Wow, this is really neet! Whenever I see R (and the tidyverse in general) I always can't believe how clean and easy it to to do aebitary data visualisation like this.
Yeah. I really enjoyed my time as a data scientist when I was fluent in R and the tidyverse stuff (in particular ggplot and dplyr). It felt like a super power. People were consistently amazed at how quickly I could visualise brand new data.
> It makes me feel very philosophical. Likely we had walked past each other every other week for three years with our heads down, or in the clouds, paying very little notice to the people around us. Past Channon had not the foggiest clue what impact an unnoticed stranger would come to have on her. Since learning this I can’t help but look at the passers-by in my day-to-day life in a different light.
And no shame in getting philosophical. It may not have been time. Perhaps you were not the same person, or nor was he. In meeting at the right time, stars are aligned, it was the right time to intersect. Or perhaps a host of other reasons. There may have been better times, perhaps bounded for this success quite close to or at the time you didn 'meet'. And who knows what other 'success' could have worked out - collaborators in something, getting together when 're meeting' - we don't know, an individual's life's not repeatable, and that in itself is beautiful.
It is indeed fascinating mapping and wondering, and probably applicable to a lot. But not to downplay the philosophical side, as that's important, and important the OP included it.
I was getting philosophical the other day for the opposite reason, looking at all the things that went slightly different than they would have been expected to go, or that I had previously wished had not gone "wrong," but if they had happened the "right" way, we never would have met.
I don't think Google's spying can help me identify those, but in the end I'm grateful for the winding path that led here, even if I didn't love it along the way!
Think of all the causal paths since the beginning of the universe that led to your birth. Even the smallest difference would have resulted in what you are now being a different person, if you existed at all. Just one atom in a supernova explosion billions of years ago having a slightly different trajectory ...
With all due respect, we don't know that. Knowing this as a fact would mean provably demonstrating the degree of instability at any instant of the universe, essentially its whole trajectory in a potentially infinite (and at least incredibly high) dimensional space.
It's just as possible that for a given person, molecules could have changed somewhere or even "bigger" events could have happened one or more times, and their existence would have remained. Automatically assuming a chaos of infinite possibilities with completely divergent universe is potentially reducing the complexity of the world and its countless smaller stabilizing feedback loops that locally do reduce divergences. Otherwise we'd never do anything for fear of spontaneously exploding or other funny things.
Legend has it that Adam Smith (the "father of capitalism") and James
Watt (pioneering steam-engineer and industrial machinist) shared
proximate offices at Glasgow University and drank in the same nearby
pubs. Apparently, no significant record of their connection exists.
That idea has always fascinated me as well — imagining each of us tracing out some kind of space-time path on a map. And with other's paths crossing ours. I want to be able to rewind time and watch the paths of ex-girlfriends I have lost touch with to see if we crossed paths again, perhaps in an airport, unaware of each other.
Perhaps it would all be more depressing than that though, exposing the small, repetitive worlds we live in. For my part, I have tried to road-trip, travel more often than others in my family have done, tried too to expose my kids to travel when growing up so they can experience a slightly bigger loop across the face of this small planet.
I’ve heard that there’s something like a 50% that someone you know is at the airport at the same time you are - because people who fly know people who fly.
> imagining each of us tracing out some kind of space-time path on a map...
Very fascinating indeed. Imagine all the near-misses, as well. Like you were in the exact location of a childhood sweetheart, soon-to-be girlfriend, or ex-girlfriend, but separated by 30 minutes. Perhaps, if had waited 30 minutes later, would have ran into a dream woman, who would have been the perfect wife.
When I and my wife met for the first time we were both tourists, we both had never been to that country before (and none of us had ever been to a place the other had been), and we had exactly one day of overlap at this place and just happened to have decided to go to a particular spot at the same time in the early morning. And it's extremely likely that there would never have been another opportunity at any time later.
A bit unlikely as I got married quite late in life! (And I had zero intentions of getting involved with anyone up to then) (In any case - this was a comment to a discussion about crossing paths with one's SO/partner at other times than when actually meeting - not about meeting someone else. My story was just one where it's guaranteed that we couldn't have crossed paths before - no googling necessary..)
> And no shame in getting philosophical. It may not have been time. Perhaps you were not the same person, or nor was he
This is a really good point. My wife and I often laugh about how in high school especially and college too we wouldn’t likely have been friends, much less good romantic partners. Both of us then were different people yet now both of us are perfect for each other.
>Perhaps you were not the same person, or nor was he.
Man this is really key. relationships is a skill. I don't believe in soul mates, but rather a healthy relationship is developed when two people have honed the skill enough to be able to handle conflict without causing irreparable harm, and enjoy each other out of conflict.
It helps immensely to have common goals and wants.
My wife and I were very aligned, right from early on, concerning financial disposition and family goals. We got that right out in the open early. We completely merged our financial lives and closed on a house, both names on the deed, both names on the mortgage, a year before we got engaged. When we got engaged, we couldn't afford an engagement ring, joint decision on that, and one of her friends got up in my face about it, 'where is the commitment?'. My dear fiancee held her ring finger up against the house and said "this is the commitment".
That common ground, those common goals, has made everything that followed much easier. Thirty years this past Spring.
I don't really agree, if you sat down and talked with every single person you walked by throughout the day you would meet many people you clicked with, both on a friendship and romantic level. If the author was that outgoing they probably would have met their partner earlier, or she would have found someone she liked better.
In other words I don't think who we end up with is some 1 in a million cosmic star aligning moment, it's probably more like 1 in 100 and many people would be as good or a better fit than who we end up with. The time you spend with your person is more important than some intrinsic value you both bring at the start.
Your love is one in a million
You couldn't buy it at any price
But of the nine-point-nine-nine-nine hundred thousand other possible loves
Statistically some of them would be equally nice
Or maybe not as nice but, say, smarter than you
Or dumber, but better at sport or... fuckin' tracing?
I'm just saying
I really think that I would, probably
Have somebody else
If I didn't have you
Someone else would do
Exactly. Many people don't realize, that the more people you are interacting with, the greater the odds are to finding what you seek. Probably this is more true for men, as oppose to women, as men tend to be more proactive. However, men still need to overcome any shyness or fear of rejection, to unlock such greater possibilities.
> I don't think who we end up with is some 1 in a million cosmic star aligning moment, it's probably more like 1 in 100
I suspect that you're right for most people, but those odds will be better or worse depending on the person and their circumstance. For some people, it probably is closer to 1 in a million, or could even be worse. Some go their entire lives meeting people and never finding one. There's probably not much harm in feeling a bit lucky to have found your person, especially if you suspect at least one of your odds were worse than most.
I actually think that your comment is probably saying something similar to the above. It potentially is about 1 in 100 as you state, but the timing of it makes it far less likely for 1 in 100 to work out because both people may not actually be mentally or emotionally ready to settle into a monogamous relationship. At least, my own experience has led me to that sort of a worldview.
I've had relationships not work out for varying reasons, including going on vacation 'at the wrong time', or someone's ex visiting the city and making her feel like she can't 'move on' at the moment, stuff like that.
And I went through my own dating phase in which I was less mature and not ready to settle down with many of the people I met. Quite a few of them were perfectly great women with whom I likely could have lasted in a long-term relationship (of course, we can never really know). As I see it, the timing wasn't right, either for me (mostly for me) or for them. It was only after a few years of this that I was in the right mindset to stay with the person I happened to be dating at the time. Sure, that probably doesn't sound great, and I probably won't discuss this at length with my wife, but it's the way I view the world. I'd wager that something like 80% of the people I went on more than three dates with were 'compatible' enough that I'd pursue a relationship with them, but it only worked out long-term with the last one because we were both in the same mindset to give an earnest effort at making our relationship work at the same place and same time.
So, using dumb analogy math, 1/X (compatible person) chance times 1/Y (right timing, maturity, life experience, etc.), it works out to a lower probability 1/(X*Y).
The 1 in 100 is what keeps my wife busy with family law. The odds of ending up marrying someone vs having a healthy relationship are 2 very different things.
My wife and I dated through undergrad, broke up at "get married or break up." And ended coming back together as adults with more life and relationship experience. Based on plans, we never should have been back in the same city. And when we started hanging out again, neither expected a relationship, just a friendship still being sick of each others' sh. But we had both grown up. We're 24 years into our relationship now. I think it's going well.
That's all purely anecdotal, though.
I don't think real math could be done with this. Success isn't measurable. People often split due to $ or tragedy. People stick it out, miserable the entire time. It walks into Aristotle's eudaimonia. You can't know until it's over. Even then, quantifying quality is folly.
I'm guessing your wife is a divorce attorney? If so, knowing what she knows, what's stopping her dropping out of the marriage and taking half your stuff? Even in a perfect marriage, there's always the incentive.
A "good marriage" isn't guaranteed to be a desirable one past the wedding day. I am in no way suggesting GP's marriage is a ticking time bomb, but I've read enough stories on Reddit and elsewhere to know there's no such thing as a guaranteed marriage even if you do everything right. My expectation is that GP's or his spouse might possess insight.
People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates's, Carmack's, and most recently Tom Brady's) can have the scales tipped into the direction of "leave for reason X and take what you can from him (and sometimes her) on the way out", whether out of vindictiveness or perceived entitlement, even if the money wasn't the primary cause or objective.
I think that's a common misunderstanding about who owns what in a marriage. I'll quote Matt Levine on this:
One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce, but also that she has no such right in marriage. That strikes me as a strange way to think about marriage, and about the “community property” laws that might give her half the assets in divorce. (Surely those laws imply that she is in a sense a joint owner now?) I would have thought the more straightforward analysis is that she is the world’s richest woman now, because she is a member of a married couple that has more money than any other single person or married couple on the planet, but I guess that is not how the scorekeeping works.
This concept of marital property is speculative, if not fictional, unless both Jeff and Mackenzie made explicit agreements to co-own the shares during their marriage. Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it. If he were deposed by the SEC over alleged claims of market manipulation with Amazon stock, Mackenzie would not be the one held liable. While she may have been able to influence his purchases/selloffs as one half of the world's now-formerly richest couple, she never had ownership of the stock as a legally-recognized property right in itself (and the liabilities the may come with such ownership). She now has such a right (although I would argue that she shouldn't) as a divorcée.
> I would argue this concept of marital property is a fiction
Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction.
> . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it.
Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.
Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
> Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.
So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission?
She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he payed for the construction, property taxes, other bills, and was sole owner of the deed?
She could have access to any separate bank accounts he owned, and blown it all?
> Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
A partnership in and of itself doesn't create any obligations other than the acknowledgement of said partnership. There isn't a presumption of combined ownership. A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to. If a contract is voided, one is no longer required to perform any duties or continue providing resources.
In a marriage, the terms are set by the state and there is a presumption of combined ownership. Even if a prenup to the effect of "I keep what I earned, you keep what you earned" exists, a judge can ignore it.
> A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to.
So is a marriage. In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
> If a contract is voided
That’s not relevant, here. Voiding a contract is cancellation, due to a legal defect that makes it categorically invalid (if completely prohibited) or voidable at the discretion of a party (such as when one party was a child when making it); the marital case of voiding a contract is annulment, not divorce.
Divorce is termination of a contract, not voiding.
> In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.
In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.
When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.
Many who are / have been in bad marriages complain loudly about it. The many in good marriages rarely talk about it ("bragging").
Thus, take such stories online with a grain of salt. Especially since many are blind to their own faults, and therefore can't include them in their stories.
There are many good marriages in which at least one spouse brags about a happy (however that's defined) life of 20+ years and many bad marriages that aren't evident as such until the inevitable "he/she left me and I don't know why" post on Reddit.
I agree that it is important to take a person's examination of his/her self or his/her (ex-)spouse with a grain of salt. And while people are blind to their own faults, you're making the mistake of thinking that divorces are based on falsifiable and rational assessments. Some are. Some aren't. But one isn't likely know the true reason a long time after the fact, if at all.
No, she does general practice. That includes family law, but not dedicated.
It would be an equitable portion of our collective stuff, not 1/2 of mine. There is no “yours” when you’re married. That’s a big part of what marriage means. Even pre-modern and across many cultures, marriage has been viewed as a contract.
Money (or lack thereof) is one of the primary motivators in her experience. A lot of “rich people” get divorces when they’re in debt up to their eyeballs and the consequences hit.
We’re not struggling, not wealthy, and are pretty equally valued. Also, there’s more than stuff. The burden of children, a household, and even our own lives would be much greater solo. We’re a pretty great support system for each other.
There is no perfect marriage. Part of my point. I think mine’s great. We’ll see when we’re dead or divorced.
My husband and I are pretty sure we must have been in the same room at university on various occasions (we knew lots of people in common) but didn't meet until several years after we both left. I'm three years older and was four academic years ahead so think it is a good thing we didn't meet then - I don't think as a PhD student that I would have dated a first-year undergraduate!
These are amazing ETL skills, but a big red flag, I thought I was watching the revival of the infamous Overly Attached Girlfriend. As someone said there, this is great and scary at the same time.
Also, how come 2 people be so ok with Google having all their location history? There are only two reasons why someone leaves that function enabled:
A) they are Google employees
B) totally ignorant to the fact that Google tracks them
I don't think I have ever in my life thought "I wish I had location history turned on so I could check where I was at that date". Could you share some examples of how can it be useful?
I do find it cool to have such data to do the kind of analysis as presented in this post, but not cool enough to let others (especially Google) possess this data as well.
When was the last time (at the beginning of the pandemic) that I went in to the office.
When was it the conference was at "that town".
Sure there's other ways to find the information but I don't mind having it tracked. To each his own but I find more value in it than I think I give up.
It's great to be able to answer questions like "when did we go on that trip to X" or "how long has it been since we went to Y".
I live in the UK, but I can go back to May 2014 and see everywhere I went in Florida on a holiday. Every restaurant, theme park, shop etc.
It's a great way to take a trip down memory lane.
I also use it on a day-to-day basis - e.g. if I need to record what hours I worked on a certain day, I can use it to give me an approximate time I went out for lunch.
A guy I worked for long ago was part of a partnership of architects and they split up. One of the other partners was known for never parting amicably and sued him. He claimed they had agreed on something and my client had failed to deliver and thus owed him some large sum. He presented notes he had allegedly taken during the talk they had a few years earlier including date and time and the word of another partner as support, who claimed to have been present.
My client checked his old calendars and just found the word "Copenhagen" for that + the previous day. With a bit of searching and checking, he figured out that he was incredibly lucky: he had been in Copenhagen that day to sail in a regatta, had lots of witnesses and photographs and easily won the case, the other two got into hot water for falsifying documents and giving false statements, though I don't know the outcome.
He was lucky to have had a multi-day thing and putting it into his calendar. Not sure if "Google showed me being far away" would've stood up, but it can certainly be useful to know your location a few years ago.
I had my catalytic converter stolen. Thanks to location history I could check when I left the car there and when I came back and noticed the problem. Since at first I didn't know problem was result of a theft I didn't take note of the time when I noticed the problem and I also could recall for how long the car stayed there.
Location history enabled me to accurately and confidently report the time window when crime occurred to the police.
I suspect the outcome is still the same of your catalytic converter being gone for good, even if it helped you narrow down details for a police report.
As such, the utility is still zero, since the desired outcome is "get my property back", unless you needed this many details for insurance purposes (they usually only ask for a police report, and police are happy to take any data since they are unlikely to find the perpetrator anyway).
> I suspect the outcome is still the same of your catalytic converter being gone for good, even if it helped you narrow down details for a police report.
Correct.
> As such, the utility is still zero, since the desired outcome is "get my property back", unless you needed this many details for insurance purposes (they usually only ask for a police report, and police are happy to take any data since they are unlikely to find the perpetrator anyway).
That was not the desired outcome. My desired outcome was to make reporting to the police go as smoothly for me as possible which I'd preferably entirely skip if not for the fact that insurer required me to report it.
Talking to the police (or anyone really) is a stressful event for me so any help with establishing what to say was very much appreciated.
On semi-related note my car is at repair shop for 3 months already and I have no idea how much longer will it be because apparently no supplier of catalytic converters is willing to estimate when they'll have a single item for Toyota Auris.
Sure, but when I had my radio stolen back in the day, police officer politely notified me that they know who generally breaks into cars to steal radios in my area, but unless it was reported in an hour or two, they won't be able to get it before it's resold or pin it on the culprit, so unless I need it for insurance, I shouldn't even bother reporting.
In cases like these, insurance mostly needs a paper trail, and police are very well aware of that, and they won't look for specifics. They'll probably even suggest what to fill in: that's at least my experience.
I feel for your experience though, and I wish you your car back on the road asap.
I'm not running any services that would report this data back to Google on my devices. I'm aware that it can still collect some data on me based on my browsing and how I connect to a couple of their services I still happen to use, but I'm fairly certain that it's nowhere near the fidelity of what location history would give them and I prefer it to stay this way.
Other replies so far have actually convinced me that I don't need to reconsider it, as the benefits seem minuscule compared to the price ;)
To me this is an amazing tool to extract lost memories. I look at random tracks in history sometimes, and it’s surprising how much can you remember from that day that you would never remember otherwise.
On a more practical note, I visited a random restaurant in a town I was visiting which turned out to be an amazing place. Didn’t remember the name. A few years later I’m in the same town and would not have found the place if not for the location history.
Everyone already replied with their use cases and I've been in several similar ones.
In general, I obtain a huge amount of value in being able to know what happened in my own past. This can be both for work and for personal reasons. For this, my calendar and Google Timeline are the two tools I use the most.
Most usefulness is in the past 1-2 weeks, and things become less useful over time, right up until they become extremely useful. For example "Oh crap, I lost this thing, the last time I saw it was on this date. What are the possible places I could have lost it? Let's retrace."
It's hard to convey how much things change once you're able to reliably have this information. Your mindset changes. Things you couldn't do before are unlocked.
I would love a better Google Timeline, one whose data I personally own especially. I suspect there will be an explosion of these types of apps at some point once people catch up.
Same here, I believe that I get more value from this data than Google does. I'm sure someone at X (insert any service that has a lot of data I've generated) has done something that I wouldn't be ok with with someones data. But as Scott Hanselman has said; "Microsoft isn’t nearly as organized as it’d need to be to be as evil as you think it is."
Curiosity is now a red flag? I find the whole thing cute. She's not using the data for tracking down Dan and making him her boyfriend, they are already together and she simply wanted to see if they walked past each other in the past.
I do have my location history activated, and so does lots of people around me. I'm neither a Google employee nor am I ignorant that Google tracks me both physically and digitally.
But being able to have a timeline of where I am at times have been both helpful and interesting, so I'm willing to trade that data for the functionality I receive for it.
If you do know of a better solution that gives me the same data but is not Google, please feel free to share it. I haven't found anything like that that completely abuses my battery at the same time and also guarantees to not sell my data.
I periodically experiment with location history. I currently have it enabled to be able to see my own history and I also record it locally with a third-party app that saves it to my phone. I've compared the location data and looked for patterns or anything at all interesting. I've also thought about building an app to basically give you the same functionality as Google's location history while keeping all the data out of the cloud and in your direct possession. I think it can be useful and interesting to have this data on yourself, I just think Google shouldn't have it.
Sorry, I wasn't clear enough. The third-party app only records my GPS coordinates and I process the data myself. Unfortunately, there isn't anything yet that has any of the functionality of Google's location history.
How can you infer that? She clearly had access to his location history, it's extremely unlikely that it happened without his consent. This is rather a vibe of two enthusiastic geeks being genuinely curious about analyzing some cool data about themselves, rather than anyone being "overly attached". We can't tell for sure without more details about their relationship, which isn't our business at all, so talking about "big red flags" feels really wrong and paternalistic (which in fact sounds like a big red flag :P).
> Also, how come 2 people be so ok with Google having all their location history?
How can I infer that? Easily… if she is openly able to do this. What are those things that she is quietly doing? If she already has access to his location, chances are that one night at 7 PM when he hasn’t come back, she is checking for patterns.
Funny how everyone is so oblivious and saying ‘ohhh I find it so cute’
I agree, sometimes. But doing a full data-science analysis of where me and my partner where for the past 7-8 years to see how close we where, even though we are already together, doesn’t sound promising either.
Nevertheless, I think in general, people should learn that some will agree and others will disagree. There is no wrong or right. If some of you find this ‘cute’ and ‘amazing’ that is perfect. You should also understand and respect that some others find this ‘creepy’, ‘disturbing’ and a big ‘red flag’ for insecurity and annoying attachment.
I leave the feature on and I'm not a Google employee or ignorant of the fact Google tracks my location data. I find value in having the data myself and don't care that Google also has it. I also just asked my girlfriend if she has disabled it and she hasn't. She isn't a Google employee and is aware it is being recorded. So there are 2 more people. Is it possible you are in fact in the minority in disabling it?
Hey wait a second, that's not fun at all, that's incredibly depressing!
On a serious note, it does remind me of that time police arrested a man on suspicion of a break-in, because he was riding his bike in the neighborhood at the time and Google recorded it.
Is it? My girlfriend is probably the only person I'd be comfortable with sharing my location data with, given a reasonable purpose (the one in this post would be good).
A girlfriend may not be as trustworthy, as some people seem to think or at least no more than what is selfishly beneficial and to her advantage. Lots of guys find this out, way too late.
This depends a lot on your SO and your relationship to her/him/them. Given exactly the pretext from the blog post: I can easily think of a past relationship where I'd totally agree with you (very distrustful person who could not have resisted the urge to maliciously interpreted the data), and another relationship where I'd be totally cool with it (except I wouldn't want the heat map to be public). For most of my past relationships (and my current, final relationship) however such a request is unrealistic anyway; they simply don't have the technical ability to do such an analysis.
They know when your sleeping, they know when your awake. They know when you’ve been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake!
Seriously, they know every time you pick up your phone. Where you shop, how much you spend, if you miss a stop in the highway, if you text your parents happy birthday, if your heart rate increases when you’re around a particular phone. They quite literally may know your gay before you do.
What is their current definition of "be good" so that I can comply? Is there any changelog? Perhaps some future plan introducing new parts of "good" and deprecating some as well?
If Google built such a product, you'd probably find it on their graveyard. So it's best to be careful and not antagonize them; because always remember: You only have one digital life, so keep your head down and don't blow it.
I wish that was pure /s, but the amount of "Ask HN: Google banned me or my business for no obvious reason" is really staggering. (n.b.: Of course I'm talking about the old Google of 2022, not about the glorious overlords that Google since has become; all praises the holy trinity of Android, Google Search and Google Glurp for Glorps! Please don't ban me.)
Funny nobody can even tell why they ban somebody because ML just won't tell them why. "Hey, our ML_ANOMALY_20220430_6C2DBE3AFC model ensemble has told us to ban you, so we are banning you! There is no recourse (unless you have friends at Google). Please don't contact us ever again. We will ban all the people from the whole block around you as well."
Yeah. Due to this topic I actually thought "oh, good idea, I should automatically download my whole Google data once every month; better safe than sorry". Then I realized that this might get me banned, because actual bad actors probably do that as well.
Only… they gave that information to government (supposedly post-analysis and anonymized). Regardless the data was quite literally used to “track and trace” then as a mechanism / justification to place you under house arrest.
Ehh, there was some really sketch things there. I think at least for apple they might have potentially already built it and this just moved their announcement date up. There’s a very weird simultaneously timed NSA bill in congress at the same time.
Nowhere near this level of detail. Telecoms providers (until "hyperlocal" 5G base stations become commonplace) have very coarse location info compared to GPS (as well as other sources a typical smartphone uses such as Wi-Fi triangulation). Even with 5G, smartphone-determined location data is likely to still be much more accurate.
The interesting aspect of that, is what Google and other authorities do with such data. They can be unlocking all sorts of private trivia, unbeknown to any of the users involved, to an extent far beyond any are suspecting.
That could include such authorities, manipulating or interfering with events and lives, more than anybody would think possible or should be legally allowed.
Just for clarity, there was a "could" in there, in the context of what I stated.
Google and other authorities having such access to so much data about individuals, means they can know of relationships, that the interacting individual parties involved don't know about each other. So, if a wife were cheating on her husband, that can be known. A line can be crossed, where information is leaked to the husband, in various ways. This of course is just a "theoretical" example, of many other kinds of possibilities.
Access to private and personal information is its own kind of power, that can be easily abused under many gray areas, and under all kinds of pretexts and weak justifications.
They have the data, but they make sure to not show that they have the data, because they are very aware of how creepy it would be. They spent a lot of time on optics.
Do people who see ads get ads based on where they've been by the way?
If you are interested in tinkering with personal data exports using SQL, my friend and I made Bionic: https://github.com/bionic/bionic.
The README includes an example of calculating songs you often listen to while walking/driving/using public transit (by combining Google Maps and Spotify data).
This is delightful. I also live in Cape Town and met my girlfriend on Bumble right after the lockdowns (and curfews) ended. I’m tempted to do this as well
And this friends is why "third party" entities collecting your meta data and such is a concern. A lot (read: enough) can be learned about you *and who you associate* without actually listening to your calls, etc.
On the surface, this article is cute. After that it's a red flag for all of us.
All depends on your threat model. A company openly collecting your data by your say so seems significantly less threatening (to me, to many others) than all the actors who are doing it without your knowledge or consent.
The point is, any / all data collection is - or should be - suspect. Today's benevolent actor is tomorrow's victim of a hack, or simply changes their spots. Furthermore, even data that is positioned as harmless (i.e., phone call metadata) can tell stories.
Finally, per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" (and others) these minor privacy infringements add up and is used against us.
Read the book. Once you come to realize the collecting of your data isn't "passive" and that ultimately, it's being done to be used against you - and your free will - your perceived benefits are insignificant.
Put another way, being complacent and complicit not only sells-out your own privacy, it compromises the privacy of all those round you, your (future) offspring, etc.
I'm not going to read a whole book about this issue.
I already know that the collecting of data isn't passive. I deny that it's being done to be used against me. I also deny any concrete harms for most people on the short to medium term, although the far future is hard to predict.
Given that I deny the likelihood of harm to this data collection, I'm setting a concrete benefit against no drawbacks. Therefore I will continue to use it.
In some camps, a couple of years ago, the book was on a number of "Book of Year" lists. The issue is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. That fact that you dismiss the risks and dangers is something - funny enough - covered in the book as well.
p.s. Not passive, as in the aim is to be proactive (in influencing behavior). There are plenty of other sources that explore how fragile "free will" is, so maybe we can do that some other time? :)
Do you find you convince many people with this style of argumentation? I used to do it this way but it never worked out for me. You think I'm naive, but in fact I just have different priorities from you, and different estimates of the likelihood of outcomes.
Odd. From my POV, there's nothing to argue here. You've decided. And per you, that decision is final.
Once you said, "I'm not going to read...to learn new things..." the conversation was over on my end. The line was drawn. But, for the record, there are other here that might be interested in new ideas and new perspectives, and the flaws in their own. It's why I'm here. So for completeness and fairness to others, I played through.
I'm fairly confident you didn't hear an idea I referenced. So to me, it's odd that you perceive someone was trying to argue with you. Why would anyone bother? You're immune to all outside influences, yes?
It's not on to say someone said something, and put quotes around it, when they did not actually say that thing. Your quote would be misleading even if it only enclosed the words I did say, since you took away the context (you told me to read a whole particular book on a subject, I said I would not -- nobody has time to read every book a random internet commenter tells them to read). But enclosing words I didn't even say in quotes as well to make me sound even more unreasonable is beyond the pale.
I consider Google to already be an agent that is working for me. It obviously has its own interests, which are not perfectly aligned with mine. But its interests and my interests in the space of location data collection are sufficiently aligned that I don't object to them having it.
My takeaway is this: If you want to meet your significant other, attend a university. After university your chances will dwindle down as you won't frequent that big come together place any more.
Any social gathering is a place where you can meet your significant others, university is not the exclusive place for that.
Most most introverted people tend to do though (myself included), is attending less social events as they become older. But you can still force yourself out there and meet people based on your hobbies.
And who knows, maybe you meet your significant other at one of those events for your favorite hobby?
Church is really the classical place. It's a shame there's not a similar place for large groups of secular people to gather once a week for social events.
Are we talking about paying for seats to spectate? Cause if so - I highly disagree. You might get lucky every so often but I found people generally keep to themselves/their friend group.
Not sure if it exists in your country, but all over Europe there are "Civic Centers" that host various cultural events, activities and curses where you can meet people from all walks of life. Great place to meet people with the same interests as you and usually hosts relatively cheap events as it's meant to be attend-able for all people.
Unitarian Universalist Church. Ethical Culture Society. There are quite a few non-credal churches or "not-a-church" organizations built along churchy lines.
I would argue in the current climate "political activism" and "political groups" have replaced God and the Church as a religion. Secular, certainly, religious absolutely. I've heard from some people that they won't even consider dating someone who has even an iota difference in political views. If this doesn't sound like religious dogma I'm not sure what would.
I'm a Catholic so I attend Church often and in my experience, it really depends on how the Parish runs; in some places, people literally show up 5-10 minutes before Mass and then rush to the parking lot as soon as it ends, so you never have a chance to speak to anyone.
However, in contrast, my fiance is from Peru and goes to a Latin Church; there you have a very strong sense of community and can meet plenty of people. Also, you probably won't be meeting your SO at the Church directly but you will most likely be introduced _through_ someone from the community (especially older people who have bigger families).
The other thing about religious communities is that "dating" is not about hookups or casual sex but more about about finding life long partners and marriage. This can be a blessing or a curse depending on what stage of life you are in (though if you are truly devout, you won't mind) so it's not perfect.
Anyway, for non religious people, there are still plenty of ways to meet: Volunteering programs, social clubs, sport centers, etc.
The only advice I would give is meet as many people as possible because chances are your potential partner will be introduced to you through friends of friends eventually.
I would go as far as saying that most long-term couples meet after university (at least for people who were born after 1980, let's say). During university, a lot of people are still in the experimentation phase. I feel like later in life, maybe end 20s/early 30s, you had enough time to get to know yourself, and know what kind of person you are, what you care about, etc.
Of course, this is anecdotal and based on myself and my friends. But just as a counterpoint to your "go to university" advice =)
Romantic relationships formed in your early 20s are statistically unlikely to last. University is a fine place to meet people and have fun, but don't count on it as a place to find "your" significant other.
But if instead of having a relationship that lasts forever, you value having a meaningful romantic relationship that lasts 5 or 10 years, university is pretty good.
The story leads with the fact that the author met her boyfriend on Bumble, despite attending the same university and living in the same city for five years. So that's a surprising takeaway.
I thought the same, but I am generation older. It made me think: Does anyone still ask people out for dates in real life? I am sure some, but the ratio must be incredibly low now after online dating became so common. To be clear: I do not think this is worse. For example, with the rise of different types of dating apps, it does seem that women (seeking men) have more agency in their dating life. In my generation (and culture), women almost never asked out men, so they were always waiting for romance to happen to them. Of course, this has changed significantly. Some part is the rise in agency of women (education, earnings power, social changes, etc.), and some part dating apps.
Online dating is common but it doesn’t usually work for the average man. It will work for most women but most women don’t use it.
Most men still need to find a partner through other means like cold approach (terrible - it’s highly dependent on looks just like Tinder) or through warm approach (friends of friends, hobbies, social groups, etc. - this is where most average men meet their partners).
The issue now is the growing number of single men. This number keeps going up every year and it doesn’t look to be improving. It’s definitely leading to some not-so-great side effects. (The number of single women is growing more slowly)
First, do you have any sources? Most (Western culture) highly-educated women that I know use online dating apps.
Second, as I understand, a major issue about dating with highly-educated people: Women (almost) always want to meet same socio-economic status or above. Dear HN readers: Read that last sentence mathematically: Greater than or equal (>=)! As women are quickly holding more than 50% of highly educated jobs (economically practical masters degrees and above), this creates a huge mismatch. See: Medicine, science, finance, technology jobs. (Commentary: By 2030/40/50, I feel a huge portion of medicine will be women. Great!)
Real-world example: If a man is a public pre-school or elementary school teacher (middle to lower income), his chances to meet a high-income woman are very low in 2022.
On the contrary, many (Western culture) men are happy to meet / date / marry women whom have (far) lower socio-economic status. "Sexy, not smart." In the classic (out-dated) cultural view, this is "big (male) boss" dates/marries low socio-economic status executive assistant ("secretary"). I have observed this is quickly coming to an end in the last twenty years.
Real questions:
(1) Whom are high-income male bosses dating these days? I assume: High-income women whom are breaking the glass ceiling for senior roles. (Great! I support these women 152%!) Or: These men date younger (and younger!). I have observed both in my professional career.
(2) Whom are low-income/-education female executive assistants dating these days? I assume they are mostly single. Why? They want to meet high-income men, but these men are more-and-more focused on other (still rare!) high-income women(!).
Final comment that is very (deeply!) personal: If you are not alpha-male or very high income, it is difficult to meet highly-educated women. Basically, they are "vaccuumed/Hoovered" (sorry: American English slang!) by other high-income/status or alpha men. It is so tough. Please, please, do not read this final paragraph as discriminatory against women whom choose these men. Dating is complex! Personally, my dream is to meet someone who is a science researcher (academic) with a low salary, but passionate about their work. Lots to talk about!
Last: Please, please don't read any of this post as something negative towards women. No, exactly the opposite. I am more interested in how wealthly, highly-educated societies will rebalance when women hold more than 50% of educated positions (very soon in rich countries!). In my view, it is terrific that women finally have equal opportunity in my society. My mother never had these opportunities, but her daughters will finally have the chance for economic equality. Huzzah.
If you have the time to write this all out - you have the time to find the supporting statistics. Most women don't use online dating - they've tried it but they don't use it. This is why the apps are overwhelmingly male. (Anywhere from 2:1 (lowest I've ever seen) to 9:1 depending on region and app)
High income women end up marrying their college partners. A lot of these gals meet their partner in college and never separate. That's how I see it for the majority of women I've known in SV. Exceptions being those who didn't go to college and weren't going to pursue a high income profession (or were but bailed on it) but inevitably chose it later.
It's hard to meet these women because they are few in percentage and like most women - they don't go out to meet men. They might use dating apps, they might date a coworker, they might date someone in their social circle. So, you're not likely gonna meet them organically at a hobby or anything.
Most people have or have had significant others. Although some have met them at university most have not.
I have had several relationships where at the time I would have called the person my significant other but in retrospect there have only been 2 that have truly been significant to my life. I met my wife at a bar. A few years after she passed, I met my now girlfriend of 12 years at a farmers market where she was selling pickles and kimchi.
I noted in long form above. I met my wife in a bar.
I had a primary care physician in the late 1990s that had been polling his patients on that his whole career, and said that a little more than 80% of his patients met at a bar. So there you go.
I also agree with your assessment on partners, I have had a couple that were important at the time, but looking back, where more like friends with benefits. Only two were really significant. One that tortured me emotionally and basically set me up for over sensitive warning flags for about five years, what a mess. The other one I married over 25 years ago.
This used to be what everyone said. I remember an introductory talk at university where they explicitly said 'and most of you will meet your future spouses here' as if it was part of the package. Feels like just a few years ago it used to be everyone met their partner at university.
I had a primary care physician ask me where I met my wife.
He was old, early 80s (since retired and passed on) and said he had been asking his patients that his whole career, and had been keeping track.
I met my wife at a bar. Now, this was pre-smart-phone era, I will grant you that.
He said that a little more than 80% of his patients met their spouse at a bar. He said every time he heard someone say "You need to go to church", "you need to volunteer", or any other thing like that, he would interject that no, you need to go out drinking and carousing with friends. And always with friends. Apparently, out drinking and carousing alone is not nearly as effective.
You will have to accept the word of dead physician from the 1990s on that. Post 2008, the numbers have likely shifted.
But I still recommend drinking and carousing with friends. (That doesn't mean heavy drinking, you don't have to get plastered to carouse)
I've personally found Google's location history to be a net positive for me.
From places I've been whose precise addresses I can't remember (e.g. distant family events), to tracking hospital, doctor visits.
I've even used it as a proxy for timesheets when I used to work from an office on weeks where I wouldn't have recorded my activities well (like which client I visited, how long I took lunch, etc).
It has a flaw though, if establishments change names, your record of the visit also changes. If you had lunch at a burger place 2 years ago, and the place closed down and a hair salon opened up in its place, you'd "look back" and Google would tell you you went to a hair salon 2 years ago.
You just invented the next great dating app. Because I can “game” saying I like or do something, but having to both physically be there and review it is a cool angle. The catch (outside the crazy permissions) would be it would greatly hurt smaller cities: “oh you really like the only Starbucks in town? Me too!”
FourSquare was great, their gamified app made it fun for us to check in to locations. My friend works for his city's local council, not too high a position. We all call him the mayor of the city, because he used to be the mayor of a lot of places there on FourSquare.
I agree it's a great use of location data, but why not use a completely client-side solution? Personally I use the Arc app[0] to record my location history. I did notice decreased battery life but I still have enough battery for a full day.
Years ago I boarded an almost empty plane from my country to a country where I had just started to live. The crew let a printed list of the passengers on one of the seats, I took the list and stored it somewhere. Flash forward few years later: I had met a lot of people in that country, inclusive from my own country. And one day, I rediscovered that boarding list I had totally forgotten about, just to find out that I had ended up knowing one of the persons on it.
This sounds sort of similar to Strava Flybys[0]. It users your run/ride location data and show people who posted public activies that passed you by. Sometimes interesting, but I bet a lot of Strava users who post their activities as "public" don't know this feature exists and might turn to "followers only" if they did.
It's carved out as a specific permission on the privacy page now - https://www.strava.com/settings/privacy - and also explicitly mentioned as turned off for "only you" activities, but no mention if it's exposed if your activity is "followers only".
This existed as a massive data-leak for a really long time. The "API" didn't have any meaningful protection, and the service was opt-in.
It was really easy to download flyby exports for any activity and do analysis.
I had a script downloading my Strava recordings of my commute and the associated fly-by data and was easily able to figure out all of the people I was seeing on the way to/from work. Since it linked to the activities and included profile pictures and names, you could easily figure out a lot.
If I remember correctly, you could still see fly-bys of other peoples' rides even if your own was private or followers-only.
It was a pretty massive oversight for a company like Strava - and a bit of an eye opener for me about what kind of data I might be leaking by making "harmless" activities like riding my bike into public data.
I loved the personal story of two people trying to figure out past history based on data. But the fact that his comes from centralized datamines maintained by bigtech is unsettling.
Many years ago, when everybody had Nokias with the Bluetooth on, I used to do a similar thing.
I created a S60 python script that kept scanning Bluetooth mac addresses and link them with the cell tower I was connected to (no GPS yet on mobiles).Then later processed the logs to see if I encountered the same people in different locations and times.
And yes, I re-encountered a bunch of Bluetooth mac addresses in different locations. For me it was fascinating at that time :)
> Using the console's background connectivity, a Nintendo 3DS in Sleep Mode can automatically discover other Nintendo 3DS systems within range, establish a connection, and exchange content for mutually played games, all transparently and without requiring any user input.
> For example, in Rhythm Heaven Megamix, if the user passes by someone with the same software, they will take on a figure-fighting duel challenge.
There's also a handful of free games that come with the console, so you're not limited to people who own the same games.
There was a puzzle one where you got a random starting piece, and you could copy one piece from each person you passed that they owned. Sometimes you'd go past someone with the entire puzzle, sometimes you'd already have all the pieces someone else did (which is kind of fun in its own right).
I miss that there's nothing like that on Switch, but it was not great for the battery life.
(actually, on the original DS there was a game called The World Ends With You that implemented this feature at the game level, too. OS-level is a big improvement, but it was still neat there, especially since it gave you a bonus even for passing DSes that didn't hvae the game running)
There’s a play about this, the name escapes me, but it’s a “quantum” love story: two people meet and at each step options present; the catch is the possibility tree doesn’t converge (one character had a midlife disease, which only happened in some of the branches).
It was absolutely fantastic. Just tremendous. Think it played in New York, Dallas and New York at a minimum.
342 comments
[ 3.1 ms ] story [ 295 ms ] threadAnd no shame in getting philosophical. It may not have been time. Perhaps you were not the same person, or nor was he. In meeting at the right time, stars are aligned, it was the right time to intersect. Or perhaps a host of other reasons. There may have been better times, perhaps bounded for this success quite close to or at the time you didn 'meet'. And who knows what other 'success' could have worked out - collaborators in something, getting together when 're meeting' - we don't know, an individual's life's not repeatable, and that in itself is beautiful.
It is indeed fascinating mapping and wondering, and probably applicable to a lot. But not to downplay the philosophical side, as that's important, and important the OP included it.
I don't think Google's spying can help me identify those, but in the end I'm grateful for the winding path that led here, even if I didn't love it along the way!
It's just as possible that for a given person, molecules could have changed somewhere or even "bigger" events could have happened one or more times, and their existence would have remained. Automatically assuming a chaos of infinite possibilities with completely divergent universe is potentially reducing the complexity of the world and its countless smaller stabilizing feedback loops that locally do reduce divergences. Otherwise we'd never do anything for fear of spontaneously exploding or other funny things.
https://moorsidepublications.com/2015/07/01/babbage-gets-inv...
"They were on a collision course and both would have been travelling at 40 miles an hour."
What an amazing story. Thanks.
https://www.theguardian.com/technology/gallery/2015/apr/12/t...
Perhaps it would all be more depressing than that though, exposing the small, repetitive worlds we live in. For my part, I have tried to road-trip, travel more often than others in my family have done, tried too to expose my kids to travel when growing up so they can experience a slightly bigger loop across the face of this small planet.
Very fascinating indeed. Imagine all the near-misses, as well. Like you were in the exact location of a childhood sweetheart, soon-to-be girlfriend, or ex-girlfriend, but separated by 30 minutes. Perhaps, if had waited 30 minutes later, would have ran into a dream woman, who would have been the perfect wife.
This is a really good point. My wife and I often laugh about how in high school especially and college too we wouldn’t likely have been friends, much less good romantic partners. Both of us then were different people yet now both of us are perfect for each other.
But back then? Likely not even friends.
Man this is really key. relationships is a skill. I don't believe in soul mates, but rather a healthy relationship is developed when two people have honed the skill enough to be able to handle conflict without causing irreparable harm, and enjoy each other out of conflict.
My wife and I were very aligned, right from early on, concerning financial disposition and family goals. We got that right out in the open early. We completely merged our financial lives and closed on a house, both names on the deed, both names on the mortgage, a year before we got engaged. When we got engaged, we couldn't afford an engagement ring, joint decision on that, and one of her friends got up in my face about it, 'where is the commitment?'. My dear fiancee held her ring finger up against the house and said "this is the commitment".
That common ground, those common goals, has made everything that followed much easier. Thirty years this past Spring.
In other words I don't think who we end up with is some 1 in a million cosmic star aligning moment, it's probably more like 1 in 100 and many people would be as good or a better fit than who we end up with. The time you spend with your person is more important than some intrinsic value you both bring at the start.
I suspect that you're right for most people, but those odds will be better or worse depending on the person and their circumstance. For some people, it probably is closer to 1 in a million, or could even be worse. Some go their entire lives meeting people and never finding one. There's probably not much harm in feeling a bit lucky to have found your person, especially if you suspect at least one of your odds were worse than most.
I've had relationships not work out for varying reasons, including going on vacation 'at the wrong time', or someone's ex visiting the city and making her feel like she can't 'move on' at the moment, stuff like that.
And I went through my own dating phase in which I was less mature and not ready to settle down with many of the people I met. Quite a few of them were perfectly great women with whom I likely could have lasted in a long-term relationship (of course, we can never really know). As I see it, the timing wasn't right, either for me (mostly for me) or for them. It was only after a few years of this that I was in the right mindset to stay with the person I happened to be dating at the time. Sure, that probably doesn't sound great, and I probably won't discuss this at length with my wife, but it's the way I view the world. I'd wager that something like 80% of the people I went on more than three dates with were 'compatible' enough that I'd pursue a relationship with them, but it only worked out long-term with the last one because we were both in the same mindset to give an earnest effort at making our relationship work at the same place and same time.
So, using dumb analogy math, 1/X (compatible person) chance times 1/Y (right timing, maturity, life experience, etc.), it works out to a lower probability 1/(X*Y).
My wife and I dated through undergrad, broke up at "get married or break up." And ended coming back together as adults with more life and relationship experience. Based on plans, we never should have been back in the same city. And when we started hanging out again, neither expected a relationship, just a friendship still being sick of each others' sh. But we had both grown up. We're 24 years into our relationship now. I think it's going well.
That's all purely anecdotal, though.
I don't think real math could be done with this. Success isn't measurable. People often split due to $ or tragedy. People stick it out, miserable the entire time. It walks into Aristotle's eudaimonia. You can't know until it's over. Even then, quantifying quality is folly.
People who's marriages I thought would go on till death (Bezos's, Gates's, Carmack's, and most recently Tom Brady's) can have the scales tipped into the direction of "leave for reason X and take what you can from him (and sometimes her) on the way out", whether out of vindictiveness or perceived entitlement, even if the money wasn't the primary cause or objective.
One thing that I find a little weird about the Bezos divorce is that there are a lot of claims that it will make MacKenzie Bezos “the world’s richest woman.” I suppose there is a technical sense in which that is right, but it assumes not only that she will have a right to half of Jeff Bezos’s assets in divorce, but also that she has no such right in marriage. That strikes me as a strange way to think about marriage, and about the “community property” laws that might give her half the assets in divorce. (Surely those laws imply that she is in a sense a joint owner now?) I would have thought the more straightforward analysis is that she is the world’s richest woman now, because she is a member of a married couple that has more money than any other single person or married couple on the planet, but I guess that is not how the scorekeeping works.
https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-01-10/bezos-...
Property is a social construct; marital property no more or less than any other, and likewise no more or less a fiction.
> . Prior to their divorce, if Jeff wanted to dump all his Amazon stock, I doubt he needed MacKenzie's permission to do it.
Yes, marriage is exactly like a general partnership in that, absent explicit agreement or special legal treatment of particular property, any partner can dispose of property of the partnership.
Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
So pre-divorce MacKenzie could have unilaterally decided to dump Jeff's Amazon shares on the market without his permission?
She could have burnt down Bezos's Medina home to bits and he couldn't sue for damages, even if he payed for the construction, property taxes, other bills, and was sole owner of the deed?
She could have access to any separate bank accounts he owned, and blown it all?
> Also, like a general partnership in that the property legally ascribed to the partnership rather than partners individually is divided among the partners as personal property at dissolution.
A partnership in and of itself doesn't create any obligations other than the acknowledgement of said partnership. There isn't a presumption of combined ownership. A partnership is the explicit creation of a contract that both parties agree to. If a contract is voided, one is no longer required to perform any duties or continue providing resources.
In a marriage, the terms are set by the state and there is a presumption of combined ownership. Even if a prenup to the effect of "I keep what I earned, you keep what you earned" exists, a judge can ignore it.
So is a marriage. In both cases, there are default consequences in law that apply in the absence of contrary explicit agreement, particularly (relevant to thr current issue) as regards property attributable to the relationship, including which property that is.
> If a contract is voided
That’s not relevant, here. Voiding a contract is cancellation, due to a legal defect that makes it categorically invalid (if completely prohibited) or voidable at the discretion of a party (such as when one party was a child when making it); the marital case of voiding a contract is annulment, not divorce.
Divorce is termination of a contract, not voiding.
I'm aware of that and seeing as the Bezos's marriage did not have a pre-nup, Jeff was relatively fortunate. But my concern is with how marriages are treated as legal institutions apart from how commercial contracts are upheld.
In a partnership, two private parties can create a contract by themselves. The state is not involved in the creation of a contract. The state will only involve itself with the contract's enforcement or the resolution of any suits arising from its dissolution. The state works within the body of laws it's upheld, but almost all rights stated in the contract supersede the default assumptions held by the state.
When it comes to marriage, the state (via the court) is deemed its creator, enforcer, and dissolver. A divorce can only be granted under the acceptance of the state's terms. A judge can decide to ignore precedent or the upholding of a pre-nup.
Thus, take such stories online with a grain of salt. Especially since many are blind to their own faults, and therefore can't include them in their stories.
I agree that it is important to take a person's examination of his/her self or his/her (ex-)spouse with a grain of salt. And while people are blind to their own faults, you're making the mistake of thinking that divorces are based on falsifiable and rational assessments. Some are. Some aren't. But one isn't likely know the true reason a long time after the fact, if at all.
It would be an equitable portion of our collective stuff, not 1/2 of mine. There is no “yours” when you’re married. That’s a big part of what marriage means. Even pre-modern and across many cultures, marriage has been viewed as a contract.
Money (or lack thereof) is one of the primary motivators in her experience. A lot of “rich people” get divorces when they’re in debt up to their eyeballs and the consequences hit.
We’re not struggling, not wealthy, and are pretty equally valued. Also, there’s more than stuff. The burden of children, a household, and even our own lives would be much greater solo. We’re a pretty great support system for each other.
There is no perfect marriage. Part of my point. I think mine’s great. We’ll see when we’re dead or divorced.
Also, how come 2 people be so ok with Google having all their location history? There are only two reasons why someone leaves that function enabled:
A) they are Google employees B) totally ignorant to the fact that Google tracks them
Believe me, I care far more than google in my ability to know where I was on April 24 2016.
I do find it cool to have such data to do the kind of analysis as presented in this post, but not cool enough to let others (especially Google) possess this data as well.
When was it the conference was at "that town".
Sure there's other ways to find the information but I don't mind having it tracked. To each his own but I find more value in it than I think I give up.
I live in the UK, but I can go back to May 2014 and see everywhere I went in Florida on a holiday. Every restaurant, theme park, shop etc.
It's a great way to take a trip down memory lane.
I also use it on a day-to-day basis - e.g. if I need to record what hours I worked on a certain day, I can use it to give me an approximate time I went out for lunch.
A guy I worked for long ago was part of a partnership of architects and they split up. One of the other partners was known for never parting amicably and sued him. He claimed they had agreed on something and my client had failed to deliver and thus owed him some large sum. He presented notes he had allegedly taken during the talk they had a few years earlier including date and time and the word of another partner as support, who claimed to have been present.
My client checked his old calendars and just found the word "Copenhagen" for that + the previous day. With a bit of searching and checking, he figured out that he was incredibly lucky: he had been in Copenhagen that day to sail in a regatta, had lots of witnesses and photographs and easily won the case, the other two got into hot water for falsifying documents and giving false statements, though I don't know the outcome.
He was lucky to have had a multi-day thing and putting it into his calendar. Not sure if "Google showed me being far away" would've stood up, but it can certainly be useful to know your location a few years ago.
Location history enabled me to accurately and confidently report the time window when crime occurred to the police.
I suspect the outcome is still the same of your catalytic converter being gone for good, even if it helped you narrow down details for a police report.
As such, the utility is still zero, since the desired outcome is "get my property back", unless you needed this many details for insurance purposes (they usually only ask for a police report, and police are happy to take any data since they are unlikely to find the perpetrator anyway).
Of course not.
> I suspect the outcome is still the same of your catalytic converter being gone for good, even if it helped you narrow down details for a police report.
Correct.
> As such, the utility is still zero, since the desired outcome is "get my property back", unless you needed this many details for insurance purposes (they usually only ask for a police report, and police are happy to take any data since they are unlikely to find the perpetrator anyway).
That was not the desired outcome. My desired outcome was to make reporting to the police go as smoothly for me as possible which I'd preferably entirely skip if not for the fact that insurer required me to report it.
Talking to the police (or anyone really) is a stressful event for me so any help with establishing what to say was very much appreciated.
On semi-related note my car is at repair shop for 3 months already and I have no idea how much longer will it be because apparently no supplier of catalytic converters is willing to estimate when they'll have a single item for Toyota Auris.
In cases like these, insurance mostly needs a paper trail, and police are very well aware of that, and they won't look for specifics. They'll probably even suggest what to fill in: that's at least my experience.
I feel for your experience though, and I wish you your car back on the road asap.
Other replies so far have actually convinced me that I don't need to reconsider it, as the benefits seem minuscule compared to the price ;)
On a more practical note, I visited a random restaurant in a town I was visiting which turned out to be an amazing place. Didn’t remember the name. A few years later I’m in the same town and would not have found the place if not for the location history.
In general, I obtain a huge amount of value in being able to know what happened in my own past. This can be both for work and for personal reasons. For this, my calendar and Google Timeline are the two tools I use the most.
Most usefulness is in the past 1-2 weeks, and things become less useful over time, right up until they become extremely useful. For example "Oh crap, I lost this thing, the last time I saw it was on this date. What are the possible places I could have lost it? Let's retrace."
It's hard to convey how much things change once you're able to reliably have this information. Your mindset changes. Things you couldn't do before are unlocked.
I would love a better Google Timeline, one whose data I personally own especially. I suspect there will be an explosion of these types of apps at some point once people catch up.
https://twitter.com/shanselman/status/1003590025462681600
I'm guessing the same holds true for all the other services.
I do have my location history activated, and so does lots of people around me. I'm neither a Google employee nor am I ignorant that Google tracks me both physically and digitally.
But being able to have a timeline of where I am at times have been both helpful and interesting, so I'm willing to trade that data for the functionality I receive for it.
If you do know of a better solution that gives me the same data but is not Google, please feel free to share it. I haven't found anything like that that completely abuses my battery at the same time and also guarantees to not sell my data.
What? Why? Both parties seemed happy with it and it seems like a cute thought experiment to me.
Also, I respect that you find it ‘cute’. To me this is ‘insecurity’, ‘attachment’ and an indication of a current or future toxic relationship.
There is no wrong or right, people should know that others out there will have a different POV.
How can you infer that? She clearly had access to his location history, it's extremely unlikely that it happened without his consent. This is rather a vibe of two enthusiastic geeks being genuinely curious about analyzing some cool data about themselves, rather than anyone being "overly attached". We can't tell for sure without more details about their relationship, which isn't our business at all, so talking about "big red flags" feels really wrong and paternalistic (which in fact sounds like a big red flag :P).
> Also, how come 2 people be so ok with Google having all their location history?
That's a valid question though.
"My partner kindly agreed to download his data and sent it to me."
Funny how everyone is so oblivious and saying ‘ohhh I find it so cute’
Nevertheless, I think in general, people should learn that some will agree and others will disagree. There is no wrong or right. If some of you find this ‘cute’ and ‘amazing’ that is perfect. You should also understand and respect that some others find this ‘creepy’, ‘disturbing’ and a big ‘red flag’ for insecurity and annoying attachment.
On a serious note, it does remind me of that time police arrested a man on suspicion of a break-in, because he was riding his bike in the neighborhood at the time and Google recorded it.
On some level alarm bells are going off.
Seriously, they know every time you pick up your phone. Where you shop, how much you spend, if you miss a stop in the highway, if you text your parents happy birthday, if your heart rate increases when you’re around a particular phone. They quite literally may know your gay before you do.
I wish that was pure /s, but the amount of "Ask HN: Google banned me or my business for no obvious reason" is really staggering. (n.b.: Of course I'm talking about the old Google of 2022, not about the glorious overlords that Google since has become; all praises the holy trinity of Android, Google Search and Google Glurp for Glorps! Please don't ban me.)
https://www.google.com/covid19/mobility/
So did apple:
https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2020/04/apple-makes-mobility-...
Only… they gave that information to government (supposedly post-analysis and anonymized). Regardless the data was quite literally used to “track and trace” then as a mechanism / justification to place you under house arrest.
/tinfoilhat
That could include such authorities, manipulating or interfering with events and lives, more than anybody would think possible or should be legally allowed.
What might be a good example?
Google and other authorities having such access to so much data about individuals, means they can know of relationships, that the interacting individual parties involved don't know about each other. So, if a wife were cheating on her husband, that can be known. A line can be crossed, where information is leaked to the husband, in various ways. This of course is just a "theoretical" example, of many other kinds of possibilities.
Access to private and personal information is its own kind of power, that can be easily abused under many gray areas, and under all kinds of pretexts and weak justifications.
Do people who see ads get ads based on where they've been by the way?
The README includes an example of calculating songs you often listen to while walking/driving/using public transit (by combining Google Maps and Spotify data).
On the surface, this article is cute. After that it's a red flag for all of us.
Finally, per "The Age of Surveillance Capitalism" (and others) these minor privacy infringements add up and is used against us.
There's no such thing as no threat.
Put another way, being complacent and complicit not only sells-out your own privacy, it compromises the privacy of all those round you, your (future) offspring, etc.
For what? Convenience?
I already know that the collecting of data isn't passive. I deny that it's being done to be used against me. I also deny any concrete harms for most people on the short to medium term, although the far future is hard to predict.
Given that I deny the likelihood of harm to this data collection, I'm setting a concrete benefit against no drawbacks. Therefore I will continue to use it.
In some camps, a couple of years ago, the book was on a number of "Book of Year" lists. The issue is far less simplistic than you're making it out to be. That fact that you dismiss the risks and dangers is something - funny enough - covered in the book as well.
Leaving this for completeness:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Surveillance_Capita...
p.s. Not passive, as in the aim is to be proactive (in influencing behavior). There are plenty of other sources that explore how fragile "free will" is, so maybe we can do that some other time? :)
Once you said, "I'm not going to read...to learn new things..." the conversation was over on my end. The line was drawn. But, for the record, there are other here that might be interested in new ideas and new perspectives, and the flaws in their own. It's why I'm here. So for completeness and fairness to others, I played through.
I'm fairly confident you didn't hear an idea I referenced. So to me, it's odd that you perceive someone was trying to argue with you. Why would anyone bother? You're immune to all outside influences, yes?
I think the long-term answer is to have agents that work for you. Maybe a personal AI?
Most most introverted people tend to do though (myself included), is attending less social events as they become older. But you can still force yourself out there and meet people based on your hobbies.
And who knows, maybe you meet your significant other at one of those events for your favorite hobby?
Many of my neighbors go to church and I'm very jealous at how much social capital it provides every single week for essentially free.
It's such a shame that something so good is wrapped in something so silly.
For instance, replace God and Jesus with the Superego and Id respectively. You'd be surprised at how much sense some quotes make.
But religion is so vague, it's almost mad-lib. And some parts will still be complete nonsense or primitive statecraft memes.
Sharing this with other church-goers might not be well received, also.
However, in contrast, my fiance is from Peru and goes to a Latin Church; there you have a very strong sense of community and can meet plenty of people. Also, you probably won't be meeting your SO at the Church directly but you will most likely be introduced _through_ someone from the community (especially older people who have bigger families).
The other thing about religious communities is that "dating" is not about hookups or casual sex but more about about finding life long partners and marriage. This can be a blessing or a curse depending on what stage of life you are in (though if you are truly devout, you won't mind) so it's not perfect.
Anyway, for non religious people, there are still plenty of ways to meet: Volunteering programs, social clubs, sport centers, etc.
The only advice I would give is meet as many people as possible because chances are your potential partner will be introduced to you through friends of friends eventually.
Of course, this is anecdotal and based on myself and my friends. But just as a counterpoint to your "go to university" advice =)
Most men still need to find a partner through other means like cold approach (terrible - it’s highly dependent on looks just like Tinder) or through warm approach (friends of friends, hobbies, social groups, etc. - this is where most average men meet their partners).
The issue now is the growing number of single men. This number keeps going up every year and it doesn’t look to be improving. It’s definitely leading to some not-so-great side effects. (The number of single women is growing more slowly)
How is this possible, outside of gender imbalance or imbalanced matching (i.e. one man in a relationship with multiple women)?
First, do you have any sources? Most (Western culture) highly-educated women that I know use online dating apps.
Second, as I understand, a major issue about dating with highly-educated people: Women (almost) always want to meet same socio-economic status or above. Dear HN readers: Read that last sentence mathematically: Greater than or equal (>=)! As women are quickly holding more than 50% of highly educated jobs (economically practical masters degrees and above), this creates a huge mismatch. See: Medicine, science, finance, technology jobs. (Commentary: By 2030/40/50, I feel a huge portion of medicine will be women. Great!)
Real-world example: If a man is a public pre-school or elementary school teacher (middle to lower income), his chances to meet a high-income woman are very low in 2022.
On the contrary, many (Western culture) men are happy to meet / date / marry women whom have (far) lower socio-economic status. "Sexy, not smart." In the classic (out-dated) cultural view, this is "big (male) boss" dates/marries low socio-economic status executive assistant ("secretary"). I have observed this is quickly coming to an end in the last twenty years.
Real questions:
(1) Whom are high-income male bosses dating these days? I assume: High-income women whom are breaking the glass ceiling for senior roles. (Great! I support these women 152%!) Or: These men date younger (and younger!). I have observed both in my professional career.
(2) Whom are low-income/-education female executive assistants dating these days? I assume they are mostly single. Why? They want to meet high-income men, but these men are more-and-more focused on other (still rare!) high-income women(!).
Final comment that is very (deeply!) personal: If you are not alpha-male or very high income, it is difficult to meet highly-educated women. Basically, they are "vaccuumed/Hoovered" (sorry: American English slang!) by other high-income/status or alpha men. It is so tough. Please, please, do not read this final paragraph as discriminatory against women whom choose these men. Dating is complex! Personally, my dream is to meet someone who is a science researcher (academic) with a low salary, but passionate about their work. Lots to talk about!
Last: Please, please don't read any of this post as something negative towards women. No, exactly the opposite. I am more interested in how wealthly, highly-educated societies will rebalance when women hold more than 50% of educated positions (very soon in rich countries!). In my view, it is terrific that women finally have equal opportunity in my society. My mother never had these opportunities, but her daughters will finally have the chance for economic equality. Huzzah.
High income women end up marrying their college partners. A lot of these gals meet their partner in college and never separate. That's how I see it for the majority of women I've known in SV. Exceptions being those who didn't go to college and weren't going to pursue a high income profession (or were but bailed on it) but inevitably chose it later.
It's hard to meet these women because they are few in percentage and like most women - they don't go out to meet men. They might use dating apps, they might date a coworker, they might date someone in their social circle. So, you're not likely gonna meet them organically at a hobby or anything.
It's a rough world for men out there.
I have had several relationships where at the time I would have called the person my significant other but in retrospect there have only been 2 that have truly been significant to my life. I met my wife at a bar. A few years after she passed, I met my now girlfriend of 12 years at a farmers market where she was selling pickles and kimchi.
I had a primary care physician in the late 1990s that had been polling his patients on that his whole career, and said that a little more than 80% of his patients met at a bar. So there you go.
I also agree with your assessment on partners, I have had a couple that were important at the time, but looking back, where more like friends with benefits. Only two were really significant. One that tortured me emotionally and basically set me up for over sensitive warning flags for about five years, what a mess. The other one I married over 25 years ago.
He was old, early 80s (since retired and passed on) and said he had been asking his patients that his whole career, and had been keeping track.
I met my wife at a bar. Now, this was pre-smart-phone era, I will grant you that.
He said that a little more than 80% of his patients met their spouse at a bar. He said every time he heard someone say "You need to go to church", "you need to volunteer", or any other thing like that, he would interject that no, you need to go out drinking and carousing with friends. And always with friends. Apparently, out drinking and carousing alone is not nearly as effective.
You will have to accept the word of dead physician from the 1990s on that. Post 2008, the numbers have likely shifted.
But I still recommend drinking and carousing with friends. (That doesn't mean heavy drinking, you don't have to get plastered to carouse)
I've personally found Google's location history to be a net positive for me. From places I've been whose precise addresses I can't remember (e.g. distant family events), to tracking hospital, doctor visits.
I've even used it as a proxy for timesheets when I used to work from an office on weeks where I wouldn't have recorded my activities well (like which client I visited, how long I took lunch, etc).
[0]: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/arc-app-location-activity/id10...
Years ago I boarded an almost empty plane from my country to a country where I had just started to live. The crew let a printed list of the passengers on one of the seats, I took the list and stored it somewhere. Flash forward few years later: I had met a lot of people in that country, inclusive from my own country. And one day, I rediscovered that boarding list I had totally forgotten about, just to find out that I had ended up knowing one of the persons on it.
Thanks but no thanks
[0] https://labs.strava.com/flyby/
It was really easy to download flyby exports for any activity and do analysis.
I had a script downloading my Strava recordings of my commute and the associated fly-by data and was easily able to figure out all of the people I was seeing on the way to/from work. Since it linked to the activities and included profile pictures and names, you could easily figure out a lot.
If I remember correctly, you could still see fly-bys of other peoples' rides even if your own was private or followers-only.
It was a pretty massive oversight for a company like Strava - and a bit of an eye opener for me about what kind of data I might be leaking by making "harmless" activities like riding my bike into public data.
I created a S60 python script that kept scanning Bluetooth mac addresses and link them with the cell tower I was connected to (no GPS yet on mobiles).Then later processed the logs to see if I encountered the same people in different locations and times.
And yes, I re-encountered a bunch of Bluetooth mac addresses in different locations. For me it was fascinating at that time :)
This was before the Iphone was launched IIRC and I think it only worked with the Nokia N series.
It'll scan for bluetooth trackers in the background (and airpods and iphones) and can give you a per-device history.
> Using the console's background connectivity, a Nintendo 3DS in Sleep Mode can automatically discover other Nintendo 3DS systems within range, establish a connection, and exchange content for mutually played games, all transparently and without requiring any user input.
> For example, in Rhythm Heaven Megamix, if the user passes by someone with the same software, they will take on a figure-fighting duel challenge.
There was a puzzle one where you got a random starting piece, and you could copy one piece from each person you passed that they owned. Sometimes you'd go past someone with the entire puzzle, sometimes you'd already have all the pieces someone else did (which is kind of fun in its own right).
I miss that there's nothing like that on Switch, but it was not great for the battery life.
(actually, on the original DS there was a game called The World Ends With You that implemented this feature at the game level, too. OS-level is a big improvement, but it was still neat there, especially since it gave you a bonus even for passing DSes that didn't hvae the game running)
It was absolutely fantastic. Just tremendous. Think it played in New York, Dallas and New York at a minimum.