Live data from Hacker News

For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

economist.com

141–150 of 151 posts

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#141

I think people don't grasp the enormous influence publishers of news have, and thus the signifance to everyone of who owns them, their politics, integrity, and whether they will insist on journalistic integrity or compromise it. I see many, many people repeating what is effectively propaganda from News Corp publications (Fox and the Wall St Journal), competely unwittingly. The public seems surprisingly easy to manipu…

Ouch. I wish I could go back and edit that. I need to post a little more slowly on HN.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#142
post #100

The obituaries are brilliant. One of the best things I read every week.

I think a few years ago they had a section outlining all the polite British euphemisms that are employed in writing unflattering obituaries yet avoiding the libel lawyers (describing a philanderer, drunkard, closet homosexual, etc. in so many words recognizable to all yet not exposing undue liability)

edit: http://www.economist.com/node/21541767

Reminds me of when Watson expesses sudden outrage at his newspaper description of himself as a 'confirmed bachelor' on the Sherlock TV show I bent over double laughing, utterly mystifying my friends.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#143
post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your "reading" it still, what is this 2005?? The audio edition is amazing! After three years of listening to every issue I think I may be picking up a British accent in my day to day life.

How does that help with time? Nearly everyone reading it is most certainly capable of reading far, far faster than listening, no? I suppose if you have an unfortunate, long commute, it might work, but otherwise?

It's quite hard to read while making lunch, cleaning, running, cycling etc. It's also quite hard to concentrate on anything cerebral after a day of work, doing any number of these things and tending to the needs of small kids.

Audio books, OTOH, make housework a joy since I can tune out of the horror of cooking and cleaning and concentrate on accumulating knowledge from one source or another.

Also, much more motivation to run since simlarly, I can just observe my pulse meter occasionally and otherwise concentrate on the book.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#144
post #97
post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was a subscriber for 4 years and I can confirm that the Economist is crap. It looks good compared to other choices like 'Times' or 'Newsweek' which are totally unreadable. * It has totally absurd double-standards: Russia, Iran, China and their puppets (e.g. Syria and so forth) are 'bad' and 'evil'. US, EU and the UK stand for 'justice and peace in the world'. If your world-view is so naive, then you deserve the eco…

Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's. I personally find the "he said, she said" style of reporting that purports to give a fair account of all sides intolerable and hypocritical. It often allows complete idiots to air their opinions in the name of presenting a "different" view. This lets the reporter subtly influence the reader while preserving the illusion of impartiality. The…

>>Your comment simply says that your politics don't align with The Economist's.

May I enquire as to your stance on the corn laws?

>>it displays its biases openly.

Nope. It claims to speak from the perspective of economists but instead is pushing a panglosian, unilateral free trade agenda. The world view has many internal contradictions (OP notes their treatment of good and evil countries, China is for some reason in the good category despite working hard to disrupt US hegemony while other countries that verbally protest are labeled evil), I can only assume they have sinister motives or are mentally retarded. Much like Fox News.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not talking about their overall world view I'm talking about their "Coffee growing in Guatamala" or "Cement production in the far east" articles - the ones where they are providing information on a relatively obscure subject. The articles present very matter of fact tones when in reality they are often reporting on one side of genuinely contraversial issues.

I prefer my reading to ignore the "teach the controversy" camp.

I'm not talking about lame "1 dissenter out of a million style" fake controversy, I'm talking about when experts are split 50/50 on an issue.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#146
Inceidetally, given that I've done a lot of complaining about the Economist in this thread, one of the things I really like is that their world view is not the "Ra Ra Free Market Uber Alles" that they are so often parodied as. They often firmly advocate government spending and market regulation as the correct solution to problems. They have a flexible world view in general.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#147
post #52

"The Economist Group is owned by the Cadbury, Rothschild, Schroder, Agnelli and other family interests as well as a number of staff and former staff shareholders. " source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economist_Group

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2014/07/gianni-agnelli-alan-f...

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#148

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I did the same - subscribed in 2007 and cancelled it in 2012. And I am here in minority but I cancelled it BECAUSE of its content. The barrage of anti China news, anti India news, and then the lack of any standing on any issue except free market. Economist consistently backtracks on everything if it somehow results in more free market. It is why it was established in the first place so why complain? The height was wh…

Feels pretty familiar. Where did you end up living by the way in 2010?

I am in India.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a world of difference between a group with the integrity to state its biases publicly and one that hides them in a dozen puppet papers.

Well, yes, but that wasn't my argument. It also doesn't address any unstated biases The Economist Group might have.

I don't believe they have unstated biases on an institutional scale. Individual author may have biases but all of them do.

Re: For only the second time in our history the ownership of The Economist changes

#150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nick's logic (which I'd arrived at independently, though years later) is solid. He's known for some fairly impressive ideas, some of which I disagree with. Publishing, traditionally, has worked through integrated purchasing rather than dis-integrating purchasing. Magazines, newspapers, books, subscriptions, broadcast advertising (bundled payments through advertisers rather than subscribers). Music syndication. For nu…

1. Nick wrote this in 1999 and he's been proven wrong. For example when Apple proposed selling music tracks for 99¢ and he probably would have used this very argument and pooh-poohed them along with everyone else. 2. His arguments are one of an anal accountant. Do you know what fraction of the population even reviews their monthly credit card statement, their long distance phone charges, whether or not their mobile d…

Since you mention Apple/iTunes: I'd argue that it's the rule-proving exception. Yes, Apple's managed to implement micropayments with a music service based on 1) bog uniform pricing (99¢ no matter what — though that's changed since, no?), and for a fairly standard product for which previews and sampling are readily available in many cases — that is, the buyer has a very good idea of what they're buying in most cases.

And yet... there are numerous alternatives which aren't Apple: streaming music services (a bundled, non-micropayments model, either pre-paid or adverts supported), YouTube (adverts). Frankly, I've largely gotten out of the music-buying habit, though I'll pick up a CD occasionally at a show.

Your points on statement review largely make my point: if the idea of micropayments is to make people rational consumers of content, then if they're failing to review and assess their purchase habits, they simply aren't rational consumers. Which is to say, the premise of micropayments is false.

For long distance, he specifically addresses the case: the cost of attributing billing costs was itself a huge portion of the cost of service itself. By moving to flat pricing you can at once reduce costs and reduce customer anxiety over service use. I've been on flat-fee pay-as-you-go comms plans for years now. For what I'm paying, it literally isn't worth the telco's time to compute costs.

The kitty payment method is pretty much precisely how music broadcast and public performance (think bars, restaurants, stores) payments work. You've got a few licensing agencies (ASCAP, Harry Fox), playtime measurement (logs from radio stations and the services providing streams to retail establishments), and artists are cut a check based on plays.

Various checks and balances keep everything reasonably honest. Performance licenses are held by establishments and not performers -- it's the nightclub owner, not the band, who's on the hook for the fee. That greatly simplifies logistics -- on the spectrum of unreliable characters, bar owners rate higher than drummers, or even front-men. Shenanigans by the licensing agencies can be pursued by class-actions among musicians (not to say they can't or don't get screwed, but there are some checks). And the end consumer of the music (bar / nightclub / restaurant / store patron) doesn't worry about any of this at all.

The whole "rewarding quality" is something to consider, though I'll note that Apple dispensed with this entirely at least initially: everything cost the same amount. I can see (and have made) arguments to why this shouldn't be the case (high-quality scientific research or investigative journalism strikes me as more worthwhile than algorithmically generated tone patterns). And I'm not pretending to have a solution fully worked out. But I'm almost certain it lies in the direction of aggregated, not disaggregated, payments. Broadband tax. Syndication fee. General funds tax. Patronage to creators. Something like that.

As for Wikipedia: it follows patterns of collaborative work which date back centuries (review some of the early history of dictionaries and encyclopedias).

Bitcoin's got numerous problems, of which scaling is one. Trust another.

PKI's roots trace back to at least 1874 and William Stanley Jevons, who's just become even more interesting in my estimation. The primary limitation, aside from successful algorithms, was cheap and ubiquitous computing. As that came online, first for institutions and governments, later for individuals.

I'm not aware of any significant discussion that PKI was impossible. One-way functions have been known for centuries. Rivest, Shamir, and Adleman's work postdated national security implementations of PKI by British GCHQ by only three years.

Discussion of absolutes is risky, but there are a few.

I challenge you to exceed 300,000 km/s.

Others similarly exist in various fields, including social and economic ones. Part of the basis for my own statements is Gresham's Law, which I'm coming to view as a fundamental and principle limitation for economics. Others would include the Law of Diminishing Returns, and variations of the maximum power principle (Darwin-Lotke energy law, White's Law).

Post reply on HN