4 ms·

And here's an idea to explain the mismatch. Not sure if it's right, but it might explain why the numbers make no sense: newspaper -> hacker news, google news:

And here's an idea to explain the mismatch. Not sure if it's right, but it might explain why the numbers make no sense: newspaper -> hacker news, google news: GDP drops, but life is better. stereo + CDs -> mp3 player: GDP drops, but life is better GPS -> Google maps, GDP drops, but life is better. snail mail -> gmail, text, GDP drops, but life is better.

superuser2 11y ago
>newspaper -> hacker news, google news Um, what? Google News doesn't do reporting, it aggregates newspaper content. If the traditional media outlets die, there will be no content left for Google News to aggregate. Unless you are referring the part of the newspaper industry which actually puts ink on dead trees, which is pretty small compared to the newsrooms. People write posts that go on HN to promote themselves and their business interests. Nothing wrong with a little of that, but it isn't a substitute for journalism.
- undersuit 11y ago
  Newspapers aggregate news as well. The point is you buy the newspaper for all or most of the content or you visit Google News or Hacker News. They are portals. >it isn't a substitute for journalism. No true journalist would ever impinge their profession by writing for such trash as a blog.
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
  - superuser2 11y ago
    I am using "newspaper" in the sense of "organization which pays reporters and editors to produce a textual representation of the news of the day." So perhaps this is semantics. But Google News does not do that. Google News is sort of similar to the business unit of a newspaper which takes finished copy in digital form from the newsroom and actually delivers dead trees to people's doors. Of course the internet should (and will) kill that entirely. Journalism is a professional craft. Writing about current events for free because you are passionate about some issue, or for a salary because your benefactor has a vested interest in some issue, etc. is not journalism. Your income has to flow from the fact that people want the news, and you/your bosses/your editors have to be properly incentivized to actually report the news.
williamcotton 11y ago
Life is better for who? By what characteristics? You're not even remotely talking about economics at this point. You might as well be arguing: playing guitar -> heroin: GDP drops, but life is better How do you know that your life is better because you have an mp3 player? Does it make music better? No. Musicians make music, mp3 players have nothing to do with the music. Honestly, my life feels way better when I pull an old vinyl off the shelf. I also like knowing that the artist is getting a better share of the vinyl sales than from YouTube or Spotify. And I kind of hate using my computer outside of work hours, it stresses me out to think about unread emails. So to me, I already don't agree that my life is better when I use an mp3 player. The point of economics is to measure real productivity based on the assumption that people need a place to live and they need to live and there's a pretty clear limit to the land and food that we start with. That you're trying to use economics to argue about subjective opinions on mp3 players? Come on, dude, that's just weak. Money talks, bullshit walks. End of story. Or maybe in your case you should seek some help with this technology addiction that you're trying to rationalize...

superuser2 11y ago

>newspaper -> hacker news, google news Um, what? Google News doesn't do reporting, it aggregates newspaper content. If the traditional media outlets die, there will be no content left for Google News to aggregate. Unless you are referring the part of the newspaper industry which actually puts ink on dead trees, which is pretty small compared to the newsrooms. People write posts that go on HN to promote themselves and their business interests. Nothing wrong with a little of that, but it isn't a substitute for journalism.

undersuit 11y ago
Newspapers aggregate news as well. The point is you buy the newspaper for all or most of the content or you visit Google News or Hacker News. They are portals. >it isn't a substitute for journalism. No true journalist would ever impinge their profession by writing for such trash as a blog.
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]
- superuser2 11y ago
  I am using "newspaper" in the sense of "organization which pays reporters and editors to produce a textual representation of the news of the day." So perhaps this is semantics. But Google News does not do that. Google News is sort of similar to the business unit of a newspaper which takes finished copy in digital form from the newsroom and actually delivers dead trees to people's doors. Of course the internet should (and will) kill that entirely. Journalism is a professional craft. Writing about current events for free because you are passionate about some issue, or for a salary because your benefactor has a vested interest in some issue, etc. is not journalism. Your income has to flow from the fact that people want the news, and you/your bosses/your editors have to be properly incentivized to actually report the news.

williamcotton 11y ago

Life is better for who? By what characteristics? You're not even remotely talking about economics at this point. You might as well be arguing: playing guitar -> heroin: GDP drops, but life is better How do you know that your life is better because you have an mp3 player? Does it make music better? No. Musicians make music, mp3 players have nothing to do with the music. Honestly, my life feels way better when I pull an old vinyl off the shelf. I also like knowing that the artist is getting a better share of the vinyl sales than from YouTube or Spotify. And I kind of hate using my computer outside of work hours, it stresses me out to think about unread emails. So to me, I already don't agree that my life is better when I use an mp3 player. The point of economics is to measure real productivity based on the assumption that people need a place to live and they need to live and there's a pretty clear limit to the land and food that we start with. That you're trying to use economics to argue about subjective opinions on mp3 players? Come on, dude, that's just weak. Money talks, bullshit walks. End of story. Or maybe in your case you should seek some help with this technology addiction that you're trying to rationalize...