Uber's dirty tricks quantified: Rival counts 5,560 canceled rides - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2014/08/11/technology/uber-fake-ride-requests-lyft/ <comment><USER2> This being a techie-oriented site I'm sure I'll find myself in the minority here, but here goes.

I think that Uber, as someone else noted, is a company run by assholes. Rideshare services like UberX and Lyft are going to get more-or-less shut down, and deservedly so. Remember that period in like 1999 before Napster got shut down? Yeah, that's rideshare right now. While many consumers cry "choice!" and "innovation!", the reality is that these services operate in a loophole which any objective observer will point out is complete bullshit. We have a system, which is probably unfair to begin with, but an existing and _functional_ system nonetheless that rideshares effectively hacked. One group plays by the rules and is taxed and regulated and fee'd, the other magically escapes it.

If you have a complaint it should be with cities that require medallions - they are the ones to blame for the current situation. Maybe we should get rid of medallions completely, I dunno. But be careful what you wish for.

<comment><USER3> It's rare that bad business regulations and/or government sponsored monopolies are just, ya know, fixed. Quite often, people need to be shown how bad things have gotten before anything changes.

It's even worse when the target of those regulations don't want things fixed either. Taxi companies pay crazy medallion fees, but expect exclusivity (perhaps rightly so) for that fee. Government doesn't want the fee income to go away, taxi companies enjoy their monopoly.

Sometimes it takes someone breaking the rules - and more importantly, with the general full support of the public - to really cause any change in the old, entrenched ways.

<comment><USER2> I agree, except the problem is that by-and-large, regulated taxi services work perfectly fine. How are they even close to dysfunctional currently? So people can't find a cab in mid-town at 5pm on a rainy day, I mean, come on. I'm pretty darn laissez faire when it comes to regulation, but honestly I think taxi service is done pretty well.

Here's what I know. If I paid (heavily) into a system of regulation that worked, only to have someone hack it and basically blow up my asset/income stream, you'd better believe I would push back _hard_. Aereo, anyone?

<comment><USER4> I actually do think cabs are broken. Without a rating system after they get a medallion they're golden for at least a year.

I get into cabs where: \- The driver can't speak English \- Doesn't know where they're going \- The cab smells \- Drives dangerously \- Is drunk (literally had an open bottle of wine under the handbrake) \- Doesn't turn up when I book it

The list goes on, the moment I started taking uber cabs all of this stopped, I review every cab I take after a trip and the moment they drop too far they're removed from the service.

Sure, maybe within the existing system I could write an email to the cab company (who will probably ignore me on account of trying to avoid a fine), the medallion issuer (who MIGHT fine the driver if this happens often). But the reality is that this is hard, and giving someone a rating between 1-5 stars at the end of the trip is easy.

<comment><USER5> > (literally had an open bottle of wine under the handbrake)

Get out of the cab. Pay or don't pay, it doesn't matter. Note the cab number and call the taxi company or whatever organization polices the drivers internally (in Chicago, I think 3-1-1 is sufficient). YOU saw the infraction, who else do you expect will fix it? Sometimes the taxi driver will not see anyone else from the company, only the other driver who shares the car.

<comment><USER6> Or 911, since this is also DUI in progress.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> There were 5,560 canceled rides, but the article suggests that a single Uber recruiter was responsible for almost 30% of those, and another was responsible for a further 10%. It would be interesting to see the data here in more detail: it may well be that 177 Uber recruiters have booked and cancelled rides, but that 160 of them have done so at a rate similar to average users, while 17 have been absurdly abusing the system. I'm actually a bit confused as to how single individuals were able to perpetuate such abuse without Lyft preventing it: after a single phone number has made a hundred cancellations on a bunch of accounts in the course of a few days, why weren't there automated processes in place to prevent those accounts from making another _1,400 of them_. For that matter, why was the person even able to sign up for 22 accounts with one phone number?

<comment><USER8> Or maybe Lyft knew about it, handled it, but let them do whatever they wanted so this article could be written?

<comment><USER9> Is that based on anything other than complete speculation?

<comment><USER8> Nope, except I refuse to believe Uber is 100% evil and Lyft is 100% good. Or that Lyft was stupid enough to let 1 person screw them so much with one phone number.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Here is what's going on:

[http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-Lyft-Sidecar- put-...](http://www.sfgate.com/bayarea/article/Uber-Lyft-Sidecar-put-driver- recruiting-in-high-5190676.php)

> "I was driving for Lyft in November when I picked up two attractive women," > said the driver, who declined to give his name because he fears > repercussions from the apps. "Like anybody, we started chatting, but they > were sort of awkward. I knew something was up when they didn't tell me > clearly where they wanted to go."

And this:

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/05/30/how-uber- an...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/05/30/how-uber-and-lyft-are- trying-to-kill-each-other/)

> Another part of the game is knowing the enemy. Uber employees and loyal Lyft > drivers regularly try to infiltrate opposing driver ranks for inside > information, and often call up a rival car for a ride so they can pitch the > driver on switching.

The cancellations are probably after they see that they got a driver they had already tried to pitch. A huge portion of them came from just a few recruiters... Seems like an easy fix if Uber wants to fix it, though they may not considering Lyft isn't exactly free from devious ploys:

> On Tuesday, the rivals descended upon the humble intersection, where Uber > usually hosts car inspections. Lyft started recruiting drivers by hosting > daily luncheons in the parking lot (with a free taco truck, pink mustaches > ziptied to the chain-link fences and two bouncers in black at the gate).

</comment><comment><USER11> Okay, Uber has to face the music on this one. But...

Why is there no rating system for passengers? How can a single phone number be tied to 21 accounts and cancel over 1500 rides without Lyft ignoring orders from that phone number? Why weren't the accounts deactivated long before this level of abuse? It doesn't seem like they're taking good care of their drivers' time or expenses.

<comment><USER12> Maybe this was the first time? At companies I've worked at, lots of limitations where only added after someone abused something...

<comment><USER13> The article in OP specifically states this is not the first time.

<comment><USER12> Where? I don't see that. Uber has been previously accused of similar behavior with Gett, but not on Lyft.

<comment><USER13> And? Same behavior from Uber, doesn't matter if it's Gett or Lyft targeted with their antics.

<comment><USER12> ah, I meant that lyft hadn't added limitations because lyft hadn't been abused this way before.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It feels plainly obvious that Uber is run by assholes, and that anyone who works there has a black mark on their resume forever.

But that's how it feels. Is Lyft just better at PR?

<comment><USER15> If Lyft are better at PR then Gett must be as well - because Uber did the exact same thing to them a few months ago, _allegedly_.

At a certain point you just have to apply Occam's Razor and realise that Uber is run by a collection of assholes.

<comment><USER16> Not allegedly - Uber owned up to it but refused to punish any of the staff involved, saying only that they were "overzealous".

[http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber- gett/](http://money.cnn.com/2014/01/24/technology/social/uber-gett/)

At this point Uber can't reasonably claim that these were rogue employees. It's pretty obvious to everyone that this is officially sanctioned.

[edit] Side note: this is not the first time a YC company has been caught engaging in _highly_ unethical business behavior (see: AirBnb marketing). What is YC, and other investors, doing to curb this kind of behavior? Or is this level of abuse tolerated because money?

[edit2] Bah, brain farted, Uber is indeed not a YC company.

<comment><USER17> YC has addressed instances of egregriously bad marketing, such as the InstallMonetizer incident: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5092711)

Although, many companies that use baity "growth hacking" strategies are indeed YC, but that's a seperate issue.

<comment><USER18> Oh yeah, they "addressed" that all right. pg argued it was OK that a company they'd supported and helped fund was paying software makers to bundle unwanted software into installers and tricking users into installing it by, amongst other techniques, disguising the prompt to install the crap as a EULA acceptance screen. (But hey, it's no big deal because the screen "has a decline as well as an accept button, and if the user declines, no software is installed" \- doesn't matter that the decline button's carefully designed to make users think it'll cancel whatever installation they were actually intending to do.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> In case anyone had forgotten, they did the exact same thing in NYC to another competitor, Gett, a few months ago:

[http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor- accuse...](http://techcrunch.com/2014/01/24/black-car-competitor-accuses-uber- of-shady-conduct-ddos-style-attack-uber-expresses-regret/)

Can't wait to see how Uber rephrase "It was likely too aggressive a sales tactic" this time around _!!_

<comment><USER19> That was in the article ;)

<comment><USER15> You think people actually read the article?!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I've used Uber dozens of times, but stories like this really make me think I should give Lyft a shot. After all, if this company is operating in such an underhanded manner this early in the game, it's troubling to consider what they'd be capable of down the line.

<comment><USER21> I have always been unsure why people prefer one over the other - it's essentially the exact same service. I typically go with whatever one is closer / is offering a deal at the time.

<comment><USER22> I don't always want to sit in the front seat, fist bump the driver, and become their best friend.

<comment><USER23> I haven't encountered a Lyft fist bump attempt (in SF) in at least a year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's pretty simple, Uber understands that to win the game, you need the a supply of drivers that just barely exceeds the demand for rides, to avoid surge pricing. To digress for a moment, surge pricing is brilliant in that it gets riders to volunteer to wait a long time for a ride, instead of getting pissed off like they do at Taxis, or give them the choice to pay up for an expedited ride. Anyway, the recruiting strategy worked for them in SF, they recruited so many Lyft drivers that Lyft was almost constantly in "Prime Time" (their name for surge pricing), that riders got upset and switched to Uber. It's at the intersection Business 101 and Econ 101 if you ask me.

The only pushback I've seen from Lyft is mobilizing drivers to hand out free ride cards at slammed venues, like music festivals, when Lyft is at maximum Prime Time of 300% and Uber is at 800-1300%. Not a bad strategy, but basically, Uber is giving Lyft a hyper wedgie by cutting right into their supply.

To put the cancellations into context, I met a Lyft driver who was recruited by Uber. He told me the same lady was recruiting in his area on an ongoing basis, just catching rides to make the pitch (which is a TOS violation on either platform). He said the recruiter would request a ride, sometimes 4 or 5 times, and keep getting him, then she would cancel shortly afterward when she recognized his name. So yeah, I'm sure some Lyft drivers spent gas, time and miles, but I also believe for the most part, the cancellations occurred in a minute or less.

As far as which company are the biggest assholes, I think you need to look at it with some historical context. Uber started out as a company that created a better dispatch system for Black Cars, and got Livery companies and independent Limo drivers to sign on. That was good, because riders and drivers could be paired based on proximity. Combine that with Uber's marketing to increase ridership, and it is an all-around win. The savings/increased business for your average Livery operator more than made up for the Uber commission.

Then Lyft comes along and says "Hey, let's open this up to your average joe with his car and car payment". Ok, so what they are doing actually is sucking the equity out of people's cars, because by the time you amortize all the expenses, you're making $10-$15 an hour (on Lyft, Uber you can make more), you might as well work for In-N-Out and get benefits too. Not to mention the insurance issues if you get into a wreck and its your fault (cancellation and no payout on your collision policy). Sure, the network will cover your liability, but only because they have been forced to by regulators. I classify this type of business (and AirBNB too) as "Slumlord 2.0". Slumlords buy an asset and drain the equity out of it for profit. Slumlord 2.0s drain the equity out of someone else's asset for profit. Uber had to counter Lyft with UberX, and get into the Slumlord 2.0 game themselves.

Bottom line for me, I drive for them both, and I hate them both. I tolerate them because they enable me to continue to work on my startup, or I guess I should say, reboot of the family business. I can't wait to be done driving for them and become a rider.

<comment><USER23> > Ok, so what they are doing actually is sucking the equity out of people's > cars, because by the time you amortize all the expenses, you're making > $10-$15 an hour (on Lyft

Doesn't the depreciation of automobiles slow down considerably after a few years? The Lyft drivers I have talked to in SF say they make $30 an hour at a minimum, which I assume is after subtracting fuel costs but not factoring in automobile depreciation and maintenance costs. However, I'm very skeptical that depreciation cuts their true earnings in half.

<comment><USER25> You need to operate with late-model cars, so depeciation is absolutely a factor.

In rental car context, depreciation is anything from $15-30/day, depending on the type of car. With livery vehicles, it may be higher because when you're done with the car, it has 200k miles and is beat from urban driving. Rental fleets ditch cars at 40,000 miles

Standard personal vehicle reimbursement is $0.55/mile. Not sure about a livery scenario, but I think in an urban environment you're easily looking at a $1.00/mile or more. Livery vehicles burn brakes, tires and other parts. They spend alot of time idling or in traffic, so gas mileage sucks as well.

<comment><USER26> So, doing some napkin math, assuming the numbers provided by Spooky23 and the baddox are correct:

30/hr 40 hrs/week = $1200 baddox assumed that accounted for gas, but not depreciation/maintenance.

Depreciation 30/week (the high end from Spooky24) 1200-30 = 1170.

Now, there may be some maintenance. A full set of break pad for a 2010 Ford Escape (Random vehicle, yours may vary) cost 100 dollars at Autozone- these are the expensive ones that appear to have a lifetime warranty- cheaper ones are half that much. I checked, and the lifetime warranty on the expensive ones does appear to cover commercial use (the warranty on the cheap ones explicitly does not, but the expensive ones do not exclude commercial use.)

I don't know how often your breaks wear out, but lets say you put the expensive ones on every month- and that you don't get free pads because of the warranty (Thought it appears that you should). A break job should only take an hour or two once you have done it a few times. Pretty simple stuff. Change the oil while your at it- another $20. (EDIT: I just realized that some new vehicles use more expensive synthetic oil- so you may have to double or triple this number, but you also may not have to change your oil as often, so it may work out about the same) $120 plus 2 hours of your time each month. 120/4 = 30.

1170 - 30 = 1140.

Your going to need new tires. Lets say you replace them every other month. Walmart lists them at around $100 a piece for a 60,000 mile tire. Your probably not going to get that many miles, but it should be at least 40,000. Again, I don't know how much driving your doing, so lets say you replace them every 3 months. It would probably be in your interest to do it yourself if doing it that often. But lets say you pay someone to do it so you don't have to buy and store the tools and deal with it. $20 per tire- (20 + 100) x 4 = 480, lets just say $500 every 3 months.

500/3/4 = $42. 1170-42= 1128.

Now, there will be other misc maintenance and repairs. Lets say $100 per week- I think that is high. Your vehicle isn't that old and you are keeping it well maintained, staying up on the simple things before they become major. We have already figured depreciation, so your replacing the vehicle when it is worn out.

1128-100 = $1028 per week after all expenses are accounted for.

1128/40 = $28 per hour. But you will have to pay self employment taxes. That will cost you a few extra bucks an hour. But you are still making significantly more than 15/hour.

Unless I am missing something. Please feel free to contribute your own numbers to my napkin math.

<comment><USER27> As someone who ran my fathers trucking company after he passed away, I'd say you're missing quite a few things.

A good mileage interval guide would show what you can expect (minor) to repair/replace every once in a while. I set up an example one on edmunds.com for a Toyota Avalon with 0 miles:

[http://www.edmunds.com/car- maintenance/results.html?year=201...](http://www.edmunds.com/car- maintenance/results.html?year=2013&make=&model=&styleId=200442096&engCode=6VNAG3.5&transCode=AUTOMATIC&zip=55402&mileage=0)

There are other general things that you should watch out for [0], and plenty that aren't listed or may just happen.

[0] [http://www.carsdirect.com/car-maintenance/a-routine-car- main...](http://www.carsdirect.com/car-maintenance/a-routine-car-maintenance- schedule-based-on-engine-mileage)

<comment><USER26> Thanks for the pointer to the maintenance cost tool. I increased the mileage to see what things they had, and most were already accounted for above. Tires, breaks, and oil changes are already accounted for- of course- I was assuming that someone putting so many miles on their car would take the time to learn to do basic maintenance like this themselves. Changing your own oil and replacing your own break pads and even belts and most hoses are not that difficult of tasks. If you have the tools, doing the tires is not that difficult, but I figured on paying someone for the tires in my above numbers. I also added an extra $100 per week, which is a very generous maintenance allowance. Some weeks it will be a lot more, like when your AC compressor goes out, but other weeks you won't spend any of it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just moved from an Uber-only market (Philadelphia) to an Uber and Lyft market (SF) and it was immediately clear to me that these two companies are at war. UberX offers 25% off this summer, Lyft offers 30% off. Lyft announces Lyft Line, Uber beats them to the punch with Uber Pool. The drivers tell me that either company will give you $$$ to switch and that drivers are coveted. Every feature that one gets, the other will imitate.

As a consumer it seems that there is basically no difference between the two services, I take whichever has less surge at the moment and/or whichever my friends want to take. It seems like this price war has served to totally commoditize ride sharing; I don't know anyone who has a serious preference between UberX and Lyft (black car and SUV are another story).

Do they really think they can squeeze the life out of each other like this? I feel like VCs will just keep pumping money into them and fueling the price war. It seems to me that instead one should focus on really differentiating the service in some way to reverse the commoditization of private, on-demand rides. They either need to make their service preferable in some way to consumers (like Dropbox has done for file sharing) or make it a no-brainer choice for drivers to exclusively drive with them.

Not that I'm complaining, this war basically just serves to make private transportation cheaper for consumers like me.

</comment><comment><USER29> Many states have unfair competition laws under which the type of behavior alleged could very well be actionable. Bringing the alleged behavior into the court of public opinion is appealing but I suspect that if the allegations are true, Lyft's business would be better served by addressing this in a court of law.

</comment><comment><USER30> In all fairness to my selfish self, that has lived in NYC, SF and finally in LA: Uber (regardless of and possibly because of ) knee-capping other services is now a dominant, helpful service in my life. When I lived in SF and moved to LA I had a problem that only NYC had a solution for: "Many Many Cabs, Everywhere".

Two years ago I couldn't go go five miles in traffic without paying $50 and needing cash; and that was if I was somewhere where cabs hung around.

Regardless of them being "assholes", it's extremely useless in my life.

<comment><USER31> As someone who is disabled, it truly enables me to have more mobility than I ever have had. I find it truly disturbing when people equate taxis with these services. For those of us who aren't as able to run around hailing cabs or waiting on a dispatch that often never comes, the difference is HUGE. I know they don't accommodate all disabled people yet (wheelchairs for example), but they can serve many disabled people and there is an opportunity to expand the reach.

<comment><USER18> Unfortunately, in many areas the existing minicab companies they're competing with _do_ actually accomodate wheelchair users. So Uber and its funders are spending billions to try and replace services with ones that are less accessible for many. (With the amount invested and Uber's current market cap, their investors aren't going to be satisfied with mere coexistence - they need to _dominate_ the market.)

<comment><USER31> If Uber or another service worked with these accessible taxis, it would be a true game changer. Yes, some local taxi services allow you to request wheelchair accessible cars, but you are going to often wait a very long time for them (if they ever come). Also some dispatchers are just not polite about it.

Imagine if you could request one with the click of a button and track its arrival? That would be so helpful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Lyft should come up with a way of flagging and hellbanning these accounts. The user could continue to think they have booked a ride, and think they have cancelled it, when really the whole system ignored them.

</comment><comment><USER13> Is this something that the investors of Uber encourage / don't discourage? If not, what actions are being taken by either Uber or Uber's investors to prevent this from happening again? (cnn reports this is not the first time)

</comment><comment><USER33> Warning, loud auto-playing video.

</comment><comment><USER34> Why can't drivers be part of both Lyft and Uber?

Doing so probably violates their respective terms of service, but why can't drivers just "disrupt" the sharing economy themselves by being part of both?

</comment><comment><USER35> I don't feel this fits in any existing thread here, so I'll just put it at the root level.

Doesn't the "look" at ~2:04 in the video sound inserted, perhaps to make Kalanick sound abrasive? I may just be over analyzing it, after having watched a short documentary on shaping opinions with small manipulations of video interviews awhile back.

(I sincerely apologize that I can't find a link).

I digress. The fact is Uber has been playing fast and loose, and push is starting to come to shove with regulation. Whether Uber or regulators cave is now the question.

<comment><USER36> Audio pro here - I record dialog for film and TV. It doesn't sound edited to me at all. Cutting the audio in slightly ahead or behind the camera image is so usual that such cuts have their own names - J cuts sand L cuts, respectively. Doing so provides a sense of editing momentum (which is quite important in news) and rather than being particularly considered it's just a cookie-cutter technique. Bear in mind that TV segments like this are just product to the people who make them, and are assembled with about as much contemplation as a hamburger. When you're cranking these stories out day after day you're not very invested in any of them, just enough to sketch out the issue in an attention grabbing way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> > One Lyft passenger, identified by seven different Lyft drivers as an Uber > recruiter, canceled 300 rides from May 26 to June 10. That user's phone > number was tied to 21 other accounts, for a total of 1,524 canceled rides.

Sounds like Lyft is a shit show. For a service like this, that number should have been black listed within first 3 'rides'.

</comment><comment><USER38> Maybe charge a deposit?

Not trying to blame the victim, just really curious about how to build a business that can't be DOS'd by competitors.

Often wondered how a Netflix or Redbox prevents competitors (once Blockbuster now Amazon?) from renting a bunch of DVDs only to return them with scratches.

Maybe track problem accounts then ban them is best you can do?

</comment><comment><USER39> Since Taxi rides are basically futures contracts for a car ride, why doesn't someone create an agnostic taxi-ride orderbook. Aside from the fact that taxi companies desperately want to avoid market discovery of rates.

<comment><USER40> If you were to ask Uber they would tell you that that is what they did.

<comment><USER39> Yeah, but it isn't, really.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't think they've claimed it is a "real" market, just that pricing programmatically adjusts to demand.

Can Uber drivers set their rates, to undercut other Uber drivers?

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ryan-allen A mandatory cancellation fee would be handy, but of course Uber and Lyft would have to opt-in. I think it'd be fair to charge customers $5 for a cancellation.

<comment><USER24> They both charge $5 for a cancellation, but only after 5 minutes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Certainly sketchy behavior by Uber, but also pretty embarrassing that Lyft wasn't able to detect and ban the Uber employee who cancelled _680_ rides.

</comment><comment><USER41> This would certainly be a dick move by Uber, even in the land of hyper competition. But how the heck was Lyft unable to foil it?

</comment><comment><USER42> One more reason to look for a Sidecar or Lyft before an Uber. Usually cheaper too.

</comment><comment><USER43> I'm not sure why a company that engages in illegal behavior would be afraid of engaging in more illegal or (at the very least) fraudulant behavior.

</comment><comment><USER44> Does Lyft's TOS prohibit this? If so, couldn't this theoretically be a criminal offense under the CFAA?

<comment><USER22> CFAA, really? No thanks. [https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/rebooting- computer-cri...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2013/01/rebooting-computer- crime-law-part-1-no-prison-time-for-violating-terms-of-service)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Honestly.. Lyft needs a better spam filter.

</comment><comment><USER46> Free markets make men do amazing things.

</comment><comment><USER47> And now you see why we have taxi regulations.

<comment><USER48> Fraud's fraud. A taxi company could do the same thing to a rival.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Number of people defending Uber and their actions are too large. Why not accept the mistake and take responsibility for it ? Also, YC is no hero. If YC speaks highly of such companies and Uber is using such tactics to gain business all you can say is everything is double talk on this site. I used to hang out a lot on this site but just look at number of shills employed commenting , shifting discussion to compare with Taxi industry when actual issue at hand is unethical practice. Uber is no different than FUCK YOU , FUCK SHARING ECONOMY, give us your money we tank it in founders and select-fews pockets and enjoy. Can't wait to all of this blow over and someone files major lawsuit.

<comment><USER38> I agree in principle, I really want better comments in this thread taking Uber to task. (I want the best arguments on both sides.)

You lost me when you started name calling though, accusing everyone of being shills.

It's the internet, you don't need to pay people to have strong opinions, it's what they do here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> For pete's sake, it's 5k rides over like 9 months. How many Lyft rides are there per day in SF alone?

</comment><comment><USER10> Odd that Lyft appears proud to claim that they have a very easily gamed system without anti-fraud filters. Now that the word is out I would watch out for taxi drivers to get in on the fun.

<comment><USER51> Victim blaming is generally reprehensible. Further, I imagine that as a nascent business the notion that competitors would be so unethical didn't seem to be a top priority.

Is it obvious now that they should have caught it? Yeah, thanks to the brilliance of hindsight of course it is. Does that justify it? Hardly.

<comment><USER10> There's no victim here, this is one extraordinarily rich startup complaining about another extraordinarily rich startup. Meanwhile taxi lobbies complain about them both.

To add some perspective, this is 5,560 rides in the last 10 months or ~550 per month or less than 20 per day. There aren't any recent figures, but as of May 2013 they were doing 30,000 rides per week and growing _very_ quickly.

A large amount of the cancellations were from a couple people and it also mentioned that when not canceling they took short rides and tried to poach the drivers. It's pretty obvious what a few of the recruiters are doing--asking for rides to be able and pitch the driver, but then canceling when it's a driver who already said no.

tl;dr a very small number of sleezy recruiters have gotten under the skin of Lyft.

<comment><USER52> > There's no victim here, this is one extraordinarily rich startup complaining > about another extraordinarily rich startup.

That you don't care about the victim does not make them not a victim.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Quantum Algorithm Zoo - <AUTHOR> http://math.nist.gov/quantum/zoo/ <comment><USER2> Surprising to me is seeing that some of the papers cited here were published in the mid-90s. That's 5 or 10 years before when I would've guessed.

Makes me think of Ada Lovelace and how awesome the mind can be when grappling with the abstract (though I'm sure non-quantum computers were still some help here to researchers for fiddling with quantum algorithms).

</comment><comment><USER3> There are a couple of those that might be relevant to work I am doing. Just wondering what the horizon should be for someone to dive into QC. The engineering doesn't seem to be anywhere near where a mid-sized company can buy or rent access to a reasonably sized machine any time soon (thinking about timescale next 10 years or so). Super interesting thou.

<comment><USER4> There are no reasonably sized machines.

QC is currently basic research. It's not clear when machines large enough to be useful will exist, and I don't understand the reasons behind the current development speed. But keep in mind that we have computers with ~20qubits, and people have been consistently adding 3 more qubits every 2 years, for a rather long time.

<comment><USER3> Isn't this the same as development of classical computers? We are still in the phase that classical computer were in in the 20's to 40's. Once you crack the lid and make something mass-producible, exponential advancement will take over for as long as physics allows it (which in QC is an extremely deep well).

<comment><USER4> I can't imagine how to trace a parallel. Even before that, classical computers stayed a very long time "on the lab", and by that time the expansion in functionality was way more visible than any expansion of size. Only after people kind of agreed on what a "computer" can do (at the 40's) that we got any clear size expansion, that was exponential.

As a comparison, we have a very nice idea on the requisites of a quantum computer. Nobody is exploring this space. Also, we have that very clear linear growth on their size, while we didn't have even a clear size measure for classical computers.

It looks like something very different to me. Really, that linear growth is unsettling in many ways.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Are your users S.T.U.P.I.D? - <AUTHOR> http://www.boxesandarrows.com/view/are-your-users-s-t-u <comment><USER2> I wrote about a similar issue some time ago: <http://blog.bumblebeelabs.com/the-5-guerrilla-user-test/></comment>


Ask HN: How to Be an Entrepreneur in the US, if you aren't American - <AUTHOR>

At the moment, I am a student at University in America? I am sure that there are people here who are not American who are entrepreneurs in America?  How do you go about doing it, and what are the barriers that you faced? <comment><USER2> Being an international student at a US university you will get 12 months of OPT (Optional Practical Training) once you graduate. It is a free pass which allows you to work without any restrictions for one year in the same field of your degree. If you have your company registered by the time you graduate, you can use the OPT to work for the same. The OPT can be extended for another 17 months if the company is enrolled in e-verify (free registration with the USCIS). So, you can effectively get 29 months of work authorization without any external help.

If you company is successful and generates revenue/raises money in the first ~12 months you can file for your own H1B. I am not a lawyer but talk to the immigration officer at your university and also to a lawyer and you will get more information.

<comment><USER3> Can an international student (on OPT) file for a company registration? I was on OPT, moved to H1 this month, can I also file for one?

<comment><USER2> The FAQ for OPT on US immigration and customs site says a student can start a business and be self employed during the post completion OPT period. [http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/opt_policy_guidance_0420...](http://www.ice.gov/doclib/sevis/pdf/opt_policy_guidance_042010.pdf) (7.2.1, pg 17)

As long as it is legitimate and all the legal paper work is done properly, i think it should be fine. Of course, there might be some who register a company just for getting a work authorization and i assume the USCIS will have verifications to make sure you are running a real business and not just a one on paper.

zengr, since you have already moved to H1, i don't think it will be applicable for you. I am also on OPT working for a startup and i am moving to H1 shortly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The critical parts to being an entrepreneur are to build a product, raise capital, manage a company and sell the product. For each of those pieces, you need a good professional network. Co-founders to build a product are easy to come by if you are studying for an engineering degree, but finding people for the other 3 pieces of the puzzle are equally or more important and are difficult for an engineering student. So, you have to spend an incredible amount of time networking both within the town/city you are in and in other major tech hubs. You will need to search for and attend every possible free/cheap gathering of techies and through them find people to help with the 'other 3 pieces'. But then there is this other big hassle that looms over everything else.

American immigration laws are specifically designed to keep people out, and that is the biggest barrier you will face. The only way around it is to find a local co-founder and sponsor an H1B visa through the company showing yourself as an employee. There have been recently proposed changes to the H1B rules allowing a sole founder to sponsor their own H1B provided they have investors investing in the company and the company has a board of directors. You will also need to wait a little for enough such cases to go through the USCIS to determine what's the winning formula for such H1B visa approvals. In parallel with all of your other efforts at finding people, you will hence have to find a good immigration lawyer who will also work on a project basis at low rates. Of late, USCIS has be onerous in demanding documented evidence for H1B cases, so you can very well rule out applying entirely by yourself.

The gist is that although it's possible, it's very hard to be an entrepreneur straight out of college if you are not from the country. The shortest route is to fall in love with an american (citizen) girl and marry her. And I don't say that in jest.

<comment><USER5> Depending on your qualifications, you can also get a H1-B job from a major US corporation and convert it into a green card. Being sponsored as the spouse of a US citizen is probably faster (especially if you are from a country where employment-based green cards don't have a current priority date), but the USCIS are suspicious of marriages and the process can be somewhat gruelling. You also end up with a temporary green card until you have been married for two years.

<comment><USER6> Do you realize how long the process of getting an employment based green card takes? Oddly enough, it is possibly the longest way to obtain US residency. 5-7 years from the start is probably the average, and 10+ years is not unheard of. Most of that time the application is simply sitting idle on a shelf in some government office waiting to be processed. Illegal immigrant who crosses Rio Grande at the same time as someone on H1B submits his paperwork has a decent chance of getting legalized faster (there was at least one if not two amnesties while I was waiting for my GC, and each one slows down the legal queue because understaffed USCIS offices divert resources to process "undocumented" aliens). Getting GC through marriage or some refugee program is _much, much_ faster.

It would be nice if US voters at large were a little more aware of how immigration laws work in practice.

[EDIT] I am in no way suggesting the marriage route, just pointing out that there are many countries with enormous backlogs and for people coming from those countries converting H1B to GC for the purposes of starting a company may, unfortunately, not be a viable option.

<comment><USER5> Actually, I have first-hand experience of this process. My comment was not made offhand.

It took less than 18 months from starting work as a H1B to receiving my green card. I started the green card process a month into my job. 8 How come? The system is ridiculous; I am lucky enough to have been born in the UK, and not in one of the countries with long years of backlog. I also did a Master's which qualified me for EB2. Between these, my priority date was current so the processing time was simply paper shuffling. Given the suspicion of USCIS around marriages and the process I am going through with my husband's green card, I certainly wouldn't take such a blasé attitude to marriage _if_ you are also, fortunately and entirely randomly, in a current priority class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I can tell you what I do. With a turist visa, I spend 1 month in the US one month outside the US. Also after you create a corp you can request a H1B through that corp(a lawyer charges $5,000), but you have to pay yourself a salary(that means you need to pay taxes), I am planing to do this once I raise money.

</comment><comment><USER8> Start networking as much as you can. Get to know successful American _and_ foreign entrepreneurs and tell them you're interested in US startups. Ask if they need help. Find out who's working on various problems, and if any of these companies use any open source code you can contribute to right now.

</comment><comment><USER9> My advice :

Take some money from your country, create a startup in the US with a local guy. When you are able to make money, then if you make enough money, you can even sponsor yourself or go get some investors => you'll be able to sponsor yourself.

</comment><comment><USER10> You can be an entrepreneur any where in the world. Why does it have to be in the US?

<comment><USER11> Payment gateways can be a problem when your company is not US-based.

<comment><USER12> Paypal, WorldPay, ...</comment></comment></comment>


As HN: What motivates you at your startup? - <AUTHOR>

Well, I was planning to put this into a longer blog post but popular platforms (Wordpress, Tumblr, Posterous, etc.) are all blocked over here.
Late last year, I was approached with an offer at a fast growing, profitable, pre-Series A startup that required me to relocate away from home.
The timing was perfect, as I was recovering from a bout of burnout and I really wanted to take a break from freelancing and working at a startup has been something I wished to do.
So I packed up, travelled 3,000 miles, got settled in quickly and started working my ass off. I had some grand plans in my mind, thinking that this is my chance to put up the highest score of my life, by helping a startup go from start to exit.
6 months on, my drive and desire at this startup is all gone. I stopped believing in the product, not that it sucks, but simply because it's not in a domain I'm interested in. My motivation previously was solely fueled by monetary desires, and we all know that that never lasts.
I'm still working at the startup, although I don't think I'll be here for long. I'm only here, because I feel a sense of responsibility to complete a few remaining tasks before leaving.
Did I ever regret the decision to come here? No, because I got to work with really smart hackers and most importantly, I met some new friends whom I'm now working on a new project with.
It's only after this experience that I started to understand why "you can't connect the dots looking forward; you can only connect them looking backwards."
Oh, and this time, I'm not after monetary gains.
What motivates you?
P.S. I would appreciate it if you could take a look at the landing page I've put up (http://shallwedive.com) and tell me what you think. Sharing it with your friends who scuba dive would be awesome :) <comment><USER2> I guess I was also after monetary gains too. But I'm at a point of changing my motivation.

I feel that Working as an employee, raising a family and getting old is the most common life path that one can vision even at his/her 20's. I can say, "if I work hard today, I will be like my manager ten years later."

But that's not exciting, because that life path sounds like determinable and planned. It's as cruel as telling a young child that he/she will never achieve anything and will end up normal.

I don't want my life to be easily visible. I don't want to easily tell how my 50's will look like when I'm 2x.

I'd be a homeless or a achiever, but I can't settle in the middle.

<comment><AUTHOR> "But that's not exciting, because that life path sounds like determinable and planned. It's as cruel as telling a young child that he/she will never achieve anything and will end up normal."

That's so true. Kudos to you my friend.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Re shallwedive the request invite button is a bit off in ff - mid left of the email box. Works fine in the other browsers. It would be cool getting an awesome picture of the ocean as the main background (think flipboard).

To answer your question of what motivates me - vision and knowledge of what Steve Jobs once said, (along the lines of) - "what ever you see in this world was made by people no more smarter than you".

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for pointing that out, gonna fix the button.

I was thinking of putting using a full background image as well, but just couldn't find a good one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Primary motivation: I want to see as many people as possible use something I built and know it has improved their lives in some minor way.

Secondary motivation: I want to have the freedom to work on things I enjoy and care about, as opposed to working for a paycheck.

</comment><comment><USER5> If I ever start-up something, main goal would be to get a passive income (yes, not quite "startup-ish"). Then I'll pursue a PhD in CS.

</comment><comment><USER6> Short answer but probably extremely cliche: working on something I have personal interest in.</comment>


DNA pioneer James Watson loses honours over race remarks - <AUTHOR> https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/news/dna-pioneer-james-watson-loses-honours-over-race-remarks-l0f0mqdmw <comment><USER2> It's time. Between his behaving like an ass to Rosalind Franklin and his unscientific views on race, he doesn't deserve any more honors. Watson is this generation's William Shockley. A Nobel Prize doesn't imply a person is a decent human being.</comment>


What Venture Capitalists will not tell you - <AUTHOR> https://www.linkedin.com/today/post/article/20141005202543-140792-what-venture-capitalists-will-not-tell-you

<comment><USER2> This article seems to be designed to get people to come to Blackhawk Partners for funding. However, on their web page[1], they say they're not interested in funding start-ups:

 _" Unlike many private family offices, venture groups and other hedge funds, Blackhawk Partners, Inc., does not generally back ideas, start-up situations, private equity or other hedge funds, project finance or Greenfield opportunities."_

[1] [http://www.blackhawkpartners.com/firm/about- us](http://www.blackhawkpartners.com/firm/about-us)</comment>


Show HN: Distributed MapReduce framework in Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/turbobytes/gomr

<comment><USER2> A long time ago, I wrote GoMR too :)

[https://github.com/spicavigo/gomr](https://github.com/spicavigo/gomr)

<comment><AUTHOR> That is pretty cool. Did not know about your repo.</comment></comment>


Since 1700, Wine Glasses Have Gotten 7 Times Bigger - <AUTHOR> https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/wine-glasses-growth-history <comment><USER2> Why has no one mentioned that "wine" to a Brit in 1700 meant FORTIFIED wine like Port wine or Sherry (aka 18-20% alcohol instead of 11-15%)? The fortification of Port wine is legendarily attributed to both British tastes for sweet or "stalled mid fermentation by addition of spirits" wine, and the voyage by sea, in which normal wines suffered excessively from spoilage etc.

<comment><USER3> This is what I thought. I regularly enjoy a "modern" glass of wine, but for port wine, even a full shot glass is too much for me. It's just so heavy and sweet. The glasses depicted in the article seem to hold exactly the amount of port I would be able to comfortably drink in 10-20 minutes.

<comment><USER4> Have you tried a Sercial or Verdelho Madeira? Almost all Madeira sold is Malmsey, which is the sweetest. You'll sometimes find bottles of the Boal style, the next sweetest, sold as a digestif if the restaurant is a little more discerning.

But the best styles, IMO, are Sercial and Verdelho. Sercial is dry and Verdelho medium-dry[1], IMO have more fascinating flavors, and tend to be more acidic than the sweeter styles, which as a soda drinker I especially like. Both are really good for extended sessions as they're not nearly as cloying as Port. And the Sercial in particular suitable for drinking by the glassful with dinner if you care to splurge.

And one of the greatest things about Madeira is that it's already completely oxidized. Opinions very, but as for myself I still enjoy bottles of Madeira that I opened years ago. By contrast, IME an opened bottle of Tawny Port starts to lose its punch after a week or so (on the outside). This is why you can still buy Madeira from the 1800s and even 1700s and still enjoy it today. The oldest enjoyable Ports (Ruby or Tawny) tend to only go back 50 or 100 years if they've been preserved well.

If you're not a regular drinker (like me) or are the sole drinker in a household (like me), and don't enjoy hard liquor (like me), then the long shelf-life of opened bottles is really nice.

The Historic Series Madeiras from the Rare Wine Co are good exemplars of the various styles

      https://www.rarewineco.com/rare-wine-co-historic-series-madeira

I don't know if they still do, but they used to offer a 4 half bottle sample gift set.

[1] Though both still sweeter and thicker (mouth feel) than a Sherry, with less of the distilled spirits-like flavor/smell coming through--which is why I dislike Sherry.

<comment><USER5> I love that on HN someone always is an expert in the topic at hand and can provide some interesting knowledge. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> [http://www.delish.com/food/news/a39120/super-sized- beverages...](http://www.delish.com/food/news/a39120/super-sized-beverages/)

"For 25 years, a 26-ounce drink was the biggest soda a person could buy. Then in 1980, a shift occurred when 7-Eleven began its Big Gulp campaign. Big Gulp fountain drink cup sizes steadily rose throughout the decade and beyond, beginning at 32 ounces in 1980, then climbing to 44 ounces in 1986, 64 ounces in 1989, and a behemoth 128 ounces in 2006. Called the Team Gulp, the 128-ounce cup holds a gallon of soda."

Wine is lagging behind. More wine please... :)

<comment><USER7> For those outside the US, like me:

26oz ≈ 769mL

32oz ≈ 946mL

44oz ≈ 1301mL

64oz ≈ 1893mL

128oz ≈ 3785mL

In America, are these labelled as multiple servings? Even a 500mL bottle of cola in Europe is labelled as two 250mL servings.

<comment><USER8> These cups are not usually labeled with serving information. They don't, for example, have how many calories are in them because they can be filled with a variety of different sodas (some zero calorie).

FWIW, from my perception, the 128 oz is very rare, 64 oz is fairly common but a small percent of sales, and 44 oz is very common. (edit: these are for convenience stores like 7-11, not restaurants etc where sizes are much smaller)

<comment><USER9> wow ... do we have 1+ litre servings here in UK? Maybe at the cinema or something?

Most common serving size here might be a pint, which is about half a litre, I guess.

<comment><USER10> One factor that I've noticed is that Americans love ice much more than Europeans. It's not uncommon for them to fill a cup with ice almost to the rim and then add the soda. It would be interesting to see how much actual soda most people put in those 1+ litre ups.

<comment><USER11> I've seen calorie counts posted on soda fountains. If I recall correctly the fine print says that they figure one-third ice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Back in the day a Royal Navy sailor's daily ration of beer was a gallon, or a half pint of 115 proof rum. I don't think the dainty wineglasses are a good indication of volume consumed.

<comment><USER13> The beer doesn't even count, as it was fortified with lime and was essentially water. The half pint(can we just say 'cup' now?) of rum is equal to about 5 shots worth. Not really enough to get any sailor shitfaced, but enough to take the edge off of a long shift of physical labor in a very harsh, unforgiving environment.

<comment><USER14> A pint is 20oz in the UK, and 16oz in the US. So a Half Pint is a 10oz glass (close to the normal 12oz 'Pint Glass' you get in American bars, or the standard beer bottle), and a full pint is nearly double the usual American beer serving.

Cups aren't used.

Randomly, there's a line in 1984 where a guy in a bar is lamenting the switch from Pints to Half or Full Liters, and it never made sense to me because the difference between an American pint and a half liter is ~5%, in the noise. But to the original audience, it's more like 18%.

<comment><USER11> Also, a half liter is _larger_ than an American pint (473 mL) but _smaller_ than a UK pint (568 mL - UK fluid ounces are smaller than US fluid ounces). And I would imagine that prices wouldn't go down when they switched from imperial pints to half-liters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Flying a lot around Europe I'm always surprised by how full the British side of things fills a wineglass :-) 125 ml is normal in the majority of places, 180 ml is a British glass of wine. The article is from the UK...

But both 125 and 180 ml servings are considerably less than the size of the glass, so the article title is at best clickbaity. The glass got bigger but nobody is pouring 7x as much wine per serving as before.

<comment><USER16> And also in the UK, they generally pour your wine glass up to the top (no idea why) whereas in France it's always served with about a 1/4 of the glass.

<comment><USER7> That depends on the quality of the place.

An average pub might choose these glasses with the legal markings at 125, 175 and 250mL, which probably makes the 250mL serving seem quite full.

A nicer place will have larger glasses, or serve the smaller amount.

[http://www.drinkstuff.com/products/product.asp?ID=21754&catI...](http://www.drinkstuff.com/products/product.asp?ID=21754&catID=1436&name=Saxon+Tri+Lined+Wine+Glasses+12oz+LCE+at+125%2C+175+%26amp%3B+250ml)

<comment><USER16> I've mostly been to cheaper places so that would explain it!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Not sure about wine glasses but universities have at least 7 times more incentive to publish BS papers these days.

>> "These days, the average British pour of wine is 250 milliliters".

According to data collected from dive bars. And I'm serious, see the article they referenced in the paper: [https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2014/10/24/Direc...](https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2014/10/24/Direct- Line-wine-glass-pub-measures-research)

Modern wine glasses are designed for drinking experience and you are supposed to hold the glass using your fingers from it's stem. And that's exactly why you don't fill half of your glass and try to carry 250 milliliters of liquid with your fingers.

<comment><USER18> > According to data collected from dive bars.

How do you know? A British pub can be anything from a squalid shabeen to a comfortable community space to a restaurant that happens to sell beer.

In the UK, wine by the glass can only be legally served in measures of 125ml, 175ml or multiples thereof. The vast majority of pubs today only sell 175ml and 250ml measures.

A few decades ago, asking for "a glass of red wine" would have got you a 125ml glass unless you specifically asked for a large glass, which would be 175ml. Gradually, the default moved to 175ml and the 125ml "small" glass was phased out in favour of the 250ml "large" glass, with 175ml becoming the new "small".

It's abundantly clear that there's been a vast increase in the quantities of wine drunk over the past few decades. Wine consumption has contributed to the legitimisation of heavy drinking amongst the middle-aged and middle-class. Drinking several large glasses of wine doesn't carry the same stigma as drinking several pints of strong beer. As a result, we've seen a quadrupling of chronic liver disease, with the increase mainly being seen in middle-aged, middle-class and disproportionately female drinkers.

[https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the- law/sp...](https://www.gov.uk/weights-measures-and-packaging-the- law/specified-quantities) [https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2008/06/27/Major...](https://www.morningadvertiser.co.uk/Article/2008/06/27/Major- pub-operators-shun-125ml-wine-glasses)

<comment><USER19> Around 40% of deaths from liver disease are attributable to alcohol consumption, so I'm not sure how an increase in wine drinking within one age group could be the main cause of a 400% increase in liver disease.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > These days, the average British pour of wine is 250 milliliters, "larger > than the mean capacity of wine glasses available in the 1980s," writes > Marteau.

Wow that's a big pour - you expect to get 4-5 glasses of wine out of a standard 750ml bottle, potentially a little more than that if you're ordering by the glass in a restaurant.

<comment><USER21> The article misquotes its source. The study states "wine is _increasingly_ served in 250 mL servings" (emphasis mine), not that the average pour size has become 250ml!

250ml is a typical carafe size. Carafes are a more common way to serve wine in Europe, compared to ordering two separate glasses.

<comment><USER22> Carafes are usually house wine though. Hard to get carafe sizing for a higher end wine.

<comment><USER21> Even if true, this does not support the claim that Britains consume significantly more wine than in 1700. (Which may be true but it's not supported.) If anything it would suggest that higher end wine is sold by the glass or bottle... again the source does not claim otherwise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> As a side note, at least here in Italy, serving a glass of wine at a restaurant is a relatively recent use (say in the last 15-20 years) new thing (most probably "imported" from other countries).

Until then you either ordered a bottle (around 75 cl) or some "house" wine, served in (measured) of either 25 cl (a quarter, "un quartino") 50 cl (a half liter, "un mezzo") or 100 cl (a liter, "un litro"), that looked like these:

[http://bar-barman.com/1183-thickbox_default/caraffe-misura-b...](http://bar- barman.com/1183-thickbox_default/caraffe-misura-bollo-con- scritta-025l-05l-1lt.jpg)

Or, in many places, wine was "a consumo" (upon consumption?) where the waiter would bring on the table a full "fiasco" (large bottle of wine, usually 1.75 l) and then estimate how much of it you emptied when it came to calculate the bill.

In any case normally each person would drink no more than "un quartino", no matter the size of the glass.

</comment><comment><USER24> To me, this indicates that the _pattern_ of wine drinking has changed over the years, not the quantity.

"A glass of wine with you, sir" was a friendly thing to say at the table, and resulted in both parties filling and downing an entire glass. The small glasses seem to be a way of carrying that on over the course of a large meal with a dozen people without any of them actually dying.

Accounts of those meals also talk of going through around 2 bottles of wine per participant. In the article photo, the bottle looks about the same as it does today.

</comment><comment><USER21> Since 1700, wine has gotten 7 times _better_.[1]

[1] [http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/06/wine-history-paul- luka...](http://drinks.seriouseats.com/2013/06/wine-history-paul-lukacs- inventing-wine-how-wine-was-modernized-ancient-wine-tasted-terrible.html)

</comment><comment><USER25> I'll start off echoing what others have been saying... ports and madeiras were more popular. They resisted spoiling due to the high alcohol/sugar content. They can kick like a mule, so you can't just down 250ML in a sitting.

Wine glasses are also fragile. A lot of places serve wine in common water glasses of roughly the same size. Italians have been doing that forever.

Bigger glasses are more fragile, but they greatly enhance aeration and aroma. The smell of wine is over 50% of the experience for me. If i'm trying to maximize the experience of a good bottle, I'll use ridiculously large Riedel Vinum Old World glasses : [https://www.amazon.com/Riedel-Veritas-World-Pinot- Glass/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Riedel-Veritas-World-Pinot- Glass/dp/B00KJWW4P8) They're enormous, fragile, a pain in the behind to wash. However It's tough to go back to standard wine glasses after you try one.

All in all, I would say glasses are getting bigger in some cases, but the article is totally missing the how and why of it.

<comment><USER4> FWIW, Sercial (dry) and Verdelho (medium-dry) Madeiras, sporting less sugar and nice acidity, can be quite quaffable. The acidity also helps, I think, to mask the stronger alcohol content. Those styles are really hard to find, though, as both cheap and expense Madeiras tend to be of the Malmsey style and only slightly less cloying than Port. The second most common style is Boal, which is less sweeter than Malmsey but lacks the acidity.

<comment><USER25> Thanks, I gotta bone up on my madeiras.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This references the study showing that people eat more when using larger plates, but I think wine drinking is the one instances where those results aren't easily transferrable.

Wine glasses today are usually filled to about 1/4, where (judging by the painting in the article, and my guess) glasses 1/7th the size of today's were filled to the rim.

<comment><USER27> I wonder how much of the liquid/volume ratio is just due to people trying to protect their white carpet...

<comment><USER28> some anecdata - I spilled an oversized glass of red wine our carpet ina previous house and escalated my wife's 'need' for wooden floors by unknown to immediate. :-)

on a side note we were much happier with the wooden floor

<comment><USER29> I hope your dog need reduced in parallel. Skating dogs are surprisingly destructive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is quiet meaningless, almost an Onion article. Nobody serves a 449ml wine pour. Just because the glasses have gone larger, does not mean the serving size has too. The photo that says it was probably 14 servings back in the day, the glass is not even filled to a third of its capacity.

</comment><comment><USER31> Wine was probably vastly more expensive as a proportion of income in the 1700s compared to today. Makes sense that glasses would be that much smaller.

<comment><USER32> I believe that. I'll bet mead, beer, and rum were more affordable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Everything is getting much bigger. The candy in my youth was really small compared to today's bars. With ice cream it's even worse.

<comment><USER34> That may be true from your youth, but things are getting smaller from a decade ago, candy[0], chips, fountain drinks, etc.

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/24/sweets- are-...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jul/24/sweets-are- shrinking-youre-not-imagining-it-ons-tells-shoppers)

<comment><USER33> This is an interesting dynamic. First they made things much bigger and now they are trying to deliver less at the same price. It would be interesting to see how decisions for pricing and size are made.

<comment><USER18> Eventually the elastic snaps on product downsizing and they relaunch a new "king size" or "sharing" product.

For example, the Mars Bar in the UK grew from 49g to 65g then shrank back down to 51g, but they also launched an 84g king size bar. After complaints from the regulators, the king size bar was replaced by "Mars Duo" \- two 42g bars in the same pack, ostensibly designed for sharing.

Cheaper ingredients can also be substituted by redesigning the product. The chocolate on a Mars bar is thinner than it used to be and the nougat has an airier texture, maintaining product size while reducing ingredient cost. Many chocolate manufacturers have increased the number of SKUs with inclusions like cookie or honeycomb pieces. Sugar, flour and air are cheaper than cocoa, but it feels like you're getting more for your money than if you'd bought a plain chocolate bar.

<comment><USER35> Confectioners have become exceptionally good at aeration it seems. 8 years or more ago the UK high street confectioner Thorntons served lovely chocolates, now they're all aerated foam with a thin shell of chocolate flavoured wax, they honestly turn my stomach whilst once-upon-a-time I'd happily eat a whole box. Of course one's own taste for sweets changes but I think they're more to blame.

Once Kraft took over Cadbury we got recipe changes - palm oil - to the standard chocolate; and lots of new bars with inclusions, as you mention, in order to reduce the amount of chocolate but keep the bulk.

Nearly all ice-cream now in UK supermarkets seems to boast "soft scoop" which is just the aeration AFAICT, meaning you get "half" the volume of actual ingredients (except air) in the same tub.

This sort of cheating with foods seems to have accelerated since the recession.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I have heard that such small glasses were a) somewhat necessary due to the difficulty of glassmaking in the 1700s, and b) not a problem when you have servants following you around keeping your glasses topped up.

<comment><USER37> I mean, the average person didn't exactly have servants.

Glass-making concept makes sense to me though.

<comment><USER38> Perhaps the average person in the 1700s with a specific glass for wine did?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Huh. This explains something I've been wondering about for a while: I thought I had remembered figuring that a bottle of wine (standard 750 mL) was good for about six glasses. But at a recent event I helped host, the wine caterers said to count on about four pours per bottle. I assumed I had just misremembered, but "six per bottle" seems in line with what others in the thread are suggesting was more typical a couple decades ago, and it's just more confirmation that standard serving size has gone up....

</comment><comment><USER40> Didn't they drink out of wine skins? Cheaper, more sturdy than glass.. and beer was drunk from wooden tankards, 4 pints in size unearthed, probably 2000 years ago in wales.

[https://museum.wales/articles/2010-04-01/Ancient-Drinking- Cu...](https://museum.wales/articles/2010-04-01/Ancient-Drinking-Culture-The- Langstone-Tankard/)

<comment><USER35> >When full, the tankard would have held nearly four pints of beer or cider. It was held in two hands and was probably passed around a group as a communal drinking vessel. //

Like a wassail cup or so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> The paper:

[http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5623](http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5623)

</comment><comment><USER42> I was thinking the same as many other commenters:

Wonder how this compares to the increased size of tablewear or portion sizes in general. In the age of 64oz soda's and XL meal size options, seems wine glasses would increase at a similar rate.

</comment><comment><USER43> Are historically accurate classic size wine glasses sold today? They look classy.

<comment><USER44> They look a lot like modern cordial glasses.

<comment><USER45> That's because they are. The article is wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> In Italy each region has its own, sacred, defined volume for a glass of wine (from 80 to 100 ml).

The correct one ofc is 100ml.

Who would pour 450ml of wine in a single glass?! (and > 250ml before dinner will likely get you tipsy)

</comment><comment><USER47> Isn't wine also meant to be in a bigger glass so the vapour collects in the glass better for smelling?

</comment><comment><USER48> > _For regulators keeping a worried eye on increased drinking, Marteau > suggests encouraging the use of smaller glasses. After all, water is a bit > safer to drink these days._

Can you please stay out of it? Just because port glasses from the 1700s have less overall volume than tasting glasses from the 2010s, doesn't mean it's anyone's job to say how big they should be. At most, the volume of the _pour_ has increased by maybe a factor of four, while (compared to the wine that went in the 60ml glasses) the alcohol content has decreased in a single step, from fortified to straight.

</comment><comment><USER49> It is always funny to see Americans using huge (as in HUGE) glasses to drink wine, believing that it is the French distinguished way of tasting wine, and being disappointed when they discover that French people just use regular/smallish glasses in any context.

No, it is just Americans confusing 'big' for 'refined' as usual :-) (and bigger for more refined, and even bigger for super classy).

<comment><USER50> Most people in the US go to a specialty retailer if they need wine glasses, and a nice one has Riedel or something comparable. The sales associate will invariably say "oh this is made to enjoy red Bordeauxs, this one is for white Burgundies, etc, etc" and they will be nudged to go fancy. I don't know if they go in with the expressed plan to buy an enormous wine glass set, but just look at [https://www.riedel.com/restaurant/collection/d/sommeliers/bo...](https://www.riedel.com/restaurant/collection/d/sommeliers/bordeaux- grand-cru-1/), it's 30 oz. I think it's fair to say there is an element of industry pushing consumer demand in a more expensive direction. Also, I think it's fair to point out Riedel is European and has been around for 250 years.

Also, even if I was presented with that wine glass, I would expect nothing more than a standard pour. I don't think you're being entirely fair to Americans in this particular case (even if a number of them would be happy with a pint of wine).

<comment><USER51> > Most people in the US go to a specialty retailer if they need wine glasses

[citation needed]

If I were going to bet, I'd say most _purchasers_ of wine glasses probably do it through general retailers like Target or Amazon, not specialty retailers.

I would be less surprised if the greatest number of consumer purchases of wineglasses were from specialty retailers because the people who buy from them but more glasses per person, but I really doubt most _people_ use a specialty retailer.

<comment><USER50> You got me. I have no idea, and I'm not invested enough to find out. I'd assumed Williams-Sonoma or something comparable. Let the record show that Target sells Riedel, too.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Egos at Id (1996) - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/4.08/id_pr.html

<comment><USER2> Want to read more? Read Masters of Doom.</comment>


Fortnite and the Good Life - <AUTHOR> https://tinyletter.com/lmsacasas/letters/the-convivial-society-no-15-fortnite-and-the-good-life <comment><USER2> As someone who spent much their teens logged into World of Warcraft, I wish people would be a bit more open minded about this.

Someone like Prince Harry saying that Fortnite is a waste of time, is seriously damaging to the image someone might have of themselves playing it. I doubt Prince Harry has got the first clue, and his opinion of it being a waste of time is totally subjective.

It took me probably a decade until I realized that the large chunk of my teens I spent logged in to World of Warcraft were not a blemish on my life. The game had so much depth, it was incredibly challenging, and the social aspect was a huge part of it. My family and our societies negative view of the game encouraged a negative view of myself, seeing as I enjoyed it so much.

Of course you should encourage variety, but let your kid play the fuckin game!

<comment><USER3> Am I the only one who feels like this is another echo of moral panic of the great Dungeons & Dragons scare of the mid eighties, which then morphed into the WoW scare of the early 2000's, which has now morphed into the Fortnite scare of 2019? It seems like every 20ish years there is a new and terrible game for parents, media and establishment to find and reach perfect harmony about that coalesces into a cry of "What about the children?!" all the way t Capital Hill and beyond. Ugh.

<comment><USER4> Compared to the D&D scare, this is less of a moral panic of fear of the unknown and more of a panic of lost productivity. D&D's panic, or at least how I understand it, was more like the panic around Harry Potter. Fortnite is more similar to getting mad at your kids for watching too much television or WoW.

<comment><USER5> The D&D scare seems to at least have benefited from a lot of common misunderstandings and that most people were unwilling to give it a shot. Harry Potter exploded in popularity for the blowback to ever be taken too seriously. Its pretty easy to open up a book and read it vs gathering some people together to try out a somewhat complex and open-ended game.

<comment><USER4> That's fair. Additionally with D&D, it is what you make of it. The themes and context can very with the group playing, whereas Harry Potter is exactly what it is.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article addresses moral panic and so it may seem like it is not an extension of it, but I think it basically still is. People have tried for decades, through scientific research, to quantify harm caused by video games and have failed over and over again. Can people become "addicted" to them and use them as escape mechanisms? Sure, But that happens with all kinds of things, from chess to reading to running.

It's rare to see a real impassioned defense of gaming outside of "it's not that bad" but I'd like to go out and say it had a hugely positive impact on my life and I think it's really doubtful I'd be where I am today without gaming. Beyond giving me the foundations of the technical skills I used to become an engineer, gaming gave me tons of social skills as well. As an adolescent I was able to play a ton of different roles in a group in a way that I wasn't able to in real life, even in sports and mock trial and things like that, where other elements of teamwork were present. This prepared me greatly for understanding deep collaboration with teammates at work today. Much more than group projects in school. Like orders of magnitude more so.

It's also important to note that despite being the safest the country has ever been, adolescents are more restricted than ever before. It is extremely rare for them to have places where they can be free, with their friends, and also trying out new social roles. This is an extremely valuable process and it's really difficult to do these days. I don't think there is anything wrong with Fortnite, but I think if you're trying to figure out why people play it and you reduce that down to "bright flashing colors and escapism" you're missing a ton of the context.

And this isn't to rag on sports and say gaming is better (or theater, or woodworking, if those are your things) it's just to say: it's 2019. This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be spending their time. Let's stop tiptoeing around gaming like it's just a vice and start emphasizing the positive things we get out of it.

<comment><USER7> > This gaming thing has been going on for quite some time. It's a real thing > with depth, mastery and real benefits that spread into the rest of your life > just like playing sports, or chess or however else you think kids should be > spending their time.

Sure, that's true, but only for some kids - while for others, games, esp. non- skill ones (say, 100th hour of slashing monsters in Diablo) truly are a distraction and bring nothing in, while they fill the time in child's development that is normally devoted to activities which develop the child in some way. The same thing can be said about other activities, like TV, but I feel like video games may have even less to offer than those. I mean, if you watch sitcoms on TV, you're developing your sense of humor, observe people engaged in funny dialogue etc. I can't see a single valueable thing about that 100th hour of playing Diablo - it's a pure time waster. It's not great for an adult, but especially bad for a child/teenager, which should be growing instead of wasting time.

<comment><USER6> Diablo is orders of magnitude less successful than Fortnite (or even Overwatch, by the same company), and I'd argue the reason is exactly what you are talking about: it's just not a very good game and the things you can get out of it just aren't that valuable. Overwhelmingly people choose more teamwork based, deeply social games. This is what the numbers say.

A second premise I want to address is the idea that using games (or movies or books or whatever) as a mind numbing distraction is a waste of time or the fault of the escape itself. Tons of people are dealing with really intense trauma, and it's not really clear that there really is a better short term alternative for stress management. I think if people are doing things like slashing monsters for 100 hours in Diablo don't look at Diablo, look at what's going on in the rest of their life. Because you can take away Diablo, but you if you aren't fixing what makes them play a shitty game as a distraction for 100 hours you haven't really helped them at all.

Finally: tons of people run pathologically. I mean basically anyone who is serious about the sport does more damage to themselves than is necessary, and runs far more than the optimal amount. I don't think running is exactly the same as gaming, but it's worth examining why we as a culture have no problem discussing Larry's second hip replacement from running 10 miles a day but tremble when discussing Larry's son's 10th hour this week playing Fortnite.

<comment><USER8> I lost around 2.5 years to World of Warcraft, I'm talking 12-14 hours per day over that period. This is over a decade ago and my mum still talks about the wasted time and she hates the name of that game. She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out. I'm in my 30's now and I truly love my life and I have for a number of years.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for sharing and glad to hear you're doing better now.

> She doesn't realise that without that escape I wasn't far off suicide. That > addiction gave me enough time to sort out my life and figure things out.

This is huge! I always think about stuff like this when people dismiss "entertainment."

<comment><USER8> No worries, I feel it's important to talk about mental health issues. You never know what others are dealing with and sharing might make them see that things can get better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I went through something similar to the author once, where I looked back on all the time I spent playing games in my youth and thought "wow, what a waste!"

What I came to realise, however, (after reading about Self Determination Theory) was that I likely spent so much of my time playing games because it was the only way for me to experience autonomy and competency as a young adult. I had no other way of meeting those needs.

Games taught me that if I practice at something, I can get better. They gave me a world I could exercise control over when everything else in my life was determined by school and my parents.

If you know someone who you think plays too many games, look to see if they have any other ways of meeting those basic human needs for autonomy, competence, and social interaction. If their lives are deficient in one or all of those areas, games can be a lifesaver.

<comment><USER10> A lifesaver or a crutch.

<comment><USER9> Can't it be both?

<comment><USER11> I would compare it to benzos. They can tide you over for a short while, but long term it leads to dependency. And there are much more productive alternatives out there (Like exercise, for both cases..).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This essay spends a bit of time trying to figure out whether we should discuss how "harmful" video games are vs. "how virtuous" they make us. The "opportunity cost" approach my parents had seems much more effective to me--"alright, you need to turn that off now. There are so many other interesting things you could be doing right now."

<comment><USER13> I think people are heavily biased towards what looks interesting to an outside observer. A child sat at a desk all day starting at a glowing screen looks like some kind of soulless zombie.

"Screens bad! Go outside and play!"

The child might be doing something mindless, or might be involved in something fascinating - creating or participating in elaborate and vibrant virtual worlds.

I think parents should seek a healthy balance for their children. But that means understanding what's happening and what it means and not trying to promote activities because of how they look on the outside. A child riding his bike around the neighborhood probably looks better to modern sensibilities than one staring at a screen, but I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a world in Minecraft as an example.

<comment><USER14> > I don't know why bike riding should be considered superior to building a > world in Minecraft as an example.

Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a jar.

This is why I'd say that riding a bike around¹ _is_ more valuable than playing fortnite.

1: And bike riding can be a group thing as well. When I was a kid,we dirt jumped and mountain biked on the local trails a lot, which was immensely fun.

<comment><USER15> > Nothing against fortnite, but we are animals with bodies, not brains in a > jar.

If you truly believe that, then quit your office job and take a more physical, _human_ occupation.

<comment><USER14> I don't have a physical occupation now,but every other waking minute I do physical things as much as I can.

I used to work farm labour when I was younger, never slept so well in my life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> In my experience, there are either two parts of the brain or two personalities within you that constantly feed on one another.

For example, when you start playing World of Warcraft again, and a week later it feels like you are a crack addict who needs 10+ hours every day. But the game feels great. It feels great until you hit a wall either in-game or in real life.

And the younger you are, the more difficult it is to hit either of those walls. Last year I hit a bit of a slump in my life and had a few 'dark' months, so I downloaded WoW right around the time of when the new expansion was coming out.

Not only did I realize that Blizzard has surgically removed the "soul" of the game (for whatever reason), I also realized that my conscience can't really keep up with the game for that long.

</comment><comment><USER17> As we've worked on Hubs at Mozilla it's beginning to feel like we're one of what will become several key mechanisms for introducing avatar embodiment into our lives. There are a number of trends (VR, gaming, etc) pointing in this direction so it seems like wrangling with the moral questions around remote embodiment will become more and more prevalent.

<comment><USER18> Does anyone remember ViOS?

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Really, games are like any other piece of media. Engage with them passively, and uncritically and one won't get much value out of it. Engage with them actively and they can have a positive impact.

My parents didn't really care _what_ media I consumed but cared more about _how_ I consumed it. Plenty of games have the potential to explore and foster interesting experiences. I've learned a lot through games. In fact I'd say that two of the most important things I've learned I've learned through games: the importance of a strong work ethic, and discovering my passing for computer technology (which later led to a career in software development). Games _can_ be mindless and intellectually numb. But the same could be said of any other piece of media.

Granted I am of the opinion that battle Royale games provide less than strategy games, and most RPGs but I am not nearly experienced enough in the BR genre to have much conviction in this opinion.

<comment><USER20> I think most games have orthogonal twitch and strategy components. All games of course have some strategy -- even decided games like Checkers have the optimal strategy, along side unoptimal ones.

There are "action" games (high twitch) that have very high strategic content. The kicker is that sometimes twitch can serve as a ceiling for strategy. That is, below a certain twitch level, some strategies are not viable or available. Games with very low twitch minimize this, like turn-based RPGs and strategy games. But even StarCraft requires high twitch (aka unit micro) to execute some strategies!

<comment><USER19> Even ostensibly twitch based games have a lot of strategy. 2D fighters have tons of strategy, so do games like * Souls. Stealth games also require good strategy and spacial reasoning coupled with strong execution.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There seems to be at least some objective criteria for good and bad uses of time. In general, almost everyone has the same set of needs in order to flourish, and the same requirements to meet those needs. So, uses of time that better fit the general requirements for flourishing are objectively better. For example, everyone needs to be healthy, and subsisting on a diet consisting entirely of candy is unlikely to be healthy for the general population (although I did hear about a guy living only on Mars bars).

With video games, while we minimize the importance of geography due to virtualization, geographically located communities seems to be the most beneficial for our social wellbeing. From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!). Sinking all of one's time into online games and relationships will diminish our ability to develop geographical communities.

On the other hand, it's wrong to write off video games altogether. As an artistic medium, they are pretty unique and their true potential has yet to be realized. I think the indie scene is great in this regard. And exposure to great art is essential for human flourishing.

<comment><USER22> > From a purely evolutionary viewpoint, we cannot reproduce virtually (yet!)

Sperm donation and IVF is quite virtual already.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> The worst part about playing video games is you get a brain full of lots of totally useless video game trivia. When I realized that programming was almost as fun as playing video games I just did that instead. Even the most aimless screwing around programming will have a better long term impact on one's life than videogaming IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER24> Video games are fine, but as I tell my sons, there's a huge difference between learning how to play guitar and learning how to play Guitar Hero. Virtual worlds are fine to engage with, but those accomplishments are virtual and ephemeral, while real world skills remain with you.

<comment><USER25> I'm sure you're well-intentioned and want what's best for your kids, but I'm going to push back a bit. My ability to play video games in general has improved over the years, and for me it's a source of pleasure. It's not ephemeral because many of the games I play now have the same mechanics as the ones I played when I was a kid.

People like listening to guitar, but there are also a lot of people who love watching others play videogames on sites like Twitch. Of course both playing videogames and playing guitar professionally aren't a realistic goal for most people.

<comment><USER11> I don't think the amount of utility for guitar is the same as for video games.

I understand very few people get to be professional guitarists or gamers. However, after that there are rapidly decreasing returns for video games. Guitar can be a source of pleasure for people you meet. It's a far more interesting skill than playing video games decently well. Guitar challenges the brain more; its learning curve extends farther than any video game. Guitar opens up a world of creativity and improvisation, name me a video game that can provide something at that scale (I'm an avid gamer so I'm sure there are none). Plus, it can get you laid.

I just don't buy that playing video games can provide much benefit. It seems like a meager reason to justify a questionable habit.

<comment><USER25> Personally I would much rather watch someone play videogames than listen to someone play guitar, but that might be an unpopular opinion and I agree with you that actually writing music is more artistically creative than what you can do with the vast majority of videogames.

We can probably agree the type of game matter. To me the skill that people display when expertly playing a real-time strategy game is really interesting and takes a certain kind of tactical/strategic genius to do well. It is basically speed chess with a lot more rules and space for creativity.

You've definitely got a point that guitar probably is a better way to impress most of the ladies.

I just want to make the additional point that video games are how a lot of us began our interest in computers that later turned into a fulfilling career. Many people first experienced a command line while installing DOS games. The modern equivalent is probably modding PC games, which can take a lot of technical literacy depending on the game.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Love this article but take issue with this statement: "The experience of place is an irreducibly embodied experience.". The author moderates it by pointing out that there is a physical experience of gaming, but I think this misses the point that we don't yet know the limits of virtual experiences.

There is a similar attitude when folks insist that robotic embodiment is required for AI, or that AI structures must mimic the human brain to achieve "real" intelligence. I think these attitudes, by trying to draw a bright line, lead people to consistently underestimate how powerful new media can be.

</comment><comment><USER27> Maybe we should just tell kids to watch TV. Wait...

<comment><USER28> How is TV a defense of videogames?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> "I can't quite claim that playing hours of Mortal Kombat, most of those socializing with friends, was good."

I played a lot of Street Figher on the SNES, always loved it, always played or some time with friend and then do something else. I don't think it was bad?

</comment><comment><USER30> Interesting article. I like the re-framing of questioning gaming (and other uses of technology) from the basis of what it adds rather than what it subtracts.

I believe there is value in gaming. There's value in storytelling, in mastering small skills, and in the positive feedback of progression. There's value in shared experiences and in the communities that spring up within and around games.

My own struggle is with the diminishing returns. The "danger" of games to me, such as they are, is not in the value-per-unit-of-time ratio, but rather in the total amount of time that they can suck up. It's not hard at all to spend hundreds of hours in games. For me, if I take any given hour of gaming and compare it to an hour of something else I could have been doing, I'm quite happy to have spent it gaming. But when I take the sum of that time over a year, or a lifetime, and compare it to other pursuits, that's when I start to question it in my own life.

tl;dr: the "danger" of gaming to me is not in the content of games, or in gaming not having anything to add to someone's life, but rather in the fact that, for many people, gaming seems uniquely able to suck up so much time -- much more so than what it ultimately adds.

</comment><comment><USER31> The point about Fortnite basically being a real place is very astute.

</comment><comment><USER32> This is just some guy commenting on a New York Times article. The actual article is better.[1]

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sunday/fortnite-s...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/05/opinion/sunday/fortnite- social-play-children.html)

</comment><comment><USER33> There may be opportunity cost, but you can't beat something with nothing. Whatever activity you think is a "waste of time" needs to be compared with something specific that's allegedly better.

What, specifically, should the kids playing too much Fortnite be doing more of? Encourage them to do that.

</comment><comment><USER34> I play Fortnite almost every day for varying reasons:

\- I have adult customers who like playing/talking with someone who makes what they buy.

\- I have former colleagues I talk to and catch up with.

\- I have gaming friends who want someone whose competitive to play with.

\- I use it to decompress for the day... or add a ton of stress, depending on whether I can "edit my builds" fast enough for the dub.

tl;dr: From my perspective, Fortnite is a social network.

<comment><USER35> I'm curious what kind of business do you do where Fortnite is a significant way to interact with your customers?

<comment><USER34> I wouldn't say it's significant. It's a handful of customers who play occasionally. No where near as much as I do.

I run a support bot business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Weird flex, but ok.</comment>


Make your Internet experience more productive, the hacker way. - <AUTHOR> http://www.dorianselimi.com/2011/10/make-your-internet-experience-more-comfortable-and-enjoyable/

<comment><USER2> The title promises much but the article lists well-known applications. I'm unsure where the increase in productivity comes from.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder how piwik or browsershots could make me more productive.

</comment><comment><USER4> Hilarius article. Makes a hacker look dumb.</comment>