4 ms·

Sorry but I do not believe this. The paper rings a lot of alarm bells. It provides very little evidence for the actual thesis it is trying to prove and provides

Sorry but I do not believe this. The paper rings a lot of alarm bells. It provides very little evidence for the actual thesis it is trying to prove and provides ample evidence that seem related to the thesis it is trying to prove but in fact it does nothing to prove it. Thus, the paper provides plenty of evidence that insurance companies helped each other to fight fires at sites insured by their fellow insurance companies, and then subsequently reimbursed each other for these efforts, but that of course has no bearing on what the paper is trying to prove. Usually commonly held widely believed oral histories emerge for a good reason. So if it was commonly believed that insurance companies let un-insured buildings burn, then it is likely to be true at least part of the time. Also, lets look at the source -- he is an "archive and heritage consultant", i.e. someone that solicits money for his research. Is he getting paid for this article? Is he writing this in the hopes that he will advertise his services for insurance companies?

frosted-flakes 4y ago
He was paid for the paper by Tom Scott, the video essayist. There's an accompanying video at https://youtu.be/Wif1EAgEQKI https://youtu.be/Wif1EAgEQKI
stickfigure 4y ago
There's a significant percentage of people (even here on HN) that believes "Facebook sold personal information to Cambridge Analytica and they used this information to win the election for Trump". My prior is that people repeat good stories somewhat independently of their truth value. Older stories that are hard to verify are more suspect. I think we should default to skepticism.
- turtledragonfly 4y ago
  I'll bite — so what did happen with Cambridge Analytica? As far as I can tell[1], the only thing wrong with what you said is "Facebook sold...", where in reality, the data was surreptitiously gathered. Or are you referring to something else? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
  - stickfigure 4y ago
    * Cambridge Analytica created an insipid quiz and got many people to install it. * The quiz used public Facebook APIs to gather data; users accepted a "share this data with the app" permission request. * Cambridge Analytica conned Republicans into paying them for services using this "superweapon". * There's no evidence (other than self-serving press releases from Cambridge Analytica) that this had any material effect on the election.
    - turtledragonfly 4y ago
      So maybe a fair re-phrasing would be: "Facebook provided personal information to Cambridge Analytica and they used this information to assist the Trump campaign" With the understanding that (1) the data was taken without the permission of all people impacted (i.e. if your friend installed the app and gave their permission, then you could be affected), and (2) it's debatable how effective the data actually was for the campaign. I think the "public Facebook APIs" descriptor is a little off — Facebook viewed it as a data breach and apologized (and got sued, and fined, etc). So it was pretty shady, not just simple above-board access.
      - stickfigure 4y ago
        Around that era I used those APIs to build a somewhat novel (and not very successful) dating site where you could play matchmaker for your friends based on their likes. I assure you, the API was public. At some point Facebook started getting flak for having APIs that grant access to data-about-friends. There are a couple ways of looking at this; one way is "I didn't grant my friends permission to share my data with an app!" the other is "you shared your data with friends via Facebook, what does it matter if they use the FB UI or some other app". It's a can of worms but I don't think anyone would call it a breach.
        turtledragonfly 4y ago
        Ok, fair enough — was a public API at the time, which was subsequently removed/limited and apps that had been using it in that way were termed "abusive". And I should correct myself that the phrase used by Zuck[1] was "breach of trust" not "data breach," though several other sources (articles, etc[2]) at the time did in fact use the term "data breach." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180326162844/https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104712037900071 [2] (example) https://money.com/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-numbers/
SamBorick 4y ago
The article specifically says: Originally writing in 1692-3, Daniel Defoe noted that the firemen were “very active and diligent” in helping to put out fires, “whether in houses insured or not insured”.[33] Insurance companies’ instructions to their firemen were clear – they were to attend and help extinguish “all” fires. [34], [35] What specific issue with this do you have? Do you disagree with the content of “Of Assurances”, in An Essay upon Projects? Or the Union Fire Office Board Minutes? Or did you just not read the article?
- turtledragonfly 4y ago
  I can't speak for the person you replied to, but I don't think the quote you provided really invalidates the point. Maybe you two are talking past each other. One way to phrase the core question is: "did fire companies let competitors' buildings burn, regularly, as standard practice?" And I think the evidence in the article pretty strongly indicates "No." I think that's what you're referring to. Another way to phrase the core question is: "Did it ever happen, at various points in history, that fire companies let competitors' buildings burn?" And I think the article indicates that it very well may have. And the possibility was absolutely used as a threat, even if it never actually came to pass. I feel like even a handful of such incidents would have been so terrible as to get etched into social memory and passed on, and I think that's the sort of thing the person you are replying to was referring to. So... I think you're both right (:
lolinder 4y ago
> Usually commonly held widely believed oral histories emerge for a good reason. So if it was commonly believed that insurance companies let un-insured buildings burn, then it is likely to be true at least part of the time. Yes, oral histories emerge for a reason, but that reason doesn't have to be "because it was literally true". There are countless oral traditions that are complete nonsense! Urban legends existed 200 and 2000 years ago just as much as they do today, and no historian would ever claim that you should take every oral history at face value. > Also, lets look at the source -- he is an "archive and heritage consultant", i.e. someone that solicits money for his research. Is he getting paid for this article? Is he writing this in the hopes that he will advertise his services for insurance companies? He was paid by a prominent YouTuber to find out whether a video said YouTuber made several years ago was incorrect[0]. That doesn't scream "conflict of interest" to me. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wif1EAgEQKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wif1EAgEQKI
Spooky23 4y ago
I think it's an article where you need some context. A relative is a retired fire chief of a city department and overall fire buff. He's spent 15 years engrossed in this stuff for various cities in the US - the answers vary! Usually in the 19th century there were different types of fire service. A fire brigade or volunteer company focused on protecting the city or subscribers, and protective companies who salvaged buildings or contents of buildings. Sometimes they worked differently in different places, and you need to understand the context of precisely when and where you are talking about. Keep in the mind the nature of 18th and 19th century buildings - often row houses, often with shared attics, etc. Protecting property, then and now might mean sacrificing some buildings to protect others. Consider the destruction of San Francisco... when the leaders of the city fire department were all killed, and underground water cisterns damaged by the earthquake, a madman Army officer blew up half the city to "save" it. The property insurance folks had a first priority to save the contents of a house - they may be dragging the piano and hutch out of a house while the house 3 doors down burned. Or they may have helped. From the perspective of contemporary eyewitnesses, what they report and write down may vary.

frosted-flakes 4y ago

He was paid for the paper by Tom Scott, the video essayist. There's an accompanying video at https://youtu.be/Wif1EAgEQKI https://youtu.be/Wif1EAgEQKI

stickfigure 4y ago

There's a significant percentage of people (even here on HN) that believes "Facebook sold personal information to Cambridge Analytica and they used this information to win the election for Trump". My prior is that people repeat good stories somewhat independently of their truth value. Older stories that are hard to verify are more suspect. I think we should default to skepticism.

turtledragonfly 4y ago
I'll bite — so what did happen with Cambridge Analytica? As far as I can tell[1], the only thing wrong with what you said is "Facebook sold...", where in reality, the data was surreptitiously gathered. Or are you referring to something else? [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Analytica_data_scandal https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
- stickfigure 4y ago
  * Cambridge Analytica created an insipid quiz and got many people to install it. * The quiz used public Facebook APIs to gather data; users accepted a "share this data with the app" permission request. * Cambridge Analytica conned Republicans into paying them for services using this "superweapon". * There's no evidence (other than self-serving press releases from Cambridge Analytica) that this had any material effect on the election.
  - turtledragonfly 4y ago
    So maybe a fair re-phrasing would be: "Facebook provided personal information to Cambridge Analytica and they used this information to assist the Trump campaign" With the understanding that (1) the data was taken without the permission of all people impacted (i.e. if your friend installed the app and gave their permission, then you could be affected), and (2) it's debatable how effective the data actually was for the campaign. I think the "public Facebook APIs" descriptor is a little off — Facebook viewed it as a data breach and apologized (and got sued, and fined, etc). So it was pretty shady, not just simple above-board access.
    - stickfigure 4y ago
      Around that era I used those APIs to build a somewhat novel (and not very successful) dating site where you could play matchmaker for your friends based on their likes. I assure you, the API was public. At some point Facebook started getting flak for having APIs that grant access to data-about-friends. There are a couple ways of looking at this; one way is "I didn't grant my friends permission to share my data with an app!" the other is "you shared your data with friends via Facebook, what does it matter if they use the FB UI or some other app". It's a can of worms but I don't think anyone would call it a breach.
      - turtledragonfly 4y ago
        Ok, fair enough — was a public API at the time, which was subsequently removed/limited and apps that had been using it in that way were termed "abusive". And I should correct myself that the phrase used by Zuck[1] was "breach of trust" not "data breach," though several other sources (articles, etc[2]) at the time did in fact use the term "data breach." [1] https://web.archive.org/web/20180326162844/https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10104712037900071 [2] (example) https://money.com/facebook-cambridge-analytica-data-breach-numbers/

SamBorick 4y ago

The article specifically says: Originally writing in 1692-3, Daniel Defoe noted that the firemen were “very active and diligent” in helping to put out fires, “whether in houses insured or not insured”.[33] Insurance companies’ instructions to their firemen were clear – they were to attend and help extinguish “all” fires. [34], [35] What specific issue with this do you have? Do you disagree with the content of “Of Assurances”, in An Essay upon Projects? Or the Union Fire Office Board Minutes? Or did you just not read the article?

turtledragonfly 4y ago
I can't speak for the person you replied to, but I don't think the quote you provided really invalidates the point. Maybe you two are talking past each other. One way to phrase the core question is: "did fire companies let competitors' buildings burn, regularly, as standard practice?" And I think the evidence in the article pretty strongly indicates "No." I think that's what you're referring to. Another way to phrase the core question is: "Did it ever happen, at various points in history, that fire companies let competitors' buildings burn?" And I think the article indicates that it very well may have. And the possibility was absolutely used as a threat, even if it never actually came to pass. I feel like even a handful of such incidents would have been so terrible as to get etched into social memory and passed on, and I think that's the sort of thing the person you are replying to was referring to. So... I think you're both right (:

lolinder 4y ago

> Usually commonly held widely believed oral histories emerge for a good reason. So if it was commonly believed that insurance companies let un-insured buildings burn, then it is likely to be true at least part of the time. Yes, oral histories emerge for a reason, but that reason doesn't have to be "because it was literally true". There are countless oral traditions that are complete nonsense! Urban legends existed 200 and 2000 years ago just as much as they do today, and no historian would ever claim that you should take every oral history at face value. > Also, lets look at the source -- he is an "archive and heritage consultant", i.e. someone that solicits money for his research. Is he getting paid for this article? Is he writing this in the hopes that he will advertise his services for insurance companies? He was paid by a prominent YouTuber to find out whether a video said YouTuber made several years ago was incorrect[0]. That doesn't scream "conflict of interest" to me. [0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wif1EAgEQKI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wif1EAgEQKI

Spooky23 4y ago

I think it's an article where you need some context. A relative is a retired fire chief of a city department and overall fire buff. He's spent 15 years engrossed in this stuff for various cities in the US - the answers vary! Usually in the 19th century there were different types of fire service. A fire brigade or volunteer company focused on protecting the city or subscribers, and protective companies who salvaged buildings or contents of buildings. Sometimes they worked differently in different places, and you need to understand the context of precisely when and where you are talking about. Keep in the mind the nature of 18th and 19th century buildings - often row houses, often with shared attics, etc. Protecting property, then and now might mean sacrificing some buildings to protect others. Consider the destruction of San Francisco... when the leaders of the city fire department were all killed, and underground water cisterns damaged by the earthquake, a madman Army officer blew up half the city to "save" it. The property insurance folks had a first priority to save the contents of a house - they may be dragging the piano and hutch out of a house while the house 3 doors down burned. Or they may have helped. From the perspective of contemporary eyewitnesses, what they report and write down may vary.