Recently in Lame! Category

Google Browser Sync was my favorite Google product.  It syncs browser data between your computers.  In my case, I use it to move between my main Desktop and laptop seamlessly.  My bookmarks, passwords, history, and even my most recently opened tabs were just right there.

I've used online bookmark services in the past all the way back to backflip (remember them?), but Google Browser Sync really took it to a new level for me.  It syncs much more than bookmarks and even more importantly I didn't have to go anywhere--it just worked.  And it worked fast and well.

I recently delayed upgrading to FireFox 3 because it kept saying that Google Browser Sync wasn't updated for it yet.  So I finally searched for why, and found this post from Google saying they are discontinuing my favorite Google product!

Yes, I get there are alternatives.  Yes, I get Google is a private company and can do whatever they want.  Yes, they are releasing code.  But I still just don't get it.  Why?  Why, Google, why?

How much resources does it really take to continue supporting Google Browser Sync?  Why does Mozilla think this is a huge opportunity and you don't?  And even if you don't think it is *as huge*, you can't make a bet on it with one FTE or even a partial FTE out of your 19K+ employees?  What about just to enable its use for FireFox 3?

And how much of a chance did you really give it anyway?  I didn't notice any real promotion, and everyone I've explained it to (yes, non-tech people too) love it, just like me.  Is there anything I can do to change your mind?

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

Everybody says dumb things, and I highly respect Warren Buffett's opinion (how could you not?), but I was astounded when I read this Forbes article yesterday.  The article summarizes highlights from Buffett's latest annual shareholder letter.  Not off-hand comments mind you...this was apparently from his annual letter--his ivory tower!

Here's the real downer. You're unlikely to make anything like 5.3% for the next 92 years. Swallow hard and read on. To achieve 5.3% this century would mean a Dow climbing from roughly 13,000 today to (gulp!) 2 million. As Warren opines: "We are now eight years into this century, and we have racked up less than 2,000 of the 1,988,000 Dow points the market needed to travel in this hundred years to equal the 5.3% of the last." Don't expect 5.3% in the 21st century. That's the bottom line.

I was so incredulous that I went straight to the source.  The following is from page 19 in the 2007 letter.

Let's revisit some data I mentioned two years ago: During the 20th Century, the Dow advanced from 66 to 11,497. This gain, though it appears huge, shrinks to 5.3% when compounded annually...Think now about this century. For investors to merely match that 5.3% market-value gain, the Dow - recently below 13,000 - would need to close at about 2,000,000 on December 31, 2099. We are now eight years into this century, and we have racked up less than 2,000 of the 1,988,000 Dow points the market needed to travel in this hundred years to equal the 5.3% of the last.

It's amusing that commentators regularly hyperventilate at the prospect of the Dow crossing an even number of thousands, such as 14,000 or 15,000. If they keep reacting that way, a 5.3% annual gain for the century will mean they experience at least 1,986 seizures during the next 92 years. While anything is possible, does anyone really believe this is the most likely outcome?

I should mention that people who expect to earn 10% annually from equities during this century - envisioning that 2% of that will come from dividends and 8% from price appreciation - are implicitly forecasting a level of about 24,000,000 on the Dow by 2100. If your adviser talks to you about double digit returns from equities, explain this math to him - not that it will faze him. Many helpers are apparently direct descendants of the queen in Alice in Wonderland, who said: "Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast." Beware the glib helper who fills your head with fantasies while he fills his pockets with fees.

Now there may be reasons not to expect similar returns in this century as compared to the last, but this is certainly not one of them.  I think this is a completely nonsensical (or at best a circular) argument.  Let's parse it.

The argument seems to go like this:

1. Suppose we had similar 5.3% price appreciation in this century like the last.
2. Then the Dow would have to close at 2M by end century.
3. This number is too high to believe.
4. Therefore, there can not be 5.3% price appreciation in this century.
5. And if you believe in even higher returns, the 2M is even higher, so your belief is even crazier.

Yet, he opens the whole argument with this: "During the 20th Century, the Dow advanced from 66 to 11,497. This gain, though it appears huge, shrinks to 5.3% when compounded annually."

Now fast forward to 2107.  Buffett's descendant writes "During the 21th Century, the Dow advanced from 11,497 to 2,000,000. This gain, though it appears huge, shrinks to 5.3% when compounded annually."

Don't you think that 11,497 seemed as crazy to the people in 1900 who were looking at a 66 point Dow as a 2M point Dow now seems to us?  You should because it is the same % growth!  The absolute #s are meaningless, and if people have a problem with the index # getting too high, they can reset it.  Problem solved.

This is not a discussion about whether we are actually in for similar, higher, or lower returns.  Let's leave that for another day.  This is just to say that this argument for lower returns is ridiculous!

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

Update: additional comments can be found here.

For the fourth time in a year, I set up a new domain (for a Web project), sent a personal message from it to my Gmail account, and it got marked as spam.  For the skeptical, let's just say I am not a noob when it comes to the intricacies of email and the spam problem in general...

• Yes, I have correct SPF records, reverse-DNS entries, etc.
• These data points contain different IPs, networks, MTAs, etc.
• The messages were different and not "spammy."
• This was repeatable, i.e. the second message went to spam too.
  

First off, despite the above, I am open to the possibility that is this just happening to me for reasons I don't understand yet.  Has anyone out there had a similar experience?

Secondly, I'm not saying they are doing this on purpose, but I wouldn't be surprised either.  Probably a lot of new domains are registered by spammers.  But not all!

Another reason I think they might be doing this on purpose is that after the first three times this happened, Gmail support fixed the problem for me.  By the way, getting them to fix it was particularly annoying, mainly because they did not read my email.  I wrote up a very detailed support ticket, and I just kept getting canned responses saying something like: "here are our guidelines and common problems, if it is not one of these, please reply to this message."  Well, if you had actually read my message, you would know that it wasn't one of those!  So after replying with basically the same message multiple times, it was fixed.

This fourth time was a little different, however.  I wrote up the same ticket, got the same canned responses.  And then finally I got this (new to me) canned response:

Hello,

Thank you for your reply.

 If you are adhering to our guidelines and are not sending unwanted mail,
the classification of your messages could be influenced by other factors.
The problem may resolve itself, but if the issue persists for more than a
month, please contact your Internet Service Provider's customer support
department to learn whether any spam is being sent by your or a
neighboring IP address.

Sincerely,

The Google Team

This response is annoying on so many levels.  I won't get into all of them, but here are a few.

1. I already told them I am running my own server on my own IP.
2. Punishing IP blocks (and even single IPs because of shared hosting) is irresponsible IMHO (see below).
3. A month!  Are they really serious!?!?
   

Anyway, if they are doing this (sending new domains to spam) on purpose, I think it is just simply irresponsible.  Spam false positives degrade email as a communications medium by creating a large negative externality.  Gmail false positives -> Domains can't communicate effectively via email -> Domains stop using email as much across all their customers.  (For a graphical representation of this, see pg 44 in my Master's Thesis.)

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

While I'm on Gmail annoyances...I've been waiting years for an option to NOT add everyone I communicate with to my contacts.  I know I am not alone on this one...

Yes, I get it Gmail--if you keep everyone you can do cool things like auto-populate the chat list.  And yes, I gave up using folders in a similar way.  But here's the problem.  You use all these people to auto-complete addresses when I am composing email. 

As time goes on, the random emails addresses with which I have communicated dwarf in number the ones I regularly communicate with.  But yet, you don't give the latter ones preference.  And this defeats the purpose of the auto-complete feature IMHO, and is additionally quite annoying.  So I find myself ever so often going through and cleaning out my contacts list.  I want that time back!

Another problem with auto-add to contacts.  I get really hesitant using those "import your contacts from Gmail" features on other sites.  I don't want to risk spamming a billion people.  All in all...

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

I get it Gmail--it seems more personal to display only first names in the chat window.  Problem is, I regularly talk with three people whose first name is Dan.  I can't be alone here...

Yes, I know the full name is at the top of the window.  So what--I hardly ever look there.  My eye is drawn to the bottom where the conversation is actually happening and where the first name is bolded. 

Yes, I've mixed up who I've been talking to, especially when one Dan writes an IM right after I've just talked to another Dan.  C'mon, at least give me a full name display option...

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

I happened on Facebook's "People You May Know Feature" today, which is pretty self-explanatory.  In theory, love the idea.  In practice, Lame!

I can't figure out how to hide the section or block individual people from showing.  For reasons I won't get into here, there are just some people I don't want to see, and Facebook keeps showing me their faces every time I log in!

Lame! (cut from South Park's AWESOM-O)

Update: I logged into Facebook this morning, and they appear to have added the ability to block people on this feature!  I doubt they were listening to me, but thank you nonetheless.