer is these things have an immense amount of value. To even say the value of technology an average person accesses today is double that of 1970 is wrong, it is a lot more than that. Much or even most of that value is underutilized.

I think a combination of the following lead to a completely perverted understanding of money:

\- politicalization of economics \- the reflexive nature of markets \- the tendency of both academics and professionals to seek the assignment of natural laws to market behavior \- time lags in the market making it take years or even decades to discover something was worth a lot less than the amount invested

Fundamentally money is just meant to be a way to account for limited resources between trading parties. If the trading parties are doing something destructive, money doesn't know that. I've also used the analogy before that the trying to measure things in prices as money supply changes is also like trying to use a yard stick which changes in size frequently. Simple if you have some metrics from the central bank, but actually not so simple because of all the complex moving missing pieces (including what other currencies are doing.)

The real global fear factor right now is that a great deal of institutions and individuals have a strong interest in inflation rather than deflation. These are groups whose future is based on prices for things largely going one direction, up. If you earn a living by spending borrowed money -- or being paid by earned interest -- you need this.

A lot of people thrive in situations where someone can hand them a blueprint of what to do along with a bunch of money. They follow it, copy, and get the output. That is largely what current growth numbers measure.

The reality is, of course, everything can't grow forever. That isn't a bad thing.

What I think is the greatest concern right now, the greatest danger, is not 1% global growth or even -1%. Instead, it is how nation states decide to react to slow growth. Quite a few are trying to finance their way out. Others may attempt to do disruptive things such as wars. I think we are more than a decade in to these reactions, by the way.

If fossil fuels are as dangerous as we think, a global slow down or contraction may end up saving us. Right now the countries which are growing are still copy and pasting their way to a pretty non-sustainable future.

There is another situation where real growth is negative but available money supply is increasing and prices are going up. That is very painful to be in, but a real future possible outcome.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Thomas Piketty is so important about this because he shows how exceptional America was in that it had plentiful capital in terms of land, so that labor was unusually valuable vs capital when compared to Europe. It shapes American's thinking in a positive way, but we need to acknowledge things have changed. Formerly, almost anyone who was willing to work hard and take a risk could build a homestead. Now the conditions for opportunity are available but more restricted.

<comment><USER20> > Now the conditions for opportunity are available but more restricted. <

Restricted, yet it beats rest of the world hands down in terms of opportunities.

When the rest of the world looks at America, they just see a nation which got lucky with land and capital. But the fact is, America had people before it was discovered by the Europeans, and there was no great civilization here unlike almost everywhere else in the world, which leads you to believe that maybe it isn't really all about the geography.

America is a plentiful place where individuals who wanted to achieve something (the 'American way of thinking') they arrived here. This still holds true, and will continue to hold true as long as this American way of thinking remains around.

<comment><USER21> That belief is widespread in America, but is unsupported by data. If you look at how hard it is for an American to rise out of the conditions they were born in, they're worse off than if they'd been born in (for example) France, Germany, Canada, or Denmark:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobilit...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Intergenerational_mobility_graph-1.jpg)

From: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_mobility) (see the "Worldwide" section).

<comment><USER19> Piketty's work was a history of the previous century. You are pointing out current statistics, which make his point that things have changed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Considering we live in an infinite universe I do not see why economic growth can not continue even accelerate.

Especially seeing that sometime this century we will get cheap space travel (getting there) and AI (getting there) and transition from fossil fuels to renewables and fusion (getting there)

Tho' yes seeing how some of our best and brightest are working on how to serve more ads and how to get people spend their free time locked in their walled garden...

<comment><USER23> How do you know the size of the universe we live in?

(To be pedantic, even in an infinite universe the size of the human-sphere couldn't grow faster than a ball expanding at the speed of light.)

<comment><USER22> Because that is the prevalent scientific opinion

We are on a course for a confluence of some major technologies this century which could result in another great leap forward.

Anyways i forgot why i dont bother to reply much on this site, got down voted for my above comment yet no indication as to why (is it my comment about working on advertising? its ok that's what I work in too myself have to pay bills somehow, but would rather do something more interesting).

<comment><USER23> The observable universe is very much finite. (And if speed of light is a barrier, than the observable universe is about the biggest thing we can ever influence.)

Sure, there will be lots of nice technology coming over the next century. No doubts about that.

<comment><USER22> Lets assume we develop technology to travel at near light speeds and go mad colonising the universe, what exactly contains us to the observable universe, move 4 light years in another direction and your observable horizon shifts

<comment><USER24> Except the expansion is happening faster than the speed of light.

[http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the- universe/c...](http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/about-us/104-the- universe/cosmology-and-the-big-bang/expansion-of-the-universe/616-is-the- universe-expanding-faster-than-the-speed-of-light-intermediate)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Up to 1700 the British went through a period of 400 years with virtually no growth per capita:

[http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndCompa...](http://www.lse.ac.uk/economicHistory/seminars/ModernAndComparative/papers2011-12/Papers/Broadberry.pdf)

One thing that did boost growth in that period was the black death.

</comment><comment><USER26> By definition, growth is unsustainable in the long term.

GDP growth is totally, completely correlated to energy consumption. In the future, energy availability will at best plateau, or more probably decline. GDP growth then will be a blip in a long trend of stability, and steep decline is ahead to fall back to a sustainable level (i.e. entirely from renewable resources, as it was for the past millions of years).

Data speaks for itself, see many article from a physicist here: [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions- in...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2015/03/bbc-questions-indefinite- growth/)

See immense resources from a specialized engineer here: [http://manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/kaya_...](http://manicore.com/anglais/documentation_a/greenhouse/kaya_equation.html)

</comment><comment><USER27> Freakonomics made a good podcast with the author of this book regarding this topic [1]. I can't say I agree with it, but it's an interesting listen nonetheless.

[1]: [http://freakonomics.com/podcast/american- growth/](http://freakonomics.com/podcast/american-growth/)

</comment><comment><USER16> Maybe growth has slowed, not because of an inherent limit of technology, but because we just don't have problems as big as our great-grandparents. The biggest enemy we have left is ourselves. We crave attention more, overeat, and look forward to a retirement where our minds waste away.

There are some exciting advances we need to extend the modern world to all of humanity without destroying the planet. But for those of us already living with the best humanity has to offer, our biggest limitation is ourselves.

I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one? Things like wikipedia are valuable and don't contribute to GDP. But then shouldn't people be happier than 20 years ago?

<comment><USER28> >I keep trying to come up with a reason for how recent advances are improving our lives without increasing GDP. Does anyone have a compelling one?

 _GDP /GNP is not a measurement of happiness or standard of living._

>Gross National Product counts air pollution and cigarette advertising, and ambulances to clear our highways of carnage. It counts special locks for our doors and the jails for the people who break them. It counts the destruction of the redwood and the loss of our natural wonder in chaotic sprawl. It counts napalm and counts nuclear warheads and armored cars for the police to fight the riots in our cities. It counts Whitman's rifle and Speck's knife, and the television programs which glorify violence in order to sell toys to our children. Yet the gross national product does not allow for the health of our children, the quality of their education or the joy of their play. It does not include the beauty of our poetry or the strength of our marriages, the intelligence of our public debate or the integrity of our public officials. It measures neither our wit nor our courage, neither our wisdom nor our learning, neither our compassion nor our devotion to our country, it measures everything in short, except that which makes life worthwhile. And it can tell us everything about America except why we are proud that we are Americans.

-RFK, Speech at the University of Kansas at Lawrence (18 March 1968)

<comment><USER16> Right, I'm trying to think of things that are increasing happiness and are not affecting GDP (which the book's author uses to justify the "fall").

<comment><USER28> Computing and renewable energy methods are becoming exponentially more powerful and less expensive to produce, a process called ephemeralization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Growth and progress are dehumanised meaningless terms when divorced from quality of life of all citizens on earth. You can have massive unsustainable growth that only filters to the top percentages and destroys the environment. This is quasi feudalism.

Currently we seem to have an economic system whose sole purpose seems to make a few wealthy. Any technological, social and political progress is a side effect to sustain the primary purpose of wealth for a few, and should any of the side effects come in the way of the primary purpose it will be quashed, which seems a tad uncivilised. These billions are just a social number more than anything else, and do not do anything meaningful, apart from affording power, privilege to sustain an inherently exploitative cycle with serious environmental consequences.

Capitalism by its very nature can only reward the top percentages, the moment demand rises with scarce resources prices rise too, leaving a small exclusive group with disproportionate wealth and power always in control.

The market cannot decide anything without heavy constraints, and will take us quickly to a gridlock. In a non functioning traffic intersection, humans will always act not in enlightened self interest or common interest but short term immediate self interest which is neither good for them, everyone else or their environment, evidenced in the ensuing gridlock that will leave everyone including themselves stranded. Yet we set up a system that rewards this uncivilised base individual behavior to get ahead at all costs nevermind anything else. If low cost drives choices it only means the market will rush to exploitation and plunder without constraining rules. If someone is plundering the environment or using slaves an informed choice can only happen if the consumers know about it, cares about it and by the time this happens irreversible damage to the environment or social structure may already be done. Power could ensure information is not available, propaganda or lack of choice for alternatives. Capitalism cannot deliver an egalitarian enlightened sustainable society and is not designed to, only promise to while the small elite control the cycle.

Currently the elite will always support the system out of self interest nevermind the consequences for everyone else or the environment while others seek a way to break into the club or an alternative way. This is inherently unstable and will lead to periodic purges or paranoia and control of the population. Like the old quote goes there is enough for everyone's need but not for their greed.

</comment><comment><USER30> This. Finally. People on HN think that startups, technology and economic growth have unlimited potential. This is pure stupidity at its finest. Observations of the natural world show a general trend: that everything, from physical resources to energy has limits. It is a mistake to believe that this general observation does not apply to technology and the human imagination.

While we can comprehend what a limit in oil production is... we simply cannot comprehend exactly where or what a limit to the human imagination or technology is... This leads to a false illusion that there is no limit... The reality is: An inability to comprehend something does not lend any evidence to the idea that human potential is unlimited. Like science, true understanding comes from observations of the natural world and as all things observed in the natural world... it is far more likely for humanity to eventually reach a limit in technology.

Whether that limit is among us is debateable. Computing has shown dramatic improvements in the past decade but outside of having an app for everything in my phone, nothing has really changed in the past two decades.

<comment><USER31> This is some of the shallowest, most misleading insight I've ever read.

"Human achievement will probably reach a limit at some point" is effectively an empty statement. Even if you could take its truth for granted, it is completely useless information.

There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and a limit that is unknowable and unguessable. Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way - i.e. try to achieve as much as you can - until that limit becomes known or guessable in some way.

(This argument is basically a very slight variation on Russell's teapot.)

<comment><USER32> I think the strongly worded logic in your post is questionable.

> There is zero actionable difference between a limit that doesn't exist, and > a limit that is unknowable and unguessable.

Thought experiment:

Situation 1: I rely on a single food source, which I know is unlimited.

Situation 2: I rely on a single food source, which I'm not sure is unlimited, but I can't guess when it'll run out.

> Your behaviour should stay exactly the same either way, until that limit > becomes known or guessable in some way

Really? Because if I was in situation 2, I would be preparing a contingency. Trying to find another food source. By the time the limit of my current source became knowable, it might be too late and I would starve. The right time to prepare is from a position of strength.

That's an actionable difference - do you think this is a valid counterexample to your logic? Or is something not appropriate?

<comment><USER31> Yes, I was referring to the subject at hand - human achievement / technology / innovation - not making a universal statement about everything that may have limits.

But I can see how my post could read that way. I'll make that clearer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sounds like an interesting book. From the linked review, the main thesis that many improvements from 1870-1970 are one-time-only events seems sound. I also agree with the assessment that 'singularity' theories are hokum. (That may be more controversial here on HN!)

It does sound like he might underestimate the effects of the coming AI/robot revolution. Over the next 75 years, any job definable by its output may be taken over by a robot. What is left are service and creative occupations where the human presence and artistry is valued. But this will entail a huge economic upheaval.

The other giant quality-of-life advancement that might be out there is slowing or eliminating the effects of aging. That would also come with giant problems of inequality (if it is narrowly available) or population pressure (if it is widely available). But it would surely be another huge advancement for its beneficiaries.

</comment><comment><USER34> Modern money is created by keystrokes[1]. We(the US) are no longer on the gold standard(a good thing). In order to have conditions for economic growth(say GDP growth) to occur aggregate income must increase. There are only two possible drivers: Government goes into debt or the private sector goes into debt where debt = spending more than ones income. If government policy makers were to use fiscal policy based economic models that paid closer attention to aggregate debt and aggregate income balances we could have much smoother business cycle and avoid deep recessions where the private sector wants to deleverage. The only thing to fear is inflation and we have never truly sniffed demand pull inflation in the US ever. The 80's was supply shock petroleum based inflation.

The Federal government needs to put its foot on the accelerator and not the brakes but the politicians don't know where the accelerator is.

[1] [http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/where-did-the- fed...](http://neweconomicperspectives.org/2012/03/where-did-the-federal- reserve-get-all-that-money.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> There are many breakthroughs waiting to be made in medicine, energy production, geoengineering, space exploration, transportation, etc. Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time, which will allow the market for entertainment, travel, and luxury to grow much larger than today, and be accessible to many more people.

But if we succumb to this pessimism, it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy.

<comment><USER36> "Automation and AI will increase productivity and leisure time".

We got told this in the 70's (the automation part at least), yet seem to be working more and more hours now.

<comment><USER37> It seems to me that the amount of time people work stays broadly constant, but automation changes what is considered "work".

To a farm labourer from 500 years ago, sitting on factory production line attaching two parts together doesn't feel much like work.

To a production line worker from 100 years ago, sitting at a computer typing emails to people and going to meetings doesn't feel much like work.

To us today, sitting around while the 3D printers in your factory print whatever your AI engine says they should, doesn't feel much like work. But I have a feeling that future generations will get tired of constantly analysing their performance and adjusting parameters.

<comment><USER36> By that reasoning Steven Hawking is hardly doing anything, as he barely moves. Work doesn't need to mean physical labor.

<comment><USER38> Isn't that his point? 500 years ago, nobody would be willing to hire Steven Hawking. Period. He simply isn't capable of doing anything resembling what they would have considered work, even with the use of the modern tools he uses to interact with the world. Today, however, he is able to be a completely productive member of society because the work we need to do is completely different – and the work we need to do 500 years from now will unlikely resemble much of what we do today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> >At the point where computers have achieved superintelligence, we have reached the Singularity

>...Gordon has no sympathy for these futuristic views.

Kind of dumb really. Like discussing growth at the start of the industrial revolution and having no sympathy for the idea of an industrial revolution.

</comment><comment><USER40> To keep discussion grounded. We should think this trough economic growth models. What model we use is not that important. You can use simple neoclassical Solow-Swan model as starting point and add more factors as you go.

You can play with the model in Wolfram Alpha [http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrow...](http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/DynamicsInTheSolowSwanGrowthModel/)

Techno-optimists often argue naively that technological progress or increase in human capital works like magic without understanding how they dynamically interact with more basic factors of production like capital, output and labor.

</comment><comment><USER41> This article reminds me of [http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter- victor-def...](http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2010/05/peter-victor- deficit-growth)

>It took a couple of decades, but unemployment eventually fell to 4 percent, most people's standards of living actually rose, and greenhouse gas emissions decreased to well below Kyoto levels. The economy reached a "steady state." And if the model is accurate, then something like it, say some ecologically minded economists, may be the only way for humanity to survive in the long term.

</comment><comment><USER42> First things first [http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than- you-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/inequality-is-worse-than-you- think-2013-3) AND this [http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-a- myth-in-...](http://www.businessinsider.com/social-mobility-is-a-myth-in-the- us-2013-3)

</comment><comment><USER43> Degrowth[0] is an interesting related perspective/solution to check out.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Degrowth)

</comment><comment><USER44> Growth at scale, to bubble up to the oligarchs maybe fails.

Sustainable Growth for the local business, small market business keeps going.

Small business employs more people than the "big guys" and is a real core economic driver.

</comment><comment><USER45> Mandatory post :)

Exponential Economist Meets Finite Physicist [http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2012/04/economist-meets-...](http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the- math/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist/)

</comment><comment><USER46> I think it would be helpful to quantify the measure of world warfare. I think it would correspond to economic growth.

Nuclear weapons and public opinion on war act as a huge deterrent to large scale mobilizations, so we've reached peak war, and with it, peak economy.</comment>


Ask HN: Developers, what are you struggling with the most? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> React Children

</comment><comment><USER3> management</comment>


A Visit to AppSee.com = Unsolicited Personal Email - <AUTHOR> Yesterday I visited AppSee.com
Today I got a personalized email from their account manager :
"Hi [FirstName],
Thank you for your recent interest in Appsee.
Unfortunately, I was unable to contact you earlier to discuss the nature of your inquiry.
Appsee is a powerful visual in-app analytics platform that.... "
What blackmagic are they using? <comment><USER2> Hey newbie1010, John here, Appsee's CMO :) We don't send that email to people who don't request us to reach out to them. Could you provide me with your email so I could check our system to find out why you got that message? Have a great day! John

</comment><comment><USER3> leadforensics.com

<comment><USER4> what script on the source code on the website identify this solution?

<comment><USER3> [https://builtwith.com/appsee.com](https://builtwith.com/appsee.com) \- Confirmed - they are using leadforensics.

<comment><USER4> And again my question. I can't see any js on the source code of the web page..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> did you fill up any form? or they just get your name/email out of nowhere? are you logged in on LinkedIn all the time?</comment>


My Dad Was a Real-Life Tomb Raider - <AUTHOR> http://gate-37.com/2015/03/02/my-dad-was-a-real-life-tomb-raider/

<comment><USER2> Ack! Part One with an unreleased Part Two.

Great catch paragraph, though.

</comment><comment><USER3> My Dad can beat up your Dad.</comment>


The Collapse of the US-EU Safe Harbor - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2015/10/20/the-collapse-of-the-us-eu-safe-harbor-solving-the-new-privacy-rubiks-cube/ <comment><USER2> The proposals do not address the elephant in the room and the very reason Safe Harbor collapsed: The NSA and the ability of the US government to override any treaty to access any data using secret warrants.

It is that which killed Safe Harbor, and none of the proposals at the end of the article would be immune to that weakness again.

It would remain the case that the proposals made would not be in line with the clear ruling that the European court gave if the US government can continue to override international treaties and their own courts.

<comment><USER3> The European intelligence agencies were trading info with the NSA, so European companies can be under the same sorts of threats. It's a red herring.

Personally I think this is really about protectionism and the NSA provides a convenient excuse given European intelligence agency involvement.

<comment><USER4> Not all of Europe is part of the Five Eyes, or even it's outer orbits. And if they are, the relationship is not symmetric. They don't have first-party access to US government communications, never mind, say, POTUS's cell phone.

"They all do it" is meaningless if one nation has an NSA and Greece has a sketchy looking guy with black shoes and no socks and a tape recorder.

<comment><USER3> >Not all of Europe is part of the Five Eyes, or even it's outer orbits.

Five Eyes is only one such intelligence alliance. Germany, for instance, cooperated with the NSA despite not being part of FVEY: [http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german- intellige...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/german-intelligence- agencies-used-nsa-spying-program-a-912173.html)

The Dutch, again not part of Five Eyes, tapped phone calls to pass to the US. We don't know the full extent of which nations played a role. I'm willing to bet it's more than have so far been revealed.

>They don't have first-party access to US government communications, never mind, say, POTUS's cell phone.

Germany wasn't exactly giving the US access to their government's communications either, "just" private citizens. They did assist the US in getting access to the French leadership, though.

>"They all do it" is meaningless if one nation has an NSA and Greece has a sketchy looking guy with black shoes and no socks and a tape recorder.

When the large European nations are aggressively spying on their own citizens and then passing that info around to foreign governments in exchange for special software or information, it sort of renders their complaints about the NSA kind of moot. Yeah, the NSA spied on your citizens, but you helped them.

For those nations that didn't engage in this, I have a feeling not having your data in America isn't going to prevent the NSA from getting it if they desire it. Especially since much of that data will end up in the sorts of European nations that are spying on their citizens and trading data with the NSA anyways.

<comment><USER5> > Yeah, the NSA spied on your citizens, but you helped them.

I did not help them.

Either the German government did or the BND and VS did without orders from the German government. This needs to be investigated and punished accordingly. That is very unlikely, but at least we have parliamentary commision (NSA Untersuchungsausschuss, NSAUA) to investigate these wrongdoings. Some interesting things were already uncovered by the NSAUA.

<comment><USER6> Well, I (a person) didn't directly help the NSA, either. I didn't vote for the people who did it, either. But "I" (a citizen of the United States) did help them in that I am part of the US, and I generally support the form of government that we have.

I doubt that the BND acted without orders from the Chancellor's office, just as the NSA didn't and hasn't acted without orders from the President.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Microsoft are at the centre of another case which will really decide how badly EU-US trade is affected:

> Microsoft stands in contempt of court right now for refusing to hand over to > US authorities, emails held in its Irish data centre. This case will surely > go to the Supreme Court and will be an extremely important determination for > the cloud business, and any company or individual using data centre storage. > If Microsoft loses, US multinationals will be left scrambling to somehow, > legally firewall off their EU-based data centres from US government reach.

— from [http://www.irishtimes.com/business/ecj-ruling-on-irish- priva...](http://www.irishtimes.com/business/ecj-ruling-on-irish-privacy-case- has-huge-significance-1.2382895)

At the moment, data can be held within the EU by US companies and it's all ok. If Microsoft is forced to hand over emails stored within the EU to the US government, then all bets are off.

In that future, it may not even be enough to have an EU-based subsidiary of a US company hold data within the EU, since it'll have been shown that the U.S. government can coerce them.

And we like to talk about large companies like Microsoft, Apple, Facebook, Google etc. But they can throw money, lawyers and engineers at this problem. But the thousands of US-based SaaS apps do not have that luxury. Likewise, there are thousands of EU-based small SaaS app that will have everything from their hosting stack, to their bug tracker, to their communications tools taken off them.

<comment><USER8> In this case, the U.S. isn't trying to get Microsoft to coerce their European subsidiary into handing over the data; it's trying to get Microsoft U.S. itself to hand over the data. The problem for Microsoft is that the parent company in the U.S. has direct access to the data, without having to involve any employees of the European subsidiary, even though the data is stored on European servers. Therefore the U.S. government's position is that a search warrant is valid and not extraterritorial: it's being served on a U.S. company, asking U.S.-based employees to turn over data they have direct access to.

Microsoft would be in a stronger position if the data on its EU servers were only accessible by employees of its European subsidiary. Then Microsoft's U.S. branch could respond to a search warrant by truthfully saying that they don't have that data, and the request must be redirected to its European subsidiary. But that would complicate its technical infrastructure, so it would rather not do that. However, if the case turns out adversely, that's one possible response. They could segregate access, so that credentials for access to EU- based data are only given to EU-based Microsoft employees.

<comment><USER7> Thanks for making that clearer.

I'm not yet convinced that a multinational could have strong enough controls that 1 person on a team has the password but another person doesn't. In reality, this stuff get's mixed around a lot, even if there are official policies in place

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I think we'll look back at this and say "That is when the whole house of cards collapsed." The notions of the Internet being "somewhere else" and the rules being coded by the body legislating the person who is accessing it, is untenable. I expect a lot of churn on the privacy, tax, and access (censorship) policies which have grown up over the years.

Consider:

       * France (and China) trying to impose content
         restrictions on Google results. [1]

       * The EU invalidating the safe harbor privacy rules.[2]

       * The recent invalidation of tax strategies in the
         Netherlands and Luxembourg. [3]

These are all _soverign_ issues. And for anyone who has ever looked at the Internet as a "place" intuitively understands how impractical it is to have the rules be based on that origin of the connection in meat space.

The depth and complexity of this particular confluence of concepts is really staggering. I can not even imagine how you would establish an institution to "rule" the Internet. I might even go so far as to assert it isn't possible. What I fear is that what _is_ possible is the Chinese model where every country has its own "Internet" and your ability to access it from outside, or to leave it from inside, will be governed by some electronic equivalent of a passport. And that idea brings the whole "identity" question really out to the forefront of the discussion.

Very interesting challenges ahead.

[1] [http://www.teleread.com/chris-meadows/france-demands- google-...](http://www.teleread.com/chris-meadows/france-demands-google- censor-search-results-everywhere/)

[2] [http://www.natlawreview.com/article/european-court- justice-i...](http://www.natlawreview.com/article/european-court-justice- invalidates-us-eu-safe-harbor-agreement)

[3] [http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3062128/Appl...](http://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/news/article-3062128/Apple- warned-face-1-5bn-bill-guilty-tax-avoidance.html)

[http://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-tax-setup-faces- french-c...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/googles-tax-setup-faces-french- challenge-1412790355)

[http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/us-eu- taxavoidance...](http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/us-eu-taxavoidance- idUSKCN0SF0US20151021)

<comment><USER6> On the other hand, it could lead to a more fractured web, that is highly segregated based on where the host is that is serving up the data. Like US Corporate law, it could lead to a mass of companies deciding to place most or all of their servers in what would otherwise be very silly locations.

<comment><USER9> I completely agree, it could actually make "Data Havens" practical simply because the laws regarding them would be easier to parse. I've done a cursory scan of the whitepapers of various think tanks but I haven't found any that really dig into this question. If anyone sees one please link it here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The ECJ was simply responding to a fairly obvious and fundamental problem: your private data IS NOT SAFE in the US. The US government doesn't care and has no intention of changing this, so expect the ECJ's ruling to stand for a long time.

</comment><comment><USER11> Color me impressed with the no-nonsense and respectful way in which Microsoft tackles this. Looking forward to other tech giants following suit.

The 'privacy is dead' crowd should really take notice of this article.

<comment><USER12> You know I really wanted to believe in the new Microsoft ... then I started to notice the new telemetry patches in Windows update.

They can say whatever they want about privacy, as long as they sneakily collect data about my computer usage I won't believe a word of what they say.

<comment><USER11> I try very hard to never use Microsoft products, that's for sure let there be no mis-understandings about that. So I can't comment on what the most recent incarnation of Windows does but I'm well aware that Skype did not change for the better after MS took over.

Even so, saying this as not exactly a Microsoft fan (to put it very mildly) their _words_ (not necessarily their deeds) are spot on, this is really what is needed and _privacy really is a fundamental human right_.

Now if they will actually act on these words it will count for something.

<comment><USER13> > I'm well aware that Skype did not change for the better after MS took over

While I'm acutely aware of the negative impact various changes had on privacy, cf the leaked documents referencing it, however I'm not sure that statement is blanketly true.

I can now have Skype running on my phone where previously it used to drain the battery in a few hours flat. That is, personally, a huge improvement.

Another thing I've noticed is I get both better video quality (when I use video, I prefer audio only) and I get less disconnects due to "network" reasons.

<comment><USER11> I meant that - in case the context did not make it abundantly clear - from a privacy perspective, not from a usability perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Site seems down. Copy/paste from google-cache here (too big to submit as a comment): [http://pastebin.com/0jLCA65D](http://pastebin.com/0jLCA65D)

<comment><USER15> "Legal rules that were written at the dawn of the personal computer are no longer adequate for an era with ubiquitous mobile devices connected to my butt." Are you sure it's from google cache?

<comment><USER14> Ah, ok. Apparently I still have the cloud-to-butt extension installed o_0

<comment><USER16> This may be remembered as cloud-to-butt's finest hour. A potentially historically significant statement made readable to the Buzzfeed crowd.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Google cache: [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0BKIRj9...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:0BKIRj96qT0J:blogs.microsoft.com/on- the-issues/2015/10/20/the-collapse-of-the-us-eu-safe-harbor-solving-the-new- privacy-rubiks-cube/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

I'm getting an Internal Server Error on the original page.

</comment><comment><USER18> To me the key idea from Brad Smith's post, which I don't neccessarily agree with, was this:

            Third, there should be an exception to this approach for citizens who move physically
    	across the Atlantic. For example, the U.S. government should be permitted to turn
    	solely to its own courts under U.S. law to obtain data about EU citizens that move to
    	the United States...

What he really arguing is that EU should not invalidate the Safe Harbor in that it breaks the Internet and Microsoft will provide its customers data access for U.S. and EU governments under "in the most limited circumstances". In that sense, it's not something out of ordinary than what typical Microsoft's position is in this issue. They can certainly do better than that, I.E. throwing away the server side encryption key like Apple does for iOS devices so that they don't have the technical capability to give out user data even if summoned to.

<comment><USER19> To me the quote you use from the original post talks about people who move (physically) from the EU to the US. These people remain EU citizens, but can hardly be distinguished from US people, as they have a US address. As EU citizens they have more rights to privacy than their US neighbors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> He makes the issue more complex than necessary for the benefit of his employer. There is no reason why private information needs to move across borders without the express consent of the individual involved. At that point the individual agrees to be bound by the rules of the country where the data is going or no transaction is done.

Let each country have it's own set of rules and have all countries respect those rules for data located in the hosting country.

The idea that each country must be exactly the same and data is by default available for transmission across borders is only to the benefit of multinational companies.

<comment><USER21> In many jurisdictions, some rights cannot be legally signed away. Often the requirements on a non-negotiated contract are even higher. Lastly the US government is currently trying to coerce Microsoft into revealing data stored overseas, so even storing data in the country of origin may be insufficient protection.

<comment><USER20> I'm not saying that no changes are needed. What I am saying is that the proposals put forth by Smith are more complex than necessary and that the purpose of the added complexity is to benefit his employer and not individuals.

 _In many jurisdictions, some rights cannot be legally signed away_

In those jurisdictions there would have to be changes to allow individuals to provide permission to move their information across borders.

 _Lastly the US government is currently trying to coerce Microsoft into revealing data stored overseas, so even storing data in the country of origin may be insufficient protection._

Which is why I said "Let each country have it's own set of rules and have all countries respect those rules for data located in the hosting country."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> As a small company, stuff like this scares the shit out of me. It would be expensive, but companies like Microsoft can survive things like this. But how can a small company do anything but ignore it?

<comment><USER23> I work for a missions organization with ministries all over the world. We are trying to centralize for cost and due to lack of resources but everything we collect is pretty sensitive since it gets tied back to religious stuff. I think we'll need to hire lawyers in every EU country to get an idea of what we need to do - and then we'll probably need to duplicate a lot of effort to comply and we may just not use certain tools because it will become impossible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> > Government officials in Washington and Brussels will need to act quickly, > and we should all hope that Congress will enact promptly the Judicial > Redress Act, so European citizens have appropriate access to American > courts.

Well, Microsoft is wrong here to believe that the Judicial Redress Act [1] will be sufficient. The CJEU has required "essentially equivalent" privacy protections for EU citizens as they get in the EU.

The US Privacy Act does _not_ give them that, so this Judicial Redress Act is a hit and a miss.

The US needs to pass a much stronger privacy law that is "at least" as good as the one in the EU, if it wants its companies to continue to get EU citizen data (and I assume it does). It can start by finally reforming the ECPA for the 21st century.

[1] [http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press- releases?id=9455F...](http://judiciary.house.gov/index.cfm/press- releases?id=9455FA93-0026-4928-8D3A-DDB374D64472)

<comment><USER25> From the rest of the article, I don't think he's suggesting that only the Judicial Redress Act is sufficient as a replacement for Safe Harbour? Just that it's a useful first step that congress can take soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The excuse that the legal rules are obsolete is a red herring.

It depends on the rules.

For example: privacy of communications has no intrinsic dependence on technology. Security of personal data requires the verification of said security (or the commitment to it), etc...

I do not know about this specific law. But just because a law is old does not mean that it is bad. And this is what Microsoft is saying.

After hundreds of years of slavery, it was abolished in the US in a single day. So what? Is this bad?</comment>


What Google knows about you - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/view <comment><USER3> Google Search has bigger privacy issues. IP Addresses are anonymized after 9 months, but your search history is stored _forever_ in anonymized form. If you have ever searched for yourself on Google, or for a unique set of information that can identify you as the origin of your searches, then you have to trust Google's security team and future lawmakers to keep your information private.

Yes, most people don't care, and I'm not any better. I don't have anything incriminating or too embarrassing in my search history, so I use Google and grit my teeth whenever privacy comes up. I tried DuckDuckGo for a week, but I eventually fell back to Google.

Sources and relevant links:

<http://www.google.com/privacy/faq.html>

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AOL_search_data_scandal>

<comment><USER4> I agree that I could care less about all of this stuff, it's the search data that matters. Imagine taking a look at a month of someone's search data, it would be revealing (it might even be revealing to look back over years of your own search history).

But as for the question of forever anonymization I think you have misunderstood:

The data will not be traceable back to a single computer or user. The link between searches is the IP address, and it would be pretty hard to identify a single IP address without the final two octets (ie 255.255.255.255 -> 255.255). It definitely wouldn't be impossible (nothing is), but I would bet it would be within the level of difficulty that many other more privacy- violating things would.

Furthermore, my ISP changes my IP address very frequently (my guess would be about every 48 hours), and even if it was static, I would not have had the same IP for a very long time (moved frequently, etc).

The cookie is the only link between the IP addresses, once you've ambiguated the IP's it's pretty hard to connect the numerous IPs one person would have to people.

The sources you submitted were not very explanatory and have nothing to do with Google, respectively.

<http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2007/03/google_to_anony/>

<comment><USER3> You are mostly correct. According to an Ars Technica article from last year [1]:

* Google anonymizes the last octect of your IP address after 9 months. (So there are 254 possible IP addresses for each search.)

* The search cookie is kept intact for 36 months (3 years).

When I posted before, I incorrectly remembered reading that the search cookie is stored forever. Thanks for catching my mistake.

Edit: Regarding the sources, I think that Google's FAQ deliberately skimps on the details. I posted the AOL link because it is a good example of what can happen when search data is leaked.

[1] [http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google- keeps...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2010/03/google-keeps-your- data-to-learn-from-good-guys-fight-off-bad-guys.ars)

<comment><USER5> am I missing something with that 36 months? from the ars article:

"After 18 months, Google anonymizes the unique cookie data stored in these logs."

a 2.5 year old searchengineland article also says they use a hash function using keys that are discarded every day, which means that search streams will be 24 hours long apiece:

[http://searchengineland.com/anonymizing-googles-server- log-d...](http://searchengineland.com/anonymizing-googles-server-log-data- hows-it-going-15036)

<comment><USER3> Urgh. I was severely sleep deprived last night and I am starting to feel that I shouldn't have posted at all. You are correct about 18 months.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> OK, this was more fun than freaky.

It thinks I'm male (I'm a girl).

It knows about my horrible novelty YouTube habit (tons of humor/comedy/tv comedy categories). #guilty

It thinks I have pets/cats. (Nope. but given how many novelty youtube vids probably involve cats, not crazy.)

And yeah, lots of finance/tech/business categories.

For now, I'm leaving them all in and not removing.

And sidebar to those who say this isn't everything Google knows about you. You're right. But this is just about ads.

The main Privacy Dashboard for account stuff is here: <http://www.google.com/dashboard>

</comment><comment><USER7> Funny... my listed interests are in business and tech (true), and I've been identified as a male (not true). From Google: "Based on the websites you've visited, we think you're interested in topics that mostly interest men." Ouch!

<comment><USER8> I wonder what Google thinks about my searches for shoes :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Oh the irony

      Google Ads Preferences

      Cookies are disabled

      Your browser's cookies seem to be disabled. Ads Preferences will not work until you enable cookies in your browser. How do I enable cookies?

This is why it should be off by default and opt-in only.

</comment><comment><USER10> A better title might be "Some of what Google admits to know about you".

There's really no way to verify the sum of what they know is you like ponies, especially when they have so much data to draw conclusions from.

</comment><comment><USER11> At least Google gives you a way to Opt Out =) ([http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/opt- out.html?hl=e...](http://www.google.com/ads/preferences/html/opt- out.html?hl=en))

Apparently they where tracking me.

</comment><comment><USER12> Google thinks I have a split personality:

In Firefox: Humor, Venture Capital, Computers & Electronics, Handhelds & Mobile Devices, Internet Software, Operating Systems - Mac OS, Currencies & Foreign Exchange, Smart Phones, Technology News, Dictionaries & Encyclopedias.

In Chrome: Movie Reference, Music & Audio, Rock Music, Online Video.

As my main browser I use Firefox, without Flash plug-in. When I need to view video, I open Chrome, which has Flash built-in. That explains why the information from the two Google cookies differ so much.

</comment><comment><USER13> I have no cookie and I don't want one :) they also complain that I don't let them execute JavaScript in my browser:

 _You cannot view or edit interests when you do not have an 'id' cookie. Opt- in to get a cookie. JavaScript is disabled. Enable JavaScript to be able to edit your preferences._

</comment><comment><USER14> "No interest categories are associated with your ads preferences so far."

I use AdBlockPlus, Ghostery and OptimizeGoogle in FF to reduce the amount of crap I get served, as well as to rewrite e.g. Google search results to remove their link tracking.

<comment><USER15> "No interest categories are associated with your ads preferences so far."

Same here, but only adblock plus, and I have google history disabled. I've used ghostery for some time. I also delete all cookies from time to time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I love how the first thing so many people do is post their results here, where they can be associated with their YC handles. Opt-out privacy, I guess.

That being said, I suspect there's not a lot of variance among most of the commenters on here, so maybe it's not that interesting.

</comment><comment><USER17> Apparently someone who's interested in "Superhero Films" has been using my Google account.

</comment><comment><USER18> Am I the only one where it says to Opt In instead of Opt out by default? It don't have any categories for me even after Opting in. I'm signed into my account. Adbllock Plus working great?

</comment><comment><USER19> I use Google on a daily basis and I'm always logged in. Still, "No interest categories are associated with your ads preferences so far"...

Maybe it's because of adblock+?

</comment><comment><USER20> And around 60 other companies know about my browser: <http://www.aboutads.info/choices/>

</comment><comment><USER21> It seems to be machine-dependent? I remember opting out a while back at work, but my mobile phone definitely shows me a profile, albeit one that isn't totally accurate.

In any case, you guys should also checkout _Bynamite_. They've got this interesting mission to give users more control over what advertisers see. I'm all for that not just from a privacy standpoint, but also from a relevancy one.

</comment><comment><USER22> Pretty accurate actually, at least for me.

I read the title of this post as a cliffhanger, promising a shocking ending, but it doesn't really do it for me. I'd rather have them show me relevant ads than random ones, personally. I opted out for a while but found opting in to be the better experience for me. To each their own, I guess.

<comment><USER23> It had American Football and Cooking for me, neither of which I can remember ever expressing interest in.

It nailed the programming stuff except for conflating Java the language and Java the virtual machine, but hey, even humans often make that mistake.

<comment><USER24> I wonder how much of that is due to a simple misinterpretation of some of the sites you visit. For example, if the fairly recent article on Google's "beatbox" (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1952356>) and my subsequent searches led to my purported interest in "Arts & Entertainment - Music & Audio - Urban & Hip-Hop - Rap & Hip-Hop".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It's probably just a generic one if HN is referrer ;)

Computers & Electronics - Software - Business & Productivity Software

Computers & Electronics - Software - Open Source

Computers & Electronics - Software - Operating Systems - Mac OS

News

Online Communities - File Sharing & Hosting

Online Communities - Photo & Video Sharing - Photo & Image Sharing

Demographics - Gender - <USER2>

</comment><comment><USER26> Oops! This link appears to be broken.

I wonder if they know I've got doubleclick in my hosts file.

<comment><USER27> The URL redirects through a doubleclick domain. That's why it's broken for you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nothing.

I have 'google analytics opt-out plugin' firefox addon, as well as adblock plus.

"Cookies are disabled

Your browser's cookies seem to be disabled. Ads Preferences will not work until you enable cookies in your browser."

</comment><comment><USER29> "Google does not associate sensitive interest categories with your ads preferences."

Does this really mean "We know more about you, but we're not going to tell you what it is?"

<comment><USER30> It means, even though they could figure out who is more likely to click on, say, BDSM ads, they don't, because that's how classy they are.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Same URL gives me different results on the phone and on the desktop. Apparently Google doesn't link them? I'm using the same GMail-Account on both though.

</comment><comment><USER32> It says "You have opted out of Google's interest-based advertising. No interest categories are associated with your browser." Sounds good to me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Apparently nothing - I have no id cookie. I assume this means I'm not tracked at all? Maybe I've just never clicked an ad on this laptop.

<comment><USER34> I don't think its related to ads clicked necessarily, I never click them, but my results seem to be related primarily to the searches I perform.

<comment><USER5> according to <http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/ads/> the "interest categories" are based on the sites you actually visit that have doubleclick ads, not from search terms (though there's an obvious correlation between the two, I suppose).

<comment><USER35> It's blank for me - looks like AdBlock Plus is doing its job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "No interest categories are associated with your ads preferences so far."

Thanks to adblock, noscript, greasemonkey and Google history deactivated.

</comment><comment><USER37> All interests associated with me are entirely accurate. Well done Google, I applaud you.

</comment><comment><USER38> Odd - I wonder why it thought I was into "Home improvement/Flooring".

</comment><comment><USER39> I like both coffee _and_ tea! The introspection possibilities!

</comment><comment><USER40> Interesting...it can be nice tool : )</comment>


Want to keep your wallet? Carry a baby picture - <AUTHOR> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/science/article6681923.ece <comment><USER2> Some doubt might be cast on the general validity of the results by the following brief description of the experiment being reported here:

"In the study, 40 wallets were sent out in each photograph category as well as 40 containing a card suggesting that the owner had recently made a contribution to charity. A control batch contained no additional item.

All of the wallets were stuffed with the same set of everyday items, including raffle tickets, discount vouchers, and membership cards. _None of them contained money, however._ "

(Added italics mine.)

<comment><USER3> I think that since there was nothing valuable inside, finders might have thought it was not worth the trouble sending the wallets back, while a baby picture is valuable to its owner, so it was worth sending back. If I had found such a wallet, that's the way I would have acted.

<comment><USER4> I was actually thinking the complete opposite. Since they found nothing of value in the wallets, they were easy to part with and send back. If they found $300 in cash, the finder may have felt more inclined to keep the wallet or at least the money. A good follow up test would be to see how often the money comes back with the wallet.

<comment><USER3> I was not trying to speculate what people would do if they found a wallet full of money, I was just trying to interpret why they sent back a wallet with a baby picture but did not send back a wallet with nothing of value inside.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> _The answer, scientists have found, depends rather more on evolution than morality._

This is a false distinction: the human moral sense is a product of evolution.

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't like the way this article presents the viewpoint of evolutionary psychology. A conception such as morality vs evolution is nothing short of dangerous.

I think this is a probable scenario:

"Oh, look, a wallet. I wonder what's inside... Alright, no money anyway. Some tickets and shit. Should I return it? Can I be bothered? Must be a real hassle for the owner with all these cards of course. - Oh, a picture of a baby. I bet this person is stressed out with the kid as it is. Hey, might as well be a Good Samaritan today..."

<comment><USER7> Yeah. I love how they ask a professor to tack a completely spurious evolutionary explanation on there. You know, a speculation coming from a professor on the basis of a sound scientific theory is _still_ just a speculation.

On the whole, I wish people didn't feel the need to jazz up empirical results with that kind of pseudo-technical commentary. It muddies the reader's mind about which part actually constitutes the science.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Scientists argue that it would be difficult to genetically code for feeling empathy exclusively towards your own child and much easier to code for feeling empathy towards all children."

Aren't there several species that do in fact shun the offspring of other parents?

<comment><USER9> I think it's bunk too - a much more logical explanation is that communal care of children is good for the species/tribe.

<comment> barry-cotter Those are very, very logically distinct, species and tribe, I mean. You can conceivably have people doing things for the good of the tribe because in a natural environment they're probably related to the other members of the tribe so if the behaviour helps teh sponsoring gene spread, on average it will propagate. "It's good for the species" is never a good explanation for anything, ever. The other members of of a species (of one's own sex) are the competition, the ones you want to fail in comparision to you. Group selection works fine if there's a guiding intelligence behind it, but there are no examples in nature, ttbomk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >"areas of high footfall, but well away from postboxes, litter bins, vomit, and dog faeces."

Having lived in Edinburgh for many years, I can say that does limit the options considerably.

</comment><comment><USER11> While there may be advantages to carrying a photo of someone else's kid in your wallet, the difficult questions and embarrassing situations that are going to come up from that are just not worth it.

<comment><USER12> I have pictures of my nieces and nephews, and friends babies in my wallet- why would there be any embarrassment or difficult questions as a result of this?

<comment><USER11> See, if you reach for your wallet to pay for dinner, and your date/business colleague says, "oh, what a cute photo! Is that your kid?," you can just say, "no, that's my nephew," and still beam with pride. I, however, would have to say, "no, that's some kid whose photo I downloaded from Flickr; isn't he adorable?" and the awkward conversation would not end there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I lost my wallet last night. Thanks for the thought HN but a little too late.

<comment><USER14> Did you leave it in El Segundo?

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kpPkGZ6zhzA></comment></comment>


Google, Oracle deny direct payments to media, bloggers - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/mobile-wireless/290191/google-oracle-deny-direct-payments-media-bloggers

<comment><USER2> Funny headline, given the paragraph from the article: "In their respective responses filed with the court today, Google flatly denied directly paying anyone who wrote about this summer's trial. Oracle only identified one person on the payroll, Florian Mueller of FOSSPatents, though it recognized that some of its own employees may have blogged about elements of the trial during the course of the proceedings."

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, but while they paid Mueller for consulting, they are still denying paying him to comment on the trial. So, as far as Oracle and Mueller are claiming to the court, it's still an indirect relationship.

<comment><USER2> But the judge ordered "Therefore, each side and its counsel shall file a statement herein clear identifying all authors, journalists, commentators or bloggers who have reported or commented on any issues in this case and who have received money (other than normal subscription fees) from the party or its counsel during the pendency of this action" [<http://www.groklaw.net/pdf3/OraGoogle-1229.pdf>]. The headline also doesn't qualify "payments" with any category or purpose. So, I still think it's a misleading headline.</comment></comment></comment>