Who Do Online Advertisers Think You Are? - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/02/magazine/who-do-online-advertisers-think-you-are.html?ref=technology&_r=0&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> I knew about Google's Ads Preferences page (<http://google.com/ads/preferences>), which lists the interests Google has inferred for me. This article taught me about the BlueKai Registry (<http://bluekai.com/registry/>), which lists the same thing (and a little more) for BlueKai. Does anyone know of similar sources of information for other advertising networks?

<comment><USER3> In case anyone else has the same problem, the Ads Preferences HTTPS link (<https://google.com/ads/preferences>) didn't work for me, but the HTTP link (<http://google.com/ads/preferences>) did.

<comment><USER2> My bad. Fixed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is why I use Adblock, Ghostery, and always-on Private Browsing in Firefox.

<comment><USER5> If everyone did this though many online products and services would cease to exist. I would like to think there is a nice middle ground where you could pay a small amount on services like Facebook and Twitter for them to provide a completely ad free experience.

It seems companies are reluctant to do this though, I guess they think that having advertising available across all demographics is more important than some subscription revenue.

<comment><USER6> In the logic of target based ads this is an exact differentation of consumers. Those that do not want ads do not get them. They may not click on them anyway so why waste money on displaying them?

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but it's exactly backwards. You've split your user base into "people who have the means and inclination to spend money on the internet" and "people who don't". Which one do you think advertisers would value access to more?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What interests me is the first use case the author uses - where he develops a profile of a Republican by visiting Mitt Romney's website and then sees Romney ads on other websites. To me this is unlikely to be a RTB - it seems to me to be more likely based on retargeting. Granted, retargeting can be served via RTB, but my point is that they likely aren't using demographic or behavioral data to target that profile - they're more likely simply pushing an ad to someone that has visited the Romney website before.

Also, Bluekai, who is highlighted here, has some of the worst data on me of any of the providers - Google is the most accurate (not shocking given the number of Google services I use). Bluekai has me listed as 60-64 - and I'm old but not that old.

Finally, I think the article combines two ideas that are really very different things: RTB and then behavioral profiles. Now the two are connected and inter- related, but there is nothing that says an RTB-based ad has to be targeted using behavioral information (as opposed to content-based targeting for example). And there's nothing to say that a company can't target using behavioral data but not do it using RTB technology - you could come up with a behaviorally targeted list and just execute it through direct buys.

</comment><comment><USER9> _I don't see this as a bad thing as the more relevant you can make ads, the more useful they are to the user, the more advertisers will bid and the more publishers (websites) will earn._

Having complete strangers scrutinize, classify, parcel, and sell my life to those wanting to sell me things I don't need is not terribly useful from my perspective.

I don't begrudge any publisher their source of income, but I am not a commodity.

<comment><USER10> They don't sell your life, they sell the right to have an ad shown to you. It is different.

<comment><USER9> You completely miss my point. I have no problem looking at ads, or with the publishers selling ad space that obscures 50% or more of a webpage. That's their prerogative.

I object to having the details of my life collected and monetized by strangers for other strangers. My vacation plans are no one's business; my political bent is my own concern; my shoe size is between me and my podiatrist; and I must absolutely _insist_ that it stays that way.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Should we worry about ads aimed specifically at us everywhere we go on the Web and, increasingly, on our mobile devices too? Yes, and not just because the ads can be invasive and annoying. Real-time bidding also makes the online marketplace less of an even playing field, allowing companies to send loyalty points or discounts — or price increases — to individuals based on their perceived spending power. The travel site Orbitz, after learning that Mac users spend 30 percent more on hotel rooms than P.C. users, has started to send Mac users ads for hotels that are 11 percent more expensive than the ones that P.C. users are seeing, according to a recent Wall Street Journal article."

Isn't that complaining about ads being intrusive, then complaining about not getting ads because of targeting?

It's not like Orbitz charge mac users more money by upping the prices only for them.

It's funny because I did a ton of consumer search at Nokia and spend hours and hours listening to people talk about advertising on mobile and irrelevancy was one of the biggest problems. Better targeting saves advertisers money and should piss users off less.

<comment><USER10> Interest based targeting may be less annoying. Chasing me around the web harassing me with retargeting pisses me off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Real-time bidding also makes the online marketplace less of an even playing > field, allowing companies to send loyalty points or discounts — or price > increases — to individuals based on their perceived spending power.

Isn't that an implementation of "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need" social justice ideal? I thought NYT was a little left- leaning and their authors would like that.

The idea that buyers should be treated equally, like anonymous entities and their circumstances should have no bearing on price, is something taken straight out of John Locke's thought experiments.[1]

[1] I have no idea how to link within Google Books so just search this one for "anchor" <http://books.google.com/books?id=WYXB2hV1AE4C>

<comment><USER13> > Isn't that an implementation of "from each according to his ability, to each > according to his need" social justice ideal? I thought NYT was a little > left-leaning and their authors would like that.

It makes little sense to me to speak about advertisement in Marxist terms. The goal is to make money for corporations, hardly a social justice-oriented endeavor.

At any rate, different pricing for serving ads to different people is the antithesis of treating everyone equally. I recognize this but hardly find it noteworthy. At the extreme, the "everyone gets the same ads" mentality causes me to be subjected to ads for diapers and dresses. Comparatively, the ads I currently get are downright fascinating.

<comment><USER10> How does a corporation contradict communist economics?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Disclaimer: I work for Google on the DoubleClick Ad Exchange. These views are my own and don't express those of my employer.

From where I'm sitting real-time bidding ("RTB") does indeed seem to be the future of display advertising. Personally I don't see this as a bad thing as the more relevant you can make ads, the more useful they are to the user, the more advertisers will bid and the more publishers (websites) will earn.

As much as on sites like this there are those who speak of the evils of advertising, the fact is that advertising is the only way the vast majority of the Internet can exist.

The article notes:

> In June, Facebook announced that it would introduce a new service called > Facebook Exchange, which will enable advertisers to send promotions for > Spanish hotels, say, to Facebook users who have searched for trips to Spain.

For the record, Google still maintains a strict separation between search and display.

This quote is bizarre:

> Real-time bidding also makes the online marketplace less of an even playing > field,

The New York Times is suddenly concerned with being egalitarian? Really? Also:

> ... based on a hidden auction system that we're unable to alter or control.

www.google.com/ads/preferences/

Click "Opt out".

(Side note: where is the Facebook equivalent?)

Another point:

> This is bad news for magazines and newspapers: once advertisers were able to > track and reach specific consumers, they became less interested in where > their ads appeared and more interested in who, specifically, was seeing > them.

Online advertising has the merit of being completely measurable in that you can determine to a fraction of a cent how much you spent on impressions, how many of those impressions resulted in a click (resulting in an effective CPC) and how many of those became customers (effective CPA).

Traditional media is suffering because probably since it's existed--and anyone who has bought radio, TV or print advertising should be aware of this--is that the audience numbers are basically a lie. So yes, it's bad news for that lie to be exposed for those perpetuating the lie I guess.

> For example, by knowing discrete and apparently unconnected facts about you > — your shirt color, gait, driving habits and the e-mail font you use — > companies could, using algorithms that sort the profiles of hundreds of > thousands of people like you, accurately predict what kind of porn you surf.

Say what now? An important point:

> ... none of these classifications was accurate, although Tawakol noted that > they would become more precise the more I browsed the Web while allowing > BlueKai cookies on my computer.

The underlying point here is that advertisers aren't interested in you, the individual, they're interested in you as part of an audience. Note:

> And BlueKai says that its advertising partners can't identify by name the > consumers they're tracking, and they generally don't want to.

> But it was a place where people could define themselves and be surprised by > experiences in the future that didn't reflect preferences they expressed in > the past.

Really? We're going to wax lyrical about TV advertising in the 1960s now?

<comment><USER15> > the fact is that advertising is the only way the vast majority of the > Internet can exist

This is a bit of an overstatement, I think. There is certainly some good ad- supported stuff, and maybe it's the "vast majority of the Internet" if counted by sheer volume, but if weighted by information quality, I would put it closer to maybe half of the Internet. For my own browsing, probably more like 20-30% of the sites I visit regularly are supported by ad revenue, but I'll admit that's probably low. The rest are not there primarily to make direct revenue through selling ad space, though they might be connected to a profit motive in some other way.

Some in that category: Wikipedia, HN, a whole bunch of *.edu stuff, tumblr, technical blogs run by companies (MSDN Blogs, Googlers' blogs, lots of startups' blogs), Amazon, websites run by think-tanks like Cato or Hoover, arXiv. In fact I think the only ad-supported sites I visit regularly are newspaper websites, Facebook, StackExchange, and Google's properties.

<comment><USER10> HN and corporate blogs are all ad supported, just not third-party ad-network supported.

<comment><USER16> That... is a big stretch. That's like saying my personal blog is ad-supported because it advertises me. I mean, it would be more correct to call it an ad than to call it ad-supported. Same with news.ycombinator.com; it does a lot to advertise ycombinator.com, sure... but calling it ad-supported is really a stretch from what most people think that phrase means.

I mean, if we are going that far, every article published where the author was compensated mostly in ego (which is to say, nearly everything written) is ad- supported.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, that's the caveat I was trying to add with "connected to a profit motive in some other way". If an SaaS startup writes a technical blog, they're probably doing it in part because they hope it'll help bring in some more paying customers. But they aren't typically hoping to monetize the blog _itself_ as their revenue-generating product, through AdSense or BlogAds or similar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> To call cookies "bits of code" is inaccurate, but I'm being pedantic.

<comment><USER18> Small inaccuracies are perfectly acceptable if they aid in conferring understanding to the layman.

<comment><USER19> I don't like it because it makes it sound like they are running stuff on my machine. Which sounds like hacking to the layman. Cookies are closer to name tags than bits of code.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> On a related note, Google, Bing, and now Facebook trap us in a custom-me bubble - only showing search they think are relevant to us. This kind of information sorting is fine but it makes hard for me to search something "objectively" - have to go through Incognito or clear cookies, sign out etc...

I think this paradigm will collapse as we become globalised. My question is when and what will replace it.

<comment><USER10> Define "objectively".

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> According to BlueKai I'm:

4-6 yrs old Make 20-29 Rent Am female

Funny, yes. Accurate? Not a chance in hell.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why is targeted advertising bad? Would the author rather see irrelevant ads?

</comment><comment><USER23> I just saw some Conan O'Brien clips and now they think I'm american.</comment>


Your Next JVM:  Panama, Valhalla, Metropolis [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~jrose/pres/201703-YourNextVM.pdf <comment><USER2> There's a lot of things in this presentation that it would be awesome if the JVM had. But unfortunately it seems it might take a long time before even some of these features are released.</comment>


Ask HN: How do you know if you're a good dev or not? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I'm happy to recount that I solved a problem by recognizing exactly what kind of parser was needed, but there was also that time Nate took a month of vacation, and I'd only written 30 useful lines of code for his project when he returned. Development is a creative process and therefore a mess of too much effort and too much ego. So I count projects and times the client was happy, or we got hacked the first day of deployment, or our work won the next grant.

But try this: Find someone friendly and interested and buy them a beer or an Amazon gift card or a snazzy keyboard in return for reviewing some of your code. Learn and get socialized, like taking your pup to the dog park. Make yourself acceptable enough to be hirable, and maybe that's enough.

<comment><USER3> Some solid words.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Look back at your code, see how many man-hours it has saved AND cost, subtract the two, and there's your answer :)

</comment><comment><USER5> When i sit back, look at what I've made and proclaim out loud GD that's f'ing awesome.

Then my wife looks at me like I'm crazy and I get back to work.

</comment><comment><USER6> At first I thought I was a great dev because my boss routinely praises me as an unqualified genius and savior of the company! And this is like 2 to 3 times a week.

But then I jump on HN and read all the "Signs you're a bad developer" articles and discover that I'm actually a two-bit mediocre hack.

I dunno.

<comment><USER7> I guess you would want to take praises from someone who knows what you do. If your boss is not a qualified engineer you may want to understand his/her praise as "you are a great problem solver," which would be 100% correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> You built good software.

How good? So good no one else has even thought of, and actually written, that software before.

<comment><USER3> This.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> When I show my mither my name in the about box.

I commonly find that what my clients want is not what I regard myself as ethically obligated to deliver, that is I give them what they need and not what they ask for.

</comment><comment><USER10> I use butterflies to write my code.

[https://xkcd.com/378/](https://xkcd.com/378/)

</comment><comment><USER11> when your boss comes over and high fives you, slaps you on the ass and then says way to go brah!

<comment><USER12> Your boss slaps you on the ass?</comment></comment>


Verizon's new double-capacity "XLTE" network now covers 250 cities - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2014/05/19/verizons-new-double-capacity-xlte-network-now-covers-250-cities/

<comment><USER2> Yay! Now I can blow through the Verizon data caps in half the time.

I am condescending because of how ridiculously fast it is to blow through a data cap when doing something simple like playing music on google music, or using facebook, downloading apps.

Furthermore as speeds increase websites start caring less and less about super mobile friendly versions and thus don't optimize for bandwidth. Which means again blowing through the monthly cap. Do users notice that say www.foo.com downloaded 5mb of data over a small browsing session if the download was fast enough?

Often responsive web design also allows dev/design to punt on bandwidth as they make it look right vs download right.</comment>


Kparc/kcc: k crash course - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/kparc/kcc <comment><USER2> Seems very informative and well written but I am surprised APL and Kenneth Iverson are not mentioned anywhere in the "genesis" section.

<comment><USER3> That's indeed surprising. The main site of the organization (not sure what to call them) does show the history and relationship to Iverson, APL and J: [https://kparc.io/](https://kparc.io/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
        x = x + 1

"Most programmers will agree that this expression makes perfect sense, but if you show it to a math guy, be ready to hear "no, it isn't". And once you see what makes him think that way, you will also see why we assign values with : in k."

This is pretty dumb. Show "x : x + 1" or even "x : y + 1" to a math person and they will not know what you mean either. There is a non-universal convention in math of using a "defining semicolon" with equals signs, so you could say "x := y + 1" and math people would probably interpret it the same way you do, though they might not like "x := x + 1".

But all this is irrelevant anyway: Progamming is not math. Other parts of the syntax of k don't look very mathy either. Preferring ":" over "=" or something else for assignment is a _choice_ on the part of the language designers, but it has nothing to do with not confusing poor mathematicians.

</comment><comment><USER5> You may also find this work-in-progress reference document useful: [https://ref.kparc.io/](https://ref.kparc.io/)

</comment><comment><USER6> This looks really cool but what is the real use case for it? If I have no graphics, no easy way to serve HTTP resources and no other weird/niche use cases, what can I use k for outside of academic and financial applications?

Don't get me wrong I think this looks very interesting and I'd love to use it but I wanna use it for real software and I don't see how k makes that easier for me compared to popular widespread languages.

</comment><comment><USER7> Use of APL variants on Wall Street is always exaggerated.

</comment><comment><USER8> Looks like APL all over again.</comment>


India students caught 'cheating' in exams in Bihar - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-31960557 <comment><USER2> The problem is that if you have 1.4 million people to compete against in your state and you _know_ the authorities don't really care if you cheat, then you absolutely have an incentive to cheat. This is a political & cultural problem, but is absolutely solvable.

In my graduate program (~60 people) at a top tier US engineering school, about 10% were Chinese, 80% Indian, and 10% American. The Indians did all their work as a big team, and it didn't matter whether it was homework, quizzes, projects, tests, or even their theses. They didn't consider it cheating at all, even though it absolutely was (except the homework, where partnership was usually encouraged). Everyone else _knew_ they were cheating, but in the absence of professors willing to confront the problem, what is an honest student to do? Do you maintain your integrity at the risk of lower grades, or do you cheat, too, and ensure a high GPA?

<comment><USER3> I'm not clear on how what the Indians are doing affects the GPA of the Chinese or Americans in your example. Do they blow the curve, maybe?

Also, Americans tend to put individual before group. I wonder if your example isn't so much cheating as a difference in culture.

<comment><USER4> It undermines the moral fabric of the society. It's not a coincidence that in India (or Bangladesh, where My family is from), you have to bribe someone to get your phone hooked up.

<comment><USER3> Ok, but I still am not clear about how this would affect the GPA of students who don't cheat.

<comment><USER5> Either because it is graded on a curve or because graduates are judged based on GPA. If you earned a fair and square 3.5 and a bunch of people cheated their way to a 3.7 you have a devalued 3.5.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The whole Indian Education system reeks with strong attitude towards just getting grades & marks, discourages any innovative / critical thinking and to be honest, it is completely hopeless. The higher you climb, the more messed up it is. If any qualified person would be there to make the examination papers and to check them, in most of the engineering colleges here, I doubt even 20% would make it till the end. The questions are repetitive, quite general and purposely unspecific.

People buy reports, seminars, projects because they find it impossible to make it on their own. Cheating with so common and ingrained that it is something to boast about and not frowned upon by anyone, in fact, an average student believes that he has a moral right to cheat. Even the IITs which produce the smartest bunch are able to attract the smartest because of their 'brand' and not because of any intrinsic value they provide. The same story of typical Indian college applies to them.

The good news is, no of startups that are actually interested in someone's talent have grown in past few years. Someone like me, who found their 'path' through Internet, is lucky to be part of one of them. :)

</comment><comment><USER7> On a much different scale, but an Indian outsourcing firm we do business with (Capgemini) gives our interview questions to subsequent candidates. Sometimes it's evident they are trying desperately to Google for answers during telephone interviews, and I've even noticed that there is sometimes someone else there feeding them with answers!

<comment><USER8> Why do you continue to work with them?

<comment><USER7> I don't have a choice. I've previously had much more successful engagements with companies in China and India, so would gladly change if it was up to me.

However, I work in a large organisation, and even if my direct manager agrees with me, those above him honestly couldn't give a shit what we think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not sure if relevant, but when I was in 10th Grade, the teachers helped all of us in the exams. They didn't want to tarnish the image of the school by having a low-pass result.

Yes, India.

<comment><USER10> This can happen anywhere. I remember my old high school math teacher helping the star math pupil get a higher score on the AIME[1] and then again on the IMO[2]. The student was suspected of cheating and, thankfully, given a second chance to take the exam again (don't remember which one) without the teacher present.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Invitational_Mathemati...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Invitational_Mathematics_Examination) [2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olym...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Mathematical_Olympiad)

<comment><USER11> How does one cheat in IMO? Is your high school teacher your country's IMO team leader?

<comment><USER10> Maybe it was a qualifying test? I don't know, it was held in the school.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Its sometimes amazing when I see other indian student ( being from south asia myself ) outsource their report writing back home from university in england.

Sometimes I sit in lectures and the the person besides me have 5+ years experience working in IT with a bachelors from India competing with 18-19 year old people.

</comment><comment><USER13> That picture of students hanging from the windows of exam hall is hilarious and sad. Though it is not representational of India on the whole. The state of Bihar has been notorious when it comes to 'cheating' in exams (besides heightened levels of crimes in every other field).

The title of the article leaves a bad taste in the mouth. The premier universities in India have a much more robust system of conducting exams. More than a decade ago, the exam paper was supposedly leaked before the exam. The exam, which is conducted all over India, was cancelled and re-conducted. That was quite a feat.

However, on the -ve side, there are political leaders who have encouraged 'cheating' by abolishing laws against such acts.

</comment><comment><USER14> Smaller depiction of a larger malaise. Indian education system is simply the tip of the ice berg. The government and educational systems are just the small front face of corruption, that is in the Indian society today. The corruption you see in the form of exchange of money is minuscule when compared to moral corruption which has infected everyone here.

Unfortunately you are likely to face far more worse kind of corruption even at workplaces, even in Multi national corporations in India. Religious, linguistic and regional politics is very common. If you are really hard working and productive, expect yourself to be exploited. You will go on working only to find worthless people get promoted and rewarded. Every single section of the India society is simply looking for a easy way to get ahead even if that means blatantly cheating your way through. Given these circumstances its hardly surprising why good people just want to move out settle outside India.

<comment><USER15> Yup, and it only makes it that much harder for Indian students who want to separate themselves from the herd and try to be honest hard-working individuals.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> As someone from Bihar, there is a pattern to this cheating. Certain years, the Govt. decides to clamp down hard and exams happen under Election like security and certain years you have free for all cheating.

Also Bihar has a very small number of engineering colleges (like 9-10 compared to almost 300 in Tamilnadu), so in my experience people who cheat; tend to filter out themselves, because people have to compete hard for engineering entrance examinations (like IIT-JEE/AIEEE). My point is - by and large, it wouldn't be fair to paint a average engineer from Bihar by same brushstroke (of course, this is bit self-serving because I happen to have same background).

</comment><comment><USER17> IMHO the real problem here since a long time is that exams have been demonstrated to be flawed. You can pass an exam and have no idea on the subject. The whole system is flawed, we need a new education system.

<comment><USER18> Uh huh. Like what?

<comment><USER19> If he knew he would have probably mentioned it.

<comment><USER3> Unless he's currently writing the patent documents for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This analogue is seen through any sort of MOOC that you do. Register for one (especially programming/maths/science-related) and google some of the homework questions. There's heaps of sites where straight answers are given (as in, multichoice options to a question, no explanation).

For some, that seems to be worth their time. I don't even understand.

</comment><comment><USER21> This problem is certainly not unique to India. [http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/1013239...](http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/asia/china/10132391/Riot- after-Chinese-teachers-try-to-stop-pupils-cheating.html)

</comment><comment><USER22> This is shocking even as a Indian. In a place where scoring high rather than learning is of prime importance, this is not unbelievable. But parents helping out, this is all-out crazy level.

<comment><USER16> Bihar like few other north indian states have heavy male dominance. About 90% of relatives I know, want their daughters to finish Matriculation and get married.

The point is - parents put such little emphasis on education of their daughters that girls learn very little in terms of real knowledge by the time - they have to write board exams. Now it is very important to be at least class 10th pass for getting married, so parents put all resources they can to get them to pass (which includes cheating).

Having said that, both boys and girls cheat of course. But from my experience - the society makes it damn hard for girls to excel academically. They have to help with house chores - cooking, cleaning and often are encouraged by parents to skip classes for doing stuff at home.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> You can cheat on exams, but you can't cheat when it comes to to produce. You either do, or you don't do it.

It's like stealing. You might get by doing it, a few people might get by, but everyone can't steal for a living. Somewhere, someone has to be making the things that are stolen. And somewhere, someone has to have ideas and knowledge and drive to implement solutions. Everyone can't simply bullshit their way through life. But some people never figure this out.

</comment><comment><USER24> I read some of the comments here that attribute the problem to the lack of resources or the communal good. I respectfully disagree. The main problem in India is the outdated system.

Most Indian kids have plenty of resources available to them and most parents in India would go hungry as compared to not provide the needed educational resources that were needed by the kids. Also, most Indian kids are super competitive and they have to be when their parents are always asking their rank in class.

Having said that, I don't think it really matters over the long term.

Here is my personal experience:

Growing up in India, cheating was not only accepted but encouraged. I did my high school in India and during the big board exams, I was one of very few students who didn't cheat - out of 200. Why? My dad (and some of the other parents) told us that if we cheated, they will kill us. During the exams, the teachers that were proctoring the exam came up to us repeatedly and asked if we needed help and trust me, it was tempting because you don't want to fall behind someone who is cheating.

There were and are a few factors at play. One is the emphasis on year-end exams. They are the only means of determining the students' performance. No papers to write, no projects, nothing else. Teachers are rated only on the success of their students in these year-end exams. Competition is very high. Parents (admittedly not all) are willing to do anything to help their kids get ahead. If you go to a school during exam time, very often you will see parents standing outside trying to pass notes through windows etc. I have heard of people who hid phones under their turbans in the exams and all kind of other crazy stories.

Now, here is why I don't think it matters. In the short term cheaters scored better but in the longer run, the few of us that didn't cheat came out ahead (small community so I know most of the people and where they are now). In hindsight, I am very glad that my dad didn't allow me to cheat. After that experience, I went to undergrad and grad school in the US and I did see cheating - Indians, Chinese, Americans - everyone cheated, some more blatantly than the others.

It didn't bother me because I strongly believed that in the longer terms those that didn't (and don't) cheat will come out ahead. So far, I haven't seen anything that has disproved that hypothesis.

</comment><comment><USER25> I don't understand exactly how this cheating method work? How do the students communicate with the people outside?

<comment><USER26> Shortly after you receive the question paper, the question paper is sent to people outside, either through windows you can see, or by taking 'pee break'. after which they prepare answers and deliver them through windows, or they take it from bathrooms, when taking the '2nd pee break'. I have sat in one of those exams, ;) but it was in Pakistan, nothing dissimilar though. That said, it was about 10 years ago. Now there are very tough 'restrictions' esp., in urban areas, but in rural areas I guess this could be still in practice.

But this does not help any of them, because even witin Pakistan, the degree from the Sindh province (where it is more common), is barely taken seriously, when applying for the Job.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> 600 students have been expelled over this incident: [http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/20/600-indian- students-...](http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/20/600-indian-students- expelled-after-footage-shows-parents-scaling-walls-to-pass/?intcmp=trending)

</comment><comment><USER28> Well let's not generalize the entire Indian education system by looking at this picture. Cheating during exams is grave offence and I have heard storied how someone was suspended for an entire year for getting caught cheating. This is an extreme case.

</comment><comment><USER29> If this video is authentic, cheating seems to be one of the lesser problems in Indian education. Instructors are hitting students:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zfC3kbOlQI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9zfC3kbOlQI)

<comment><USER3> I got slapped in the face by my 4th grade teacher once. This was back when schools had windows and so there was this kid bouncing one of those red "kick ball" balls on a sidewalk right outside my window. I couldn't concentrate on what I was doing so I got up, went to the window and said some pretty naughty things. My teacher marched right over and laid her hand across my face. My father just smiled when he heard about it and told me I got what I deserved. I was all "yes, ma'am" and "no, ma'am" to her from then on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Is there no-one monitoring the exam inside the room?

</comment><comment><USER31> Sigh. Unleash the troll.

</comment><comment><USER32> Seems like BBC in a mission to defame India. They also seem to forget the problems in their country and focus on others.

See this:[http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education- news/4...](http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education- news/45000-caught-cheating-at-britains-universities-7555109.html)

45000 British students caught. Although this article was published in 2012. Worth noting that, this kind of news are not news at all for BBC.

EDIT: For all the downvoters. You got the right to do it but read this article starting from here: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Indophobi...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_the_BBC#Indophobia)

BBC was earlier criticized for being Anti-India, Anti-American, Anti-other religion stuff.

<comment><USER33> Not 45000 British students, but 45000 students in British universities.

<comment><USER32> Well its got to match OP's title mate.

<comment><USER33> The difference being that Britain is well known for having a lot of foreign students (many universities range 20-40%), so the set of "students in Britain" is very different from "British students".

The same is not valid for India which, as far as I know, it's not a popular destination for foreign students looking for an university degree.

<comment><USER34> Note taken Sir. But I cannot edit the title anymore. Sorry!</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Oil reaches Louisiana shores - <AUTHOR> http://www.boston.com/bigpicture/2010/05/oil_reaches_louisiana_shores.html

<comment><USER2> These Boston Globe photo essays are absolutely amazing. No matter what subject, and my level of interest, I really find myself drawn into their Big Picture expose.

This is one medium where digital really shines, I can't imagine how they represent this in the newspaper, but an single page of high quality images is just brilliant. Lets hope they don't feel the need to put this in a slide show format.

<comment><AUTHOR> If a picture paints a thousand words then the impact of these images is probably larger than any of their editorial pages on the subject. That's also a risk because by selecting the images you could make it appear more or less worse than it really is.

This selection though, does not give me the impression that they've done that, however that may be the art. Still, if this is 'all there is' the problem is of an unbelievable magnitude.

People keep comparing this to the Exxon Valdez spill, and while there are parallels I can't help but notice that that happened in a much less populated area of the world, and even this many years on there is _still_ surface oil to be found there, and it _still_ affects the local wildlife.

<comment><USER3> The comparisons to the Exxon Valdez are really over wrought, there really isn't a lot in common

\- The Exxon Valdez was a static amount of oil, we knew how much there was immediately. We can only estimate the amount of oil leaking here and nobody can accurately predict the date when it will finally be shut off. The whole "we have to stop the leak" part was missing in the Exxon Valdez, frankly that is the pressing crisis now.

\- The Prince William Sound is very enclosed compared to the Gulf of Mexico. The concentration in the Gulf is much lower, we won't be seeing anything as bad as the 2" thick crude oil goo covering everything in sight because the oil is spread out relatively thinly across a huge surface. On one hand that is good because it will break down faster naturally, on the other hand it makes corralling really hard to do, the area is massive. June and July are very timid months for weather in the Gulf because the water and land are very similar temperatures, what happens in the fall when hurricanes start rolling through the oil patch? It is going to be hitting everywhere. We lucked out that for the first few days the prevailing wind was from the northwest, but as soon as it turned around all hell broke loose.

\- There are marshes in the Gulf. Suffice to say cleaning the oil out from between blades of grass is a lot harder than off of rocky beaches.

\- Exxon got a lot of blame in 1989, BP has been lucky enough to have this widely labeled the "Gulf of Mexico oil spill" or the "Spill in the Gulf", the gulf of mexico did not spill the oil, BP did. Make a point to correct people who incorrectly label the spill.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is just absolutely heart-wrenching. Louisiana is a very beautiful place with a wonderful ecosystem. It really, really pains me to see BP totally destroying my home. Louisiana's coast has a hard enough time as it is, what with erosion — this is the last thing we needed.

</comment><comment><USER5> I think individuals should make it their business of collecting the crude oil into drums and selling it back to BP or at market. This isn't an Exxon Valdez situation where the oil was contained inside a tanker, this gulf oil is spilling out of the earth. It should be anyone's oil, especially when the spill is in the process of destroying the environment and people's livelihoods. People should get out there and make some money... get congress behind you.

<comment><AUTHOR> If it were that easy to collect this oil in a usable form then I'm pretty sure that it would be done already. The problem here is that the oil is spread out and mixed in with all kinds of contaminants (or rather, there is all sorts of clean stuff mixed in with the oil, but since you're looking at extracting the oil let's name them contaminants), to do so cost effectively is likely impossible.

The best you can hope for at this stage is that BP does not go bust (down about 29% since this all started, from $60 to $43 now), and that they will be able to pay for the cleanup.

<comment><USER6> "The best you can hope for at this stage is that BP does not go bust (down about 29% since this all started, from $60 to $43 now), and that they will be able to pay for the cleanup."

Does anyone know much of this cleanup is being covered by some form of disaster (or other) insurance?

<comment><USER7> BP does not have insurance -- they are too risky to insure. (They have their own internal insurance division, that operates like an insurance company. But basically, it's a savings account.)

<comment><USER6> Hmm I don't know how I overlooked that. You're right though: <http://www.businessinsider.com/bp-jupiter-insurance-2010-5>

<comment><USER8> What happens if it does (go bust)???

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A comment on that page mentions hurricanes. Anyone have any idea how hurricanes might affect the situation?

</comment><comment><USER7> A small price to pay knowing that you won't have to sit next to anyone on the way to work.

<comment><USER10> As horrifying as this disaster is, I think painting oil as some minor convenience that spoiled fat Americans narcissistically demand is disingenuous.

People forget that the alternative to oil was either whale blubber or armies of horses that left cities knee deep in shit (literally.) The fact is that oil was a technology that substantially _decreased_ pollution. The proof of that is that water and air quality has been improving steadily over the years since the 1800's (partly because of legislation, but largely because of technology. You can't legislate away horse manure - but you can legislate cars with cleaner engines.)

So yeah, I look forward to the day when oil is obsoleted in favor of some magic green energy source that produces no pollution (although rest assured, people will find something else to bitch and moan about.) Until then, I'll breathe a silent "thank you" to the grimiest oil refinery out there for making my life that much easier.

<comment><USER11> It's not either-or. We can use oil, while still asking the question, do we need to use so much, and do we need to push so hard to get more? You don't have to stop using oil entirely tomorrow to be concerned that the returns we get from what we're doing now are not worth the damage.

<comment><USER10> Things like conservation are about optimizing the last 5%, which in the long run (unfortunately) doesn't matter too much. Technological development is more of a punctuated equilibrium than a gradual upward slope.

So really the best thing to do is leave things alone until oil becomes scarce (i.e. expensive) and an alternative will be developed. Any attempt to legislate conservation will just result in us burning more oil for longer.

<comment><USER12> _So really the best thing to do is leave things alone until oil becomes scarce (i.e. expensive) and an alternative will be developed._

Best thing to do for whom? You're saying that if we continue to find oil for 300 more years, we just keep burning it? That seems pretty awful. The technology has already been developed (Denmark, for instance, is getting a quarter of it's electricity from wind power)--why wait?

I'd argue that the _best_ thing to do would be to rapidly transition to the cleaner, more renewable sources of energy that already exist (wind, water, sun, even natural gas) while drastically altering lifestyles to reduce the need for such massive amounts of energy. Maybe the economy (stock market) get's screwed up for a little while, but hell, it's already screwed up, right?

 _Any attempt to legislate conservation will just result in us burning more oil for longer._

How so?

<comment><USER13> _if we continue to find oil for 300 more years, we just keep burning it?_

Someone will, absolutely. First world nations will have the wealth and access to innovations to convert to cleaner energy but the poor majority of the world will increasingly create the demand. Oil is too easy and efficient to just ignore. As I see it the only options to stop this would be to build clean energy sources for the entire world which seems nearly impossible, destroy or prevent access to the remaining oil sources, or occupy and repress these poor countries to actively prevent them from burning oil. The later two options would almost certainly start World War 3. The first option is ideal but not very realistic. We are OK letting these same people die due to lack of basic medical care and clean water. What are the chances we help them convert to clean energy? Without some massive global catastrophe to change the game letting the oil run out is the most peaceful and realistic approach in my opinion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's a link to Boston's BigPicture. I'm curious why you gave reddit credit for the link.

<comment><AUTHOR> Because that's where I found it. Absolutely shocking images, this really rams home the scope of what is going on there.

I fear this is just the beginning though.

One thing I can't understand, and this is not an armchair oil spill cleanup attempt, why are they so trying to avoid the oil coming to the surface, isn't that the only chance you get to contain it and to deal with it? Dispersing it underwater seems to me to make it much harder to get rid of it.

Can someone with more technical insight here explain that?

<comment><USER15> The typical reason to use dispersants, at least as I understand it, is that most of the damage, or at least most of the damage people care about, is done by oil washing up on shore and coating everything, which can be partly avoided if the oil is dispersed into a dilute mixture in the water.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ok, but doesn't that mean that any chance at cleaning it up is blown and that the oil will be spreading all throughout the eco-system ?

I can see that BP might think that's a 'cost savings' measure, if you can't see it you won't have to clean it up, but that seems rather irresponsible.

<comment><USER15> Well, it'll eventually get broken down by various kinds of oil-metabolizing bacteria, so e.g. the same amount of oil in the Exxon Valdez spill would've caused much less damage if it weren't in a big clump near shore. Typical spills are admittedly a lot smaller than this one, though, so even dilute oil might cause problems-- one that's been suggested is that it'll lead to a bloom of the oil-eating bacteria, which will deplete the gulf waters' oxygen.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The photo with the kids at the beach having to use a plastic pool was particularly striking.

<comment><USER17> I didn't make the connection when I saw it, that plastic is made of oil.</comment></comment>


Does Life End at 35? (2013) - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20131101195131/http://kzhu.net/does-life-end-at-35.html <comment><USER3> Laughable.

I am in my mid-60s, manage a machine learning team at a fine company, busy writing a new book, and getting close to being an investor in a new company.

My Dad is 96 and does 3D animation, makes movies and documentaries, and is still a member of the national academy of science.

Life ends either when one gives up learning and doing new things, or when our bodies finally wear out :-)

<comment><USER4> Having whiled away my youth doing nothing of note, your statement is very inspiring.

And the article also conveys the same idea. The title is a misnomer (if some kind).

<comment><USER5> It's not a misnomer. Just another instance of Betteridge's Law.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> surrey-fringe I find myself thinking about this a bit lately.

When I was in high school I was a middle distance runner. I trained a bit harder than I should have. I was lucky to never have a significant injury that made me unable to run for more than a couple days, but there were definitely times when I felt burnt out, and I didn't compete after high school. Burnout, stress fractures and other roadblocks were very common among kids who ran more than eight miles a day, but many of us had this attitude that we had to take risks and push ourselves. I think we felt pressured because college wasn't far off, and we really only had one shot to go D1.

I'd troll a running forum called Dyestat a lot and there was this goon a grade above me who'd post questions every day about how he should structure his training (e.g. "is increasing 10% per week too much? How long should my long run be?"). The questions weren't bad questions, but everyone found them absurd because he'd run 10, maybe 15 miles in a week. How about spend time actually training instead of talking about training?

Because he took his boundaries so seriously, he increased his training load at a snail's pace -- I don't think he ran a 60 mile week before college. He improved consistently every year, never got injured, and never burned out. He went D2 (D1 > D3 > D2) and killed it. Now at 26 he runs 100+ mile weeks at 6:00 pace and tools on kids at the turkey trot every year. I check his twitter from time to time and it's clear he loves the sport as much as I did when I started.

I like to think that the difference was that he had a long-term goal that wasn't attached to some instantaneous outcome. He wanted to be able to push himself for the rest of his life, even if it meant waiting till past his prime to be any good.

I think in general if you make a change that's sustainable for the rest of your life, you win.

<comment><USER6> Assuming D2 means NCAA Division 2? If so, why is it weaker than D3?

<comment><USER7> It's the same in lacrosse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm biased, but I have to say that as a gay male there seems to be much less rigidity around having to do something by a certain age. I'm guessing a large part of that is the fact that there's not really any societal expectations around marriage/having kids/settling down, which also plays a big part in the fact that your social life doesn't necessarily die down in your 30s and, in fact, you see many older gay men in their 40s, 50s+ in the same social circles or parties/events you might attend in your 20s or 30s.

It's actually incredibly freeing and makes me appreciate being gay even more the older I get (though still in my 20s)

<comment><USER9> I think the social stuff has become less rigid for everyone as society has progressed. I'm gay and in my 30s, but I know plenty of straight people my age who also aren't doing the married-with-2.5-children thing, either. You mileage may vary depending on where you live, obviously.

So far, well, my 30s are better than my 20s, anyway.

<comment><USER8> Very true - just saying, on average, there are more societal pressures for straight people to do this and that by this age vs gay people. This may be more or less true depending on religious background, ethnic background, family, etc.

I'm all for anyone sticking it to the man and not doing anything they don't want to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> My father always told me that his 30s were the best years of his life. He was married to a good woman, he had two children, he was in the prime of life, with friends, family, athletic excellence, and a career that he loved. His 20s were a wasteland of disappointment, in comparison.

<comment><USER10> At nearly 29, with my own wasteland of twenty-something years in the rearview, I can only be optimistic about the future

<comment><USER11> As you should be; I think this kind of pondering also did not yet adjust for the new life of the elderly; my mother of 70 is healthier and more active than my granparents were in their 50s. And I see that all around me. Not only are you not even at 1/3rd of your life; you will reach close to 100% healthy and active (assuming western country and access to healthcare which is a lot to assume, but this is HN) so you should be optimistic and just do things you want while not staring at your age. Thinking about getting old and lost opportunities makes you old fast.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm 53. Life didn't end for me at 35. Since then I've changed careers, raised two wonderful kids, launched a small but successful side business, and have greatly improved as a musician.

<comment><USER13> Hey Id definitely love to hear about how greatly improved as a musician? I picked up an instrument in my 20s and I feel like am plataeuing (I love playing the instrument and I love practising - and not just the easy stuff). The feeling is more about "so what now". How do you get past that existential question?

<comment><USER12> Do you have a chance to play in an ensemble? There's an old adage: "Try to play with musicians who are better than you." I was extremely lucky to fall into a sort of community band, full of really good musicians. It has been a challenge to keep up with the band. While it's not a professional group, it's managed by grown-ups, so it's well organized and the rehearsals are efficient.

In general, performing adds a dimension to your playing, even if it's not the hardest music that you've played. If you don't have time for a band, I know it sounds kind of corny, but retirement homes love to have musicians. Some have money, others don't. The joy that it brings to people who are lonely and of limited mobility is incalculable.

Also, +1 to the other comments in this chain.

<comment><USER13> Actually totally agree about playing in an Ensemble. I used to do this before I moved here. I had tons of folks to have jam sessions with. And that was an amazing way to improve as you had constant feedback and guidance. Now I am just finding it hard to get into a circle which is pretty much entrenched and closed. I am not sure if I have become less friendlier (i doubt it) or have people become less forgiving of "amateurs"!

Hmmm love the idea of playing in retirement homes. Definitely did not think about that! By the way what instrument do you pay?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I really liked this essay and I tried to send it to a friend in Paris via FB Messenger and got a weird message:

> You can't post this because it has a blocked link

> The content you're trying to share includes a link that our security systems > detected to be unsafe:

> kzhu.net

> [http://kzhu.net/does-life-end-at-35.html](http://kzhu.net/does-life-end- > at-35.html)

Anyone know what might be happening here?

<comment><USER15> You are reading an archive of the old kzhu.net page on archive.org .

If you try to use sharing links etc from within the archived article, they may have problems as the kzhu.net page is now run by different people for a different purpose.

Maybe try sharing the link manually.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> One difference IMHO between many young and old people is the willingness to invest in starting something new. I don't mean money, I mean spending years learning something, spinning your wheels facing an uncertain outcome, with little progress, income or status while you try to get traction, etc.

Many in their early 20s are willing to work crappy jobs, live cheaply, and accept the status of having not much to show while they try for their dream. Think of actors waiting tables, as a simple example. How many 35 year olds would do that?

I know it's not that simple: Older people often have obligations, such as children, which make such things more difficult. Also, many businesses are unaccustomed to and thus unwilling to hire older people to entry-level jobs. The (40-something?) intern played by Robert DeNiro was meant to be absurd, but when I saw the previews I thought: Why shouldn't 40 year olds start a new career the same way that 20 year olds do? I can't think of a good reason. And if not, how do they start a new career?

<comment><USER17> I think there's some trepidation in hiring someone older in an entry level job. People wonder why, and what might have made them leave what they were doing for something low status and low paying. Also, they wonder if the person will be hard to manage, because let's be frank, what some companies really want in an entry level employee is someone they can push around.

I can't say is haven't wondered these things myself at times, though I have hired people in their 40s and 50s for these types of positions before. We've got several retired folks working in part time positions and they are perfect. Professional, knowledgeable, prompt, hard working, and not looking to jump to full time.

<comment><USER16> > Professional, knowledgeable, prompt, hard working, and not looking to jump > to full time.

Good points. What I meant to talk about was people who are looking to jump to full time; someone that age who wants to start a new career.

Isn't what you describe exactly what many people that age say is a problem: They can't get an opportunity to do anything but part-time, dead-end work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Maybe not work life, but social life sure died down around that time (people having kids, etc.).

<comment><USER11> My social life has gotten much more active after 30. Depends on the situation, but I guess for most people you are right.

<comment><USER19> I've defined who I truly want to be around in my 30's even if that means it's fewer people. Way more comforting than my 20's.

<comment><USER20> But the twenties themselves were much more comfortable than high school. And nothing will ever compare to the horrors of middle school. In that sense, of course life is easier because we don't care as much about other people's opinion anymore. As I learn that other people are just as clueless and full of it as I am, I am more confident even though I know I know nothing.

<comment><USER11> Well, I find this 'it gets better' to be everywhere but phyiscal; i'm begin 40s, my mind is clearer than ever before and I can pretty much do what I want and where I want. This seems to improve decade over decade. You start out bound and restricted and then free up over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Almost 42 here, will echo the rest.

My teens were miserable, my 20s sucked, my 30s were so good I thought I went to haven living in a time loop, my 40s started a bit rocky but now I'm pretty good. My athletic shape peaked around the age of 38 but now I'm pretty close.

The funny thing is, in my 20s I was also in a rush to succeed as fast as possible, and in retrospect, it was very silly. I keep hearing folks in their late 20s saying, "my time is running out", and I can't help but smile.

The best thing about the advancing age is how things start making sense and come together.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's a cliche, but the older you get, the more you realize that "age really is just a number". As an older person, your health is infinitely more relevant than your age. While you tend to suffer poorer health when you get older, this really doesn't become an substantive issue until at least your late 50s (later if you keep yourself in good shape and don't get unlucky). Live life and keep on doing what you enjoy doing (as opposed to what you think you are supposed to do or what other people tell you that you should do) for as long as you are able and you will get just as much satisfaction out of life no matter what your age.

</comment><comment><USER23> Interesting piece, thanks for sharing. I'm constantly plucking at deeper questions around this topic. High-level creative genius seems to fall off for many people in their fourth decade (their 30s), at least for musicians and many mathematicians. This is less the rule for writers, I've found, and I've often wondered about the reasons behind that. I have theories, but I'm more interested in other peoples' thoughts on the entire topic of being able to conjure creative solutions and at what age those capabilities seem to peak, at what ages people have been able to sustain them, and when people have noticed these capabilities ebbing.

</comment><comment><USER24> "Oh yeah, life goes on... long after the thrill of livin' is gone"

"Hold onto 16 as long as you can..."

 _Jack and Diane_ by John Mellencamp

By 35, you've died twice. You may as well stop caring what dopes like Mellencamp say.

</comment><comment><USER25> I can answer this without reading the article. I am 47 and still alive, therefore life does not end at 35.

<comment><USER26> Checking in at 36 and dead, so let's remember that the plural of "anecdote" is not "evidence".

<comment><USER27> If you don't mind me asking. Does it hurt? What do you do all [day] when you're dead?

<comment><USER28> > What do you do all [day(?)] when you're dead?

Glorify God.

<comment><USER29> Pretty powerful motivation to start taking better care of oneself and stop texting while driving right there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I have some friends in Germany, and their view - for the middle class - <USER2> that life begins in your 50s. At this age your kids have moved off to college or university, your debts are mostly paid off (not that debt is really a thing in Germany) and you can look forward to a few decades of retirement. The important part however is this only works if you are healthy enough to enjoy it, so it's important at a young age to take care of your body and not overwork.

</comment><comment><USER31> I like that the grandfather got a lot done in his later years, but I think the more important question to ask is: how do we define success? Is it binary, or are there varying levels of it? What is bad about not achieving success at a certain level?

We like to view life as a sequence of accomplishments, because it helps us understand others' lives. But does it make sense to frame your own life that way?

<comment><AUTHOR> Short-term success: the survival of the individual (you).

Long-term success: the thriving of our species.

<comment><USER32> I think this is our instinctual motivators, but individually humans have afforded ourselves buffers to lessen how critical basic survival is to our days, months, years.

So we seek happiness. Not contentment, but happiness. We are sold ideals that represent happiness and feel unhappy when we don't hit them.

It's great when you find someone that is generally happy with health, stability and family. I suspect that's a minority in this space, where there are overnight millionaires, CS savants and business success everywhere you look. Some work their tails off for decades and never hit the mark. Some see fleeting success and then dead ends.

How does one transition from "I want to bust my ass, blow everyone away with my startup and walk away set for life" to "I have weekends off, a great family and a path to a comfortable retirement?" Are some people just wired like this or is it trained behavior?

<comment><USER33> I'm more inclined to see it as trained behavior because this kind of thing varies by culture.

It's probably a combination of the culture and expectations around the individual rather than the individual themselves. Children are pretty often told they can be whoever they want to be by society, and so their bar is set pretty high. But when was the last time a 30 year received the message that they could be anybody they wanted to? People expect different things of older people, and the whole situation, with all of the narratives we use to define ourselves and others, is probably pretty self reinforcing. The attitude also likely shifts as you have a family and they grow up - again I think it's about what people expect. No studies to cite here, but just throwing out some ideas.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Nope. Real adulthood starts around 35 though. Possibly a year or two earlier.

I've always thought the worst think about human lifespan is that, in modern times by the time you get educated and mentally/emotionally adjusted and enough time to really get proficient at a craft you only have like a decade or less before slowdown starts. Then you have the other half of your life being "old".

In more primitive times (most of the history of the species) I believe a person was basically a small adult at puberty. There wasn't much more to learn, there wasn't a great deal to "experiment" with, crafts and trades were simple enough to be picked up in a few years. You had kids early and generally died at not much more than 40 and that was that.

Although I'm opposed to immortality (until we get some other things worked out) it would be cool if we could stay in physical/mental prime for the same proportion of lifespan as we did in earlier days. Because adulthood begins so much later.

<comment><USER34> True. Navigating the complexity of today's human society in every dimension in way where you're comfortable with yourself, takes a long time. It's a tragedy we don't stay in peak working condition for sufficiently long after we get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Whether we like it or not, we are all gardeners. When you are young you won't be able to see much of your garden, because it will take some time to bloom. Once it does take root though, you may find that you measure your success less in the things you do directly in your day to day job, and more in the gradual change that you cultivate around you. When I hear people panic about growing old, I feel that sometimes they aren't yet able to see the roots that they have placed, and how powerful those are. If anywhere in your mind the thought has taken hold that life is over after 35, then wake up. That's when the real work begins. Sometimes things will be easy, and sometimes they will be hell. When it's your turn to face that hellish stretch of road, remember to smile.

</comment><comment><USER36> "It takes 20 years to make an overnight success" \- Eddie Cantor.

</comment><comment><USER37> > Do you count down the years until you can no longer make the 30 under 30 > list?

Hitting 30 seems to be the benchmark point. The "What have you done with your life so far, its all down hill from here" moment.

Its not just the regular folk, we get essays from far more accomplished folk like sama as well. [1]

[1] [http://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are-long-but-the- decades-...](http://blog.samaltman.com/the-days-are-long-but-the-decades-are- short)

<comment><USER38> I didn't pick up on any "downhill" sentiment in the sama article you linked to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I like that these type of questions get asked. In today's age I feel like 35 is the new 25. I read a great article on investors that can translate to a good life. You guys should give it a read:

[https://passivetalks.com/the-beginners-guide-to-bitcoin- taxa...](https://passivetalks.com/the-beginners-guide-to-bitcoin-taxation- with-tips-and-tricks/)

</comment><comment><USER40> _Does Life End at 35?_

No.

 _Do you sometimes lie awake worrying that you aren 't succeeding fast enough?_

No.

 _Are you tortured by younger peers who have global businesses, penned acclaimed books and a string of iron-man medals?_

No.

 _Do you count down the years until you can no longer make the 30 under 30 list?_

No.

</comment><comment><USER41> > _Are you tortured by younger peers who have global businesses, penned > acclaimed books and a string of iron-man medals?_

All few tens of thousands of them, in a 350 million country?

</comment><comment><USER42> fwiw that translation is wrong. 大器晚成 means "The bigger the cauldron/pot, the longer it will take to cast/make [the cauldron]."

</comment><comment><USER43> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headline...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betteridge%27s_law_of_headlines)

</comment><comment><USER44> The short answer is yes...

<comment><USER45> And the longer version is yes, if you want to only live until 35.</comment></comment>


French Strike Aims to Save an Envied, but Convoluted, Approach to Pensions - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/06/world/europe/france-strike-pension-reform.html <comment><USER2> > The state would remain the main guarantor of pensions, continuing to provide > workers with a safety net that is unheard-of in the United States, where > about half of Americans have no access to retirement savings plans, and have > little or nothing saved for retirement.

This is weasel-speak. It's strictly true, only because it's worded in a way to exclude Social Security. Taken as a whole, US retirement safety net is more generous than the OECD average: [https://www.etk.fi/en/the-pension- system/international-compa...](https://www.etk.fi/en/the-pension- system/international-comparison/pension-levels/)

The above is OECD data, far more reliable than random assertions in the NYT.

Public and private pensions replace on average 70% of pre-retirement income for an average-income person, compared to 60% in France (and the OECD as a whole). Great Britain and Germany are even less. (And of course, because US incomes are higher to start with, US retirement income is even higher in absolute terms.

The average French pension payment is $1,500 per month, about the same as the average Social Security payment. But the average American worker gets about that much again in occupational pension. (See the break-down in the chart above, showing 100% of French pension coming from statutory pension, versus half of US pension coming from statutory pension.)

<comment><USER3> >>> The average French pension payment is $1,500 per month

For reference, French minimum wage is currently around 1200€ a month, with most workers earning around 1200-2000 because salaries are heavily index to the minimum.

It's one of the numerous issues with the pension system, pensions are comparable to full salaries.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is misleading (full disclosure, I am French and did protest against this last Thursday)

This article talk mainly about "special pensions" from the public with privilege... For sure they will be the biggest losers and they are very vocal, but the law and the protest is about much more than that...

This reform will impact everybody, people will have to work longer, possibly to get a lower pension. Women are particularly exposed here.

Points system allows to more easily lower the value of the point... This has been done in Sweden, and former French Minister Filon told that is one main reason he likes the point system...

With this new reform, life expectancy are not taken into consideration : a manager will live longer than an industrial worker on average ; with the same share of contribution he will benefits from the system longer than "poor people" in general

People working longer means... a little bit more unemployment and more health expense for the workers (and more absenteeism for companies) as older worker have more health problem. So you save some money for retirement at the expense of other public spending...

Some economists, like Thomas Piketty are very vocal against this "law"...

It is a pity the NYT did such a poor job...

<comment><USER5> SNCF (the rail company) is something like $45 Billion in debt?

Their conductors can retire using last 6 months of wages (vs avg wages)?

They can retire at 52? So payments will go to 82 (france has great life expectancy) That's 30 YEARS of pension payments!

They are guaranteed a job for life?

They get free / low cost housing?

They get 28 regular paid days off an maybe another 22 or so RTT days? (ie, 50 paid days off before any sick / unpaid etc).

Not bad!

These articles always start with a description of how hard the job is. In Europe they actually have great automated safety systems for trains and the trainsets are in good condition. I realize it's a hard job, but boy - my heart goes out to greyhound bus drivers in the US and many many other workers with no where NEAR these benefits and frankly much harder jobs.

The special pension folks are in the streets to protect their special pensions. Tie getting rid of the special pensions (which are often for the elites) with an increase to basic pension and social safety net for all?

<comment><USER6> > SNCF is something like $45 Billion in debt?

The state owns and controls the SNCF, its expenses, subsidies and pricing. Its debt is meaningless, in that the government decides how much in debt it is in.

> can retire using last 6 months of wages (vs avg wages)?

Retiring based on the status and position you've reached is common in many workplaces/industries, in many countries.

> They are guaranteed a job for life?

Nobody is guaranteed a job for life. If you mean to say, that if they do their job, the company can't fire them, then I don't see a problem with that.

> They get free / low cost housing?

They don't get free houses. Maybe they get free accommodations if their shifts take them far away from home; which would be reasonable.

> They get 28 regular paid days off an maybe another 22 or so RTT days?

Read about RTT days here: [https://www.e-days.com/news/france-in-focus- understanding-di...](https://www.e-days.com/news/france-in-focus- understanding-different-countries-annual-leave)

this is not special to railway conductors. The fact that in other countries people are being worked to the bone is the problem, not the fact that in France they aren't.

Also, RTT is a means to decrease unemployment by spreading work among more people. Saying it's excessive means essentially "let's pay the same thing to less people for more work".

Yes, the conditions are not bad; and people in the US should be inspired to organize, unionize - and not in those yellow collaborationist unions in the AFL-CIO, but in independent unions or in an IWW section, and demand decent, French-level employment conditions, at least.

<comment><USER5> > The state owns and controls the SNCF, its expenses, subsidies and pricing. > Its debt is meaningless, in that the government decides how much in debt it > is in.

The debt is a sign of the amount of additional subsidy needed to cover the benefits / expenses being paid. This amount (largish for France) will need to be paid by taxpayers. It is not meaningless.

> Retiring based on the status and position you've reached is common in many > workplaces/industries, in many countries.

The french system normally pays based on a 25 year average pay (inflation adjusted)?Using most recent (highest paid) 6 months is not the same or standard. Can you name any other country that uses this method? Short periods like this are also prone to manipulation.

> If you mean to say, that if they do their job, the company can't fire them, > then I don't see a problem with that.

The prohibition on layoffs consecutive to economic difficulties or technological changes is one of the benefits of the railway job - I'm just pointing that out. Other jobs even in france allows dismissal for economic reasons (if you offer employee modified job etc etc).

<comment><USER7> > The french system normally pays based on a 25 year average pay (inflation > adjusted)?Using most recent (highest paid) 6 months is not the same or > standard.

I'm not sure "normally" is the right word here. The system in France is rather complicated. SNCF workers aren't the only ones whose pension uses the last six months of income to determine the amount of the pension payment.

Under the current system:

Private sector salaried workers receive one pension where the calculation is based on their highest earning 25 years (adjusted for inflation). The calculation also takes into account the number of years worked in the private salaried worker sector. These workers may, depending on their job, also receive a second pension where the amount received is based on total points earned over all years worked (AGIRC - ARRCO).

Public sector workers receive a pension where the calculation is based on their last six months of earnings, as well as the number of years they worked in the public sector.

Self-employed workers pay into yet a number of different systems. I'm not familiar with all them, but many are based on total points earned over the years of contribution.

Finally, it's possible for someone who's worked at different times as a private salaried worker, a public sector worker, and a self-employed worker, to collect pensions from all the different sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here's a bit offtopic diverging from the original topic into climate change.

This situation seems to be very relevant to various arguments for tackling climate change and other environmental issues by "stopping growth". Thing is, a _very_ large share of capital assets that "require" (i.e. expect) growth is the various types of pension funds.

Any politician that would actually implement policies that intentionally cut economic growth in order to save the planet (or any other purpose) will ensure that the math for their local retirement system can't work out any more, that some pension reform will be neccessary, admitting that the expected benefits can't be paid out because the expected growth didn't happen. And as this example shows, there will be literal riots on the streets if that's threatened.

Also, compare this to earlier gilets jaunes riots initially sparkled by a fuel tax increase, or the Chile riots sparkled by an increase in cost of public transportation.

Climate change isn't bringing large quantities of violent protesters on the streets, but requirement to make economic sacrifices definitely is. So it's naive to expect success in cutting growth and aggressively taxing fossil fuels to help climate change - the general population will not only vote against it, they will violently fight to ensure that this is not done. Any politician who's actually serious about implementing the economic changes needed to stop climate change should expect be forcibly removed from power by a large part of their population which won't (and in many cases, can't, they're the poorer part of their society) tolerate short-term economic sacrifices. It's kind of sad, I don't know what can be done about this, but at least we should be aware about this issue when discussing any proposals that are supposed to be realistic.

<comment><USER9> So much agreed,

I'm French. I wear a gilet jaune, but that's for saving my life when I ride a bike in the night. They also protested against speed limits decrease ([https://www.gouvernement.fr/les-actions-du- gouvernement/inte...](https://www.gouvernement.fr/les-actions-du- gouvernement/interieur/la-limitation-de-vitesse-a-80-kmh-est-elle-efficace)), I often ride on 2-lane roads, and obviously the faster a car is, the most likely it is to kill me

Aside from that, I'm auto-entrepreneur which gives a quite low retirement, but I don't think it's a reason to go on strike. I've had tough years, but always had some good margin, being used to spend very little money

People can easily save money by changing their lifestyle, instead of asking for more money, for more unnecessary over-consumption. Those individual changes would be so beneficial for the environment and for themselves

<comment><USER10> and they also destroyed the speed cameras. I have a very low opinion about the gillets jaunes.

<comment><USER11> Haven't speed cameras been shown to be the opposite of effective? They should disappear :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So I won't say whose side I am on, or where I stand on social policies, but I think it is important for both sides of the aisle to realize that once you give people any sort of entitlement, it becomes exactly that an entitlement that people feel entitled to. By so doing you make incredibly difficult if not impossible to ever introduce any changes to it later no matter what is going on, wars, natural disasters, etc. In the end short term thinking by politicians wishing to cash in on votes no matter what they are voting for will end up hurting things far more than someone who takes a long term perspective.

<comment><USER13> That's the point. It is the well to do and the bosses that cry over giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of the tyranny of the markets. To not give the people, meaning the majority, what they demand is profoundly anti-democratic.

<comment><USER14> > giving the people more, allowing them to relax, allowing them to be free of > the tyranny of the markets

The only possible way to meet these goals sustainably is to propel economic growth. If you want people to escape "the tyranny of the market", you need _more_ market, not less of it! Work smarter, not harder.

And France has a lot of wasted potential for GDP growth, that could be tapped by reforming all sorts of misguided government policies. There's no inherent reason why France couldn't become as wealthy as e.g. the Netherlands, or even more.

<comment><USER13> The inequality charts would beg to differ. We need redistribution. There is an army of unemployed labor and underutilized factories and other facilities. The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human need.

With a democratically run economy, we will fully utilize the entire working population while cutting individuals some slack by reducing working hours, increasing safety, and ensuring pensions will be kept. We will do away with the unelected oligarchy that rules this planet.

<comment><USER14> We need redistribution, but we also need production, i.e. GDP growth. You can't have one without the other. (And it's _damn hard_ to redistribute sizeable fractions of GDP without killing the golden goose. It can be done, but it's the sort of policy that has to be designed with great care.)

> The market is profoundly irrational at allocating resources to meet human > need.

The market in places like France is deeply distorted by misguided government policies, many of them a product of simple corruption and misguided thinking, and not any serious attempt to remedy any market failure or promote social goals. It _is_ "irrational" indeed, but not in the way you assume. This explains why there's so much structural unemployment _and_ wasted and unused capital there, as you point out.

<comment><USER13> Equipment and people exist, they just are. It is the market that decides whether to open a position or to use a piece of equipment is unprofitable. The fact that the market persistently and unresolvably fails to employ everyone that wants a job or produce things that people need is a terrible flaw in the economy and is a condemnation of capitalism.

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure that equipment doesn't just "exist", that it takes plenty of labor to make those pieces of equipment.

Sometimes though pieces of equipment are just uneconomic given the surrounding business environment; "the market" cannot arbitrarily decide to make them profitable. Either people decide to change that business environment for the better, or some expenses will have to be written off and the business will need to move on. This shouln't be a "condemnation" of capitalism, it's a critical part of the system. Mistakes are normal, but they need to be acknowledged, and not stick around as zombies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I find it unbelievable that train drivers can retire at 52 and they are now protesting for this "right". And there are also other people who are supporting them.

I hope Macron stands by his policies and doesn't back off. I have no clue what the French people expect from their future. Don't they see that all macro variables have changed? declining population, ageing, higher life expectancy, major economic shift to Asia etc.

<comment><USER3> Bear in mind that there are millions of people directly affected by the special pensions. It's really deep rooted in the French nation.

They are heavily manifesting against any change to pensions because they are first targeted and have the most to lose, but there are many more people manifesting that simply don't want to have to work longer. Nobody approaching 60 want to be told they have to work a few years more and/or receive a lower allowance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If train drivers have their own pension system (meaning they both contribute to, and cash out from it) and they contribute so much each year that they can cash out at 57, then I can see the outrage if they suddenly need to work 10 more years.

But if the train drivers don't contribute more than some other group but still get another ten years of retirement compared to other groups - then I'd be outraged if I was part of the other groups which effectively subsidize the luxury of a very early retirement.

That said, it's always tricky to change old systems even when they are bad. There may be people who chose between a much better paying job and driving trains because they knew about the pension benefit etc. These types of systems may need to be phased out (e.g raise the retirement age of train drivers one year every two years).

<comment><USER4> @user5994461 is wrong

Train worker do pays "much more" every month for their special pension...

But currently this is not enough and the system is heavily subsidized... But the biggest part of this disequilibrium is that there use to be a lot of rail workers (so a lot are retiree now), and now not so much. If they had no special treatment but a separate pension system, most of the problem would be there too...

<comment><USER3> I'd disagree with "much" unless you can show numbers saying how much they pay. Noting there is a variation of up to 5% in contribution depending on personal situation (including status cadre and other stuff).

I have family working in national research centers and they contribute less than in the private sector (about 3%). Due to some historical agreement that's waving some mandatory contributions for all personnel of that institution.

<comment><USER4> (In French)

For rail worker: [https://www.la-retraite-en-clair.fr/parcours- professionnel-r...](https://www.la-retraite-en-clair.fr/parcours- professionnel-regimes-retraite/regimes-speciaux-retraite/retraite-agents-sncf)

For "normal" workers: [https://www.la-retraite-en-clair.fr/parcours- professionnel-r...](https://www.la-retraite-en-clair.fr/parcours- professionnel-regimes-retraite/retraite-salaries-prive/comprendre-retraite- salaries-prive-cotisations-age-depart-pensions)

<comment><USER3> My take away from this would be that it doesn't seem to allow on boarding new people and the contributions/benefits are being adjusted up/down each year over the last few years. Look like it's being shut down progressively.

I can't estimate accurately what's the final rates because it's insanely complicated, but from what I can gather they are not paying "much" more at all (maybe 1-5% all things considered and mainly because it got increased recently).

Interestingly, there is a subtle 23% line item that is supposed to cover the extra perks. It's specifically paid by the company besides the gross salary, so no it doesn't affect your salary or your disposable income.

It's as close as it gets to magic money in French accounting and that's where it gets interesting. The SNCF itself is a public organization that is in deficit every year (in part due to this; it's all circular), so it doesn't have the funds to pay this, and it eventually has to be covered by the state (the tax payers).

<comment><USER4> So much more is paid every month for this perk than for normal worker.

Note that SNCF is not in deficit every year, but generally post some profit.

Though they have a unhealthy debt burden, mainly due to enormous investment needed to create the railway network. As it is seen a public infrastructure by some their is a debate on how much of it should be supported by the state (just like the state support the road system and the airtravel)

<comment><USER3> I don't disagree that the SNCF is contributing extra (estimate 1-2B a year given 130k employees), but it's not paid by the workers, it's not taken off their salary. It is a perk and it is not taxable. Bearing in mind, the total amount even with the extra is nowhere near enough to cover the actual benefits.

2018 results say 33B in revenues, 141m in profit. I stand corrected, it's not losing money every year lately, it's about even.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Goodbye austerity! Goodbye the rich! Goodbye capitalism!

Vive la liberté, l'égalité et la fraternité.

<comment><USER16> Precisely. Bernard Arnault had his fortune doubled for no good reason in the past year. Give the money back, you robber.</comment></comment>


Carbon Calculator (by Trees for the Future) - <AUTHOR> http://trees.org/carboncalculator/ <comment><USER2> Have you paid to plant trees? I tried Terrapass a month ago and blogged about it, it was all right: [http://titojankowski.com/blew-some-money-on-carbon- offsets/](http://titojankowski.com/blew-some-money-on-carbon-offsets/)

<comment><AUTHOR> I have. The cost per ton of CO2 being offset is wildly different, though. At 1.5 tons/month (18 tons/year), the cost to offset that CO2 would come out to ~$11 yearly from TFTF (assuming an average tree planted would sequester CO2 for 10 years, which I think is a bit conservative).

<comment><USER2> I tried their calculator with 18 tons (36,000 pounds). It said ~1050 trees @ $0.10 per tree, so $105 total per year. vs $45 or whatever on Terrapass.

Let's shoot for an order of magnitude difference. How might we sell it for $4.50 a year?

<comment><AUTHOR> So I should have explained my assumptions more.

If you plant 1050 trees at $105 per year (I rounded to $110), the will extract 18 tons of CO2 from the atmosphere _per year_. This assumes that you need to just make a _one-time_ payment and as long as those 1050 trees are alive and healthy, they'll keep extracting 18 tons of carbon from the atmosphere every year.

Since we can't assume those trees will keep on living and being healthy as long as you're alive, we need an average healthy lifespan for them. Instead of trying to figure that out (googling resulted in wildly different answers), I decided to assume their healthy lifespan is 10 years. That seems very conservative, but it does give us round numbers to make the math convenient.

So every 10 years, you would need to pay $110 to keep offsetting your carbon. That comes out to $11 per year.</comment></comment></comment></comment>