TheLogothete

And the Soviets are a terrible example. Centrally planned economies of course destroy all individual incentives to accel or improve.

Which economy is not centrally planned? We have more and more central planning every year.

The Soviet Union did not collapse because of central planning. It collapsed because everyone was lazy and stole shit from the factories. No productivity, no quality. People were drinking at work and were utterly incompetent. This is what happens when you remove the incentives for improvement. If you guarantee people they can eat, no questions asked, they just stop caring after 10-15 years. They just forget to care, this is the new reality for them. No repercussions, why even bother. Who are you to tell me to work harder? Why should I work at all? I am ENTITLED to your money so I can buy food.

And when the proletariat smells they can get other people's money, will they stop at just a pinch, so they can buy the very basic necessities? Or will they go and protest and push for more money in 15 years? Those fucking 1%-ers! They are not better than me. Who said they are better than me? Why should they have all this money. I need to feed my kids! And for booze.

No, people will just slack because they can buy bread. We already saw this in the soviet block.

The human brain works on incentives. Remove the incentive the human is in free fall.

You think that one morning drivers will wake up and will be laid off? You think that will happen in a year? In 10?

This is not grounded in reality.

You are so desperate to justify your thinking (not to me, mind you, to yourself) that you grasp for every straw possible, forgetting what the question was about along the way.

This particular question was about how you formed your opinion about Google using GA data to build advertising profiles. My opinion is formed based on my expertise in mining many terabytes of data and my experience in sourcing this data. Based on that experience I can say that GA data is not of interest to google because it is unreliable and they have better data already. Even if it was, they would have to stop themselves because it is just too damn risky (bankruptcy level risk) to use it.

So my opinion stems from my experience in this very business. And your opinion stems from where exactly? This is what I'm trying to show you. You have 0 idea what you are talking about but insist that you are right. Even further, you outright accuse google of lying when they say GA data is not used unless the webmaster explicitly opts in to share it. Why do they have that control in first place then?

Oh and btw, that quote about relevant search results and ads... you might want to check where it comes from before basing arguments off it. You know, if you want to have a coherent argument and not some tin foil conspiracy theory grasping desperately for whatever it can catch. Checking facts is a good thing, don't you agree?

Anyway, you will either admit it to yourself tomorrow, or you won't. I don't particularly care. I just wanted to see how far you will go in your justification attempt. Remember that just because you are allowed to have an opinion does not mean you must have one.

Of course they can. When you sign up for GA, you get asked

Do you want to share data with google to improve our products?

Do you want to pool aggregated data for benchmarking?

Both are unchecked by default.

Or do you think that google will access the data without permission? In which case, what do you base your opinion on?

Except that my opinion is formed based on logic and my expertise and your opinion is based on... what exactly?

That means GA has a client IP for the user-agent

When IP masking is enabled, Analytics removes the last octet of the user's IP address prior to its use and storage.

SO... yeah.

And I just LOVE how you selectively quote, so I'm gonna finish the quote for you:

"It should be noted this does not directly contradict what GP claims."

It is not shameful to be wrong. It is shameful when you can't admit that you are wrong. And especially when you can't admit it even to yourself.

Because of a single experiment in highly controlled environment :) Please come back to earth.

Yeah, it's not like this has happened ever before. We definitely need basic income. It will solve all the problems.

This has gone full circle and honestly is quite irritating at this point.

People say that Google uses GA data for advertising, I say that this is not the case and then you just chose to ignore that. So I'm just gonna ask directly - can you show some evidence suggesting Google uses GA data for building advertising profiles or did you pull this opinion out of your ass?

Because as someone who analyses marketing and advertising data, I can tell you that I strongly believe they do not use GA data in this way. 1) They have no need to, they have better data; 2) This data is unreliable; 3) GA prohibits the use of personally identifiable information; and most important of all:

THE WEBMASTER CAN CHOSE TO NOT SHARE IT WITH THEM. If this webmaster went out of his way to tell google not to store IP information, I think it is pretty safe to assume that they did not opt-in to share the data with google AT ALL.

Apart from these technical reasons, using GA data in the way you think they do opens a regulatory risk of EPIC proportions.

But if you have some evidence to suggest that they do use it for "advertising profiles", please do share it. But if you can't and you formed this opinion because you are prejudiced, I would like to see you admitting it.

How is GA abusive? The webmaster has to explicitly permit data sharing with google. That is, the webmaster is asked if s/he wants to share data with google and the options are unchecked by default.

GA prohibits the use of personally identifiable information.

Additionally the webmaster can tell google to not store IP info, which the webmaster has chosen to this in this case.

Everyone who has signed up for GA knows it. When you sign up you are asked 2 questions:

Do you want to share data with google to imrpove our products?

Do you want to pool your data for benchmarking purposes?

Both are unchecked by default. But here you go, I will search for "google analytics data sharing" for you.

https://support.google.com/analytics/answer/1011397?hl=en

Yeah. So every site and every product on the internet has this dark pattern. Do you use google? Youtube? StackOverflow? Are you outraged by them too?

People just LOOVE to be outraged. For example in this thread people rage about google getting hands on their data. When I point out that the webmaster has to explicitly chose to share the data with google, I get downvoted. When I say that GA prohibits the use of PII, I get downvoted. It doesn't matter that I'm right. People WANT to be outraged. Reason, no reason, doesn't matter.

It does not compromise the user's privacy in any way. GA prohibits PII. Also, the webmaster has to opt-in to share the data with Google in the first place.

It is used to improve the product, why is this useless to the user?

I don't see how GA can be classified as malware according to this.

Google does not use GA data unless the webmaster chooses to share it with them.

I'm not sure if they use it to improve their ad products, but I wouldn't be surprised if the answer is no.

It's sad that you can't figure out a name which is not an exact replica of your competitor.

And definitely deserves the lawsuit.

I have a feeling you process the data at the client.

What's up with titles on HN? Are you guys doing this on purpose?

the monetary authority’s exchange-traded fund purchases have made it a top 10 shareholder in about 90 percent of the Nikkei 225 Stock Average

Naive (and synonyms) is the one I hear the most, and i tend to agree with it.

And when microsoft sues for copyright infringment, they will be the bad guys, right?

Ah, the good folks at meclabs and their CEO, doctor Flint, phd, who lies that he has a phd.

Uuuh, this exists at A LOT of banks.

Because "data science".

What's the progress? Last time I checked, they were able to play slightly modified abc (i.e. take opponent's range into account) and have negligible winrate at micro to small stakes before rakeback.

Because your money would not be spent efficiently.

Donating money if you are not (filthy) rich is foolish. Those money would be MUCH better spent on you. If you want to help, do it with personal efforts.

Only people who do nothing and just watch don't make mistakes.

Yeah, yeah, every Joe Startup wants to change the world with their Airbnb for dogs.