>Google should be broken up into Search, Browsers, Mobile Devices, Ads, and Services, and the units prohibited from contracting with each other.
I admire the general spirit of your comment, but this specific example seems off to me. Search and browsers, for example, don't make sense as independent businesses. Rather, they are products based off of Ads.
Maybe the idea would be for Ads to pay Search to include their ads, and for Search to pay Browsers to be the default search engine?
I see this endlessly repeated across the Internet, but it doesn't work. -n't is not a general-purpose clitic the way -'d and -'ve are; it can't attach to arbitrary words. ("Well, Mary'd _said_ she was gonna, and the rest of 'em've all gone home.")
Yes, there are portions of the internet which gleefully misuse it on everything, and sometimes I am part of those portions; but even there, a) it's marked speech, and b) you wouldn't say *Y'all'dn't've gone, you'd say ?Y'all'd've gonen't, and only partially because it's funnier.
It's similar to war heroes. Yes, Abraham Lincoln killed people. Yes, we could avoid glamorizing him and empathize with the poor southerners. But generally, war heroes are idolized. This guy is like a war hero who killed someone on the other side.
But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain.
---
Of course, I'm sure none of that would ever apply to our numbers, only to those of our opponents.
What are the actual numbers you think are fantasy? Most of the time when I see someone claiming economic statistics are fake, it's a misunderstanding or lack of context. For instance, people will say the US unemployment rate is fake because it doesn't include people who have given up on looking for work... but the U-4 unemployment metric, published by the Bureau of Labor Statistics alongside the main U-3 metric, does include these people.
Because it is hilariously wrong. You have been operating under the false understanding, for who knows how long, that the media are talking about job postings when they are talking about jobs numbers.
There are some that talk about jobs filled, others are talking about unfilled postings. I guess you can laugh at your hilariously wrong assumption while reading this article.
Many thanks, I was thinking to build something similar and try to predict stock market macro movement.
Typically, right now I am relatively bearish but I feel I am 3-6m too early.
Trend is downward for both hiring and seeker, which I would interpret as employers are hesitant to invest in IT due to current US politic unknowns, typically, the tarifs and actual impacts on economy.
Nobody wants to believe they’re living in a peak, and it is hard to predicate. People claiming economic downturns are near are a dime a dozen.
That said, there are possible indicators. Yes, unemployment is low, but what form is employment taking? Is it generally trending toward fulfillment, growth and/or rewarding or is it trending toward mundane, unfulfilling and/or unrewarding?
Is everyone benefitting from the official economic growth? Or are the gains statistically lopsided?
Let’s take a common mentioned stat about wage growth. Yes since 2020 wages finally raised. But if you look at it overall since 1970[0], it still behind productivity gains. Wages are not keeping up with overall productivity growth and people are still going to notice that in some form. Everyone talks about since 2020, but that misses the broader story. (As an aside, I suspect by the end of 2025 wages will significantly stagnant again. Growth won’t continue on the best take of the current trajectory)
Then there’s inflation. Regardless of cause, an entire generation+ of people have never experienced such rapid prices rising, particularly with groceries. People aren’t going to forget this, no matter what the official line is. This also eats away at wage growth which as noted above, has not kept paced with productivity gains.
The official sources though say everything is great, or heading toward it. Maybe, especially if you’re seeing the benefits, but if you’re locked out of the majority of gains, what if any you do get will feel meaningless. This shouldn’t be discounted.
It is entirely possible that wealth inequality combined with the world political climate is starting to show more cracks in the system and this might be peak. We may be seeing the warning signs of a big changes, whether it manifests itself as mostly political or economic is anyways guess I suppose
> All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot.
In the theme of the day: "Your coverage has been denied, due to [insert nonsense]", while profiteering from record profits in the billions.
Immense economical value has been "produced", benefiting no-one but the very few.
From the New-York Times [1]:
The company’s profits rose on his watch, jumping to more than $16 billion last year from $12 billion in 2021. But amid the growth, the company and its parent also attracted scrutiny from lawmakers and regulators who accused them of systematically refusing to authorize health care procedures and treatments.
In my case, it'd be growing numbers of people being easily able to afford housing and medical care, with most people putting more of their money into savings. Right now we have soaring numbers of homeless people and record amounts of household debt so I don't think we're doing very well.
Actually I think this could be distilled to a simpler metric. The economy is doing well when the net wealth (not including tax advantaged accounts) of individuals and families is positive and growing in real dollars.
Because if you are able put money into savings or investments then you probably have the other stuff you listed.
If your net worth is tied up in your home (house rich, cash poor), you can't put that money into savings or investments. My house is "worth" 2X what I paid for it 11 years ago, awesome. It's not helping to pay the increase in taxes, homeowners insurance, groceries, that have gone up, up & up.
> The economy is doing well when the net wealth (not including tax advantaged accounts) of individuals and families is positive and growing in real dollars.
Tricky to account for differences in consumer culture, no? Because the number of people who consume all they earn, no matter how much that is, is not staying equal over time or location.
I wouldn't account for it at all both because I think it will shake out in the aggregate but also because if people are spending all their money immediately I think it signals low confidence in their future economic situation.
We don't live inside a 1984 society. The closest to that currently would be North Korea. Brave New World was always more apt for modern western societies. But any such comparison is flawed, since those are just the writings of one author about a fictional dystopia were things were taken to the logical extreme for whatever critique the author is making.
At least in the case of the Maya, literacy was carefully guarded so that a small class of priests could exercise precisely this kind of control. In fact, this is believed to be one of the reasons why modern Mayan languages are written in the Latin alphabet, even though there's a complete Mayan script that was the most developed writing system in the Americas until the conquest.
I read this as virility and expected something very different. So I'm going to comment as though it said "Virility in cartography".
A virile map has monsters, and beckons a boy to grab his stick (gleaming steel) and hop aboard the patio (great ship with full sails) and set the neighborhood alight in delight fighting pirates.
He devises elaborate dilemmas and improvises wilely against his barbarous captors, even as the governors of his native country conspire against him, or wonders what strange countries lie just beyond the edge of the words "the known world".
Or maybe the sea is made of stars, and he envisions gayly springtime planets, or dark winter stars that become dragons across the nebulae.
Idk, even then, maybe there's a frontier beyond the final one - where consciousness melts between the fabrics of little realities, each with their own cutely crafted logic, and he drifts to a new dream where 1 + 1 is 3 and it only makes sense that way.
Idk. ChatGPT raised me and I'm afraid I'm becoming my father, who then will I raise to look like me? If only I had a map of the ages to not fear myself.
Ooh I really like the triangle one. It's the top voted answer, so I guess I'm not alone.
In fact, I think I really enjoy specialized notations. I care about how ideas are expressed, sometimes even more than the ideas themselves. Sheet music, SQL, creating DSLs in Lisp, Hoon code (controversial here).
There are counter examples. For example, I adore coding in SQL, but ORMs always feel super gross. And isn't Paul Graham's adoration of Lisp kind of a programming version of the Sapir–Whorf hypothesis?
Whatever, and in Sapir (and Whorf)'s defense, how "debunked" is linguistic relativity anyway?
Whatever, I'll keep accruing beautiful new symbols and vocabularies and aesthetics for saying things that were previously unsayable and discovering new ideas to put together elegantly.
>They are under attack because the archive belongs to the USA, and as we all know, this horrendous and hypocritical government supports the genocide that is being carried out by the terrorist state of “Israel”.
>shoplifting is currently rife and, when the value is low, not addressed, but this is a temporary state of affairs.
Remember though, how often in the history of states, the temporary cannily usurps permanence. It's hard to tell what's a brief deviation from the mean, rather than an early glimpse into the new normal.
I have no idea what I'm talking about, either in terms of understanding society nor the UK specifically, but your phrasing tickled my paranoia about that phrase a sort of famous last words for civilizations, lol.
I admire the general spirit of your comment, but this specific example seems off to me. Search and browsers, for example, don't make sense as independent businesses. Rather, they are products based off of Ads.
Maybe the idea would be for Ads to pay Search to include their ads, and for Search to pay Browsers to be the default search engine?