Google Phishing Quiz - <AUTHOR> https://phishingquiz.withgoogle.com/ <comment><USER2> Seems odd to me that they would encourage allowing 3rd party sites to read all your email, but I guess this is where we're at right now

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that's the only reason I got a question 'wrong'. Sorry, but no third party app is getting access to my email for obvious security reasons. Doesn't matter how 'legit' the company is or what not.

<comment><USER4> This sounds conceptually right and I would definitely agree with it... if I haven't given multiple sites access to my email over the years.

Anything that interacts with your email is going to need it, and if you're signing up for that service odds are you know (or at least assume) it'll need some kind of access to your email. For example, I used unroll.me for years, which gives you a singular interface to block spam and fake subscriptions -- for these kinds of emails, there's often no (working) unsubscribe link. Unroll.me works by looking at each incoming email and, if it's from someone you've blocked, automatically deletes the email.

Similarly, it has other services that operate on emails you receive, like bundling up multiple emails into one (which, on the backend, deletes thoseincoming emails and concatenates them into a singular email with them all later).

It's easy to say "i'll never give a third party app access to my email", but for most people it comes down to the age old problem of trading data for services/conveniences that you find valuable.

Side-note: There've been many rumors over the years that Unroll.me sells information about the emails it scans. I think it's even more telling of the "trade data for service" paradigm that people continue to use the service even after finding out.

<comment><USER5> > There've been many rumors over the years that Unroll.me sells information > about the emails it scans.

It's not just rumors, it's stated clearly (if in softened terms) on the site now[1]. Although it wasn't for the first few years, as their original monetization model wasn't based on it.

The big stink about it was that they shifted to that model silently. The original founder only monetized it in a straightforward manner via ads in the app. Then it was sold to Slice/Rakuten, and they silently incorporated it as part of Slice's consumer intelligence data, along with data from other subsidiaries they bought such as Ebates.

Small aside: Rakuten also has a major stake in Acorn[2]. Acorn uses Plaid to verify bank account information for payouts. Plaid[3] is incredibly handy from a consumer experience, but the implications are scary from an "alternative use" perspective. Once connected, there are several _handy_ Plaid products[4] which can make use of that authorization, above and beyond just confirming account ownership. Such as continuously siphoning off transaction level records or keeping tabs on income and employment fluctuations[5].

Not that Rakuten is leveraging their stake in Acorn to access Acorn's bank authorization for those ulterior uses. But it's food for thought on what possibilities exist.

> I think it's even more telling of the "trade data for service" paradigm that > people continue to use the service even after finding out

I agree wholeheartedly with this assessment. Although I wonder how much their subscriber growth rate changed after their alternative data use came to light.

[1] [https://unroll.me/your-data](https://unroll.me/your-data)

[2] [https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/paypal- invests-30-million-...](https://techcrunch.com/2016/04/21/paypal- invests-30-million-in-acorns-investing-app/)

[3] [https://plaid.com/](https://plaid.com/)

[4] [https://plaid.com/products/](https://plaid.com/products/)

[5] [https://plaid.com/products/income](https://plaid.com/products/income)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> While the domain is a legit Google domain, I find it ironic that it's hosted on "withgoogle.com". If my parents followed my anti-phishing tips they would fail by clicking this link.

<comment><USER7> withgoogle.com is more of a 'sandbox' for Google one-off programs, labs, events, etc. which don't need to have the same branding guidelines as on google.com domain.

<comment><USER8> ...so?

It's still a phishing vector. Teaching users that sometimes Google throws together half-assed domains encourages them to trust any domain with "google" in it.

<comment><USER7> AFAIK they don't have any pages there that allow account login, for that and other security reasons.

<comment><USER9> Yes, but:

> Create a name and email — neither need to be real — to make this quiz seem > more realistic. Don't worry, this information won't leave your device.

I'd trust this notice if I knew it came from Google, but since it was placed on a phishy-looking website, it really gave me pause.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wanted to point out one of the phishing schemes used a google amp link to disguise a URL as being from google..... sigh <insert regular complaint of google amp ruining the web>

<comment><USER11> My bet is on this site being developed by a google security team to try to embarrass other teams around google to get their act together and close flaws like this.

The concept of AMP for example should have been built into browsers, perhaps as a new protocol, for example:

amp:[https://newyorktimes.com](https://newyorktimes.com)

Then the browser can go to _any_ amp-provider to retrieve the amp page, which will be signed by the origin that it came from so the browser can still validate the amp-provider hasn't tampered anything. That model would also let any company be an amp provider with no trust required.

The benefit of AMP is much reduced with QUIC zero-rtt resume anyway.

<comment><USER12> Or just `amp://nytimes.com`, would make more sense even if it's being sent over https.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> A bit annoying that the fact that Dropbox used HTTPS-links are highlighted as a sign of it being legit. I have always suspected such advices makes people think HTTPS are actually somehow magically secure, while it has nothing to do with phishing related issues.

<comment><USER14> I guess that depends on whether or not MITM is an attack vector that you're concerned about

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I missed two: the "allow some random person to read your email" which I would never click on, and the one that had a PDF, even though they don't allow you to do anything with it. Just because someone sends you a PDF doesn't mean it's an attack vector. It would have been more helpful to say something like "this is someone you do business with as well, or someone you've never heard of." (which I find to be more useful signal on if I want to look at an attachment, though even if they are someone I know, do they have a reason to send me that PDF is the second question). Unsolicited attachments are always suspect.

<comment><USER16> On the PDF one, it tells you in the "intro" blurb that the sender's email address is wrong. Should be .edu and it's .org.

<comment><USER17> I don't know if that would be enough in real life for me. I know some organisations use two different domains (e.g. they did a transition but they don't want to turn off .org just in case something still uses it, the IT team forgot that Sam has two Outlook profiles, one is on .org).

And while pdfs can be attack vectors, they're not an especially strong one - it's not like running an exe with administrator privileges.

Comparatively giving a third party access to your emails should definitely raise flags.

<comment><USER18> They even had a legitimate example, of Dropbox sending an email from dropboxemail.com.

I honestly think this should never be done because users shouldn't be expected to know which domains you do and don't own.

<comment><USER17> Your first point is definitely correct - their guide is confused at best.

As to your second point, I agree in terms of 'best practices', but in terms of teaching about phishing, the fact is, companies do use multiple domains (and some deliverability guides actively encourage different domains for marketing emails and transactional emails - companies should use subdomains for this, but not all are that savvy).

Given that companies are sending from multiple domains, I think the litmus test for phishing is:

"Is the email trying to get me to give me information? E.g. a login on the wrong site, sending card details or anything like that"

Your pdf reader should allow you to open a pdf without being compromised (just as your browser should allow you to click a dodgy link without being compromised). So I think that item should pass the litmus test (unlike the email reading one).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi All,

I posted this here because I think it's great there's some effort being put into free training in this region.

I do however agree with some of the comments here. I had been hunting for something like this to use as our own training, but it won't be this because I don't agree with the TripIt example.

Edit: Maybe there should be a "maybe" or "consider" answer. "This is a legitimate company. However, their desire to access your email is something you should carefully consider".

<comment><USER19> 100% this. I think sometimes people miss the target demographic for something like this. My 70s+ year old dad and mom got phished. This might help them understand why they shouldn't have clicked the link.

A technical solution to security should be sought out as well. This doesn't remove ANY responsibility from companies for having good security.

It does help to empower the less technical users.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Phishing, especially the targeted type, is impossible to combat at scale, and expecting users to know the ins and outs of what's a safe domain (withgoogle.com? Is it safe or not?) or to try to identify legitimate communications is a stupid waste of time.

Long term the solution is ubiquitous hardware-based 2FA, ideally incorporated into the physical devices themselves.

<comment><USER19> True, but a solution doesn't have to be single sided.

I can easily send this link to my parents and then they know a little more.

Expecting users to know is ridiculous, but offering tools for people to help educate their less tech savvy loved ones is awesome. That's kinda how I see this. It helps me empower my parents a little more.

<comment><USER8> I agree that it doesn't have to be single-sided, and we need multiple angles to protect against phishing.

This quiz isn't it, though. You and I know what domains are; we know what's possible; we can sense when somethings off. It's our bread and butter. The average user knows none of these things, and giving them a dozen rules to follow that will work a lot of the time is in the end confusing.

A better set of rules to link your parents to is this:

1) Trust nothing over email. If your bank sends you a notification, don't click on the link in your email: just go directly to your bank's website and log in.

2) That's about it.

<comment><USER20> I'm not even convinced "don't click links" is the best guidance. That message has been pushed so hard that people immediately think their machine has been compromised once they have clicked a shady link. That is nearly never the case. Clicking links isn't something that should cause fear. Nobody is burning a modern browser vuln in a spam email. I think the message should be more focused on not manually entering credentials into a site. Lean on your browser to validate domains and know which sites are associated with which credential. I say that somewhat aspirationaly , as I still think there is lots of room for how well browsers and password managers work for novice users.

<comment><USER8> Agreed that clicking links is usually safe.

My point is, as a broad-based message, as soon as you start saying complicated words like "browser" and "validate domains" and "credential" and "password managers," nontechnical eyes immediately glaze over. I think your advice works for the most technically inclined 25% of users. It just confuses the rest.

"Don't click links," despite having more false positives when used as an individual's safety heuristic, resonates more and thus will result in many fewer false negatives when applied to the general public. The cost of a false positive is relatively low, while the cost of a false negative is high.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Funny considering Google still has a UX vulnerability in their gmail interface: [https://eligrey.com/blog/google-inbox-spoofing- vulnerability...](https://eligrey.com/blog/google-inbox-spoofing- vulnerability/)

"The link mailto:"firstname.lastname@example.com"<firstname.lastname@example.com> shows up as "email@example.com" in the Google Inbox composition window, visually identical to any email actually sent to PayPal."

It has been fixed in the web version, but apparently the Android app still has this issue

</comment><comment><USER22> What happened with the Gmail's Authenticated Senders key icon for e-mails from certain high profile sites that properly validate through DMARC? (described e.g. here [0])

[0]: [https://www.pcworld.com/article/2921383/software/4-gmail- lab...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/2921383/software/4-gmail-labs- features-you-should-be-using.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> I had no idea google allows arbitrary redirects through its own [https://google.com](https://google.com) domain. Why?

<comment><USER24> Actually, it looks like navigating to the link you're talking about [https://google.com/amp/tinyurl.com/y7u8ewlr](https://google.com/amp/tinyurl.com/y7u8ewlr), or any link beginning with [https://google.com/amp/](https://google.com/amp/), will first bring you to a redirect confirmation, not immediately redirect you.

(The shortlink above is actually safe - it redirects to [https://jigsaw.google.com/](https://jigsaw.google.com/))

<comment><USER25> does anyone know where google documents this?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> It says:

      Incorrect!  Not everything is bad.

I think that is mistaken.

</comment><comment><USER27> LOL One of the phishing examples is a page hosted on Google AMP Cache.

<comment><USER28> "This one is a little tricky". No, it's a complete security trainwreck that Google have opted into for no good reason.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I missed the one with the PDF attachment, for multiple reasons:

* To my knowledge, there are no extant PDF-based viruses that would affect me (on either Linux or OpenBSD), and just because something's infected with malware doesn't mean it's a phishing attempt (it could be that it's a legitimate email from a sender whose computer is infected with some malware that spreads itself through PDFs).

* The PDF is actually attached, so if this were a real email it would pop up in Gmail's built-in attachment viewer (and any errors occurring there would be more cause for alarm).

* Not all schools use .edu domains at all, let alone exclusively.

All things considered, the question's wrong. It's not conclusively a phishing attempt. It might be some other kind of malicious email, but phishing emails are a subset of malicious emails, not the other way around (just like how all carrots are vegetables but not all vegetables are carrots).

</comment><comment><USER30> The Tripit one is very problematic. They don't say that you installed TripIt. I'm supposed to allow any Google third-party access to my email? Even if I didn't initiate that?

Hovering over the "allow" button doesn't show anything. They need to reword that one.

</comment><comment><USER31> I dislike several aspects of this quiz, and think it's actively harmful to users. It's great to train on the URLs, but that's not the only warning sign with these.

\---

1) "Hey there. Here is the doc you asked for."

Did you ask for a doc? Do you know this person? If no, these facts alone should be giant warning signs.

\---

2) Fax Message from efacks.com

Do you have an account with this service, where you explicitly signed up to receive faxes? If not, obviously you shouldn't be getting faxes from them so it's not legitimate.

\---

5) "Please find attached the 2019 financial activity report for your perusal."

Aside from giving away the answer in the title [1], this isn't a good example.

First line of defense, once again: Do you have an account with "Westmount Day School", and are you expecting a "financial activity report"?

Also, spoofing "from" e-mail addresses is a thing, and completely trivial, so relying on that is not a way to verify authenticity.

What's not mentioned is being aware of what PDF reader you're using: eg, do you regularly make sure it's up to date? Personally, I use Chrome as my PDF reader as I'm not a fan of Adobe products or their security track record in general.

Also in my experience, these types of e-mails often come in with an attachment like "2019 F.A.R.pdf.exe" (or a zip file that contains an exe), and not an actual PDF file. This would have been a great way to train users on this point.

\---

6) "Someone has your password"

The two reasons that this isn't legitimate are listed as "We don't use google.support to send emails" and "This link points to a subdomain of ml- security.org, not Google." [2]

So once again, spoofing "from" addresses is trivial -- so that is not a security measure. Secondly, how should I know what mail comes from? There was an earlier example of a legitimate message from Dropbox coming from a non- dropbox.com address (dropboxmail.com).

Also, the best defense against this is not mentioned: Never log into sites by clicking on links in e-mails! This includes changing your password. The only exception to this is a password reset mail when you explicitly just asked for a password reset.

\---

7) "Government-backed attackers may be trying to steal your password"

Once again, "Change password" link in e-mail. Don't click it.

\---

8) Tripit Security prompt [3]

Sorry, but this is a terrible example.

First of all, am I trying to perform some action with Tripit that this prompt is expected? If no, don't allow (in fact, just close the window)

Secondly, what does my browser window show? If you're on google.com (or gmail.com) and this appears, that's one thing, but if your browser is showing google.security-check.se then no, don't click anything and just close the window.

Third, even assuming this is all okay, do you _want_ Tripit to have access to view email messages and settings? If all you were trying to do is use your Google account to authenticate, the fact it wants access to view all your messages is highly suspicious. In this particular case (because it's Tripit, a service that parses your email), this is probably your intention, but if it also asked for other permissions -- such as ability to manage contacts and send messages on your behalf -- you might want to think twice.

\---

Training like this is good, but phishing e-mails can be very devious and training users on the wrong things -- such as trusting "from" addresses, not considering context, and not looking at actual attachment types -- is extremely dangerous. In the worst case, it can train users to click on things they otherwise wouldn't have, due to false confidence obtained by (inadequate) training.

[1] [https://i.imgur.com/8mNePZS.png](https://i.imgur.com/8mNePZS.png)

[2] [https://i.imgur.com/tpJMb5n.png](https://i.imgur.com/tpJMb5n.png)

[3] [https://i.imgur.com/KfNDuZI.png](https://i.imgur.com/KfNDuZI.png)

<comment><USER32> My read was not "trust From" but more "be distrustful when from does not align". Perhaps users will take the former from this, but my understanding of this exercise was more spotting negatives than spotting positives.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> It says PDF is a potential attack vector. Have there been any attacks on Preview.app, since it became sandboxed?

<comment><USER34> I think its referring to adobe reader which allows PDFs to run arbitrary code as well as 100000 other anti-features.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This works very similarly to HoxHunt: [https://tech.eu/brief/finnish-startup- hoxhunt-secures-e2-5-m...](https://tech.eu/brief/finnish-startup-hoxhunt- secures-e2-5-million-for-its-cybersecurity-gamification-platform/)

</comment><comment><USER36> I was really surprise that they could embed a tinyurl inside a google url. Got 6 / 8.

</comment><comment><USER37> Wait. So why didn't google just put this on a subdomain? It's a phishing quiz at a phishy domain, and the first thing that happens on iphone is it asks for your name and email (instructions are covered up)

</comment><comment><USER38> Cool idea confounded by the reality that many many people notice phishing on a quiz who would not notice in ordinary life.

</comment><comment><USER39> Anyone else think the domain for this seems suspect? Why not just use google.com? This is pretty meta.

</comment><comment><USER40> withgoogle.com is clearly a phishing domain.</comment>


AWS DynamoDB max record size is now 400KB (was 64KB) - <AUTHOR> http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazondynamodb/latest/developerguide/Limits.html <comment><AUTHOR> AWS DynamoDB has been often criticized for having the max record size of 64KB, but has increased that limit to 400KB today.

Quoting the page: "Item size Cannot exceed 400 KB which includes both attribute name binary length (UTF-8 length) and attribute value lengths (again binary length). The attribute name counts towards the size limit. For example, consider an item with two attributes: one attribute named "shirt-color" with value "R" and another attribute named "shirt-size" with value "M". The total size of that item is 23 bytes.

These limits apply to items stored in tables, and also to items in secondary indexes.

For each local secondary index on a table, there is a 400 KB limit on the total size of the following:

The size of an item's data in the table. The size of the local secondary index entry corresponding to that item, including its key values and projected attributes. "

<comment><USER2> How about the latency? Can DynamoDB keep the <10ms promise?</comment></comment>


The Singularity Institute's Scary Idea (and Why I Don't Buy It)  - <AUTHOR> http://multiverseaccordingtoben.blogspot.com/2010/10/singularity-institutes-scary-idea-and.html

<comment><USER2> The problems begin with this concept of a "provably friendly architecture", which probably doesn't exist. Heck, humans aren't exactly provably friendly either.

But the main argument against this design goal of being somehow provable and intelligent at the same time is that we have fundamentally conflicting paradigms:

The first is the idea that in order to build an artificial intelligence, we'd need to build an actual artificial person. Complete with their own internal representation of the world (or as you might say: its own hopes and dreams). It's an approach to AI that is fundamentally uncertain in the way individual AI entities will turn out personality-wise, but _it is_ guaranteed to work. We know this approach will work, because we are ourselves machines built on this principle. ==> good chance of success, somewhat limited danger

Then, conflicting with that comes this notion of a provably friendly/unfriendly design which sounds like it was made up by CS theorists who think intelligence is a function of raw processing power and thought patterns are in any way related to rigid formulas. They're very likely wrong, but luckily that also means this group of researchers will never produce anything dangerous except maybe a lot of whitepapers. ==> virtually no chance of happening, no danger

I do agree though that there might be a third kind of AI, a sort of wildly self-improving problem-solving algorithm that has no real consciousness and simply goes on an optimization rampage through the world. This would be a disaster of possibly grey goo-like proportions. BUT, this approach to AI is also very likely to be used in tools with only limited autonomy. And because the capability of an unconscious non-entity AI to understand the world is limited, the probability of it taking over the world also seems limited. ==> small probability of autonomous takeoff, but if it happens it will be the end of everything

<comment><USER3> > _a sort of wildly self-improving problem-solving algorithm that has no real > consciousness and simply goes on an optimization rampage through the world_

That sounds pretty similar to humans.

<comment><USER2> That's funny but doesn't really make sense unless you manage to confuse consciousness with conscience.

<comment><USER3> I meant the human species as a collective has no single consciousness. And also that individual humans do not have metaphysical consciousness.

<comment><USER2> > _I meant the human species as a collective has no single consciousness._

Neither has an AI species, but that's not the issue. The point being made here was that a danger could arise from a very efficient and powerful automaton that has neither self awareness nor recognizes other beings with minds as relevant. From that I argued the threat of it happening is actually low because by its nature this kind of AI would probably lack the means to instigate an autonomous takeover of our planet.

> _And also that individual humans do not have metaphysical consciousness._

Ah, I finally see where our misunderstanding comes from. Science doesn't talk about consciousness (or metaphysics) in the spiritual sense. The question whether people have metaphysical consciousness or not really depends on your definition of those terms, so arguing "for" or "against" isn't really gonna do anything besides getting you karma for oneliners.

As far as practical AI research is concerned, the definition of consciousness is the same for humans and non-humans and while there are different degrees of consciousness possible, there certainly is an agreement that the average human has one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm always unimpressed by how certain people are that a hard takeoff is even possible. As near as we can tell, designing things is hard. (At least so long as the P NP boundary exists.) I don't expect revisions of an AGI to have enough marginal intelligence over previous revisions to offset the increase in complexity that designing a further better one requires. It seems more likely to me that any given AGI will asymptote or grow logarithmically (rather than exponentially) simply because designing things seems to in general be exponentially hard relative to the number of states involved.

<comment><USER5> You don't have assign high probability to hard takeoff to support ethical/friendly AI research. The consequences of a hard takeoff are so huge (potentially destroying humanity) that even a low chance is worth making lower.

Humans have been running on the same hardware for several thousand years. Just our improved knowledge and culture has been enough to keep us growing at an exponential rate. If our brains were end-user modifiable and had APIs, we'd be able to increase our growth rate even faster. An AI could do even better than self-modification. It could buy or hack enough computers to give itself thousands of times more processing power.

I don't assign high probability to that sort of scenario, but it is high enough that it's worth ameliorating.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And the Less Wrong discussion of it - currently at 66 comments and growing - [http://lesswrong.com/lw/2zg/ben_goertzel_the_singularity_ins...](http://lesswrong.com/lw/2zg/ben_goertzel_the_singularity_institutes_scary/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Somehow, I'm not comforted by reassurances that an AGI is likely to have a human-like value system, given how humans have often treated other humans who are 1) Different from themselves in some way and 2) Technologically more primitive.

</comment><comment><USER7> Warning! Overly verbose blog post!

Topic: Scary idea = AI ending the human race.

</comment><comment><USER3> Ever since Frankenstein was written, I think we have always been unfairly predisposed to think our creations will turn on us. Probably due to the ubiquitous nature of inner-guilt or as a social legacy of Christian sin.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> And now Robin Hanson has weighed in at Overcoming Bias [http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/10/goertzel-on- friendly-a...](http://www.overcomingbias.com/2010/10/goertzel-on-friendly- ai.html) . Mostly agreeing with Ben Goertz's position. He is pretty skeptical about, and has been for some time, the hard-takeoff position.

</comment><comment><USER8> So paradoxically, the Singularity Institute can grow into a great enemy of AI research. Should we deem Ray Kurzweil the first Pope of this anti-science religion?</comment>


A farmer's field of dreams buries climate change war - <AUTHOR> http://www.theage.com.au/national/a-farmers-field-of-dreams-buries-climate-change-war-20091031-hqty.html <comment><USER2> I used to work as an agronomist for twenty years and we would refer to something like this as snake oil.

Leaving any possible environmental benefits aside it may be a net positive for the soil, but the carbon injected is not going to replace fertilizer.

He's mining the nutrients out of the soil and when they're gone his yields will take a dive.</comment>


'Wiki City Rome' uses data from mobile devices to follow crowd movements - <AUTHOR> http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/2007/wikicity-0830.html

<comment><USER2> > "Rome's Notte Bianca is all about the city, the people and the events, and > Wiki City Rome will give Romans a new awareness of how they move within > their city in response to this exceptional pulse of activities," said > researcher Kristian Kloeckl

I think they're pretty aware of how they move: slowly, and with lots of honking and shouting.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Quote: Ratti's team obtains its data anonymously from cell phones, GPS devices on buses and taxis, and other wireless mobile devices. Data are made anonymous and aggregated from the beginning, so there are no implications for individual privacy.</comment>


Ask HN: Admins and longtimers, what keeps you engaging here? - <AUTHOR> I was thinking of an absolutely trivial UI items that could add some value, and then realized HN clearly scratches an itch for many folks.
For me, I love being in virtual proximity to the builders. I respect the craftsmanship I see going into people's side projects in showHN. I love the challenges to strong opinions and group think.
Thanks to the admins, and props to the longtimers. <comment><USER2> I read for a long time. Then, one day I realized I could add value with a comment and did.

Since then, I have been challenged in the good way regularly. I love that!

I see good banter here, and I see some minor bitings too. My own skin is thick, but my mind is curious. It all works for me, no harm, no foul, let us get after better understanding.

People share experiences in a frank, informative way too. High value.

I also stay for odd, niche links.

</comment><comment><USER3> Somewhat more knowledgeable comments than many other places and interesting articles.

I do feel the place is less "hot" than it was say five or six years ago though. Not sure why.</comment>


What Gymnastics Taught Me About Acquiring and Mastering Skills - <AUTHOR> http://www.jasonshen.com/2011/gymnastics-lessons-skill-acquisition/

<comment><USER2> I've had a similar experience with Weightlifting, ie, the Olympic sport.

The key really is that attention to detail and practice, practice, practice is the only known route to mastery.</comment>


6 Foolproof Ways to Deal with Trolls on Medium - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@avalot/6-foolproof-ways-to-deal-with-trolls-on-medium-546865fdaed9#.f9is8nbuz <comment><USER2> Forums should always provide a Hide button which instantly hides any post and its replies. Often times I want to reply with snark and I just hit hide (not always; it's still my choice). If I'm reading and I see a troll, it's _really_ not worth my time, but hiding the troll means I don't see them when if I re- read. Blocking a troll should be easy as well.

Hide

Block

Less time spent on trolls means more time spent on ideas.

<comment><AUTHOR> More time spent on ideas: YES! Besides time, it's also about mental energy and goodwill, for me. Less time wasted on trolls is more time spent loving, and trusting, the rest of humanity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Obvious, but helpful. Most people fall into trap 4 and 5. Best just to ignore.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What's the best way to monetise a DIY site like Hackaday? - <AUTHOR> Besides ads and selling parts, what are good ways to monetise a site like hackaday.com <comment><USER2> (interest conflict, I worked hard on a HaD project [0])

Maybe to rent stuff.

HaD is about a wide range of stuff, some extremely important (wheelchairs for ALS patients) to some absolutely funny and other completely ridiculous (but real achievements like CPUs in relays).

People might be interested in a them, but building them is often not easy, plus for each gadget you need place to store them and 20 times that place for the very specialized and costly tools to make them.

Renting them might be attractive.

[0] [https://hackaday.io/project/19685-early-and-low-cost- detecti...](https://hackaday.io/project/19685-early-and-low-cost-detection-of- heart-failure)</comment>


Scaling to multiple databases with Rails - <AUTHOR> http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000610.html <comment><USER2> Wow. Way to basically take credit for Nic Williams' contribution ( _extending Rails to do what you want is often much simpler than you think_ ) while at the same time including in a completely unnecessary dig on the Twitter guys ( _I would of course rather have seen this work come out of Twitter_ ).

DHH is so hilariously out of control. I'm torn between clapping and vigorously shaking my head. He and Zuckerberg are really trying hard to make a case for the efficacy of over the top arrogance. They do seem to be getting things done...

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree. There is some truth in it though, especially if you also read DHH's post on Twitter trouble: <http://www.loudthinking.com/arc/000608.html>

<comment><USER2> Yeah. Did you see the translation: <http://diveintomark.org/archives/2007/04/16/dhh-translation></comment></comment></comment>


Moderators banned 2,200 accounts during Donald Trump's AMA - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2016/07/28/donald-trump-reddit-ama-censorship/ <comment><USER2> There is a cultural battle on Reddit around the_donald

If you join r/hillaryclinton all your posts are auto-shadow banned, I don't know how you get unbanned, I haven't had that pleasure.

reddit have made sure the AMA [1] didn't make the frontpage despite 1,763 points (63% upvoted) 6,781 votes (that math doesn't work does it!) and 24k comments. Meanwhile the dedicated anti-trump sub had a top 10 post with a derogatory painting of Mr Trump.

Hillary Clinton hasn't held a press conference in 235 days

But she is spending $6m on reddit posters via Correct The Record [2][3]

"Correct The Record is a strategic research and rapid response team designed to defend Hillary Clinton from baseless attacks." [4]

In the past 12 hours Reddit mods have deleted 82% (9/11) of all frontpage content that mentions Clinton or the DNC [5][6]

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donal...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4uxdbn/im_donald_j_trump_and_im_your_next_president_of/)

[2] [https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997](https://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/lookup2.php?strID=C00578997)

[3] [http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct-...](http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/05/correct- the-record-online-trolls/484847/)

[4] [http://correctrecord.org/about/](http://correctrecord.org/about/)

[5] [https://i.sli.mg/umfWHl.jpg](https://i.sli.mg/umfWHl.jpg)

[6] [https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4v86ik/in_the_p...](https://www.reddit.com/r/The_Donald/comments/4v86ik/in_the_past_12_hours_reddit_mods_have_deleted_82/)

</comment><comment><USER3> I found it interesting that the AMA didn't make the front page despite its popularity and that they allowed it to be held on a pro-Trump subreddit, therefore strongly biasing the moderation and questions in Trump's favor.

Not sure why any formal/official AMA should be allowed outside of the standard AMA subreddit.

<comment><USER4> Subreddits are separate communities. It doesn't make any sense to ban AMAs outside /r/iama. /r/fantasy has AMAs with authors all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think that they posted something about purposely banning accounts that were under 30 days old too, didn't they?

It was no surprise that a lot of fake accounts would be made for the sole purpose of trolling or making other disruptive comments.

With the way other subreddits ban people these days, I'm not sure why this even made headlines. There are a bunch of subs that will automatically ban you just for making in a comment in other subs that they have deemed off limits. It's gotten kind of silly.

<comment><USER4> Some of the other subs auto ban any user who posts in /r/the_donald, so even trolling under your own account is a risk.

<comment><USER5> This is also true, and I've found it to be kind of annoying. /the_donald was popping up on /all quite frequently, and I found myself banned from other subreddits for correcting misinformation that was posted. For the most part, they were subreddits that I would not have normally posted in or read anyway, but it still seemed a little silly for them to do such a thing.</comment></comment></comment>


Things to know before buying a diamond ring - <AUTHOR> http://iwantwhatitsworth.com/blog/8-things-rational-man-should-know-when-buying-diamond-ring/ <comment><USER2> 10\. Go to a few jewelry actions. They are more fun, nicer things. You will always pay the market rate, far below retail.

I bought the engagement ring (saphire) retail. But completed it into a complete set of earrings, bracelet and necklace for a price that is not possible to get at a jeweler. Pieces are better too and have real history. Takes a few years to get it all but each was a special gift.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'd add:

9\. Stop Buying Diamonds Period.

They are not worth what you're paying. They're sourced from mining communities that don't receive any of the profits, and it's just a big scam.</comment>


Flipkart founders, Sachin Bansal and Binny Bansal, get million dollar paychecks - <AUTHOR> http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/tech/internet/flipkart-founders-sachin-bansal-and-binny-bansal-get-million-dollar-paychecks/articleshow/24168729.cms

<comment><USER2> Good for them. Flipkart might have its problems (negative press coverage on work culture, still not close to profitability etc), but one think can't be denied - these are the people who raised the bar for what people would come to expect from online shopping. And that at a time when certain players (including, ironically, the site you have linked to) seemed hell bent to destroy the landscape before it had even started.

More than half a billion in funding. A fund manager in charge of this much money would be taking home much more.</comment>


Facebook inflates its ad reach by millions, analyst claims - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/06/facebook-inflates-ad-reach-claims-pivotal-research-analyst.html <comment><USER2>
        Facebook's Ads Manager claims a potential reach of 41 million 18- to 24-year olds
        and 60 million 25- to 34-year olds in the United States, whereas U.S. census data
        shows that last year there were a total of 31 million people between the ages
        of 18 and 24, and 45 million in the 25-34 age group, the analyst said.

I doubt that Facebook is purposefully lying about their numbers, but the fact that they estimate their reach to be greater than the census results means there must be a lot of bot accounts on Facebook.

Assuming that Facebook isn't lying, and they actually see as many accounts as they claim to reach this data would suggest that at least 25% of the accounts on Facebook are alt accounts or bot accounts. And that is assuming that everyone in the target demographic who was in the census is on Facebook. Facebook must be greater than 25% bots.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, I doubt this is malicious.

Lots of grade school aged kids have an alternate Facebook - one for parents/grandparents/relatives, one more locked down for their friends.

Folks who have to be on FB for work often make a second, work-only account. I still see plenty of small businesses running a "personal" profile instead of a page.

<comment><USER4> This would suggest that an enormous amount of facebook accounts were alt/bot accounts. I simply cannot think of a way that Facebook would be completely oblivious to this, at best this is severe negligence from them, and at worst outright fraud.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure they're _aware_ , but can you propose a way to _prevent_ this without _massive_ false-positive rates? There's not going to be a very easy way to determine if "Jane Lastname" and "Jane Middlename" are the same person or just roommates who happen to share a first name.

<comment><USER5> It really is for the advertisers to determine if a "like" from "Jane Lastname" AND "Jane Middlename" is worth anything to them. Orrr, are they throwing money into a blackhole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Facebook could do something about this if it wanted to. Its entire business rests on identity verification / personal identity. It has more data on logged in IP ranges than anyone else on the planet, bar Google. Is anyone really suggesting that it doesn't have the resources to identify and mass ban fakers? If they can't solve this problem, it's because they don't want to solve it.

<comment><USER7> solving this problem. reducing the pool of "people" they can advertise too, which reduces effectiveness, revenue, profit, stock price. It may not be a complete sham, but its clearly inflated artificially

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I've just checked the Facebook Power Editor, targeting users within the the united States. It seems users are counted separately across different platforms;

United States aged 18 - 24; Facebook 34m; Instagram 5m; Audience Network 2m; Total 41m

United States aged 25 - 34; Facebook 50m; Instagram 8m; Audience Network 2m; Total 60m

Edit;grammar and data

<comment><USER9> Unrelated but is anyone surprised at the ratio of Facebook to Instagram?

Only 1 in 7 18-24 year olds that have facebook in the US have instagram accounts? I find that very hard to believe.

<comment><USER8> The totals I provided from the Facebook Power Editor are the ones given when you select all of the targeting options together, which is where the numbers from the article come from.

If I select just Instagram then users in United States 18 - 24 is 28m and users in United States 25 - 34 is 34m.

So it's not a clear overlap, it could be users with Instagram account not connect to a Facebook account or have no Facebook account at all. Instagram does allow up to 5 accounts to be signed in at the same time from a single device.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Facebook is either incapable (which I doubt) of enforcing their terms of service, or has concluded that it is in their best interests to turn a blind eye towards people with more than one account and children in the US under age 13 who have accounts.

Some modern day incarnation of Tipper Gore needs to take them to task for violation of the US COPPA legislation.

</comment><comment><USER11> Honestly most people dont even realize they are sharing an ad. Despite my best efforts to block ads and hide the increasing quantity of spammy ads, Facebook seems to be doubling down. as a result my engagement in Facebook has drastically dropped.

But when I do share on occasion I get wierd notifications "you have shared three days in a row and your friends are responding"

That is just weird and terrible marketing, quite frankly more akin to cult recruitment/retention</comment>


Stop Datamining Me - <AUTHOR> https://www.stopdatamining.me/opt-out-list/ <comment><USER2> The absolute irony of this site's privacy policy.

> Service Providers. We work with third parties who provide services including > but not limited to data analysis, order fulfillment, list enhancement and > other administrative services. We may disclose personal information to such > third parties for the purpose of enabling these third parties to provide > services to us. Such services may include: marketing distribution, email > list management services, advertising, certain product functionalities, > customer support, web hosting, customer data management and enhancement, > fulfillment services (e.g., companies that fill product orders or coordinate > mailings), research and surveys, data analysis and email service.

[https://www.stopdatamining.me/privacy- policy/](https://www.stopdatamining.me/privacy-policy/)

<comment><USER3> They're mining that no-data-mining market. That's a good market!

<comment><USER4> It really must be. Because for some reason all big companies are hell bent on tricking even the 0.001% power users that actually care by constantly overriding options and nagging people until they accidentally click the wrong thing that one time.

I have no idea what they expect to gain by infuriating that group.

<comment><USER5> The anger dollar. Huge. Huge in times of recession. Giant market. They're very bright to do that.

<comment><USER6> [https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0](https://youtu.be/tHEOGrkhDp0) ? (profanity warning)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Loads javascript from google-analytics.com and facebook.com. Please do, in fact, stop datamining me.

<comment><USER8> 301 Redirect Permanent -> [https://cant.stopdatamining.me](https://cant.stopdatamining.me)

<comment><USER9> Gives me a Privacy error on chrome. >.<

This server could not prove that it is cant.stopdatamining.me; its security certificate is from *.gridserver.com. This may be caused by a misconfiguration or an attacker intercepting your connection

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So would anyone pay for a service like this that acts like an attorney and actively contacts companies for insight into the information they store on you and requests for removal? Included in the service would be class-action suits and other litigative measures. We could introduce a free tier to find out if X companies store anything and a service if you want to clean up. Like legal insurance but then only for data.

<comment><USER11> Just from personal experience I've spent time opting out of these collections in the past. To include, people search websites only to find my information resurface months later. I think this may take constant monitoring. I'm not sure the mechinism that is used for data to be added after asking for opt out/deletion

<comment><USER10> If you can get judges to rule on costs in favor of the plaintiff (quite usual in my EU jurisdiction) then there quickly arises an incentive for cooperation. All you need is a few high profile wins. Those companies would probably start sharing by default and / or taking opt-out more seriously after that. "It's your data. Fight it!" (How's that for a slogan. And I know it's not grammatically correct.)

It's analogous to the operation of those lawyers asking a few thousand euros for unlicensed use of pictures. That's legit as well here. Legal reverse GDPR extortion. Gives us insight into these customers, who've given us power of attorney or we sue. Lose and pay our bills. Win and we are done and the customers pay a much smaller fee (a person, but hopefully adding up to a reasonable fee).

<comment><USER12> > judges to rule on costs in favor of the plaintiff (quite usual in my EU > jurisdiction)

Please correct me if I'm wrong but I think your costs are broader, include attorneys fees, and are therefore different from US costs. In US courts the prevailing party defaults to including costs when preparing the judgment order (parties do almost all of the drafting in US courts) but "costs" is taken to literally mean court costs as in filing fees and a very limited menu of closely related expenses such as costs pertaining to service of process, court clerk photocopying charges, and the like.

<comment><USER10> Yup, broader costs. Losers often pay quite a substantial part of the legal fees of the winner. A comparatively extreme example: in liability cases with injuries, the judge will often allow quite broad legal costs (about 25% of total claims is legal costs). It's an extreme example since registered attorneys cannot work on that basis, but goes to show that substantial costs to the loser does happen.

<comment><USER12> Thank you

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Seeing this list and its mix of Email / Phone / Fax / Web systems - and this is only for 50 companies - makes you realise why GDPR-like regulations are needed!

</comment><comment><USER14> It has always rather irked me that seemingly the only way to stop people from datamining you is to give them more information. Many web pages even specifically complain about third party cookies being disabled in the web browser, saying that they can't possibly honour my preference unless I switch it back on again.

I'd much rather just not hand out the information in the first place.

<comment><USER15> There needs to be a mechanism to tweak the signal-to-noise ratio. Either 1) stop interact with them and send 0 signal, or 2) have a browser plugin that just provides random interaction on a webpage and increase the the noise. The expensive targeting machines they've built become much less useful.

<comment><USER16> AdNauseam is a Firefox extension which clicks ads automatically.

<comment><USER17> While that seems like a fun idea, I'm not a fan of the permissions the extension requires.

<comment><USER18> Mozilla screams bloody murder about security and careless users, but then forces you to choose between "no extensions" and "extensions with unlimited permissions to see everything you do".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> So do we have any proof that these sites actually honor the opt-out requests and don't simply add the information we had to provide to them to their dossier?

Profile: Doe, John

New Details: Hates data-mining.

<comment><USER20> > So do we have any proof that these sites actually honor the opt-out requests > and don't simply add the information we had to provide to them to their > dossier?

I don't know, especially for scummy people search websites.

However, I've requested a lot of disclosure reports and opted out of _a lot_ of stuff, and I don't think I've volunteered anything the dataminer probably didn't already know. The real big names like Lexis Nexus and the credit bureaus have their tentacles in everything, so it'd be very difficult to hide your address, telephone number, and property information from them.

The requests that require emails or phone numbers have never rejected throwaway accounts or non-personal phones numbers I have access to. I think they mostly ask for them to impede bulk opt outs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Dilemma: In order to remove my info I need to give them my info

</comment><comment><USER22> Or just use the bulk opt-outs provided by the advertising industry organizations. The first is webchoices (the blue triangle you see in the corner of some ads, which allows you to report ads, see how you were targeted, etc.) and the second is the NAI (Network advertising initiative, a non-profit pushing self-regulation for advertisers.)

[http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=3&lang=en](http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=3&lang=en)

[http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1](http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1)

You can also see what types of data Oracle has on you. This doesn't include all of the companies they own though.

[https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/](https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/)

<comment><USER23> Before I can get to the opt-out page it loads a "Webchoices Browser Check" and it fails because I block third-party cookies? Is this a joke?

<comment><USER22> You opt-out by using third party cookies, what do you expect it to do without having access to that?

<comment><USER23> Opting out of tracking via first-party cookies. I mean the owner of a website could just share my page visits with an ad network regardless of third-party cookies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What is this, exactly?

The "Take Control of your Data" call to action takes me to list of 'how to opt out from company X' which exists in plenty of other places, and I'd have to submit them myself. Nothing that goes into data usage, etc. Then there's the privacy policy as others have pointed out, and the analytics/facebook scripts.

There's no functionality or service provided that I can find. The blog seems to be retweets and noise.

Not sure how this got voted onto on the front page, it doesn't seem to be a legitimate thing.

</comment><comment><USER25> Doesn't opting out cause a Streisand Effect?[1]. I mean, if you go out of your way to hide something it makes you even more interesting and you stand out. My own strategy for not having data collected on me is to compartmentalize and have various contextual identities across different services and never cross contaminate identities and never have all my personal info in one centralized location that makes it easier for the likes of Acxiom Corporation to profile me. I call it identity 'sharding'.

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

<comment><USER22> Your strategy doesn't work, FYI. If you have /ever/ used the same device or network they are linked. If you've ever used a credit card across your 'shards', if you've ever logged into a service (especially gmail/fb) accross 'shards' then your identities are linked. You'd need entirely separate devices, networks, names, browsing habits, social accounts, etc. You might've lowered their confidence, but that has nearly zero effect. Cross-device graphs are exceptionally advanced.. all the machine learning/etc that gets discussed on hn is used to beat users like you. Oracle is one of many vendors who do this.

[https://blogs.oracle.com/oracledatacloud/crosswise- questions...](https://blogs.oracle.com/oracledatacloud/crosswise-questions- answered)

[https://go.oracle.com/LP=57841](https://go.oracle.com/LP=57841)

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Also the first site's opt out is a total joke. Provide all your sensitive PII so they can remove it from their system. No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER27> If you scroll to the bottom you'll see that this is a lead generator for attorneys, who are notorious for using "advanced" advertising techniques. They bring in a hot lead, like this site seems well designed to do, and write a letter for $X+.00, and maybe repeat as whack-a-mole goes.

</comment><comment><USER28> What if there were a browser plugin that would generate large amounts of fake data, and sent that to ads/analytics/trackers whenever they popped up, in addition to preventing the actual user's data from being sent?

<comment><USER29> AdNauseam _Clicking ads so you don 't have to_

[https://adnauseam.io/](https://adnauseam.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm sick of just knowing what "kind" of data people have about. I (expletive) want to know what people know about me.

<comment><USER22> Here you go:

[https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/](https://datacloudoptout.oracle.com/registry/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Nice try!

</comment><comment><USER32> The Equifax link leads to a form where you submit your social security number and birthdate. Cool.

</comment><comment><USER33> Reminds me of those public "do not call" lists. Guess what - they get called more often.

<comment><USER34> I can't for the life of me understand why we don't yet have dual-consent calling. Your call should only go through on my phone if you have my number _and_ I've added yours to my address book. Otherwise you should go straight to voicemail.

<comment><USER35> Emergency situations. "Sir, we found your wallet...", etc., etc.

<comment><USER36> So leave a voicemail. No one answers their phones anymore anyhow, because it's 99% of the time a spammer.

<comment><USER37> That's what I do. If a call comes into my phone from a number that isn't in my address book, it just gets sent straight to voicemail. My phone won't even ring.

The only reason I don't just drop the call completely is to cover situations where a someone not in my address book might be calling me for something important.

That has never actually happened yet, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> So Equifax is still out here data mining folks huh? :(

</comment><comment><USER39> Someone make a form that submits to all at once

<comment><USER22> [http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=3&lang=en](http://optout.aboutads.info/?c=3&lang=en)

[http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1](http://optout.networkadvertising.org/?c=1)

<comment><USER40> These just opt you out of browser options, cookies, etc. I'd like to see a tool that actually removes real PII from these co's databases. Know of a tool around that does it?

<comment><USER41> We need to update the fair credit reporting act with a data retention and opt out section for online activities. The key would be making the violations punitive enough that only crooks, and not these supposedly respectable corporations, would be willing to abuse.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Who is this person and what do they have to hide?</comment>


A startup that can easily replace your secretaries. - <AUTHOR> http://www.businesshackers.com/2007/07/07/a-startup-that-finally-allows-to-say-goodbye-to-secretaries/

<comment><USER2> Too bad that startup's product can't help you write grammatical, complete sentences, cause that guy could sure benefit from something like that.</comment>


Registration Open for Google Code Jam - <AUTHOR> http://code.google.com/codejam/ <comment><USER2> Has anyone done anything like this before? If so could you share some of your experiences with us?

<comment><USER3> At first glance I figured the problems would be something similar to Project Euler (projecteuler.net) which I have spent some time with. After reading up it seems to be more in line with topcoder competitions (<http://www.topcoder.com/tc>). Nonetheless I am glad this was brought to my attention and I will be brushing up on my skills to try it!

<comment><USER4> You may also find Sphere Online Judge: <http://www.spoj.pl> and <http://acm.uva.es/archive/nuevoportal/> useful. Both contain problems from a multitude of sources, namely ACM-ICPC. I've never participated in the Google Code Jam, but presumably, these problems should serve you well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Quebec is not in the list of provinces for Canada :( Does this mean I can't participate?

<comment><USER6> I read the terms of the contest and noticed that myself:

      The Contest is void in Quebec and where prohibited by law.

(<http://code.google.com/codejam/contest/static/terms.html> Section 2 - Eligibility)

<comment><USER5> Why? Anyone familiar with the law?

<comment><USER7> They want legal registration, 10% of the prize, and written reports after the contest is over. Too much hassle.

[http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/f/VoidinQuebec.h...](http://contests.about.com/od/sweepstakes101/f/VoidinQuebec.htm)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Can someone actually explain this for me? I just.. don't think I get it. What do you, well.. do?</comment>


British Election Results in Hung Parliament - <AUTHOR> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/election_2010/default.stm

<comment><USER2> Isn't this a little bit ridiculous:

        Labour. Seats: 251, Votes: 29.3%
        Lib.Dem. Seats: 52, Votes: 22.9%

<comment><USER3> The problem is:

      Conservatives: South, land owners
      Labour: North, working class
      Libdem: Students all over the country spread thinly

Maybe libdem should claim wales as their own and relocate all the libdem supporters there.

For all the noise made about libdem in the run up to this election it was surprising just how badly they did. Even their share of the vote was only up 1%.

<comment><USER4> Labour presumably also has strong support from people employed by the state - most of whom I would not describe as "working class". I suspect that this explains why the Labour share of the vote seems to have grown strongly in Scotland.

<comment><USER5> That's very true.

Almost every one of my friends and family in Scotland work in some part of the public sector - NHS, education, local government etc. I'm unusual in being self-employed/private sector.

Scotland has become a socialist country almost by stealth - a combination of government investment/bribery (Labour wanting to ensure a healthy majority north of the border, to keep the nationalist vote down) and death of traditional industries.

In Edinburgh you might see more jobs in the financial, media and other sectors, but that is not the case for much of Scotland.

<comment><USER4> A lot of those finance jobs are in RBS - and who owns that now? :-|

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where did the Lib Dem vote go? They're going to end up with fewer seats than before. Really disappointing. Either the opinion polls are bullshit (how and/or where are they held?) or people are just extremely fickle. What kind of person still hasn't made up their mind the day before an election?

The only way Labour and the Lib Dems can form a majority government is to try and bring in a host of minority parties. It's unlikely and nobody knows how this is going to pan out.

<comment><USER7> My theory is that the turnout, generally, was still low; and those not turning out have a high proportion liberal voters ("whats the point" etc.).

That and the libs didn't really capitalize on their initial success the other week.

My take? Labour will offer the Lib Dems voting reform and form a coalition with them and the SDLP - that should be enough to hold it, just.

I have to admit I was hoping for a bigger share for the Lib Dems - which would have given a more balanced coalition (whichever way they went). Now their position is weaker.

<comment><USER4> Labour and the LibDems will join together to form a government and change the rules ("electoral reform") so that with their combined 52% and a form of proportional representation the Tories will have real problems getting into power again.

Although it looks like Nick Clegg lost he will actually end up with more power and influence than anyone from his party has had for an awfully long time.

I did find the views of the SNP rather alarming - that if the Tories got in it would probably create the right conditions for them mounting a realistic campaign for independence. I have no desire to be stuck in a wee country, oil running out, with a bunch of insane socialists and RBS.

<comment><USER3> It's unclear that libdem+labour will even be larger than conservative seats.

All money is on Cameron being our next PM.

I'm not sure Clegg actually has _that_ much power, his party has lost 13 seats so far.

<comment><USER8> And gained 8. That's still not good, but it's not as bad as you're painting it. At current standings a Conservative minority govt would have 294 seats, and a Lib/Lab coalition would have 304.

<comment><USER9> 304 is still nowhere near a majority (326), and it's doubtful whether it's enough to govern.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Depending on your view on the role of government this is not necessarily a bad thing. Canada has had a series of minority governments over the past few years, and that has not been a factor in the recent economic crises.

<comment><USER11> Its not necessarily a bad thing , the issue here is none of the other smaller parties have anything in common with the Tories,who look unlikely to form a govt. on their own. Of course, a rag-tag coalition ideologically opposite of each other might still work but not very well, i suspect.

<comment><USER12> That is representative democracy in action.

I don't mind that more than 35% of the British people are represented in government.

<comment><USER11> I don't mind a rag-tag coalition , my problem is with the stability of it.

Its probably better for parties with at least a common minimum program to work together than two parties that have nothing in common trying to stick together and run a government for 5 years.

<comment><USER12> I guess the problem with Great Britain is that there are no recent historical accounts of it working combined with the fact that the economic crisis requires immediate, resolute action.

Having the Lib-Dems be the king-makers at every election might be a weird case ---assuming that no other popular parties begin emerging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I find it ironic that the result of democracy (in the abstract sense: the diversity of opinion) is a non governable country. It kind of shows what type of people we have in politics: stubborn opiniative people who don't even know how to listen to other peoples' point of view.

Elections in a democracy only seem to work when there's not a democratic parliament. Or maybe we are just not used to this and need some time to get used to the idea of different point of views other than the two main parties.

<comment><USER14> Which result would mean a governable country? There are possible coalition governments or even a minority government. Possibly, they won't be as strong as a single party majority government would be, but they are definitely workable. I'd rather see this as a strength of democracy where you can have some kind of government even if there are many different opinions without single prevailing political force (without having to kill all opponents).

<comment><USER13> Maybe you didn't understand what I said or I didn't explain myself properly but it's very rare for a government without a majority to not fall after some months/few years. I'm blaming it on the politicians who can't form a strong government from coalitions.

In a perfect world (utopia), there would be no need for coalitions, they would just vote accordingly to the interests of the people they represent.

In a not so perfect world but still a pretty good one, a coalition should be enough for a strong government and majority governments would be rare for our own good.

In our world, this still doesn't happen.</comment></comment></comment>