China's GDP Growth Pace Was Inflated for Nine Years, Study Finds - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-08/china-s-gdp-growth-pace-was-inflated-for-nine-years-study-finds <comment><USER2> Not surprising at all, the government is uncannily accurate in their prediction (growth will be 6.9% this year, at the end of the year: hey look, we did it!). Kind of like how almost every province usually has a 4.0% unemployment rate.

That isn't to say China's GDP hasn't been growing, just that the numbers are always being fudged one way or the other. They used to even fudge the numbers down (growth higher than reported) to prevent the appearance of overheating.

It is ironic that Li Keqiang is premiere (#2) but Xi Jinping has decided not to use his index ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang_index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang_index)) that gets around fudging with more accurate statistics.

<comment> dis-sys > It is ironic that Li Keqiang is premiere (#2) but Xi Jinping has decided not > to use his index > ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang_index](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li_Keqiang_index)) > that gets around fudging with more accurate statistics.

Li Keqiang Index has three components, electricity consumption, railway cargo volume and bank loans. They all had pretty good growth, e.g.

[https://www.caixinglobal.com/2018-12-06/china-railway- corp-s...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2018-12-06/china-railway-corp-signals- sustained-growth-ahead-101356386.html)

[https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-01-30/chart-of-the-day- chi...](https://www.caixinglobal.com/2019-01-30/chart-of-the-day-chinese- electricity-consumption-growth-hits-6-year-high-101376236.html)

People need to be realistic, China's current GDP per capita is lower than world's average, it is an extremely poor country totally under developed. With the largest domestic market and hard working population, how hard will it be to grow at 6-7% to catch up with some in the middle of nowhere countries with $20k USD GDP per capita?

<comment><USER3> China is huge and heterogeneous - the coastal cities are well developed and there are 100s of millions of people living in Shanghai, Beijing, Hong-Kong, Shenzhen etc who are well on their way towards western level of development.

For example the Yangtze River Delta has more than 100m people (more than any European country) and GPD(PPP) per capita similar to Italy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_River_Delta](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yangtze_River_Delta)

<comment> dis-sys > For example the Yangtze River Delta has more than 100m people (more than any > European country) and GPD(PPP) per capita similar to Italy

I won't make such comment by completely ignoring the wellbeings of other hundreds million people who live just a couple hours drive from the so called Yangtze River Delta. To name a few examples -

Anhui province is so poor to the extent that it is offensive to ask people questions like "so you came from Anhui?" in Shanghai.

[http://www.sohu.com/a/212534231_578851](http://www.sohu.com/a/212534231_578851)

Henan province has 100 million population on its own, it is nothing really different from the least developed part of Africa.

[http://www.sohu.com/a/196108368_100023515](http://www.sohu.com/a/196108368_100023515)

Those are real people & real lives. How the other 100 million slightly better off Chinese living in Shanghai or Beijing doesn't change the absolute poverty suffered by those hundreds millions not living in tier-1 or tier-2 Chinese cities. Anything painting China as a rich/developed/modern/high tech country is nothing else but cheap propaganda.

Let's make it crystal clear - China's GDP per capita is below the world average. The OP article further pointed out that such reported GDP figures might be inflated as well. When the GDP per capita is below world average, how it is not a poor country significantly under developed?? The only real risk China can possibly pose to the world/west is the fact that a collapsed China can trouble the whole world/west.

When China is damn poor, it is thus much easier to develop and grow 6-7% each year. It is like cutting 1s is easy when it takes you 20-25s to run 100 meters, but it is close to impossible to do the same when you are already finishing 100 meters in 11s. China's GDP is growing 6-7% not because it is smart/modern/strong, it is the complete opposite, it is because China's GDP per capita is well below world's average!

<comment><USER3> And the Ukraine is just 500km from Vienna. I don't dispute China is a developing country, I just think a lot of westerners don't realize how huge and - in parts - how developed it is.

People hear "China is a developing country" and think it's comparable to countries like Bangladesh or Cambodia. But the tier-1 cities and their peripheries are not some tiny enclaves of wealth like Singapore, they are huge - bigger than major European countries.

The fact that poor/undeveloped areas are relatively nearby does not make them less developed than the fact that Moldova and Kosovo are in the EU's backyard make Germany undeveloped.

<comment> dis-sys > Ukraine is just 500km from Vienna

those are two vastly different independent countries.

> how developed it is

can we just cut all cheap talks and focus on undisputed facts and numbers? the undisputed facts here is extremely simple -

1\. China's official GDP per capita is well below world's average.

2\. The research in the OP article shows such official figure is highly inflated.

You can keep painting China as "developed" or "developed in some selected areas", the above undisputed facts won't change. Hundreds of millions of Chinese live well below the world average standard when it comes to their economic lives. Selectively ignoring the real life situation of hundreds of millions just to back what you believe is not that convincing.

<comment><USER3> Can we have a more subtle and less one-dimensional discussion? I'm not claiming you are wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Can we do something about every article remotely ctitical of China being flagged.

I'm assuming that's what happened since this article very quickly moved from 1st place to below other articles that are older and have far fewer comments and upvotes.

Edit: currently #21 despite more upvotes and comments and being newer than the top 3 articles.

<comment><USER5> It's actually the opposite. Every comment not critical of China gets downvoted quickly. Proof: comments on this article and other articles critical of China, remotely or overtly.

<comment><USER4> Downvoting is different from flagging. Articles can't be downvoted only flagged.

If you look at the comments in the thread that have been flag killed, they are mostly low quality comments on both sides of the issue.

And looking at downvoted comments, there doesn't seem to be much correlation at all between upvotes and whether the comment is critical of China.

<comment> dis-sys > they are mostly low quality comments on both sides of the issue.

Please have a look at the other reply I made in this thread, when someone mentioned that Li Keqiang Index and argued that it is a better indicator of China's real GDP growth, I listed recent figures to show that if Li Keqiang Index is actually more reliable, there would be higher real GDP growth. My cited numbers are from Caixin, which is considered as a pretty reliable private source.

What happened to my reply? My "low quality" comment is downvoted within seconds. I don't think China bashing comments are being treated the same way.

Rather than just blindly marking other people's replies as of "low quality", maybe you can share some more details on why my downvoted reply above is of low quality and how can I improve from that.

Oh, btw, with high confidence that this reply is going to be downvoted fast.

<comment><USER6> I upvoted your last comment, and upvoted this one. I disagree with they are a "better" indicator to what other part of the world uses, but agree with the the index being more reliable than the current one China is using. Agree with the Caixin sources as well.

I generally don't downvote something unless they are, meaningless, offer no value to discussions or spreading wrong information that could easily be disproved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The article states that the provinces have a material reason to inflate. The provincial governments are far stronger than people routinely seem to understand, we're obsessed by the strong statist arguments of 'scary China' and don't think about their internal structure and where strength and weakness lies.

I believe Chinese central planners don't like misleading numbers, it makes the five year plan much harder to design. The Chinese technocrats wouldn't like this situation any more than western investment does.

<comment><USER8> I would decouple the economic and political realities of "the mountains are tall and the emperor far away" from national military might.

Vietnam, Russia, Tibet and other neighbors can attest that that one is not like the other.

<comment><USER7> Possibly, yes. The article I responded to focused on the economy. Do you see signs of Chinese territorial ambition, spratleys aside?

<comment> barry-cotter China's territorial claims in the South China Sea are ridiculously broad. The nine dash line in particular is insane, extending into the EEZ of six other countries. China claims that entire area, not as its EEZ but as _territorial waters_.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_So...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_disputes_in_the_South_China_Sea)

> The disputes involve both maritime boundaries and islands.[8] There are > several disputes, each of which involves a different collection of > countries:

> The nine-dash line area claimed by the Republic of China, later the People's > Republic of China (PRC), which covers most of the South China Sea and > overlaps the exclusive economic zone claims of Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, > the Philippines, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Maritime boundary along the Vietnamese > coast between the PRC, Taiwan, and Vietnam. Maritime boundary north of > Borneo between the PRC, Malaysia, Brunei, Philippines, and Taiwan. Islands, > reefs, banks and shoals in the South China Sea, including the Paracel > Islands, the Pratas Islands, Macclesfield Bank, Scarborough Shoal and the > Spratly Islands between the PRC, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and parts of the area > also contested by Malaysia and the Philippines. Maritime boundary in the > waters north of the Natuna Islands between the PRC, Indonesia and Taiwan[9] > Maritime boundary off the coast of Palawan and Luzon between the PRC, the > Philippines, and Taiwan. Maritime boundary, land territory, and the islands > of Sabah, including Ambalat, between Indonesia, Malaysia, and the > Philippines. Maritime boundary and islands in the Luzon Strait between the > PRC, the Philippines, and Taiwan.

<comment><USER9> Taiwan should also obviously be added to the list of China's territorial ambitions. They're openly aggressively intent on annexing Taiwan by any means required, despite it being a separate, self-governed nation for the last half century. They're the 21st largest economy in the world. It would be by far the biggest conquering event in terms of a major nation being annexed since the WW2 era.

<comment><USER10> I can't understand the downvotes on this post. The PRC has never controlled Taiwan and has made annexing it (with other words to hide intent) an explicit goal. Of course Taiwan is a territorial ambition of the PRC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's especially notable that China has been caught inflating their GDP numbers because their Paris Agreement carbon output was tied directly to carbon per unit GDP, see [https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/paris-climate- confe...](https://www.nrdc.org/sites/default/files/paris-climate-conference- China-IB.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER12> Indian. I am not sure if our GDP numbers are correct either.

<comment><USER13> If anything, for India it is the other way around due to the massive informal economy and tax avoidance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Economists (e.g. Michael Pettis) were already calling China out for its long history inflated numbers when the 2007-2009 crisis erupted. Perhaps this view might go mainstream with the looming recession?

<comment><USER15> > _Perhaps this view might go mainstream with the looming recession?_

Nobody, including Beijing, took China's official statistics at face value. What's novel in this work is the larger-than-expected _magnitude_ of the error.

<comment><USER14> The article mentions China overstated its growth by an average of 1.7 percentage points per year since 2008.

Best I recollect from back when I was reading Pettis' blog on a regular basis, that figure is actually _lower_ than what he was been suggesting China had been overstating its growth by in the decade prior to 2008.

Pettis is about as specialized in China financial markets as you can get, having basically studied and blogging about the stuff exclusively insofar as I'm aware while living and teaching finance there. He has many criticisms of how China is reporting numbers. One in particular is that local officials are expected to meet certain GDP targets. When the numbers don't look like they'll be in, they'll take on debt and build a bridge to nowhere to make their numbers.

The point being, from where I'm standing from there doesn't seem to be anything new in the magnitude of the error. (It's great if the article made you privy about how overstated the economy was.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is anyone surprised? The government in China has to manage for image internally to their population. I am not saying this is bad, it is just the trap the current government is in. They have of move to a non export driven economy. The cost of building in kit in China has just climbed. Low end manufacturing has been moving out for years. China still has a wealth gap issue they are trying to manage. This means they have to move to a domestic spending driven economy as fast as they can.

</comment><comment><USER17> Reminds me very much of the Soviet Union. CPSU could also produce whatever paper numbers they wanted. Whether any of them matched reality was another story entirely. Everyone knows how that ended.

That said, I no longer trust the mass media to report something like this accurately either. For all we know someone might be throwing in a narrative to help (or hurt) the ongoing trade negotiations.

</comment><comment><USER18> Western economists have desperate view with China's economy for two decades, and their faces have been slapped for two decades.

</comment><comment><USER19> 1-2% overstatement of GDP, if that's big news, that will depreciate the Chinese currency and boost the exports more.

</comment><comment><USER20> The winds of exaggeration blow still. [1]

[1] [https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/03/10/beijings-gdp- numerology...](https://foreignpolicy.com/2009/03/10/beijings-gdp-numerology/)

</comment><comment><USER21> And everything is fine.... maybe GDP is not important anyway.

</comment><comment><USER22> How does the study capture the growth in the services sector?

</comment><comment><USER23> Could someone explain why this is on HN? I ask because this comes up often on other non-tech topics. Personally I'm happy these topics can be discussed here.

</comment><comment><USER24> Eh, it's really actually pretty hard to calculate GDPs. Many countries can't get within 1% due to reasons, so 1.6% per year isn't _that_ big of a difference. China also has interesting accounting systems that actually might _under-count_ the GDP, for example the GDP calculations mostly ignore the GDP of small firms.

> Companies with annual revenue below 360k RMB (roughly 53k USD) are exempt > from VAT tax and all subsequent taxes. China has more than 65 million (2017 > estimate) such micro companies, often single person, or single family (two > people). If you multiply the two numbers together, it is up to 3.4 trillion > USD per year. Just assuming only 1/4 to 1/2 is achieved, that is a 0.85 to > 1.70 trillion USD economy, roughly 7% to 14% of overall Chinese GDP will > have to be estimated, and can be potentially massively under reporting.

source: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/aycs6x/chinas_20...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/aycs6x/chinas_2016_gdp_might_be_overstated_by_16/ei2g6bf/) \- I will probably look this up in the future but can't verify this comment right now.

Here's a paper from the National Bureau of Economics Research that suggests that Chinese GDP might be understated: [https://www.nber.org/papers/w23323](https://www.nber.org/papers/w23323) \- this paper analyzes Chinese GDP by looking at its nighttime light usage. In this vein, I've heard that government actually tries to be conservative with the numbers so as to avoid the overstatement claims, but I have 0 sources on this.

For the Brookings paper linked in the post, one big issue with it is that it didn't account for a tax-related change that happened in 2008-09. See this reddit comment for details: [https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/aycs6x/chinas_20...](https://www.reddit.com/r/Economics/comments/aycs6x/chinas_2016_gdp_might_be_overstated_by_16/ehzu2ww/) \- this means that the overstatement is still there, but probably smaller. The author of that reddit comment emailed the authors but hasn't heard back.

It does seem like everyone will take the "OMG CHINA FAKES EVERYTHING" at face value as it confirms their biases. I don't want to speak on either side of it, growing up in China we/my parents/friends all make fun of the GDP numbers and call them chicken butt (鸡的屁 sounds like GDP). Maybe the core of the issue is that no one really has transparency so it's really hard to tell for sure, so no one, domestic or foreign, trusts the numbers given by the government. If so, maybe the objective ways of doing analysis, like satellite footage on night time lights, is the way to go (not to say the article I linked is thus 100% the truth). Anyone have other ideas on what indicators, like nighttime lights, can be used here?

<comment><USER25> Very reasonable comments.

I don't know why some people are so emotional about China. Sounds like they have lost something in their lifes.

An adult conversation is a fact driven conversation. That is the basic culture for HN v.s. places like reddit.

GDP is a manipulable number that has lost its accurate meaning. Even the ratings of the TVs have multi-aspects now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> no not china, no way!

It has been no secret that any numbers from china needs to taken with a grain salt.

</comment><comment><USER27> I think every country does that

</comment><comment><USER28> China "inflating" AKA lying about economic numbers is widely known and accepted by US stock market folks and analysts.

</comment><comment><USER29> I'm sure all countries have been cooking the books.

</comment><comment><USER30> One easy way to measure GDP is count their new large truck sales. That number is hard to game.

</comment><comment><USER31> All countries inflate GDP, because there is always a gap of uncertainty about existing economic activity and governments like larger numbers. And since Chinese growth is higher than in other parts of the world, it is normal that the gap be larger, in the range of 1%.

<comment><USER32> I don't think this is true. Certainly in many countries GDP calculations are transparent. The economists calculating them are bureaucrats who serve the government, not whichever party is currently in power.

<comment><USER31> Oh, right, the same kind of people who gave AAA status to mortgage based derivatives. You must live in a different world, then.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Consider that Fannie and Freddie were allowed not to provide detailed financials to congress for several years in a row preceding the 2008 housing collapse.

It's not a matter of "oh wow, a major government fudges numbers", it's "how many major ways in which my government fudges numbers might I not be aware of?"

<comment><USER34> As an outside observer, another example would be the constant redefinition of US unemployment (I hear it is now "people who haven't actively sought work for 3 months are no longer considered unemployed") which IIRC from an article has dropped US unemployment figures. It sounds like reality may differ substantially, and there is certainly a huge underground/cash economy.

<comment><USER35> The US BLS has long kept many different measures of unemployment.

All of these numbers are watched to extreme degrees by market participants. The idea that they are constantly redefined doesn't hold up to basic analysis by anyone who has traded on that data.</comment></comment></comment>


The disturbing YouTube videos that are tricking children - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-39381889 <comment><USER2> When I was pretty young (kindergarten) I would read "Our Universe" over and over ([https://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Picture-Atlas- Uni...](https://www.amazon.com/National-Geographic-Picture-Atlas- Universe/dp/079222731X) ). Most of what was there I barely understood, but I understood enough to keep coming back.

A few years later (2nd or 3rd grade) I got into a mild argument with my music teacher when she off-handedly mentioned there was not life on other planets in our solar system. I was insistent that there was and I had seen pictures. To her credit, she asked me to bring her that evidence, and once I did she explained what part of the text said - these were hypotheticals. _If_ alien life could live in Jupiter, what might it look like.

I remember a vague sense of disappointment at the time, but overall I think I'm glad I was fooled in that way at such a formative age. Forming big thoughts from what I read and later learning what part of what I read meant that changed my conclusions is a lesson that I think turned out well for me.

In contrast, I think Santa is a terrible, terrible thing - adults lying to kids about something that is already fun and wonderful to the kids, and then using it as a threat ("better be good or else!"), only to eventually have the kids learn it was all a lie...I fail to see much positive coming from that. (and yet, people are aghast at the very prospect of kids finding out early - it would "ruin" the holidays)

I'm not really sure where the material discussed in the article fall - it read to me like these was material that WASN'T intended to trick children, but rather targeted at adults without making that clear, but I might be misunderstanding.

</comment><comment><USER3> There's a ton of abuse on YouTube.

The content is generally made for an older public, that's how YouTube started and that's what the content is for

The problem isn't YouTube per se, it's our understanding of it, and as a result, the laws we bring forth to try and manage it.

It's like sending your kids down to buy something from a corner shop or when you send them to school on their own. It's we the adults that make sure they know better than to talk to strangers.

I think thoigh the street metaphor isn't too accurate, since a normal corner stop wont have hookers and dirty magazine pedlers trying to get your kid off for a buck. The Internet does though, and it'll be an interesting problem to solve, without destroying the mechanisms that allow innovation.

I think most people here anyone are aware of this, wbut do we really know how deep the rabbit hole goes?

<comment><USER4> The videos mentioned in the article seem to purpose made to scare kids under nine who want to see their favorite cartoon characters. Limiting the discussion to YouTube, Google needs to acknowledge how many children spend time browsing videos on their site and make a YouTube Kids with only approved providers and strict moderation.

<comment><USER5> Youtube already has this as an app for Android and iOS:

[https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.and...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.google.android.apps.youtube.kids)

[https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youtubekids/id936971630?mt=8](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/youtubekids/id936971630?mt=8)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Consider a young child, maybe 5 or 6, who loves animals very much. Now consider that this child is living in the year 1991 and watching a documentary about Zebras on the National Geographic channel. Now consider that during the course of this show, a Zebra has an unfortunate encounter with a lioness or 5, which the kid never expected and is likely very upset by what they see. Should there now be a nationwide discussion/outrage about how National Geographic portrays nature? Or should parents rethink their parenting habits by actively monitoring what their kids watch on TV, in 1991? Same goes for the Youtube and the Internet in general, why would you let your kid have free reign on either platform knowing the potential for bad content? Maybe if a parent could pre- watch the videos on Youtube before letting their kids watch it to insure its legit, then kids wouldn't be tricked by the fake stuff.

</comment><comment><USER7> Tricking children?

You let your toddler or child on the internet with no supervision and then they find something you do not like.

What kind of victomhood article is this?

<comment><USER8> Agreed. Also YouTube ToS defines the service to be used by individuals aged at least 13 years and up. Point 12: [https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms](https://www.youtube.com/static?gl=CA&template=terms)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is the inherent problem in having children's programs produced by adults. If parents would strictly monitor their children's viewing habits and ensure only content produced, directed and written by toddlers entered the home this problem wouldn't happen.

</comment><comment><USER10> There is a big need for a "safe" internet for minors. Another point is that free pornography asks "Are you sure you're 18?" and takes their word whether they are 11 or 19.

I, for one, would pay an extra fee to ensure that the internet provided by my ISP was filtered for child inappropriate content. And for platforms that had mixed content, could be blocked until those platforms created safe subdomains like "childsafe.youtube.com" or what have you.

<comment><USER11> That could viably work, but has one downside.

If you shift all the way to the extreme of "super safe", when the inevitable bored trolls come along and figure out how to game the automated filter and get gore/porn/whatever into the safe sandbox for long enough for it to get a few views, the news will have a field day from the resulting chaos.

Ultimately, any company that tries to do this will get bad press.

You would literally need a mod team running 24/7 vetoing every single video before okaying it. And you'd need like a 7-second delay for streams.

But then you'd have the problem of "hi whoever's watching this video and making sure it's okay".

Closed/private video streams with a bounded number of participants would be the responsibility of those who joined the group though.

So it's really a money question. And the fact that you'd need 1.5-1.8 mods (however you'd implementationally interpret that) to get around human tiredness and boredom, driving costs up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I have a simple rule for these videos: No crying videos. If the characters are crying, they are usually getting tortured, attacked, etc, much like the article states. I didn't have to enforce the rule very long since my 5 year old has moved on to Super Mario Run videos. What I don't understand is how these videos and channels haven't been banned due to copyright and trademark infringement? Sure,

</comment><comment><USER13> My 3 year old son absolutely loves the "scary peppa pig" videos

</comment><comment><USER14> My daughter just watches "real dragon" videos, she's desperate for proof they really exist. Fortunately she understands they are all likely fake.

</comment><comment><USER15> We just banned youtube and youtube kids unless a parent is there. Basically those unboxing toy videos are worse than ads.</comment>


Facebook Employees in an Uproar Over Executive's Leaked Memo - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/30/technology/facebook-leaked-memo.html <comment><USER2> Look at this and tell me that this company takes privacy seriously.

From the article:

Adam Mosseri, Facebook's head of news, in recent days wrote unprompted to a BuzzFeed editor and to its chief executive reminiscing and telling a story about his mother [1]. He also wrote to a reporter from the Verge tech site about the songs played at his wedding reception.

[1] [https://mobile.twitter.com/mosseri/status/978005027573743617](https://mobile.twitter.com/mosseri/status/978005027573743617)

[2] [https://mobile.twitter.com/mosseri/status/977693246888411136](https://mobile.twitter.com/mosseri/status/977693246888411136)</comment>


Windows 8 Tells Microsoft Everything You Install, Not Very Securely. - <AUTHOR> http://log.nadim.cc/?p=78

<comment><USER2> This guy has a habit of trying to be a grandstanding security expert but being wrong a lot. In this example, he is wrong because although IIS will answer a SSLv2 connection, it will not actually process the request. Anyone who has done basic scanning for an audit is well aware of this false positive.

See here: [http://billing.handsonwebhosting.com/knowledgebase.php?actio...](http://billing.handsonwebhosting.com/knowledgebase.php?action=displayarticle&id=221)

As he says:

 _"I haven't checked whether Windows SmartScreen does in fact use SSLv2, but the fact that the Microsoft servers support it is concerning."_

Yeah, maybe check next time before you shout that the sky is falling.

If you are concerned about the privacy issue (MS getting requests indicating what was installed - not the bogus MITM claim), disabling this is offered in the privacy settings, and it is even put in front of your face during OS install. Also, all major AV products do the same thing, except they're not as transparent about it.

Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER3> Author here. Let me ask you something: Have you checked if SSLv2 connections are actually dropped?

The point of my article isn't SSLv2, it's privacy concerns. Also, I did actually check and disabling SmartScreen doesn't seem to be offered during OS install, did I miss something?

Thanks for the disgusting ad-hominem! It totally aids your missing the point.

 _Edit_ : Whoa, I think I've figured out why this guy is being so personal; his submission history includes promoting a security company I left after a brief stint. Small world!

<comment><USER4> You can disable smartscreen during install: [http://www.winsupersite.com/content/content/142370/clean_13....](http://www.winsupersite.com/content/content/142370/clean_13.jpg)

<comment><USER3> Ah, thanks! Updating article accordingly!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The article would be a little more convincing if the author had checked that SmartScreen actually uses SSLv2, rather than simply running on a web server which happens to support the protocol.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. Personally I wouldn't care if anyone intercepted a message saying what app I just installed. The author also neglected to mention if the payload contains anything that identifies the user.

<comment><USER3> It's SSL, how are you supposed to be able to read the Payload? The article also explicitly mentions that no tests were run to figure out whether SSLv2 is used by the client.

You wouldn't personally care if messages were intercepted regarding the apps you're installing, but imagine the kind of leverage it would give someone trying to profile a network of activists in Syria. The exact version number of every app on every computer, perfect for studying the exploit surface.

<comment><USER7> L2 MITM SSL.

<comment><USER3> I've updated the article with information on what SmartScreen sends.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The SmartScreen connection uses SSLv3 just fine on my machine. Here's an example payload: <https://gist.github.com/3448961> (I initially posted this on HN directly, which broke the site layout, so I deleted that post -- sorry about that!)

The base-64 encoded strings in the request are the HTTP referrer and the download location, respectively. The "client key" and "MAC" seems to be API key-like authenticators. Not sure what the GUIDs are about.

Anyway, the use of this data has been explained in quite a bit of detail a long time ago already: [http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows- vista/smartscreen...](http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows- vista/smartscreen-filter-frequently-asked-questions).

As said elsewhere already, the feature is easy enough to turn off. And there is definitely an opt-in question somewhere, as I had to enable the feature on my machine in order to test it...

</comment><comment><USER9> If one loads an app on Apple's popular smartphone, Apple keeps a record of it. Along with one's credit card number and potentially a large amount of location and connectivity data.

If one loads an app on Facebook or searches on Google or even visits a commercial website one's privacy is likely to be compromised.

None of this makes Windows behavior entirely devoid of causing concern, but in my opinion, Microsoft is more trustworthy filling that role than the crapware antivirus providers who have been doing it for years.

</comment><comment><USER10> Sure just turn it off

[http://www.howtogeek.com/75356/how-to-turn-off-or-disable- th...](http://www.howtogeek.com/75356/how-to-turn-off-or-disable-the- smartscreen-filter-in-windows-8/)

<comment><USER11> The problem is that Smartscreen is on by default. Most users are going to have trouble enough trying to forget about the missing Start Menu even after watching the Welcome Intro let alone fumble through looking for some way to disable this option.

Malware protection requiring surrendered privacy seems a pretty crappy "feature." Why can't Microsoft do better?

<comment><USER12> How? By constantly downloading the entire database of every application to your local drive? Where it would not only take up space, but could be modified to allow anything in? The author says nothing about _what_ exactly is being sent to MS, all he can say for sure that a request is sent to that URL. And about it being turned on by default - as long as it can be turned off, this is _good_. The main problem with security features (like Windows Update for a long time) that are not turned on by default is that your regular Joe user will never turn those on, thus ending up with a terribly out of date, insecure system.

<comment><USER13> _How? By constantly downloading the entire database of every application to your local drive? Where it would not only take up space, but could be modified to allow anything in?_

Yes, and no.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4427416>

(besides, if you can just tamper with the filesystem you're kinda in already)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> On a slightly different note concerning privacy:

How much more of this will we take before enough people demand privacy again? What event has to happen? On our phones, applications can't even be downloaded until monitored and approved by the corporation (one step further than this). Our desktops have been moving in this direction for some time already.

<comment><USER15> Linux from Scratch. Build it for the ones you love.

<comment><USER16> Even that may not be enough: [http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/15/strange-loops- de...](http://scienceblogs.com/goodmath/2007/04/15/strange-loops-dennis- ritchie-a/)

<comment><USER17> That was a very interesting and funny read! Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am not going to let anyone know the software that I have installed, nor will I trust or depend on a white list issued by a big private corporation with business interests.

<comment><USER19> FYI Google keeps a big list of every app you've ever installed through Android Market/Play Store; it stays in "My Apps" even if you uninstall it.

<comment><USER18> I do not use Google products for this reason.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> What's really scary is the entire industry is doing their best to make this normal and they've enjoyed phenomenal success so far. This is almost Microsoft playing catch up.

<comment><USER21> Begging the question a bit here, so much so that I was tempted to just post '?'. I assume you mean Apple, but Apple's checks locally for code-signing, it doesn't phone home. Which is what the problem is.

<comment><USER20> I'm not specifically meaning Apple although they're certainly part of it:

\- iTunes and App Store

\- Steam

\- Windows Phone marketplace, MSDN, upcoming software marketplace

\- Amazon App Store and Google's Play Store

\- Chrome Web Store and Firefox's add-on marketplace

\- Ubuntu Software Center, packet managers in general

\- Facebook's App Center

\- Github, Google Code and SourceForge

I doubt there's anyone on HN who doesn't have a long history with a lot of names on that list. Almost every piece of software and game I have on every device I use has come via this list.

But I'm sure all of these .. centralized installation hubs I guess .. are reasonably vindicated by their privacy policies - where everyone's idea of 'reasonably' is different and most of them aren't like ours.

<comment><USER21> Centralized software distribution channel != phoning home every time any software is installed on a computer. You are citing examples of the first, the second is what the article is about.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> i feel its biased when people say all the information of apps that are being installed in our System will be known to Microsoft..is it ok to know Apple the information about Mac Apps???

<comment><USER23> All information that gets sent to Apple goes over SSL v3, not v2 (just checked). This is the cause however with Microsoft (v2). V3 is a lot more secure than v2. However, I still agree, it should be asked if the information can be sent to Apple in the first place.

<comment><USER24> Folks are focusing on this point unnecessarily. Large scale real-time collection and cracking of SSLv2 is still out-of-scope for everybody, I suspect.

Large scale MITM, though, isn't, through compromised CA's, etc. That threat is much more severe and affects basically all software that relies on SSL/TLS (whatever version) for securing a connection or the CA system for validating the authenticity of downloads. That's a much more serious problem.

If MSFT is indeed not honoring opt-out of CEIP and other programs, the issue is them not honoring that preference. The particulars of the encryption built on top of a broken model are not the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Isn't SmartScreen's job to validate the signature of the executable file with Microsoft? So it might just be sending the executable's signed public key to check for validity/revocation. Since OP hasn't posted the unencrypted communication we may not know. Doesn't Google do something similar with chrome, it sends a part of the hash of every site you visit to its servers for comparison to a list of malwares and phishing sites?

<comment><USER3> An IP address sending a public key could still be enough to identify that IP address x is trying to install software y.

<comment><USER25> Not with a 100% accuracy I must say. If you are a company developing products, you would have many different product and all of those products end up being signed using a single private key. So assuming that it only sends a company's public key for validation, it would still have to take a guess as to which product was downloaded.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Is there any actual demonstration of a succesful attack on sslv2? I've found only <http://seclists.org/pen-test/2010/Jul/14> which implies it is possible. It would be a nice exercise to actually try to MITM the MS servers here.

</comment><comment><USER27> I've already decided to steer well clear of Win8, going to buy a new laptop before its forced upon me and wait for the next release. This just confirms my decision.

<comment><USER28> Why? You can turn it off. And Windows already had the sending of error reports, did you avoid Windows XP too?

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'm confused. I thought Apple already did this? Also this is a norm in mobile phones.

<comment><USER30> Those work the opposite way: a blacklist is downloaded nightly.

<comment><USER31> Unfortunately anyone on the web can publish EXEs. Look at how big anti-virus definitions are, for example.

<comment><USER32> Do you really want some central organization dictating who can make software and who cannot? Who could you trust with that?

<comment><USER31> I don't think they are preventing apps from being run, just showing a warning message.

<comment><USER33> seems likely. One reason I can think of: have you seen the amounts of crap the average I-think-I-know-how-pcs-work human installs, causing the OS to become totally unusable? And then they start blaming it on the OS?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Well, we'll see if this is legal in Europe. Website cookies are regulated already here, I guess this sort of abuse will have to be stopped as well. Shame on Microsoft for another outrageous decision.

<comment><USER28> Outrageous? And "Send Error Report" wasn't? And other security software vendors sending file hashes isn't?

Please, explain why this in particular is so bad. It's tracking in a sense, but they are not going to use it to violate privacy.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not sure what this guy is trying to say, but basically any kind of 'protection' based on connection to a server compromises your privacy. For example, an anti-phishing feature that is turned on by default in most browsers essentially reports EVERY page you visit to the anti-phishing protection server (obviously, in order to check whether a site is 'good', you must pass the site URL to the server, hence the server can log the URL, what would have stopped it from doing this?). Does not it concern anybody?

<comment><USER36> Not necessarily. It may be what Internet Explorer does for _their_ malware protection, but Firefox certainly _does not_ work this way.

The SafeBrowsing protection in Firefox downloads the _entire malware/phishing database_ from Google in a highly compressed format, through incremental updates, and this is completely uncorrelated to what you visit.

If an URL you browse to is found as a match in that _local_ database, then and only then is a lookup to a remote server done to check if the compressed URL was not a false positive, and if it's still up to date. This lookup isn't even of the URL you visited, but of the SHA-256 of it. This allows to verify if it was a known malware URL, but it is not possible to reverse it and obtain your URL if the hit was a false positive (due to the compression).

Firefox has some additional privacy protection here in that it will check a whole bunch of random entries from the local database whenever there is a hit, so even the party at the other end (Google) can't tell what malware URL, if any, you _actually_ hit.

Google has added an additional, undocumented SafeBrowsing service to Chrome to check downloaded files, and that one does send the URL off to Google for scanning, but Mozilla has refused to implement this feature in Firefox until the privacy concerns can be addressed.

Note that, aside from being much better for privacy, using a local database is obviously of much higher performance than contacting a remote server for every URL.

<comment><USER37> Overall I'm not impressed with chrome's download safety features. Last I checked it flagged any unknown exes on <http://dl.dropbox.com> but trusted unknown exes on <https://dl.dropbox.com>.</comment></comment></comment>


A Brief History of Women in Computing - <AUTHOR> https://hackernoon.com/a-brief-history-of-women-in-computing-e7253ac24306 <comment><USER2> Yeah so TIL that Ada Lovelace was NOT the first programmer.

That title belongs to Charles Babbage, who wrote dozens of programs for the Analytical Engine years before her.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#Controversy_over_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ada_Lovelace#Controversy_over_extent_of_contributions)

So you can stop perpetuating the biggest lie in the history of computing any time now.

<comment><USER3> Read the section -- it's an ongoing debate not a fact either way. Academics and historians debating as usual.</comment></comment>


Building Sights: Why Norman Foster Loves the Boeing 747 - <AUTHOR> https://www.readingdesign.org/boeing-747 <comment><USER2> Don't worry.

Boeing will be building a starship for NASA in 2079, but they'll still be making 737s if they at all can.</comment>


The best and biggest stock photo bazaar in India - <AUTHOR> http://www.imagesbazaar.com/default.aspx <comment><AUTHOR> The founder's profile : [http://www.sandeepmaheshwari.com/thePerson.aspx](http://www.sandeepmaheshwari.com/thePerson.aspx)</comment>


As STEM majors soar at UW, interest in humanities shrinks - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/as-stem-majors-soar-at-uw-interest-in-humanities-shrinks-a-potentially-costly-loss/ <comment><USER2> Ironic since the humanities are the only concepts left once everything is automated leaving creative ideas to be our only worthwhile asset.</comment>


About Those Air Cushions in Amazon Packages - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2016/12/air-cushions/511487/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> > frustrated customers on forums discussing how many air-filled cushions they > were getting

> while deflated air cushions can be recycled, many cities won't collect them > curbside

Pop them, put them in recycling. It's plastic, it's not my job to deal with the fallout. Either it's recyclable and I've done all I can, or it's the retailers' or cities' problem. The idea that there are "frustrated customers" is beyond me. Is this really what ordinary citizens sit around obsessing over? I just don't get it; this would be concern #10,056 on my list of priorities.

<comment><USER3> This is very irresponsible. The reason soft plastics are unrecyclable curbside in San Francisco is that they pose a very real danger to the machines that do recycling sorting. This is possible to overcome with greater manual filtering of recyclable materials, but Recology currently does not have the funds for it. Putting soft plastics in curbside recycling at the moment does nothing but make recycling worse for everyone.

<comment><USER4> To put in tech terms: This is horrible UX and it's no surprise to me that recycling isn't very effective. Asking your end users to deal with your internal complexity doesn't work in software or in recycling.

I want to help out, really I do, but I have more important things to worry about than which type of plastic goes in which bin. Hell, I'm happy to put the right kind of thing in the right bin if they made it clear which is which and why. But they don't do a very good job of communicating to me why this is important. They just say "recycle properly" then try to make you feel irresponsible and like a bad citizen for not knowing the proper way to do it based on some opaque and arcane process.

If you want people to help out, make it easy for them to feel like they're a part of it. The rules around recycling do the opposite - make you feel like you're harming things if you don't do things exactly right. Not a very empowering feeling at all.

<comment><USER5> Much innovation in the last 20 years has been finding ways to get your customers to do work for free that you previously paid employees to do instead.

For example, self-service checkouts in supermarkets, fast food, building a holiday package, etc.

Recycling is the same. They have 'outsourced' much of the job to local government and consumers.

<comment><USER6> That's not really the case. It's simply a really hard problem and that's easiest to address early on (recycle somewhat right) than to try and filter useful things out of shredded sludge.

<comment><USER5> It's a really hard problem that big companies show no signs of helping to solve because they have no economic interest in doing so. They use whatever packaging helps their short-term profits without consideration of long-term environmental damage.

It's a typical externalities problem - the full cost of using some types of packaging is not paid by the one doing the packaging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I had to package and tape boxes at an Amazon fulfillment center over peak season one day.

One of the "problems" I found with the process is the system tells you the size of box to use. You're not allowed to use a smaller size, even if it would work, only that size or larger. It also tends to overestimate the size of the item, so many boxes wind up with a lot more empty space than would be necessary, and more packing.

I'm sure this bias is intentional, but I found it odd at the time.

<comment><USER8> Sorry for going off-topic here, but I'm curious. You say you "had to" work a fulfillment center over peak season. Were you an engineer at Amazon at the time?

I'm asking because I've been told that Amazon makes engineers work at their fulfillment centers when it's peak season. If that's true, are people paid extra to do so?

<comment><USER7> No, I actually literally just work in a fulfillment center at the moment. I moved near Austin, TX, Amazon was hiring, and I needed _something_ to have health insurance and start saving up to pay off my student loans (for a business application programming degree, ironically.)

I would like to be an engineer there but I think I'm underqualified for most of those positions. I learn what I can about the software and the processes when I can, though.

<comment><USER9> There's a very rare path from FC associate to the software side at Amazon. I've met a few people who've done it. This includes a senior principle engineer and an L8 director of software.

<comment><USER7> I did find their internal Twitter clone and notice that it was open source. If I could find a way to contribute to it without violating Amazon's policies I'd consider it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> These little air bags makes a lot of sense to me, I wonder why it took them so long to become popular. How did everyone live through the packing peanuts phase and not realize this is a much simpler solution?

<comment><USER11> the last package peanuts I seem to remember finding in a package were disposable by putting them in compost, which seems like an advantage over plastic bags.

<comment><USER12> I haven't seen anyone else using it yet, but iFixit uses a paper/cardboard lattice/expanded mesh as packing material.

<comment><USER13> If we're talking about the same thing, I see electronic component vendors like Digikey/Mouser/etc. using that paper mesh a lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think there are two opportunities for the environmental effects of the air cushions.

1) Re-use rather than recycle: What if you could let the air out at home, open up the bag, stuff it with other bags, and the outside of the bag had a postage paid stamp. It goes back to the company that made the bag so it can be re- used.

2) Make them out of compostable plastic. Much simpler than above, probably the better way.

The key is that these air cushions don't need to last (likely) more than a few days. What can we do so that they have as little impact as possible.

They may be better than the packing peanuts or other substitutes, but there is still opportunity to improve.

<comment><USER15> They should just ship with reusable boxes. Better boxes with inner protections, where you would get some kind of credit if you post/bring it back empty, or reuse for personal mail. Maybe we should only be allowed to send packages with these boxes

<comment><USER16> Reminds me of a European grocery store. As an American, I was confounded to see a lack of bags at nearly any store I visited that wasnt a tourist gift shop my first time I ventured across the Atlantic. Then it started to make more sense than the garbage-cycle we have over here.

<comment><USER17> In most EU countries you need to pay for plastic* bags now, so they often aren't on display to make sure people pay - you just need to ask the cashier.

*And a lot have starch bags, which break if you try and put more than two milk bottles in or anything sharp.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My apartment complex has a large delivery bin area and I always wish I can leave the packaging boxes and padding/cushions in that area and only bring back the content of the box (provided that nothing is sensitive and nobody is watching). Would it be great if the delivery person can unbox the item at the delivery location with a fee and then bring the box back for recycling?

<comment><USER19> I struggle with a similar problem - I use a weekly food delivery service that delivers in a rather large polystyrene box and two ice packs. They offer to take last weeks when they deliver to recycle them, but leaving it out is rather difficult to do in my large apartment complex so I have to resort to always leaving them in the garbage room and I feel terrible for not recycling.

<comment><USER20> Out of curiosity, are you talking about Blue Apron? I could benefit from a similar solution

<comment><USER19> Youfoodz (horrific name, great service) actually. Delivers whole fresh meals rather than raw ingredients [http://youfoodz.com](http://youfoodz.com)

I've used HelloFresh in Australia, a competitor/alternative to Blue Apron and the polystryene box they use is much much smaller because it only contains the small meat items. The Youfoodz box is _much_ bigger [https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0506/7861/files/Blog- Zarah...](https://cdn.shopify.com/s/files/1/0506/7861/files/Blog- Zarah.jpg?224189824513611957)

<comment><USER21> HelloFresh (AU) recently switched [0][1]: they now use WoolCool (compostable & recyclable), plus gel ice packs (cut open and dispose of gel, recycle packet). Also means you don't need to return the boxes, which is handy in an apartment building.

[0]: [https://www.hellofresh.com.au/recycle-your-hellofresh- packag...](https://www.hellofresh.com.au/recycle-your-hellofresh-packaging/) [1]: [https://support.hellofresh.com.au/hc/en- us/articles/21774766...](https://support.hellofresh.com.au/hc/en- us/articles/217747667-What-is-your-recycling-policy-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I haven't seen any of these for years -- my Amazon packages always come with crumpled paper keeping things in place. Now I'm curious; does Amazon use different packaging in different locations? (I'm in BC, Canada.)

<comment><USER23> Differences in weight maybe ?

<comment><USER24> I'm betting this is it. My packages that heavy/dense enough to potentially pop air cushions if dropped seem to all use crumpled paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> "Something I didn't quite know how to dispose of"

Is it just me or can you not just pop them and throw them in the trash

<comment><USER26> Because they have a recycling symbol on them, yet most recyclers (inc. mine) specifically say do not recycle thin film (such as these) even if they have a symbol on them, because it gums up their shit.

So, yeah, a bit irksome.

<comment><USER27> Its not a "recycling symbol" its a Resin Identification Code [1]. I Imagine the confusion is intentional. You can use it to assist with recycling if you know which types of plastics your town can handle and what the numbers correspond to. The mere fact the symbol exists is meaningless as far as recycling goes.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I loathe styrofoam, it's messy and hard to get rid of. The air bags are a huge improvement. Just stab them with a knife, and they take up no space in the garbage.

<comment><USER29> OMG this, especially in dry climates. I _HATE_ packing peanuts with a passion.

<comment><USER30> What's so bad about them specifically in dry climates?

<comment><USER31> Probably their tendency to stick to anything and everything when static electricity is involved.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> You see inflatable shipping air pillows, I see a new low cost production and unique marketing/sales method for "canned air": [http://mashable.com/2016/05/01/australia-air-can- china/](http://mashable.com/2016/05/01/australia-air-can-china/)

polluted dystopian future here we come!

<comment><USER33> Perri-Air

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Whether this is actually a progression over B&M stores is a different topic. But the amount of waste (most of these packaging materials are not being properly recycled. I do, but most of my neighbors don't) this $5.6 billion industry produced is astonishing.

It's such a wasteful industry that China Post actually came up with laws and regulations ordering carriers to reduce wastes by simplifying packaging for online ordered goods just starting late 2016[1]

Anecdotally, my friends in China told me that some of their double singles day items came in thin poly packs that without air cushions and most of the electronics are shipped with retail packaging as is and without an outer carton box.

I think U.S. should follow suit.

[1]: [http://www.spb.gov.cn/dtxx_15079/201608/t20160812_826406.htm...](http://www.spb.gov.cn/dtxx_15079/201608/t20160812_826406.html)

</comment><comment><USER35> My dog loves the air packs, to the point that I can barely get a package in door without him grabbing at it. He'll open the package, pull the air packs out, pop them and walk away. The novelty must be wearing off, as he's been leaving unpopped ones lately.

So, unlike packing peanuts, we get _some_ secondary use out of air packs.

<comment><USER36> Aren't you afraid he'll try to eat them?

<comment><USER37> Polyethylene is inert so I wouldn't worry much.

<comment><USER36> Inertness is kind of the problem. They can really plug things up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I had no idea this is a widespread concern. Over the course of years, I have kept every box and the shipping materials under the presumption that I would reuse it all at some point. Only flaw in my logic is that I order way more stuff than I ship out. This, combined with my laziness, has resulted in a spare room in the house now being known among friends and family as "The Box Room", which was full wall to wall, floor to ceiling with empty boxes and hundreds of those air cushions of varying style and size.

<comment><USER39> Is there a recycling collection program in your area? eg something that collects cardboard along with household waste

If so, that seems like an easy way to start reducing the box count. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> > _At the time, bubble wrap was invented for use as wallpaper._

How would that work? Nobody wants wallpaper that they have to replace each week because it keeps popping.

<comment> alex- [http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=13092](http://m.mentalfloss.com/article.php?id=13092)

Looks like they tried textured wallpaper and green house insulation before packing. Maybe it was a lot harder to pop in the wallpaper version?

<comment><USER41> It works surprisingly well as cheap insulation. Put the bubble side to the glass and limit accidental popping. Ideal for garages and sheds!

Even seen it recommended for cheap double glazing for those of limited means or renting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Amazon does it different in Japan. They put items on a stiff piece of cardboard the same size as the box they will eventually put it in. Then shrink wrap the items and the cardboard. Then they glue / rubber cement the bottom of the cardboard to the shipping box.

It seems like it uses less material but the boxes are designed to be torn open like a FedEx envelope which means they are not reusable which seems wastful

<comment><USER38> I've gotten Amazon packages like this here in the US, but it's not a frequent occurrence. I prefer this method because aside from the shrink-wrap, everything else is recyclable cardboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> I don't remember the source, but I remember reading somewhere that using only standardized boxes was an innovation that results in cheaper shipping of the same products than if they were packaged in irregular boxes instead.

<comment><USER44> Probably the book The Box although that was about shipping in general.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> i just stab them with a fork and deflate them here in germany before putting the deflated baggies into the yellow bag, and the box into the paper bag. not sure what's all the fuss is about.

greener planet, happier people everyone wins.

a real issue would be making better use of the space. i once got shipped a 10 liter box that contained a single zippo lighter.

</comment><comment><USER46> It's puzzling to see people not knowing what to do with what are essentially free plastic bags. You can deflate them and use them like you would any other bag, keep them inflated and continue using them as cushions, etc. It's not like they take much space deflated anyway. Recycling is good, but reuse is even better.

</comment><comment><USER47> There are machines out there which create custom packaging:

[http://boxondemand.com/](http://boxondemand.com/)

</comment><comment><USER48> Easy solution: require companies that produce waste products to also fashion a waste recovery arm. Force them to build externalities into their business models from the get go. I'm sure they'll figure out the most efficient way to manage it.

<comment><USER49> The article says they are recyclable but most localities don't do them, they have to be taken to the grocery store & deposited with bags.

Why would you target every small business with this expense?

<comment><USER50> The producer would be the manufacturer; the mandate could either fall directly on the manufacturer, or just require small businesses to arrange with the manufacturer for recycling.

<comment><USER51> If the mandate fell on the manufacturer, do you think they'd just absorb the cost out of he goodness of their hearts?

<comment><USER48> No, of course not. That's the entire point. The cost needs to be captured _somewhere_ in the private chain because right now it's just an externality that no public entity wants to deal with or can deal with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> This past summer, I ordered a container of household cleaner (16oz bottle with spray pump) from Amazon. Surprisingly, it arrived with _no packaging whatsoever_ \-- the bottle of cleaner was taped to a small piece of cardboard that contained the shipping label.

Not surprisingly, the bottle was empty upon arrival, its contents having leaked out during shipment.

I filed a complaint and they resent the product. The next shipment of the cleaner came wrapped in plastic bags, inside a traditional cardboard box (though no air cushions). I guess Amazon realized their experiment in minimization didn't work out all that well.

</comment><comment><USER53> As an eBay customer, where the cost is usually a dollar or two cheaper, I find packaging is never a concern because robots aren't packaging my stuff.

</comment><comment><USER54> I stab them with my keys to let the air out and recycle at the store with other plastic material, since the local waste company doesn't recycle bags or film at all. It seems a shame considering how much plastic ends up in landfills, water ways, the ocean (great garbage patches in the gyres) and basically on every beach in the world. [0,1] Literally, (no pun intended), the oceans need a million or so plastic-skimming aquatic Roombas to undo the anthropogenic-damage just in the oceans.

Btw: I'm wondering if anyone here recycles plastic using a filament maker for a 3d printer, either DIY or commercial, and how well that works.

0\. [https://news.vice.com/topic/pacific-garbage- patch](https://news.vice.com/topic/pacific-garbage-patch)

1\. [https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/garbage- island/563b9c912a...](https://video.vice.com/en_us/video/garbage- island/563b9c912aab5c416bc75039)

<comment><USER54> Also, another note:

Waste sorting and recycling regulations need to be continually ratcheted up because a few bins isn't working (ever see the disaster of the composting, recycling and landfill bins at Costco?). Do like Stanford does: have separate bins (up to 5) but also divert more of the waste stream for recyclables, composting, etc. with pre-landfill processing. Left to their own devices, people rarely voluntarily make changes which are vital to more sustainable ecology.

It seems also that at some point in the future, it may become economical to mine landfills for materials when scarcity drives prices high enough.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I don't really care what they use, as long as they use something!

A few months ago they shipped me a camera lens, external hard drive, and some other smaller products in a giant box with no padding whatsoever. The lens and hard drive boxes had plenty of styrofoam, so fortunately nothing was damaged, but I made sure to complain.

<comment><USER56> I'd assume they knew the lens and hard drive boxes were internally padded. That's still no excuse for a large unpadded box where things can jostle around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> If Amazon made it so that you can drop boxes and packing material off a lockers, I would do it. Definitely a first world problem, but yeah the boxes and packing material backing up my garage is getting out of hand. The materials are in pristine condition and it feels so wasteful to pop/crush them.

</comment><comment><USER58> Air cushions work well for me. I have a 4 year old and a 2 year old. When any amazon shipment arrives, I distract them with the air-cushions and put away the items delivered. Meanwhile kids jump on and burst the air-cushions, and I am left to deal with the remaining plastic.

</comment><comment><USER59> _> not to mention that stores in the U.S. use some 100 billion plastic bags every year_

It is amazing how many people still do not use reusable tote bags.

If your like me and you forget to bring them or put them back into the car one way to remember is to put them on your coat rack or next to your master grocery list (ie a pad of paper you fill out during the week).

Even if I forget the bags I will often buy a new tote bag at the store.... in practice the more bags I have the less I seem to forget them (ie spares in the car).

I'm incredibly lazy so I have to imagine many others can do it.

<comment><USER60> I'm dubious on the value of reusable tote bags. For one thing, I pretty heavily re-use plastic bags that I get, anyway. I use them to bring my lunch to and from work, I use them as laundry and shoe-bags when traveling (to keep dirty things separate from clean clothes in a single bag), and then I (and everyone I've ever met) use them as trash can liners for small trash cans.

Given the large amount of additional resources it takes to create one of these reusable tote bags, and the fact that you need to wash them occasionally, it's not clear to me that they are a net benefit, even if you always know ahead of time that you are going to the store and always remember to bring them with you.

<comment><USER59> In my experience a single reusuable tote bag can carry 8x of a typical grocery store plastic bag. We have bags that are 6 years old and probably been used more than 200 times. They are polypropylene bags which apparently are often made from recycled bags anyway.

As for reusing plastic bags I do that as well as inevitable you will pick up some.

As for washing bags I almost never do because almost everything put in the bag is in some other container.

At least you have the option with reusable bags to clean them and thus could pre remove residues and toxins.

With plastic bags you might be exposed to various toxins (albeit probably at low levels). Just pickup and smell new plastic bags if you don't believe me. Ideally you shouldn't smell anything but I almost always do which means something volatile is being released.

The other issue is plastic bags aren't just bad because they take oil and energy to make... they are pretty awful for wild life. I have actually had to help turtles in the Charles River get out of plastic bags.

Apparently poly bags take 11x what it takes to make a single plastic bag [1]. But this again doesn't take into account how much you can overload a reusable bag with out them breaking and previously mentioned points (as well as being far more comfortable to hold on to... I just love how plastic bags cut off blood supply to fingers).

As for paper bags... they rip and suck in the rain.

[1]: [http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-reusable-bags-worse- for...](http://www.marketwatch.com/story/are-reusable-bags-worse-for- environment-than-plastic-2014-01-09)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> The issue I think is amazon has boxes in a few standard sizes. As a result for many products, they end up shipping in much larger boxes. I think it is economical to procure large amount of boxes in few standard sizes vs. have small quantities of many different boxes. This does lead to increase wastage though.

</comment><comment><USER62> > "At the time, bubble wrap was invented for use as wallpaper. That trend > never caught on, but the material's use as protective packaging took off. > Before bubble wrap, the most common options for cushioning goods in transit > were sawdust, newspaper, and rubberized horsehair."

</comment><comment><USER63> I once ordered a micro SD card off Amazon.

The box it came in looked like it contained an Xbox: it was huge! Upon opening it and removing all the Air Cushions™, there was a tiny little envelope at the bottom with the microsd inside.

Completely bewildering, albeit amusing.

</comment><comment><USER64> Can't they just make them out of soy[1] instead of plastic? Then they'll biodegrade.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_car](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soybean_car)

</comment><comment><USER65> It's almost 2017, and the fact that this packaging is horribly polluting and absolutely terrible for the environment doesn't seem to be on the minds of most people. That's very disappointing.

</comment><comment><USER66> How 'bout those little things they put in the middle of pizzas to stop them from getting crushed? Too bad I'm not a journalist, because that would make for an awesome story. /s

<comment><USER67> What's the point of this comment? Packaging/shipping technology is hugely important, because the annual amount of landfill waste involved is staggeringly large. There's also a big economic component to it. And as the article says, this is a $5.6 billion industry in the US alone that is growing larger with every passing year.

<comment><USER66> A story on shipping as a factor in online sales, walking through the history of shipping strategies and packing techniques would be a super interesting story...

...but this does not (to me) appear to be that story- This seems like a story created by a journalist noticing the air cushions in his amazon package, making two phone calls to pad the story a bit, and then sending it to their editor as a finished work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> gm-conspiracy Customers could elect to pay more for handling (the H in S&H), or have a pricier tier of Prime that offers eco-friendly biodegradable packaging materials.

</comment><comment><USER68> We have a really innovative solution to this problem.

There exists places that take bulk case packages of products, place them on shelves and make them available to the public. You give them money, put the items in a paper/plastic/reusable bag and take them home.

They are called stores. Many are located near common places, like intersections or near commercial office areas.

<comment><USER69> Weird.</comment></comment>


OS X Battery Life Analysis from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion - <AUTHOR> http://www.macobserver.com/tmo/article/os-x-battery-life-analysis-from-snow-leopard-to-mountain-lion <comment><AUTHOR> Okay guys, here it is! It took weeks of non-stop testing but we finally have the comprehensive look at battery life from Snow Leopard to Mountain Lion.

This was requested after we performed our earlier tests that focused on Lion to Mountain Lion. The good news is that 10.8.2 seems to bring a HUGE improvement. I just hope whatever changes Apple made survive into the final version.

I hope we were able to answer your requests and comments. Please continue to let me know if you want us to test other scenarios.

<comment><USER2> Thanks! So when are you going to update it for 10.7.5, and 10.8.2 build 12c43? ;)</comment></comment>