Ask HN: Why do people who work harder get less pay? - <AUTHOR> The above question might seem a bit inane and it probably is. But here goes... How come field workers, industrial workers, janitors etc all get paid less than programmers or CEO's, etc ? I mean if someone is doing more backbreaking work that's physically demanding wouldn't it make sense to pay these people more?<p>I have my own answer but I thought I would ask and see some of the responses. <comment> T-hawk In a word, leverage.

The janitor can clean one floor at a time, and that's all. No matter how hard he works at it, there's a pretty low cap on the value that can be created by this labor. Even if it's a really important floor, say the main hall of a fancy wedding establishment, only a limited number of customers can fit there to benefit from this labor, and so the job can only be worth a fairly small amount of revenue.

Programmers don't have that problem, at least if they're smart about company and industry and product niche. Joel Spolsky (let's say) can create a timesaving bug tracker, where his efforts incur a huge multiplier of value in leveraging the automatically scalable nature of software. Joel can rightfully get paid by the time saved and value created times a million users, while working less hard than the janitor who's cleaning for a few hundred folks.

CEOs and more broadly all of management operate on yet another level, in leveraging the contribution of many programmers. One programmer might write Microsoft Paint, and another Microsoft Word. Somebody realizes there's another layer of business value in embedding Paint images into Word documents, and coordinates the programmers to make that happen even if the Paint and Word developers aren't necessarily interested in integration. That's where the CEO gets paid, at least until the programmers become sufficiently business-savvy and motivated to do it without additional leadership.

</comment><comment><USER2> I think a general theme in life is that planning (and being able to do the work required of it) gets rewarded much more than how much effort is required to do something.

A few more examples of the phenomena:

* Trying to do something physical as an overweight and unfit person vs. someone who has already gotten into shape.

* Finding a job when you have a strong professional network vs. finding a job when you don't.

* Performing some computer operation multiple times manually vs. using/maintaining a script that was already written.

In all of the above cases, you're going to put in more work in the situation that required less planning while getting rewarded less.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is obviously a good point. It's also one that is based primarily on personal outlook of the people doing the work. I can see this point segue into a question about education and not the work itself pretty easily. I won't go into that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> You are paid according to how difficult it is to replace you.

<comment><USER4> That's true in a general sense, but of course there are other factors, including:

\- Your negotiation skill at the point when you accepted the role

\- Your employer's cash flow (including external funding)

\- How difficult it is for _you_ to replace your _employer_ (even if you can't easily be replaced, your employer may realise that inertia/market/risk- aversion/whatever)

\- Your paper credentials (only for some companies, and only when you're early in your career so cannot be as easily levelled through observed performance).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Adding to the other excellent points in this thread, is the idea of scale / leverage / multiplication.

A janitor can only clean so many toilets per day or hour, or mop so many floors. And that's that. Most manual labor jobs have this type of heavy limitation.

I can write code once and scale it to infinity. Not literally, but I assume you understand the principle involved.

Mental labor, broadly speaking on average, will always be worth a lot more in an information or technology driven economy, than manual labor.

A CEO, Steve Ballmer let's say, makes decisions that extrapolate to adding or destroying billions in value. Ballmer has been with Microsoft at the highest of levels, involved in the most critical of decisions, and understands most of the company and its history inside/out like few others can or could. What's that worth for a $300 billion company? If the decisions being made are good, then it's worth an extraordinary amount.

How easy is it to find a good CEO to run Microsoft (and not destroy hundreds of billions in wealth)? Very hard. How easy is it to replace a janitor? Extraordinarily easy, and if you screw-up and hire a bad janitor, you can get a new one in about 15 minutes with one phone call at trivial cost.

<comment><AUTHOR> Playing a touch of devils advocate here.

I'm not really sure what 'scale' means in this context. I think a more realistic way to phrase it is "once I code something it's yours....and doesn't need to be done again". In short, you have a static snapshot of something that you can do whatever you want with.If it can be used to 'scale' your business then that's fine. In contrast a Janitor will always be needed to do the same tasks in a perpetual motion.Same with field workers etc. As to why one gets paid more than the other....I still don't know. :)

If you want to scale a fruit distribution business you will need to 'scale' fruit pickers just like a tech company would need coders. So I am still confused.

I suppose the assumption is that 1 coder can get your business further than 20 fruit pickers or janitors.

But...

You could replace many coders the same way you can replace janitors via Odesk, Elance etc. I know I'm making a broad stroke with that statement but I'm being contrarian intentionally.

As far as the CEO comment it makes sense but not because he's a CEO. It makes sense because of a broader social and psychological issue. He can do something that others can't albeit within a certain cultural context. This makes him valuable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Physical work: We have the technology which can create more powerful machines that are way more powerful than human muscles.

Mental work: AI field is trying to do same as we have done already for physical work part BUT it is still not there and even if reach a certain stage there will always be need for "humans mental power".

</comment><comment><USER7> There's only so much CEOs on te market with proven track record and obviously companies prefer them over unknowns. Also, for CEOs, even a small difference in skill/experience can translate to huge changes in financial results (via better decisions which affect the whole company)

The janitor's situation is exactly the opposite. Virtually anyone can do janitor's job and also skill/experience differences don't translate to company's higher profits. Hence, the pay for janitors sucks.

Programmers are somewhere between CEOs and janitors both in term of supply and impact on profit.

</comment><comment><USER8> supply and demand. all those jobs will eventually be replaced by robots anyhow.

</comment><comment><USER9> As a society, we haven't even stopped labor exploitation. You are asking for fair market already?

In most industries, manager vs worker unfairness exists for centuries and beneficiaries protect the trough with logic such as intelligence, leverage etc. In software, especially in silicon valley, the workers i.e. developers overtook managers, as there was no need for capital (where human capital is the only cost). Rest of the industries are yet to be disrupted as they don't have that advantage.

</comment><comment><USER10> > I mean if someone is doing more backbreaking work that's physically > demanding wouldn't it make sense to pay these people more?

There's more, if we were to build and live in a rational/logic/just system:

Anybody who produces something that somebody is willing to buy on the market should get the same salary per hour worked, since every life has the same value (and therefor every hour of a life, too), where everybody would have the right to the same amount of education, "for free"/paid-for by taxes.

Now you might say "but, shouldn't the stronger/more intelligent/however better guy be paid more?".

No, because, it's not his merit/fault that he is the way he is: Everything in our lives is a function of 2 variables:

a) Our inherited/given genetics that were b) planted in a given environment, to logically lead to the result that is "us", today.

But we don't live in a just system. We're still stuck in the "money equals power" state of evolution, like some kind of a Middle Age of rational thought.

</comment><comment><USER11> Put simply, how hard you work doesn't have a direct connection to wages or income.

I recommend reading [http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one- lesson/contents.html](http://steshaw.org/economics-in-one- lesson/contents.html)

</comment><comment><USER12> Read about the "labor theory of value" vs the "subjective theory of value".

The amount of work put into something doesn't define something's value. Something is only as valuable as what another person is willing to pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER13> Supply and demand. There are more people who can work as a janitor than demanded, therefore a lower salary. There are less people than demanded for CEOs, therefore a higher salary.

</comment><comment><USER14> The short and easy answer is because wages/wealth has no necessary connection to how hard you work.

The tying of the notion of the cost of something to how much work goes into it is more or less the "labour theory of value", a notion traditionally tied to Karl Marx (these days) and classical economics. About the only place you'll see it brought up these days is either with die-hard marxists, or, ironically, people trying to justify their wage/wealth. The later do this because it seems almost ingrained in humans to assume that reward is tied to work somehow. We hate shirkers.

Economists of course know this theory is bullshit, but it seems it won't die, either from marxists, or as folk-economics among the general populace.

Wages are the cost to hire labour to someone with money. In that case, how much they want something (their demand) depends upon, more or less, the marginal value of that good (or the thing derived from it in the case of labour) and how much money they've actually got to pay for it. No money = no one really gives a hoot for your preferences/say.

On the side of labour, you've got few barriers to doing the job. Just about everyone can labour in the fields, work on the industry line, sweep the hall. There's not much of a barrier to getting such a skill. So supply is huge, and the relative productivity of most units are comparable to each other. Most people clean, work the field, etc, at about the same rate as each other, so the output of individuals is quite comparable.

Put them together in the simplest cases and you've got your answer: the marginal value of the field worker/janitor/industrial worker is worth very little to the people with the money on the demand side, and on the supply side, practically everyone (including most of the third world) can basically do it. And most of the third world are desperate to do it, so they'll bargain down quite low.

In a trivial sense, the case of programmers, and then above them, CEO's can be explained in this way as well. Programmers can do things that are relatively valuable to the people with the money. Not everyone can be a programmer. Its actually quite expensive to make a programmer. If you stop paying a certain amount, programmers will just go off and do something else.

In a more complex sense however, things get a bit more hairy. What is it that people with money value? Are they always correct? Why do they value those things? What about in jobs/positions where output/input is impossible to measure? Are they really so rational? Are those without money really powerless? What role do courts/police/judges/democracy/military play in all this?

The earlier provides an understanding of the basic economics. The later questions bring you closer to the truth, but I could barely touch upon them and do them justice in a HN post.

<comment><AUTHOR> I really liked how you challenged the assumption of the entire post. I was waiting for someone to do that. This post was partially motivated by some personal situations but also because of an email exchange with an entrepreneur that was insisting his economic comfort was due to 'working his ass off'. When I mentioned that field workers work their ass off and are basically poor, he didn't respond. So I guess you had that one sussed.

<comment><USER14> Thanks. I dropped out of my CS degree at university and did economics instead, and now i straddle both worlds :P

I say with no ego or pride that I've heard just about every economic theory/justification there is from discussions with the rich and the poor. On the one hand its fascinating how most of the world is driven by relatively folksy beliefs. Its also fascinating to me how relatively devoid of economic knowledge most programmers, and indeed people, are.

The "I work really hard" is a standard refrain in discussions with relatively wealthy individuals in justifying their wealth. I would place it almost at the level of a basic emotive response. Perhaps its trying to respond to an innate notion of fairness in the human psyche that needs addressing to explain obvious inequality. Either way, it keeps getting trotted out despite being obviously disprovable and also being not the way that entrepreneurs or businessmen pay their own staff, so it was a good bet from you were talking to someone in just such a scenario :P

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> \- I would think that physical work is less hard than mental work. I mean anybody can clean a toilet, sweep floors. or lift up boxes but it takes more thought and intelligence to make a website or design an app. Like check out the wealth of nations by Adam Smith ~> [http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth- nati...](http://www2.hn.psu.edu/faculty/jmanis/adam-smith/wealth-nations.pdf) . People are paid depending on their value. If we all can do the same job, why should I get paid more than you? But if I can do a job faster, better and with more accuracy, of course Im going to want to get paid more.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've spent the last 2-3 years teaching myself the minefield of technologies around web development and I have 13 years experience as a technical trainer. last week I did two days working at an industrial factory that makes vitamins (don't ask). I did the compression, grinding, cleanup etc and all on a treadmill that you have to keep up with. Its dirty, you need to wear a face mask and a hair net. You need to make sure to be polite to everyone as their are many gang members that work there. The machine I was operating was literally manufactured in the 1950's (I heard the owner doesn't want to upgrade as the company is profitable and growing thus he is afraid to change anything). After the ordeal my legs and back were completely fucked and I was miserable. Everyone who works there does this for 40 hours a week. They do it for $8-$9 hr. I'm convinced they should all be getting $30-$50 and be given a free yearly pass to a gym. I disagree that this type of work is 'easier'. It may be culturally perceived as less valuable as it's not specialized, but it's not "easier" by a long shot.

<comment><USER2> Doesn't "easier" just mean that it is is less difficult to acquire such a job?

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem with the post I made is that a whole swath of different assumptions can be made around the ideas surrounding it. It's definitely "easier" to get one of those jobs but it's harder to physically do them ....and they literally hurt after awhile. I can't imagine too much physical hurt coming from programming compared to heavy lifting or picking lettuce etc. So their is a bit of a yin/yang with regard to the assumption of what the word 'easier' means in this context. Yes they are easier to get, but they are harder to physically do and they can hurt (of course maybe if you're in really good shape this is not the case).

<comment><USER2> While I agree that the GGGP's "I would think that physical work is less hard than mental work." statement sounds like he is dismissing the challenges required in doing the work, his examples are more focused on it being because it doesn't require specialization.

Many people won't catch that, so I think that your response to that is generally helpful. The point of my previous post was that I don't think it was necessary to say that you disagree about "easier" because the two of you are talking about two different definitions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Comparing Covid-19 Deaths to Flu Deaths Is Like Comparing Apples to Oranges - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/comparing-covid-19-deaths-to-flu-deaths-is-like-comparing-apples-to-oranges/ <comment><USER2> Flu or not, it's possible to compare all-cause mortality this year against previous years. That's about as hard data as it gets. How does Covid compare to "seasonal all-cause-winter-deaths"? That's what people are interested in - how unprecedented is the death rate?

<comment><USER3> It's possible, and it's being done.

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/corona...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/27/upshot/coronavirus- deaths-new-york-city.html)

> The recent death count reached six times the normal number of deaths for the > city at this time of year, a surge in deaths much larger than what could be > attributed to normal seasonal variations from influenza, heart disease or > other more common causes.

[https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus- missing-deaths.html)

> These numbers undermine the notion that many people who have died from the > virus may soon have died anyway. In Paris, more than twice the usual number > of people have died each day, far more than the peak of a bad flu season. In > New York City, the number has spiked to six times the normal amount.

<comment><USER4> > These numbers undermine the notion that many people who have died from the > virus may soon have died anyway. In Paris, more than twice the usual number > of people have died each day, far more than the peak of a bad flu season. In > New York City, the number has spiked to six times the normal amount.

I'm betting that in the next few years the death rate will drastically fall because the only people left will be really healthy.

<comment><USER5> If it is killing people _a couple of years_ earlier than they otherwise would have died, it is fair to consider them excess deaths.

<comment><USER4> Are you counting more than one death per person?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I have a friend who works in a stroke unit and he says almost nobody is coming in for strokes. Instead some people are just suffering or dying at home. Of strokes. Not every single one of them, but some alarming and as yet unknown number.

All that sounds unrelated to Covid-19. But the reason they are not going to the hospital is because they fear going into a medical facility, for fear of Corona virus. Should these deaths be counted as Covid-19 deaths? As shelter in place deaths? Or just as strokes? I'm not sure. It's complicated to sort this stuff out.

<comment><USER7> And death from other infectious disease will be down as well because of the lockdown. But the demography of the victims from covid is largely skewed against people with a low life expectancy in the first place. And then a severe economic crisis will come with its own health issues.

So the net impact of covid will only really be known at the end of the year at best.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Two important takeaways here.

"In fact, in the fine print, the CDC's flu numbers also include pneumonia deaths."

"If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu."

For the average person, COVID-19 is better described as "highly contagious and extra deadly pneumonia".

<comment><USER9> Pneumonia is a common fatal complication of influenza, and I think there's reasonably good statistical evidence that the cases counted towards flu deaths are mostly caused by the flu especially in the bad flu epidemic years which are most comparable to Covid-19. That sentence is a bit like claiming that people don't die from falling out of airplanes because the actual cause of death was hitting the ground.

<comment><USER10> I think you meant 'flu deaths are mostly caused by [bacterial] pneumonia'. One thought along those lines is that the spike in deaths we see is due to covid19 killing directly, death coming like clockwork X weeks after infection. Compared to the flu, which due to the requirement for a secondary bacterial pneumonia, has a higher variability in the timing of the death: at what time bacterial infection develops, which strain of bacteria, antibiotic interference, etc. Thus, we're going to see higher spikes for covid, and hopefully narrower.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, and apparently one of the more interesting consequences of this is that people don't necessarily have detectable flu virus anymore once they're hospitalized with pneumonia because it's the bacteria allowed in by the now- gone flu infection that's killing them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> As interesting as this article is... you absolutely can compare Covid-19 deaths to Flu Deaths. It's a far better comparison than, say, the people who note that we are having a 9/11 Terrorist Attack every day. I think the fear is that people will look at the death toll alone -- but if you include timespan as a point of comparison, it becomes very helpful to developing an understanding.

But as long as we're suddenly concerned about understanding the statistics about deaths... the 40,000 people that die annually to "gun violence", over half are suicides.

<comment><USER12> On a somewhat related note - the absolute death toll number isn't super useful either. I was shocked to learn a couple days ago that it seems pretty consistent around the world that 50% of that toll is from people in nursing homes. I did a quick search and found a study that found median/mean stay in a nursing home until death is 5/13 months. I'm not even examining the numbers closely, but that would suggest a huge number of people dying that are in absolutely precarious health. A death toll number does not convey that at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> But let's compare them anyway.

"we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu."

That was easy wasn't it.

<comment><USER14> >That was easy wasn't it.

Was it?

I don't get it. I found that there so far have been covid 234,133 deaths [0] and season flu can cause up to 646,000 deaths [1].

So I'm not seeing 9x to 44x by any reasonable metric or projection. What am I missing?

If 9 to 44x is possible, there need to be models that would show that. Does anyone have a model that shows we aren't even remotely near peak deaths?

Even if the article is right and seasonal flu was vastly over reported by the CDC as a "for your own good" tactic, I'm STILL not seeing 9x to 44x.

[0] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/1087466/covid19-cases- re...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/1087466/covid19-cases-recoveries- deaths-worldwide/)

[1] [https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=2...](https://www.medicinenet.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=208914)

EDIT: Article uses worst week covid compared to worst week flu... talk about Apples to Oranges!?

<comment><USER3> > What am I missing?

It's right there in your comment:

> so far

(Also, the rest of the paragraph that 9-44x number comes from:)

> To do this, _we have to compare counted deaths to counted deaths, not > counted deaths to wildly inflated statistical estimates_. If we compare, for > instance, the number of people who died in the United States from COVID-19 > in the second full week of April to the number of people who died from > influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu seasons (as reported > to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed between 9.5 and 44 > times more people than seasonal flu.

<comment><USER14> No, I don't think I am missing that. Which is why I used those words.

I have no doubt covid is worse than flu and have no issue with being more cautious than reckless.

But if you can find me a model that shows we're no where near peak deaths and are still looking to 9 to 44 times more, I'd like to see that.

Edit: anyone? Sources? Models?

<comment><USER15> The finding that in like periods in April this year compared to previous years Covid-19 has killed from 9 to 44 times as many people is a historical fact, not a projection. As for peak deaths, the number of people dying each day is still going up. We don't need a fancy statistical model to tell us this means we haven't reached peak deaths yet.

<comment><USER14> Do you think it's legitimate to take covid single worst week, compare to a week of flu and extrapolate our 9 to 44x worse?

Do you think there will be 10-30 million covid deaths this year?

<comment><USER15> It's not comparing it to 'a' week of flu, it's comparing it to the single worst week of flu in the last 7 years. I think it's one useful and relevant data point to see how Covid-19 deaths compare to flu, which of course is far from telling the whole story.

I have no idea what the world is going to do over the next 8 months, or what effect it's going to have. Do you?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have a simple covid related question, hopefully someone can answer this here.

We have been under lockdown for over 6 weeks here in chicago. But chicago had highest number of deaths all of this week[1]. If we were under lockdown 6 weeks ago how did the people who died this week get infected. Does this mean ppl aren't following the guidelines properly ? I feel like I am missing something obvious here.

1\. [https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/28/21240216/...](https://chicago.suntimes.com/coronavirus/2020/4/28/21240216/illinois- pritzker-coronavirus-cases-deaths-high-april-28)

<comment><USER3> > Does this mean ppl aren't following the guidelines properly ?

Yes, most likely. Folks still have to go out for groceries. Essential workers spread it to their families. The city had to close down various beaches and trails because people weren't staying far enough apart. etc. etc. etc.

<comment><USER16> So if make groceries pickup only and hefty fines/jail times for flouting guidelines. We would've had lockdown only for 2 weeks, in theory?

<comment><USER3> Or civil unrest.

You'd have to do something about the grocery pickup folks, healthcare workers, people maintaining other critical infrastructure, etc. too.

China can manage this (but it took more than two weeks). We probably can't with our current political system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It should be said, there's all kinds of situations where it makes sense to compare apples and oranges. You could compare their nutrition, to see which you should eat. You could compare their price, to see which you should buy. As long as you're aware that you're comparing two things that aren't identical (and you always are), it's often perfectly valid to compare apples and oranges. Just don't claim they're both apples.

I don't think anyone comparing Covid-19 and influenza, is unaware that they are different viruses. But, as when we compare gun violence to drug overdoses to traffic fatalities, it is often a useful and justifiable thing to do, to compare different dangers. Should I take the risk of flying (e.g. after 9/11), or drive 500 miles? Well driving and flying are very different, but it can make sense to compare them.

<comment><USER18> I have to wonder whether you read the article. Your comment is technically correct but doesn't address the point that it is making: that we are not counting the apples and oranges in comparable ways.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> For people getting hung up on the apples to oranges analogy: imagine you're a farmer. You're hearing reports that there's a huge surplus of oranges and everyone is cutting production. You have a lot of orange trees, so you're understandably upset by this and decide to look into it. Some journalists, politicians, and your uncle Jimmy say it's all overblown—there are about as many apples as there are oranges on the market this year. No surplus, no need to cut production.

Then Agricultural American puts out an article showing that data on oranges is being reported by farmers as oranges are picked, whereas data on apples is being estimated based on much fewer reports. The conclusion is that the apples-to-oranges comparison should be taken with a grain of salt.

This is in addition to reports that show orange yields are likely underreported based on overall measures of fruit on the market[1], as well as anecdotal reports of fruit storage being overwhelmed by oranges[2].

Ok I think we can go ahead and report this analogy as another COVID-19-related death.

[1][https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronav...](https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/21/world/coronavirus- missing-deaths.html)

[2][https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-body-bags-begin-to- fi...](https://news.sky.com/story/coronavirus-body-bags-begin-to-fill-new- yorks-makeshift-morgues-11969170)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The surprising thing here is that the often quoted flu death number isn't an actual count it is a statistical estimate based off the must lower recorded count. Not surprising in retrospect but not obvious when people trot that number out.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think boiling it down to a number is killing understanding. This is far more deadly for elderly than even this estimate makes it sound. The CFR for over sixty year olds in WA being an absurd 28%!! Under sixty? The flu is probably more deadly. Certainly understand 20.

So, just like with different fruits, you can't compete easily when boiled to a single facet. Almost like comparing the color of two fruits, without acknowledging the wide variety in color about the fruits.

<comment><USER12> I suspect political leadership will avoid bringing up the abject failure of government to protect the elderly. Meanwhile they'll use this as an opportunity to ratchet up emergency power, make precedents, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> every now and then I am reminded that there are in fact lots of different metrics that can be used to compare Apples and Oranges.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yeah, but they are both denominated in the same thing, human lives.

Bit easier for people to get their head into than QALYs

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality- adjusted_life_year](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-adjusted_life_year)

</comment><comment><USER23> One of my takeaways from his article is it sounds like he never actually tests his mortally ill patients to see if they have influenza.

Sounds like he is misleading everyone as bad as the CDC.

I had a bad "flu-like" illness in February and they diagnosed me over the phone and never tested me.

Could have been Covid, could have been the flu, could have been neither.

Even if we're not testing everyone for Covid-19 they're clearly taking it more seriously than flu.

</comment><comment><USER24> > The CDC should immediately change how it reports flu deaths. While in the > past it was justifiable to err on the side of substantially overestimating > flu deaths, in order to encourage vaccination and good hygiene

Yeah... except this is exactly what they are doing for COVID deaths, read the below.

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New-I...](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/coronavirus/Alert-2-New- ICD-code-introduced-for-COVID-19-deaths.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER25> Why can't we compare apples and oranges? They're fruit. They have nutritions. I don't like this metaphor.

<comment><USER26> The metaphor can apply to some things, but there's no good reason as far as I can tell for us to not compare COVID-19 to influenza. Experts desperately want to be right, so they're going to publish articles like this, which are effectively saying "Hey! Look at my shiny penny!"

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> so we go from

>3,448 to 15,620

confirmed deaths to

>25,000 to 69,000

estimated deaths? It's no wonder Americans have trust issues with medical experts. That's an absurd number created just to scare people into getting vaccinated. Which appears to be the authors opinion as well.

> While in the past it was justifiable to err on the side of substantially > overestimating flu deaths, in order to encourage vaccination and good > hygiene

I feel like trust is entirely undervalued in the scientific community. How are lay people expected to follow scientific advice if we can't trust the scientists?

<comment><USER2> After this is all settled we can compare all-cause mortality. It may be complicated by lockdown side-effects though, so we might never know.

<comment><USER28> There are countries that are under lockdown with relatively small exposure to covid which can be used as control.

Even within a country, lockdown rules are often homogeneous, while the spread of the virus can be quite patchy, allowing for some form of control.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER2> Flu, seasonal pneumonia... what's the diff?

<comment><USER14> Flu are caused by the viruses, pneumonia is the serious bacterial infection of the lungs potentially caused by having influenza.

You would count seasonal pneumonia if you wanted to see how serious that seasonal flu was.

<comment><USER28> Technically no, in addition to bacterial pneumonia (which is often caused by opportunistic infection after a virual invection), there is straight viral pneumonia without any bacterial infection. Even fungi by themselves can cause pneumonia.

The difference is that flu does not always cause pneumonia.

<comment><USER14> > The difference is that flu does not always cause pneumonia

Did not think I implied it did. But no, you're right, it's why the flu is more dangerous old people.

My understanding of fungus introduced to the lungs is that it's also carrying bacteria. But yes, there are lots of things you can introduce the lungs cause light to severe pneumonia.

If you want to pro tip, stirring your protein powder well, if you don't and inhale as powder it on your first sip you can have a bad couple weeks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> From the article:

> The CDC should immediately change how it reports flu deaths. While in the > past it was justifiable to err on the side of substantially overestimating > flu deaths, in order to encourage vaccination and good hygiene

Doctors, scientists, and the CDC, basically everyone we've been told to always trust when it comes to these matters, are and have been 'substantially' inflating flu death numbers to manipulate public behavior (e.g. to get more people to be vaccinated).

As well intentioned as that may be it is exactly why some people are skeptical about the flu vaccine. They sense manipulation and run from it. This patronizing behavior from the scientific and political class is destructive.

<comment><USER30> Does anyone feel like this happens with some approaching hurricane coverage where the scientists may overestimate things like storm surge to try and prod people to evacuate? Now when the next hurricane approaches they remember what happened last time and might be less likely to leave.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Article critiques data set and gives zero details on the CDC calculation methodology, and provides zero relevance to any new or interesting data analysis, but it surely mentioned Trump a few times.

A simple Google search will provide you with actual data sets, nationally, state wide, and even globally, by very competent scientists, some of whom have studied this specifically for decades.

There are various places you can research for example: FluView, FluMomo, Virologic Surveillance, Journal of Infectious Diseases, etc.

I recently read, Influenza-attributable deaths, Canada 1990–1999 Published online by Cambridge University Press , so this MD's Scientific American blog post comes across as pure garbage.

<comment><USER32> so, how are his conclusions different than the research you're referring to?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Inaccurate comparisons like this one are often made in bad faith by someone who knows full well that it's misleading but it serves a political purpose.

Assuming good faith intentions by the current US political leadership is comically naive at this point.

</comment><comment><USER34> > The former [COVID] are actual numbers; the latter [Flu] are inflated > statistical estimates

With doctors being instructed by the CDC to count every death that could have potentially been COVID as a COVID death, in the face of near total lack of testing, saying that the numbers are _not inflated_ is a bold faced lie.

[https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/07/covid19-death- certi...](https://www.mprnews.org/story/2020/04/07/covid19-death-certificate- change-stirs-controversy)

[https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvss/vsrg/vsrg03-508.pdf)

<comment><USER35> Fortunately you can look at mortality rates and you can see that in Europe it's even worse than the official statistics. Excess mortality is twice higher than recorded COVID deaths in the Netherlands for example.[1]

Even though there is a harvesting effect and you can expect mortality to be lower than average in the next few months (the famous "people that would have died anyway"), the data is not exactly substantiating conspiracy theories such as yours.

[1] [https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/excess-mortality-caused-by- novel...](https://www.rivm.nl/en/news/excess-mortality-caused-by-novel- coronavirus-covid-19)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> The author may have a point but his numeric example is also comparing apples and oranges:

> _If we compare, for instance, the number of people who died in the United > States from COVID-19 in the second full week of April to the number of > people who died from influenza during the worst week of the past seven flu > seasons (as reported to the CDC), we find that the novel coronavirus killed > between 9.5 and 44 times more people than seasonal flu_

He is comparing the number of deaths from a disease to which we are largely immune (the flu, through flu shot or previous strains) to a new disease to which we have no immunity. Of course the number of cases will widely differ. But I think most of the educated people who compare covid 19 to the flu mean in term of IFR, i.e. the ratio of death to the number of people infected. Of course if that ratio is applied to a much greater number of infections you will get more absolute deaths.

Also is the way we account for deaths between flu and covid that different? I understand people accounted as covid death don't really die from the virus but from the effects of the virus (pneumonia, heart attack, etc). Isn't the flu killing the same way, and do we do flu tests for each death from pneumonia (or whatever the flu ends up inducing)?

<comment><USER36> he's just pointing out that nobody writes the flu as the cause of death on a death certificate. The CDC simply releases estimates, while we've been tracking the severity of COVID-19 deaths by asking clinicians to write the cause of death as COVID-19 on the death certificate if they tested positive.

Patient has flu and dies of a stroke? Flu can increase the chance of stroke by 50% but the cause of death was the stroke, not the flu. Same thing happens to covid-19? They died of covid-19.

The point is that the data collection methods are so different there's no possible way you can really look at the numbers and tell if one kills more than the other.

<comment><USER7> Your explaination seems sensible but I don't think this was the point that the author made. The way I read it was he meant that the CDC overestimates the number of flu deaths and therefore anyone thinking covid's lethality is comparable to flu is wrong as the flu kills a lot less.</comment></comment></comment>


Blizzard Entertainment Planning A Linux Game For 2013 - <AUTHOR> http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTI2ODE <comment><USER2> The technical considerations are uninteresting here: all of Blizzard's titles are optionally built to use OpenGL, letting them avoid the golden handcuffs of DirectX & Friends. So if porting is cost-effective, why would they do it when virtually all of their revenue comes from Windows systems?

I say: gatekeeper-free subscription gaming appliances.

There's no evidence the total Windows PC experience is getting any better or cheaper for the uninitiated, there's no evidence that Playstation or Microsoft will bend over and allow third party platforms on their consoles, and all of the new-era Desktop App Store UXes force significant technical and billing restrictions that would eat at Activision Blizzard's subscription and in-app business model and reduce their control over the game experience.

And I don't think this is a bet that desktop Linux/x86 is going to be relevant for gaming. It has no inherent advantages over classical Windows.

So I think this is a gamble that new-era quasi-consoles based on Android+Linux/ARM+x86 are going to succeed to some degree (be it the Ouya or Steam Big Picture or some Samsung Generico-Colossus that can spit out WiDi or whatever).

A keyboard, mouse, and controller capable Linux platform with no overarching gatekeeper and adequate gaming horsepower is going to be extraordinarily cheap in the near future. If Blizzard Activision gets their ducks in a row now, they'll be ready to jump into the first one that offers ten million users, a reasonable hardware target, and a bullshit-free content delivery mechanism.

<comment><USER3> Right, they obviously don't want to wed themselves to any particular "quasi- console", but they want to be ready if the "quasi-console" thing really picks up steam. That's how I see it.

<comment><USER4> I see what you did there...

<comment><USER2> I don't, but let me talk louder and slower in case I'm being unclear.

The goal is to sell subscriptions and in-app upgrades to game softwares of exceeding depth and breadth that are operated primarily with a keyboard and mouse.

The Windows PC has arrived at an unsubsidized price floor of about $300-$400 and is unlikely to go lower with Microsoft charging perhaps $40-$80/unit depending on who's licensing. This market sells ~350M units a year with a total installed base of 1.25 BILLION, yet unit sales are declining, desktop Linux is doing nothing to change this, and Blizzard's flagship title is in decline.

The Linux PC cannot go lower than $300-$400 despite essentially $0 licensing costs because virtually nobody is selling or buying raw Linux PC hardware. So the platform is drafting on boutique sales, whitebox sales, and repurposed Windows PCs while still offering no benefits above and beyond standard Windows PCs. At best, it's (currently) worse.

The classical consoles are off limits. Nintendo has no coherent Internet strategy evolving and a severe lack of onboard storage. Sony has allowed a single third-party platform which has no billing support, subscription or otherwise. Microsoft has no third-party platform support. All of these consoles come with significant licensing expenses and do not support software subscriptions. All of these consoles require major rework when porting existing PC titles due to custom CPUs, GPUs, and input frameworks.

Mobile as we understand it is either completely off limits (iOS) or unaccustomed to keyboard and mouse input (Android).

So if you are in the business of selling subscriptions and in-app upgrades to game software that requires keyboards, mice, and untrammeled billing pathways, what are your options for addressing new markets?

There is one: quasi-consoles. Stationary (TELEVISION OR MONITOR OVER HDMI) Android (LINUX) Consoles (MOUSE, KEYBOARD, CONTROLLER SUPPORT) with untrammeled billing pathways (BATTLE.NET) at dramatically lower price points than the existing options ($100) that will enable less-engaged gamers (ME) easy one-click access to pre-existing titles (WORLD OF WARCRAFT).

And in order to do that you first need your titles running on a Linux stack, addressing OpenGL hardware.

Which is what Blizzard Activision is (allegedly) doing.

Ta!

<comment><USER5> I believe he was making a joke about one of the dominant gaming distribution systems being named "Steam".

<comment><USER6> I'd imagine that Valve would use their own Linux Distro for their Linux Steam client. When they make the GabeCube or whatever, it will run Linux with the Steam Client for Linux and play in TV mode for TV sets. I'd imagine it would also have Netflix, Hulu apps and other stuff added as well to compete with other video game consoles.

Since a lot of classic video games are DOS based, they'd just have to use the Linux version of DOSBox to run them, which shouldn't be too hard. In Windows games like Doom, Dark Forces, etc run in the Windows version of DOSBox when bought from Steam. I'm imagining Steam would also port their Sega Genesis emulator to Linux and other things as well.

I'd really like to see the Linux based GabeCube or whatever they call it (SteamTV?) that doesn't require a Windows license and can play most video games from Steam.

<comment><USER3> It has been nicknamed "SteamBox" by the rumormill.

Also, I hope they don't roll their own distro. Customizing an existing distro seems like a much better idea. Considering Steam Linux is currently targeted at Ubuntu, I'm guessing that's the distro of choice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Afaik Blizzard always had an internal Linux client [1] but never wanted to make it public.

 _One of the big problems with Linux, and this is from other game developers too, is the problem of targeting a specific version of the platform. Since everyone is free to create their own distros, they can become somewhat unstandardized. That makes "targeting linux" difficult.

Add on that there are far fewer linux users than windows/mac users, and that you can play wow on linux using Wine... and there isn't a lot of reason to target even a specific distro_

[1] [http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTA0N...](http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=OTA0NQ)

<comment><USER8> It is a problem and also a lame excuse. Steam has successfully made itself available on variety of distributions.

<comment><USER9> They're not there yet. Steam for Linux only supports Ubuntu officially. Otherwise, you have to resort to installing dependencies for some of the games manually and other tinkering. Serious Sam 3 even asks for root access that it can install the libraries it needs.

<comment><USER10> I don't get this. It's a multi-GB game that already needs to be downloaded over internet. Why don't they just bundle the dependencies, or at least make it installable via steam as a separate component? There should be no reason for a game to ever ask you to become root.

<comment><USER8> Steam is working out a system which would automatically install dependencies from system repository. About root, that is just a bug.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Blizzard has to, Valve already has a Steam for Linux beta client and at least 41 games ported to Linux.

Team Fortress 2 for example plays better and faster with a higher frame rate on Ubuntu 12.10 Linux than it did on my Windows 7 Home Premium on my Acer laptop.

Oh yeah check out PlayonLinux <http://www.playonlinux.com/> to run some Windows Video Games under WINE for Linux. The Windows Steam Client works great on WINE and most games can run on WINE just fine as well. For some reason Civilization V plays better under WINE than it did in Windows 7. I would like to see a Linux native version of Civilization V come out, it would rock. The PlayOnLinux Python client configures different WINE versions and profiles for you and it can even install Internet Explorer from version 1 to 8, and some versions of MS-Office (not all) if you really need them.

I see in the next five years a move to Linux as the next big gaming platform by major video game makers. The reason being Linux runs video games better than Windows, and does not cost as much as an Apple Mac OS X gaming machine. Microsoft is really killing themselves with Windows 8 and Windows RT, and software companies are considering moving to Linux as a result.

<comment><AUTHOR> I believe that Linux will become very popular with games within 5 years, too, but even if you don't believe that, what is even more likely to happen is that most games will be made on OpenGL thanks to Android, iOS, (supposedly) PS4, and even Steam boxes. That in turn should make it a lot easier to support games on Linux in general, and in turn it might help the market share of Linux on the desktop, too.

<comment><USER11> I don't think many of existing games will be ported, but B-class (with medium budgets) games are coming to Linux in a big way. Wasteland 2, Eternity, Godus, Castle Story, Planetary Annihilation, War for the Overworld, Double Fine, Maia... "Indie" usually means a budget of around $100000, and smallest of these are multiples of that. Plus, almost all humble indie bundles fully support Linux.

I think the outcome is clear: some of these games will make a lot of money. Big publishers and devs will want a cut of the pie.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Given that all their games work fine with Wine, this is likely a hint to MS not to make the app store mandatory in the future.

</comment><comment><USER13> Talking is cheap. It is the shipping to the platform that eludes the linux gaming so far. And the install base.

Of course everyone evaluates the platform with the planned obsolesce of desktop machines and the walled gardens.

Lets hope to see some A class titles on linux in 2013.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's always pained me that the only AAA publisher/developer to maintain strong Mac support through thick and thin has been the one whose games I have no interest in (no slight intended, just not into MMOs, strategy, and hack 'n' slash).

<comment><USER15> Not even Apple take Mac gaming seriously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Nice to see, the more choices the better. I think it will be really interesting this year to see if the Steam console actually manifests itself and when/if it does, will it get any real traction? I hope it does because the more competition for Microsoft and Sony, the better off the gaming market will be.

Steam just needs to allow for trading/selling of used games, and it would be even better, but I'm sure the publishers have a lot to say about that. Hopefully the EU forces that feature on them.

</comment><comment><USER17> I hope all the attention gaming on Linux has been getting lately will fuel the development of better graphics drivers and support.

<comment><USER18> It already has.

> Nvidia has announced a huge increase in Linux gaming performance for their > GeForce R310 drivers after almost a year of development alongside Valve and > other game developer partners.

[http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/06/204238/nvidia- doubl...](http://linux.slashdot.org/story/12/11/06/204238/nvidia-doubles- linux-driver-performance-slips-steam-release-date)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I think the money cow WoW will be ported... Starcraft2 I like a lot more but you cant charge monthly money from people...

<comment><USER20> I'm sure that Starcraft 2 is still a commercial success. It might not have made as much as WoW yet, but as expansions come out it will definitely is going to make a lot of money. I'm sure they'll also experiment with different monetization models like they are with Diablo 3.

<comment><USER21> Starcraft 2 is certainly a commercial success, but it will never, ever make as much money as WoW. WoW grosses more than SC2's total sales every five or six months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Does he mean one of the existing games will be ported to Linux, or the new game they're working on will have a Linux version as well ? If the first, I'm not interested. Blizzard used to release games that would set trends, that other developers would imitate or draw inspiration from. These days are over.

</comment><comment><USER22> > From a reliable source at the company, I have been told at least one of > their very popular titles will see a release for Ubuntu Linux this calendar > year. I was told this in person and was a statement backed up by additional > proof.

Nothing to see here.

<comment><USER23> Considering the same source (Phoronix) basically reported the same thing about Valve/Steam and was proved correct, I think we can give it the benefit of the doubt.

<comment><USER22> Michael had been reporting that Steam was soon comming to Linux ever since 2006. Just because Valve with the changes from Microsoft decided that they needed a backup plan six years later doesn't mean that Michael is a good source for news.

He's comparable to a gambler who by the Roulette table repeats the mantra "It will hit 12". Eventually he'll be right, but that doesn't make him a credible source when it comes to predicting what number the ball will hit.

<comment><USER23> Given the way Valve works, it would not surprise me at all to learn that they have been working on Steam for linux in some capacity since 2006.

<comment><USER22> And Blizzard have had a Linux client for WoW ever since alpha which testers were allowed to use up until the release of the game. But as we can see that client has yet to see the light again for the eight years that have passed after the games release.

Big companies like Valve and Blizzard have a ton of different projects that never see the light of day. In the case of Linux clients it's most likely because the man hours needed even to support them doesn't pay back in new customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> My guess is that it's going to be their DOTA clone, "Blizzard All Stars" or something.

<comment><USER25> Their DOTA clone isn't a standalone game, or at least hasn't been so far. It is/was built on the StarCraft II engine, so if it were to support Linux, StarCraft II would pretty much have to as well. However, I think WoW is much more likely since it brings in a lot more revenue than StarCraft II.

<comment><USER26> Well then StarCraft II is a good target since the version coming in 2013 is basically an upgrade to the game that went out mid-2011. So it's an already proven and well-understood technology, easier to port; just like the Source engine games for Valve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> THQ has interest in Linux games? Aren't they bankrupt

<comment><USER28> Out of convenience. They're temporarily out of cash, but it's a cyclical business and they're going to have a very different balance sheet shortly.

The bankruptcy angle is being played up as the decision-makers are trying to ram a sweetheart sale through to ensure their own lucrative exit from an increasingly-difficult business. (Instead of actually considering competitive bids or seriously seeking funding to cover them until the money starts rolling in again.)

A group of shareholders has just filed suit over the issue.

In any event: there's no chance they stop making games and thus having an interest in the current platform upheaval.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> TFA says: "Windows 8 isn't great for Blizzard".

Can someone explain why? Can't a game be run in full-screen mode anymore? Would there be technical issues during the installation of the game? Privileges issues? No more Direct X?

<comment><USER30> I'm going to speculate (and nothing more) just based on a few discussions a friend and I have had. It seems as though with Windows 8 and the trend towards unification with the mobile experience, Microsoft is headed in the path of a walled-garden style environment.

It may become more difficult (or just less convenient) for the consumer to select software that falls outside of the "Windows App Store" (whatever it may be termed).

This type of distribution model (Steam being another example) would be counter to Blizzard's apparent philosophy on the matter.

So I don't know that "Windows 8", the operating system, is bad for Blizzard. But maybe "Windows 8", the direction, is.

Again, 100% speculation. No necessary basis in fact, just ideas bounced around.

<comment><USER31> This is why I went back to Snow Leopard from Mountain Lion. Download file, install dmg (or exe), use software... "app store" irrelevant.

<comment><USER32> With respect, I think you're misled. The App Store is completely optional in Mountain Lion. Gatekeeper can be turned completely off if you so choose.

<comment><USER33> Don't you think this might be a case of "boiling the frog slowly"?

That's the impression I get from both Apple and Microsoft's recent OS/App Store directions.

A few years from now the apologists for each will be saying "Well hardly anyone but super techies ever used those options to disable verification anyway, so I understand why they turned them off".

<comment><USER32> _> Don't you think this might be a case of "boiling the frog slowly"?_

No, because that would be fantastically stupid of them and none of them are stupid. Not even Microsoft--I mean, I think the Metro slop is a joke, but no, they're not stupid enough to do that. What you are peddling doesn't even make _sense_ because precisely what the fearmongerers (see, this goes both ways, think about that next time you call me an "apologist") because it is fairly unlikely that anyone is ever going to be writing native applications from an iPad so it really does follow that they need a mostly-unencumbered environment from which to make the software that makes the whirly buy-the-iPad-buy-the- apps wheel go around.

Which, as it happens, is what Apple has said for quite a while that they're doing: iOS is the daily-driver car and OS X is the do-work truck. Which, though I don't use iOS myself anymore, is a completely reasonable division of labor for the majority of computing tasks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Awesome.</comment>


Someone bought 'Google.com' from Google for one minute - <AUTHOR> http://finance.yahoo.com/news/guy-bought-google-com-google-230510405.html <comment><USER2> What would happen if someone actually managed to move google.com to a non- google registrar account under their control? Would someone step in and just seize it back? Can you imagine the magnitude of client devices hitting the wrong server for gmail,android updates,chrome even for a few minutes?

<comment><USER3> DNS takes a few hours to fully propagate, last time I checked.

<comment><USER4> That depends on the expiry time ("Time To Live / TTL") set for the particular record. Minimum TTL is 1s, and maximum is 2e32 -1 seconds, or slightly over 136 years[1].

Resolver libraries and daemons keep cached results in volatile memory, so in practical terms, if a high TTL is set, the spoofed result will continue to be used until the given machine is rebooted. For some middle boxes, this can be years.

[1] RFC 1035 section 2.3.4 [https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt](https://www.ietf.org/rfc/rfc1035.txt)

<comment><USER5> I think the point is -- if the TTL is set low, most ISPs simply ignore it to a minimum setting of at least a few hours. So changing/pointing a Google hostname to a victim might not have that big an impact if done only for a few minutes.

<comment><USER4> I have seen ever-lower TTLs in the wild, sub-minute even, in the past few years. Even historically, TTLs have in my experience always been respected.

I think what really tends to happen, and this gets the folks confused, is that the initial TTL is high (say, 3 days), then the sysadmin wants to do some changes, and because they want to be able to keep changing the IP quickly, while they're working on it, they set the TTL low (say, 1 minute). Only you cannot retroactively lower the TTL of the records that have been sent previously, they'll expire whenever during the following 3 days.

Your point still stands, mostly. The probability of the old record with a high TTL to be evicted from a resolver's cache during any given short period of time is low.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> He never actually owned it. This was just a bug in the Google domains control panel. The source of truth (I believe ICANN) would never showed a change of ownership.

<comment><USER7> Well, the original post talks about him getting Google Webmaster tools for google.com, which while still not "owning" the domain itself, is interesting because it means more happened than just the domain buying app thinking he owned it.

<comment><USER8> He bought it using googles own domain buying app, Presumably it is connected to the rest of googles stuff and the other way around.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, I didn't mean the effects spread out of Google's stuff, just spread farther than Google's domain app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wouldn't it be better to link to the original post at [https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-purchased-domain- googlecom-...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-purchased-domain-googlecom- via-google-domains-sanmay-ved) ?

<comment><USER10> no, because that one requires registration to read.

<comment><USER11> Maybe LinkedIn detected a previous session and therefore wants you to log in?

Do you have the same behavior in a private window?

<comment><USER12> This link requires login for me even in private window.

<comment><USER13> I'm pretty sure LinkedIn filters by IP address. A long time ago, I noticed they let me through without logging in if I used my home connection, but made me log in if I were connecting through my VPN.

Note: exact same browser session, minutes apart.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Apparently this happened in 1999 with Microsoft's Passport.com as well [1], and again later with hotmail.co.uk [2]. While I understand that snafus like this can happen, I don't understand why the new owner would simply hand back the domain for essentially no compensation (especially in the case of hotmail.co.uk - this appeared to be a clean transfer of an expired domain). If they let the domain expire, it's fair game and should go for market price.

[1] [http://www.doublewide.net/](http://www.doublewide.net/)

[2] [http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=at_jl...](http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=at_jli4Blw0g&refer=uk)

<comment><USER15> If a company can reasonably show they own a trademark for a name in a region and should be awarded a domain, registrars will give away the domain. There has been plenty of cases where even old domains were taken away.

<comment><USER16> You are not awarded a domain name simply because you hold a trademark. There is evidence that domains have been awarded to trademark holders after a UDRP hearing and the trademark holder contested the validity of the registration. Read the UDRP guidelines [0].

There is also the counterpoint of the case of Nissan Motor Co vs. Nissan Computer Corp [1] where Nissan Motors owns the trademarks but have not been granted nissan.com.

[0] [https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4](https://www.icann.org/resources/pages/policy-2012-02-25-en#4) [1] [http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case292.cfm](http://www.internetlibrary.com/cases/lib_case292.cfm)

<comment><USER17> > where Nissan Motors owns the trademarks but have not been granted > nissan.com.

Just to clarify, Nissan Computers also holds trademarks but in a difference field of commerce.

Just like Volkswagen and Canon both hold trademarks on Eos.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Definitely a bug in Google domains. The real one expires 9/14/2020\. [https://who.is/whois/google.com/](https://who.is/whois/google.com/)

<comment><USER19> Yea, but if Google says you own google.com, how 'unreal' is your claim?

<comment><USER15> Registrars can say whatever they want, it doesn't mean anything until the domain is properly listed in the TLD's main database, in this case VeriSign.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember a Slashdot article back in the 90s about a guy who renewed hotmail.com for Microsoft when they accidentally let it expire. The guy needed to get to his email but couldn't and he quickly discovered the problem and fixed it for them.

<comment><USER21> You mean the incident they mention in the article that was linked?

[http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt- america-r...](http://www.npr.org/2014/04/01/297690717/why-doesnt-america-read- anymore)

<comment><USER22> Nope. The details don't match not because GP has a bad memory but because it was a separate incident. Don't be a dick.

<comment><USER21> Ah, maybe it was the passport.com incident that was mentioned in another comment. Fair enough!

<comment><USER20> It was the same.

[http://www.doublewide.net/](http://www.doublewide.net/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> My guess is it's just a bug in Google domains, allowing them to 'register' domains that the lookup RPC failed for. Google doesn't act as the registrar for their own domain, so there was never any risk of the ownership actually getting transferred to him.

</comment><comment><USER24> Honest question. If he bought the domain from Google and the transaction went through, is that not technically a legitimate transaction and "cancelling" and refunding the money is essentially theft?

How is that any different than walking in to someone's house and leaving them $20 for the TV you took? It seems to me that "oops, take-backs" Is not a legitimate enough justification to reverse a transaction under contract law.

It seems rather ominous if even this kind of situation is permitted because it sets a precedent that corporations can simply decide to change their mind when something is not in their favor. Sure, it's an example that many people will simply rationalize or defend, but just on matters of assuring the credibility of the integrity of the whole market based system, Google should not be allowed to simply step away from this as if nothing happened without at least a fine that gets noticed by the executive suite.

How would you feel if in the future mega consolidated food corporation can arbitrarily decide that "oops, we changed our mind. That food you ate and sold to you for $X should have really been charged at $3X. Don't worry, we will charge your account. Have a nice day"

How about a different scenario; the airline industry decides that "oops, someone else was willing to pay more for that last seat on that flight you just booked. We just cancelled it and refunded your money. Have a nice day"

I get that it was probably a mistake of some kind. But what is it that immunizes corporations from the consequences of mistakes? I guess that's kind of rampant right now in our society and economy, but still.

<comment><USER25> Google Domains is not the registrar for google.com. MarkMonitor is. Your situation is analogous to agreeing to buy a deep-discount TV from someone off Craigslist, who meets up with you in a hotel parking lot, goes inside with you, points you to the TV in the lobby that you just "bought" and says take it. That TV was not for sale and the person "selling" it didn't own it. It's unreasonable to expect MarkMonitor to honor a sale that couldn't happen because some other registrar messed up.

Mistakes can and do happen in business all the time, because businesses are composed of people and people aren't perfect. The solution is to deal with mistakes in whatever is the most sane way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> In Ireland some one managed to redirect google.ie (The irish google search domain):

[http://technology.ie/google-ie-hijacked/](http://technology.ie/google-ie- hijacked/)

The ccTLD register (The IEDR) had a vulnerability in their management portal that was exploited (I believe it was an SQL injection if I recall correctly).

The attacker changed the DNS servers to their own and then put an A name record pointing google.ie to their own server.

The server just displayed a hijacked by page.

It was probably just some kid. If it was a criminal they would have done some thing far more malicious.

yahoo.ie also got hijacked.

It was an absolute pain, for months after the IEDR's portal was disabled, you had to call them to make any changes to any .ie domain.

<comment><USER27> 'their'

<comment><USER26> Thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Also [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10308378](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10308378).

</comment><comment><USER29> Mods can you please change to the source URL instead? (Not that I'm a fan of linkedin...)

[https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-purchased-domain- googlecom-...](https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/i-purchased-domain-googlecom- via-google-domains-sanmay-ved)

Edit: Here's a mirror for those that happen to have linkedin.com nullrouted in hosts or something: [https://archive.is/HKPhn](https://archive.is/HKPhn)

<comment><USER28> We didn't do that earlier because it seemed like the current article added more info. Is that wrong?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I'm surprised I didn't see this on the morning news and wow what a thrill it must have been.

</comment><comment><USER31> finally. i like the idea someone can remove my last purchase and manipulate my account.

<comment><USER25> It wasn't a valid purchase. What would you expect to happen? Google.com, like the Brooklyn Bridge, isn't for sale.

<comment><USER25> To expand on this, google.com is registered through MarkMonitor, which is a registrar. Google Domains is also a registrar. A registrar cannot sell a domain that is owned, and certainly not one that is owned by a client on another registrar! There was some error on the Google Domains side that indicated a domain was available for purchase that was in fact not available for purchase. That's it. The money was refunded when the error was reported. It's the only possible sane solution to the problem.

Your comment implies that the sale should have gone through anyway, which is nonsensical. Otherwise we could have situations where I steal foo.bar from you (which you have registered with, say, NameCheap) by buying it through, say, GoDaddy, which is currently experiencing a similar bug that incorrectly marks your domain as available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> On the 20.09, I received a totally legit invoice from email@example.com (99.99€ Candyclub - Bag of Gems). The sender is firstname.lastname@example.com, but no names, no other personal information. I thought it was somewhat strange, and reported it, but no answer.

<comment><USER33> It's extemely simple to fake the sender of email. That's what probably happened.

<comment><USER32> I just thought it's strange, becuase gmail usually detects email spoofing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> So what? He earned nothing but your carelessly attention.

</comment><comment><USER35> The article says "He frantically took screenshots along the way and detailed the whole ordeal in a LinkedIn post."

... I find the choice of words funny. If he hadn't bothered to buy a domain he knew he would never be able to keep, there would be no ordeal!!!

</comment><comment><USER36> This sounds like some kind of PR stunt for google domains.

<comment><USER37> Why? Wouldn't that be a lousy PR stunt? Domain services are the keepers to your most prized possessions and Google's let someone buy their own domain creating this nebulous set of thoughts to where many might think this allowed the person to control google.com itself.

<comment><USER36> Its just funny that it was an ex-googler buying google.com from Google Domains. and they happened to state the price ($12) in the ad errrr article. relax people. downvotes? come on.</comment></comment></comment>


BAE Systems reveals PHASA-35 solar-powered UAV with endurance for a year - <AUTHOR> http://www.janes.com/article/79777/bae-systems-reveals-phasa-35-solar-powered-hale-uav <comment><USER2> That will give the Saudis a more environmentally friendly way of bombing schools and hospitals in Yemen.</comment>


Will VR be popular in porn industry? This app has good experience than current - <AUTHOR> https://www.livrporn.com/show/20272532 <comment><USER2> Porn is one of the main factors for driving technology. [http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/porn- innovation-t...](http://www.confessionsoftheprofessions.com/porn-innovation- tech-infographic/)

</comment><comment><USER3> That is a very unfortunate name. It reads as 'liv(e)rporn' to me. See tumbl(e)r, grind(e)r, etc.

<comment><AUTHOR> -_- what a sad story

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> i think it's better than alicx or some others</comment>