Profits are too high. America needs a giant dose of competition - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21695385-profits-are-too-high-america-needs-giant-dose-competition-too-much-good-thing <comment><USER4> ...and those profits are not being reinvested in new projects, new ventures, and new markets.

Instead, large corporations have been accumulating historically high amounts of cash, which is just sitting on their balance sheets, idle.[1]

It's definitely _not_ due to lack of greed. Corporations in the US are very much driven by profit motives: whenever they identify an opportunity to make a profit from customers, they take advantage of it.

Therefore, _it must be_ that they aren't identifying enough attractive opportunities in which to invest that growing mountain of cash.

Meanwhile, the US middle class appears to be struggling with stagnant wages and limited opportunity.[2]

We have engine trouble, and no agreement on how to fix it.

\--

[1] [https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional- Economist/J...](https://www.stlouisfed.org/Publications/Regional- Economist/January-2013/Why-Are-Corporations-Holding-So-Much-Cash)

[2] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/happy-days-no-more- midd...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/happy-days-no-more-middle-class- families-squeezed-as-expenses-soar-wages- stall/2014/04/26/f4a857f0-7a47-11e3-b1c5-739e63e9c9a7_story.html)

<comment><USER5> Too much cash? Pay people more! Really that simple. Money has a momentum, a speed by which it flows through an economy. Eventually those mountains of capital will disappear because there is no one left to buy what is being sold.

<comment><USER6> Indeed, but unfortunately everything has been set up to provide a strong motive to hoard rather than spend cash.

The thing is, when you hoard wealth as numbers on a balance sheet rather than spending it, _you are actually destroying that wealth_. Money which is not in motion is not money.

I find it absolutely insane that we take the excess, the bounty, the benefit of the efforts of centuries of technological and industrial progress, and rather than enjoying those benefits, convert them into numbers in a ledger that one can look at and go "uh huh", which provide no benefit to man nor beast.

It's the biggest scam ever pulled, and we all willingly engage in it. Marx pointed it out as "the accumulation and destruction of crystallised labour- time by the owners of the means of production" (I paraphrase) in Kapital - <USER3> absolutely bingo has changed since then.

UBI is in my mind the way to go - tax the ever living hell out of cash reserves, which would promote re-investment and the use of cash - and use the proceeds from that tax to pay a UBI.

<comment><USER7> > The thing is, when you hoard wealth as numbers on a balance sheet rather > than spending it, you are actually destroying that wealth. Money which is > not in motion is not money.

Completely wrong.

It is insane to see this kind of basic communist rhetoric on Hackernews.

If I hide a billion dollar under my mattress for decades, it means that there's that much less dollars chasing goods and services. The effect will be as if those dollars had been destroyed : the total wealth will remain constant, but the value of all the other dollars remaining in the circulation will increase.

Let me repeat : the wealth remains constant, it is not destroyed. Cars in driveways are not going to explode. Crops will not spontaneously catch in fire. People will not forget the skills they have.

<comment><USER8> > The effect will be as if those dollars had been destroyed : the total wealth > will remain constant, but the value of all the other dollars remaining in > the circulation will increase.

Which causes deflation. Specifically in this case wage deflation. And then because people have less money, they can't use their cars and crops and skills because people don't have as much money to pay for gas or food or the services of others.

<comment><USER9> And in a world with deflation, putting money under the mattress is actually a good investment strategy.

The resulting deflationary spiral is self-reinforcing. Fear of this state is why central banks try to create a consistent level of inflation.

<comment><USER10> And yet the bona fide purpose of economic competition is to always be lowering prices through optimization, the technology sector being the strongest (most meta) example of this. If the deflation doom sayers were as prescient as they purport, we'd all still be using 386s waiting for Intel to announce they've created the fastest chip they will ever be able to.

In fact, the system is bistable. Inflation has the same self-reinforcing spiral, and we're living it! The moneyprinters' metric (CPI) has become the goal unto itself - anything technological keeps getting ever-cheaper, so anything that can be financialized (the quickest feedback path where printed money returns to the CPI) shoots through the roof.

<comment><USER9> I have no idea where you're getting your opinion about "deflation doom sayers" from.

But you're right that the system has some bistability. A deflationary spiral with declining production and lifestyle can sustain itself for a long time. It is also sustainable to maintain a moderate inflationary spiral with ever increasing production and improving lifestyle.

Given that choice, isn't it obvious why bankers try to keep the latter option going?

But it is not _actually_ bistable. Keeping moderate inflation going requires continual intervention. It is easy to fall off the rails into a hyper- inflationary disaster. It is easy to fall off the rails the other way into a deflationary disaster. And continued success creates the moral hazard of overconfidence in the stability of the system. This overconfidence leads to risky behavior which in the end WILL result in disaster.

We came close to that in 2008.

It is unclear to me whether it is better to have regular smaller disasters, or occasional large ones. But pushing off the next disaster is always better in the short run.

<comment><USER10> The classic story about the deflation bogeyman is that if prices will be lower tomorrow, people won't buy things today. This is demonstrably false with regards to technology purchases, and obviously false with regards to necessities like food. People may _delay_ purchases, but this is a _good_ thing if say you're concerned about resource depletion or general efficiency.

I'd say we're in the making of a hyper-inflationary disaster, as central banks continue to apply their top-down prescription of "productivity", forcing people to work full time make-work jobs (eg FIRE) rather than letting the majority slowly build up savings and create economic conditions that naturally lead to working less (as one would expect from uh, technological progress). The message just won't be received until the petrodollar has completely disintegrated though.

<comment><USER9> The deflationary spiral only starts to set in when the increase in wealth due to deflation competes with the potential increase in wealth from trying to use capital productively.

So it isn't necessarily a problem if you can wait a year and then buy a better computer with the same money. But it IS a problem if your best investment strategy for that year would have been to put the money under the mattress instead of loaning it out, investing in stocks, or some other activity that keeps money circulating.

As for a hyper-inflationary disaster, the exact monetary injection you use to stave off deflation can also create inflation. This is why central banks have such a challenge on their hands. They are trying to balance the economy between nasty extremes, while trying to satisfy contradictory goals.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "An intense burst of consolidation will boost their profits more. Since 2008 American firms have engaged in one of the largest rounds of mergers in their country's history, worth $10 trillion. Unlike earlier acquisitions aimed at building global empires, these mergers were largely aimed at consolidating in America, allowing the merged companies to increase their market shares and cut their costs."

I suspect being "Too big to fail" is another major reason for these mergers. Eric Dash actually let out a warning in the NY Times in 2008: [http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/business/01bank.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/01/business/01bank.html)

"As the government makes taxpayer funds available to banks weakened by the financial crisis, the criteria being used to choose who gets money appears to be setting the stage for consolidation in the industry by favoring those most likely to survive."

Mega companies can make huge profits because they feel more confident taking huge risks. If we succeed - we profit. If we fail - we're too big to fail. This is commonly refered to as a Moral Hazard: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

<comment><USER12> I've been investing for 30 years. My experience is, whenever a couple megacorps announce a merger, SELL!

The deals always look good on paper, but the reality of trying to merge two gigantic organizations is just an unrelenting, slow motion disaster.

The last time I got gulled into believing the hype was the AOL-TimeWarner merger.

<comment><USER13> There are two kinds of mergers: those between roughly orthogonal businesses that want to exploit some vague "synergies" between them (as in the AOL- TimeWarner case); and those between companies that were previously competitors, as in the constantly-growing brewery megacorp of Annheiser Busch. The latter is both much safer for investors, and much worse for customers, than the former; this type of merger has the direct goal of decreasing margin pressure by decreasing competition.

<comment><USER14> But the second type can also fail quite miserably. Daimler-Chrysler, Kmart- Sears, Sprint-Nextel...

<comment><USER15> Sure. But if it works, it's amazing for the shareholders. Just look at Anheuser-Busch Inbev (and their history of merging/consolidating) and their soon to be merger with SABMiller.

<comment><USER16> And if you don't have the appetite to risk the merged company, the reduction in competition will spill over into other firms. So if you see a marketplace consolidating and you think the reason is to decrease competition, then buy one of the remaining independent firms.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> >The profit bit of the picture, though, has changed a lot. Last year America's airlines made $24 billion—more than Alphabet, the parent company of Google.

Wow, that's profound. An _industry_ with 600k employees made more than Google last year! Next you'll be telling me the banking industry makes more than Microsoft!

Airlines _need_ to make big profits in good years - they lose money like crazy in bad years. I don't know if it's still true, but at one time if you subtracted all the money US airlines lost from the money they made since the beginning of the industry you'd have a negative number.

To the larger point, this is what happens when you pile on a bunch of regulations and then allow industry to capture the regulators. The barriers to entry are raised so high it's impossible to have real competition.

<comment><USER18> I think it is a myth that all companies want is light regulation and the evil guvmint comes in an cover them in red tape. A lot of the regulations have been lobbied for by companies to keep out competition. Just look at the recent Tesla cases.

You can go hundreds of years back and companies and businesses were already then busy at pushing through special privileges to keep their profits high.

It isn't a matter of whether you regulate or not, but about the quality of regulation and who it is aimed at regulating. When politics can be bought by power business interests you can bet there will be ever more regulations piled on which don't actually help consumers much.

<comment><USER19> I don't disagree here, but I am concerned you may be overstating your point.

Regulation is rarely a case of being good or bad. Rather, various competing interests have valid points and some arbitration must be found between them. As the old saying goes (paraphrased), politics is about slogans. Governance is about choices.

Political systems exist for political purposes. So what happens over time in a democracy is that regulations that sound good get enacted while regulations that don't sound good are not. In addition, regulations are enacted that sound good even in cases that may not require any regulation at all.

To fix this, politicians use cartoonish slogans -- "all government is bad" or "we need somebody to protect us from corporations"

This response, while great for the political system, does nothing to address the underlying bug in the regulatory system.

<comment><USER20> It's good that this thread is pointing to quality rather than quantity of regulation -- but remember that "we" (i.e. voters and chattering internet posters) have no control over the making of regulation.

What we have _some_ control over, is the process that makes regulation. And a process that makes it easy and convenient, will be easy and convenient for the insiders who work it.

<comment><USER19> Yes, agreed. Just trying to clear the field of all the straw men. I believe if folks can grasp _why_ it doesn't work like that, they've got a better chance of working out how it might work. Otherwise we're still in slogan territory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Seriously? They're using _airlines_ as the example of too-profitable companies? The industry was in total shambles for nearly an entire decade after 9/11\. It's no wonder that they're hesitant to lower their margins.

I truly can't imagine an industry that would be more difficult to run a company in:

* Everything is highly regulated.

* The dominant expense is a highly-volatile commodity controlled mainly by unpredictable/hostile countries.

* Your product has been totally commoditized by airfare-pricing websites.

* People get angry at your company when the weather is bad.

* Use of your product is inextricably linked to the abhorrent process of airport security.

* There is the continual potential of a terrorist attack decimating your sales overnight.

Any decently smart airline _is_ hoarding some profits, because if they don't they will go bankrupt the next time fuel costs spike or something scary happens during a U.S. flight.

<comment><USER22> > Your product has been totally commoditized by airfare-pricing websites.

That American made $24 billion last year without passing on anything to consumers shows that that is wrong. Pricing websites are under full control of the airlines at this point.

<comment><USER23> > That American made $24 billion last year without passing on anything to > consumers shows that that is wrong. Pricing websites are under full control > of the airlines at this point.

You misread the article. That actual quote:

> The profit bit of the picture, though, has changed a lot. Last year > America's airlines made $24 billion—more than Alphabet, the parent company > of Google.

Which is a ridiculous comparison. They're seriously comparing an entire industry to one company? If anything, the complaint should be that Alphabet makes too much money.

<comment><USER24> I totally read that the first time as "American Airlines", thinking it was a single airline that made more than Alphabet. What the hell does it mean to compare an industry to a company in another field?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The velocity of money has fallen off a cliff since 2008 [1].

Money is not moving, that is bad for the lower, middle and most of all upper class and corporations.

Consumer driven economies with policies that kill off consumer buying power is a bad mixture. Wage stagnation and money that moves like molasses isn't a recipe for growth. Companies can only do buybacks for so long.

The trend is not good and CEOs don't see that changing [2].

 _About a third of respondents expect corporations to become more competitive within three years. Assessments of every element of the U.S. business environment improved between a 2011 survey and this latest one. The growing optimism "seems to reflect the cyclical rebound of the U.S. economy," the report said._

 _But what do business leaders see coming for workers in the next three years? Only 27 percent expect workers to enjoy higher pay, while 41 percent said wages and benefits would be falling._

Destruction of lower/middle consumer class since the 70s clearly charts in the shares of gross domestic income to persons [3], the long slide.

[1] [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V)

[2] [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2014/09/08/346902566/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2014/09/08/346902566/harvard-study-says-economy-is-doing-half-its-job- guess-which-half)

[3] [https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W270RE1A156NBEA](https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/W270RE1A156NBEA)

<comment><USER26> >But what do business leaders see coming for workers in the next three years? Only 27 percent expect workers to enjoy higher pay, while 41 percent said wages and benefits would be falling.

I read this, and I am at ease, because it means that the end is in sight. Eventually, the system will collapse under its own horrid weight, and we can have another go at making a good society.

<comment><USER27> I think you underestimate how much a revolution sucks.

<comment><USER26> Nah. A revolution will suck a ton, just that it's inevitable if the current system of "rape the poor so that the rich can buy more vacation houses" continues.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> To anyone who wants less government and more free markets, unfortunately greed works in such ways that price fixing and market segmentation is very prevalent. Everywhere, even Western Europe. You'd probably not expect it, but take backpacks as an example. German backpack manufacturers hold retailers to fixed prices, disallowing anything lower than the set price. Same for mattresses (the kind you sleep on). The result is an illusion of free markets but where those who try to sell cheaper either get their supply cut off or get bullied in other ways. Same racketeering goes on with ISPs, and these are strong arguments why regulation bodies need to exist and impose hefty fines. Why am I mentioning this? Well, unfortunately without regulation there's no real competition because companies will split up a market and also agree on unofficial pricing structures to keep it expensive.

<comment><USER29> Absolutely. Deregulated systems are every bit as vulnerable to greed and corruption as regulated ones. With regulation, you have to be careful to avoid rent-seeking schemes by established interests trying to raise barriers to competition. With deregulation, you have the obvious health, safety, and environmental risks, but you also have the issues of collusion that you mentioned, like price fixing and market segmentation.

Fwiw though, there are online-only mattress brands that bypass the establishment by delivering directly to the consumer.

<comment><USER28> But what other choices than regulation do we have? The regulation has to be regulated and fully transparent. I hope that as long every penny crossing the table is visible we'll have a positive outcome. e.g. US judges feeding inmates to private prison companies they have shares in is an extreme instance of where regulation and oversight failed.

> Fwiw though, there are online-only mattress brands that bypass the > establishment by delivering directly to the consumer.

Yeah and there's one online-only mattress firm that is now shifting to making their own mattresses and selling them as "Anti-Cartel Mattress" and promptly the firms that tried to prevent them earlier from selling their products cheaper than fixed have been trying to sue them for the product name.

In German: [http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/streit-um-eine- matratz...](http://www.tagesspiegel.de/wirtschaft/streit-um-eine-matratze-wie- ein-matratzenfabrikant-gegen-den-marktfuehrer-kaempft/11945698.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> People around here might not like it because in large our industry (SW) is based on IP but intellectual property is a huge artificial monopoly created under some economic rationalizations - but the reality is it's getting reduced to rent seeking and concentration of power/wealth.

I'm not sure abolishing the concept of IP (patents, copyright, etc.) is the right way to go about it - but I'm 100% certain that there are hideous abuses of the current IP laws and they need to be rewritten with a much more liberal and modern foundation.

Having software patents is questionable, having software patents last 20 years is straight out retarded - even if you could argue that some edge case software R&D would not get funded without patents (which is hard to believe because most of the time when something is patented people come up with alternatives and give them away for free simply to avoid patent issues - <USER3> that's arguably even more work because the solution space is smaller). A far more realistic software patent would be between 5 and 10 years.

Likewise for copyright - copyright claims should expire waaay before the 95 years.

<comment><USER31> That's part of it. Another part is old-school rent-seeking via real estate trolling (speculating), which is exactly like patent trolling.

But a lot of tech profits are just "network effects" and vendor lock-in and not really a result of any kind of government privileges.

Yet, if we had policies which fostered competition and open standards then we'd have less vendor lock-in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I find it odd that economists generally ignore the field of human psychology / behavior in their assessments.

Things like mental and physical health, addictions and substance use, thought manipulation and mind control, the fears and desires, sexual fantasies, even popular movies and music affect the economy greatly.

Not just a little bit, but _greatly_. A CEO's addiction to cocaine or promiscuity will have an impact on his company's bottom line. A young man starts a disrupting startup because he got inspired by a sci-fi movie a couple of years earlier.

Adam Smith's "invisible hand" is "invisible" because those forces can't be explained by the mechanistic rules of economics or mathematics. We just need to look elsewhere for a comprehensive picture.

What makes customers choose a product over the other ? Why do some companies retain great talent better than others - and hence reap greater profits ? How does pop music affect industrial design ?

Of course, human behavior and psychology is hard to quantify, that is why it's being left out, but I think we can start to make these connections now that we have the tools and information available.

Take Google and Facebook - these companies make their profits from advertising. Tens of billions. Add the profits of the media market - print, tv, radio.

Now consider how all that advertising affects the demand curve in all the other industries.

And it's not just the quantity, it's also the _quality_ of advertising - today's ads are scientifically designed to drill their way into our subconsciousness. The colors, the sounds, the motions, the emotions - all of these are carefully weighted so as just to make you want a certain brand over the other.

And now my favorite part - is there a connection between advertising, corporate profits, pollution and climate change ?

I think there is and it's a great one. To conclude, I think regulators should look at all these factors much deeper, determine the connection between mind and economy and exercise their influence by tuning other parts of society, not just traditional economic levers.

Of course this is a monumental task for humans, but AI might just be perfectly suited for this type of analyses.

<comment><USER33> _I find it odd that economists generally ignore the field of human psychology / behavior in their assessments._

Psychology, especially social psychology, is an epistemological disaster area[1][2] and everyone would be better off ignoring its "findings", not just economists.

[1] [http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology- studies-f...](http://www.nature.com/news/over-half-of-psychology-studies-fail- reproducibility-test-1.18248)

[2] [http://michaelinzlicht.com/getting- better/2016/2/29/reckonin...](http://michaelinzlicht.com/getting- better/2016/2/29/reckoning-with-the-past)

<comment><USER34> Economy is similar (though perhaps not as horrible) - economic Nobel laureates have profound disagreements w.r.t. basic "laws" of economy.

<comment><USER35> Out of curiosity, could you give an example?

<comment><USER34> Keynes vs Hayek (well Keynes didn't get a Nobel, but is nevertheless regarded as a seminal thinker in the field) - their views on the role the state can and should play in shaping the economy are totally opposite. The debate is unresolved to this day, with Keynesians taking an upper hand post-2008.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Wages are flat, buy and hold strategies are decimated by bubbles, and any job can be eaten by globalization.

At the same time, profits are up, access to capital has never been cheaper, and global market access has never had fewer barriers to entry.

The question is not how do we create living-wage jobs for the American worker, the question is how do we get the American worker to quit his job and start a business?

The economy is quite clearly slanted toward the entrepreneur. We need to start getting Americans to invest their labor accordingly.

<comment><USER37> If every employee quits their job to start a business, who will all these new businesses employ?

<comment><USER38> Transaction costs have fallen far enough that businesses can be small enough to be run by one person, or at least a small number of people.

Twenty years ago a small ad agency (say) might have been a couple of sales/client-management types who did a bit of writing, a dedicated copywriter, a dedicated graphic designer, and an accountant who also did payroll and basic HR/legal and handled the office lease. Today each of those sales/client-management types could have their own business, working out of a managed shared office, outsourcing writing and graphics as necessary to the copywriter and graphic designer who have their own businesses (because the Internet means there's much less overhead outsourcing and communicating with freelancers), with payroll/legal outsourced to service companies (which probably means less people - maybe 3-5 people handling 10 companies - but each company actually ends up with better access to dedicated specialists than when they had to have one person handling all of those).

<comment><USER39> Meanwhile the supply of full-time copywriting/design/accounting jobs is decimated and wages plummet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'll always see that phenomena as a societal failure. It seems that overall, the country prefers to be divided with everyone not helping the government, not pay taxes (because for some reason, "government is the problem and can't get things done" (C) Reaganomics libertarians), and not even throwing money at scientific research.

It seems that wherever you look, things revolves around the accounting of money, but not around the thing that money can do, like run society and build things.

It's weird because now companies like Tesla and SpaceX are seen as disruptive, but the only thing they do differently is just avoiding business as usual and expanding markets. Ideally, capitalism should be dedicated to creating new markets all the time, but for some reason it stopped. Just like Neil Degrasse Tyson talked about NASA, it seems that without public agencies like NASA, nothing gets done.

<comment><USER29> Given the mountains of evidence for the economic evidence of science funding, it baffles me how little we spend on the NSF. Their entire annual budget is a measly $7 billion. NASA, at least is not doing so bad, and have seen an increase in public support and funding. The NSF, unfortunately, is a much more behind-the-scenes bureaucratic organization, and doesn't have sexy images of Martian sunsets and Plutonian topography to generate PR. Yet I would argue their work is much more essential, as the academic breakthroughs of today create the game-changing technologies of the future. The most depressing part is that we even have a surplus of PhD's who would make good use of NSF funds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Profits are unusually high almost entirely due to two factors. First, the massive expansion of the global economy the last ~20 years has particularly benefited the top Fortune 500 companies, along with the artificially cheap dollar from ~2003-2014 (which has now reversed and is wrecking profits for that same club). The global economy has grown far faster than the US economy since the late 1990s, companies that had exposure to that were obviously going to benefit tremendously vs domestic oriented companies. Second, the substantial margins and profit of the top US tech companies, which have boomed more than any other companies over those 20 years.

Apple, Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Intel, Cisco, Qualcomm, etc

That's about $130 billion in profit, between those seven companies.

Oracle produces five Caterpillars worth of profit.

Apple's profit is nearly Berkshire Hathaway + Johnson & Johnson + Boeing + General Electric.

Or even more dramatic, if you were to do a three year average on profits, Apple would just about add up to these companies combined:

Union Pacific, Visa, 3M, Caterpillar, McDonalds, CVS, Walgreens, Costco, Target, Honeywell, GM, Ford, Lockheed, Boeing, UPS, Fedex, Delta, America Airlines

Microsoft is Goldman Sachs + Disney + Procter & Gamble.

Google's profit is roughly greater than the top 50 US defense contractors _combined_. You might as well just say it's equal to the entire US defense contracting industry combined.

Now strip out just Apple, Google and Microsoft, and then inflation adjust the remaining Fortune 500 back to a 1995 dollar and compare the group with the Fortune 500 of the mid to late 1990s. What you'll see, is US corporate profits are not that unusual and the top tech companies are producing a very large warping of the picture.

<comment><USER42> The point the article makes is that global companies make much more in their home markets than abroad.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> It is not a problem if the money is somewhat recirculated within the economy (make projects for the general public, rejuvenate cities, create jobs, pay salaries). It is a big problem if the money is simply drained out of the economy and funnelled into fiscal havens.

<comment><USER44> Especially because this decimates the consumer base. When you've impoverished your nation's people, who will buy your products? The dysfunctional focus on short-term profits at the expense of overall economic health makes the economy sicker each year and this disease will continue to ravish the world as long as greedy children hold the power to do so.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> The best way to keep out competition is to create barriers to entry. The onslaught of new laws and new regulations in any industry is the perfect barrier.

Think about it, how many startups can afford to hire a compliance staff that ensures they are keeping up with all the laws and regulations passed?

Look at how many pages were added to the Federal Register in the US last year, I think in total there was something like 60,000 pages.

</comment><comment><USER46> Profits are "too high" because productivity is up due to technology and digitalization which means that less people are required to take advantage of tech and make more money.

Competition can't solve this because in tech most is a winner takes all so if anything competition will create even stronger few winners.

<comment><USER47> This is my thinking as well. Everyone worries about robots taking their jobs in the future, but we've had "robots" since office automation began in the 70s and 80s. Its a bit more obvious in the blue collar sector where a literal robot can take your welding job or whatever, but in the white collar sector, its still the same. There's so much more efficiency that people aren't in high demand anymore. It used to be even a "small" company was a few dozen people. Everyone needed an assistant, you had a whole team of people to do graphic work, a whole team of people to make copies, etc. That's a pretty far cry from a handful of people, a handful of computers, and a decent laser copier.

There's no fix here. The genie is out of the bottle from an economic perspective. We just have this long slog ahead of us of working with this new reality. I imagine things like guaranteed minimum income will be the fix here as these jobs are never coming back, nor will new jobs come and replace them as things become more and more efficient.

<comment><USER48> Between 1970 and 2000 there was also a massive expansion of the global workforce. Both in absolute numbers and in the percentage of the planet that was participating in global markets.

In many countries, women started working a lot more in that period. Other countries entered the global market (notably hundreds of millions of Indians and Chinese).

People talk about the rise of Africa being the next cheap source of labor, but that is a smaller number of people that is less uniformly educated than the above cohorts.

I don't think it is really all that strange that wages stagnated where they started out the highest. Maybe we in the US are actually on track for things to get better rather than worse.

<comment><USER46> The US is in just as bad shape. Many of the jobs created are actually freelance jobs which means no healthcare plans, more temp work less money (because more competitition)

The app market is a good example of a market where it looks like all this value is created, the problem is when you then look at who actually make a living there it's very few people.

This is the reality everywhere.

Uber is working on replacing their drivers. Truck Driver is the most common job in a majority of US states. What do you think is going to happen to them when trucks don't need them anymore.

<comment><USER48> There's ~ 2 million truck drivers in the US.

In 1970, the US work force was ~100 million.

Today it is ~150 million (~140 million in 2000).

My point isn't that things will be great tomorrow, it's that there were some really huge forces at work in recent decades too. Compared to the number of jobs created just in the US in the last 1/2 century, 2 million truckers isn't that big a deal (and there were hundreds of millions of jobs created outside the US too).

Of course it is individually a big deal to those truckers if they cannot find new jobs with equivalent pay, but I'm trying to take a step back and decide how much impact it will have on the broader economy.

<comment><USER46> First of all Truck Drivers are just fraction of the drivers fleet. There are cab drivers, schoolbus drivers and so one. The number is much higher.

Second of all you need to factor in that many of those jobs are not actually providing a full salary but are instead temp jobs with no special security attached to them.

Thirdly. The use keeps moving the goalpost on what they consider a job.

A job is not just a job. It comes with an income. An income which for most people is decreasing or stagnating.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map-t...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2015/02/05/382664837/map- the-most-common-job-in-every-state)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I don't think it's that simple. There are few more factors at play:

For one, the markets are risky. Let's not forget that just a few years ago, bonds which were supposedly rated AAA were nothing but air. The entire economic system collapsed quite literally overnight. Many people lost faith in the "system". Currently our debt levels are higher than any economist is comfortable with, and just like in the case with the subprime mortgages, there is huge political pressure to keep the government's AAA rating, whether deserved or not: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governme...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit- rating_downgrades)

Additionally, over the past decade we've seen an huge rise in the number of startups, and the number of companies looking to "disrupt" entire industries. In 2016, it's not completely unreasonable that a billion dollar company could go bankrupt within a few years due to whatever disruption comes from left field. Hoarding cash is a hedge against this type of risk, as it allows large companies to be flexible, acquire smaller, potential threats, or go on the offensive if/when it becomes necessary. i.e. Facebook's acquisition of Whatsapp for 19B

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't think this is a competition issue. After the 2007-2010 credit crisis, US corporates have gone through a considerable effort of delevering, taking on less debt/financing risk. Consequently this has, and will continue, to increase net income.

If lack of competition is real, this should be reflected at the EBITDA level, and The Economist has not discussed this at all.

As a long-term subscriber of The Economist I'm a bit disappointed in this piece.

</comment><comment><USER51> I like The Economist, but as a subscriber I notice two common trends:

1 - They really, REALLY, love to criticize America. 2 - They often have a really crappy understanding of micro-economic theory.

<comment><USER52> I can't speak to 2, but they often praise America. They say America has an unparalleled ability to assimilate immigrants. They also praise other odd things, like the entrepreneurial spirit of American religion, or the power of technology transfer between government researchers and industry, or the high productivity of American freight railroads. One reason I read the Economist is because they see beyond the daily noise to pick out the news that requires digging and thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> When profits are too easy there's not much incentive to innovate, there's no hunger. You can see this in google who have dominated their niche of the market so strongly that they've lacked the drive to seriously pursue other markets and to invest in their products to bring them to true maturity. Or look at Apple, who have been coasting on their momentum for years. Initially the iPhone was ahead of the curve in every way, now they are in the traditional Microsoft space, adapting innovations from around the industry and, one hopes, implementing them well and integrating them into a cohesive experience. Yet you have some major design missteps that haven't caused them to stumble.

Though you could look at the entire smartphone/tablet industry in general as exemplary of the problem of easy money. Tablets have only slowly adapted to the role of content creation and work, because selling toys has been so insanely profitable there hasn't been a drive to do so.

</comment><comment><USER54> The US industry needs a big dose of healthy taxation. I don't mean treat it like a windfall to trip over, I mean sensible taxation where the excess goes into infrastructure like bridges, roads, rail and urban planning and development as well as rural planning and development.

Of course something along these lines would require restructuring how we tax foreign earnings (being more in line with the rest of the world) and regulate inversions to make them less attractive.

It's a daydream and it won't happen but that's what we should do with the money, rather than pay fairly compensated employees more, with the exception of their hourlies, but that's more up to the states to decide.

The gist is if we have extra earnings use them in a way that will create long term benefits for all citizens --who are living with infrastructure past its designed lifetime, in many cases.

<comment><USER55> Do you know how much is spent on US infrastructure per year? Do you think it's the lack of funds responsible for sub-par US infrastructure?

<comment><USER54> No, but it looks like since after WWii we've been mostly reactive rather than forward looking and proactive.

There are tens of thousands of bridges in need of repair or replacement, for starters.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> This article seems strange. Why does analysis include only american companies? Capital moves freely between state borders now, and shareholders of companies of that caliber can decide to invest in China, Europe or other regions all around the globe— but there's not even a hint of that information in the article.

<comment><USER18> It was partly about pointing out the lack of competition in the US. The airline business was mentioned as an example. European airline industry e.g. experience much harder competition and that shows in American relation to opening up the American airline markets. American airlines are terrified of European carriers because they know they are far more competitive.

As a European I must say I have always been puzzled by American airlines. Why is e.g. the services and standards so terrible on American airlines when it is a country which in all other aspects seems so service obsessed. Even Air France has way friendlier and helpful staff than American airlines :-D

I guess this article explains some of the discrepancy. American airlines simply don't face much competition.

<comment><USER20> I wonder if this is bad news for Europe in the long run. America has had an integrated economy for a long time, and so the oligopoly has had time to form.

Might we see the same thing after 50 more years of the EU?

My guess is that it depends on how far the political unification goes.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The question isn't 'are profits too high?' But rather 'where do profits come from?'

</comment><comment><USER58> I believe this to be one of the primary causes of stagnation of innovation by larger companies. The bottom line on the balance sheet _now_ is more important than long-term viability.

It's a bit depressing, honestly. A myopic focus on the self's now without regard for the future of what could be.

</comment><comment><USER59> How does this thesis fit with manufacturers of 'premium' products? 'Premium' being those products that indeed compete with other products but are perceived as somehow better by consumers. Tablets are a good example: Though Android has all the market share, iOS generates all the profit. Does Apple need a giant dose of competition? Looks to me like they have it and _still_ keep raking in the profits.

</comment><comment><USER60> It is tricky to relate high profits to low competition. Sometimes both can happen together.

The histogram on the article shows IT/Technology and Finance as being 2 sectors with high profits, but these are sectors with a fierce, cut-throat level of competition.

Also, as Peter Thiel argued, healthy profits are vital to finance innovation.

</comment><comment><USER61> Competition has driven down (non-union) wages and increased profits through aggregation/consolidation. Why compete for 20 years when you can borrow and spend to buy the competition and double your market with no chance for a startup to compete at the same level in a regulated market.

</comment><comment><USER62> This isn't really about too much profitability, its about corporations getting large enough, diversified enough, and still having the ability to relocate their home, so that politicians cannot rely on them as cash cows for either political contributions or taxation.

</comment><comment><USER28> I suppose if double-dutch and similar schemes wouldn't exist and they had to pay taxes like everyone else, there would be automatic reinvestment via government spending.

</comment><comment><USER63> Maybe it's not that the profits are too high, but inequities of distribution are causing tangible, social externalities (Carrier moving to Mexico, undocumented workers rights abused in meatpacking facilities)? Perhaps more companies need worker representative groups with equity and voting board stakes as in Europe (even though investing in an employer is doubly risky)? When interests align, things toward working out compromises... treat people as just another disposable automaton, expect adversarialness, sabotage and/or rebellion.

<comment><USER64> > Maybe it's not that the profits are too high... Perhaps more companies need > worker representative groups with equity

Or perhaps that money could just go back to the American consumer in the form of lower prices? That would be a far more equitable way to distribute it.

<comment><USER65> That has been tried for a few decades now, it doesn't really help.

Lower prices are useless when a lot of the money goes into rent.

Higher wages and better working conditions are required, so that people have more money they can spend.

It also helps in a global context, as the prices of imported products won't change much just based on your national policies.

<comment><USER66> This is still a terribly underappreciated point. How helpful is it to have $199 TVs rather than $399 ones if most of your money is going to servicing student loans, credit cards, insurance, and apartment rent / housing. The gains in the form of lower prices are vastly outstripped by FIRE-related expenses.

<comment><USER65> > How helpful is it to have $199 TVs rather than $399 ones

Something I didn't mention in the comment, but which is important:

This is a terribly regressive strategy. Those who profit the most are the rich – for them their expenses just went down by 50%.

But the poor don't profit.

Yet again continuing to destroy the middle class, and making the american dream even more impossible.

<comment><USER64> > Those who profit the most are the rich – for them their expenses just went > down by 50%. But the poor don't profit.

Nonsense. The Rich spend a _smaller_ portion of their income on manufactured goods, household necessities and household entertainment than the poor. Instead they send their money to things like real estate, fine dining, and travel.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The question isn't are profits too high...but rather, where do profits come from?

</comment><comment><USER67> What a surprise. The Economist thinks the solution is more markets.

</comment><comment><USER68> genrally america is being run by lobbies, so naturally, those "lobbies" get all the profits.

</comment><comment><USER69> TODO: Create brand and company with open source designs, versioned products, and sell just above cost!

</comment><comment><USER70> Unfair competition [http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779](http://www.zerohedge.com/print/502779)

</comment><comment><USER71> I usually stay away from economist "writing."

Here some laughing points from this article:

* according to polling by Pew, a research outfit....

* Return on capital is at near-record levels, too (adjusted for goodwill).

* Together they own 10-20% of most American companies

* The spectre of very big online travel sites dominating the purchase of hotel rooms has led the hotel firms to consolidate, too

<comment><USER72> Care to explain the problems with those statements?

<comment><USER71> You're sure they are not obvious?

<comment><USER73> I'm pretty sure they're not obvious. What are the problems?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


What can I say about sexism in tech without getting shadowbanned? - <AUTHOR>

I finally figured out my previous account has been shadowbanned for some time. I cannot begin to fathom why. The last comment that appears on the account's public profile was a comment commiserating with the parent comment about the high level of sexism in that thread (the submission was about sexual harassment at a tech conference). The first comment that only appears when I am logged in is a request that someone refrain from referring to text in languages that use non-Latin characters as "moon runes".<p>I have read the guidelines, and had prior to creating that account. It is obvious to me that some interpretations of the guidelines would justify banning me - if all mentions of sexism or other issues of inclusiveness constitute "flame war bait", then of course my comments would fall into that category. It seems to me that banning all such comments is counterproductive, but I can't figure out a narrower reading that would explain why I was banned. Neither comment was especially rude or sarcastic, at least no moreso than what I frequently see in threads here, and I feel both comments contributed to the discussion. Why was I banned, and more generally, what is the difference between an acceptable and an unacceptable comment on this community's very real problems with inclusiveness? <comment><USER3> Threads about sexism on HN are toxic. No useful discussion ever happens in them. Flagging them is the only useful option.

Posting this in a thread full of those toxic people is going to get you heavily downvoted:

"I fucking hate how openly misogynistic HN is. I don't even want to bother sifting through this shit anymore.

s/women/black people/g s/attending/going to elite, white-only colleges/g"

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think that's an acceptable solution. Sexism in tech is real. Sexism on Hacker News is real. It's a problem that matters and really affects people's lives. Banning discussion is tantamount to saying the status quo is acceptable.

I can see how that comment would have been considered in violation of the guidelines for tone reasons. I'd like to point out that in context, the last line was a substantive response to the comment I was replying to, but I can understand why the first part could reasonably have been disallowed. I wouldn't have made this thread if I thought I had been banned for that comment. But comments after that comment are still visible, and I don't see anything wrong with the comments immediately before or after my banning. That's what concerns me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm no expert on the rules around here, but from what I've gathered, accounts past a certain threshold of negative karma are automatically shadowbanned. There's no conspiracy nor did you piss off the wrong mod for saying the wrong thing about sexism. Your only mistake was having your first set of comments be on a contentious subject, which increases the risk of downvotes and getting shadowbanned.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reply.

The number that appears in parentheses next to my username is positive - <USER2> that preclude that explanation, or might I still have reached some negative karma threshold?

<comment><USER4> Yeah, I think the fact that your total karma is positive does preclude my idea here. Someone else would have to chime in on your case specifically. I have seen people get shadowbanned by being new accounts and having their first comment downvoted, this probably doesn't apply to your case though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm actually kind of curious to see the "moon rune" comment chain mentioned. Someone is actually calling non-latin languages "moon runes"? Seems humorously innocent if anything at all.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here's the comment: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4775440](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4775440)

The part I was responding to:

>If you need to worry about junk like accented characters or moon runes (Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters), it means you're big enough to afford to hire someone specifically to address the problem.

My response, which is only visible to me:

> > moon runes (Chinese/Japanese/Korean characters)

> Really? You can make your economic point without making fun of several of > the world's most commonly spoken languages and the people who speak them

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> You're likely over-thinking it - mistakes happen is all. Email pg to get unbanned.</comment>


Tim Cook: You Deserve Privacy Online. Here's How You Could Actually Get It - <AUTHOR> http://time.com/collection/davos-2019/5502591/tim-cook-data-privacy/ <comment><USER2> > First, the right to have personal data minimized. Companies should challenge > themselves to strip identifying information from customer data or avoid > collecting it in the first place. Second, the right to knowledge—to know > what data is being collected and why. Third, the right to access. Companies > should make it easy for you to access, correct and delete your personal > data. And fourth, the right to data security, without which trust is > impossible.

This all sounds nice, but it requires a large level of trust in the companies doing as they say. How do we verify that certain data isn't being collected, that the data I delete is actually forever deleted, and that security standards are up to snuff? The FTC, as he suggests? Now the level of trust shifts to the FTC. How has their track record been? And the consequences of breaking the law, what would they be? As it is, companies engaged in shady practices seem to get less than a slap on the wrist.

Well, not to sound too dour, it is at least sounds like a step in the right direction.

<comment><USER3> I agree, it does sound like a step in the right direction.

Here's how I look at the issue you have with trust in companies and regulatory bodies: I cannot imagine a world (inhabited by humans) without bureaucratic inefficiency and corruption inherent to the systems that organize large societies. It's like a law of social thermodynamics. We should continually strive to fight against the chaos and bad behavior, but at some level we have to understand that as long as humans are humans, /those/ efforts (e.g. anti- corruption legislation) will be marred by bureaucracy and corruption (e.g. lobbyists influencing anti-corruption legislation), like a recursive glitch in the matrix. If you can recognize the challenges that introduces, but be at peace with it, you can stay focused on what "steps in the right direction" we can make.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is anyone else getting:

> This page isn't working time.com redirected you too many times. > Try > clearing your cookies. > ERR_TOO_MANY_REDIRECTS

I tried incognito as well to no avail.

<comment><USER2> Went through for me on Firefox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm all for it, but also acutely aware of the burden this brings.

Just like GDPR, mega corps will have no problems building out these processes and complying.

Small and mid size companies? Good luck to you all.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is this really about privacy? I'm skeptical that Apple doesn't track the hell out of me; I think they just want to sell more phones and don't want others to track us.

Instead, I think this is about asymmetric, non-negotiable contracts. Think about it.

Sure, I "consented" to the Apple EULA just like I "consented" to be tracked by all these websites. This brings up 2 points:

Fairness - Can this really be a fair contract if there is a vast power difference between the parties and a lack of alternatives?

Transparency - details hidden in the fineprint (50 page EULA or on a cookie consent form only available a click away)

I'm not usually one for govt regulation, but that seems the only solution here.

<comment><USER7> Whatever data Apple has on me evidently tells them that I have giant hands and inexhaustible disposable income.</comment></comment>


Analysis of multiple vulnerabilities in AirDroid (~50M Android users vulnerable) - <AUTHOR> https://blog.zimperium.com/analysis-of-multiple-vulnerabilities-in-airdroid/ <comment><USER2> From TFA : "Such requests are encrypted with DES ( ECB mode ) however the encryption key is hardcoded inside the application itself (thus known to an attacker)."

The word "however" seems to imply that the first part of the phrase is not a problem, but the second part is. But DES? Seriously? I thought DES has been considered unsecure since the 90s. And ECB mode? I thought we all knew you can see penguins through ECB...</comment>


Judgement day close? Meteorite hits Sweden. - <AUTHOR> http://www.aftonbladet.se/nyheter/article15917198.ab Discuss. <comment><USER2> Meteorites are definitely not a sign of judgement day, we'll be OK, unless that's North Korea's satellite re-entering, of course.</comment>


Our interview with Bill Watterson - <AUTHOR> http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss-exclusive-our-interview-bill-watterson

<comment><USER2> Big fan of Bill. As a kid I used to read comic strips of calvin and hobbes in our daily newspaper. That comic section was the only reason I bought the newspaper. When they stopped publishing the stips I stopped buying the paper :)

Most of us who read calvin and hobbes know that how philosophical it can be. Nuggets of wisdom can be found beneath the funny quips.

> Everybody seeks happiness! Not me, though! That's the difference between me > and the rest of the world. Happiness isn't good enough for me! I demand > euphoria!

</comment><comment><USER3> The actual interview:

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss- exclusive-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss-exclusive- our-interview-bill-watterson#ixzz2hzMknayX)

It was submitted earlier today but never got to the front page.

<comment><USER4> This is the same link as the one attached to the thread, though this may be due to after-the-fact HN moderation?

In any case, this is just an excerpt of the full interview which will be printed in the December issue of the magazine.

<comment><USER3> Yeah a mod changed it, thankfully.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shame. From what I understand, this guy is incredibly hard to get an interview with. So they manage to score one, and perform the mother of all rookie interviews.

Rather than ask followup questions on any of the interesting things the subject has to say, the interviewer seems to almost want to cut him short to ask the next unrelated question from his list. Terrible.

Watterson: _..It was a grim, sad time. Desperation makes a person do crazy things..._

<pregnant pause>

Interviewer: _Great. So what kind of car do you drive?_

I really wish we could get a do over on this one.

<comment><USER6> Maybe it was conducted by email? Could be, so no follow ups were available.

<comment><USER7> from the article:

"Since we're guessing there are a few Calvin and Hobbes enthusiasts in the audience, we thought we'd provide a glimpse of the e-mail exchange."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > I figure that, long after the strip is forgotten, those decals are my ticket > to immortality.

The biggest payout of all.

<comment><USER9> Again, another missed opportunity by the interviewer: Does Bill favor Chevy or Ford?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> This one paragraph summarizes everything that I love and respect about Bill Watterson:

> had signed most of my rights away in order to get syndicated, so I had no > control over what happened to my own work, and I had no legal position to > argue anything. I could not take the strip with me if I quit, or even > prevent the syndicate from replacing me, so I was truly scared I was going > to lose everything I cared about either way. I made a lot of impassioned > arguments for why a work of art should reflect the ideas and beliefs of its > creator, but the simple fact was that my contract made that issue > irrelevant. It was a grim, sad time. Desperation makes a person do crazy > things.

I also highly recommend reading his 1990 commencement speech at Kenyon College (his alma mater): [http://www.angelfire.com/wa/HOBBES/info/speech1.html](http://www.angelfire.com/wa/HOBBES/info/speech1.html)

I first read that years ago, and one line has always stuck with me: "Selling out is usually more a matter of buying in. Sell out, and you're really buying into someone else's system of values, rules and rewards."

</comment><comment><USER11> I wish you had linked the actual interview [0] because it took me way, way too long to find it in the linked article, which only offers two select quotes from said interview, and spends way too long praising the guy that got it for how rare a privilege it is.

[0] - [http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watte...](http://www.cleveland.com/living/index.ssf/2010/02/bill_watterson_creator_of_belo.html)

Edit: I'm slightly mistaken -- one of the quotes is actually from his previous interview, here:

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss- exclusive-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss-exclusive- our-interview-bill-watterson)

<comment><USER12> Actually, I think this is the new interview:

[http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss- exclusive-...](http://mentalfloss.com/article/53216/mental-floss-exclusive- our-interview-bill-watterson)

<comment><USER11> You're right, I had them backwards. Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> For those in Boston interested in seeing the full story, I note that mental_floss is one of the digital magazines Boston Public Library now provides patrons through Zinio[1]. Unfortunately, I still see the November issue, but hopefully the December issue will show up soon.

[1] [http://www.bpl.org/collections/zinio.htm](http://www.bpl.org/collections/zinio.htm)

</comment><comment><USER14> Is that cover a new Bill Watterson original?

</comment><comment><USER15> Seriously. Of all the uncompromising, highly-principled characters amidst the vast depth and breadth of all English literature... why would anyone ever compare the guy to some fictional Randroid character like "Howard Roark"?

What an awful, awful choice. What kind of stupid shit _IS_ that?

<comment><USER16> The only thing worse than making flame bait comments like this is making throwaway user accounts to do it. Please don't do this on HN.

And I say this as someone who has criticized Ayn Rand numerous times on Hacker News. Just in ways that were more constructive and germane to the point.</comment></comment>


Netflix testing a "Shuffle Play" feature - rising-sky https://techcrunch.com/2020/08/18/netflix-test-puts-a-shuffle-play-button-right-on-your-home-screen/ <comment><AUTHOR> In my head shuffle only makes sense for things of small duration (like songs).

I don't think the concept makes sense at all when it could play something that is 2 hours long.

IT also doesn't know how long I have to sit and watch something. It might be half an hour, it might be 2 hours or more.

I'd actually like an option to filter based on duration. I've got half an hour and I want funny, Go.

Netflix recommendations are mostly terrible as well. I don't see this feature working well at all.</comment>


Announcing YouTube-8M: A Large and Diverse Labeled Video Dataset for Research - <AUTHOR> https://research.googleblog.com/2016/09/announcing-youtube-8m-large-and-diverse.html <comment><USER2> If, for some reason, you wanted a list of all of the video IDs (I couldn't easily find such a list), then I wrote a crappy scraper to pull them out: [https://gist.github.com/JosephRedfern/d60bdc584d84b1451cc605...](https://gist.github.com/JosephRedfern/d60bdc584d84b1451cc6052e955b755c).

I can post a URL to the output once it's finished running, if it'd be of any use to anyone. Oh, and be warned, there's a strong chance that it's buggy. It's certainly not optimised (no threads).

EDIT: The script has now run. I've scraped ~10,000,000 Video IDs, but only ~5.5m of these IDs are unique, so there's probably a bug in my script somewhere (but I need sleep now). Files containing IDs for various categories are listed here: [https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/](https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/), some notes are here: [https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/README.md](https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/README.md), and .tar.gz'd archive is available here: [https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/yt8m-ids-probably- incomplete....](https://redfern.me/public/yt8m/yt8m-ids-probably- incomplete.tar.gz).

<comment><USER3> I'd love a list of IDs - I'm doing a research project that is a search engine for lectures ([https://www.findlectures.com](https://www.findlectures.com)) and I'm interested to see if there is any overlap.

It seems like it'd be interesting to explore their tagging compared to what is in video transcripts.

<comment><USER2> I've updated my original comment with some URLs.

<comment><USER3> Awesome, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is wonderful. Though I was wish i could just specify columns that I need and download those. Or limit number of rows. 1.5 TB is quite a bit. Regardless, this is wonderful.

Would I be violating any law, copyright if I formatted it and put it on my server for that kind of consumption or via JSON?

<comment><USER5> On [https://research.google.com/youtube8m/download.html](https://research.google.com/youtube8m/download.html) it says:

> _The code and dataset are licensed by Google Inc. under license Apache 2.0._

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is nice :) Kudos to the Youtube guys for releasing this. I'm a data scientist in a startup where one of the things I do is create multi-label models for classifying YouTube videos. My current model has 90 % precision and 69 % recall, while Youtube-8M has 78 % precision and 14 % recall, with respect to the human raters. I guess one of the reasons is that my model only has around 100 categories, while Youtube-8M has 4800. It's like comparing apples with pears, but still interesting.

<comment><USER7> Sounds interesting, do you guys have a blog at mashtime? What kind of hardware/software do you use for training? Tensorflow? on AWS or bare metal GPUs?

<comment><USER6> We don't have a blog yet. We're using Azure for the hardware and mainly scikit-learn for the training (we train only on metadata at the moment). Will probably start using Tensorflow soon.

<comment><USER8> Would you say Tensorflow is a good way to get started with Machine learning?

<comment><USER6> I'd say scikit-learn is a better way to get started with machine learning. Check this out, for example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxRvEZd3Mw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKxRvEZd3Mw)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't see anything about the rights of video owners? Have people (inadvertently) licensed their content to be used in this way?

<comment><USER10> I wish they'd addressed that too.

I'd guess the reasoning is, because it's a list of _public_ URLs, there's no expectation of privacy.

<comment><USER11> Probably you are right. However, I am wondering how many of those videos will be deleted by owners, Google or just blocked in "some" countries a year from now. They could have published it separately to avoid this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How good do labels need to be for you to be able to get good results on something like this? There's a lot of data, so that's great, but the labels seem a bit spotty.

</comment><comment><USER13> Oh man.

I am searching (thrashing) around for my next "big" project. i have been thinking of drones measuring roof / building quality and the CV/ML requirements are fairly high - getting my teeth stuck into these would really give me a better feel for training my own system.

The problem is, how do I feed my family while taking the six months to do it all?

<comment><USER14> If you're serious about this concept, create a drone company that takes real estate photos. That will give you hands on experience with the regulations, quality control issues, etc while giving you time to build up your training set.

<comment><USER13> Hmmm ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Did someone make a RDF dump of that? (Aligned with dbPedia ;)</comment>


Google's millions will transform San Jose – but at what true cost? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/jul/03/googles-millions-will-transform-san-jose-but-at-what-true-cost <comment><USER2>
      During recent rains the creek's water *rose a hundred feet*, forcing them to move their tents to the nearby lawn.

Oh, don't be _stupid_. Does anybody at The Guardian fact-check anymore? 100 feet is _ten stories_. The entirety of central San Jose would be underwater.

During the last actual flood in 2017, Coyote Creek floodstage was 9 feet, and a neighborhood flooded, at 9.9 feet (less than a foot over flood stage). Flooding _ten times_ higher than that would require thousands of times as much water. It would be news worldwide.

Math isn't that hard.</comment>


Billionaires Are the Leading Cause of Climate Change - <AUTHOR> https://www.gq.com/story/billionaires-climate-change <comment><USER2> Given recent reports, and just a feel for general attitudes, I feel that we've gone from "we should do something" to "whelp, looks like it's going to get a little rough", especially at the governmental level. As TFA points out, there's not much we can do at an individual level that will make a whole lot of difference (no, your Tesla isn't going to save the polar bears, and neither is my Leaf). Vote? Eh, maybe. If the recent IPCC report is anywhere near the truth, what chance does a politician stand if they promise to do what's needed? A snowball's chance in...well, Fairbanks in about thirty years.

So on the one hand, I've been trying to do without driving when I can (not as much as I should), avoid flying, recycle my shit even back when I had to pay for the privilege, all the hippy stuff I'm supposed to do to "preserve Mother Earth". But to what end? Looks like I'm getting the losing end of this game theory/prisoner's dilemma experiment. I'm old (gettin' there, anyway), and we don't have kids. Won't be my problem, or the problem of anyone I care about. So the other side of me wants to say, "fuck it", turn the heat up, and quit worrying so much about the environmental impact of our RV.

<comment><USER3> > I'm old (gettin' there, anyway), and we don't have kids.

Well I do have kids, so I can't just say fuck it. I basically have to cling to the hope that geoengineering is going to stop the worst effects. I yoyo from "it'll be tough but we'll survive" to "we've had a good life" about 12 times a day now.

<comment><USER4> The effects of global warming are going to be quite minor. Mostly having to build levees / relocate low lying buildings. Very expensive, but hardly a doomsday scenario. Not as big a deal imo as other man made threats to the environment (and to ourselves).

<comment><USER5> When people start fighting for farmland is where I see the real threat. Much more afraid of war than water rising.

<comment><USER4> Warmer climates increase agricultural productivity and available farmland. The bigger risk to farmland is desertification due to overcultuvation and other manmade causes (that are mostly not global warming).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is irresponsible reporting, and irresponsibly ethically.

Those companies aren't putting out GHG for fun. They're manufacturing products every single person on the planet is consuming. Those companies, while they could play a huge role in taking leadership, aren't the problem.

Every single person reading the article let is the problem. You can't externalize this responsibility. You have to take responsibility for yourself and if possible, influence others yourself. This doesn't have to be advocacy, you can go out and start a lower-emissions competitor, or donate to carbon sequestering/scrubbing initiatives.

</comment><comment><USER7> > 70 percent of global emissions come from just 100 companies

The first "company" on that list is China. I mean that literally, look at the actual report[1]. This article and the Guardian piece completely misrepresent the actual conclusion.

[1] [https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1...](https://b8f65cb373b1b7b15feb-c70d8ead6ced550b4d987d7c03fcdd1d.ssl.cf3.rackcdn.com/cms/reports/documents/000/002/327/original/Carbon- Majors-Report-2017.pdf?1499691240)

</comment><comment><USER8> I think blaming those 100 companies is absolutely acceptable, however I'd still be conscious that thinking that it's all of those companies fault and I won't make a difference anyway isn't right too. You should take the bike/public transport if you can.

In the report someone posted in comments you can find that some of the pollutants are the countries and their coal industries. What I would love to have is an option to pay a higher energy bill for green energy. In that case I would imagine the company providing that would invest anything on top of regular energy prices into renewables.

Another idea that i really like is "taxing yourself". When I set up my company next month I want to join 1% For the Planet ([http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/index.php](http://www.onepercentfortheplanet.org/index.php)) and donate 1% of sales towards environmental non-profits.

</comment><comment><USER9> Unfortunately that's that happens when you have an incredibly wealthy elite that know they're not going to live long enough to see the outcomes of their actions.

And we're already starting to pay the price.</comment>


Salut à Toi 0.7 (libre and decentralized communication ecosystem) - <AUTHOR> https://www.goffi.org/b/N29CuUQS4U4TK36JFuTQ5Q/salut-commune <comment><USER2> Interesting. Is the source code available, I did not see a link.

<comment><AUTHOR> yes it is at [https://repos.goffi.org](https://repos.goffi.org) .</comment></comment>


They may just be chat bubbles, but they're our chat bubbles  - <AUTHOR> http://blog.hipchat.com/2012/02/17/they-may-just-be-chat-bubbles-but-theyre-our-chat-bubbles/ <comment><USER2> OTOH, the HipChap loco is awfully close to Apple's original iChat icon: [http://www.google.com/search?q=ichat+icon&num=20&hl=...](http://www.google.com/search?q=ichat+icon&num=20&hl=en&&rls=en&prmd=imvns&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=xZI-T4rKEeXl0QGm_- XvBw&ved=0CDAQsAQ&biw=1156&bih=932)

In fact, there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of diversity when it comes to chat icons in general: [http://www.google.com/search?q=chat%20icon&oe=UTF-8&...](http://www.google.com/search?q=chat%20icon&oe=UTF-8&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=z5I-T8H5NufV0QHokrXsBw&biw=1156&bih=932&sei=05I-T_OuFcbs0gHAv6jgBw)

I really don't think there's a controversy here.

<comment><USER3> Garret from HipChat here - We obviously agree that lots of apps have used chat bubbles in logos over the years. In fact, probably way too many. The only reason its an issue this time around is that our users are genuinely confused when they try to use both apps. This didn't happen when they used iChat, Echofon, or any other bubble-logoed apps alongside HipChat. The new Messages icon is similar enough that it's a problem, and we don't want our users to be confused.

<comment><USER4> I agree. Although I do think Apple blatantly copied here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a pretty generic logo, so I highly doubt Apple copied this design.

I'll cross post what I wrote on their blog: "Perhaps you can take this opportunity to make the icon more refined. Apple's icon is how good the HipChat icon could have looked (and don't get me wrong, I love HipChat). Maybe that same amount of polish could go in to the new icon?"

Alternatively, they could go for something more radically different. This actually seems like a nice opportunity.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think the right title is "HipChat comments on non-existent controversy in clever move to get attention".

<comment><USER7> Where was the part where they created controversy? They stated that several of their users noticed the similarity. Article just states that it could create confusion for users, nothing more.

 _Do I think they copied us? Probably not (but as a designer, I'll take the compliment)._

<comment><USER8> That's the controversy. I can just see how lesser knowledgeable journalist will get this wrong.

<comment><USER9> It's not a press release, it's a blog post, on the company's blog, about why that company is changing its logo. It's not written for journalists in the first place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Given all the scenarios, HipChat chose the right option and will hopefully capitalize on some buzz. Very classy response guys.

<comment><USER11> Yeah, huffing and puffing about this would get them some short-term buzz. This move, in my mind, earns them long-term respect.

Move on, and focus on the product—not the logo.

Love it.

<comment><USER12> Agreed, classy response here. I enjoy it more when people that avoid the drama

<comment><USER13> Wouldn't 'avoiding the drama' be not making a post about this at all?

<comment><USER9> What company that maintains a company blog wouldn't make a post when they do something as significant as change their logo? It's their own blog, not a press release.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> To be honest, when you start designing generic icons like Messages/chat, things start to get pretty hazy. But I like how Hipchat is taking this as a chance to create a better icon.

Also to play devil's advocate, the blue is the an evolution of the Hipchat blue, and the stripes an addition from the Messages/iMessages icons on iOS.

iChat icon: <http://ituh.in/dW6U> Android Messages (ICS) <http://ituh.in/vBy8>

<comment><USER15> That's the problem with the Hipchat logo to begin with, it's rather generic. No big deal, the world keeps turning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> #2 is kind of depressing: it doesn't even matter if we are in the right, because they have more money.

Now, I don't know if trademarks need to be registered, and I'm not taking a position on whether this is valid or not -- but note that they specifically _aren't_ saying anything like "we didn't register the trademark so it was fair game, oops". They're saying it doesn't matter.

Is this actually how it would have played out? What's the point of having legal protections if the big guy can always squash the little guy anyway?

<comment><USER17> No. If they had registered it and it was sufficiently distinctive/original (questionable here, but that's beside the point), then they would have a relatively straightforward case. Big firms settle cases like this all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Unrelatedly, here at Zite we use HipChat and it's pretty awesome, especially since we have offices in two countries.

Obviously, any kind of IM will "work" as a collaboration tool, but having a polished experience really matters. The persistence is key (start up hipchat and it'll show the conversation before you joined). Also, tons of little touches like being able to copy&paste images from your clipboard directly into chat.

</comment><comment><USER19> And they're all riffing off a pretty old generalized concept. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speech_balloon#History>

Reminds me of the silly 'cloud' uniqueness debates: [http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ThereIsOnlyOneCloudIconInTheEn...](http://www.hanselman.com/blog/ThereIsOnlyOneCloudIconInTheEntireUniverse.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER20> From the comments:

Perhaps you should also show Apple's original iChat logo, which you simply reused as your own (with the same shape and color) after changing the direction of the "gloss" sheen and shadowing it with a flipped, black and white version. You ripped off iChat's logo. Apple did not sue you. You did not create something original and protected.

Apple's "new" Messages icon has less similarity with yours than yours had with iChat. Apple's refreshed iChat logo also conveys some functional meaning, with its ellipsis.

Insinuating that Apple owes you something for your slightly derivative version of its iChat logo is ridiculous. You would have sounded far more legitimate (and would probably have gotten more attention for your product) if you'd instead thanked Apple for inspiration for the icon of your next Mtn Lion release (a flatter, glowing but less glossy icon), and then talked about what your product does that is novel or interesting.

</comment><comment><USER21> I noticed that also. A customer asked me to install HipChat yesterday morning and later in the day I installed Mountain Lion. The icons ended up close together on my dock, and I did a double take this morning.

</comment><comment><USER22> I find this blog post ridiculous, considering HipChat includes emoticons ripped straight from iChat. Pot meet Kettle. Surprised nobody's noticed or mentioned this yet.

</comment><comment><USER23> It actually looks like HipChat's logo is a ripoff of Apple's iChat icon, with many Apple icons looking like a ripoff of Henry Dreyfus' icons.

</comment><comment><USER24> Hey Apple used similar icon, let's write a blog post about it and enjoy the 5 minutes of glory!</comment>


Things Many People Find Too Obvious to Have Told You Already - <AUTHOR> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/936615043126370306.html <comment><USER2> I guess I should have known better but I was expecting a list of worldly advice, not _bay area_ advice. Still some good stuff though.</comment>