Ink – inkle's narrative scripting language - <AUTHOR> https://www.inklestudios.com/ink/ <comment><USER2> Also great for scripting chat bots! Used to as part of Air New Zealand's chatbot Oscar. 390 topics, multiple regions, 60K words of content so it helps keep us sane :)

<comment><USER3> I'd be interested to hear more about this. Is there a writeup somewhere?

<comment><USER2> No technical write up but you can see how it all hangs together because we have open-sourced the core of what makes Oscar tick: [https://github.com/rabidgremlin/Mutters](https://github.com/rabidgremlin/Mutters)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Also worth checking out Kni, an authoring language inspired by Ink but written in JavaScript, ideal for bringing this kind of content to the web: [https://github.com/kriskowal/kni](https://github.com/kriskowal/kni)

</comment><comment> crooked-v Now I have this weird urge to build a JS DSL with equivalent functionality using objects, lambdas, and template strings.

<comment><USER5> You should check out OMetaJS [http://www.tinlizzie.org/ometa/](http://www.tinlizzie.org/ometa/) It's an object oriented parser-compiler for building languages (DSLs?) inside a host language. JS is a supported host language.

<comment> crooked-v Ah, but I'm thinking real Javascript, J-expression[1] style. Something like this:

        [
          `I stared at Monsieur Fogg.`,
          {
            if: `know_about_wager`,
            then: [`<> "But surely you are not serious?" I demanded.`],
            else: [`<> "But there must be a reason for this trip," I observed.`]
          },
          `He said nothing in reply, merely considering his newspaper with as much
          thoroughness as entomologist considering his latest pinned addition.`
        ]

Or, more complicated:

        [
          `I looked at Monsieur Fogg `,
          {choose: [
            `... and I could contain myself no longer.`,
            `What is the purpose of our journey, Monsieur?`,
            `'A wager,' he replied.`,
            {choose: [
              `'A wager!'[] I returned.`,
              `He nodded.`,
              {choose: `'But surely that is foolishness!'`},
              {choose: [`'A most serious matter then!'`, `He nodded again.`]},
              {choose: [
                `'But can we win?'`,
                `'That is what we will endeavour to find out,' he answered.`
              ]},
              {choose: [
                `'A modest wager, I trust?'`,
                `'Twenty thousand pounds,' he replied, quite flatly.`
              ]},
              {choose: `I asked nothing further of him then[.], and after a final, polite cough, he offered nothing more to me. <>`}
            ]},
            {choose: `'Ah[.'],' I replied, uncertain what I thought.`},
            `After that, <>`
          ]},
          {choose: `... but I said nothing[] and <>`},
          `we passed the day in silence.`,
          {goto: 'END'}
        ]

[1]: [http://sriku.org/blog/2012/04/15/j-expressions/](http://sriku.org/blog/2012/04/15/j-expressions/)

<comment><USER5> Maybe as a first step... but seems like a "real" DSL would have a lot of benefits... maybe it even compiles to something like your example? Anyway, just thinking out loud... not a critique.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish they published Ink scripts for their games (especially Sorcery series), I've beaten them numerous times but the games are so complex that it's basically impossible to go through all branches. Even if I tried I couldn't replicate some of dialogue and that's in a game that always allows you to undo everything!

<comment><USER7> This is fascinating. If you had such a script, would you simply read it, or would you use it as a guide to play the game so as to produce results you previously hadn't seen?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It looks really cool, much more usable (IMO) than Inform7, which probably is the grandfather of all CYOA languages.

</comment><comment><USER9> Botsquad's Bubblescript language does something similar, although more imperative: [http://www.botsquad.com/2018/04/14/beyond-the- dsl/](http://www.botsquad.com/2018/04/14/beyond-the-dsl/)

</comment><comment><USER10> tl,dr; A domain specific language for a Dungeon text-like game, see an overview of the language at [https://github.com/inkle/ink/blob/master/Documentation/Writi...](https://github.com/inkle/ink/blob/master/Documentation/WritingWithInk.md)

<comment><USER11> If you've played any inkle games they're very far from dungeon.

<comment><USER12> I'm trying to understand exactly what this is. Is it like Twine?

<comment><USER13> It's like Twine. AFAIK Twine is mostly for publishing directly to the web.

Ink is more suited for embedding in a game which adds additional presentation or gameplay stuff on top of the text, using some other language/engine (like Unity). It will handle the text stuff, and provide hooks/bindings for the rest of the game to use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How does this compare to Superscriptjs? [https://github.com/superscriptjs/superscript](https://github.com/superscriptjs/superscript)</comment>


The Five NYC Taxi Drivers who Refused My Fare - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/dear-blank/97f4610eb169 <comment><USER2> This is a common tourist mistake. Flag the taxi, and then get in the car, say hello, then tell the driver where you are going. Only tourists think they need permission to get in the car, and so the drivers will refuse them. Tourists also tend to request unprofitable routes, like going 15 blocks in Times Square.

They are allowed to turn the off-duty light on, and to get one final fare going their return direction at the end of their shift. This rule is coming to an end because the GPS logs have proven that the drivers abuse this rule extensively.

<comment><USER3> This. I'm all of punishing the hell out of cabbies that cheat (e.g., fare refusals or the out-of-city overcharged fares that were discovered via GPS data), but the failure to get into the cab ruins the whole case.

Get in the cab. State your business. Snap a photo of the driver's license if you are asked to leave and report him/her to 311. Blog to your heart's content on behalf of your company's alternative service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> New York has a solution for this. It's called a livery car (they're usually Lincoln Town Cars). This is especially prudent when you have a flight to catch.

You call and they send someone at the appointed time.

It's cheaper than Uber and the drivers are the same.

Some have phone numbers you'll never forget: (212) 777-7777 and 866-666-6666.

<comment><USER5> Agreed 100%. Uber isn't adding anything disruptive to NYC, they are just adding another channel for booking town cars. In my personal experience, the town car services I've been using for over a decade that I call to book with have been faster and more reliable than my experiments with Uber.

As I mentioned in my own comment, however, this makes me wonder if there is a space for a PAAS for Town Car services to easily roll out their own web and mobile booking apps... That way they don't even need to cut Uber in at all.

<comment><USER6> But at that point, why not just aggregate the services, in which case you've effectively become Uber?

<comment><USER5> Because if you operate your own booking app you can set your own prices and you don't have to pay Uber a cut.

You'd also be able to use it to operate a private network of drivers. For example, large corporations can roll out a private web/mobile booking app for the private network of drivers they have for their employees. Not many companies still have drivers on payroll in the US, but in other countries like the UAE or South Korea this is still more common.

Why do some businesses use Google Apps in the cloud and others maintain their own CMS systems on their own equipment? Some businesses prefer in-house solutions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Hacker News: Criticizes cab companies for using laws to keep Uber out, then criticizes cabbies for not following the letter of the law with respect to unprofitable fares.

Which is it: Do we celebrate breaking laws? Complying with them? Or do we pick and choose the laws we respect?

<comment><USER8> We respect people who are working to fulfil their own needs and the needs of others without coercion.

We celebrate those who abide by laws that benefit human dignity and enterprise, and oppose laws that diminish those things.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is illegal for taxi drivers to refuse your fare depending on your destination. If their "Off Duty" light is not lit, just get in, then say your destination. If they protest, say you'll call 311 (and start taking a picture of their license).

If the "Off Duty" light is on, just wave them on no matter where you're going.

<comment><USER10> A driver tried to overcharge me on the way to JFK, so my seasoned NY friend who was flying with me said very calmly. "That's fine. I work for Mayor Bloomberg's counsel on public transport. I'm happy to resolve this issue with him directly, if you're choosing to overcharge me."

...I've used this multiple times to assuage similar problems

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm not entirely sure how Taxi's work in big cities, from my interaction with them I _think_ they work based on the idea that there's always going to be x number of people in need of cabs in any area so driving around looking for patrons provides value to both people looking for a cab (cabs everywhere!) and value to the cabs (people everywhere!).

If a company like Uber takes off and eventually the uber model is delivering 50% of taxi rides, won't that harm the traditional cab market (less patrons) and in turn harm the customer experience (harder to find a taxi wherever you are) therefore requiring people to use the uber model? For example right now you _could_ get an Uber ride in an available city easily, _or_ you could get a traditional cab. If Uber took 80% of the market wouldn't that force you to use Uber?

Just thinking out loud and may be misunderstanding how it all works, but if my thinking is along the right lines it seems there are genuine downsides to the Uber model taking the largest market share beyond just "current taxi drivers will have to change how they work".

</comment><comment><USER5> 1) The author of this post is wrong when he assumes that the driver's refused his fare solely because JFK is a location that is "out of the way". There are indeed set shift changes that the large majority of cabs in NYC adhere to, and when they do change shift they leave their "off-duty" lights on and try to get one more fare on their way back to the depot/home at the end of their shift. I don't know how many times I've been refused by a string of taxis at the shift change because I'm going in the wrong direction, even though my route is normally one with the best profit margins for them.

2) To those suggesting you get in the cab before you state your destination, the cabs that do this already know that it is harder to refuse you once you get in the cab. That is why they will leave the doors locked, roll down their window, and only partially position themselves in the stopping lane.... They are ready to veer off very quickly. When it is raining outside and you are desperately trying to catch a cab you are going to comply with this routine.

3) Also, if you do manage to enter the cab and tell them a destination that is out of the way of their return journey, they have no qualms in telling you to get out.

EDIT: I'd also like to add that Uber hasn't really brought anything new to New York other than a smartphone app. Town car services in New York City are more than plentiful and no less reliable when you call them up than when you request one through Uber. In my my experience, the town car companies I have used over the past decade have been much more reliable and quicker to service me than the few times I've tested out Uber's service. I wouldn't call Uber a disruptive service in the NYC ecosystem, just a complementary channel for requesting private town cars.

It does make me think though, why should these town car services even cut Uber into the loop? Maybe there is space for some type of PAAS for town car companies to roll out their own web and mobile based booking system?

<comment><USER12> Was about to write the same thing. Taxi drivers aren't stupid and they weren't "fail[ing] to respect" the author, they want to maximize their earnings, they also want to get their cars back before the set shift change; if they're late they have to pay a fine (<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/nyregion/12taxi.html?_r=0>).

The advice people are giving to just jump in the cab applies in the case where the driver's off-duty light is _not_ on, but the rider looks like they're going to some part of Brooklyn (or wherever) that the driver doesn't want to go, and the driver is wrongly being selective. The situation of having to just jump in the car has never come up for me in Manhattan with an on-duty car, it has before in Brooklyn though.

<comment><USER5> Even in the case you describe, they will try to refuse or claim they don't know the way most of the time. If you still hold your ground, you better know the route because if you don't you can expect the cabbie to get "lost" for an hour and have you pay for the privilege.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Most people commenting here about how he should stop whining and suggesting he should get in the taxi before telling the driver his destination are missing the point.

Uber provides a better experience than taxis. If it didn't there wouldn't be any demand and you wouldn't see posts like this on a regular basis. The taxi industry needs to improve their service, or stop attempting to outlaw the competition and STFU.

</comment><comment><USER14> As documented in Mike Grynbaum's NY Times article, the five taxis probably weren't lying about the shift change.

<http://www.nytimes.com/2011/01/12/nyregion/12taxi.html>

It seems irrational at first, but changing shifts at the same time makes drivers and cars more interchangeable. More importantly, it makes day-shift vs. night-shift approximately equal in profit opportunity. It's a shame the shift changes coincide with after-work rush hour and a popular time for night life to wind down.

</comment><comment><USER15> You have to get inside the cab before you tell them where you're going, they are legally required to take you once you are inside

<comment><USER16> In theory, sure.

In reality, during the day in midtown (and particularly around rush hour), you're more likely going to find a cab that pulls up to you with its doors locked, and a driver who rolls down his window to ask you where you're going.

Especially if you look like you're going to the airport.

If I have to get to the airport in NYC I book a car, every single time. I hate dealing with cabbies' bullshit, and so I simply don't. Even if I'm fairly certain I can get a cab. I'd rather pay more for a service I can count on over one that is a gamble and filled with drivers who are more than willing to deceive their customers.

Edit: context - i live in NYC, work in midtown.

<comment><USER15> True. Though if we're going to argue what is the most reliable way to get to JFK from manhattan during rush hour I'd offer LIRR as the best option, since it doesn't get stuck in traffic...

<comment><USER16> Yeah, good point. Several of my coworkers are from my company's offices in Canada, and when they are down here they always insist on getting a cab. It always turns out bad, because they always seem to be leaving at rush hour. I wish I could convince them to either just book a car or take mass transit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I hate his pretentious tone. The Uber drivers do what they do not because they are more respectful, but because you are paying out of our ass for it. You really think they like pulling around people if they could do something else?

</comment><comment><USER18> Anecdotally, having lived in NYC for a few years now, the shift change thing is real. Some time periods are just dead for a little while. If a cab is actually on shift and available, they'll have their light on and stop and pick you up without asking you where you're going. If they're at the end of their shift, they'll likely stop and ask you where you're going first (without letting you in yet) to see if you happen to be going the same direction they are. If a guy is at the end of his shift and he's based in Jersey, I can understand why he wouldn't want to commit to driving 30-45 minutes in the opposite direction. There are literally hundreds of other cabs in manhattan that would be happy to take you to JFK, and there's a high likelihood you'd be waiting only a few minutes for one of them to come by.

I think Uber's a great service, but this article seems to be trying to invent a problem that doesn't really exist. For some cities, like SF and several others in CA where taxis aren't ubiquitous, Uber makes a ton of sense. But in manhattan, I'd say 95+% of the time I'm able to find a cab in under 5 minutes, at a reasonable price, by walking to the nearest street corner.

</comment><comment><USER19> The shift-change thing is my biggest problem with NYC taxis, but other than that, they seem vastly better than anywhere I've tried (except London).

Plural of anecdote is not data, but what for me is a representative experience in NYC:

I had to go from Brooklyn (after having lunch with some rap lyrics entrepreneurs at a famous steak house), to my midtown hotel to pick up my luggage, to JFK, all in 2h, to catch a flight. I was also somewhat intoxicated.

Hailing a cab on the street is a lot harder in Brooklyn than Manhattan, but I managed to do so (as I was walking to a subway station 20-30 blocks away). He said he was going off-shift, but would drive me close to his depot (just across the Williamsburg bridge) to change taxis. I did that, and the next driver (who it turns out knew a few people I knew who worked as translators in Afghanistan; he was waiting for an application to be an instructor at DLI) drove me to my hotel, but was also going off-shift, but called _another_ taxi who was waiting for me at the hotel to take me to JFK. Total cost was within $10 (including tips) of just getting a single taxi from Brooklyn to midtown to JFK, and total time was maybe 3min longer.

I took about 25 taxi rides in NYC over 2 weeks, mainly midtown and downtown, and they were all polite, professional, competent, etc. I talked with them about Uber, the Square reader (which apparently was just a tiny trial), etc. This was during some kind of financial dispute they were having, so I asked them about that (mid-summer 2012).

In SF:

Call a taxi. They don't show up. Repeat 3x.

Hail a taxi on the street. Driver verbally harasses my companion.

Next taxi I take gets "lost" in downtown.

One of ~20 taxis clips a parked car, keeps driving. (I called CHP after I got out with his info)

I'd like Uber in NYC, but it is essential in SF.

<comment><USER20> Ditto DC. Ditto Chicago (though it's better). NYC cab service is by far the most consistently reliable this side of the Atlantic... once you get the rules down.

One largely unknown tip is that there are many formal cab stands around NYC. At these, another human being helps you navigate the rules and hail a cab. They are great for the elderly, tourists and any of us when we have a big package or a lot of bags. They are also often covered (see: cabs-in-rain problem), discourage 'up-streaming' by other would-be riders and they seem to attract available cabs (cabbies seem to favor the known quantity). A few are official NYC TLC operations (airports, train stations, etc.), but many are free-market concerns (nearly every hotel).

Here's the NYC Cab app I want: 1\. Identify and map these cab stands; 2\. Report if they are 'open'; 3\. Show demand (number of people waiting), and; 4\. Show availability (number of cabs waiting).

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Whenever I've been in NYC, I've never had a problem getting cabs. Going to Newark airport however cost me something like $110 if I remember correctly, because the cab driver gave me these special "fees" at the end, it felt like highway robbery.

Now in SF, it's the worst cab situation I've ever seen. I've had cabs that I ordered via the phone never bother to show up, and once waited 90 mins in front of a hotel, as the hotel employee tried to flag taxis as they passed by the line. I don't bother taking the cab anymore. If I need to be somewhere for a day like New Year's Eve, I'll park downtown earlier that afternoon and then take the Muni there.

I just might try out Uber this New Year's Eve and see how that goes.

<comment><USER22> > _"Going to Newark airport however cost me something like $110 if I remember > correctly, because the cab driver gave me these special "fees" at the end, > it felt like highway robbery."_

It is. There is no flat rate to Newark airport, so you can either take the metered rate or negotiate your own flat fare. Bonus of the custom-negotiated fare is also that customarily you don't tip on it.

There's no good reason why going to EWR from Manhattan should cost $110 (short of complete and utter gridlock). Insist on negotiating a fare, or just call a car service - their vehicles will be nicer, the driver will be less surly, and the price will be substantially lower.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For the record, do note that "the taxi industry" and "taxi drivers" are not the same entity, do not have the same goals, and probably don't like each other very much.

</comment><comment><USER24> I like the Uber concept and like most people I know, can feel for people having troubles with taxis.

But after I noticed the 3rd invite-to-uber link I got worried that this is just a piece of marketing. The count reached six and the closing words were again a call to action to sign up. A quick search seems to indicate that you can get benefits from the company, if you invite new users. Which someone is _desperately_ trying in my opinion.

A disclaimer would've been appreciated.

</comment><comment><USER25> In general, you should take the time to learn the rules and regulations before writing things like these up:

\- If the off duty light is not on and your trip is in the five boroughs then the cabbie cannot refuse to take you. In my couple years in New York taking hundreds of cabs I have never had a cabbie in this situation lock his doors or ask me where I was going before I got in the car.

\- if the off duty light is on then the cabbie has the option because he is going in for a shift change. This happens around 4PM. They are not allowed to put off duty light on otherwise. They often can't go to JFK because there is another driver waiting for the car in the next hour.

You can (and often should) use a black car service when traveling during rush hour to the airports. Uber is 2-3x the rate of a cab. A service like Dial-7 is about 25% more and cheaper if going out of Newark.

</comment><comment><USER26> Generally, it's best to get in the cab and then tell them where you're going. Mind you, that may mean you're now in the cab with an unhappy driver, but it used to be that was the only reliable way to get a cab from Manhattan to Brooklyn.

</comment><comment><USER27> From my experience, subway from Manhattan to JFK might be actually faster, let alone cheaper.

Yellow cabs have fixed fare from anywhere in NYC to any city airport. This is written on each car. This is why, probably, they tend to refuse: this is not that profitable.

Jumping in is best practice but not always possible. Cunning drivers would sometimes ask you where are you going before opening doors, though legally they don't have to, and the passenger should tell them once in the car.

/* This is another example how regulations aimed to make a service affordable result in its becoming inferior, yadda yadda*/

<comment><USER28> Subway from manhattan is almost certainly not faster unless there is very heavy traffic (which of course is fairly common on weekdays). If you want to take transit, LIRR from Penn Station + Airtrain is generally the way to go, even if you have to take the subway to get there (except maybe from downtown, where its a wash)

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> It's economics: when it's raining, cabs will pass on a long-haul fare in order to pick up half a dozen or more short-hauls in the same 60-90 minutes. Especially in Manhattan, a cab in the rain will never be empty, so they're guaranteed fares and tips that will add up to more than the fare + $5 or whatever the average airport tip is.

I don't see this as so very different from Uber raising prices in response to demand.

As others have pointed out: get in the cab first next time to avoid disappointment. And don't ask, tell the driver where you're going.

</comment><comment><USER30> Can the title of this be changed? I assumed this was some new payment system all NYC Cabs signed up for except 5. Where as the title is really 'Dear', i.e. a letter to.

</comment><comment><USER31> For some reason I have a feeling if this guy pays the cab driver the same amount he pays the uber driver, the cab driver would be more than happy to take him

</comment><comment><USER32> Wow that's crappy grammar.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Because, of course, taxi drivers exist solely to serve you and might not have been going in the opposite direction of the airport.

<comment><USER33> I guess the issue here is that it's illegal for the taxis to pass up fares based on where the passenger is going. The fact that it happened 5 times in a row is telling. The taxi industry is the exact group fighting for more regulations in order to keep companies like Uber from competing, but they don't want to follow the regulations currently in place. Experiencing things like this really helps show that the transportation industry is ripe for being disrupted and that companies like Uber are making serious inroads.

<comment><USER34> The taxi _industry_ is not the same thing as taxi _drivers_. The taxi industry is dominated by the people who own taxi medallions, not the people who drive taxis. The people who actually drive taxis are oppressed by the idiotic inefficiencies of the current regulatory system, much like Uber is. For instance, cabbies. can't charge more when it's raining. Or snowing. Or if you've asked for an especially undesirable location.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> OP - quit your whining. Sounds like the country mouse is complaining about life in the city. The City moves fast, and it looks like you were not moving fast enough. Stop with tired metaphors of "small town rules and old world business."

Pro tip: Get in the cab. Close the door. Then tell them where you are going.

That is how you get to Brooklyn or any other undesirable place in the city. (see what I did there? the slight dig at BKLN?)

You squandered an opportunity there in Midtown. I'll explain:

1\. It was raining 2\. It was Midtown 3\. Sounds like it might have been near shift-change.

How many times have you tried to get a cab in the rain in midtown? Given those market conditions YOU are the common commodity with little value. There are plenty of other customers willing to take the cab who will apply my pro-tip above.</comment>


The End of Indie Web Browsers: You Can (Not) Compete - <AUTHOR> https://blog.samuelmaddock.com/posts/the-end-of-indie-web-browsers/ <comment><USER2> I for one would love to see new browsers come forward and explicitly state that they are not implementing EME in any way, and see just how that plays out.

My optimistic (maybe too deeply rose colored) vision would be for viewership of EME-locked content to drop off so far that the companies using it have to give up and reopen distribution.

<comment><USER3> > My optimistic (maybe too deeply rose colored) vision would be for viewership > of EME-locked content to drop off so far that the companies using it have to > give up and reopen distribution.

They never had open distribution, they just had plug-ins.

All web browsers put together do not have enough market share of video views to make a material difference. Most major video services have less than 10% of views via personal computers at all, and could shift 80% of that to an application without much issue.

<comment><USER2> If those numbers are reasonably solid, I can see a positive outcome to refusal of EME support. Now I'm even more convinced it's a good idea.

<comment><USER3> How? I cannot understand that logic at all.

<comment><USER2> If only 10% of DRMed viewership is through EME in browsers, then dropping EME from browsers is far easier than if it were, say, 50 or 75%.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Note this only applies to a small number of websites: Netflix, Hulu, etc... And there are plenty of people who do not visit those websites from their primary computer.

So while this is definitely annoying, this is hardly the end for _all_ the indie browsers -- just like EA banning Linux gamers does not mean that all gaming on Linux is dead.

<comment><USER5> It should be noted that those small number of websites are collectively responsible for most of the internet traffic today:

[https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/report-where-does-the- majorit...](https://www.ncta.com/whats-new/report-where-does-the-majority-of- internet-traffic-come)

<comment><USER4> (1) Those numbers do not make distinction between Youtube/Vimeo (no DRM) and Netflix/Hulu (DRM). As an anecdote, none of my friends watch Netflix on their desktops, so while they spend plenty of bandwidth, none of them requires Widevine.

(2) Those numbers are bytes transferred, which is hardly a good metric of user importance. If you look at "top 100 websites" reports, like [0], you see there are no DRM-only sites at the top -- Netflix, for example, is on position 25.

[0] [https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-visited- websites/](https://ahrefs.com/blog/most-visited-websites/)

<comment><AUTHOR> The project I built and mentioned in the article, Metastream [1], is used to sync videos across browsers. It now lives as a browser extension and I'm able to track which web domains are most commonly used by the app.

Based on the usage statistics for the past month (28,711 samples), these are some commonly used media websites:

1\. www.youtube.com (69%)

2\. www.netflix.com (5%)

3\. www.crunchyroll.com (2.5%)

4\. www.hulu.com (0.8%)

5\. www.funimation.com (0.3%)

6\. www.disneyplus.com (0.3%)

7\. other (22.1%)

The app is heavily skewed towards anime which already has a problem with piracy. That said, we can at least see that approx. 9% of traffic in my app is for DRM-enabled media.

Personally, I don't think the usage statistics of DRM media matters much. It shouldn't be a requirement to consume any content on the web to begin with.

[1] [https://github.com/samuelmaddock/metastream](https://github.com/samuelmaddock/metastream)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon's Fire Phone might be the biggest privacy invasion ever - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2014/06/19/amazon-fire-phone-might-be-the-biggest-privacy-invasion-ever-and-no-ones-noticed/

<comment><USER2> If you willingly buy the Fire Phone and let Amazon collect the data, this isn't an "invasion" of your privacy. Rather you have opened the door wide open, set out hor'dourves, and asked Amazon to come on in.

</comment><comment><USER3> The runaway escalation of corporate-feudalist surveillance business models will continue until people actually care and modify their buying / usage behaviors accordingly. It will escalate until the market rejects further escalation.</comment>


The 800 Pound Gorilla Amazon Tried to Kill is Google's Trojan Horse - <AUTHOR> http://blog.jasonshah.org/post/52231809114/the-800-pound-gorilla-amazon-tried-to-kill-is-googles <comment><USER2> The article does not compare apples to apples unfortunately.

The author compares buying a shoe rack on Google Shopping Express to buying on Amazon. He is impressed that a plywood laminated shoe rack sourced by Target is only $12 while a bamboo shoe rack on Amazon is $20, and makes much of imagining, zomg-like, 50% savings on his Amazon purchases over the year.

If you look at the same Amazon search results page where the author finds the bamboo rack, there is a serviceable resin rack for $13 (the author is obviously not going high-end with his plywood one). Four results down from his bamboo rack is a natural wood rack for under $16.

The real gorilla horse in the room is that the author goes on to lament $5 shipping for Google, which swamps any savings he was getting by going with inferior product. "Now, Google has to make sure its free delivery thing becomes well adopted the way Amazon Prime was, because the $4.99 delivery was a non-starter for me, and ruined the economics."

Twist ending?

<comment><USER3> Scroll down further. The author found the same laminated shoe rack on Amazon for $16.17, and notes that having a Shopping membership (equivalent to Amazon Prime membership) removes the shipping fee. That means that a price comparison of the same product was $16.17 vs $13.24.

Personally I think fretting over three dollars on a shoerack is a bit silly, since the shoes it's holding will each be at least an order of magnitude more expensive than the rack.

Also relevant: [http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_...](http://wiki.lspace.org/mediawiki/index.php/Sam_Vimes_Theory_of_Economic_Injustice)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> If I was Amazon I'd be more worried about self-driving cars.

Self-driving cars will make natural delivery vehicles. If Google partnered with local retailers to provide check-out via wallet and delivery via automated cars, it would disrupt more than just Amazon.

Google has all of the nascent building blocks in place: Google Wallet, Google Shopping Express, Google Shopping, Google Maps with StreetView for routing, automated vehicles, and, of course, eyeballs.

<comment><USER5> Ahn? I think a self-driving car would still need someone to carry the product from the car to the door, or am I missing something?

<comment><USER6> Rumors are that Google is testing a grocery-delivery bipedal robot that can climb stairs, use the elevator, etc.

<comment><USER7> I envy the teenagers of the future. They are going to have such wonderful targets of vandalism and destruction. However, it will make sad when Google adds defense mechanisms to the robots and skynet goes live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> TL/DR: I (would have) used this new google shopping thing (once) and would have saved money, except for shipping. Amazon better be terrified.

Sheesh. Not that Google's tool doesn't have merit, it might.. but we'll have to wait for someone to write an article worth reading. This is silly.

<comment><USER6> In fairness, he saved almost $3.

<comment><USER8> Well in actual fairness, he did not because he didn't purchase anything.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It is worthwhile to pay attention to history.

Internet shopping has a good historical analog. Mail order catalogs. It took a long time for things to settle down, but eventually everyone wound up with both mailorder and retail outlets.

Even the 800 pound gorilla of mailorder, Sears Roebuck, became a hybrid. It took decades before they opened their first store, but today it is mostly known as a chain of department stores.

I am sure that the same will eventually happen to Amazon. However not for a long time.

<comment><USER10> Mail order catalogs never offered the opportunity to transcend the experience at a store.

Digital experiences do theoretically offer that possibility. One example is using virtual augmented reality to see how that shoe rack will look in you're home, how does it combines with your wall and floor colors, etc.

And this "digital better than real" has already started todat. Some high quality furniture retailers or hotels(forgot which) ,use computer generated models for their catalogs, not carpentry and photography.

<comment><USER9> I agree that web sites do more than mail order did. And can do more in the future. But the fundamental similarity is there in the convenient to buy / don't get to physically interact / slow to arrive vs having to go to a specific place / get to physically interact / walk out with the item you want minutes later.

Also I remember my mother taking out a catalog, putting the picture of the thing she wanted in the place she wanted it, then standing back to better imagine how its colors would fit in. That is a valuable feature that you can't get in a store. (Things do look different in different lighting.)

<comment><USER10> 1\. convenient to buy - online will probably win , i think. From my personal perspective it's more convenient now for many products.

2\. don't get to physically interact - most products don't need physical interaction , just visual one. And there's haptic feedback tech if needed.

3\. slow to arrive - online is improving(1 day shipping, maybe better for a fee) and will be good enough for most cases.

And remember:store depend on volumes to pay the rent and keep the lights on. Once online takes enough market share from them, they'll might collapse under their own weight. Some even start to see this happening in financial statements of big retailers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anytime an article claims company X is going to own ecommerce, you can almost stop reading right there.

Did you know Microsoft was going to own ecommerce too? Yep, throughout much of the early to late 1990s, it was a common statement. Magazines ran stupid cover stories proclaiming Microsoft would dominate ecommerce.

And a modern interface (re: Google)? What does that even mean. Like how Craiglist has suffered immensely because it doesn't have a supposed modern interface? It's a laughable statement. Just another indication the writer doesn't know what he's talking about. Consumers don't care about what some designer may think is a so-called modern interface. Consumers care about an interface being simple, fast loading, easy to use, etc. Amazon does a great job at that; they've compacted millions of products down to a single search bar and a drop down nav that is very easy to use.

The extrapolation the author makes about saving $2k to $5k per year is silly in nature. Complete nonsense. It ignores whether one product is superior to the other, such that one is more expensive / cheaper. It ignores consumer demand, dictating higher or lower prices. It ignores supply of the product influencing pricing. Personally I liked the bamboo shoe shelf and would rather pay $20 for it than $12 for the other one that I didn't like. The author didn't even bother to actually compare products. The caveat at the bottom nullifies the entire point of the post.

</comment><comment><USER12> quote from the article: "I'd pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience (and corresponding delay) in going to a physical store, like Target."

i stopped reading after that.

<comment><USER13> Exactly. The level of disconnect is concerning. Most people are shopping at Target or Walmart because things are 20% cheaper there.

<comment><USER14> For bulk purchases like groceries, that's great. If you're buying $12 worth of stuff, heading to the store is a waste of expensive gas.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Next post: Google customer service vs. Amazon customer service.

<comment><USER16> Everyone knows how that would turn out...

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0>

<comment><USER18> With shipping Google is now more expensive. Author needs to realize that prices fluctuate on Amazon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This might be nice for one off orders of brand name items but it doesn't look to really challenge Amazon or any e-retailer that manages its own inventory. There are at least two main issues I see:

1) Selection - It's easy to sell the popular stuff. It's hard to sell the tail of demand. Aggregating together big box retailers can never compete on selection. People want to order things together, from the same place. Selection is crucial.

2) Supply Chain - It's hard enough to have an effective supply chain when all the inventory is under your control. It will be nearly impossible to deal with N retailers supply chain systems - inventory availability, location, cross- company orders, etc and be efficient enough to make a buck.

Unless Google is willing to physically get in the game and manage some warehouses I don't see this being much of a threat although it might provide some nice competition for next and same day orders.

<comment><USER10> If amazon's big plan is to gain a monopoly like status , which many investors think it is, this competition and price erosion is a big threat both to future amazon and it's current investors.

And hurting the stock is a good way as any to hurt a company.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I don't think that the author is really comparing apples to apples. The products are different and the prices are different.

That being said, most of the time when comparing amazon to local retailers, I notice the price is almost identical, except for tax.

<comment><USER21> Especially when the author could actually do an apple-to-apples comparison. The shoe organizer that cost $18 at Google (with shipping) is $16 at Amazon <http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001M2D9D0>

<comment><USER22> Free shipping on both products puts it at $13.24 on Google [1] and $16.17 on Amazon [2]. But yes, my post could have been much more objective and scientific.

[1] Google [https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_pro...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/vbnpel7w2mscpv2/google_express_product_1.png) [2] Amazon [https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_produ...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/gh0rcveo1sqtmgw/amazon_prime_product_1.png)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Mixed metaphors, n=1, and the shock of the new. The interesting thing here is that Google seems competitive on item choice and offers Amazon some meaningful competition.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'll post this here, since his site would not let anonymous posting go forward (might be a discuss issue).

> Ouch, this is a really sad comment on Harvard these days; I'd be ashamed if > a 14 year old made this qualitative vrs quantitative category mistake. > (Which you since fixed, but please - it should never have been written).

Try looking into GOOGs shipping network, and compare it against AMZNs. Since we have long term data on AMZNs model (including $775 mil on a robot production facility):

1) Is GOOG outsourcing or doing this internally?

1a) If not, who are they using?

1b) If they are, where is the spend in their yearly budget reports? (Not seeing it)

2) Can they match the coverage that AMZN has?

3) Can they match the volume that AMZN has?

4) Can they hope to catch up before AMZN makes the robot jump it's planning?

And so on.

You're almost an adult - try to analyze the world a little closer, you're allegedly the elite of America.

Is HN really this naive? This is _terrible_ , if this was from an Oxford or Cambridge student - well, sorry, I'd hope they couldn't produce this level of immature nonsense.

And yes, I suspect you'll "down vote" - but sometimes a short sharp slap should be required.

Oh, and the heavy use of trackers is both intrusive and unnecessary for a private site. You're not providing any service, barring selling yourself, which should again make you pause at the "whys" of using the trackers you are.

</comment><comment><USER25> OP appears to be extrapolating his money savings incorrectly? They base their savings off of one purchase and its cost difference. There are a ton of things I buy off Amazon that are significantly cheaper than big box stores, most of them electronics / audio related.

</comment><comment><USER26> There is an important point that is being missed, which is the main reason I haven't used Shopping Express:

Google Shopping Express: schedule a window for delivery, during which you have to be at home.

Amazon Prime: I pick it up at my convenience from my mailbox.

<comment><USER27> I've been using Shopping Express for a while now, and can say that's definitely not true. Many of my deliveries have arrived while I'm at work.

When you place an order, there's a checkbox to indicate whether you want to require a signature, and a blank field for delivery instructions. It's up to you: if you don't request a signature, they'll happily leave your order wherever you ask them to.

(UPS/FedEx, on the other hand, will just leave a delivery note on my door. Depending on how risk-averse the sender and driver are feeling that day, I can _sometimes_ leave a signature for the next delivery attempt.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Interesting subject. I just wish the author had done a deeper study. One user, one product bought = one article written. Wow, the standard for internet writing is really low...

</comment><comment><USER16> When Google Shopping Express can offer two day shipping to the entire country, then I will be impressed. Why is the author comparing two different products that are not even made of the same material? I can go buy a faux leather wallet for $5, and turn around and buy a $100 quality leather wallet somewhere else. When it comes to wood, if you want cheap, you can get cheap. When you buy cabinets for your house, you do not go with the cheap particle board, you go with the solid wood. Google is great in many things, but when it comes to customer service, Amazon wins hands down any day of the week.

</comment><comment><USER29> >I'd pay 20-50% more for products just to avoid the inconvenience

This guy is clearly an outlier and not suitable to use for judging ecommerce decisions.</comment>


There's a DAM Elephant in the Room, called Adobe - <AUTHOR> http://asserttrue.blogspot.com/2009/05/theres-dam-elephant-in-room.html

<comment><USER2> Short, informative piece. I'll confess I hadn't heard there was a "Digital Asset Management (DAM) marketplace". Sheltered life, I suppose ...</comment>


Curling as a Service - <AUTHOR> http://curlzilla.com <comment><USER2> its not clear what it is

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a parody. There is no actual real thing as "curl as a service".

<comment><USER2> ah i didn't get it. I thought maybe it was like "load/stress testing" and was using curl to get that across.</comment></comment></comment>


The Dutch East India Co was richer than Apple, Google, Facebook combined (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://dutchreview.com/culture/history/how-rich-was-the-dutch-east-india-company <comment><USER4> This is a non-sensical article, relying on some obfuscating math hidden behind "Infl. Adjusted".

Inflation adjustments gets pretty fuzzy even in the same nation across a few decades, let alone between different nations across centuries.

The article equates the 1637 peak valuation of 78 million guilders with current day 7,900,000 million dollars (not the 79,000 million according to the bad math in the article!). Now consider that the initial capital raised for the company was 6.4 million guilders in 1602. That would be around 600 billion USD. (I'm neglecting inflation between 1602 and 1637 here, that doesn't change my point.) This was raised around 1800 families, with share varying from 50 to 85,000 guilders, which according to the implied inflation/currency conversion is between 5 million and 8.6 billion USD. How credible is is this conversion factor?

Consider as another reference that the nominal value increased 12 fold over 35 years. Todays elite PE/VC/incubators would probably scoff at such low ambitions. (Though the East India Co was pretty profitable and paid handsome dividends, so the returns are higher than capital gains.)

<comment><USER4> As another reference point, an annual salary for low-to-medium skilled labour in mid-17th century Holland was around 100 to 200 guilders, which would be about 20 million USD according to the implied "Infl. Adjusted" conversion in the article (upon which the entire premise of the article rests).

<comment><USER5> It does make you wonder what the inflation-adjusted figures are purported to mean even, given that they result in completely ridiculous results.

By contrast, an inflation calculator tells me that $100 one hundred years ago is worth around $2,500 now (so 25X). And according to this article [https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab...](https://www.jstor.org/stable/1820827?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents) , a pretty typical wage back then was $0.50 per hour. 25X that is $12.50, which sounds about right as a typical median wage nowadays (perhaps a bit low; there is a real increase in standard of living over this time period too). So the inflation figures going back at least a hundred years do make sense. What causes them to break down when you try to go back much farther, then? Are the inflation figures simply wrong? Are there compounding errors that, over enough time, make the result completely ridiculous?

<comment><USER6> Inflation is usually measured as the change over time in the prices of a "representative" basket of goods (and _which_ goods in which proportion is a pretty subjective choice). Over time, the costs of particular goods diverge a lot, especially with respect to wages, and how important those goods are to the economy also varies a lot.

The purchasing power of a typical weekly wage in 1800 or 1637 looks very different depending on whether you express it in terms of bread rolls, non- leather settees or bluetooth speakers (all of which are constituent parts of the modern UK CPI index)

<comment><USER5> Excellent point. So it sounds like the basket of goods wasn't chosen correctly, or not changed often enough to be representative across each time line, or something? Because it simply cannot be a valid result that a typical wage way back then (when standards of living were much lower) is worth millions of dollars today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It is impossible to compare wealth across centuries. Even really difficult across decades.

The owners of the Dutch East India Company endured conditions poor Europeans would find appalling today. I'd say the average welfare client lives a far more powerful, peaceful, safe and comfortable life today.

And if by wealth we mean power or abilities, at the height of it's power, whether we talk shipping, trading or ship production, the combined manpower of the Dutch East India Company could't produce an output greater than that of a tiny company today.

<comment><USER8> Can you dig into that more and explain _why_ it is so difficult to compare wealth across centuries? It would seem to me that you would just find some basic unit to divide against (a dozen eggs; a liter of milk; a sq kilometer of land), and then scale?

Whats wrong with my presumption? I know there must be quite a bit wrong with it, but I'm not familiar with economics whatsoever.

<comment><USER7> Because inflation doesn't take into account all the improvements that have been made. A liter of milk or a dozen eggs may almost be the same in 1630 and 2019. A square kilometer of farm land is not, since the crop yield today far exceeds that of 1630 (it has increased almost tenfold since 1930 due to mechanization, fertilizers and new grain types). So the same piece of land that could feed a family in 1930 now almost feeds 10 families. And, more importantly, land has many more applications now than back then: Factories, sky scrapers, airports, gardens, etc.

Take our homes. In the 1630s, homes had almost no insulation, no electricity, no central heat, no air conditioning, no shower, actually no running water, not even cold. The people who lived there inhaled smoke from the fireplace all day. They had no toilets or sewers, no internet, no cable TV or radio or cell phone connection. From evening until morning they sat in almost complete darkness since candles or oil lamps or whatever they used were crazy expensive. Houses weren't fire proof, barely water proof, wind proof or earth quake safe.

What I describe was true for the richest too. The very richest king or business owner in 1630 lived in a home, which fits my description. How do you even begin to compare his wealth to your wealth? 1,000 servants still couldn't bring him a tiny fraction of the comfort we enjoy. The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you. And that's just the material part. People were also exposed to crime in a way that we cannot even begin to imagine, and which you wouldn't even find today in our poorest neighborhoods. And their life would likely end decades before ours, and be a lot more painful. Even the richest business owner would not be able to stop his headache with a pill the way you or I can. Or tooth aches. Or fix a broken leg. A small wound could kill him. Most would see a number of their children die, maybe also wife in child birth.

Inflation numbers capture none of this.

<comment><USER9> > The very richest king in 1630 was dead poor compared to you.

I guess it depends on how and what you compare things.

All you say is arguably true. Yet I can guarantee that in one manner, those people were as wealthy or potentially wealthier than most of the ultra-wealthy of today:

Because they owned land.

If you look at the sheer square footage of their "houses" (palaces) - <USER2> including the surrounding estate land - they tend to be very large and grandiose sprawling things.

While the ultra-wealthy of today do own a lot of land (and in some cases, perhaps more than the richest of kings back then) - the majority of people have little to none (and of those that do, most don't have the mineral rights to their land).

In that manner, there isn't much comparison. The question of whether or what is the better trade-off can be quibbled over; after all, all the land in the world back then couldn't transport one halfway across the world in hours - <USER3> some today might see that tradeoff as fair, and others back then might have traded all of their land in order to be able to stream youtube to a handheld "magical" device.

But the ultra-wealthy of today are able to have virtually everything the ultra-wealthy back then had (and in some cases, that even includes a "standing army" more or less), plus all the extras normal people have access to today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Dutch East India Company had its own colonies and army. Practically speaking, it was a branch of the Dutch government, so comparing it to the contemporary companies doesn't make much sense.

<comment> black-tea Practically speaking some of today's big companies are branches of the government too.

<comment><USER11> Name one?

<comment><USER12> Blackwater/Xe/Academi/whatever they will whitewash their name to next.

<comment><USER13> Mercenary outfits are by definition not part of the government. That's what makes them mercenaries.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Mississippi Company was never really worth $6.5T in any meaningful sense. Unlike Dutch East India, Mississippi was purely a speculative bubble. It only hit that value for a few weeks at the end before the whole thing imploded.

<comment><USER15> South sea company too.

That said, you could make a similar case about apple. If you measure by dividends, I think the VOC's lead over all those companies grows by a lot.

<comment><USER14> Apple's value isn't just dividends. They have literally hundreds of billions in cash, about 25% of their market cap. They have vast other assets, both material and otherwise (the brand alone is worth real money). Their revenue is over $300B per year, and net profit is nearly $100B. And they post numbers like this year after year. Apple's value is real and obvious, and given the liquidity and sustained numbers, it's also correct. There's no bubble component at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> These comparisons of wealth across different eras seem kind of stupid:

I, a barely-middle-class individual, can own and have access to things and services that the richest nobility of 100 years ago wouldn't have been able to even dream of.

Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours, whereas a century ago long-distance journeys were measured in weeks and months. In a couple generations, hopefully, ordinary people may even be able to take trips to the moon, and at least into orbit during this generation.

How do you account for that in these kinds of comparisons?

<comment><USER17> Everybody can go to almost anywhere in the world within basically 24 hours? I will have to disagree with that. I'm a citizen of a certain "developing" country and I can't get a tourist visa to more than half of the world, and 100% of Western countries.

<comment><USER16> Yes, I meant technically, not politically. In the latter, there is less freedom now than there used to be, but there are more means now than there were, to escape the bracket one was born into.

<comment><USER17> Means to escape from bracket of being born in some no-name Belgium city to California, sure. Means of escaping from a savage country no one even knows the name of? Haha, no.

Most people that escape from worst countries don't escape on the basis of merit, but luck.

<comment><USER16> or money/connections/asylum?

<comment><USER17> Those count as luck, as I said.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I wonder how the British East India Company compared to its Dutch equivalent. I am too tired to write a comprehensive post right now, but with the Opium Wars and the monopoly on the Indian Subcontinent, I think the British EIC would be more powerful (and wealthier) than the Dutch EIC. Here are some (probably low quality) sources [0], [1]. Will write a better comment tomorrow after work.

[0] [https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the- Dut...](https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-difference-between-the-Dutch-East- India-Company-and-the-British-East-India-Company-Why-the-similar-names-Which- one-was-bigger) [1] [https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history- culture/colonies-d...](https://indonesiaexpat.biz/travel/history- culture/colonies-dutch-east-indies-vs-british-india/)

<comment><USER19> You are comparing apples to oranges ie. VOC at XVII/XVII century to British EIC at end of XVIII/XIX century.

Dutch had been able/lucky to grab/monopolize the most profitable trading route and hold to it. But at some point spice trade lost its appeal.

British had been unable to muscle into Dutch controlled trade (they have invented 'free trade' to justify their attempts).

But in their 2nd best trading posts in India British EIC had to built up military (because Indian and French presented tough military opposition) and find creative ways to finance its presence there (textiles, opium). As a results after 200 years British EIC became a force to recon with while Dutch VOC had been in decline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> >The VOC's stocks pushed the company's worth to a massive 78 million Dutch guilders, which is a pretty solid business even today, but translates to a whopping $7,9 trillion dollar worth today… Yes, really, trillion. That's 7,900 billion – or 79,000 million!

The math doesn't seem right.

</comment><comment><USER21> VOC (Dutch East India Company) was more powerful than most nations at the time. I asked this question on Quora once and got interesting answers [0]. VOC was an incredible enterprise, and there are a few today too, imo, they exist as conglomerates (Samsung, P&G, Amazon), political entities (CIA, CPC), monopolies (Maersk, Google), syndicates (DeBeers [1], NeoAristocrats [2], BigPharma, BigBank, BigSugar, BigOil), and cults (ISIS). These select few have an immeasurable and uncontrolled sway over the globe-- its environment [3], its inhabitants [4], its future [5], its past [6], its present [7].

The greed unrelenting [8], the game rigged [9][10].

\--

[0] [https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are- power...](https://www.quora.com/What-are-some-companies-that-are-powerful- than-most-nations-in-the-world)

[1] [http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have- you...](http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/02/have-you-ever- tried-to-sell-a-diamond/304575/)

[2] [https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM](https://youtu.be/d_zt3kGW1NM)

[3] [https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry- decepti...](https://theintercept.com/2015/08/11/dupont-chemistry-deception/)

[4] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosure...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_surveillance_disclosures_\(2013%E2%80%93present\))

[5] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208421](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16208421)

[6] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00ICN066A)

[7] [http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid- editors/](http://money.com/money/3994949/wikipedia-paid-editors/)

[8] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil- storage_trade](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil-storage_trade)

[9] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278](https://www.amazon.com/dp/1593764278)

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

edit: links

<comment><USER22> > _VOC was an incredible enterprise_

It's easy to be incredible on the backs and dead bodies of slaves...

<comment><USER12> This should not be downvoted, it is historically accurate, the VOC imported 10's of thousands of slaves to do work that they were not prepared to pay for.

It's a nice example of there being a huge crime at the foundation of huge riches, the VOC was definitely not a clean company by any stretch of the imagination and to this day the names of those who were responsible for the worst atrocities are proudly on display in the streets of various Dutch cities. Nothing to be proud of.

<comment><USER23> Slaves were merchandise for the VOC but they did not import many slaves to do work [1]. They typically (ab)used the local population to do that. Still nothing to be proud of, but it is a different story than slaves that were brought to the Americas to work on plantations. Exploitation of the local people would certainly be unethical by today's standards, it wasn't unethical back then and it also wasn't a crime (although you probably meant the word "crime" figuratively).

[1]> the Dutch had only a relatively insignificant share in the Atlantic slave trade—never averaging much more than 5–6 per cent of the total. [https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545](https://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/545)

<comment><USER24> It's an interesting discussion. Liverpool was a huge trading port and a powerful city for a long time, mostly built from the slave trade. No local slaves, but plenty of people who became rich from slavery.

"Overall, Liverpool ships transported half of the 3 million Africans carried across the Atlantic by British slavers."

[http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverp...](http://www.liverpoolmuseums.org.uk/ism/slavery/europe/liverpool.aspx)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Also mentioned: The south sea company was basically a huge banking bubble scam. It is quite an interesting tale: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k1kndKWJKB8)

<comment><USER26> Hello? Bitcoin? Is that you? Nah just a ghost of poor banking decisions past. Spooky.

<comment><USER27> I think Bitcoin resembles the Mississippi company a bit more. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mississippi_Company)

TLDR: Scottish gambler becomes the most influential financial state official in France and uses his power to create an impossible financial scheme, makes everyone crazy for stocks for a colony that is mostly composed of colonists dying of hardship, resulting in an implosion of French Economy. Scottish, oh how they've been around. This is a funny sidenote to one of the founding fathers of US, Alexander Hamilton, who was as well of scottish heritage but created a financial system that did not implode.

<comment><USER28> Scotland agreed to merger with England in 1707 after the country was financially ruined by another crazy scheme in the Americas. They had tried to create a colony in Panama, in an area which is "virtually uninhabited" today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Even if the inflation figures arent 100% accurate, there is no doubt this was the reason behind the British calling India the "jewel" in the crown, so many countries looted India, including the Portuguese, Dutch and British. They had spices and cotton, the modern day "oil" now that there is nothing more to be gained from India they have moved onto the middle east, then onto the services sector blah blah wherever the next area that can be exploited with greed.

</comment><comment><USER30> I didn't check the math but it doesn't surprise me. These guilds were quite often in the business of war making and colonisation, selling ads seem paltry in comparison.

<comment><USER31> I don't know, today they can sell ads targetting the more than 4 billion people that are on Internet. Back then the _total_ population was half a billion and most weren't potential targets for any market.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> > For while Smith might be publicly lauded by those who put their faith in > private capitalist enterprise, and who decry the state as the chief threat > to liberty and prosperity, the real Adam Smith painted a rather different > picture. According to Smith, the most pressing dangers came not from the > state acting alone, but the state when captured by merchant elites.

> The context of Smith's intervention in The Wealth of Nations was what he > called 'the mercantile system'. By this Smith meant the network of > monopolies that characterised the economic affairs of early modern Europe. > Under such arrangements, private companies lobbied governments for the right > to operate exclusive trade routes, or to be the only importers or exporters > of goods, while closed guilds controlled the flow of products and employment > within domestic markets.

The real Adam Smith: [https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what- adam-s...](https://aeon.co/essays/we-should-look-closely-at-what-adam-smith- actually-believed)

Still as relevant today I believe.

</comment><comment><USER33> I don't think it's a valid comparison. Comparing a company which had an army and used force to occupy and obtain its wealth is not how corporates work today. Today there is deceptive advertising and marketing which are not the same as army and force.

<comment><USER34> Saudi-Aramco might be something that comes very close to the VOC: a for-profit company protected by armed forces, arguably for hire.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> And Adam and Eve were together richer than the USA.

<comment><USER36> What do you even mean? It sounds like a witty metaphor for something, but even for what?

DEIco is a real historical enterprise with well-documented operations.

<comment><USER37> I assume he meant to decry the use of inflation adjusting and similar shenanigans to be able to compare two groups in vastly different ages. It is similar to saying that a peasant in today's world eats/lives better then a king a thousand years ago.

For instance if you use percentage of world wealth as ameasure, then Adam controlled 50% of the world's wealth, arguably the richest person to ever live (or mythologically live at least).

<comment><USER38> I doubt a peasant today eats as well as a King of even 1000 years ago.

Lives better, maybe. Eats better? Hell no.

<comment><USER39> I am not sure who would eat better... consider:

\- the variety of foods available today is far greater, especially in winter \- Spices available 1000 years ago were quite limited, today any supermarket will have 100 varieties from all around the world for like $2/satchel \- refrigeration allows safe storage of food \- Things like ice cream, chocolate, popcorn etc etc just did not exist.

So I think a "peasant" today CAN eat tastier and healthier food than kings of 1000 years ago... whether or not they choose to is another matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I think the closest modern day equivalent to the Dutch East India Co, at least in regards to their financial and strategic ties to a nation state, is the relation of Emaar (a state owned and funded global property developer) and the UAE (which in current times is basically Saudi Arabia).

For reference Emaar was the company that built the Burj Khalifa (formerly the Burj Dubai before funding ran out), Dubai Mall, Skii Dubai etc...

</comment><comment><USER15> The history of these companies (also the British east India company, and the various British and French companies of the Americas) is a _massive_ part of modern history, and how the world got to where we are.

They were richer than monarchies, had armies, controlled massive colonies, founded cities, printed money, made international trade deals/wars. They ran circles around the older form of monarchy-run-empires like the Portuguese and Spanish. Late European colonial empires inherited _their_ empires.

When Marx wrote about international capitalism (eg capitalism as a "fourth estate") in the 1840s, this is what he was referring to.

</comment><comment><USER41> And to think that this great company was defeated once and for all at the Battle of Colachel by Travancore King Marthanda Varma and faded away soon after :)

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

</comment><comment><USER42> Were the pyramids also taller than the Burj Khalifa? That stretches the definition of "tall" dangerously thin.

</comment><comment><USER43> So where did all that money go? To the British crown?

</comment><comment><USER44> how can you compare money from befor bretton woods and after, though?

</comment><comment> lota-putty "Modern-day Companies Don't Even Compare! (And That's a Good Thing!)" Nope, it's not a good thing; but a step in right direction.

</comment><comment><USER45> Are Apple Google and Facebook so rich? And how do you measure it? (Have not read the link).

t the time of his death in 1937, John D. Rockefeller was worth an estimated $1.4 billion. Rockefeller was the first man in history to ever accumulate more than $1 billion (nominal dollars) in total wealth.

Rockefeller's $1.4 billion net worth in 1937 was 1/65th of the total GDP of the United States. In 2011, the total GDP of the United States was $15.09 trillion. If somebody currently had 1/65th of the total GDP of the United States, they would have a fortune of over $232 billion.

It's also important to note that Rockefeller gave away over $500 million (nominal dollars) over his lifetime, which helped to significantly shrink his net worth.

<comment><USER46> > 232 billion

I mean, there's a guy coming pretty close to that right now.

<comment><USER47> He just lost 25% of his money.

<comment><USER48> How was it "his" money?

<comment><USER48> To explain: My wife founded a startup and owns it. But we both worked really hard in the beginning, and I've lost quite some income as an opportunity. So the value of Amazon if this is the same rightfully to some part belongs to his wife and that part not "his" to lose.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>