Amazon has a patent to keep people from comparison shopping in stores - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/innovations/wp/2017/06/16/amazon-has-a-patent-to-keep-you-from-comparison-shopping-while-youre-in-its-stores/ <comment><USER2> It shouldn't matter that this is an obvious thing to do or easily circumvented (for the time being).

It is 1) an invasion of privacy and 2) anti-competitive behavior.

Version 1 may be easily circumvented, but future versions could easily be tighter and more difficult to circumvent. For example, a contract with the mobile providers could make this something that no longer depends on in store WiFi usage.

This is the sort of thing that should be stopped in its infancy.

<comment><USER3> In theory, I don't have a problem with a retailer offering free WiFi but limiting it either for QoS or to block certain sites or protocols. It's their bandwidth and they should be able to offer it to the public on whatever terms they want.

As with anything, if you aren't paying for it then you are not the customer.

Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing business with both the carrier and the retailer.

<comment><USER4> > Now, if they somehow convinced Verizon or ATT to interfere with the network > access that I am paying for, that would be a problem and I'd stop doing > business with both the carrier and the retailer.

Considering the plethora of choices, you would definitely win. /s Goes back to old George Carlin joke about belonging to a club and you not being in it.

<comment><USER5> Not to be confused with Groucho Marx's joke about belonging to clubs. :-)

Carlin's bit, for reference. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKUaqFzZLxU)

<comment><USER6> Omg. He sounds a little like trump and he also 'sounds' like trump. Great share

<comment><USER7> Carlin hated government and both parties with a passion, but he leaned a bit liberal by his own admission. That said, he would be disappointed to hear he's being compared to Donald Trump. See his bits on the "business man" and "politicians" for reference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> They could also increase the online price (for websites they own) to be the same as the in-store price.

I've seen something similar to this at Target. Target.com is often cheaper than Target stores. And Target store matches Target.com prices. However, if you use Target app (not Target mobile/desktop website) in a Target store, the price shown will be the in-store price instead of online price. The Target Android app requests permissions to access precise location, pair with Bluetooth devices, and view WiFi connection.

<comment><USER9> > They could also increase the online price (for websites they own) to be the > same as the in-store price.

That seems like the wrong way around. If you're in a store, and checking Amazon, Amazon would want you to think the product is cheaper on Amazon, so you don't buy it from the store you're in.

<comment><USER10> This is a technology to be deployed in Amazon's brick-and-mortar stores, which used to be an oxymoron in the past but is increasingly no longer the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Seems more likely that Amazon got this patent to prevent some other brick and mortar store from acquiring it and blocking Amazon.com.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, just like that oh-so-reasonable 1-click purchase they patented. Good thing they never abused that patent.

<comment><USER13> That was very clever. The insight was to make both buying and undoing the buy easy. For a few minutes after an Amazon one-click buy, you can undo it. That's what made one-click purchases non-scary. Most E-commerce systems still don't get this. Once you've clicked "buy", it's "Mwaaah, we have your money now, sucker!"

<comment><USER14> Granted this is a totally inadequate solution, but in all cases where I've made an online order from a reputable seller and wanted to cancel it before it shipped, I have been able to call the business over the phone, provide them with the invoice number, and successfully cancel the order. I've only had problems in cases where "I should have known better than to order on that site" to begin with.

<comment><USER15> _I 'm_ perfectly fine calling someone on the phone, but many other millennials strongly dislike phone conversations.

<comment><USER16> Every reputable seller also has email. In Amazon's case you don't even need that, you just need to click a button.

<comment><USER15>
      In Amazon's case you don't even need that, you just need
      to click a button.

Yes, that was the point of the thread. On Amazon's site, order cancellations are automated and can be done on the website, while for many other online stores you have to contact a human to do it manually.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> 1\. Use VPN 2\. Regardless of free Wi-Fi, it's illegal in many countries to tamper with traffic. Net neutrality anyone? 3\. Kudos to WaPo's editorial integrity. Despite being a Jeff Bezos entity, it isn't afraid to publish items Amazon doesn't want you to know about

<comment><USER18> No need for a VPN. Maybe using HTTPS wouldn't aloud them to see the data? Hope no MITM. But, you can always change DNS server (or use DNSCrypt).

<comment><USER19> There is a need for a VPN. Most public access points perform some traffic manipulation and I absolutely believe that some intentionally block and/or modify data to obscure some data from people who are in-store. In fact, I believe Best Buy was already caught doing this with their own site; in-store APs wouldn't reflect the price that was really shown on bestbuy.com. ...

Ah, it seems that Best Buy did this but only on internal workstations, so that when the employee would access bestbuy.com, the discounted price online wouldn't show up: [https://consumerist.com/2007/03/02/best-buy-confirms-the- exi...](https://consumerist.com/2007/03/02/best-buy-confirms-the-existence-of- its-secret-website/) . However, they could trivially do this via wifi.

While searching for this, I also found this: [http://adage.com/article/digital/retailer-jo-ann-aims- retarg...](http://adage.com/article/digital/retailer-jo-ann-aims-retarget- store-wi-fi-users/308287/) , which registers the device MAC on the backend and uses it to track how many times a user has entered the store (that is, connected to the store's wifi). Even VPN wouldn't stop this from happening, you'd need to randomize your phone's MAC address.

Public wifi is convenient but we shouldn't be naive about it. Companies _are_ using it for their own purposes.

<comment><USER18> Even randomizing MAC seems somehow useless [0]. And all `private` VPNs without logs are pretty much non-free (as in money).

So what's the easiest solution for a lambda user!?

[0] [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomi...](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/03/10/mac_address_randomization/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reason #34 for taking a more adversarial relationship with the surveillance- happy plays: they started gaslighting us in their stores.

One reason among many that Bluetooth and Wifi are off on my phone when I leave somewhere. (Most of the time. I sometimes forget.) Aside from passive monitoring, we get things like this, where your personal devices become the equivalent of jailhouse snitches.

I don't see it as an invasion of privacy - it is their wifi. But it is an example of grabbing after every last nickel without considering ancillary concerns, like me thinking it is awful, icky, gross behavior and adjusting my exposure to that shit accordingly.

<comment><USER21> Poor decision making like this gives capitalism a bad name.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I wonder if there could be a "good patent troll" business model where you file patents on all kinds of user-hostile, anti-consumer bullshit like this and then sue any company that does it?

<comment><USER21> Great point. It would be nice if that's what they're doing.

<comment><USER23> Not very educated on patent matters, but isn't there any requirement for plaintiffs to demonstrate patent utilization, or at the very least abstract plans of utilization, no matter how impractical? Making a public claim that the patent would never be utilized but only used defensively, would make that difficult.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Pretty obvious, and pretty trivially circumvented by _not_ sending traffic over the in-store Wi-Fi network. (Do such things really exit?? Never seen one here in Italy)

<comment><USER25> Well, even though most stores don't acknowledge it, how much do you want to bet there are stores that install 3G/4G cell jammers to prevent you from using your mobile to look up anything while in-store? I know a few places I shop where my cell coverage "mysteriously" drops to nil inside the store and I have long suspected it's not just the concrete walls.

<comment><USER26> If you suspect cell jamming, and you're in the USA, contact the FCC and report the business. The mere fact that it interferes with 911 is enough to send a store manager to prison. If they can prove that an emergency vehicle every got close enough to the business to be potentially affected, the business could see hundreds of thousands of dollars in fines.

The FCC could just park a van in front of the store for 3 minutes and their tools would verify that a jammer was in use.

Here's the details on anti-jamming laws, and a list of people who have had their ass handed to them by the FCC for doing it: [https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer- enforcement](https://www.fcc.gov/general/jammer-enforcement)

<comment><USER25> Good to know this. I don't think it's outright cell jamming but something where voice service is still passable but data service basically cannot function due to packet loss, etc.

Would be interesting to try to detect if such interference is present on the right frequencies, or if it is just a natural effect and truly not intentional.

Thanks for sharing the info.

<comment><USER27> > something where voice service is still passable but data service basically > cannot function due to packet loss, etc.

That pretty much describes 99% of indoor mobile coverage out there. The only exception being buildings that have ponied up for a femtocell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Ironic considering their "Price Check" android app: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.pri...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.amazon.pricecheck&hl=en)

<comment><USER26> Not really. Now that they own the patent, they can refuse to license it to anyone who may create a product that blocks their app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I don't understand the extent of patents such as this. Does this mean if I have a shop with a public WiFi connection that I cannot block or redirect users from competitor's websites to my own without infringing on an Amazon patent? In general, I'm wondering does this patent obstruct me from implementing something similar?

<comment><USER21> Someone else posted that this is why they think Amazon may have filed this patent - a sort of "Good Guy Patent Troll" move.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> I was trying to price match Amazon when I was at Target. Target now has their own device that looks up Amazon's prices. Not shocked to see two different price tags on my device and Targets

</comment><comment><USER31> Yesterday - [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566264](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14566264)

</comment><comment><USER32> Hypothetically, could they be even more sinister and modify competitor's prices to appear higher, so that you never even notice what they're doing?

</comment><comment><USER33> Interesting that it the article is in WashingtonPost!

</comment><comment><USER34> Could somebody please help me understand how this patent would be enforceable? I mean, wouldn't it be invalidated by any of the public wifi's that prevent you from accessing the internet until you visit their log in page? Or does the specifics and niche of this patent actually matter?

<comment><USER35> Specifics always matter in getting a patent granted.

They sometimes matter in a court enforcing a patent.

They rarely matter in getting a lawyer to send a cease & desist letter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Next from Amazon: free home/cell internet that works for everything but competitors' websites

<comment><USER21> LOL. They already have a MotoG phone they sell at a discount. The only catch is they spam you with ads. It's too bad they can't have a little more integrity when it comes to stuff like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Seems likely to be a defensive patent.

<comment><USER38> Then they could issue a press release: "We here at Amazon are very concerned about... and so we have patented this in order to make sure that nobody does this awful horrible thing."

<comment><USER39> Pretty sure that would be a quick way for someone to invalidate your patent claim.

<comment><USER40> On what basis?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have a crazier theory about this. After logging on to a WiFi router, the router could report to Amazon that some customer is in shop X. When that customer goes online to shop (for example, Whole Foods), Amazon could show higher prices.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think Amazon might only own the patent on this to prevent others from doing the same thing.

If there was any app in the world you would use to mobile window shop, it would be Amazon.

</comment><comment><USER42> Weird. I remember being pissed off at a Home Depot price. So I bought it on Amazon, right at Home Depot. I bet half of you have done something like this.

<comment> david-cako for as long as I've had proper internet access on my phone. since 2009 at least.

it's great too, because it's forcing retailers like best buy to at least be mildly competitive in pricing. I will actually buy things at best buy now if I really want them immediately, but it often requires telling them to give me the online price since it's marked up in store (which I guess is another form of this price comparing behavior).

<comment><USER43> Yes, I only ever bother to go into Best Buy because I know they will price match Amazon (and their own price.)

I recently realized that even Wal Mart had lower prices for some things online, and now I have to go through the hassle of having them price match their own website when making certain purchases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> The problem here is that people that use in store WiFi are too cheap to pay for their own 4g bandwidth. So these folk are frugal not big spenders. They will need to work with telcos to deep packet inspect customers triangulated to the store locations. And then to stop people shopping online.

With destination shopping, e.g. to buy a new sofa or bicycle, customers have invariably been online already and chose the store that way.

<comment><USER45> > With destination shopping, e.g. to buy a new sofa or bicycle, customers have > invariably been online already and chose the store that way.

Not necessarily. For $100-$1000 items I'll walk into a store without an intent to buy that day to price shop and if I'm tempted to buy I'll quickly check online and see if the store will price match. In the bay area I've actually had the store price match their own online store even though in store price had a '20% off sale'.

Seems pretty common for bay area stores to sell above their online prices and price match if you ask.

<comment><USER46> It works this way in the rest of the country. Not just the bay area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Key line:

> But Amazon now has the technology to prevent that type of behavior when > customers enter any of its physical stores and log onto the WiFi networks > there.

</comment><comment><USER47> The article says Amazon 'won' the patent or alternatively the patent was 'awarded' to Amazon. The USPTO only "grants" patents. It may seem like nit picking semantics but it presents an incorrect image of the USPTO to uninformed readers. And it also exposes the authors lack of knowledge on patents, discrediting the whole of the article.

</comment><comment><USER48> Semi-offtopic: Does Amazon.com in America tend to come out ahead if you comparison shop against it in retail stores? Up here in Canada, Amazon.ca can often be a few dollars more expensive for simple items than I can easily get in retail shops. So although I would like to shop more online, I still have a preference for shopping in physical stores.

</comment><comment><USER49> A much better implementation of this would be to inspect the data that users are requesting, then analyze the price difference between products they are looking at online vs in-store and then dynamically change the price in real time.

Amazon definitely has the technology to make this happen.

<comment><USER50> An encrypted connection like https should be able to prevent this, however.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Amazon's next patent - "Effective faraday cages for large retail spaces"

It's illegal to jam or otherwise interfere with other's radio transmissions but it's not illegal to block them from your premises.

</comment><comment><USER52> So, basically they block access to competitor's sites via their captive wifi? The article looks, smells and sounds like click bait.

</comment><comment><USER53> I'm very reticent to connect to any public wifi network anyway.

Not saying the cellular network is any better

</comment><comment><USER54> What else did they patent, may be shopping itself?

</comment><comment><USER55> just turn off wifi as the patent works by reading your traffic whilst in store

<comment><USER56> Don't even need to turn off WiFi. Just don't connect to store WiFi.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> So weird seeing this on the Washington Post considering it belongs to Jeff Bezos</comment>


Why your paycheck is getting smaller, no matter what - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2012/12/30/news/economy/payroll-tax-consumer/index.html

<comment><USER2> > Concern over these tax hikes are already holding shoppers back.

> During the holiday shopping season, between Oct. 30 to Dec. 24, shoppers > spent just 0.7% more than they did last year, according to a MasterCard > Advistors SpendingPulse report released last week.

Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe we should stop wasting so much money during the holiday season? I thought that Christmas was supposed to be about spending time with loved ones, not about blowing thousands of dollars on unnecessary gifts. All the consumerization of the holiday season does now is funnel more money to Chinese factories. Only a fraction of the revenue goes to retail workers in America.

Ideally, that extra payroll tax money would be used for constructive purposes, such as rebuilding badly worn-out infrastructure, which could also put countless unskilled laborers in America back to work. But we all know it'll most likely be wasted on killing more Arabs or on corporate welfare, thanks to constant lobbying and large campaign donations from big business and the military-industrial complex.

<comment><USER3> > I thought that Christmas was supposed to be about spending time with loved > ones, not about blowing thousands of dollars on unnecessary gifts.

Did you really? I guess that means you don't have kids.

> Has anyone stopped to consider that maybe we should stop wasting so much > money during the holiday season?

Actually lots of people, since before Dickens, and often with ironic reference to the basic moral tenets of Christianity. And yet here we are. Like the Diamond Jubilee of Queen Elizabeth II, it is what it is.

> more money to Chinese factories ... killing more Arabs or corporate welfare

You seem to be saying that on the one hand, workers don't know how to spend their pay while on the other hand, neither does the government. So perhaps 'ideally' it's not such a bad thing to have the money end up in a part of the world where millions of people a year are actively raising themselves out of poverty on the back of export demand.

<comment><USER2> > Did you really? I guess that means you don't have kids.

No, I don't. But I don't see how that's important. When I was a kid, I didn't receive extravagant presents, despite growing up in an upper-middle class family that could have easily afforded them without going into debt. I received useful presents, usually something that I practically needed or something constructive, such as new clothes or books.

> Actually lots of people, since before Dickens, and often with ironic > reference to the basic moral tenets of Christianity.

Dense works of literature (or their film adaptions) clearly aren't an effective way of reaching the masses. Then again, perhaps most people are just too stupid to get the message, or too afraid of being the first to break social convention.

> You seem to be saying that on the one hand, workers don't know how to spend > their pay while on the other hand, neither does the government.

Correct. But while people will (probably) always be stupid, I believe the government can and should be reformed so that it is more responsive to the needs of the people and less responsive to lobbyists and campaign donors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Everyone knew that the 2% cut in the Social Security tax was a temporary measure designed to boost the economy. The fact that it's expiring as planned is not a surprise, and hardly newsworthy.

<comment><USER5> Everybody knew that the Bush top-bracket rate cuts were temporary, too. And yet the entire argument revolves around extending them. Nobody is arguing that we should extend the lower rates on payroll. That is remarkable.

<comment><USER6> It's interesting how temporary tax cuts always seem to expire, but temporary taxes never seem to.

<comment><USER7> Add to this temporary spending programs. GWBush's last year added ~$1 trillion in "emergency" spending, growing federal spending by an astounding ~50%, and SOMEHOW four years later it's turned into entitlements and the like, part of the permanent spending baseline.

(This is the same baseline-based math which calls a reduction in the rate of spending growth some sort or another of a "devastating cut", naturally, though you'll see more ostentatious examples of this rhetoric with California's recent education-policy games than you will at the national level.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even if government extend this payroll tax cut, your annual raise (if such thing exist where you work) will hardly cover inflation rate (or in my case will be less then inflation rate.) So you are loosing anyway. The only way to keep up - sharp existing skills or get new ones and change jobs.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is definitely _not_ Hacker News.

I can see no way in which this gratifies one's intellectual curiosity.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's the spending stupid. Even with tax rates going up and the cuts going into effect, we still spend more than we take in. Cut defense 100% and tax the rich at 100%, we still are not at a balanced budget. The federal government does not have an income problem, it has a spending problem.

<comment><USER11> If you're going to make statements, rather than opinions, please base them on facts. If you cut defense 100% and make no other changes, the budget would be balanced.

2012 deficit: $1.1T [1] 2012 military budget: $1.03T to $1.4T [2]

[1] [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId...](http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/search/pagedetails.action?packageId=BUDGET-2012-BUD)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_S...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_budget_of_the_United_States#cite_note- Budget_FY2011-22)

<comment><USER12> No no no, that doesn't fit into the whole republican narrative that taxes need to be lower and spending needs to be lower. How a moderator makes the comment that guy made just blows my mind. Complete and utter ignorance.

Edit: Just noticed his name was dothemath, head explodes.

<comment><USER10> I'm a Libertarian. Even if I were a Republican, you can't argue the facts that spending is totally out of control. Can you name one country that spent itself into prosperity?

<comment><USER12> "you can't argue the facts"

You've presented one single fact and it was incorrect. Now you're presenting an opinion.

"Can you name one country that spent itself into prosperity?"

The United States has been pretty awesome at cyclically spending a ton of money on infrastructure projects after recessions. WPA is probably one of the most successful things we've ever done. Feels like you should keep an open mind in discussions like these versus using opinions as facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Wasn't the 2% tax cut on the side the employer pays? That means if you paycheck goes down because of it, your employer is pretty much a jerk.

<comment><USER14> I don't work in HR so I'm not familiar with how companies deal with this, but I would be surprised if it doesn't hit your paycheck somehow -- directly deducting it from your current pay may be less likely than factoring the added cost into funds available for annual raises.</comment></comment>


ASNs IPs – Bots or Users? - <AUTHOR> I'm seeing an increased amount of traffic coming onto my website via ASN Networks using different IPs.
AS7029 - Windstream Communications AS5650 - Frontier Communications AS7922 - Comcast Cable Communications
Are IPs from ASN networks always bots crawling through content? Or possible they could be true users?
Curious to know if I should be excluding from my "conversion pixel" on GA? <comment><USER2> The question doesn't make sense. _All_ networks on the internet are (part of) ASNs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fair enough. Is there a scenario in which a ASN IP is a real person?

<comment><USER2> Yes, because _all networks_ and thus _all IP addresses_ are part of an ASN. IP addresses that do not belong to an ASN are not a thing that exists on the internet.</comment></comment></comment>


Do people become happier after 40? - <AUTHOR> https://www.economist.com/graphic-detail/2019/04/12/do-people-become-happier-after-40 <comment><USER3> 41yo, no debt (mortgage paid off), decent savings, investments, good job, but i'm nowhere near fu money or retirement. family came during my mid-30's which has been a high point for certain, but i think from a health perspective, body's not like it used to be, gained a lot of weight, recovery from working out is taking longer, stamina is deteriorating, libido is weakening, deaths in family are becoming more commonplace.

overall i think each decade has had good and bad moments, i dont necessarily think collectively any decade has been better or worse than any other, just different types of good (and bad) and different experiences.

having a family has been a blessing for sure so perhaps that's one of the reasons why the results are such.

one thing i do think about, more often than i'd like, is when i get to a certain age where health has declined significantly, teeth have all fallen out, cartilage in all joints have worn out or thinned to the point where it hurts to walk, taste buds have recessed, risk of a heart attack or stroke increases, aside from having grandkids, quality of life has gone down the drain, i wonder if it's still worth it, somewhat morbis, and probably wont know until you get there.

i think the point is to enjoy the ride to eternity, every decade is a blessing so take the good with the bad

<comment><USER4> > body's not like it used to be

I'm 32 and my body is already sore all the time. already i miss my body at 21.

not my mind, I'm a lot more mentally stable now. but body deteriorating is a big stressor to me...

<comment><USER5> Same here. I'm in the best shape of my life at 31 (3.5 years of consistent gym routines), but there are still things I can't do that I could at 16-17 with almost no exercise (like running up a long escalator or 14 floors to my flat with no breaks)

Aside from VO2, my vision is also notably worse and some of my teeth are now more filling than original tooth. And the joint flexibility from sedentary education and jobs is gone (yoga is downright painful for me)

Youth is a hell of a drug and I get why people say it's wasted on the young.

No regrets here, but getting older sucks.

<comment><USER4> > Youth is a hell of a drug and I get why people say it's wasted on the young.

I'm glad 32 year old me never talked to 21 year old me. I'd have convinced me to do even more stupid shit while I was still a youth.

<comment><USER6> I don't want to agree with you (it's not the responsible thing), but I do agree.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> 30s here, I spend teen and early adult years in various forms of anxieties culminating in a super crap decade. Considering that path, I extrapolated that life will be, at best, constantly shitty if I work to stay afloat.

But it's not. To a point I do feel like a 14 year old kid these days. And at times.. I even have flashes of child like happiness. Before when I used to remember good times, it would either feel like good+old or nostalgic+old. But what I'm talking about is more like good+present.. just like when I was a child. Some burst of careless and strong inspiration. It doesn't last more than a minute, but knowing that your mind can still have these feels like newfound oxygen.

<comment><USER8> What did you change to get to your present state?

<comment><USER7> Sadly nothing tangible I can suggest doing to others. I'm not doing regular physical exercise, nor dramatically different diet. And note that my material situation is half shit (jobless, at my parents, dysfunctional family). So it's not a matter of finding a better spot either.

I guess my point is, don't underestimate your mind and capability for happiness, even in the worst of times, even if counting a decade.

My only hypothesis, is that after trauma you have a finer sense of what is good and bad for you and you kinda filter shit out (be it doubt, anxiety, low self esteem, social pressure) and think/go for simple but deeper fun thoughts/activities that tickle that sense of happiness.

ps: oh also, 30s is also an age where you usually have childrens so childhood is often in your mind. So maybe this is a normal time period to have more attuned brain toward this kind of mindstate.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Close to 40, couple of young kids.

I'm not sure happiness is the thing to think about. It's meaning that's important. Happiness is a sort of evolutionary trickery to help your savannah- dwelling ancestors. Meaning is something they'd have almost no perspective on, given what's happened in between.

For me I've gotten to this stage where I feel like it's a long way between things that are entirely new.

Personally I've seen deaths, illnesses, births, weddings, divorces. Lots of all of them, from near and far.

Professionally, I've been a junior guy and a senior guy. A founder, individual contributor, a leader, a follower. Seen businesses go well, and go under. Been hired and fired, hired and fired others.

In terms of observations about the world, I'm by no means an expert on everything, but whenever something comes up I can more or less place it. I know roughly what X is, and how other people see it. I no longer get that "holy crap, I never knew tax optimization employed so many people". Or "that declarative languages stuff, it's more important than I first realized".

Same with social, economic, and political stuff. I'm not surprised to run into one or another observance anymore. And I've heard the arguments before. Sometimes better made, but the same stuff.

Science and math seem to still have that potential, so I'm gonna mine that. Things like NNs still throw up new things, even if they can be glued to a long history of thought. And observations about physics can still fascinate, though in little pieces.

I'm thinking cybersecurity next as somewhere to dig as well.

<comment><USER10> Do you speak any other languages / have you learned a 2nd language as an adult?

Pretty interesting how simply viewing the world through an ever so slightly different verbal lens can have interesting impacts on perspective. albeit mostly only little things. But as you alluded to, it's mostly only the little things that might catch you off guard anymore.

<comment><USER9> Yeah actually I should have added that. I speak two languages fluently (as in could do a literature degree, you wouldn't know I wasn't native if you heard me on the phone), another as mother tongue, another as 2nd mother tongue due to weird family history, and one from school. In addition lived in yet another language zone, and learning Mandarin as well.

Which is pretty interesting but I wish I had more time to explore it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well, you certainly stop worrying about a lot of stupid shit, so that helps.

<comment><USER12> 40+er here. I feel similarly. I wouldn't say I'm happier but I definitely worry a lot less about saying "no" and BS in general.

What's weird to me is that I never felt that transition happen. It just seems to have occurred over the last few years. A younger me had a real hard time saying no, now it's easy and liberating! I can't tell if it's an age thing or something else though.

<comment><USER13> 38 and recently felt this transition happen. I realized that it's just as silly to constantly dwell on negative thoughts, as it would be on positive ones, so decided to try that for a few days.

I don't think I can transmit this feeling by explaining it, since it's something you can only decide for yourself, but I made the choice to focus on the positive. I still keep the cynical realness in the back of my mind, should I need it, but I don't want to spend most of my time there anymore.

It's been over a month now of much improved mood, hopefully this will stick.

<comment><USER14> Getting into Buddhist philosophy has helped me a lot with this. I'm no bubbly positive spirit or anything but I feel much more content and present over the last few months where I've finally dove in. Ram Dass is known for saying something along the lines of "You spend all of your time loving or hating things. Why not just love everything. It's easier."

If you're interested I'd recommend reading Thic Naht Hahn, Tolle, the Bhagavad Gita (get it with explanations, The Essence Of is great), etc.

I've found that whether or not I practice the teachings just continuing to read about them keeps me mindful.

And daily metta meditation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 53, one kid in high school.

I'm not going to try for an _answer_ here, but I will mention an important confounding factor in studies like these: increasing resistance to peer pressure. I find that older people are better able to resist the "work until you drop" or "keep up with the Joneses" messages that society gives us. We're a bit more careful about avoiding things that drag us down and seeking/developing things that pull us up. Not all, of course. Some are surely worse off in all of these ways than any kid fresh out of college. But _on average_ I think older people are better at maintaining their sense of well- being, independently of whether their actual circumstances are better or worse.

</comment><comment><USER16> Yikes!

Former USSR component States are just......horrific.

The literature of the culture is not very happy ending-ish.

Interesting to see happiness in US females, a very solid and consistent lifelong upward trend after bottoming out in the late 20's, early 30's.

Vast difference from Western European women, almost a mirror opposite.

Western European men are almost a lifelong flatline.

I wonder why that is?

From some reason I'm left with a random thought along the lines of "egalitarianism of happiness" for Western European males.

<comment><USER17> In ex-USSR you need to account for a drastic change of world that 40+ years old had to live through, complete change of world views and moral, loss of social and financial security, and all other horrors of transition period. Very few people got out of it feeling better. As old people die and younger generations replace them I presume that the graph will start to look more and more like the other countries.

<comment><USER18> The collapse of communism opened up significant opportunities for wealth accumulation, but this mostly benefited younger people who were ambitious and willing to bend the rules.

<comment><USER19> > ambitious and willing to bend the rules.

Please don't call organized crime a "willingness to bend the rules."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm 31, have a son and a second one on the way. Happiness is a very bad term to describe quality of life for me, as I feel happy often especially around my family and friends.

On the flip-side the pressures of my financial situation (ok paying job with stock options, involuntary stay-at-home-partner, living in an expensive german city by job requirement, no savings and some debt because of multiple failed startups in my 20s), job responsibility and ambitions (being a good dad while trying to achieve notable success business-wise) have me constantly worrying and doubting myself lately.

I hope in my 40s I've managed to reduce these pressures by either having achieved the success I was looking for or having accepted my position in life so I can live without the constant anxiety of my dreams slowly withering in front of my eyes and solely focus on the things that are enjoyable in the present. With this in mind I can absolutely see my 40s being more enjoyable then my 20s and 30s, either way.

</comment><comment><USER21> What a poorly researched article. More Americans than ever are taking anti- depressants. The trend markedly increases with age.

[https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi...](https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/appi.pn.2017.pp9b2)

"Among both males and females, the study found that people aged 40 and older are more likely to take antidepressants than younger people."

"The study also found that women are two and a half times more likely to take antidepressant medication as males, while 23 percent of women ages 40 to 59 take antidepressants, more than in any other age or sex group."

[https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/10/25/antidepressant- use-...](https://psychcentral.com/news/2011/10/25/antidepressant-use- up-400-percent-in-us/30677.html)

<comment><USER22> The Economist article includes wide-ranging information on the relationship between age and happiness in various parts of the world. The information you've provided addresses a small portion of that (the percentage of the population on anti-depressants as they age).

A population can be both more happy with age and (as a percentage) on more anti-depressants. Some potential explanations:

1\. As we age, we have greater access to healthcare (money/quality employment/government), so those needing anti-depressants are able to get them more regularly

2\. Even with access to healthcare, there may be greater willingness to make changes in life and confront unhappiness as we age

3\. Perhaps those who age are happier overall _because_ they're on anti- depressants. The Economist article doesn't address this possibility.

I feel like the flaw in your argument may be that increased anti-depressant usage among older adults indicates increased depression as a person ages. That doesn't take into account other factors that might cause anti-depressant usage to rise with age.

<comment><USER23> That brings up an interesting philosophical question. If drugs are what causes "happiness", are you really happy?

If you are sad and depressed and have to take medication to be "happy", can we really say you are happy?

If my car can go 200 mph, I wouldn't say I can move 200 mph. But then again drugs change you in a way that cars don't.

Of course there is the question of what is happiness and how can we objectively and empirically qualify it. So the entire question could be moot.

<comment><USER24> I'm going to liken your question to a similar but slightly different example: If I have diabetes, and I need insulin to be "healthy", can I ever truly be healthy?

You can swap that for any condition and any requirement of a substance, or even a requirement not to consume a substance. I personally feel like all your question does is invalidate the use of often needed medications, treatments, or other potentially stigmatized practices by people who need those things.

If I had depression, or anxiety, and someone was basically asking if I can ever be the same as others because I need medication, I think that would hit me incredibly hard. It doesn't feel like accepting or supportive language to me.

<comment><USER23> I'm not trying to be or not to be accepting or supporting. I was just trying to have a philosophical debate on what I felt was an interesting topic. So people's feelings weren't really a consideration of mine.

Your diabetes/insulin example is even more interesting than mine. As a person of color with higher risk of diabetes, I have family members who are diabetic and need insulin. Would I consider my diabetic family members healthy? Do they consider themselves to be healthy? If they were healthy, they wouldn't be diabetic or need insulin. But taking insulin makes them healthy. But then if they were healthy, they wouldn't need insulin, which they do. You really gave me something to think about and maybe even talk to my family members about. Thanks.

Even more, if there is a pill to cure diabetes, is a person who takes the pill more healthy than the person taking insulin?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> 39 and definitely agree. 20th, 30 - living in a poor country, settling in US, small kids, uncertainty.

39 - Silicon Valley salary, comfortable savings, six digits kids college account. Fun job, lots of respect for OSS contributions, great food, biking, fitness, luxury car. On top of that - coming home every day to kids who agree to play any online game I want! Main source of anxiety - aging parents living in a far-away country...

<comment><USER26> My father in his twenties in communist Bulgaria during the late 1970s:

\- lands a stable engineering job in a new factory in a small town right out of university

\- housing not an issue, a big apartment close to the factory is provided by the enterprise

\- has two kids with free health and child-care (zero street crime, drug usage unheard of)

\- the authorities help mom find a job as a teacher in close proximity

\- no fancy food, cars or clothing, but still, no big shortages, either

<comment><USER5> Anecdata, but my grandfather (now passed) was able to support a family of 8 children with a flight engineer job in Ukraine between late 50s to early 80s.

Free housing, international travel, crazy paid leave. 8 healthy successful children, no one starved.

I can't imagine being able to support more than 2 kids ever, without somehow becoming super-successful through sheer luck.

<comment><USER27> People used to spend much less on children. Might've been better for everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Keep in mind that this is a survey of people of each age living during the 2010s. Not a graph of how each generation's happiness has changed as they aged.

<comment><USER29> Yeah that ruins the data for me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> The graph in the US looks like "oh I hit 66, now I can retire, yay!".

Just taking a guess here but if you happened to be 25 with enough money to retire for life, you would have an even higher happiness rating since you achieved financial independence with your whole life ahead of you.

I'm almost done with my 30s and I don't feel that much different than my 20s. If anything I cared less about things as a teenager. As you get older you tend to have more things to think and worry about.

</comment><comment><USER31> I'm personally much happier, but this is due to the fact that:

1\. I make a lot more money now so I'm financially stable

2\. I've transitioned to a career that is rewarding

3\. I don't have as many existential fears/anxieties

4\. I have the drive and discipline to do what I need to do

Not everyone experiences these, and I'd imagine that without them, my 30's would be far worse than my 20's.

</comment><comment><USER32> 42 years old here and I think so far my best years were in my mid 30s when I was old enough to put things into perspective, financially more relaxed, autonomous, still healthy and willing to change or contribute positively to this world, still wanting to explore.

But for me, health issues started to appear in my late 30s and also I felt reaching 40 years old that my energy is depleted. Also I am actually less relaxed especially working in IT because I am starting to feel like a dinosaur (I still do software development). It might sound pessimistic but I think my best years are behind me.

<comment><USER33> I felt the same way in my early 40s. That feeling passed though and in hindsight doesn't really seem to have had much real substance.

I switched to a plant based diet a few years ago and that feels like it rewound the clock physically about ten years. It takes a bit of effort but the payoff has been massive.

<comment><USER34> Hey I did the plant based diet too and I feel great, basically less heavy somehow. And maybe related, I'm not sure, but less issues with teeth

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Self-reported? Asking questions sure is cheaper than doing fMRI scans, but cultural differences might result in significantly higher noise, making different generations' and countries' results uncomparable.

<comment><USER36> What makes you think fMRI scans would produce better results? What would they even be looking for?

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I'm not sure I got _happier_ , but I'm definitely differently happy, and probably happier in a more sustainable way.

I'm financially healthier, my job is better, I'm physically in MUCH better shape at 49 than I was at 40 (like, 60 pounds lighter?), and have a better sense of myself.

</comment><comment><USER38> 54 here. Empty nester with a stable personal and work life. I feel happy most times, a bit of envy when I see younger folks. Borderline financially stable going into retirement. If I stay healthy for the next decade and keep working I will be OK financially.. not yet there. Mortgage 70% paid off.

I feel 'mature' and at peace, now, and sometimes kick myself for not getting into that state at a younger age.

I still enjoy fulltime-coding, no carpal tunnels yet..30 years at the keyboard. (thanks to a mouse/windows/apple aversion). Sometimes I think I've 'failed' in a positive sort of way, by not being aggressive and going into corporate management. Other times, I wonder why am I still coding, my friends all seem to be managing (but cursing their jobs at the same time).

I especially feel good when I see myself as being reasonably healthy and active. Like others, I am getting to accept and look past the things I won't achieve. Strangely, many things (both technical/conceptual and life-related) seem easily grasped, the more I relax and slow down.

</comment><comment><USER16> 50 here.

Married, 2 teenager kids, all in excellent physical and mental health, extended family and friends, no mortgage, good savings, own a profitable company, running a small offshoot startup, Angel co-invest in a handful of startups, chair a veteran support charity, and still serve in the military in a limited specialist capacity.

Beyond my family, I tend to swap around with the above with 1-2 of the above list "deep" and the rest of the list "shallow" in terms of my time/attention.

So my life is like my kindle reading list and podcast queue, overflowing and growing faster than I can ever possibly consume it.

Whack-a-mole comes to mind.

But I'm smiling while I'm playing this chaotic game I created for myself.

Happiness is in my life, but so is melancholy.

I've climbed some mountains(literally and figuratively), regretfully abandoned a few peaks, but remain focused on the mountains yet to climb while I am still able.

I view happiness as the pursuit of it, journey towards it, and the memorable idiosyncrasies of life discovered along the way, rather than the temporary arrival at a destination called happiness.

So journey over destination.

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm 45. My brother died in my arms from brain cancer last year. So I'm going to say "no".

Live is easy before 40. It gets hard quick after that. :-/

<comment><USER40> > Live is easy before 40. It gets hard quick after that. :-/

30's it gets serious, 40's hard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Turning 40 this year with my first kid expected on my birthday. I've progressively become "happier" with each decade (maybe half decade, actually). That's not solely because of this supposed wisdom that comes with age, but much more because I put a lot of time and effort into myself. The flip side of aging is that a lot of my friends never outgrew "bad habits" from younger years and now they are stuck with them. A lot of drinking, quite a bit of pill use, and a lack of purpose outside of work/hanging out/consuming entertainment. I also see older folks fall into the trappings of tying their "happiness" to things that can be purchased, which of course isn't actually happiness.

</comment><comment><USER42> In the US at least those who are retired now won the jackpot historically. Those born in the 40s and 50s experienced the greatest increase in personal wealth ever. Of those born in the late 1940s, 90% eventually made more money than their parents at a given age. Of those born in the early 1980s, only 50% have achieved that. I'm actually somewhat surprised that happiness is as high among the youth as it is. I can chalk that up to good health and ignorance about their financial futures. A lot of happiness gets "pulled forward" from future happiness, financially.

<comment><USER43> I would like to see the same study about millenials in their 40s in 20 years to know how bad we have it in comparison to current 40s..

Im currently in top 5% earning in my country and i still cant afford a good house and the same quality of life level as my parents..

Dont wanna even think about the majority. Those peoole will be living in dept or month to month till the last day of their lifes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Self reported happiness ratings measure mostly just a culture's relationship to arbitrary numerical rating systems. What does "ok" feel like on a scale of 1 to 10? 5? 8?

<comment><USER45> I would even ask "what's the difference between 7 and 8?" Or 2 and 3.

Maybe that's how my brain works, but I always found "1 to 10" scales utterly stupid. Unless you have super clear criteria for each level. I always favor "1 to 5" scales for this reason. Way easier for me to reason in terms of "terrible, bad, ok, good, awesome".

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Happiness is relative. You don't need an age indicator to be happy. Don't wait for 40.

</comment><comment><USER47> Does the study account for survivorship bias ?

<comment><USER40> Exactly. A lot of people's lives get better with age, some don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> I think it does get happier (but a different type of happiness nonetheless) but it comes at a cost. My 30's taught me to care more for fewer and fewer things and focus on what I really want. I think we become wiser as we learn from our mistakes in our 20s and 30s. The cost I'd say is less energy levels.

</comment><comment><USER49> Just turned 40 this week. I don't know if I'm happy then when I turned 30, but I am less stressed.

I had typed out a long paragraph about why I'm less stressed, but I realized the tl;dr is - I figured out what matters to me, and, more importantly, what doesn't. When you figure out what's NOT important, it's like a big weight being off your shoulders.

That and probably decreasing testosterone levels ;)

<comment> pickle-wizard I'm not quite 40, but am happier now than when I was younger. A key part of that is financial. After 20 years of working I have a nice nest egg saved up. It is not enough enough that I can retire, but it is enough that I don't have to worry.

When I was younger, I was always stressed about how I would pay the bills. When layoffs would go around I would be super stressed , worrying about what if it happens to me. I'd also be stuck dealing with some asshole boss because I needed the money again causing more stress.

Right now there is a rumor going around that my company is not doing too well financially. In the past I would have been worried about it. Now my only thought is if I do get laid off, is where I do some traveling to. If it is during the summer, think I'll go spend some time in the Canadian Rockies. If during the winter, I'll go back to Australia.

<comment><USER50> I'm in my late 20s and a nest egg is years away, but having a a basic emergency fund and financial safety net did wonders for my peace of mind. For those who haven't done it yet, I think it's the most important financial goal to hit as early in your career as you can.

Long-term disability insurance and life insurance are nice to have too. Patio11 has been preaching this [1] but it took me a while to really get it. The technical detail of "own occupation" is really important here.

[1]: [https://twitter.com/patio11/status/988094196274769920](https://twitter.com/patio11/status/988094196274769920)

<comment> pickle-wizard Yes long term disability is a must have. I usually get it through my employer.

When I was laid off last year I did have the option to continue the disability insurance, but it was a bit more expensive that what I was paying as an employee. IIRC it went from $50/month to $100/month.

What is nice is that my new employer picks up the tab 100%, but it is only 60%. Usually in the past I would pay a bit extra to get 75%, but that is not an option.

I've never thought about private disability insurance before, but it is something that I should look into.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I think this rating does not take into consideration local culture. For example, I don't think India has a culture that makes you introspect whether one is 'happy'. How about asking whether one is unhappy? My suspicion is that India will score low (as in, not unhappy) on that also.

</comment><comment><USER52> My happiness level increased a lot after 40. My hypothesis is that the this is because it took me that long to realize that I'm better off living my life on my own terms and paying a lot less attention to what others think of how I live my life, what my interests are, and so forth.

</comment><comment><USER53> after-40? that's mid-life crisis, period.

parents are getting really old, kids are still teenagers, jobs are not as secure anymore, physical condition is starting to show its age.

whatever it is, just live with a good mood, everyday could be a better day, no matter how old that is.

</comment><comment><USER54> The strong continuous up slope after 60 or so in the US makes sense. Retirees _in general_ have it really good here. They are a massive voting block with a lot of political power, allowing them to tip the scales in their favor financially, from taxes to federal and state subsidies/programs which entirely benefit older folks.

I'm surprised that "women in their 20s" happiness level is so low. I always thought of that demographic as living life on "easy mode". They are highly educated compared to average, still have their health, energy, and looks, and without as much pressure to do the career thing as similarly aged men. Maybe just showing my own biases.

</comment><comment><USER55> [https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLND1JCRq8Vuh3f0P5qjrS...](https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLND1JCRq8Vuh3f0P5qjrSdb5eC1ZfZwWJ)

This is a really interesting series that I've been getting into. John Varvaeke is seriously underrated on YouTube and this series about awakening from the meaning crisis explains a lot about how modern society is focusing on the wrong things. Highly recommended!

</comment><comment><USER56> Not really age-related. But, I definitely now believe concussions affect happiness/depression. As someone in my late 40s who has endure a few concussions, and looking back, can almost definitively state that this physical condition has a part in my mental state. So by correlation...I don't think the question is anything but plausible.

</comment><comment><USER57> No. 2 kids, just took a huge loan that will take 25 years to pay of (I'll be 67). One heart attack (stress related) under the belt. Working 10-12 a day in a shitty country. Almost no savings.

I see successful guys answering in a "look at me how great I am" style. FU

</comment><comment><USER58> A while back, a longtime friend posted a photo of 21 year old me on Facebook (over 30 years ago now). He asked what would surprise 21 year old me the most about today's me. I said "Mostly that I keep calling him 'dumbass'."

</comment><comment><USER59> I have never associated 40 year olds and older with happiness at all. If the headline said grumpier I would agree.

<comment><USER60> That is because those of us who are older and happier tend to be less vocal. Go be young, be silly, be loud, make mistakes. The happy old folks will just smile and let you be, knowing that nobody can help but be who they are, and be the age that they are.

But the unhappy ones - they will grump at you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> I turned 40 today, so this is good news.

</comment><comment><USER62> Almost 42, I believe I'm much more content than happy. That's what has made all the difference.

</comment><comment><USER63> I literally laughed out loud at how the former USSR states happiness just flatlines as time goes on

<comment><USER26> In the USSR, you don't look for happiness, happiness looks for you.

<comment><USER64> I know you meant this as a joke but there's some applicability here. Seeking happiness can produce a lot of negative emotions, as you become very aware that many other people are way happier than you (or at the very least, show off a high level of happiness while hiding the details). It's possible to get into this state where things are never happy enough in this pursuit of happiness.

But all the happy people I know have a deep appreciation for the little things in life, a gratitude for whatever good comes their way, no matter how slim it is. In that respect, they are optimizing for allowing all bits of happiness that comes their way to actually have an effect on them.

<comment><USER26> Growing up in a former Eastern bloc country transitioning towards capitalism (Bulgaria), I was able to witness the change in people's behaviours and social expectations. Greed and arrogance had suddenly become the order of the day in the 1990s, in exchange for the ability to gain status and material possessions previously unavailable (Western cars, modern clothing, etc.).

As a result, our current society is much more atomised and the feeling of connectedness is lost to a large degree. In the past people looked at happiness as a way to exist in a group, now it's everyone's own game of "finding truth and happiness" (often at the cost of screwing up others, even people from your family).

<comment><USER65> Very similar thing happened in Poland. I remember growing up in the 80s in a typical soviet-style appartment block house of 30 flats. My mother used to know almost every family in the building, she roughly knew what was going on in their lives, sometimes helped them in small ways or have gotten the help from them. It was like a small village community. Partly it was dictated by neccessity - due to constant shortages of goods, it was crucial to have "connections", that could help you buy things like refrigerators, cars or even stood in line for bread for you.

After the transformation of 1989, which in Poland was performed by the government in the form of the "shock therapy" (their term), lots of inequality appeared almost right away. Some people did well, some were barely getting by, and some lost their livelihood and were in very bad shape. The community atmosphere of the building vanished, it started to become vandalized or occupied by drunkards/homeless. Ties between families have loosened, the "connections" became unnecessary as the material needs were now efficiently satisfied by the market forces and basic capitalism. The building is now just a bunch of people that share the same roof, but otherwise don't want to have anything to do with each other (as is standard in other capitalist countries).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> black-alert depends heavily on your bank account

</comment><comment><USER66> I certainly did not. But a sample size of 1 is insignificant, so there's that.

<comment><USER67> Make that 2.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Maybe unhappy people who are 40 and older are more likely to die?

<comment><USER69> Everyone 40 and older is more likely to die, regardless of how happy they are.

<comment><USER70> This is a little myopic, GP is clearly trying to posit that "there are less unhappy people above 40 because they are more death-prone than their happy peers".

I've seen some science headlines that sound like that's the case, but I haven't read the papers so take it with a dumptruck full of salt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> What happens if you wait till your 40s before having kids?

<comment><USER72> You will be a old men when you have teenagers. Sounds like a great combo. But kids is always better then no kids. So go for it. Life finds ways.

<comment><USER73> Kids is not "always better then no kids". Not having kids means you have less stress & more free time.

Furthermore, there are some tough moral questions you need to answer when creating a living being in this world. It's unfortunate that having kids is the default and there seems to be very little public dialogue about the moral dimensions of it all.

<comment><USER72> There is something that goes off the rails, when you dont have at least one kid.

Look at people who do not have one in there elder years. Look at them driving around dogs in buggys, dressing them up like replacement toddlers, look at those faces, tell me that they are truely happy.

In the coldwar days, there where a lot of people who argued in a similar line- club of rome, end of days, and so they went and got a vasectomy. Which you can not easily reverse.

Result: Lots of sad faces, late stage in life. Sometimes logic doesent cut it, and this is one of those moments - dont break the chain of life, daughter/son - is one of this moments.

I dont encourage you to have many kids- one or two should do. But yes, having a navel, that links all the way to the first mamal, and see that history continue, something of one beeing immortal, learning to walk and talk - <USER2> is awesome.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Interesting that in the former USSR states if person is old enough to have lived during communism you will be unhappy under capitalism and the more you lived in the previous system the harder is to get used to the new system.

<comment><USER75> That's exactly the opposite impression I get from literally everyone I know who has lived (as an adult) in the former USSR and its satellite states (including many people who currently live in eastern Europe). Whether they're "happy" or not I can't say but nobody seems to want to return to a world where you can't buy a light-bulb unless you know someone. Many of them often make grim jokes about what that world was like.

<comment><USER76> Are these people who have _lived (a signficant portion of their critically- thinking lives) under Communism_ or have an impression (mostly from parents, education, upbringing etc.) of what it was like under Communism in the past, relative to current times.

I've certainly had the same impressions as you from friends, but most of them would be under 35/40.

<comment><USER75> Yes. I'm talking about people who are 50+.

<comment><USER65> I know one person who is like that (in Poland). Mostly, she's bitter about how much she is exploited under capitalism - she could only find illegal work, so she's paid below minimum wage, has only 5-10 days of paid vacation and basically no worker rights whatsoever. Plus she has to worry about being fired and starving on the street. Whereas under communism, the state was officially obliged with providing her with job, so there was no fear of unemployment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Is the source research for this public or is it (like the full text of the article) also paywalled?

Have read the teaser abstract and leading diagrams, and my main curiosity is how the groupings break down granularly: e.g. former-USSR & "Western Europe" are both _extremely!_ internally diverse. Given the averages for both, I wouldn't be surprised if some WE countries are even above 8, and if some former-USSR's are lower again.

* India, US and China are also internally diverse, but at least are each individual countries.

<comment><USER77> The article is almost complete junk. It has however served as a catalyst for a somewhat interesting discussion here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> Is this one case where Betteridge's law ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)) doesn't quite apply?

</comment><comment><USER79> No.

</comment><comment><USER80> I think it's being old enough, to be financially independent enough, to not take shit from anyone.

47 and paid off mortgage this week. Zero debt and have 1 kids college saved up in cash, and low 7 figure retirement savings.

Still need a job for other kids college and medical insurance. I'll keep working at my employer until I drop dead, as I like the technical work, but I'm on the 3 day plan now. 3 bad days in a row and I'm gone, and I made them aware of that.

<comment><USER81> What do you mean "3 bad days in a row" and you're gone?

That seems like an extremely fragile and precarious situation to put your employer into! No one likes ultimatums, it could hasten your termination.

<comment><USER80> "it could hasten your termination"

Yes, that's part of the happiness; me not giving a shit. An employers ideal engineer is someone young with kids and a fat mortgage.

A financially independent graybeard with loads of institutional and domain knowledge; they have less control.

My employer has participated in stack ranking and walked out 25 year employees with 5 minutes notice. 3 days is my being generous.

<comment><USER82> That "young kids & fat mortgage" is god to honest truth. I knew a manager that celebrated his reports buying their first cars or houses as it increased his leverage over them. Sickening, but true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> One does wonder how much central role does puberty (rise and decline thereof) play in these happiness trends.

And note that arranged marriage is the norm over in India (thus explaining the inverse trend?).

</comment><comment><USER83> Why is Australia & Canada not in the graph?

<comment><USER84> All too happy, would depress everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER85> This is an interesting AI problem to explore.

<comment><USER86> Can you explain how this article relates to AI? Alternatively, can you tell me what article you meant to comment on?

<comment><USER85> I mean the question: Do people become happier after 40.

This is a valid AI problem i think.</comment></comment></comment>


New Delhi Crime Capital of India, Reality check - <AUTHOR> http://home.iitk.ac.in/~sankush/heatmap/

<comment><USER2> It would be helpful to highlight the source of data. Currently I could only access it via an almost hidden "About" button. [http://home.iitk.ac.in/~sankush/heatmap/about.html](http://home.iitk.ac.in/~sankush/heatmap/about.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> I've made it more visible now.</comment></comment>


"Funes the Memorious" and Other Cases of Extraordinary Memory (2019) - <AUTHOR> https://thereader.mitpress.mit.edu/borges-memory-funes-the-memorious/ <comment><USER2> At its core, Funes is not really about memory - I've always felt that is a convenient hook to hang a piece of metaphysics. I prefer to regard it as a parable about identity and what it means that a thing is a particular thing.

Maybe it helps to regard it as an elaborate variation on The Ship of Theseus: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_Theseus)

Note that it's many years since I read it and I tended to read Borges to avoid having to read actual books on philosophy. ;)

<comment><USER3> "To think is to ignore (or forget) differences, to generalize, to abstract. In the teeming world of Ireneo Funes there was nothing but particulars..."

Funes would never have invented the Turing machine, because for him, instead of an infinite tape with a finite repertoire of symbols, a single square with an infinite repertoire of symbols would have sufficed.

<comment><USER4> For him, even the single square would not exist, only its many many ways it could be. And each separately.

> "No sólo le costaba comprender que el símbolo genérico perro abarcara tantos > individuos dispares de diversos tamaños y diversa forma; le molestaba que el > perro de las tres y catorce (visto de perfil) tuviera el mismo nombre que el > perro de las tres y cuarto (visto de frente)."

> "Not only he struggled to understand that the generic symbol for dog would > encompass so many disparate individuals of many sizes and diverse shapes; he > was upset that the dog at three and fourteen (from the side) had the same > name that the dog at quarter past three (from the front)."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I recently bougth his book "Ficciones". Still reading other books first, but very excited to read his stories for the first time.

</comment><comment><USER6> > and the entertainment pages promote Pirates of the Caribbean, in > Technicolor, and a new movie starring Olivia de Havilland and Henry Fonda at > $1.50 a seat.

Is this a hypothetical? Because I cannot find anything about a Pirates movie from the 40s.

<comment><USER7> [https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_(film)](https://wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Black_Swan_\(film\))

There are almost twenty pirate films from the 40s alone.

<comment><USER6> But none titled 'Pirates of the Caribbean' \- a curious error in a historical piece. It's most likely Black Swan since it was released that year. I'd love to see the ad page the author is referring to.</comment></comment></comment>