'Unsolvable' exam question leaves Chinese students flummoxed - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-42857864 <comment><USER2> Growing up in the US, we used to have questions like this on math exams. The correct answer is something to the effect of "Not enough information to solve this problem". Of course we had practice questions where that was the case before the exam, so it wasn't a surprise or anything... but it was standard practice.

<comment> Harvey-Specter Questions like "A ball is fired from a cannon at a 45 degree angle, how far from it's initial position does it land?" are also fairly common in Canada. I don't recall every being asked something this silly though. There's no formula to calculate the age of a ship captain based on his cargo. There's no 'missing piece' here.

<comment><USER3> "There's no formula to calculate the age of a ship captain based on his cargo. There's no 'missing piece' here."

The lack of relevant relationship _is_ the missing piece.

Given how much nonsense I've personally witnessed as a math tutor or TA as students shove unrelated numbers through unrelated equations in unmotivated manners in an attempt to come up with some answer, _any_ answer, I'd say it's not any worse a question than giving them one that does correspond to an equation but has too few terms nailed down for a concrete answer.

The weird part of this story to me is that it is somehow newsworthy. Is it truly such an oddity in China that this made it to international news, or is there a heavy dollop of our local media basically turning off their critical thinking when it comes to China or Japan and boggling at anything, no matter how mundane?

<comment><USER4> Discovery of Jesus on french toast in mexico ignites local flames of monotheistic debate has caught the attention of the nation, and potentially, the entire planet

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It sounds like the old programming interview questions: "Why are sewer covers round?", etc. They sound like they promote critical thinking, but really they just confuse the applicants. If you want to know how someone thinks, ask them to solve a problem step by step.

<comment><USER6> i only know from learning about it, but round manhole covers prevent them from falling through the hole by consisting of a curve of constant width. Another example is the Reuleaux Triangle which is a viable shape for manhole covers. [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reuleaux_triangle)

<comment><USER7> The problem I have with this question is that it's based on false pretenses. Plenty of manhole covers are not round.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's a Kobayashi Maru. They're supposed to demonstrate their hacking skills and change the exam score.

<comment><USER9> It's worth pointing out that the intent of the Kobayashi Maru is to present the candidate with the terror, trauma, and experience of inevitable doom. Kirk cheated brilliantly, but that was not the point.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's a classic nonsense word problem, first appearing in 1841: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_captain](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_captain)

It's also been used to examine how students react to nonsensical word problems, and this is to some extent backed up by the school's statement. However, given the reputation of Chinese schools, it's entirely possible the teacher preparing the test simply threw it in because it looked like a word problem and the school is just saving face.

<comment><USER11> > However, given the reputation of Chinese schools, it's entirely possible the > teacher preparing the test simply threw it in because it looked like a word > problem

Action: Chinese school tries to break stereotype.

Result: stereotype reinforced, because people would rather believe that than the explicit explanation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in school professors used to add goofy questions like this, which could only be answered if you actually attended the classes. It was a way to account for diligence, according to the professor anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> This sounds like a messed up variant of an actual solvable old riddle that goes something like:

"Imagine that that you are the captain of a ship, there are 26 sheep and 10 goat on board... "

... go on for about 2 minutes talking about how the ship stops in different ports and how number of respective animals change... Add another animals as well, make the listener assume that they need to keep the count in their head...

"Now in the final destination all of the animal get off the ship. How old is the ship's captain?"

<comment><USER14> (Ok, I will be that guy.)

So what is the solution?

<comment><USER15> Your age.

<comment><USER14> Ah. This is a nice one, I will try on my children - hopefully they will be brighter than their dad.

<comment><USER14> The younger was :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >"The total weight of 26 sheep and 10 goat is 7,700kg, based on the average weight of each animal," said one Weibo commenter.

Those are some MASSIVE sheep. I like that the internet know it all was just as wrong as everyone else. Also that the writer of the article didn't even bother to fact check it.

</comment><comment><USER17> That's like a question that might appear as a gag in a SNL final exams skit. I'm for the odd unconventional question that might not follow a premise that was well-established in class per se (used deliberately, and sparingly)...but not a question which can only result in confusion and frustration.

<comment><USER18> Except that's life.

Here's my answer to that question:

Risky Business(1983):

Miles: Sometimes you gotta say "What the F*ck", make your move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is my favorite unsolvable exam question! (Single page pdf)

[http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf](http://nuclear.ucdavis.edu/~tgutierr/files/sml2.pdf)

<comment><USER20> That's not unsolvable: [https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the- deconstructed-s...](https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/the- deconstructed-standard-model-equation)

See also: [https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard- model...](https://www.sciencealert.com/this-is-what-the-standard-model-of- physics-actually-looks-like)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> 40 sheep isn't 7700 kg, I don't think. that's 400 lb per sheep.

</comment><comment><USER22> Bob is looking at Mary, but Mary is looking at Ed. Bob is married but Ed is not. Is a married person looking at an unmarried person? a) Yes b) No c) Not enough information to say

</comment><comment><USER23> >"The total weight of 26 sheep and 10 goat is 7,700kg, based on the average weight of each animal," said one Weibo commenter.

Well that's just not true.

<comment><USER24> Maybe they meant pounds? Large sheep can weigh around 250lb so it gets closer to the 7700 number</comment></comment>


On St. Augustine's Confessions - <AUTHOR> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2017/10/26/sarah-ruden-augustine-dialogue-god/ <comment><USER2> I'm surprised and happy to see something like this posted and upvoted on HN. The first time I read through Confessions and City of God, I thought they were both _very_ tough reads (thou, thee, etc.), much like John Calvin's Institutes of the Christian Religion (which I haven't actually finished yet), but very good reads nonetheless, full of arguments/debates on many hard topics that are applicable even today.

Like this article mentions, you get to see Augustine's view of God change throughout Confessions, from master (rules, rules, rules--no fun) to lover through a deeper understanding of grace, a lot like my own journey. Augustine has been a huge instrument for me in developing a correct view of God through his great arguments/debates and by introducing me to reformed doctrine (which you will come in contact with if you search Augustine's writings enough).

I love the quote from his conversion after reading Romans 13:

> No further would I read, […] nor had I any need; instantly at the end of > this sentence, a clear light flooded my heart and all the darkness of doubt > vanished away.

Anyways, like I said, I'm really happy to see this posted here. I'm interested in seeing where the discussion goes.

<comment><USER3> Over the summer I built a set Catholic theological writings by scouring used book stores that I plan diligently going through over the next couple of years. I say years because I also have St. Aquinas' Summa Theologica (complete) in there as well. I am really interested in seeing the path I take going through these as adult.

<comment><USER4> If you don't mind reading on kindle... The Complete Ante-Nicene & Nicene and Post-Nicene Church Fathers Collection: 3 Series, 37 Volumes, 65 Authors, 1,000 Books, 18,000 Chapters, 16 Million Words

for $3

[https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Ante-Nicene-Post-Nicene- Fath...](https://www.amazon.com/Complete-Ante-Nicene-Post-Nicene-Fathers- Collection-ebook/dp/B00KYBSUUM)

<comment><USER3> Thank you for that. I do have one of the Father's of the Church volumes and one of the book stores has a few other volumes.

I'm most interested right now in The City of God due to the context/thesis being relevant today. As a teenager I switched to Buddhism (20 or so years ago) but have gained new interest in my Catholic upbringing as I was finding it hard to relate to Buddhism and its history. Culturally it was different from my own and I always had a feeling of being an outsider/imposter.

Most of HN and others who are in educated professions appear to dismiss religion though I've come to find it as a guiding principal and cultural history - Western Civilization is built on Christianity, Catholcism for a larger portion.

Currently in the US we are losing our sense cultural understanding, in my opinion, and wish for the government to set laws and regulations on everything. The freedoms set forth in the first amendment give us the freedom to guide our lives as we see fit, religion filling the moral and spiritual need in our lives. The libertarian in me agrees with the freedom but to ensure others are given the same freedom as long we do no harm to others - nor should we judge or force our beliefs onto others.

Now I understand that certain groups haven't experienced the same freedoms as others but is that religions fault? I would say no, and offer the perspective of culture. Simple cultural norms bring us together. I live in the PNW and have a beard, I know if I were to back to New Orleans where I'm from a beard would be viewed differently causing issues with employment. This is a simple and harmless is example that isn't a non-issue compared to others.

Overall I'm excited to begin the journey with the open mind of an adult.

Sorry for tangent and possible incoherent ramble - on my tablet.

<comment><USER5> > Most of HN and others who are in educated professions appear to dismiss > religion

I think a lot of us just keep our mouths shut due to the large amount of vitriol that results from any rational discussion of metaphysics or the supernatural :)

<comment><USER6> To attempt to dispel some hesitance, I have a lot of conversations about this sort of thing. Only a minority involve any vitriol, and they're easy enough to walk away from. The more principled extroverts might comment on the tone of conversation as they leave.

And to attempt to make a positive case for engagement, we really need a lot more of it. We need to be careful because people of various religious (and agnostic and atheist) persuasions see this fear of engagement as a dislike or even hate of their kind of people (not just the theology or lack thereof). I don't want anyone to feel like they have to live secret or closeted lives. And it's pretty obvious that the stratification of Western culture is causing a lot of real problems.

<comment><USER3> I am unsure exactly your meaning regarding the stratification of Western culture, though I assume its in reference to inequality. If this is the case then I agree. However, I don't believe it stems from Western culture but from a culture of consumerism. Capitalism often receives the blame though I believe it is our lack of discipline as a society. Out consistent drive of want - material items, money and power. Religion, be it Catholicism, Protestant, Islam, Buddhism, Hinduism etc..., teaches to lead a far simpler life; Buddhism strives to be content; minimalist.

Does capitalism thrive if everyone in society reduces their wants, focusing more on their needs and being content with their current belongings? I would think so, though it would look much different with current economic measurements needing drastic revisions.

Is religious belief required to move society in this direction? Not necessarily. Though deep, open philosophical and theological discussion is required. Agnostics, atheists and religious individuals need to be able to discuss matters, find similarities in their beliefs - how they guide their lives.

Since the millennium we have all become aware of our differences, but not our similarities. Division consistently drives our lives which will increase the stratification of Western culture. A main area being reduced is Western Civilization history and thought. It would be hard to argue the United States was founded on ideas outside Western civilization which goes back to Greek and Roman thought, but this is now seen as a negative.

In the end we need to have open discussions, be aware of our history, both the positive and negative aspects and understand the negatives that happened in the US have happened all around the world and still occurring. In the end I believe spiritual discussion and reformation is required to reset society will maintaining freedom of religion being of the utmost importance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Also glad to see Peter Brown is still writing. One of the original, old school Oxford "Greats" from a bygone era when Greek and Latin mastery was still a prerequisite to considering oneself an educated individual.

His latest would make an interesting basis for an "alternative history" of Monasticism ;)

Treasure in Heaven: The Holy Poor in Early Christianity

[http://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4867](http://www.upress.virginia.edu/title/4867)

From the description:

"Seen against the backdrop of Asia, Christianity might have opted for a Buddhist model by which holy monks lived by begging alone. Instead, the monks of Egypt upheld an alternative model that linked the monk to humanity and the monastery to society through acceptance of the common, human bond of work."

</comment><comment><USER8> I finished Confessions a few weeks ago, and this review does it justice. The first few chapters, which are autobiographical, completely changed how I view antiquity. From "ah, these people are tough to relate to and certainly must have led much different lives than me," to "Augustine could come spend a day with me, or I a day with him, and neither of us would feel much out of place." He is today's "young professional" \-- working, traveling, and being entertained in ways that are strikingly similar to today's tech worker.

The latter half of the book is a bit trickier. Like the other commenter, his treatment of time was food for thought - not just for me but for philosophers and scientists for centuries to come. After finishing that chapter I got lost in Wikipedia learning more about it, eventually finishing with articles on general relativity (Augustine to Einstein... not what I expected from a 16 century old book).

Anyways, read Confessions. It's really worth it.

<comment><USER9> I fully agree. The Confessions is an incredibly modern book, when I read it the first time I couldn't believe it was written at the time of the Roman Empire. Also, the text is full of wit, like when he describes time ("What then is time? If no one asks me, I know what it is. If I wish to explain it to him who asks, I do not know.").

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well worth watching is Roberto Rossellini's _Augustine of Hippo_ , [http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072617/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt](http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0072617/reviews?ref_=tt_ov_rt)

 _" Roberto Rossellini directed a string of biographies in the 1960s and early 70s, all of which revolved around famous historical figures (Christ, Pascal, Descartes, Socrates, St Francis, St Augustine, King Louis XIV, Giuseppe Garbaldi, and one unrealized project about Marx), and all of which utilized a sparse, stripped down aesthetic which revoked the pomp and pageantry typically ascribed to such characters."_

</comment><comment><USER11> Henry James and St. Augustine on the front page at the same time? Digging the literary flavor, HN.

</comment><comment><USER12> A fun (if longish) read about how Augustine's strange relationship with his mother led to his philosophy of sin:

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/how-st- augusti...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/19/how-st-augustine- invented-sex)

</comment><comment><USER13> If you want some context, I highly recommend this clear, engaging, in-depth run-through of Scholasticism, the leading Medieval philosophy which was Augustine's legacy.

[https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Scholasticism)

(If you get a paywall, pull up the link in a search engine and open it from there.)

You might be thinking: Scholasticism, Augustine, Britannica ... cannot possibly be engaging. I recommend the Enlightenment approach: Try it for yourself.

</comment><comment><USER14> Nice. The version I first read had "Thou"s, "art"s, and "wherefore"s all over the place. It made the denser chapters less accessible. I'll probably look at this one in a year or two, once the price has gone down a bit ;)

<comment><USER15> I think we read the same version. "Verisimilitude" was a new word for me. I'm still trying to find a way to use it in conversation.

<comment><USER16> We use it constantly in bars in Berkeley. Example: "The pronouncements of [insert least favorite politician here] do not exhibit the faintest degree of verisimilitude." You can add rhetorical flourish by taking a thoughtful sip of beer immediately thereafter.

<comment><USER17> Along the same lines is 'verily' \- and as you mention, beer (and chin stroking while looking ponderous) is always involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I dreamed I saw St. Augustine, alive as you or me, tearing through these quarters in the utmost misery, with a blanket underneath his arm and a coat of solid gold, searching for the very souls whom already have been sold.</comment>


Microsoft could force retailers to pay activation fee for pre-owned games - <AUTHOR> http://thenextweb.com/gadgets/2013/05/24/players-reportedly-wont-need-to-pay-an-activation-fee-to-play-used-xbox-one-games-retailers-will/

<comment><USER2> Seems that MS will achieve the impossible - to make the piracy on the consoles more compelling than on the PC (where steam and gog have made great strides in reducing it). Good work.</comment>


Alleged $7.5B fraud in online advertising - <AUTHOR> https://moz.com/blog/online-advertising-fraud <comment><USER2> This isn't being 'buried' it just isn't that interesting. All of the money the client gives to the agency gets spent, some goes to the agency, some goes to the networks, some goes to the content providers. That isn't news at all.

Fraud is rampant. Also not new, although it is also also pretty easy to spot and block.

Almost nobody pays per 'impression' because, well that went out of style about the same time Yahoo! banner ads did.

Eventually the advertisers are going to pay for performance, and to do that they are going to have to fix the way they do advertising so that their ad, leads to their landing page which identifies who delivered the ad. Then they are going to pay based on whether or not the person who landed on their page actually buys something (service, good, or subscription). No money, no ad payment.

Most companies other than Amazon really aren't set up for that, and Amazon won't do it yet because, as far as I can tell, they aren't being forced too.

Its a shame that "affiliate" ads like the ones they let bloggers use have 100X there ROI of "CPC" ads and yet they have convinced the bloggers they can pay then a nickel and they should be happy when Google gets $13 - $23 for the same result.

I started building this system out of disgust but never finished it. It isn't that technically difficult, but it does have a lot of moving parts, and it does require infrastructure on the advertisers web site which can create durable transaction records. Some day I think.

<comment><USER3> > Its a shame that "affiliate" ads like the ones they let bloggers use have > 100X their ROI...

Sounds like an incredible market opportunity.

What are the companies that are building ad marketplaces targeting high performing affiliate bloggers which demonstrate their value better to advertisers, and share a higher proportion of profit with the bloggers?

Are there fundamental issues trying to scale up a business like this? Not everyone can spin their own custom 'sponsership' packages like DaringFireball, but there is a lot of good blog content out there.

I remember seeing some bespoke ad networks in the designer space, can't think of their name off-hand. Had the feel of a high-end web ring, if that's not an oxymoron.

<comment><USER4> [http://decknetwork.net/](http://decknetwork.net/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Old story. For non-brand advertising this is easily solved by down funnel tracking. Any marketer worth their salt tracks to the 'ultimate goal' and will avoid the shadier networks by looking at overall results. End of the day it comes down to a ROMI metric. It doesn't matter if 50% of the impressions are fake as long as the total investment pays off. For brand marketing I follow the networks that show DM performance as this shows some level of quality.

<comment><USER6> The tricky part is what to do when it doesn't pay off.. This isn't and has never been my primary line of work - but I can't say that every campaign I ran was profitable, even though the ones that were extremely profitable did make up for those.

<comment><USER7> It is not tricky. You just stop using that ad network.

<comment><USER6> That's a solution to mitigate losses but it doesn't address the fact that someone has lost money due to fraud - and I'm guessing it hurts small businesses the most.

Strategy-wise the solution is simple, but digital marketing is intrinsically flawed nowadays and it's one industry that could literally be turned upside down at some point in the coming decades as the internet evolves. And I think a lot of people wouldn't mind that - especially the people with the power to bring the change (i.e. developers and proponents of open source solutions and haters of crappy spam)

<comment><USER7> > it doesn't address the fact that someone has lost money due to fraud

You would try it out with a few hundreds or possibly thousands first. If it isn't showing any return at all, something is fishy. You wouldn't with a sum that would hurt to lose.

Then nice thing about the web is that we can measure and analyze user behavior.

<comment><USER6> Of course. I'm not saying it isn't possible to have a profitable marketing campaign despite fraudor limit your losses (just starts to cost more since some industries are more impacted than others). I'm just pointing out that it's inherently a fraudulent/sketchy industry and therefore very subject to potential disruption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Isn't click fraud basically solved by the free market? I mean, as more and more bots create fake clicks and impressions, the value of the traffic itself is reduced. This will lower the CPC and CPM and you'll still be able to buy traffic at its free market value. If the traffic becomes worthless, no one will be willing to pay for it.

Advertising fraud is basically arbitrage. The fraudsters are inflating the numbers but someone is still willing to pay a specific value for the traffic they're receiving. If a specific market is more prone to fraud, its because the amount publishers are paying is below its actual value.

<comment><USER9> It's "solved" for advertisers who can measure ROI, at least short-term. It's unsolved when the success metric for the campaign is not easily measured, like brand awareness. It's also not solved for the publishers not engaging in arbitrage or fraud who earn less and less per impression. Let it play out unchecked and the bad actors will kill the market by driving all the legitimate suppliers out of business: if ad rates are driven so low that content sites can't pay their staff with the ad dollars, they'll either go out of business or exit the market (i.e. erect paywalls, return to direct ad sales instead of participating in exchanges, etc).

<comment><USER10> > brand awarenesss

Exactly. Brand-awareness media buys tend to rely on third-party web traffic "experts" like Alexa, comScore, Hitwise, Quantcast, etc. These tools are incredibly simplistic and count the majority of fraudulent traffic as legit. When a site ranks highly across these experts, it is then used to increase the CPM a brand-advertiser ends up paying.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Google's the most open about the click fraud problem. They'll show you all the fake clicks you received but aren't being charged for if you customize the columns of your AdWords reports to add these two:

[http://i.imgur.com/sW1stNL.png](http://i.imgur.com/sW1stNL.png)

A lot of the traffic they charge for on the display/content network is still awfully iffy. I get spikes of traffic from blogspot blogs that didn't exist the day before all the time. They won't exist a week later. How likely is it that a new blog with a single uninteresting post suddenly has tons of traffic interested in clicking my ads? Not very.

<comment><USER5> The worse point for junk clicks is mobile display - particularly in app. Id never advise RON campaigns here without super tight monitoring. I've never been sure if it's more fraud or 'well placed ads'. I'm guessing the latter as kids apps seem to be the highest offender for mobile display.

@dangrossman I build white lists rather than a black lists for companies where I handle their marketing for display on mobile. Not sure if your offering something like this in Improvely but I imagine it would be of value to a bunch of clients. Advertising networks will hate you!

<comment><USER11> >. I'm guessing the latter as kids apps seem to be the highest offender for mobile display.

My son clicks ads and whines about it nonstop when I let him play iPad in his games.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I work for an AdTech company. One of our selling points is that we track much time users actively spent on our ads (= ad is in viewport + tab is active + user has moved the mouse or scrolled in the past 20 seconds). If we consistently see a source of traffic spending < 30 secs, then we manually start digging into the logs.

If you're a brand/marketer, I recommend two easy things to increase your ROI: (1) Make sure you are not being charged for GoogleBot traffic. Seriously, for frequently updating sites, self-advertising GoogleBot can account for up to 10% of all impressions. Ad Networks can easily filter that traffic out. (2) If you're paying per impression, work with partners that charge on viewable CPM.

<comment><USER13> Are there seriously ad companies that aren't filtering out common bots by UA in 2015? That seems unlikely but would be very disturbing if true.

Second, I think simple tests like "time spent on ads" as a trigger is an extremely simplisitc, inefficient and likely inaccurate way of determining "potentially not human." The systems here are very complex, designed to mimic randomness within humanesque constraints.

<comment><USER12> Yes, sadly there are. It's not necessarily out of malice, a lot of folks just don't grasp how big spider traffic is. Even Google Analytics doesn't filter out crawlers by default, that setting is buried somewhere in the admin panel.

You're right, "time spent on ad unit" is simplistic but it's not inefficient. It shouldn't be the only thing in your arsenal but it's a good _signal_.

I reckon you are also overestimating the amount of sophistication that goes into these systems. The ones that are out for purchase in a black market become well-understood within a few weeks and are easy to fingerprint. Since the network is paying on net-30 days, there is some time to retroactively run some analysis and filter out provably non-human traffic.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> This article is a mess. The author states, "An entire industry—billions of dollars and thousands of jobs—is at stake," then goes into a completely different rant, "why is nobody talking about this?"

Over half the images are incomprehensible or offer no insight.

>[https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Clickpat...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Clickpath_Analysis.png)

Including an unintelligible graph without an explanation to why it's necessary is bizarre. Even more so writing headers like "Responses to the scandal" and dropping in a stock photo of a gavel. It's like a pull quote, but even lazier.

There is some value in this article,

>Hoffman, the retired ad agency CEO who I quoted at the beginning, puts it better than I can:

>[http://adcontrarian.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-75-billion- ad...](http://adcontrarian.blogspot.co.il/2013/06/the-75-billion-ad- swindle.html)

Even the author suggests to read this one instead.

</comment><comment><USER6> All I can say is, every now and then I used to request a few grand from a popular network that I won't name but you probably know which one it is... about click fraud, inconsistencies (which I was not making up at all). Every single time,. no questions asked, I was given the full amount requested...

Now I'm not saying that means anything... but it always felt a bit odd like... yes yes we know how bad it is, take your money and shut up and keep buying those ads

</comment><comment><USER15> Has anyone ever attempted to correlate the claimed activity with actual human behavior? You'd essentially survey a sample of people's online habits, extrapolate to the larger population, and compare that with a similar sampling/extrapolation of reported clicks and impressions. My guess is that the fraud rate would actually be closer to 90%. But as others have pointed out, the market eventually catches up and discounts the watered-down traffic.

</comment><comment><USER16> Hello, everyone!

I'm the author -- and I'm completely amazed. Thanks to whoever submitted this, and thanks to all the upvoters! I'll be going through the comments and responding when necessary. Feel free to AMA!

Oh, there seem to be a lot of interesting stories here from people who worked for ad companies and related firms. Feel free to post your comments on the original Moz article -- I'm sure the community there would love to hear about it.

</comment><comment><USER17> The smarter players measure and target accordingly. The rise of RTB and 3rd party companies or your own JS solutions let you cherry pick what you want, or you simply bid much lower (if at all) on traffic you consider not valuable.

This is mostly a problem for unsophisticated players and exaggerated hype originating from players that support tracking view ability, etc.

<comment><USER18> >This is mostly a problem for unsophisticated players

Aren't most customers of online ads unsophisticated users? The solution could of cause be to let a professional online ad company run your buying, but then you still don't know what they're doing with your money.

I believe that most of the people are running their online ad buys as if they where bus stops ads. That might be wrong to, but that's where the business needs to start.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just a stylistic note, I found the word _alleged_ to be a bit overused in the first part. A source of a quote in the article is given as: _an interview given by "Jack Marshall, an alleged reformed fake web traffic buyer"_. How about an interview by Jack Marshall, who says he is a reformed fake web traffic buyer...

<comment><USER16> Hello! I'm the author. I just needed to use "alleged" a lot because I was citing second-hand -- though credible -- information and did not do any independent research. I could not verify anything myself, so I needed to make sure that the point was clear.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Moz is not a disinterested party. They sell services to promote marketing that doesn't involve paid media.

I am in the paid media business, and I am not disinterested either as such. I feel strongly that advertising is the lesser of evils of the alternative is marketing messages buried deep in content and social spam.

<comment><USER16> Hello, I'm the author of the Moz piece and just wanted to respond. (No, I do not work for them -- I'm just a contributor.)

1\. They do not sell marketing services. They sell marketing software.

2\. I pitched my article to them, and they were very skeptical about the topic at first. Obviously, the issue can come across as very conspiratorial and sensational. But once I showed them all of my credible sources and citations and explained everything in-depth, they decided to publish the piece.

3\. Again, I cannot speak for Moz, but my sense is that they will publish anything that they perceive to be very helpful and interesting for their audience -- digital marketers. They more that they do so, the more that their brand will grow among their audience and the more that people will visit the website to read the good articles.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I don't know anything about advertising but sometimes I watch TV late at night and I see ads for various local and national companies and I always wondered how they ever could verify that they actually are getting the air time during the time periods and channels that they are paying for, it seems like the type of thing that could easily be either intentionally or unintentionally messed up. It seems like it could be something that could be automated, a system that would listen and or watch all the channels and log the adds for the companies that subscribe to the service to insure that the broadcasters are giving the time they say they are. There is probably already something like that out there, does anyone know if there is such a thing?

<comment><USER22> This definitely exists under the name "media monitoring." For example [http://www.mediamonitors.com/](http://www.mediamonitors.com/) but there are a bunch of different providers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> In my experience, buyers are usually not sophisticated enough to have this discussion. Often, syndicate salespeople don't understand the issue either. Nobody else in the value chain is incentivised to educate them about the issue, so it doesn't happen.

I founded, ran and sold a digital advertising company in the video space. We sold through various means including networks, direct sales and quasi-direct sales where we would engage a local syndicate to sell on our behalf. These were usually major digital publishers that used to be print publishers.

These people are moving a _lot_ of the volume in this industry. They're battling widespread redundancies and falling budgets. They are not attracting the cream of the crop and are in an unfamiliar industry (tech).

<comment><USER6> I'm not even in the marketing business but I tend to have a lot of fun with the people calling up trying to sell adwords packages... I know I have won if in the end they say "ok, actually that's more of a question for the tech guys in the back room...." when I ask them incredibly basic questions about their methods.

Guess it's so easy to sell to clueless business owners that taking 10 minutes to learn about the crap they are peddling isn't even worth it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I'm sure fraud & waste exists in all mediums of advertising

$7 billion over meany years, while it seems like a lot, is still just a small amount of the total advertising online market

The figure may still be exaggerated and more research is needed. It could include things that are mistankingly called 'fraud' but instead if a misunderstanding of terminology

In a free market, online advertising fraud would depress prices as advertisers pay less due to worse results. If advertisers were getting 100% human traffic, rates would go up, making the ads more expensive.

So in the long-run it balances out. But on an individual level it sucks getting scammed.

</comment><comment><USER7> In the mid 00's I was working for a cashback/incentive site. Basically we would give monetary incentive to members of our site to complete whatever each specific ad was measuring. It could be signing up for a newsletter, or registering an account at some site. Poker websites would pay well for new users.

The whole scheme was of dubious value for the advertisers, obviously. The ad networks were happy to have us, though.

</comment><comment><USER25> They should use that new "I am not a robot" captcha technique to automagically guess that the viewer is a human

<comment><USER26> They unfortunately have little incentive to do so, since they profit from fraudulent clicks.

<comment><USER9> The long-term incentives for ad companies like Google are aligned with the advertisers. They only profit from fraudulent clicks in the short term. Every fraudulent click they charge an advertiser for increases the likelihood that advertiser's campaign has a negative ROI and they stop advertising. The lost future revenue is a much larger number than the revenue from today's clicks.

<comment><USER26> Since you built Improvely, I'm curious, what motivation is there for click fraud? Who benefits from fraudulent clicks?

By that, I mean, who's paying for bots to generate this activity, and what do they gain by it?

edited :)

<comment><USER9> The motivation is a monthly paycheck from an ad network without having to build a real audience for your website. If you can generate fake views and clicks at a lower cost than the network pays you, and convince the network the bot-generated activity is genuine, you're printing money.

<comment><USER26> Edited, sorry for misnaming, and thanks for the insight.

Doesn't this model only work if you are driving traffic/clicks to _your_ site? What is the benefit for bots that are hitting other people's sites?

<comment><USER9> > What is the benefit for bots that are hitting other people's sites?

That's the "convince the network the bot-generated activity is genuine" part. A site where all the "people" clicking ads are never seen on other sites stands out like a sore thumb. Having a bunch of background benign-looking activity lets you hide other kinds of fraud, too: [http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains- competitor...](http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/07/service-drains-competitors- online-ad-budget/)

<comment><USER26> Gotcha. Bummer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Who is buying ten-cents-per-impression ads? $0.10 CPM sure, but $0.10 CPI?

</comment><comment><USER28> This isn't news IMO.

</comment><comment> anti-shill this puppy is gonna come crashing down...just like real estate bubble a few years ago....what will be the effect? Less online content, I guess.

<comment><USER29> That is the fear, certainly. But I don't think so. I am thinking that advertising will become more aligned with the content, and ad-publisher relationships will become more organic. Now, I'll also readily admit that I think cooperatives are the future of business, so I can see where people wouldn't agree with my crystal ball vision of the future of advertising.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> this is a huge market correction just waiting to happen. I'm glad, it should take these annoying banner ads out once and for all.

<comment><USER19> If you see banner ads (without clicking) you have the same experience as everyone else who actually sees them.

Maybe the reason you notice them and they bother you, is because the _amount_ of your attention that that experience has to take up has to be so great that your peers' attention is worth the payment even when that attention is divided by 10 (if we assume 90% click fraud.)

In other words, given no other change except eliminating payments to non- person audience members, you might find the Internet is suddenly filled with advertisement that violently takes only 1/10th as much of your attention as currently, since the money is being spent on you and your peers only; and not on you, your peers, and then botnets and other dilution.

Put yet another way: the leakier the transaction between you (real user) and advertiser, the worse the experience you have so as to make up for it.

Let's put some numbers on it!

Let's say _everyone_ is happy to buy a banana online and the profit is 20 cents. Then if click fraud is 0% and the cost of an ad is 1 cent, a 7% click- through is fine: it costs 14 cents to get a customer, leaving 6 cents profit. Any more than 7% click-through is pure profit.

But raise the click fraud to 90% and suddenly 7% won't do it: the real ad cost is now 10 cents, and instead of 7% click through you now need 70% clickthrough.

So the ad will be much, much louder.

<comment><USER31> > So the ad will be much, much louder.

And you figure that'll make the ad-haters click it more?

Also, that 10cent ad is much more ripe for the picking than the 1cent one. All of a sudden you're attracting click-fraud attention from far more sophisticated attackers. And driving more "normal people" to ask a techie to hide these annoying dancing bananas (and all others ads at the same time.)

I don't really think you've thought this through to the endgame.

<comment><USER19> I don't know. Consider television advertisements. A 90% fraud rate (false, fraudulent, invented impressions) versus a 0% fraud rate baked into impression numbers reported to advertisers surely would affect how much sales movement they have to show, doesn't it? I mean sure, as the other comment pointed out cpc prices must in some sense rationally reflect the fraud amount.

But nobody is perfect, no market is perfectly rational and efficient, and at the end of the day the quality of advertisement that next to no real person sees must be different from one where every impression paid for gets seen by a real person... (including you and me.)

It would be a strange world otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Good. Every dollar that buys an ad shown to a robot is not buying an ad shown to a human.

<comment><USER33> I am extremely against advertising, but even though this is money being spent towards something that offends and antagonizes me, I still think that fraud in the industry should be called out and fixed.</comment></comment>


Norway, where no salaries are secret - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-40669239 <comment><USER5> Why keep this stuff secret? Because _none_ of it is fair and we all know it. None of it can be. "We needed person X in January and couldn't wait until march so we promised them more money to come accross." So you should piss off everyone else by rubbing it in their face that X was pretty lucky on timing? Or give everyone a raise the company can't afford? Or force person Y to have a horrible conversation with their spouse who cares more about money than Y does because they now know X gets more? Or have Z's pyschotic parent hassling them because they want a cut of money they didn't know was there until publication. You can imagine hundreds of other situation like this that are horrible consequences that you 100% know will happen to someone.

Privacy is quite unfashionable nowadays. The fashionable idea that nobody else should get it because it doesn't suit you is pretty ugly. It used to be quite an admirable thing to be wealthy and have nobody know you were.

<comment><USER6> It's down to what you think salaries are for. If market value is supposed to equate to social value and ensure a fair distribution of the output of society, then you need open prices or the market won't work properly.

I need to know what you are paid so I can balance what I am paid against what I think you are worth.

Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - <USER3> employers - who then divide and conquer.

Which is why they play upon the doubt and insecurity in people's minds that they are actually worth what they have negotiated.

It's the basis of why unionisation works and why it ensured that workers got their fair share of productivity increases. Right up to the point when unionisation was defeated and 'individualists' got to play their game. Since then the productivity gains have gone to the top of town.

Extreme individualism is always defeated by those who know how to share and work as a team.

<comment><USER7> > Closed salaries only benefit the other side of the negotiating table - <USER3> > employers - who then divide and conquer.

Closed salaries might also benefit some employees. I think most people will agree that across any job title, or team, there are people who're favored in some way - better at their job, fun to be around, great motivators or mediators, whatever it is. It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone.

<comment><USER8> _It might be possible for these people to get better pay for themselves because the company doesn 't have to give a commensurate increase to everyone._

So long as the reason _why_ someone is paid more is also public then it's fine. People could use that as motivation to improve - seeing someone else rewarded for something is a _brilliant_ driving force to do it yourself as well.

<comment><USER9> _So long as the reason why someone is paid more is also public then it 's fine._

You're assuming perfectly rational behavior, which is... not human.

I'm not arguing against open salaries (I am in such condition), but assuming rational actors is not realistic.

In particular, an example justification along the lines of "X takes more because is a better programmer than you are" is very dangerous, not only in the obvious way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Back when the lists were completely open and could be searched on multiple different media sites without logging in, I would sometimes look up people out of curiosity.

Since it was put behind a government 2-factor login page I've honestly never bothered.

I think it's pretty cool that this information is open, but I'm not sure if it has any significant impact. I'm sure it's a nice tool for investigative journalism, but what else?

<comment><USER11> I think its fine that it was moved behind a secure login and rate limited - because there's _other_ information that's useful for identity theft and/or stalking (date of birth and municipality - along with a history of re- locations - not at address level, but specific enough that it poses a great de-anonymizing vector for a (working) population of ~3(?) millon. A simple name+city lookup would normally be enough to look up date-of-birth).

But now they've added a "shame"-filter of alerting who you look up -- which makes some sense, but IMNHO removes the democratizing effect a bit. Before, you could look up the salary of the person(s) interviewing you for a job, along with salaries for various people in the company (assuming a public listing of employees, which is normal). You can still do that of course, but I'm afraid too many will be "offended" by this way of using information that's public _by law_ to reduce the information asymmetry. The flip side is that a potential employer can also see what you've earned the past few years.

I don't think most people used it like this though - it's useful for checking what public figures earn/pay in taxes - and it's useful to do a rough sanity check to see if work place agreements on compensation are followed (there's no minimum wage in Norway, but unions are still strong) - and also to do a rough check for gender imbalance in salaries at a given workplace.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Am I the only one who thinks it's my own business how much I earn as long as I don't do anything illegal? What's next, a database with all guys dick size?

<comment><USER13> You've earned all that money, it's nothing to be ashamed of so I don't really see how that's making you more uncomfortable than everyone being able to look up your expensive sports car at the DMV.

However, if you're running for office, I would be very interested in knowing how you made all that money (even if none of it was made illegally) since you'll be regulating businesses and what not.

<comment><USER14> > it's nothing to be ashamed

What? Am I reading this on HN? The place where people like talking how privacy matter all day and how annoying the fallacy of "if you have nothing to hide you shouldn't worry about the government/corporations spying on you" is? I'm puzzled.

<comment><USER15> What makes you think salary is a matter of privacy? In a lot of countries, many government jobs come with publicly disclosed salaries. Why do you think a job in a private sector should maintain secrecy for salaries?

Privacy applies to private data. Whether salary should be considered private data is the point of argument here. Nobody is arguing about doing away with privacy altogether. So what is your point?

<comment><USER16> _many government jobs come with publicly disclosed salaries._

Knowing what public servants and politicians earn passes the most basic of public interest tests. What _I_ earn, however, doesn't.

<comment><USER15> Fair point. I chose a poor example there. A better example would be: Engineering jobs (not the IT or software kind but licensed engineering jobs) in many European and Asian companies have publicly disclosed salaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think in Germany a large part why Salaries are secret is because most people don't want to think about it. [https://www.quora.com/Why-is-everything-so- cheap-in-Germany](https://www.quora.com/Why-is-everything-so-cheap-in-Germany)

<comment><USER18> I cannot find anything supporting your argument under that link. Maybe add some quotes?

Also Norwegians probably do not have to look up their colleagues salaries, if they do not want to.

I would definitely like to know at least the general distribution.

<comment><USER19> Many unions in Norway in the private sector (if not most) generate statistics based on information from their members regarding salary, education, experience and so on, so for me as a developer/sysop there really is no need to check what my colleagues are paid. I work at a place where everyone has a different background, so I don't expect the same pay for everyone. But I expect that I'm paid similar to others with the same responsibility, tasks, background, etc within the industry and geographical area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is one of the things I want to see in the rest of Europe too. Still hope that we'll see a EU wide tax and commerce union leading into a unified system that includes the best from every EU member.

Also liking the sentiment that people want to have some kind of confirmation that everyone pays a similar level of taxes :-)

<comment><USER21> Would it not be more likely that we Scandinavians would have to use the mainstream system? I'm not Norwegian, but my nation Sweden does this similarly.

If we accept giving our internal revenue services to the EU, I very much doubt that we will be able to keep this sort of thing, such as the principle of things being public (sv: offentlighetsprincipen).

For reasons like this (giving up what is unique about our culture for the mainstream continental one) I can't help but be sceptic of further involvement with European political unity, and am anticipating that Brits of 10 years from now will be satisfied with their decision to leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Of course salaries shouldn't be secret - everything like this should be in the open and you should be able to talk directly to your boss about contributions to the company that you have made over and above those who are earning more than you. This also helps when in most societies women are paid substantially and illegally less than men for the same job.

This prudish idea of not wanting to talk about money is not a good enough one to stop people from being able to value themselves against their peers. After an initial period of concern everyone would eventually stop worrying about this system as disparities were corrected and fairer wages were introduced.

Is there a reason not to have open salary information?

<comment><USER23> Sorry, don't agree. It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself. Unless you actually want everyone in a society to make close to the same amount of money (which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away), which I don't think is great, I'd much rather not have anything be public.

In fact, I would never want to live in a country like that.

The people that want to figure out how much others are making can figure it out. From a negotiating position, you're much better off not having your salary be public, than the other way around.

Also, you want to have some inequality in western society (not crazy amounts -- basic needs of everyone should be met), because it motivates people to achieve things. If there's no reasonable reward waiting for you at the end, why even bother?

Norway has high income taxes, high capital gains taxes, wealth taxes, crazy taxes on (luxury) cars, high VAT, high taxes on alcohol, etc. Where's the reward? The warm fuzzy feeling you get from working hard? Hell, where's the fun? I don't see how one could ever be an entrepreneur there. Even if you win, you eventually lose (wealth tax), unless you move away.

<comment><USER24> >> It is bad for negotiation and getting a favourable outcome for yourself

Sooo, your main argument against this is not some privacy concern, but only the perception that it would somehow help your salary negotiation. When relying on a lack of data/information, the only one that gets increased leverage is your employer, not you and your smart argument of "you just don't need to tell the others, boss <wink>".

>> which is how they roll in Norway, and if you dare make more, they'll basically just tax it away

Norway's tax rate is on par with other Nordic countries: high but nothing exceptional, and you get plenty of benefits (basically you get what you paid for). It's not stopping anybody from trying to make it. As a matter of fact they have one of the highest rate of millionaires per inhabitant (close to 200k for 5M).

<comment><USER25> You can share salary data with your peers if you wish to do so and you think its in your best interest. Norway is largely a socialist society and they accept being heavily taxed and publicly sharing salary data. Taxes are on par with Denmark, Sweeden and maybe Finland. English/US culture is different and more capitalist. It encourages individuals to do better for themselves, it encourages competition, just like in nature.

They have the highest millionaire rate per inhabitant mainly because it doesn't have many inhabitants and it's an oil rich country.

<comment><USER26> Norway a socialist society.

Sometimes I feel that every place with even minimal welfare is bound to be defined a socialist country, eventually. By that logic, Trump could be a fascist, Renzi is a commie, and so on.

<comment><USER23> I think basic welfare and good free healthcare are basic human rights. But tax-wise, Norway is about as bad as it gets. And I am obviously aware those services need to be paid for, but a lot of it has to do with policy as well.

It's probably a decent tradeoff for the average Norwegian, but not for anyone who wishes to (eventually) live off of investment and/or (semi) passive income.

A lot of these taxes don't serve any purpose (and generate very little revenue) and merely exist to stop or limit certain behaviors. Why are luxury cars taxed a lot? They don't want people to drive a Porsche or an Aston Martin, because some people would feel bad they can't afford those cars. Why is alcohol taxed excessively? They don't want people to drink (too much). Why is there a wealth tax? They don't want people to focus on getting rich. Etc

One simple example is a wealth tax: hard to verify whether people are reporting their true net worth, hard to enforce (takes a lot of manpower to check everything), and it brings in very little. In France, the wealth tax barely covers the cost of enforcing it. That's a policy decision, i.e. we want wealthy people to pay X% of extra tax. But it's not a sane decision.

<comment><USER27> As a Norwegian that aspires to eventually live off investments and passive income, you do have some salient points. We could probably have a significantly cheaper public sector; hiring for the public sector during the last decade has been ridiculous. Counter-cyclical spending during times of economic crisis should _not_ be performed by hiring people for permanent positions with some of the strongest labor protections in the world; you'll never get rid of the expense when the cycle turns back.

And don't get me started on the wealth tax; it's a good and probably necessary idea in the long-term, but here it's both (1) too high; at 1% p.a. it's in effect an extra 25% capital gains tax on top of the 29% which is taxed directly, and (2) assets that "everyone" own (real estate) are only taxed at 25% of their market value. And debt is deducted at its full value! Buy a million dollar home borrowing $250k, and you pay no wealth tax at all! So you are allowed to be a real estate millionaire (and receive tax-free income on rent from your primary residence), but not a stock fund millionaire.

To everyone's big surprise, real estate has appreciated much faster than other assets (20% in Oslo last year), mostly evening out the post-tax advantage over other assets.

The tax on investment income was recently reduced by three percentage points to make the system more similar to other parts of the EEC, but a multiplicative factor was introduced when calculating the "taxable value" for stocks and funds, in effect _increasing_ the tax by two percentage points. I never quite understood this move.

I am proud of our universal healthcare system and our welfare system -- in effect it's a means-tested basic income system; no one starves or freezes -- but some tax policies feel really oppressive if you are trying to do something ambitious.

<comment><USER23> Very nice example, and you can clearly see how market distorting the wealth tax is. In a post below you wrote it triggers from $175k, but the value of a property is only counted at 25%.

Purchasing property is essentially a tax avoidance mechanism to avoid the wealth tax on cash, and in turn leads to a massive property bubble (probably because the wealth tax cap is relatively low, and it hits a lot of people / families).

Even if you don't really want to invest in property, it makes sense to do so, because otherwise you'd just be paying wealth tax. Add to that that you can probably lever it up easily (e.g. buy something with 20% down) and.. you get a recipe for disaster at some point.

<comment><USER27> Yup, this sums it up nicely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> >> "When you pay that much you have to know that everyone else is doing it, and you have to know that the money goes to something reasonable," he says.

That's an interesting justification. It's like the Norwegian government wants people to focus on making sure their neighbors are getting just as hosed as they are instead of asking why they have to pay a 40% income tax.

Also, how does making everyone's salary public prove to taxpayers that their money is going to something reasonable? That doesn't follow at all.

<comment><USER29> Does Norway also have a VAT? The top marginal rate on wages in California is 51.9% according to taxfoundation.org [1]

[1] [https://taxfoundation.org/high-income-taxpayers-could- face-t...](https://taxfoundation.org/high-income-taxpayers-could-face-top- marginal-tax-rate-over-50-percent-tax-season/)

<comment><USER30> Yes, generally 25%, 15% for food stuff and 10% for cultural stuff.

Income is taxed with 25% up to 164K NOK (about 20K USD), maximum income tax is 39,25% for everyone earning more than about 950K NOK (about 119K USD). But there's lots of deductions, so it's not too bad.

<comment><USER31> Do employers pay taxes on their labor as well?

<comment><USER30> Yes, between 0 and 14% depeding on sector and where in the country you are. This tax is going into the national insurance system called "folketrygden" which is what finance most of the welfare state (the parts that pays out money directly at at least).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> We have it in Sweden, too. I think you pay 50 kr (6 dollars) to look up somebody's declared income - anonymously. There's a website for this: www.kollainkomst.se (check incomes)

<comment><USER33> If someone makes a request for your personal income and tax information in Sweden, you'll always get a letter with the name of who requested your information and a copy of the information that was supplied to them.

<comment><USER34> Presumably that is the raison d'etre for third-party companies offering anonymous lookups (of what is essentially freely available information) for a fee - whoever gets looked up receives notification that Leeches-R-Us, Inc. looked up their details.

<comment><USER35> It says that the notice is only sent if the details were looked up by a private person.

> Hotet resulterade i att branschen ingick ett avtal om att alltid skicka en > kreditupplysningskopia om förfrågan beställts av en privatperson.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> We have the same thing in Finland. Only you can't access the info easily online, you have to go to the tax office and use their terminal. But there you can stalk your neighbors and friends anonymously.

Although newspapers publish lists of all people earning 150k/year and make a big thing about the income of celebrities.

What I haven't understood is if tax records are public why aren't social security payments etc. also public? So you could see who possibly "games" the system in benefits?

I mean if the point of public tax data is to be "open" (=have everybody snitching for the government).

<comment><USER13> Because there might be social stigma around your medical condition, the fact that you've ever been homeless, that you don't have custody over your children and aren't receiving benefits or any number of things.

You earn your pay check, receiving one means that you're valued. Maybe not as valued as someone else, but valued none the less. Benefits are received because you need them, sometimes because you've been through hardships.

I have no problem with finding people who game the system, but I don't think the public are the ones who should do that job.

<comment><USER37> There could easily be stigma about people who earn a lot of money too though, particularly if they're not in a visible traditional job.

<comment><USER38> Well, that stigma sure sounds made up, where the other one is actually a real thing.

<comment><USER37> You've never heard "I wonder where she gets her money"-type rumours?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> m-i-l Not sure about publishing income and assets, but publishing everyone's tax bills could help stigmatise aggressive tax avoidance.

<comment><USER39> Or incentivize. A website and forum would swiftly spring up publishing the best-optimizing taxpayers/tax-avoiders, perhaps ranking by (normal tax rate for the taxpayers' income) / (actual tax rate). People would compete to get the top spot on the ranking, and 11.5 months of the year the forum would be striving to find clever hacks to optimize.

<comment><USER40> Well if we assume users are malicious that sounds ripe for a waterhole attack, so please, go ahead! On the other hand if it becomes a standard place for tax- related information to the general public it could be a good thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> This definitely blocks divide and conquer from working for employers.

</comment><comment><USER42> A system like this encourages others to compare salaries and make judgements about oneself related to how well one is doing compared to someone else. This creates unhappyness because some feel they work harder and shouldn't be paid a quarter less. The person getting the extra amount feels they are more successful than there peers. All this does is distract you from the fact that both of you are making only a few dollars above minimum wage. If you only look at total pay in relation to your needs you will accept and be proud of your wage.

I have seen people who love there job find out someone they feel does not measure up to them make more money. This causes them to start hating the role they once loved and in some cases they left for the same salary elsewhere.

<comment><USER43> Which hurts the original company such that they start making better salary decisions. Transparency seems like a good thing here but it does create chaos during periods of correction.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> The result of this and other policies in Scandinavia is that everyone makes just about the same amount of money in a given line of work. Raises are based almost exclusively on age and seniority, not on performance. What a depressing and demotivating system.

</comment><comment><USER45> Transparency is enormous factor in the quality of life of all of us, and I think real transparency is not about public information, but public knowledge.

</comment><comment><USER46> Another problem with this is that it stigmatises (and in the long term will prevent) those with no wealth and a high income. I think it's madness but a more fair trade would at least be to also publish everyone's existing wealth. I make an ok income for the minute but am not going to inherit millions in property like most people I know.

Wealth is a much bigger problem than income for society.

</comment><comment><USER47> My company, GrantTree, has completely transparent salaries since day 1, almost 7 years ago. We are about 35 people now. #ama

<comment><USER48> Have people left because of this? Was it a loss or a gain for the companies culture if these people left?

<comment><USER47> One person left because he wanted to be paid significantly more than his work was worth at the time (according to me, my cofounder, and the 5 people we put in charge of a "pay team" to resolve this). He left, and it was better for him - he took a year off, decided actually the problem was he wanted to be doing charitable work and the money was a way to make up for that gap. He's now working at a charity.

I see it as a loss, but I'm not sure it was an avoidable loss.

Nobody else left because of pay transparency. Before we got our feedback in order, some people left because of feedback about their work, which only came after a round of pay changes, which made it clear to them that they were not doing work that was valued by the company. In those cases it would have been much better for everyone if we had delivered that feedback much more quickly! We're better at this now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> This doesn't change much, I guess.

I mean, if you see marked rate for a JavaScript dev is too low, just don't sell yourself as one. Be a "mobile app dev" or a "solution engineer" etc. pp.

In the end you do the same work and get paid more, because people stop judging you by skill A bit skill B.

</comment><comment><USER50> Not so much salaries, as declared gross incomes and wealth.

Salaries are dealt with via bi-yearly negotiations between unions and business representatives.

Note btw that there is no minimum wage legislation in Norway. Instead the agreement formed during negotiations apply not just to union members but to the business sector as a whole.

<comment><USER30> It's not true that tariffs apply to everyone. The only law that apply to everyone is is Arbeidsmiljøloven. Some tariffs are generalised and is a de- facto minimum wage in that sector.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> There seem to be a lot of commenters in favour of open salaries here - <USER4> does this work for self-employed people? If I've been freelancing and working my tail off do you also believe I ought to be publicly disclosing that, or is it limited to employees of companies?

<comment><USER52> If you're self-employed, you still have a tax return. If you make a company to hold things in, it has a tax return.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Possible due to social mobility [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.pn...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:The_Great_Gatsby_Curve.png)

</comment><comment><USER54> This is _amazing_ for small advertisers. Anyone's salary can be found online, for free, and it's easy to target high earners with ads or even direct sales teams.

It's not so great for the high earners, though...

</comment><comment><USER55> I think janteloven also plays a part here, although I am not sure which part....

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

</comment><comment><USER56> A question for all the people who use the word "fair":

Do you mean fair as paid

\- by productivity,

\- by necessity,

\- paid equally, or

\- something else?

</comment><comment><USER57> Ah Norway, home of the Teslas. I remember the tax lists were always public in Norway, however before the Internet became commonplace actual physical effort was required - you had to go to the city council to look through the books.

The change to publish the lists online was creepy. I'm glad I left before my own numbers were made public (IIRC).

In Australia the difference between the rich and the poor feels a lot less pronounced. It helps not to actually know your mates might earn 3x what you do.

This is just this Norwegian expat's personal experience; YMMV.

(Edit: I see from other comments here that the information has been ID-locked. That's a good thing, if but a bit late - after at least a decade fully open).

<comment><USER58> Slightly off the main topic:

 _In Australia the difference between the rich and the poor feels a lot less pronounced. It helps not to actually know your mates might earn 3x what you do._

Oddly, this is basically what I think of Norway after moving from the US.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Well, I assume this only considers base salary. But for some occupations commissions, bonuses, etc. can be a significant part of their paycheck.

<comment><USER60> No, it is not your salary per say, but your taxable income that is available for everyone to see. All income, including base salary, bonuses, and perks are taxed the same and included in this number.

<comment><USER61> Just a tiny nitpick. It's per se, latin for "by itself", not per say. Just like should have is not should of.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Funny how some people stopped searching once you could no longer do it anonymously.

</comment><comment><USER63> So, where is the graph of distribution of incomes?

<comment><USER64> The taxation-lookup site doesn't offer any aggregated data, however you can find some statistics at the national statistics bureau's website: [https://ssb.no/en/inntekt-og-forbruk](https://ssb.no/en/inntekt-og-forbruk) (link to page in English)

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Wow, surprised I'd never heard of this.

</comment><comment><USER66> Does anyone have a link to the search tool?

<comment><USER67> This is the current search tool, but it requires a Norwegian national ID (SSN) to log in: [http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/Tax- settlement/Search-i...](http://www.skatteetaten.no/en/person/Tax- settlement/Search-in-the-tax-lists/)

If you google "skattelister" (tax lists) you will find various other tools:

\- This one is based on the 2008 taxes and is therefore completely searchable on name and gives you income/assets/taxes + municipality/age: [http://www.biip.no/default.aspx?section=skatt](http://www.biip.no/default.aspx?section=skatt)

\- This one is based on the latest 2015 taxes: [https://www.dn.no/skattelister/](https://www.dn.no/skattelister/). This means that they've used the official tool to search for specific celebrities and published it (together with some general distributions/stats).

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_Jante)

...specifically, 'the penal code of Jante...'</comment>


What You Lose When You Gain a Spouse - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/family/archive/2019/07/case-against-marriage/591973/ <comment><USER2> Apart from the article, Pew research center data is full of made up numbers [1]. I remember one particular research on sharia law [2] where it mentioned that 82% people in Bangladesh support making sharia the official law, yet, the fact is, no Islamist parties came close to power in the ~50 years history of the country.

Once again, Pew research is just full of hokum.

[1] [https://www.econlib.org/facts-opinions-and-the-pew- research-...](https://www.econlib.org/facts-opinions-and-the-pew-research- centers-pseudoscience/) [2] [https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds- muslims-relig...](https://www.pewforum.org/2013/04/30/the-worlds-muslims- religion-politics-society-beliefs-about-sharia/)

<comment><USER3> > 82% people in Bangladesh.

82% of Muslims, who are 90% of the population of Bangladesh, so it's 74% of people. Further, only 39% of those 74%, so now we're down to 29% of the population, believe sharia should apply to non-Muslims. I can imagine reasons why even those 29%, much less the other 71%, might not want to vote for an Islamist party. Lastly, I don't know the first thing about Bangladesh politics, but apparently the largest Islamist party was banned from national elections:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Jamaat-e- Islami](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bangladesh_Jamaat-e-Islami)

Your first link is a torturous opinion piece (oh irony) by a Cato Institute member[1]. I'll leave it at that.

1\. [https://www.cato.org/people/thomas- firey](https://www.cato.org/people/thomas-firey)</comment></comment>


Caroll Spinney has died - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/08/obituaries/caroll-spinney-dead.html <comment><USER2> When I worked at Mashable, I got to meet Mr. Spinney in 2013. I was direct off a redeye and came straight from JFK to the office so I could meet him (it was a closed set and we were doing a collab with Sesame Street/Oscar the Grouch and Grumpy Cat, I was one of like 4 employees they let observe and I'm forever grateful for that opportunity). I cried like a a baby meeting him and thanking him for all he did for children all over the world.

As a kid, Sesame Street was extremely important to me. I loved it as much as I've ever loved anything and Big Bird was just so wonderful. The first movie I ever saw in the theater was Follow That Bird in 1985, and even at 2 years old, that experience left an indelible mark that influenced the rest of my life.

I think I loved Sesame Street and the muppets so much because it was a TV show and characters that felt like they understood what it was like to be a child. It educated without pandering and it encouraged creativity and learning.

Spinney said in interviews that he thought his success with Big Bird was because he never forgot what it was like to be a child. That came through with the work.

And Oscar, though not a character I loved as much as Big Bird, was always a favorite. He was mean and he liked nasty things, but he was always kind to children and his pets. It was proof all types of people can exist and be friends, even when they don't have a lot in common.

The Museum of the Moving Image had a Jim Henson exhibit last year that was really fantastic - and seeing all the stuff from Sesame Street and beyond really made me grateful people like Henson and Spinney and Frank Oz and so many others existed.

<comment><USER3> Oscar was without a doubt one of the most influential characters of my childhood. I was completely obsessed with him, and to this day he holds a special place in my memories.

Now that I have my own kids it makes me incredibly emotional (in a good way) to see they have the same adoration for Sesame Street (and Play School) that I did. It's a powerful thing reliving your childhood through your own kids and having them love things you loved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I grew up in Rural Southeastern Ohio, where PBS was the only thing that came in clearly. I vividly remember watching Sesame Street, in black and white, every day -- along with Mr. Rodgers Neighborhood and Square One -- and that's what started my love of numbers and math.

Through PBS, Jim Henson and Fred Rodgers helped shape me to who I am now -- which is why I'm so apprehensive (and honestly, quite upset) when they talk about cutting the funding to PBS.

<comment><USER5> Southwestern Ohio here. Sesame Street depressed me as a kid. I made sure to keep it away from my children because of that.

Could never out my finger on it but thinking back to my short time watching that show makes me cringe.

The only shows I remember enjoying as a kid were Falcons Crest and Dukes of Hazard...and Three's Company. Perhaps I wasn't supervised properly.

<comment><USER6> What about Sesame Street depressed you? It's not generally regarded as a depressing show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Oscar and Big Bird are two of the most opposite characters I can imagine. When I was a kid (70's and 80's) I had no idea it was the same person.

I heard and old interview where he said he couldn't see out of big bird and had a little tv attached to his chest so he could see out. He could remove feathers too, but the bird didn't look so good. (its in the article too). This is where miniturization would be a huge help...

When Mr. Hooper died and they tell a confused Big Bird, he's not coming back is one of the saddest moments in TV.

<comment><USER8> Mr. Spinney narrated the audiobook of _Street Gang_ , a book about the creation of Sesame Street. While listening I realized that his "regular" voice sounds almost but not quite like Big Bird's. With Oscar though he disguises his voice very well.

<comment><USER9> Kinda like Seth MacFarlane on Family Guy: Brian is mostly his own voice if not entirely his voice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I was 5 when Mr Hooper died. I can still remember not being able to understand what it meant and Big Bird's irrational response just made me feel upset and confused. I think they knew exactly what they were doing.

<comment><USER11> Sesame Street was just beautiful at dealing with these complex subjects in a way that was both easy to digest for kids and nuanced. Portrayed all emotions, highlighted things that you, as a child, wouldn't learn from adults as those might be things they're ashamed of, scared of, etc.

I think Sesame Street is up there with Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood as one of the kindest and most influential shows on television, not in terms of influencing the medium and other shows but in terms of influencing viewers. Each of them brought up thousands of good people who went on to do more good. Caroll Spinney has, undoubtedly, played a huge part in that. RIP to a great man from a great show.

<comment><USER12> In case anyone else is curious: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlj4Tk83xQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gxlj4Tk83xQ)

Powerful stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> FYI, if like me, you didn't know who he was -

Caroll Spinney was an American puppeteer, cartoonist, author and speaker most famous for playing Big Bird and Oscar the Grouch on Sesame Street.

<comment><USER14> ... for 50 years

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm thankful for our increasingly rich culture of making documentaries of living treasures.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Big_Bird:_The_Caroll_Spin...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Am_Big_Bird:_The_Caroll_Spinney_Story)

<comment><USER16> Hear hear. That's a very good documentary, about a very interesting person and his times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Also [https://slate.com/culture/2019/12/caroll-spinney-big-bird- os...](https://slate.com/culture/2019/12/caroll-spinney-big-bird-oscar-grouch- sesame-street-dies-best-performances.html) and [https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment- arts-50705508](https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-50705508) (via [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738323](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21738323))

A thread from when he retired last year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18240502](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18240502)

</comment><comment><USER18> Carroll Spinney

Rest In Peace

I grew up watching SS, Mister Roger's and 3-2-1 Contact on analog OTA KQED ch. 9 on my grandparent's HeathKit TV. About 8 yo, I figured out the ultrasonic remote receiver would change channels by rattling house keys on a keychain.

PS: I'm curious if the Waze cookie monster voice is actually Mr. Spinney.

<comment><USER19> Funny, we discovered our TV's remote was ultrasonic when we could turn it off with a Slinky. "Rolling" the Slinky back and forth fast enough between two hands created a high metallic sound and we figured the remote must be emitting ultrasound for that to work--we just didn't think about how it worked before. I guess the off frequency was the lowest because we could never get it to do anything else, just turn off.

My honest Sesame Street story: before we had a TV (my parents didn't want one in the house) I was allowed to go to a neighbor's house on Saturday morning to watch with them. One time when I was about 5 years old, I showed up early (7am, 8am?) and just let myself in and turned on the TV before they got up. They would watch Sesame Street, but I never really liked the characters, I just didn't get why there were muppets and monsters living with people in a real city, it just seemed so made up (of course, now I see it as a race/not- race thing). Maybe it was too urban and didn't relate to my suburban upbringing. But I loved the pinball animation (except for the repeated counting and numbers): [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOaZbaPzdsk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VOaZbaPzdsk)

<comment><USER4> Little known (or, maybe widely known fact): The Pointer Sisters sung the Pinball Number song.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sad. I tried to find classic SS for free a few years ago and came up short. What's available today at a reasonable price? I don't understand why pbs is stingy with its shows like frontline on Netflix either.</comment>


How a Dyslexic CEO Runs a Successful SEO Company - <AUTHOR> http://www.ntctexas.com/credit-card-processing-blog/bid/69809/how-a-dyslexic-ceo-runs-a-successful-seo-company

<comment><USER2> Is there a correlation between success and learning disabilities?</comment>