Privacy Fundamentalism - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2019/privacy-fundamentalism/ <comment><USER2> > suggesting that Stratechery includes trackers from Amazon because I rely on > AWS is ridiculous.

On the contrary. Suggesting that Amazon _aren 't_ tracking requests to Cloudfront is ridiculous.

You don't need to have malicious intent in order to accidentally send your user's data to third-party companies. Every single time you load any resource from anywhere, you create _at minimum_ a line in their log file that contains your user's IP address, their User-Agent string, the content their browser requested, and the time they requested it.

EDIT: Personally, I no longer load any resources from third-party domains in new code I write. Bootstrap, jquery, etc. get served from the same domain as the rest of the website. Google Analytics is an absolute non-starter. And if you're concerned about wasting loading time or bandwidth on popular assets, you can use the "integrity" attribute to let the browser reuse a cached file from a different domain.

<comment><USER3> > Suggesting that Amazon aren't tracking requests to Cloudfront is ridiculous.

Counting a solitary log that an IP loaded a resource is hardly the tracking that is harmful. This is the absolutism that derails the discussion for me. In one step, you have forsworn any service which doesn't own it's entire stack from CDN to network switches to racks on the data center. How many websites do this? Worth noting that HN doesn't and is therefore allowing "third-parties" to "track" you. And yet you have no problem using HN.

<comment><USER4> I don't believe HN does! If so, we should change it. What third party tracking do you see?

<comment><USER3> HN doesn't own their entire stack. Since there is one or more third parties involved, those third parties are tracking you as you read this ... or so GP would have you believe.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Usually I think stratechery is spot on. But though I agree with a lot of points and it ends on a great note, I have some strong disagreements in this one!

(1) Anything loaded from a third party is potentially a tracker until proven otherwise. If you load Google Analytics, Google gets pinged some information about every visitor. Typekit definitely collects tracking data, although they claim it is anonymized and not identifiable. I believe same goes for New Relic, and both share (or sell?) aggregate user data to other parties as far as I know. Etc.

(2) A beneficial outcome from Apple's stance and the privacy debate would be self-hosted analytics and login-type services that don't connect to any third parties. A site like stratchery could pay for a license to use this software, but host it on their own servers, and have a strong privacy policy around what data is recorded/shared.

<comment><USER6> The response to (2) is likely to be more proxying of requests. Websites will still want to outsource and they can send data server-side, via rpc.

The current way of doing things via client-side requests is transparent to any web developer who can use the network panel in a debugger, though not to end users. Do it all server-side and nobody will be able to see what's going on. It will be more like how credit card data is shared.

<comment><USER5> That's a good point that it could decrease transparency in practice (of course in theory sites can already do server-side data sharing now). But it's beneficial if we have strong enough requirements for disclosing / privacy policies. It makes the website directly responsible since they're handling the data.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I found this article incredibly naive. A recent stint in ad tech showed just how deep the multi-company coordination and orchestration go. Assuming that linking to Google's fonts or images doesn't expose your users or that Adobe's Typekit isn't part of Adobe's Advertising Cloud seems like putting your head in the sand.

Particularly pollyannish is the author's handwaving Google Analytics away with an "only for counting conversions". Holy Crap!

<comment><USER8> Precisely. The article seems to take the tone of "All of this stuff isn't really for tracking" when that's not strictly true. Instead, _He_ doesn't use it for tracking, but that doesn't mean the data isn't still generated and used by some of the third parties. Even if I grant him the necessity of doing things this way, as he seems to claim, that just bolsters the argument that invasive tracking is baked in to nearly everything, that you simply can't do business like this without it happening.

<comment><USER9> > _Even if I grant him the necessity of doing things this way, as he seems to > claim, that just bolsters the argument that invasive tracking is baked in to > nearly everything, that you simply can 't do business like this without it > happening._

It's much the same problem as (among other examples) mobile device permissions.

Things have improved somewhat, but for years every Android app asked for permissions like "view and edit the files on your device". 99% of the time that was innocuous. Saving a single user setting could require creating and viewing a file. It's easy to see why devs with no good alternative would have been frustrated to hear "hey, why do you want permission to see all my stuff?!" But that didn't make it good or secure. Flashlight apps would get file permissions to save a single setting, then hoover up as much data as they could get with that permission.

The problem was precisely that the innocent, 'right' way of using permissions was potentially a channel for abuse. If people object that loading a single font from Typekit is inherently a violation of privacy, maybe they're fundamentalists. But in practice, what I see people point out is that it creates a _threat_ to privacy, that the entire ecosystem of data access in inseparable from the ecosystem of tracking and advertising. And that's absolutely true.

<comment><USER10> With regards to Android apps asking for permissions like "view and edit the files on your device" \-- I only recently stumbled into something about this while helping a friend with understanding app submission.

There is/was a long-standing bug on Android that as far as I can tell Google never completely fixed (though I might be wrong). For apps that have both an .APK and .OBB file, the Play Store would save the .OBB file to the user's device with the incorrect file owner. This would cause the app to fail (or at least the app wouldn't see the .OBB file already there and would, I think, re- download it). The workaround involved requiring the app developer to ask for this permission, even though their actual app didn't need it, in order to avoid this issue. ANother workaround was to ask users to _reboot_ their phone, since (I think) the permission would be corrected after a reboot (not sure, didn't delve too deeply into that in particular).

For those that are unfamiliar - .APK files are the application packages and they're limited in size by the Google Play Store. To get around the size limit, developers can create a larger .OBB file that they could host on Play (I think?) but then have to download. Google then implemented automatic downloading of the .OBB file by the Play Store, but as far as I can tell never got it right. The whole thing seems to be getting superceded by a new format called AAB (Android Application Bundle).

See: [https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37544273](https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37544273)

Followed by: [https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37075181](https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/37075181)

For some context: [https://forum.unity.com/threads/android-app-bundle-how-to- up...](https://forum.unity.com/threads/android-app-bundle-how-to-upload-game- larger-than-100-mb.623104/#post-4716944)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article kinda beats itself with his examples. E.g. he includes javascript from adobe for a font. Like why is that?

I don't know if Adobe uses that for tracking, but they very well could and that's hard to deny. They could control everything his page, because he uses a font from them. Sometimes there are tradeoffs, but there's no possibly legit reason for this. A font is a static file that changes never. You don't need Javascript to load a font and you certainly don't need to include something from a thirdparty host.

<comment><USER12> Typekit (acquired by Adobe) makes licensing and using web fonts MUCH easier than it is to do without. I share your distrust and dislike of Adobe, but let's not pretend that there's no value to that particular service.

<comment><USER13> I am a typography nerd but let's be real here: web fonts are not so important that you should trade away your visitors' privacy. A CSS system fonts approach [0] is not only great for user privacy but results in better performance, security and more consistent GUIs.

[0] See [https://flaviocopes.com/css-system-fonts/#popular- websites-u...](https://flaviocopes.com/css-system-fonts/#popular-websites-use- system-fonts) . In the future, web devs might reliably use "font-family: system-ui;"

<comment><USER14> Typekit uses the same CSS system. One massive reason people use services like it is licensing. It's a pretty cheap service, no per-font costs and you are sure that the way fonts are delivered is legal.

I am not using one of these services. I had to pay $600 for a font family, still have a page view count in my license (I am supposed to track that myself and purchase a bigger license if it exceeds) and I have to make sure fonts are not easy to download (license requires me to figure out how to prevent downloads myself).

So it's not hard to see why Typekit is very appealing — you don't have to deal with any of that.

<comment><USER15> Or you can use one of the many fonts under a free license, e.g. anything from Google Fonts. (Which, of course, you download and then self-host.)

<comment><USER14> Well, of course. But limiting design to just open source fonts is really restrictive.

<comment><USER16> Is there no one selling licenses and giving you the files directly these days? There's zero technical need to involve JavaScript in the process.

<comment><USER14> There are! The second paragraph in my first comment goes into detail on this. You can purchase the font and get the files, but it's still on you to track views and make sure the files are delivered to the browser safely (preventing easy downloads).

Edit: it seems this entire thread is heavily downvoted -- both sides of the argument. Is it off-topic? Bad faith? Why the downvotes?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> He's saying many of these resources are necessary to run the site, and that it takes effort to _not_ collect data. I'm not disputing that, but isn't it somewhat besides the point? The data is still generated & collected, even if there's no intention of it being used. (which doesn't mean it won't be used at some point). If anything, the argument from privacy would point this out as a deep systemic flaw in the system, that even sites that have no interest in any of this data still have little choice but to generate it if they want to avoid laborious & costly custom solutions to the task of running such a business.

<comment><USER17> > the data is still generated & collected, even if there's no intention of it > being used.

As an aside, this practice is explicitly banned by the GDPR: if you cannot justify the collection of data based on actual, current business requirements, you cannot legally collect and store that data. From [https://gdpr- info.eu/recitals/no-39/](https://gdpr-info.eu/recitals/no-39/):

 _the specific purposes for which personal data are processed should be explicit and legitimate and determined at the time of the collection of the personal data._

<comment><USER18> Oh chucks, they put up a fence post. No way around it, I guess, we'll turn around and we'll hold ourselves accountable, if nobody else will. I already see ministries of privacy on the horizont rivaling the IRS in proportions and geez am I glad that nobody is gaming that system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I too remember being annoyed at the thought that my blog wouldn't have accurate analytics anymore if people's ad blockers blocked Google Analytics from loading.

Then I realized tracking even for "benign" purposes isn't a right for website operators and we need to have more respect for our users' computing decisions.

I took Google Analytics off completely. Had no analytics for a while, then tried out my own install of Matomo. That way at least if I'm allowed to "track" my audience, it's using an open source tool running on my own server.

My point is that I don't agree with the author at all. Every third-party resource is a potential vector for abuse, and even mere fonts or payment processors aren't immune from critique. Does this cause hassles for website operators? Sure. But that's the price of doing business online in 2019.

The web desperately needs a privacy course-correction, and the more operators resist the inevitable consumer backlash, the more they will shoot themselves in the foot.

<comment><USER20> On the flip side, access to my website's content isn't a right either.

<comment><USER16> And the HTTP protocol gives you and your users a way to negotiate a fair and mutually-beneficial deal. In it's usual implementation, it's called auth, or more commonly, _a (pay)wall_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The original article:

> Each dot represents one tracking resource (like a script, tracking pixel or > image), _which would be blocked by an ad-blocker_

[emphasis added]

Immediately after excerpting that, the critique:

> This strikes me as an overly broad definition of tracking; as best I can > tell, Manjoo and his team counted every single script, image, or cookie that > was loaded from a 3rd-party domain, no matter its function.

Ad blockers typically don't just indiscriminately block all third-party resources. I suspect that the author simply isn't aware of which things are and aren't tracking users, and assumes that they don't track users unless that's their explicit purpose.

<comment><USER22> > Ad blockers typically don't just indiscriminately block all third-party > resources. I suspect that the author simply isn't aware of which things are > and aren't tracking users, and assumes that they don't track users unless > that's their explicit purpose.

Yep, _and_ they seem to misunderstand the Webkit page too. As I read it, they're not even planning to block ad and tracking scripts at all. What they are blocking is:

1\. Cross-site tracking (e.g. using a stored UUID or tracking cookie)

2\. "Covert" means of tracking that fingerprint users (and therefore enable cross site tracking that can't be otherwise blocked by the browser).

I don't see any evidence that the Webkit devs consider third party requests to be cross-site tracking _per se_. You and I (rightfully) worry about tracking sites correlating users via IP addresses and other means, but what Webkit seems to be planning is simply isolating individual sites, kind of like Firefox's containers. It's not much. Maybe there's hope they'll clean referers too?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> "Are...are _we_ the baddies?"

Yes, you are. You are part of the system which tracks the consumer laity.

</comment><comment><USER24> I can't help but notice this blog entry renders fine with all JavaScript disabled: [https://0x0.st/z4bi.png](https://0x0.st/z4bi.png)

Despite this, the site wants to load 15 or more first party scripts and more still from third parties. Considering these scripts are evidently not necessary for the reader's benefit, what purpose am I to assume they serve that isn't contrary to my interests?

<comment><USER13> Most sites add analytics by default without having any CRO strategy in place let alone understanding of the privacy implications. It's just a case of "let's just add analytics and maybe we might find it useful sometime in the future". It doesn't help that Google Analytics, the bigger provider out there, has an atrocious, maze-like GUI that makes understanding of these matters difficult for even experienced web professionals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The key reason people have problem with data-mongers is deceit. Not that _absolutist_ do not understand _why_ privacy is violated, but _how_. For instance,

\- Data Collection: No way to opt-out. Ex: Analytics.

\- User Studies: The default is almost always opt-in. Ex: Siri recordings.

This, coupled with the fact that a majority of internet and smartphone users do not understand the second thing about the ad-industry makes this a racket of gargantuan scale.

Also, whether one pays for the services or not, tech companies have made it a routine to encroach upon personal data to increase revenue / profits without providing real value or any value to the end-user: There's always a grave concern of what happens to the data collected when a tech company goes down- under, for a reason.

\- Third-party services: Blatant disregard of end-user's privacy with separate terms, conditions, and policy to first-party. Ex: Payment gateways selling purchase data.

\- First-party services: Often weasel-worded yet ever-changing, generic and vague privacy policy. And, more often than not, eventually, user ends up being the product. Ex: Anti-virus software / Other free google services like mail, search, maps.

The concerns raised by so-called _fundamentalists_ isn't so much privacy- related but the kind of strategy it entails, with companies from all corners vying for ever decreasing attention time-span to keep them hooked, addicted so they can show more ads, coarse them into buying things they don't want, manipulate them to further someone else's political motives, sway their thoughts to sell more outrage and anxiety, expose them to content just to push the right buttons, target their emotions to control their behaviour... aren't all of these dark patterns abominable? Aren't these in-use by the multi- billion dollar Internet businesses because its _easy_ strategy?

There's more to privacy violations than meets the eye. I expected a more in- depth analysis than concluding that a compromise in privacy and security is okay 'cause it helps weed-out terrorists and pedophiles, and create successful business, like stratechery, online.

Also read: [https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/06/superhuman-i...](https://mikeindustries.com/blog/archive/2019/06/superhuman- is-spying-on-you)

</comment><comment><USER26> I find the last few paragraphs about Apple and Webkit to be super... ad hominem? "Apple is taking a stance with Webkit to be absolutist, but Apple violated the privacy of their users with Siri, so why should they be absolutist about Webkit" I really didn't follow that or think it was relevant to the actual discussion around tracking protection at all.

I understand the point about 'gray area', however there is truly a difference in power here, and end-users are never accurately informed about what of their data is available to 3rd party advertisers. In fact, I don't think content producers like Stratechery know what data ad trackers track and how it's used.

There is a problem about funding good content like Stratechery, but surely mass surveillance by private corporations isn't the only option?

</comment><comment><USER27> I want everyone to be able to go on a website, checkout products in an online shop, look up the menu of a restaurant or post on a forum with an alias, without anyone keeping track. I want everyone to write emails encrypted by default. I want the data transaction to be transparent, temporary and local, like when I decide to buy something online, and need to give them my address. I want services like Siri, Alexa to work local, offline. I want authentication services using public/private keys.

I want all of those things set in stone, not to be overruled by a default checkbox or "I agree" button.

I want a massive, global deletion effort of all the data that had been acquired during the last decades.

</comment><comment><USER28> > the widespread creation and spread of data is inherent to computers and the > Internet

It is not. It is that way because we developed software to he that way

Edit: I don't beleave in absolute privacy, we never had that, but Ibdo think people get surprised and find things creepy for a reason: we are abusing the trust that people had put on us software developers and hardware manufacturers

</comment><comment><USER29> Article without the tracking: [https://beta.trimread.com/articles/146](https://beta.trimread.com/articles/146)

<comment><USER30> What an excellent tool! Noted for future reference.

Is TrimRead itself open source?

<comment><USER31> It looks a lot like [https://outline.com](https://outline.com)

<comment><USER30> Except I can't even visit the landing page of Outline without the page trying to jam analytics packages down my throat. The ubiquity of that garbage is the topic at hand, and it's refreshing to see tools that _don 't_ take that route.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Do you guys talk to normal people? I do sometimes.

They don't understand that this is going on.

I think when (if?) the normals ever figure out what we're doing to them they will round us up and burn us.

<comment><USER24> I suspect this may be true of many industries, but I don't know it because with respect to those other industries, I am among the normals.

But I definitely agree with respect to our industry. Right now the normals seem apathetic, but if they knew they'd be outraged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> We are deeply embedded in an era of surveillance-capitalism. Technology has made it trivial to passively gather information about people and inexpensive to store data indefinitely, so companies gather, stockpile, and re-sell everything they can. Crucially, the future applications of this data are not limited by our current imagination.

I find the dismissive attitude of this article extremely disappointing. Bad actors are getting away with overreach because they are given the benefit of the doubt. Stop enabling them. Re-evaluate every aspect of your interaction with third-party services and truly consider what they _could_ be doing, from the least-generous perspective available.

Consider how many "best practices" and tools for web development (including browsers themselves) are ultimately designed and popularized by companies with an open interest in spying on users. Technologies like CDNs, AMP, embeddable analytics packages, generic authentication providers, and social sharing buttons all provide _some_ utility or convenience, and may be acceptable or appropriate in some contexts, but it is absurd to consider them harmless. If you have a website, the buck stops with you.

Countless websites- including Stratechery- are literally selling the privacy of their users for kilobytes of hosting costs or mild conveniences. Step up your game, and don't pretend you _can 't_ treat your audience with more respect.

</comment><comment><USER33> > the truth is that all of these "trackers" make Stratechery possible.

Do they? I use Ublock Origin in hard mode[1], meaning just about everything is blocked. Every third-party domain is blocked, as are webfonts and first-party JavaScript. Yet, the site works and I can read the article without a problem.

You could make the case that Stripe is necessary to "make Stratechery possible" because it allows people to pay for memberships, but all the others seem superfluous.

[1]: [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking- mode:-hard-m...](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Blocking-mode:-hard- mode)

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm quite torn that privacy protection tools, which I use liberally as a consumer, can foil fraud-detection tools that I also rely on in my business.

Browser/device fingerprinting is one of these things... bad when used to track you for advertising purposes across the web, good when it can be used to prevent account hijacking ("Hey, it looks like you're signing in with a new device! Please enter the code we just sent you via email.").

It seems to be a "this is why we can't have nice things" situation. That harder it is to identify someone, the harder it is to take proactive measures to defeat credential stuffing attacks and so forth.

<comment><USER35> You really shouldn't be fingerprinting at all. As sexy as a risk department may find it. Imagine what the social interaction would be like if you implemented that functionality in the physical world, but replace the computer with the user's home, and the service as you.

Before even so much as a how-Dee-do, you're running all over the house cataloging the exact position of everything in order to "decrease your risk exposure."

This would get you shot in some locales. Is it truly a mystery why this type of intrusion going on makes people uncomfortable.

It's one thing to explicitly ask to do so. Implicitly doing so without giving the client a chance to refuse is both rude and exploitive.

<comment><USER34> As much as I wish it was unnecessary, we run a cryptocurrency platform. There are _constant_ attempts to sign up using fake/stolen credentials, and we have to make sure our users don't fall prey to various attacks that could lead to total loss of their assets. Fingerprinting isn't the be-all and end-all and it's not 100% reliable, but it's extremely useful as part of a broad set of signals for detecting bad actors.

The comparison to a physical address is silly - the address _is_ the fingerprint. If I can meet you at your house, and obtain a legal document demonstrating that you own the house, I don't need to do anything else. There is no such equivalent for most internet-connected devices, or at least not one that's obtainable outside of law enforcement applications.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I'm all for fundamentalism on that front but among the undesired consequences listed those that related to SSO and 3rd party auth are indeed problematic. Not that I think that the current protocols are holy and should be kept all at cost, on the contrary, I find the privacy issues in those solution very problematic. I avoid using Facebook or Google auth for any 3rd party service.

Nevertheless, at least in enterprise environments, there is a very strong and justified need for federated auth. This is issue that must be solved to keep businesses and users secure.

</comment><comment><USER37> I remember when I was young, being told not to say or do anything online I didn't want others to know (private messaging being the exception). When did we collectively forget this lesson?

<comment><USER38> Among other things, the line between online and local to your computer has been blurred quite a bit. Before all this JavaScript tracking became common, the only information a website would get when you visited a page was... the page you loaded and the IP you loaded it from. A third-party may have gotten similar information if there are embedded resources.

Now, though, thanks to client-side analytics, that website and any of those third parties may be recording your mouse movements, checking to see how long you stay on the page, fingerprinting you based on what addons/fonts you have and what your screen size is, etc.

It's more than just on the web. If you took a photo on a camera, it stayed on the camera. If you take a photo on your phone... is cloud sync enabled? Because it might be by default. I was pretty shocked at how pushy the preloaded apps were when I recently bought a budget Android phone.

</comment></comment><comment> vincent-toups Happy to be a privacy fundamentalist and I'd also be happy to see the entire infrastructure that pays for the internet grind to a halt in favor of pervasive privacy.

</comment><comment><USER16> Other points seem to be mostly covered in comments, so I'll address this:

> _Privacy legislation like GDPR has strengthened incumbents like Facebook and > Google, and made it more difficult for challengers to succeed._

That's _not a bad thing_. We don't need a thriving, innovative adtech market. We need adtech _to die_.

<comment><USER39> I agree that GDPR has strengthened incumbents. I also agree that Facebook and Google are dangerous. But I think that appropriately siloed ad-tech can be valuable. The problem is that ad-tech refers to _all_ technology aimed at advertising. These range form useful to creepy. I am omitting the outright fraud from this.

For example, things like television attribution providers which listen on your smartphone to try to watermark advertisements and see whether you bought something that was advertised on the RV or radio are pretty creepy. And I have heard too many anecdotes of Facebook ads showing up after conversations not to suspect Facebook is doing the same with conversations (though I can't prove it and can't be sure). The level of intrusiveness there is very high and the creepiness factor is similarly troubling.

But now let's look at something very different. Suppose you look at providers that simply do analytics on something like purchases and only share the data with the client. To my mind there isn't so much wrong with this. And you could have third party referees that can then referee disputes on whether a given click lead to a purchase or not, allowing better payment models. Those are not so problematic.

Everything I have seen in the advertising industry (print and online, etc) is that it is rife with all kinds of problems. And yet the industry exists because advertising is an important part of reaching an audience business-wise and so people put up with all the crap. So I am not sure that ad-tech needs to die. We need a better ad-tech industry. One without the creepy parts.

To this end, I think we need more things like GDPR, not less.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Every now and then we see articles which dissect how the Internet works, and then are appalled at all the supposed privacy violations. Trackers are part of the web and have been for a long time. I don't see them going away soon. They _fund_ the web and keep it moving along. We get into trouble when all our browsing is done in one session / container and no effort is made to containerize our browsing so that chatty scripts and trackers can't talk to each other via cookies as you traverse the web in any meaningful way.

Personally I divide up my browsing into many different compartments to avoid or seriously hinder tracking. I also only ever enable JS on a site if I really have to. I am suspicious of news articles that demand JS just to read a small bit of text. This is not some magic bullet - I know I will be tracked; but at least now my identity is divided up so much that it's hard to discern who I really am. Couple this type of compartmented browsing with an anonymous mixing network like Tor and it's game over for trackers.

Having one single container / session for _all_ your activity (and without an adblocker like uBlock Origin) is borderline stupid in this day and age and can do more harm than good. The modern web has been designed to be as hostile as possible when you surf 'bareback' without an adblocker and without dividing up your sessions into discrete containers. Of course you will get people that like to surf bareback, with literally zero configurations in their browser and without an Ad-blocker. These are the people who are the most exploited, their every activity mined like it was oil - their whole life put into databases that could leak and be hacked at any moment, meaning they're very susceptible to 'doxing' or having their life ruined.

<comment><USER41> > Trackers are part of the web and have been for a long time.

And that's a big part of the problem. Just because something has wormed its way into common use doesn't mean that thing is acceptable.

> They fund the web and keep it moving along.

There are still large swaths of the web that this isn't true for. And for the parts that it is -- that's also a huge part of the problem and needs to stop.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Job I love but with poor career progression vs. new job with higher pay? - <AUTHOR> I'm currently dealing with a career-related dilemma, and I'm hoping some people here have gone through similar a similar experience.
I work at a company where I feel stuck in terms of career progression. I feel like I'm under my level, and my manager doesn't seem to care about helping me get promoted. He also doesn't seem to trust me very much, for whatever reason (I really can't figure out why). Also, my current company doesn't pay as much as other companies in the area, but the benefits are superior.
However, I love the work I've been doing there lately. I haven't felt this excited about the code I write in almost a decade. I get into that flow state when working on it, and I feel engaged with it to the point that I go to bed thinking about it.
On top of that, my current job is just comfortable. Crunch is unheard of. I have lots of vacation time and the company is very generous about paid holidays. I can work at home whenever I feel like it. You get the idea.
I wasn't feeling this excited about work until recently though, so I went looking for a new job elsewhere. And now I got feedback from one of my interviews, and I am being offered a crazy amount of money plus a position at a higher level. I know someone at the company and they like working there. It would be a great opportunity to learn new things.
But I don't know what to do. It comes down to deciding between staying at a subpar job where I'm comfortable and in love with my code vs. moving to a new place that pays way more and has better career progression, but where I have no idea what it's going to be like in terms of stress, hours, etc.
If anyone has been in a similar situation, I'd love to hear what you decided to do. <comment><USER2> Unless you're hyper sensitive about work environment, go for the money. It's nice to enjoy your work, but don't screw yourself out of career advancement.

Compare pay + benefits - cost-of-living.

</comment><comment><USER3> If your manager doesn't care about you then he doesn't deserve for you. From the other side, I think that you just got used to this job and probably afraid of going out of your comfort zone. I was in the similar state of the mind, once. After all, it appears that the best way to progress is to MOVE YOUR ASS :D before you'll be forced to do so.

Be brave.

Good luck bro!

</comment><comment><USER4> I would say change jobs. If your manager don't trust you, this current situation of loving your day-to-day activities will change with no regard to what you would say on the matter. You actually mention it is just a very recent situation. So I believe it is safe to assume it wont last.

I value _a lot_ a healthy, enjoyable work environment, but I don't trade good longterm prospects for a short time only, temporary benefit.

Not only for the money, but a carreer progression is very satisfying for itself. And if you have good references for this new company, this is something.

And, if you don't enjoy the next work environment, you can change again.

Do it. Your future self will thank you

</comment><comment><USER5> Let me depart from the hive mind here. You have another alternative I haven't yet seen in the comments here.

Stay at this job for a time, and use it as an opportunity to explore side work, and other ways to make money. Multiple streams of income is always a good idea.

It was a similar situation for me that led to one of my side gigs turning into full-time freelancing and leaving my job of 9 years.

The new work is challenging, I'm making great money, and things are growing.

Being in a situation like yours could be made to work to your advantage, and it could be a blessing in disguise!

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER6> You can either change your job, or you can change job.

There are no perfect jobs, so you have to find one where you'll be able to live with the downsides. Is having no career progression a downside you can live with or not? How about having to do lot's of overtime? Or being underpaid? They are all questions only you can answer.

</comment><comment><USER7> When I went through this I tried to weigh how much money I was leaving on the table vs how much I valued: already knowing the culture where I work, mostly enjoying the job, loving the people I work with. In my case I got promoted right as I was about to start the job hunt, so it worked itself out.

In your case, it sounds like you're comfortable yet unhappy. Sure you're excited about your current work, but you probably wouldn't be posting on here if you were really happy at that job. It sounds like you have a new opportunity. I would jump on it, but that's just me. Maybe you can learn more about the company you mentioned by talking to your contact there?

Either way I wish you luck!

</comment><comment><USER8> It has taken me a while, but I finally figured out what really matters to me with regards to job satisfaction:

1\. Do I like the people I'm working for and with?

2\. Do I like the work?

3\. Am I making enough money?

You need to figure out what your most important factors are. I don't need to be making the maximum amount of money I can, but you might not feel the same way.

For me, if I were in your position, the satisfaction from the work itself would most likely not overcome the fact that my boss wouldn't seem to trust me. Your situation would violate my #1 item above. So, in that case I would be more inclined to move.

But you are not me, and I am not you. You need to figure out what is most important for you, and then move forward from that position.

</comment><comment><USER9> So what are the things at your current job you can't live without? For example, leave early to beat rush hour, quiet cube or office, window seat, being the go to person on projects or processes?

If you get a manger that expects you butt in seat till 5 when you're used to leaving early, or going to a noisy open floor plan surrounded by extroverts when you are used to a library like office can truly suck and make no amount of money worth it.

If you can figure these things out and talk to your potential new manager before accepting the offer, could really help with your decision.

</comment><comment><USER10> > I feel stuck in terms of career progression.

Professional growth is a pain point you have complete control over. It's not your managers responsibility. That job offer is market validation, your expertise is in demand.

Suggest getting some clarity about what you want to accomplish/achieve > [https://hbr.org/2016/12/think-strategically-about-your- caree...](https://hbr.org/2016/12/think-strategically-about-your-career- development)

</comment><comment><USER11> I hear that the scariest place to be in life is comfortable. Getting out of your comfort zone is the only way to grow.

</comment><comment><USER12> You must decide for yourself. Remember that the only constant in life is change.

</comment><comment><USER13> Have you even asked for a raise at your current job? Having been made offers from other companies that puts you in a very strong position to ask for a raise.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's also possible that you began feeling better about your job precisely because you were looking.

</comment><comment><USER15> change jobs

your current environment might change tomorrow and you'll regret not making the choice

whenever you have a choice which would leave in regret, you need to make it in favor of what wouldn't.</comment>


China Can't Sustain Its Debt-Fueled Binge, Moody's Says - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/05/23/business/moodys-downgrades-china-economy-debt.html?em_pos=small&emc=edit_dk_20170524&nl=dealbook&nl_art=5&nlid=65508833&ref=headline&te=1 <comment><USER2> I think the best model to understand this is Michael Pettis's balance sheet analysis. He covers it extensively, but here's his latest digest of the model:

[http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/66221](http://carnegieendowment.org/chinafinancialmarkets/66221)

It really makes clear how stark the choices are for China. The debt binge of the last ~10 years has masked the flattening out of productive investment, and there will need to be a reckoning. Hopefully it's a soft landing, but that will depend on politics as much as anything.

<comment><USER3> It seems like smart people have been predicting that China's growth is unsustainable on a regular basis for at least 15 years... it's tough for an average HNer like myself to take the time to tell which "expert" is just blowing smoke and which expert truly has a handle on the salient facts- Guess all I can really do is simply wait and see who ends up being right...

<comment><USER4> Agreed, to an extent (though not every 'expert' is equally reliable). Two ways I look at it:

1) Generally, the nature of a bubble is that nobody knows when it will pop. People knew about the U.S. asset bubble in the mid-2000s for years, but even those not caught up in the bubble mass psychology couldn't accurately predict when it would collapse. The same was true of the dot-com bubble around 2000. You can be right that there is a bubble, but be far wrong about when it ends.

2) There was a stock broker looking for new business. He cold called 512 people (he must have been a quant); half he told to sell X stock, half he told to buy. The next week he called the 256 for whom he'd made the right prediction and did the same again: Half he told to sell, half to buy ... several weeks later he was down to 16 people. He called all of them and said, 'look, I was right 5 times in a row ...'.

<comment><USER5> > There was a stock broker looking for new business. He cold called 512 people > (he must have been a quant); half he told to sell X stock, half he told to > buy. The next week he called the 256 for whom he'd made the right prediction > and did the same again: Half he told to sell, half to buy ... several weeks > later he was down to 16 people. He called all of them and said, 'look, I was > right 5 times in a row ...'.

Except, what you just described is a scam and not something a registered broker can do.

<comment><USER6> It sounds more like a parable, not an actual story.

The point is that if enough people make prediction, some of them will right over and over and over - even though it's all random.

<comment><USER4> > a parable

Ha, that's a great observation; I hadn't thought of it. On one hand, I'm very uncomfortable with any implied comparison to the most well known practitioner of parables. On the other, many others have used the form. Maybe I'll write all my HN posts in parable form - 'those who have ears to hear' will understand; the others I won't have to deal with. I could use it for business emails too.

Coming up with that many parables might be challenging.

<comment><USER7> Gotta say (as a non Christian) nothing wrong with Jesus' reasoning and storytelling skills. Just a case of one bad axiom I guess.

<comment><USER4> To be clear, I wasn't uncomfortable with the implied comparison because I have something against Jesus or the Gospels. I was uncomfortable because I don't want anyone to think for a moment that I am comparing myself to him. (I'm not.)

<comment><USER6> If it helps, when I said "parable" I had no idea that Jesus would in any way be implied. I had never even heard of his parables before your reply.

I actually replied to you ask who you were referring to, since I had no idea, but then another comment said who it was so I deleted my reply.

I clearly am never going to be able to use the word "parable" again. I'll say fable from now on, even though fables have animals in them, not humans.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> China's development has really been fascinating.

10-20 years ago I can remember the analyses arguing China can only continue to grow with liberalization, even outright requirements for democracy. Perhaps these pronouncements are still being made.

I've come to believe that what's really useful to people isn't "democracy" or "freedom" rather rather stability. That means political and economic stability.

One thing I find fascinating is China's ghost cities. I remember reading some report that said housing for 64M+ was sitting vacant, largely unaffordable to locals. Now one can argue that such work is stimulating the economy by providing employment.

But here's another view. As much as we might (rightly) deride Trump, there are the (very) occasional nuggets of truth. Some might say even racist clocks are right twice a day [1]. Whatever the case, the specific issue is infrastructure.

Infrastructure in the US _is_ crumbling. What's more, a lot of infrastructure exists now that would be completely uneconomic to build now. Look at the Second Avenue Subway in NYC that apparently somehow cost $17B+ to basically go 50 blocks. What's more, a lot of this infrastructure has not and is not being maintained.

So why is this unaffordable to build now? I suspect the answer is that labour is simply too expensive as is real estate.

So what if China is simply building infrastructure now while it's relatively cheap to do so? Obviously once built infrastructure depreciates but inflation also works in your favour (assuming positive inflation).

Now I don't know if that is the Chinese government's thinking but I find it an interesting thought.

[1] [https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/133477/new- patv-e...](https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/133477/new-patv-episode- and-comic-for-monday-december-20th)

</comment><comment><USER9> For this subject I would like to offer this counter view: Why China bears are wrong: An interview with Andy Rothman ([http://supchina.com/sinica/china- bears-wrong-interview-andy-...](http://supchina.com/sinica/china-bears-wrong- interview-andy-rothman/))

As it is likely for someone to mention the Ghost cities, I recommend this video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyBBQ- wF87M&list=PLxh5xkC0W-...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AyBBQ- wF87M&list=PLxh5xkC0W-vABq5Eq7SL2z9-uD8J2OATf&index=4)

<comment><USER10> Ghost cities are weird: first they talk about the ghost cities, then others say the ghost cities are filling up. If you actually visit, say, Ordos New Town, you'll really get that, no, those ghost cities really exist.

Some will fill up, like Pudong did, I get Tianjin's new financial district will also. But those in areas with little economic hope in the near term (Ordos and dying coal), they really aren't going to happen before the buildings become substantially rundown (given Chinese concrete overbuilding to make use of unskilled migrant labor, these buildings require a lot of maintenance and will look decrepit sooner rather than later).

<comment><USER11> I wonder how much percentage of all buildings are empty in China. In my visit I saw plentiful empty skyscrapers, especially next to decaying homes where people would still live.

<comment><USER10> Local governments have ways of telling, e.g. By electricity usage. You can also try counting the lights on at night to get an idea of apartment occupancy (a fun last time at the apartment complex I used to live in). Someone definitely knows, but you can be damned sure that this information is considered "state secrets."or

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> All the fears around growth is from people not understanding the difference between absolute growth and relative growth. Which is better growth of 1000 or 3% ? the developed world cannot grow at high percentage points because they're so large.

This video more or less shows the insanity of trying to grow at a fixed rate (say being an "emerging market" at 6% per year) for an indefinite timespan.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sI1C9DyIi_8)

</comment><comment><USER13> China's response (English):

[http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136311925.htm](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136311925.htm)

</comment><comment><USER14> I hope China can continue their development of high-speed rail. They have about 12,000 miles of track, more than the rest of the world combined, and they should have almost 30,000 miles by 2030. They are trying to improve the performance:

[https://www.rt.com/business/387089-china-high-speed- trains/](https://www.rt.com/business/387089-china-high-speed-trains/)

They are continuing to maglev trains too:

[https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/05/more-high-speed- rail-a...](https://www.nextbigfuture.com/2017/05/more-high-speed-rail-and- maglev-lines-in-china.html)

Hopefully, it will encourage other countries to widely adopt the technology.

</comment><comment><USER15> Ok, this is probably a silly question, but who holds all the debt now? The avg US citizen would say China holds much of the US debt, but now it sounds like China is borrowing their way into trouble too... it's not any of these third world countries... who is it?

<comment> wu-ikkyu >The avg US citizen would say China holds much of the US debt, but now it sounds like China is borrowing their way into trouble too... it's not any of these third world countries... who is it?

The central banks, obviously. Many of them not being beholden to a nation but to private individuals.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _The central banks, obviously. Many of them not being beholden to a nation > but to private individuals._

Example? The largest countries' central banks are accountable to their governments.

<comment><USER16> They are not. They are legally independent in many countries incl. the US, Japan, India (de facto), S. Korea, and Thailand.

<comment><AUTHOR> > _They are legally independent in many countries_

We're saying the same thing. Most central banks, _e.g._ the Federal Reserve, were created by law. The Congress giveth and the Congress taketh away. In any case, the comment I was replying to seemed to imply central banks are privately owned. That's what I was refuting.

<comment><USER16> Fair enough.

I think the comment was implying that their policies, not being entirely democratically accountable - the effectiveness of these instruments themselves being arguable - are very likely going to be swayed by private interests.

I know there exists a revolving door b/w FDR and major Wall Street banks, but I'm not sure about other countries. I'd not be surprised if this were the case everywhere.

Edit:

'Princes of Yen' is a documentary that I found did a good job of illustrating the dangers of having such high powered unaccountable cabals (without all the BS that is typical in this genre).

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5Ac7ap_MAY)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Here's the thing about China, if it doesn't pay up, the world at large can't do anything to China. The world is dependent on Chinese export. If China sinks it will sink the world economy with it. Too Big to fail actually applies to China. If China falls short of paying up its mortgages or loans on time it can't be recovered by anyone. The only thing one could do is wait. So all the talk is useless, China gas got everyone by the balls. There is no way to threaten China, nor can any sanction be put on China because the world trade would suffer. China is indeed the world's factory. In my opinion, Moodys is wrong this Debt-Fueled growth of China will and has to be sustained for safeguarding everyone's investments, China cannot be sunk at this point at any cost. Moodys is not the sole authority on rankings and their opinion matters less and less in the context of China.

<comment><USER18> China doesn't import that much goods from the west. So crisis there shoudn't have big impact on US and Europe. Except real estate market. It seems that US, European land/houses are the only thing Chinese are interested in.

<comment><USER19> It will have an impact on resource-exporting countries though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> >The Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission estimates that by April 2010, of all mortgage-backed securities Moody's had rated triple-A in 2006, 73% were downgraded to junk.

Anything Moody's says must be taken into context given their history of taking money to lie to and cheat investors. Their executives should have gone to prison and the company should have been liquidated a long timo ago.

<comment><USER21> Didn't you hear, no one could find enough evidence to convict anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Moody's also says that bundles of subprime mortgages are a AA+ investment.

<comment><USER23> Following that reasoning, that probably means China's economy situation would be much worse.

<comment><USER24> I believe the OP is putting the agency's credibility into question, which I think is valid, considering their role in the financial crisis.

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

<comment><USER25> There was a financial incentive to look the other way. That doesn't exist in this case.

<comment><USER26> They failed their mission to instead chase profits to the detriment of the public. What's to say they don't have a financial incentive here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Detailed press release from Moody's:

[https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Chinas- rat...](https://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-downgrades-Chinas-rating- to-A1-from-Aa3-and-changes--PR_366139)

</comment><comment><USER28> Presumably this is the same Moody's that predicted the 2008 crash so well? Why does anyone even listen to them anymore? They failed miserably at their role.

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/jan/14/moodys-864m-penalty- for-ratings-in-run-up-to-2008-financial-crisis)

</comment><comment><USER29> In my opinion, china GDP is under-valuated (despite government growth figure cooking). So, I guess that debt will not be a problem. What could be a problem is private debt, driving to fusion of similar companies, and public bail-out of banks in case of Chinese housing bubble popping in major cities. Pretty much what happened in Japan (1989, [1], [2]), EE.UU. (2007, [3], [4]), and some places of Europe (2007-2009 [5], [6]).

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_(Japan)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lost_Decade_\(Japan\))

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

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

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

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

</comment><comment><USER30> Do ratings agencies like Moody self sustain on the psychology of the people who listen to them? People who take them seriously factors them into their decisions. People who don't take them seriously has to still factor them into their decision because of the people who do take them seriously.

There might be some kind of tipping point where the amount of people who do not believe their ratings triggers a downward spiral in confidence?

</comment><comment><USER31> Slightly off-topic, but in 2011 when Moody's downgraded the US credit rating, we all were saying "well, Moody's is feeling a bit moody".

The US continued to struggle in fits and spurts in some industries. But lately, it has been all "risk-on" for most traders.

We have been through a few "asian asset bubbles" before. Whether this is the big one is anybody's guess, but sometimes the broken doomsday clock gets the time right.

<comment><USER32> That was S&P. It coincided with the SEC and the Justice Department investigating them for fraudulently overrating mortgage back securities.

<comment><USER31> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_govern...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit- rating_downgrades)

Moody's downgraded on June 2 2011... or should I say at least "changed outlook to negative"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What it's going to come down to, is whether the Chinese government has enough control to tell the general public to eat the loses and to make them take it (relatively peacefully).

If they do, this sets the basis of the play and outcome.

Yes, elites are escaping what they can of their personal assets -- and eventually, if necessary, themselves or their next generation.

As I stop to think about it, that could actually prove to be something of a safety valve, from China's perspective.

Anyway, with the Great Firewall and a thousand other things: It's not exactly as if they haven't been (at all) preparing for this.

</comment><comment><USER34> Reactions from China: [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136311065.htm](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136311065.htm) [http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136312043.htm](http://news.xinhuanet.com/english/2017-05/24/c_136312043.htm)

</comment><comment><USER35> This kind of article to me sounds like, an outside developer look at all the charts of a system and tell the developers who are working on the system: "well, this system's going to crash in a week based on the numbers on the charts". If I'm going to argue with this "expert", I would say, you saw what you can see, unfortunately, you are not the engineer see all the sh*t of how the machine works.

</comment><comment><USER22> What about the US's debt-fueled government? Sustainable?

<comment><USER36> US debt to GDP ratio is half that of China, not claiming the trend is sustainable but that (at least according to Moody's) China is more at risk of a runaway debt-spend crisis than the US is.

<comment><USER37> Not only is our debt-to-GDP ratio lower than China's, it's lower than most (not all) countries in Western Europe.

There is so much uninformed hysteria about the US national debt, it's incredibly frustrating and blocking the implementation of better policy.

<comment><USER38> By what measure is the US ratio lower than China's? US is worse in the IMF measure of gross debt to GDP by far. Looking at total debt (government, corporate, and household), the US is worse: 331% to 250%. What numbers are you looking at?

[https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/16/chinas- debt...](https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/jun/16/chinas-debt- is-250-of-gdp-and-could-be-fatal-says-government-expert)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> dis-sys Moody's? Is that the same credit rating agency which intentionally inflated credit rating for risky mortgage investment and eventually fined almost $1b[1]? It is just so funny that an agency that has already destroyed its own creditability is still running around and doing credit rating for others.

[1] [http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-14/moodys-agrees- settleme...](http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-14/moodys-agrees-settlement- over-pre-gfc-ratings/8182694)

<comment><USER21> Surprised this sentiment isn't more popular, they've proven themselves to be both dishonest and incompetent.

This could also be state propoganda, the modern US being what it is.

<comment><USER39> > Surprised this sentiment isn't more popular, they've proven themselves to be > both dishonest and incompetent.

Maybe because the question of whether they are dishonest and incompetent is a less interesting ad hominem (ad companis ?) than the question of whether China can or cannot sustain its debt-fueled binge.

<comment><USER21> Whether or not it's "interesting", the trustworthiness of the source seems rather important.

<comment><USER39> > Whether or not it's "interesting", the trustworthiness of the source seems > rather important.

Not really. If the question is about the popularity of a sentiment, then of course the interestingness of the sentiment is relevant.

But as with every argument, it's the quality of the argument that is important, not the arguer. The only way that the trustworthiness of the source is important is if you are unable to evaluate their argument based on other factors and were planning merely to trust them or key information they relied on based on their perceived authority which I agree would be a bad idea.

<comment><USER21> Economics is far more complicated than most other fields, and you very often don't know the _real_ "quality of the argument" until years later. So yes, in this case prior track record does very much matter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Large seas of debt made sense when they were somewhat more underdeveloped, and every additional unit of debt could be used for 'easy' value creation. As it currently stands, I don't see their rate of value creation servicing their debt. Similar dynamics, albeit to a lesser extent, are in play in India and other countries in South East Asia.

</comment><comment><USER41> Chinese currency manipulation tricks [http://www.economist.com/news/finance- and-economics/21717997...](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21717997-government-has-been-pushing-price-yuan-up-not-down-china- and)

</comment><comment><USER16> Does anyone how much external debt is held by China ? I'd imagine their generally (well-placed IMO) aversion to IMF/WB folk might help them plod along with the help of their central bank. Money is fictional you know.

</comment><comment><USER42> How can anyone put any credibility whatsoever in Moody's ratings after 2008?

They defended their ratings on terrible debt at the time by basically saying that no one should rely on them.

</comment><comment><USER43> We Rate These Sub-Prime Mortgage Bonds AAA, Moody's Says.

</comment><comment><USER44> You know what I'd like to see? What conclusions China's economics community have had about the US environment.

<comment><USER45> The US economy will see a series of booms and busts. As all economies will. As will China's. When? Who knows? But I wouldn't be the one to bet on never.

<comment><USER44> Absolutely, but if the US (Moody's, even!) idea of China's cycle is valuable, then so must theirs be of ours.

<comment><USER21> Surely the analysis exists, but China isn't dumb enough to publish such things.

<comment><USER44> But Moody's is? I find this unconvincing. Could it simply be that it's available but remains untranslated?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> My countries economy is very closely tied to Chinas. I wonder what a Chinese financial crisis would look like here.

<comment><USER47> Like a local financial crisis.

On the plus side, tier 1 cities are going to cool off (real estate price wise) if a lot of Chinese money gets burned up instead of outflowed.

<comment><USER48> If by cool off you mean crash, then yes you're right. But it won't be a soft landing by any stretch of the imagination.

<comment><USER47> Tomatoe tomahtoe. Toronto's RE market is already hitting the brakes within the last week; buyers are walking from deposits, sales are down, listings have shot up. Everyone is trying to get out the door at once.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I am pretty sure that the statement is free for USA as well. I doubt Moody's will say that though.

</comment><comment><USER50> I will wait and see, China was said to be crashing soon since 20 years ago.

<comment><USER10> I guess you weren't around when the stock market really did crash a couple of years ago?

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> The day after the Fukushima nuclear incident, the top-voted article on HN was an extremely confident-sounding article by an expert about how this was a minor incident, sure to be contained and forgotten. The comments in the article were dismissive about alarm. I remember feeling a sigh of relief that the experts had pronounced it a minor incident. As the days rolled by, the news about Fukushima turned from bad to worse to horrible. Unfortunately, my archive.org skills were not good enough to dig up the front page of HN around that time to show you the article in question.

A closer tale about experts being wrong, and persistently so is the tale of the Japan Bonds' "widowmaker" trade: apparently, a lot of smart people have been wrong about this:

[http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling- confident...](http://www.businessinsider.com/hedge-funds-feeling-confident- about-the-widowmaker-trade-in-japan-2012-12)

<comment><USER52> But Fukushima was a minor incident...

<comment><USER53> Not sure if you are trying to be sarcastic, but: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Sc...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Nuclear_Event_Scale#Level_7:_Major_accident)

<comment><USER54> If Fukushima is a major event, with no fatalities, what does one consider the Banqiao Dam event, with 170,000 fatalities?

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

<comment><USER55> A sign that we should shut down every single hydroelectric power-plant in the world.

Or, we could be reasonable about these things, and understand that power generation at an industrial scale will kill people.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


BCI: Emotiv Insight - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/tanttle/emotiv-insight-optimize-your-brain-fitness-and-per

<comment><USER2> Building on top of this sounds interesting.

</comment><comment><USER3> In for one with access to the SDK.</comment>


Rumor: iPad 2 is coming soon - <AUTHOR> http://kevinrose.com/blogg/2011/1/7/rumor-ipad-2-is-coming-soon.html <comment><USER2> Kevin Rose has a spotty track record for Apple predictions. See: [http://www.technobuffalo.com/blog/apple/rumor-kevin-rose- let...](http://www.technobuffalo.com/blog/apple/rumor-kevin-rose-lets-loose- with-itv-details/)

"Digg co-founder Kevin Rose has a track record with announcing Apple products that is spotty sometimes. Prior to the original iPhone he announced it would have two batteries and run on both AT&T and Verizon. Yeah, we're still waiting on those tidbits. However, last year he predicted the iPod Nano down to the last detail, so he has earned some street cred in the realm of Apple predictions."

On new AppleTV: "iOS TV Applications: Expect to see an iPhone/Pad like marketplace for television applications. Video sharing/streaming/recording apps, interactive news apps, and of course games."

Front camera is a given, and a higher res screen is no surprise at all (though full 300ppi would be), so this seems like a non-story.

</comment><comment><USER3> Surely Retina on a iPad sized screen would be rather too demanding for the CPU?</comment>


Trump reportedly considers fast tracking AstraZeneca vaccine before election - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/trump-reportedly-considers-fast-tracking-astrazeneca-vaccine-before-election/ar-BB18hRmD <comment><USER2> Why is the president making vaccine decisions? I thought he was the commander and chief of the armed forces?</comment>


The European Parliament votes non-bindingly to reintroduce visas for Americans - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/blogs/gulliver/2017/03/divided-we-fail <comment><USER2> They do this every few sessions and the commission never acts on it.

<comment><USER3> Source?

<comment><USER4> From 2013 [http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/20130910IPR1...](http://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/news- room/20130910IPR19556/ep-backs-rules-allowing-suspension-of-visa-free-travel- only-as-a-last-resort)

<comment><USER5> That seems more like the initiation of the current process. They adopted rules in 2013 requiring reciprocity and specifying a series of steps to take if there isn't any, with revocation of visa-free travel to the EU an option as a "last resort". The vote today is claiming that those other steps have been tried and failed regarding the U.S. (unlike with some other countries, like Canada, where progress was made), and therefore advocates taking up that last resort, which was authorized in 2013 but has never yet been invoked. I do agree that there is a good chance the EU Commission will attempt to avoid doing so, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The reason being that the US still requires visas from 5 EU countries: Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania.

And "The EU says it notified the United States in April 2014 that it was not meeting EU visa rules, and had given the country two years to comply."

<comment><USER7> You are forgetting the "Visa Waiver Program". Essentially, the rest of us Europeans are required to fill out detailed forms, pay a fee for filling out those forms, and then get a government-issued authorization for "visa free" travel. Right.

<comment><AUTHOR> As I've said below, if you have to get a visa, you have to fill out a much more detailed form [1], pay a fee that's 10 times higher (USD 160), and actually visit a US consulate for an interview with an official.

So, the visa waiver alleviates the process significantly.

[1] as the law presupposes that you want to immigrate, you have to prove non- immigration, by showing your plan to stay for a specific purpose and specific time, and show binding ties to another country to which you will return.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What is going on in this world? I was reading news today that the parties on the right side of political spectrum are gaining ground all over Europe. US already has Republicans in power. Every country is becoming more nationalistic. What is driving this change? AFAICT there are no major issues that should have caused this.

<comment><USER9> Are you serious? It is largely a reaction to globalization and the refugee crisis.

<comment><USER10> > _It is largely a reaction to globalization and the refugee crisis._

If that is indeed the real reason, it means we as a species have hilariously overblown reactions to perceived threats.

<comment><USER11> And (in many countries) significantly underestimate the the threat from actual threats like pollution and climate change.

I've been working on a project related to greenhouse gas emission savings lately and it's depressing how "massive" gains in efficiencies are a drop in the bucket of total emissions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a non story, a few paragraphs down:

"Implementing the parliament's recommendation would require the agreement of all EU members, which would probably take years."

Many European countries rely heavily on US tourism, and anything to threaten that could damage their economies.

<comment><USER13> Interesting. Which countries?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Yeah... Not going to happen. Americans spend billions on European vacations, and nobody is going to threaten that when push comes to shove (any additional hassle is going to send people to Cancun instead). This is just posturing.

<comment><USER15> For me to go on vacation to the US, as a European citizen (outside of the 6 countries that are the reason for this action), I just need to get an ESTA for $15 or so. I guess the EU visa will cost something similar. It's not going to change anything.

<comment><USER16> the EU is already introducing a similar system to the ESTA regardless: [http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/brussels-prepares-eu-wide- sc...](http://www.schengenvisainfo.com/brussels-prepares-eu-wide-scheme-visa- free-travel-authorisation/) (doesn't apply to Ireland or the UK)

they're proposing requiring full visas for US citizens if the US doesn't comply, the sort where you have to book an appointment with the consulate for an interview and pay several hundred dollars.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> the picture in the article is of the UK Border, but the UK is not part of the EU common visa policy.

as a result, this reintroduction of visas for US citizens will not apply to US citizens visiting the UK (even if the change occurs pre-Brexit)

</comment><comment><USER17> That being said ESTA is a visa with a fake nose.

<comment><USER18> As its own name say, it's an authorisation relating to a Visa Waiver Program

<comment><USER19> And Europe will most likely introduce something like ESTA (unlike the visa thing which won't have support from the Commission)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm for a complete and total shutdown of all Americans entering the European Union until we figure out what the hell is going on over there.

</comment><comment><USER21> In the past 8 years, the relations between the EU and the US had improved a lot (despite there being some high profile espionage scandals). I truly hope both sides can work together, and solve minor issues like these. It would really suck to go back to the times of "Freedom Fries", especially with the threat of inner rupture, and Russian pressure in the Baltics.

<comment><USER22> > I truly hope both sides can work together, and solve minor issues like > these.

The issue has been ongoing for almost 3 years (the US were notified in April 2014, alongside 4 other countries which have either resolved the issue or announced a resolution timeline), and the latest report of the commission on the subject (in December 2016) noted:

> Despite the stepping up of political and technical contacts, there have not > been comparable indications of progress towards the lifting of visas with > the U.S.

So outlook not so good, the US doesn't seem much interested.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Soon ETIAS will come (european counterpart of ESTA) which demands all foreigners to register electronically and pay 5 euros.([http://www.politico.eu/article/e5-to-get-into-europe- schenge...](http://www.politico.eu/article/e5-to-get-into-europe-schengen- zone-travel-non-eu-citizens/))

</comment><comment><USER24> The global citizen in me laughs at this decision.

The revengeful soul in me hails it (being married to an Iranian women that should currently better not sei a foot there and myself needing a visa because I visit Iran regularily).

The European citizen that I am takes a deep breath of calm as he knows that this was "only" a decision in the parliament, so probably not much will happen in real life.

</comment><comment><USER25> > What is driving this change? AFAICT there are no major issues that should > have caused this.

I honestly can't imagine how you could avoid exposure to any of the incredible amount of discontent in Europe right now.

European leaders have been importing millions(!) of people from incredibly violent, theocratic, illiterate, and regressive regions, to the detriment of peaceful, secular, educated, and liberal Europeans who are not socially or memetically equipped to handle such an influx of radically different and heavily indoctrinated people. European news media emphatically denies that anything bad is happening; "No, rape rates have only gone up a little bit! No, we're not putting a wall around the Eiffel Tower, it's an aesthetic perimeter! No, Sweden isn't banning christmas lights in public for Muslims; it's because we all of a sudden realize that street lights can't structurally support christmas lights!" Most people in Europe are not dumb enough to fall for this.

For decades, the sentiment in the European political system has been "us last". Here's a great quote from the _President of the EU Parliament_ until earlier this year, Martin Schulz: (and yes, it's a real quote): "For me, the new Germany exists only in order to ensure the existence of the State of Israel and the Jewish people."

The conclusion that any impartial observer would make is that European politicians don't seem to give much of a shit about Europeans, and instead see them as more of a resource to be used up for the sake of various political causes (mass immigration is a big one, and as Mr. Schulz demonstrated, Zionism is another).

It should come as exactly zero surprise that, at some point, Europeans are going to get fed up with being treated like shit by their own political system.

I'm not even European, but this sentiment is very obvious to me from my European expat friends. A large number of them are in support of leaving the EU in favor of increased national sovereignty (because then at least their own interests might come into play), and those that want to stay in the EU mostly feel that way because they falsely conflate free movement and free trade with the existence of the EU.

The result of this discontent with (forced) social globalism is that countries are becoming more isolationist. This led to Brexit, will possibly lead to France leaving the EU as well (although the EU parliament is currently trying to attack Le Pen), and who knows what next.

To be clear, I'm not happy about any of this, but I honestly don't know how people didn't see it coming.

<comment><USER26> I object to this.

> European leaders have been importing millions

They have not imported millions.

> incredibly violent, theocratic, illiterate, and regressive regions

This is aggressive against millions of people.

> European politicians don't seem to give much of a shit about Europeans

This is hate speech.

<comment><USER25> IOM and UNHCR estimated 1 million refugees back in December 2015. More since then.

> This is aggressive against millions of people.

Not sure how. You can describe it however you like, but that won't change the fact that it's true.

> This is hate speech.

Criticizing European politicians is hate speech? Interesting.

(Side note: this is why people don't like "hate speech" laws. A surprising number of people think "hate speech" means essentially anything they disagree with.)

<comment><USER26> > IOM and UNHCR estimated 1 million refugees back in December 2015. More since > then.

True, but they have not been 'imported' by politicians. These people fled from the war in Syria. Germany has a right for these people to ask for asylum in its constitution. Unlimited.

> Criticizing European politicians is hate speech

Claiming that European politicians give a shit (his words) about their citizens is not 'criticizing' anything. It's just hate speech against politicians.

I don't agree with Merkel in many things, but I'm pretty sure that she cares a lot about Germans. Practically every German politician does.

<comment><USER25> > Claiming that European politicians give a shit (his words) about their > citizens is not 'criticizing' anything. It's just hate speech against > politicians

This is probably the strongest invocation of Poe's law I've seen in the last few years.

<comment><USER26> It was you who said that.

I'm European and German. I feel well supported by politicians like Merkel and Schulz. Both are among the most popular politicians in Germany and there is a reason Merkel is chancellor: people have voted for her politics. After the next election either Merkel or Schulz will be chancellor.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > Most people in Europe are not dumb enough to fall for this.

Most people in Europe are not dumb enough to fall for your nonsense.

> and yes, it's a real quote

It isn't.

> I'm not even European

I am.

<comment><USER27> > _dumb enough to fall for your nonsense_

You can't comment like this here, so please don't. Yes, the GP started it with the 'dumb enough', but the 'your nonsense' clearly crosses into personal incivility and we ban accounts that do that.

We detached this subthread from [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13786872](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13786872) and marked it off-topic.

<comment><USER26> I am European, don't believe anything like what he claims and thus he called me dumb enough.

Why is his posting allowed, which claimed that European politicians literally are given A SHIT about their citizens?????? Read his post.

Sorry, European politicians give a lot of SHIT (his words) about their citizens and I find it extremely offensive to claim otherwise.

He also made extremely negative and racist statements about refugees who fled to Europe from the war in Syria.

Double standards. Allowing racist posts...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> the EP is doing tit-for-tat when there is no tit-for-tat!

<comment><USER29> "The main reason for the vote is the way that travellers from some EU countries are treated by America. While most citizens of EU countries can travel to the United States without a visa, those from Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Poland and Romania must still obtain one. Because the EU demands equal treatment of all its citizens in such matters, it says it is legally obliged to fight back."

I won't say it's a good idea - the vote is not even binding, btw -, but at least there's a reasoning behind it. EU wants to be treated as a country[1] and no country accepts different visa requirement for their states.

[1] Maybe

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> When I was a kid I learnt about globalization, and the world getting smaller.

What a strange times are we witnessing? Technology and Internet approaching us, while politics tries to separate.

</comment><comment><USER31> The sooner the EU dissolves, the better.

<comment><USER32> Yeah? What makes you say that?

<comment><USER31> The EU is composed of seven major institutions, only one of which has direct representation by voters (the EU parliament), and the number of representatives of each country is (roughly) proportional to their size, so any given voter of a small EU country has effectively zero representation. The EU is very far from a democratic, representative system, and yet it hold tremendous power over its 'constituents.' Not to mention the irresponsible ECB policies and fiscal safety net draining the few remaining EU countries with any wealth... I'd like to see more state sovereignty and individual sovereignty return to Europe.

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

The freedom of trade and movement that the EU brought is great, but I suspect that for the most part, that can be negotiated without a 'super-government' making the rules.

<comment><USER33> The problem is that the EU is organized in such a way that it is at an intermediate stage between it being just a bunch of different nations and it being something similar to the USA. We need more EU and less nationalism to become something similar to the USA, we need a bigger EU government and smaller nations governments. The EU government is about 1% of the GDP and the nations governments are 50%, we need to reverse those numbers.

Of course I agree that the EU is not very democratic right, we also need to change that.

<comment><USER16> > The EU government is about 1% of the GDP

this is not actually true, the way the EU has been setup is very clever: it does not attribute a large proportion of costs directly incurred by its policies to itself.

when powers are transferred to the EU, the national institutions used to implement those powers (that previously served the national government) remain, but now implement the EU's legislative program, but the costs incurred doing so are still paid by the national treasuries.

prime examples are civil aviation, food safety and agriculture policy.

these departments are essentially operated by and for the EU, yet the expenses of those departments are not correctly attributed to the EU.

if these expenses were correctly attributed for that 1% would likely be 3-4x higher, and people would be a lot more upset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> The EU is not a sovereign country, its political and economic union. The US is under no obligation to accept all 28-member countries as equal.

<comment><USER35> No-one claimed it was! It's hardball negotiation. In this, the US meets the EU's demands or it doesn't get what it wants.</comment></comment>


Google ChromeBook Review: ChromeBomb? - <AUTHOR> http://stefanweitz.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/chromebook-review-ready-for-primetime-if-primetime-is-saturday-at-3am/ Google ChromeBook not ready for primetime... <comment><USER2> I can't even begin to comprehend the stupidity that went into this blog post.

The entire point of the Chromebook is that your OS is constantly updated, and you're complaining about it updating when you start it for the first time? Also: rich coming from someone that works for Microsoft. A fresh install of Windows has nearly a gig of updates to download.

It tells you what product you're using after booting for the first time? You know, like basically every product in existence? Let me introduce you to the dozens of Welcome to Windows screens you get after installing your company's OS.

I honestly didn't think it was possible for someone to physically complain about getting a free taste of 3G service, but there you go on your silly little rant.

Yes, it's not without its flaws. But for what it's aiming to do: be an extremely accessible internet-browsing laptop that has absolutely zero IT overhead, it's a great first shot as a flagship product. Give it 6 months to a year for a lot of the kinks to be worked out, some better file-system interaction, third-part offline Chrome apps to come out, and for the prices to drop a little. Or don't, because you clearly already made your mind up about the product before even laying a finger on it.

<comment><USER3> >The entire point of the Chromebook is that your OS is constantly updated, and you're complaining about it updating when you start it for the first time? Also: rich coming from someone that works for Microsoft. A fresh install of Windows has nearly a gig of updates to download.

Chromebook was touted as something that doesn't need updates(especially the ones that need full reboots) in the media. The MS guy might have wondered how that was possible, and boom, gets hit by a long update that needed a reboot. How is that rich?

>I honestly didn't think it was possible for someone to physically complain about getting a free taste of 3G service, but there you go on your silly little rant.

He is right to complain about the really low limit of 100MB when it takes all your personal info(and gets stuck in a loop!).

>Or don't, because you clearly already made your mind up about the product before even laying a finger on it.

Huh, he did lay a finger on it, he used it. Did we read the same article? And you were calling his blog post stupid. Now that's rich.

<comment><USER4> > >Or don't, because you clearly already made your mind up about the product > before even laying a finger on it.

> Huh, he did lay a finger on it, he used it. Did we read the same article?

What I believe the grandparent meant was that the author had already made his decision before using it, and that having made his decision of how to view it he then proceeded to view it in that way. This is as opposed to the ideal of reviews, in which the reviewer forms opinions on the usability and quality of a product solely through interaction with a product.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I paid half that money for an ASUS eee-pc a couple of years ago that had all of those problems. The only difference is I don't have 3G service or 100mb free with it. But it runs Chrome slowly, loses WIFI a lot, has a terrible trackpad, and hangs any time I look at any page with Flash on it.

There is honestly something to be said for an iPad without Flash. I keep trying to convince myself that I want a lightweight laptop instead, but everything I've tried is a letdown. I'm glad I saved my $500.

<comment><USER6> Wierd; flash does fine on my first gen eee (as long as I use flashblock and only run it when I need to)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I got mine June 7th too from Gilt. I'm contemplating trying to return it, I'm not sure how returns work out with Gilt though after you've opened a box. The other option is to give it to my parents/little sister as a good machine they can never screw up, but I'd kind of like that $500 back.

<comment><USER8> I'd be careful about giving this computer to your family. It sounds good, but there are some issues:

\- Your family can't screw up the software, but they're not going to understand that they can't run a bunch of programs they'd expect.

\- Woe to the guy/gal who lets his/her family's wi-fi connection go down. (EDIT: Specifically your modem and router)

\- There are serious compatibility issues with Google apps. Just try sending yourself a powerpoint or word document and see what I mean. It can be really frustrating trying to collaborate with someone if they're not also working in Google apps.

\- Printing is going to be an insane pain in the ass and for some reason that's something that's really hard to troubleshoot far away.

<comment><USER9> Uh, have you read about Cloud print?

I hate printers, printers in Linux have actually been easier than printers in Windows for me lately if you're willing to walk to the printer and determine the IP Address or hostname.

But Cloud Print makes it stupid simple. Install it on your desktop connected to the printer via basic USB, then login to your Google Account. You can now print to that printer anywhere in world from Chrome. Seems pretty easy to me.

<comment><USER8> The assumption is that you've set up a desktop Windows machine. Printers are fickle things at best, made cheaply, and have mechanical in addition to software problems.

He's either got to buy a compatible printer (extra cost) or set up a windows machine too. It probably has to be on. Not the end of the world (and might be just right considering the family computer situation), but I stand by the notion that there are more potential points of failure.

<comment><USER9> I don't see how it's any more difficult to set-up a printer with a Chrome device than it is with a regular desktop, especially for a random noob user. It's just not that hard, even if you opt against Cloud Print.

<comment><USER9> Oh come on, at least tell me what's wrong with the post if you're going to downvote it? Even if we leave of Cloud print entirely, how is it harder for a user to configure a printer with this than it is with any conventional laptop? Surely you don't think the Windows process of downloading a 200MB driver hidden in a manufacturer's website is easier than the Chrome utility?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I received mine on the 8th and I love it. While it is true that the file manager is missing a lot of functionality I think the real problem that Chrome OS brings to the fore is the severe lack of good Chrome apps.

Also, I had no problem getting past the fourth step in the trackpad training tab, unlike the OP who was probably experiencing a PEBKAC exception.

<comment><USER11> Severe lack of good "Chrome apps"? Every web app that has ever existed is a "Chrome app."

<comment><USER12> Chrome Web Store - installable, available offline apps/games:

<https://chrome.google.com/webstore>

<comment><USER11> As far as I am aware all "Chrome apps" are available via good old URLs. Yes "installing" a "Chrome app" may give the client code access to more caching/offline functionality. But these apps should work just fine without that as well. It just seems odd to lament the dearth of chrome apps as a problem when the whole point of ChromeOS is to give you a web browser without anything extra. You just keep using all the same web apps you always have.

<comment><USER12> They come in two kinds - hosted which is what you're referring to, and packaged which is actually downloaded / (primarily) self-contained.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> OT, but is anyone else tired of that Onswipe theme that so many sites seem to force on you if you visit them on an iPad? It wouldn't be so bad ifbthe link at the bottom to go to the normal site worked.

<comment><USER14> hey, two things and we're working on them:

a) Scrolling sucks since it has to use momentum scrolling. None of the current WP implementation uses Swipecore, our framework for touch publishing. This will fix a lot and is actually quite pleasant

b) Opt-out link should work. Going to submit a fix for this soon.

Feel free to talk more indepth: firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Weird, I have a cr-48 and I encountered the same problems with Verizon activation. You think they would have figured this out.

</comment><comment><USER16> Hmm, I was in the beta and I thought this would be a good buy at say $150. $500? they must be mad.

</comment><comment><USER17> You have to take this in stride. As an example, have you ever bought a laptop with a built-in WWAN card? Lots of hassle and custom software to "activate" your device. Activating my Thinkpad X220 took nearly two hours on the phone with Sprint, because they were convinced that there was no way a Thinkpad could use Sprint. Only Dell. And of course there was no interface like "log into your Sprint online account to activate this thing". Nope, "call some random people that know nothing about computers and maybe you'll get it to work." Wonderful user experience, and that's with Windows 7 from Microsoft right there. (I erased Windows after this step, of course.)

And of course, many manufacturers don't even allow dongle-free 3G at all -- good luck getting a MBP with Sprint service.

The same goes for most of the points. Yeah, it has a shitty wifi card. Of course it does, so does nearly every laptop ever made. Yeah, it needs updates. Do you think for $500 they personally hand-inspect each device before shipping it to you, making sure it's up to date? Nope, they burn the OS image to a million hard drives 3 months before the release date.

When you spend $500 on a computer, it's not going to be very good. Chrome, Windows, or otherwise.

<comment><USER18> > When you spend $500 on a computer, it's not going to be very good.

Uh? The two last machines I bought were under $500 and they're working pretty well. Price and quality aren't always correlated.

<comment><USER17> Did you get an SSD for that price? Probably not.

That's the compromise that the reviews were complaining about. It's instant- on, but there is only 16G of space. Well, if you paid $100 more, then you'd have 80G of space and it'd be instant-on. Or, you could have 500GB of space, but it wouldn't be instant-on anymore.

The less something costs, the more compromises there are. That's all I'm saying.

<comment><USER18> Actually, to be precise, one of the machines was an early Eee PC, costing 300 EUR, with a 4 GB SSD. :-P

<comment><USER17> Yeah, the 901 was a nice machine. Great screen, working wifi, and very light. I "replaced it" with a newer Eee PC last year, but the newer model was more expensive, had the same CPU, was heavier, and had a much shittier screen. Worst laptop ever.

I replaced _that_ with a Thinkpad X220, and it blows both of them away. (But it cost twice as much.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The big thing for the ChromeBook for me is the price. It shouldn't cost more than a more fully-featured notebook. $250 - I'd be all over one. $500? No thanks.

</comment><comment><USER20> The author starts with a disclaimer _"I do work for Microsoft so you can expect bias"_ and ends with a conclusion like _"we can absolutely dismiss this thing because of its shitty OS."_

Maybe because it's not running Windows?

<comment><USER3> Maybe. But why not address his points before knocking someone that did full disclosure?

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This review is absolutely asinine, which is clear regardless of your leanings towards the concept of a browser-as-an-os device. It'sa thinly veiled one- sided lash-out against a new technology which is apparently disruptive to MS's (or at least this blogger's) world view.

<comment><USER22> I thought it was informational, he gave his first impressions.

I don't think just because you're a Microsoft employee your opinions should automatically be discarded regarding competitor's products because they may be tainted. Also, since MS competes with virtually everyone, by your standards, this guy could pretty much close down his blog for good.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Anyone tried switching one of these machines to Ubuntu? I'm in the process of moving my Cr-48 over.

[http://chromeos-cr48.blogspot.com/2011/04/ubuntu-1104-for- cr...](http://chromeos-cr48.blogspot.com/2011/04/ubuntu-1104-for-cr-48-is- ready.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> meh. I would argue that the title is editorializing ("bomb" appears nowhere in the blog post), but I suppose it's the original author submitting. Maybe add a "BREAKING!!" next time to really get the votes?

I've only gotten to use a CR48, but I thought it was fine, if a little underpowered. Engadget liked the new samsung pretty well[1], just thought it was somewhat underpowered, and Gizmodo liked it alright but also thought it was underpowered[2]. Both talked about missing the features that weren't there yet (like offline support), but that are coming.

To the author: if you have to include phrases like "What amazes me most is the number of reviews I've seen today that overlook the fatal flaws", yes, it could be that they're all suffering from groupthink, or they're too forgiving, or they're bad at their jobs.

On the other hand, this machine could just not be for you. Honestly, why did you even think it was? You're bitching about having to wait on the network to load a document...I think you could have figured out you were going to have to do that without even getting a chromebook. People are pointing out your statement about working at Microsoft (and google has done a little baiting there, so I understand), but I think the real crux is right here: "I'm also a computer scientist from the days of old with a fetish for hardware". Yeah...there a lot better ways to spend your money.

[1] [http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/samsung-chromebook- series...](http://www.engadget.com/2011/06/10/samsung-chromebook- series-5-review/) [2] [http://gizmodo.com/5810831/samsung-series-5-chromebook- built...](http://gizmodo.com/5810831/samsung-series-5-chromebook-built-for- the-future-searching-for-purpose-in-the-present)

</comment><comment><USER25> better title: "microsoft employee doesn't like chromebook"

</comment><comment><USER9> >Oh right – the one where Google announces the desktop OS dead in favor of a networked computer that uses the browser as the OS. It is precisely because they've made this an OS play that we can absolutely dismiss this thing because of its shitty OS.

Oh sure, I remember that being precisely how Google phrased all of this.</comment>