6 ms·

In related news: I am no longer with my college girlfriend, despite the fact that 8 years ago I told her I would never leave her.

pmelendez 13y ago
And... Did you leave her? or just break up as a common agreement? In legalese language, I am pretty sure that a promise is synonym of contract, and contracts might be dissolved if both sides of the contract agreed. This being an open promise is not a contract but a reaffirmation of a goal, since people change is regrettable but OK to break promises to ourselves sometimes when the interest of the goal had changed.
- raldi 13y ago
  > In legalese language, I am pretty sure that a promise is synonym of contract You are 100% wrong.
  - pmelendez 13y ago
    From Wikipedia article: [1] "In the law of contract, an exchange of promises is usually held to be legally enforceable, according to the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise
    - raldi 13y ago
      "Exchange" is the critical word. A single promise is extraordinarily different, in the legal world, from a contract.
      - pmelendez 13y ago
        Ok, let's try with another wikipedia article: [1] "A contract is a legally enforceable promise or undertaking that something will or will not occur. * The word promise can be used as a legal synonym for contract *,[2] although care is required as a promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an agreement without consideration" Emphasis is mine :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law
        raldi 13y ago
        Whoever wrote that is wrong. Click the "[2]" citation, and you'll see that it in no way backs up the claim.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Well, along with the proper definitions from other (cited) legal dictionaries on that page, there's also an unsourced, thesaurus-like entry that does seem to suggest what the page is cited for, though the other definitions on the page make clear that that entry is only accurate in terms of loosely associated concepts and not proper synonyms.
        pmelendez 13y ago
        Ok.. I know the discussion is going way off-topic and getting pedantic connotations. To illustrate the point in my original comment, I would like to make a last cite from Britannica. @dragonwriter: For some reason I can't reply your comments, I guess HN is delaying replies after a while precisely to avoid long off-topic threads (although they are fun :) "contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by law" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135270/contract http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135270/contract
        raldi 13y ago
        And a promise, in the simplest definition, is not enforceable by law. That's why it's totally different from a contract.
        pmelendez 13y ago
        The fact that one of the words is a subset of another depending on the context doesn't invalidate the fact that the words are still synonyms when they are used in a specific topic. Moreover, by what you said before: > "Exchange" is the critical word. A single promise is extraordinarily different... I would conclude that you are actually agreed on how I used it in my original comment: > "and contracts might be dissolved if both sides of the contract agreed. This being an open promise is not a contract but a reaffirmation of a goal" How that can be "100% wrong"?
    - potatolicious 13y ago
      Like said, the word "exchange" is critical here, and isn't pedantic - this is a key part of the modern western understanding of contract law. A contract must be quid pro quo to be valid. "Bob, I'm going to come fix your fence this weekend" is a promise, but it isn't a legal contract. "Bob, I'm going to come fix your fence this weekend for $100" is a promise, and because there is a quid pro quo exchange it can qualify as an enforceable contract. Bob can potentially come after you for damages if you renege on your end of it. One-sided promises (like the one Google made) are generally not considered contractually obligated[1]. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-contract-needs-33361.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-c...
recuter 13y ago
So Google broke up with early adopters. Apt.
- emehrkay 13y ago
  This is exactly the problem people are having with Google. We/they have this ideal of what they thought Google was/should-be and Google isn't/haven't-been-completely living up to it.
mapgrep 13y ago
Good to know that the company that holds my email, appointments, two-factor-auth, credit card number, and search data has the reliability of a flaky college freshman. Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations (when they're not insisting that no corporation would ever be so stupid as to break a highly visible promise because the outcry would be tremendous).
- jol 13y ago
  Agree about freshman, just wanted to add, that this freshman has managed to do other not so nice things recently, thus increasing cumulative damage to the reputation well beyond sum of each part. I assume that at some point powerusers will start to migrate to different services, when/if competitive enough offer comes
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- Aldo_MX 13y ago
  > Hitler promised not to invade Czechoslovakia, Jeremy. Welcome to the real world!
  - xiaohanzhang14 13y ago
    It didn't take very long to reinforce Godwin's Law on this thread...
  - djt 13y ago
    Here's the reference for those that haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeiEKemWeA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeiEKemWeA
  - eCa 13y ago
    I would hope that Google considers itself, at least a little bit, more moral than one of the top ten most evil persons of history.
- jeffclark 13y ago
Dylan16807 13y ago
That's just puffery. Everyone understands it to be based upon a continued mutual attraction, but the situation changed. The advertising situation hasn't changed, and promising no banner ads is not puffery.
- jsight 13y ago
  One could argue that the advertising situation has changed. Back in 2005, the types of banner ads that they opposed were heavy, often Flash driven punch-the-monkey junk. Now, they are putting non-animated (from the samples that I have seen) banners that are completely relevant to your search. Does that argument hold up? I don't really think it does. But maybe that is their angle?
gauravpandey 13y ago
If you find contradiction between my two statements then you can accept the latter, as I am also evolving. -M. K. Gandhi
macspoofing 13y ago
Touche! =)
macspoofing 13y ago
Touche! =)

pmelendez 13y ago

And... Did you leave her? or just break up as a common agreement? In legalese language, I am pretty sure that a promise is synonym of contract, and contracts might be dissolved if both sides of the contract agreed. This being an open promise is not a contract but a reaffirmation of a goal, since people change is regrettable but OK to break promises to ourselves sometimes when the interest of the goal had changed.

raldi 13y ago
> In legalese language, I am pretty sure that a promise is synonym of contract You are 100% wrong.
- pmelendez 13y ago
  From Wikipedia article: [1] "In the law of contract, an exchange of promises is usually held to be legally enforceable, according to the Latin maxim pacta sunt servanda." [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Promise
  - raldi 13y ago
    "Exchange" is the critical word. A single promise is extraordinarily different, in the legal world, from a contract.
    - pmelendez 13y ago
      Ok, let's try with another wikipedia article: [1] "A contract is a legally enforceable promise or undertaking that something will or will not occur. * The word promise can be used as a legal synonym for contract *,[2] although care is required as a promise may not have the full standing of a contract, as when it is an agreement without consideration" Emphasis is mine :) [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract_law
      - raldi 13y ago
        Whoever wrote that is wrong. Click the "[2]" citation, and you'll see that it in no way backs up the claim.
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        Well, along with the proper definitions from other (cited) legal dictionaries on that page, there's also an unsourced, thesaurus-like entry that does seem to suggest what the page is cited for, though the other definitions on the page make clear that that entry is only accurate in terms of loosely associated concepts and not proper synonyms.
        pmelendez 13y ago
        Ok.. I know the discussion is going way off-topic and getting pedantic connotations. To illustrate the point in my original comment, I would like to make a last cite from Britannica. @dragonwriter: For some reason I can't reply your comments, I guess HN is delaying replies after a while precisely to avoid long off-topic threads (although they are fun :) "contract, in the simplest definition, a promise enforceable by law" http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135270/contract http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/135270/contract
        raldi 13y ago
        And a promise, in the simplest definition, is not enforceable by law. That's why it's totally different from a contract.
        pmelendez 13y ago
        The fact that one of the words is a subset of another depending on the context doesn't invalidate the fact that the words are still synonyms when they are used in a specific topic. Moreover, by what you said before: > "Exchange" is the critical word. A single promise is extraordinarily different... I would conclude that you are actually agreed on how I used it in my original comment: > "and contracts might be dissolved if both sides of the contract agreed. This being an open promise is not a contract but a reaffirmation of a goal" How that can be "100% wrong"?
  - potatolicious 13y ago
    Like said, the word "exchange" is critical here, and isn't pedantic - this is a key part of the modern western understanding of contract law. A contract must be quid pro quo to be valid. "Bob, I'm going to come fix your fence this weekend" is a promise, but it isn't a legal contract. "Bob, I'm going to come fix your fence this weekend for $100" is a promise, and because there is a quid pro quo exchange it can qualify as an enforceable contract. Bob can potentially come after you for damages if you renege on your end of it. One-sided promises (like the one Google made) are generally not considered contractually obligated[1]. [1] http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-contract-needs-33361.html http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/consideration-every-c...

recuter 13y ago

So Google broke up with early adopters. Apt.

emehrkay 13y ago
This is exactly the problem people are having with Google. We/they have this ideal of what they thought Google was/should-be and Google isn't/haven't-been-completely living up to it.

mapgrep 13y ago

Good to know that the company that holds my email, appointments, two-factor-auth, credit card number, and search data has the reliability of a flaky college freshman. Also good to know that there will literally ALWAYS be people willing to minimize the broken promises of corporations (when they're not insisting that no corporation would ever be so stupid as to break a highly visible promise because the outcry would be tremendous).

jol 13y ago
Agree about freshman, just wanted to add, that this freshman has managed to do other not so nice things recently, thus increasing cumulative damage to the reputation well beyond sum of each part. I assume that at some point powerusers will start to migrate to different services, when/if competitive enough offer comes
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
Aldo_MX 13y ago
> Hitler promised not to invade Czechoslovakia, Jeremy. Welcome to the real world!
- xiaohanzhang14 13y ago
  It didn't take very long to reinforce Godwin's Law on this thread...
- djt 13y ago
  Here's the reference for those that haven't seen it: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeiEKemWeA http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOeiEKemWeA
- eCa 13y ago
  I would hope that Google considers itself, at least a little bit, more moral than one of the top ten most evil persons of history.
jeffclark 13y ago

Dylan16807 13y ago

That's just puffery. Everyone understands it to be based upon a continued mutual attraction, but the situation changed. The advertising situation hasn't changed, and promising no banner ads is not puffery.

jsight 13y ago
One could argue that the advertising situation has changed. Back in 2005, the types of banner ads that they opposed were heavy, often Flash driven punch-the-monkey junk. Now, they are putting non-animated (from the samples that I have seen) banners that are completely relevant to your search. Does that argument hold up? I don't really think it does. But maybe that is their angle?

gauravpandey 13y ago

If you find contradiction between my two statements then you can accept the latter, as I am also evolving. -M. K. Gandhi

macspoofing 13y ago

Touche! =)

macspoofing 13y ago

Touche! =)