Dropbox Shares Offered at 34% Discount in Secondary Market - <AUTHOR> http://www.buzzfeed.com/williamalden/dropbox-shares-offered-at-34-discount-in-secondary-market <comment><USER2> The bigger story is that Dropbox is trending down in general. Look at Google Trends[1] for Dropbox searches. I used to have files. But now I don't really have any files. I use Spotify for music. A collection of streaming services for movies and shows. Google Photos for my photos. Google Docs for storing my spreadsheets and "word" documents and Google Drive to dump some useful PDF files. I don't pay for any storage service anymore.

World has changed since Dropbox came out and it has become less relevant. In my case it is completely irrelevant.

[1][https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Dropbox](https://www.google.com/trends/explore#q=Dropbox)

<comment><USER3> On the other hand

"The service hit 100 million users in November 2012, 200 million in November 2013, 300 million in May 2014, and 400 million in June 2015." and 500 million in Mar 16.

So still growing merrily. Also the shared folder connections have gone from 1.3bn end 2014 to 3.3 billion recently.

They are changing focus from personal file storage to enterprise collaboration stuff which may be why there is less on google trends, perhaps.

>That's one of the big evolutions in terms of what people are doing when they have a platform like ours, going from access into connections and a huge collaboration network.

>The second big evolution has been the evolution from being an end-user tool into an enterprise tool

[https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/2016/03/11/dropbo...](https://www.siliconrepublic.com/enterprise/2016/03/11/dropbox- five-minute-cio-interview)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> As others have noted, you could attribute the entire 34% "discount" to the fact that these are common shares, not preferred. A few months ago when I looked into investing in Palantir via EquityZen/Sharespost, the share price being offered valued Palantir at between 25-30% less than their most recent funding round valuation of $20B.

If anyone's interested in acquiring pvt company shares in the secondary market, here's what I learned: * You have to be an accredited investor (i.e., net worth of over $1M excluding residence; or income of >$200K individual/>$300K married for the last 2 years and reasonable expectation that this income level will be sustained this year).

* You don't actually own common stock of the company (e.g. Palantir). It actually works like a mutual fund. You invest in an LLC that owns the stock. You get shares in this fund/LLC that correspond 1:1 to common shares in Palantir.

* There is usually a minimum investment amount e.g. $50K or $20K.

* EquityZen/Sharespost charge a commission (of about 5% iirc; 1 of them charged more than the other but had a lower minimum investment amount). They are managers of the LLC and investors have virtually no rights even though they are members of the LLC.

* When the company IPOs, your LLC shares are converted to the same number of company shares. This is common stock, and subject to the same lockup restrictions that employee shares are. That means you can't sell until 6 months after the IPO.

* There is no liquidity. EquityZen and Sharespost differ in this a little bit. But basically you can't sell your shares in the LLC without approval from EZ/SP; they can veto it and they can also require a holding period of 1 year.

* While the transaction is blessed by the underlying company, they don't reveal any information about financials or risks like they would in an IPO prospectus. You are investing blind.

In my opinion the biggest problems with such investments are (1) illiquidity, and (2) the fact that shares are subject to 6-month lockup post IPO.

EDIT: formatting.

<comment><USER5> You've got some misinformation here, this was my experience two years ago but on the seller side as an employee leaving a startup.

>"you could attribute the entire 34% "discount" to the fact that these are common shares, not preferred."

I sold common shares via the secondary market and I got exactly what they were valued at. This was a very well-known startup. So that's incorrect. In fact I managed to get just north of that price given the scarcity of obtaining them.

> "You don't actually own common stock of the company (e.g. Palantir). It > actually works like a mutual fund."

This is something specific to just EquityZen and this is a technique that is used in instances where the company's employee option agreements forbids such a sale. This is a loophole of sorts used only in those instances.

One other interesting point is that once I had a buyer lined up the company exercised their right of first refusal which means they then had to buy the shares for the same amount as the buyer agreed to purchase them from me for. The company themselves of course didn't actually buy them but they put me in touch with a well-known Hollywood celebrity's wealth manager who then bought them.

This last point irked me a bit when I thought about all the other engineers toiling away to build a good product who were bound by all these options restrictions yet some Hollywood celebrity with no connection to the company was on a shortlist of preferred buyers should some options come available. Sigh.

<comment><USER6> To be fair, the common vs. preferred share distinction depends on the company.

It could be that in your case they were valued the same. You actually mention that you sold at above the company's last fundraising valuation - it could be the case that the preferred stock was valued _even higher_.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This isn't surprising to me at all. Investors that previously valued the stock at $19 per share likely have a 1X liquidation preference. The employees' shares sold on the secondary market won't have this liquidation preference. So VCs are paying a 34% premium to basically guarantee a 1X return. Makes total sense.

</comment><comment><USER8> When the company's raised a ton of money, the common's behind a ton of preferences, and in a time when there's no IPO window in sight, a 34% discount to the preferred doesn't sound particularly terrible or notable to me.

Slow news day, I guess.

</comment><comment><USER9> If I'm an employee at [HIGHLY VALUED PRIVATE COMPANY] - this looks REALLY appealing to me, to dump my shares for at least a nice guaranteed cash out now.

So many VC rounds protected with liquidation preferences at a valuation that the market probably ends up shredding if there's an IPO or a buyer comes along to acquire the company. These latest devaluations certainly wouldn't help with morale and I'd get nervous thinking about my shares eventually being worthless if the company just sort of tinkers in the private market much longer.

I also tend to be relatively risk averse though, so I'm curious what others here would do.

<comment><USER10> Most employees would be in a situation where right of first refusal means their employer would have to approve this -- and in a lot of places, the employer's going to take it as a red flag that you want to sell and it could create problems.

<comment><USER11> Could someone (perhaps with a throwaway or a 'wink') corroborate or elaborate on this? I'm very curious to know (anecdotally) how the politics of these sales work.

<comment><USER12> This is a copy/paste from a prior HN discussion that I had:

[it's definitely true] that employees are discouraged from seeking buyers because there is an unspoken implication that this means the employee is "losing faith" or "believes less" in the company, or is getting ready to leave.

If the party line is: "hey, we are going to be a billion dollar company!" and then one employee says "hey, I want to sell at this $100M valuation", even if the $100M is a solid upside from the employees strike price the next natural question for the founder is: "hey, why would you sell at this valuation if we all know we are going to unicorn?" Lots of people are reasonable and could understand many good reasons to sell at that point, but in high-growth culture those are not always appreciated. Sure, employee can/should suck it up, but it still makes it more challenging.

Generally, I think this is why company's should more regularly organize secondaries, it removes this dynamic to a certain extent.

<comment><USER5> And with each round of financing your equity is likely getting diluted. If you are a good employee and sell some shares on the secondary market and continue to do a good job and remain at the company I don't think anyone can equate that with losing faith or imminent departure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The last raise was two years ago, so if you figure the current valuation based on recent markdowns, then this price is more inline with what you might expect from common equity vs. preferred.

I am curious, will these secondary shares have the same lockup restrictions that employees face after the IPO?

I am also curious how the market will price Box vs. Dropbox. I would expect them to mostly move in tandem, but with Thiel propagating his "myth of the monopoly", maybe people will consider any positive developments at one to be negative for the other?

At any rate, I expect it will be rough roads ahead.

</comment><comment><USER14> While it think it is great that Dropbox is allowing its employee shareholders the ability to get value for their shares, the real story will be whether or not the shares actually sell. That will depend on a variety of things of course, not the least of which is how many shares are offered, but it will give management a useful way to evaluate the practicality of trying to go public or not.

<comment><USER15> > _the real story will be whether or not the shares actually sell._

As the saying goes: There ain't nothing that price won't fix.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is this a normal discount? I thought a typical one was more like 50%, making this a good deal.

</comment><comment><USER17> Buzzfeed is reporting stock offerings?

Who knew?

<comment><USER18> Buzzfeed news is pretty good. You won't believe how they fund serious journalism. #8 will shock you. But seriously, they do seem to have a commitment to producing quality news. [1] for example.

[1] [http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/business/media/buzzfeed- hi...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/22/business/media/buzzfeed-hires- pulitzer-winner-to-head-investigative-unit.html?_r=0)

<comment><USER19> I strongly disagree. They produce a lot of biased news geared against startups in Silicon Valley. It almost feels like they're anti-startup news feed. And reading them, as an employee of a startup makes me feel pessimistic and depressed.

<comment><USER20> News in general will make you feel pessimistic and depressed. If not enraged.

Don't do news.

<comment><USER18> Media diet is important. IMHO staying aware of local, regional national and global "stuff" is kind of nice, it makes it much easier to be social. Occasionally I encounter stuff I want to know more about. But it takes a light touch. 15 to 30 minutes a day is more than enough.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Chinese boy with ability to see in pitch black stuns medics - <AUTHOR> http://www.whydontyoutrythis.com/2013/08/chinese-boy-with-ability-to-see-in-pitch-black-stuns-medics.html

<comment><USER2> This is very old news, here is an article from january 2012: [http://www.livescience.com/18209-china-cat-eyed-boy-night- vi...](http://www.livescience.com/18209-china-cat-eyed-boy-night-vision.html)

Doesn't seem legit...

</comment><comment><USER3> So you couldn't rely on your technical and scientific training to discover that this is total bullshit, before posting it on a forum where it would come to the attention of educated people?

<comment><AUTHOR> asfaik, this has yet to be debunked

<comment><USER3> That's not how science works. In science, among educated people, something like this is assumed to be false until evidence proves it true. You're speaking as though it's true until evidence proves it false. If your view were to take hold, UFOs, Bigfoot, and the Loch Ness Monster would all be assumed to be real until someone proved that they didn't exist. The problem with that outlook is it would require _proof of a negative_ , an impossible evidentiary burden.

TL;DR: learn science.</comment></comment></comment>


Eternalism - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternalism_(philosophy_of_time) <comment><USER2> > Special relativity suggests that the concept of simultaneity is not > universal: according to the relativity of simultaneity, observers in > different frames of reference can have different perceptions of whether a > given pair of events happened at the same time or at different times, with > there being no physical basis for preferring one frame's judgments over > another's (though in a case where one event A happens in the past light cone > of another event B, all frames will agree that A happened in the past of B).

Makes me wonder if there is something that can be added to the concept of space-time which makes this untrue.

<comment><AUTHOR> I can't answer your question, but I stumbled upon such concept while reading the _MIT news_. If you're interested, the professor Bradford Skow has recently published a book on the subject: [http://goo.gl/L9538k](http://goo.gl/L9538k).</comment></comment>


U.S. International Trade Commission moves to allow tariffs on solar cell imports - <AUTHOR> https://pv-magazine-usa.com/2017/09/22/usitc-find-serious-injury-in-section-201-trade-petition/ <comment><USER2> This is interesting, given that China has been accused of dumping[0] solar panels in the past.

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_(pricing_policy)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dumping_\(pricing_policy\))</comment>


Oil plummets 30% as OPEC deal failure sparks price war fears - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/03/08/oil-plummets-30percent-as-opec-deal-failure-sparks-price-war-fears.html <comment><USER3> The Albertans are going to be being in a panic over this. Oil sands product already sells at a considerable discount to west texas intermediate. Time to diversify the economy...

Even before recent drops things were looking rather dire there.

[https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta- sheds-1800...](https://calgaryherald.com/news/local-news/alberta- sheds-18000-jobs-in-november-energy-sector-takes-a-beating)

<comment><USER4> Too bad ndp got voted out. Too bad Klein didnt maintain the heritage fund...

Realistically time to diversify was at least 10 years ago

<comment><USER5> When I stated something very similar to a friend from Alberta, he said very confidently that the province has a very well diversified economy. I can hardly believe that, but he's a highly intelligent individual and I didn't have the numbers to argue otherwise, so I let it stand without a further challenge. Since you seem to agree with my point of view on this, would you mind elaborating on how you would show that diversification was needed decades ago?

<comment><USER6> Can't they just pump up house prices and the FIRE economy even more?

<comment> blaser-waffle I live in Edmonton and it's a buyers market. This ain't Vancouver

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The vast contradictions in the world of countries with a lot of natural resources is both enlightening and depressing.

At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government.

At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people.

The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith.

So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was. What, really, do any Middle Eastern countries have to show for this massive windfall?

It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up.

So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future.

[1]: [https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feab...](https://www.ft.com/content/99680a04-92a0-11de-b63b-00144feabdc0)

<comment><USER8> This analysis seems superficial and xenophobic. I doubt it'll get many down votes on HN because pro Nordic and European statements rarely get much criticism, neither do infantalizing statements about people who practice a religion, but it's none the less fairly exemplary of an increasingly common western attitude that simultaneously promotes a shallow understanding of other cultures while simultaneously pretending to be enlightened because it's arguing in favor of 'the people'.

≥At one end of the spectrum is Norway, who decided not to sell resource rights for peanuts so some shareholders somewhere can get rich, ironically it seems somewhat thanks to an Iraqi [1]. Essentially most of the profits from oil revenues are retained by the government.

Conflicts with...

≥At the other end is the Middle Eastern countries. Monarchs and despots have largely enriched themselves and their families at the expense of their country and their people.

These are both examples of government ownership of the resources. Humanitarian differences don't magically make one government owned and not the other.

≥The sad part here is that those people who have essentially been swindled have succumbed willingly essentially in the name of religion. Their leaders are keeping the faith.

>So it's sad to me that not only are people so easily manipulated through religion but also what a huge lost opportunity this was.

This is theological bigotry plain and simple yet I never see it called out in tech forums when politics comes up. The idea that people in Saudi Arabia, Iran, or anywhere else in the Middle East, are simply too blinded by their traditions to ascend towards a way of life resembling what we westerners have is outright ignorant and devalues the very real social movements that happen in these regions.

And even if you do believe that the theocratic leanings of the region's social movements and policy makers are detrimental with regard to distributing economic gains back to the people, so what? These broad generalizations about faith add nothing useful to the dialogue as far as coming up with solutions. It might shock some people to realize that it's possible to tackle economic development and social wellbeing without demonizing cultural keystones. I'd even go so far as to argue that this sort of theological shaming is actually toxic towards generating solutions because it promotes a narrative that there won't be progress until they give up on their misguided ways.

≥It gets sadder when you realize that a certain amount has to be diverted to the populace essentially to keep them placated. The cost of extraction is going up. This money staving off revolution is going up.

Again, this sort of description only promotes a narrative where these people are misguided infants, prisoners shackled in allegorical caves by their leaders, who can't see the raw deal they've been dealt. These people aren't stupid, they are aware that their governments are often self serving in the same way that Chinese and Russian people know their governments aren't as perfect as they pretend to be. But again, so what? People have to play the hands they're dealt and some even take pride in certain aspects of that hand. These surface level criticisms only sound compelling to western audiences because most of us have no real awareness of the street level politics in these regions and therefore no idea what social action or change even looks like.

>So what you have is where these countries now can't afford to turn off the supply like they did in the 1970s. Now, Russia, Venezuela, Norway and the USA are huge producers (and net exporters). Solar in particular will continue to bite into oil demand so long term the situation doesn't look great for oil yet those countries that didn't spend their windfalls wisely are facing a harsh future.

This is a valid economic criticism for which belittling these people's faith served no point. Sure, cultural factors can accelerate innovation and financial growth. That doesn't immediately indicate that the problem is theocratic. Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy and has become one of the few nations considered able to pose a growing risk to America's military hegemony, Europe can't even make that claim despite having vastly more in common with the US culturally.

The penultimate point being, it's shallow and easy to make hand gesture arguments when the only people in the conversation are equally distant from the realities being discussed. That doesn't mean we have no responsibility to at least try not to be intolerant, if anything it's when our audience largely agrees with us that we have a greater responsibility to be interpretive and self critical.

<comment><USER9> > Industry isn't a culture, it's a combination of skill sets and > infrastructure. China is the world's second largest economy...

It's interesting to see those two statements adjacent to each other. China is a tremendous world power, but if I understand the history correctly, it arrived at this point after a series of (sometimes extreme) cultural and economic upheavals that prioritized modernization over traditional culture.

<comment><USER8> The presentation wasnt the best I agree. The point I was driving towards is that culture can accelerate industrial growth and development but this doesn't mean any /one/ culture or set of beliefs should be presented as superior/better. America became number one (nuanced but I want to avoid another essay) through embracing multi-culturalism, liberty, and being one of the few places that weren't damaged much in WW2 with a nod towards their role in post ww1 decision making as well. China came to be viewed as number 2 and a credible threat to the position of number 1 through radically different cultural processes. So while culture contributed to industrialization in both instances, that doesn't make it sensible to make normative statements supporting either direction as a suggestion for improving the world, or a whole region, at large. These issues are nuanced and if they don't seem nuanced then it's much more likely that we're arguing from a position of ignorance rather than correctness.

<comment><USER10> > America became number one (nuanced but I want to avoid another essay) > through embracing multi-culturalism, liberty, and being one of the few > places that weren't damaged much in WW2 with a nod towards their role in > post ww1 decision making as well.

The first part is really amusing. America become rich because while Europe was fighting world wars, US was making money on them. US joined WW2 by the very end when it was evident that Germany lost, and arrived just in time to colonize its share of Europe that remains colonized to this day.

Also the fact that US dollar is the world's exchange currency also benefits US immensely. US can print astronomical amounts of money and the whole world becomes poorer with each printed bill. No other country in the world has the same position. If Iran would be in the same position, they would be just as rich without all the "multi-cultural" "liberty" fluff.

<comment> blaser-waffle > US joined WW2 by the very end when it was evident that Germany lost

Bollocks. The US joined the war because they cut off oil supplies to Japan and Japan saw future conflict as inevitable -- and struck first. They bombed Pearl Harbor in 1941 -- and the war didn't end until 1945. In 1941 Germany had beaten France, the UK, Norway, Denmark, and was on a path to steamroll Yugoslavia, Greece, and possibly the USSR.

> just in time to colonize its share of Europe that remains colonized to this > day.

The US military is still in Europe because the NATO is fine with the US footing the cost of defense spending. "Colonized" my fat ass, the reason the EU is able to throw around grand farm subsidies is because the US is paying for missile defense and aircraft carriers.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, forgot to mention that Japan and South Korea are colonized as well.

Footing the cost of defense spending is a sweet lie for the population of the occupied countries. And some of them are actually paying for this "help". South Korea, for example, had to increase the payments for the US "protection". BTW, this is exactly parlance that criminals use to justify racket: "You pay us for protection, pal. Win-win!"

And I also forgot that US spies all over the world. Every computer device has numerous CIA backdoors. This obviously provides huge advantage to US businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Probably no accident that MBS removed his two main political rivals two days ago:

[https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/saudis-detain-mohammed- bi...](https://www.aljazeera.com/ajimpact/saudis-detain-mohammed-bin-salman- brother-nephew-200306232853929.html)

The country is in deep trouble. Reigns of terror fed by mineral wealth have a way of falling in the most bloody ways.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think both KSA and Russia eventually will come to an agreement. Current oil prices are not sustainable for KSA. Their budget deficit is already touching 7% of their GDP ([https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XA2EO](https://mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKBN1XA2EO)). If they need to balance their budget they need the oil price to be at 71$.

<comment><USER13> Defecits don't matter, until all of a sudden the ability to sell debt is limited. While the US continues it's current policies, I don't see that in the immediate future.

However, one day soon that will stop... and then people will notice that sovereign debt far outpaces any other form of non-secured credit.

<comment><USER6> I doubt anyone in their right mind views a KSA backed bond anywhere near as safe as the US.

The only meaningful revenues KSA has is from Aramco, and Aramco only has 40 years of oil reserves left at current production levels. Their 30 year bonds should have very high yields.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Russia did not agree to Saudi Arabia's proposal to reduce output so Saudi Arabia are now turning up the faucets to pressure Russia into a deal. Saudi Arabia has no intention starting a price war with US shale producers, this is pure tactics to make Russia agree to an output deal.

The United States has a net export of around 0 barrels, meaning that it is neither an importer nor an exporter of oil today. So macroeconomically the US should be more or less unaffected on an aggregated level.

<comment><USER13> Arbitrage means that these barrels will flow into the US and offset some of the US production.

Of course, Trump could slap some tariffs there, but high energy costs are never popular (no matter how good they may be).

<comment><USER15> Keep in mind oil is not oil. The US produces some fairly top quality crude by global standards. This is both good and bad.

You don't want to be using WTI crude to produce bunker fuel - that's like using truffles to season canned beans - you _could_ do it, but it doesn't make rational sense to do so. Better to export your WTI for uses that need such a quality crude (and pay accordingly), then import some low quality OPEC basket crude to produce bunker fuel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> US banks lend frackers over $200 billion. [https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/opinion/the-next- financia...](https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/01/opinion/the-next-financial- crisis-lurks-underground.html) They were squeaking by oil fell from $110 to $40 in 2014. Many will go belly soon triggering bank failures.

<comment><USER17> Tomorrow morning will be a _bloodbath_ for US securities.

<comment><USER18> Nikkei already down more than %5.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Let's say you believe the prices will recover in a year, what's the best stock market play to profit?

<comment><USER20> Buy LEAP calls on QQQ 1+ year out

<comment><USER21> QQQ is tech heavy, if you want more general consider SPY or for oil consider XLE or VDE.

<comment><USER22> You can also do SPX instead of SPY for the ability to get out at any time under a year at 60% LTCG (section 1256 contracts). Those are expensive contracts, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> so this does look like a recession - with the dow jones industrial average falling 3000 points over the last month and oil pricess falling steeply. does it?

<comment><USER24> But low oil prices are an _effect_ of a recession, not a _cause_.

</comment></comment><comment> King-Aaron Meanwhile in Australia we're still paying for fuel at a consumer level as if it's $120/barrel.

<comment><USER25> Oil is sold in USD you have to take into account the exchange rate between AUD and USD. We're seeing the same in Norway, but when you factor in the exchange rate and additional taxes it's effectively the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> prima facie this is good for businesses which rely on oil (airlines, etc) but most of the big companies hedge the price risk (both up and down) via futures contracts, so the price cuts are not likely to help any major businesses in the short-term. feels like red for the foreseeable future...

<comment><USER27> These hedges are going to further ruin airlines. Now they have giant margin calls on their money-losing hedges + they hedged not assuming 40% drop in business, so now they're overhedged.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> How much of US oil production is unprofitable at $30/bbl?

<comment><USER29> How much of any oil production is unprofitable at $30/bbl? I don't think it is clear that even Saudi oil makes money at that price.

If the Saudis haven't been trying to flood the market for the past 5 years, I don't know what they are trying to do.

<comment><USER30> The big middle east producers have cash costs around $10/bbl. They are definitely making money. Whether or not they are making enough to cover the budget necessary to keep their populace complacent is another matter.

<comment><USER31> Saudi Arabia needs $80/barrel to meet their budget, Russia around $42/barrel.

<comment><USER32> That's assuming output is fixed. If OPEC has failed, that's no longer the case. Since Saudi's unit costs are lower, they can dominate Russia in the long run. The global finance sector will certainly help them with that. Of course, it will be risky, but we are talking about the people who invested in Vision Fund.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> My hands got a bit bloody trying to catch this falling knife

</comment><comment><USER34> Could this have an impact (positive or negative) on the renewables industry?

<comment><USER35> Eh, 'renewables' (presumably you're thinking of solar and wind-generated electricity) don't really directly compete with oil (at least in the USA). Oil is a negligible part of our electricity generation mix. This might somewhat delay the switch over to battery-electric vehicles, as it lowers the cost of gasoline/diesel, but that has relatively little to do with renewables, per se, and more to do with the relative costs for electric power (regardless of source) and gasoline/diesel.

A secondary effect, however, could be that it temporarily wrecks the fracking industry in the US, eventually leading to much less natural gas production, raising the price of natural gas (and thus being good for wind/solar, which will probably have gradually declining costs for the foreseeable future).

<comment><USER31> Raising the price of natural gas is good for wind and solar, but moreso utility scale battery storage, which is what is competing against natural gas for firm capacity ("power on when you call for it").

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> On it's face it's actually great for consumers and business, but no market likes sudden price dislocation as big as this.

The high-yield bond ETFs have been crashing as global supply economic concerns mounted around the coronavirus. I can only wonder what the debt holders for oil and gas companies are thinking right now.

<comment><USER26> > I can only wonder what the debt holders for oil and gas companies are > thinking right now.

decent chance they're asking for a federal bailout, and praying that russia capitulates soon

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> This is the best opportunity individuals have had to push back against fracking in years. I'll be doing more than I have been to conserve gas after the Corona WFH ends. I'd love to see a concerted national effort along these lines.

Hopefully the price crash will last long enough to bankrupt the shale industry.

<comment><USER15> Keep in mind that low oil prices also mean that EVs become less of a value proposition. Once petrol prices reflect oil prices, it becomes even harder to make a rational economic argument towards EVs.

<comment><USER38> There is barely any connection with oil price to pump price in Europe. It is mostly taxes and oil price is minimal. Same with electricity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> What are the economic knock-on effects of a price war in oil?

<comment><USER40> Could be catastrophic. Banks have lent out half a trillion to fracking companies who need oil to be at least $50 a barrel to be profitable. If those frackers go out of business, combined with COVID-19, combined with literally no ammo left (deficits sky high, rates already super low).... it'll be 2008 all over again.

<comment><USER41> This is nonsense. Banks don't fail that easily, your overestimating the relative size of fraking and the idea that the Fed has 'no ammo left' is just nonsense that no the waste majority of monetary economist would disagree with.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Corona really looking like the black swan event that ends this expansion. What a time.

</comment><comment><USER43> Markets are going to be wild this week

</comment><comment><USER44> Can't visit link without enabling tracking and fingerprinting

</comment><comment><USER45> How does this affect the value of the Dollar? (Taking the oil/dollar into consideration.)

</comment><comment><USER46> Yay, cheaper fuel prices now right? Or do the gas stations pocket the difference here?

<comment><USER47> "Up like a rocket, down like a feather." Oil companies, gas stations, etc. try to keep prices high for as long as they can, but the prices fall over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Wishful thinking moment. I would love this moment not to be a moment where people say something along the lines of 'oh cool, I can drive hummer again' and something more like 'we have some room to breathe, how can we make sure we are not as dependent in the future'. Again, wishful thinking.

</comment><comment><USER49> What ever happened to Peal Oil?

<comment><USER41> Its was always a idiotic thing snake oil salesman tried to sell to idiots. Just as Peak Coal was in 1850, but people lever learn and its always a great way to sell books and get invited to give talks.

<comment><USER50> It's idiotic to assume that resources are endless. Getting the timing right on the other hand is hard, especially given that predicting something will change the outcome.

Just like what is currently going on with climate change. Hopefully acting upon the negative trends will improve the outcome.

<comment><USER41> I didn't assume endless resources, neither did all the people and economists over the 250 years who had to help people show all the charlatans pushing their idiotic opinions.

> Getting the timing right on the other hand is hard, especially given that > predicting something will change the outcome.

The prediction of the people in the markets, matter, not smarty-pants intellectuals who write books with titles to sell to suds-intellectual middle class.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> What is there to fear of a price war?

</comment><comment><USER52> "Catastrophic for failed/failing petro-kleptocracies Iraq, Iran, etc - <USER2> prove existential 1-2 punch when paired with COVID19."

Good!</comment>


Boston Dynamics' new robot stacks boxes [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iV_hB08Uns <comment><USER4> For those of you who don't work in the warehouse logistics space ProMat, which is to warehouses as CES is to home gadgets, is coming up in a couple of weeks so expect lots of warehouse robotics companies to continue making announcements.

The roboticization of manufacturing is mostly finished since factories work with identical outpus SKUs every time. Warehouses tend to have to handle a lot of different SKU but in a fairly regular way meaning that they're an environment that's pretty much ripe for robots to be entering just now. Goods to picker systems (like Kiva) have really taken off allowing robotic pickers like the one sold by us a nice ecological niche to fill. There are also companies with robotic forklifts and all sorts of other things.

I'm not entirely certain that the role these bots are performing wouldn't be better served by a large stationary robotic arm, as some other companies are working on now. It might very well be the best solution for unloading trucks?

<comment><USER5> On the stationary arm question it is a question of warehouse logistics. Warehouses are cheap (essentially a simple box over a concrete pad) and they they get reconfigured all the time. A robot that can set up where ever you have dropped a bunch of metal shelving, and then move to a new place, keeps your operational costs down.

<comment><USER6> Right, but how about a stationary arm mounted on the back of a pickup truck? Or something. It does seem like a lot of the hard work here (balancing, not running out of space to zig-zag...) isn't obviously needed for the task.

<comment><USER7> That swinging counterweight is a major hazard, and negates the idea of having a small foot print due to 2 wheels... But then I remembered this is probably designed to impress non-engineers, and has nothing to do with safety, or efficiency.

<comment><USER8> Its only a safety hazard if people are around it right? If the warehouse is fully automated it is only a hazard to other robots right?

<comment><USER9> and that can probably be fixed by a software update somewhere down the road

<comment> barry-cotter If you take a tour of a factory with industrial robots there will be black and yellow tape on the floor or some other equivalent way of warning:

Do not step inside this perimeter or you may die.

If a 200kg robot arm gives you a love tap because you were just barely in the perimeter you may not survive.

We'll fix it in post is ok for film production. Move fast and break things is ok in free to consumer services or SaaS where 0.99 uptime is great. It is not ok with industrial automation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two wheeled dynamically balanced warehouse robot like that is completely unnecessary complication.

Boston Dynamics is developing amazing tech but they are demoing robots for tasks that are better with 4 wheels. Dynamically balanced walkers inside are niche application.

Smarter robot hands and 4-wheeled robot movers are where the markets and money is. Boston dynamics may be moving towards that direction but they still like to show the cools stuff they can't find markets for.

<comment><USER11> This was my reaction too, but after I thought about it for a second it seems only half right.

For a device leaning into shelves to grab things, being dynamically balanced might be useful. Like a racing sailboat with a movable keel or ballast. But you could do that with a three wheeled design.

I bet there's also a static version of this bot with three wheels, slightly larger footprint, where the battery pack is situated over the third wheel for leverage.

But the swinging battery pack? In theory it reduces the footprint of the bot, but any time the bot is trying to grab a package, the battery is moving. Which means you can't let another robot or human enter that space. So either you have a very very complicated calculation of what areas of the warehouse are 'empty' at any moment, or your logistics program has to treat the robot like it's its worst-case footprint at all times. At which point you might as well make it static. Right?

<comment><USER12> Is this physical safety margin a substantially different problem than human- operated machinery, though? You don't want to get too close to a live forklift, either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Whenever I see these Boston Dynamics video's I have many unanswered questions about the underlying control systems.

This one for example has an organic birdlike head motion. Is that pre- programmed or a natural outcome of their control system dynamics. The MIT technologyreview page says "Each one is created with carefully pre-programmed movements and will take many, many takes to get right before it's shared."

So is it a sequence of individual actions: align to pallet using registration cards -> move forward with reaching distance -> detect box position -> use box picking algorithm to pick box -> backup fixed precalculated distance -> turn 90 degrees -> move forward to destination etc. This would be a brittle solution that has to be reprogrammed for the next task.

Or is it a more general closed loop solution: Theres a pile of boxes there. Move it here. Use your sensors to plan a trajectory and sequence of actions to accomplish the goal.

That's what I want to know.

<comment><USER7> I have no doubt that organic motion was deliberately designed that way to impress their intended audience.

Yes, it makes sense to mimic nature sometimes. But when it comes to robotic manipulators, loaders, etc - there's absolutely no reason to copy biological systems limited by strength, speed, or joint mobility. They seem to be deliberately going for that uncanny valley effect.

Eventually, someone is going to admit it. Until then, this is hugely entertaining.

<comment><USER14> I think it may very well be a natural outcome of inverse kinematics and PID loops in a noisy (uneven floor, uneven loads, etc, etc) environment

<comment><USER7> Could you elaborate? The floors appear to be perfectly level, and load weight isn't changing after it's been picked up - so where's all this excessive locomotion coming from?

<comment><USER14> I agree that the conditions in the video are very ideal as you mention.

Perturbations do exist and they add up in the PID feedback loop. For example you can see in the video that the way each box is handled varies and that the robot reorients itself to pick/drop boxes.

Consider a simpler 1 dimensional example: [https://youtu.be/JpNAhKT7yY4?t=101](https://youtu.be/JpNAhKT7yY4?t=101) (warning, loud). You can observe the system adjusting to the hits by the person, but also when left alone it will have to adjust to accumulating externalities like gravity. Also note the natural/biological looking swaying motion that results.

<comment><USER7> Thank you for explaining this. Still, while this presents a very interesting scientific problem, the engineer in me wonders why these feedback loops are needed for an automaton navigating a 2D terrain and carrying solid objects (unless they plan on tossing/catching boxes), why two wheels with that giant swinging counterweight? What's next, a unicycle?

You know, sometimes you see a solution, and it's just so elegant... This isn't elegant, or brilliant. This is an attempt to solve self-imposed, artificial problems.

P.S. people who liked your pendulum video (I did), might also enjoy this drone pole acrobatics video:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFZ- VStApo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XxFZ-VStApo)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Surprisingly birdlike in their form and movement. Interesting to ponder the convergence of evolved and human-designed balance and bodily physics.

Also: Kept waiting for some guy to come in and try to kick it over. I thought that was Boston Dynamics' signature move in these promo videos...

<comment><USER16> YES! Very disappointed there was no robot kicking

<comment><USER17> A robot cassowary sounds more scary than a live cassowary

<comment><USER18> Hmm, for now I'd take my chances with the robot, real cassowaries can pack quite a punch[1].

1: [https://youtu.be/IAj0GG6tf5c](https://youtu.be/IAj0GG6tf5c)

<comment><USER17> Yes indeed they do!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This robot looks unpredictable and dangerous for any worker that would be in the area. Other point: as a unicycle rider, I would suggest this robot to wear a helmet.

<comment><USER20> The robot is no doubt amazing, but I do wonder why they didn't make it with 4 wheels. I am not robot designer, but I would have to think making it with 4 wheels would have been way easier.

<comment><USER21> It needs to swing that counterweight around maybe?

<comment><USER22> The thing is: that counterweight looks very heavy, but the boxes being carried look fairly light (something that a human could lift). It doesn't really seem like there's any reason they needed to design this robot to have two wheels and a counterweight. As others have said, the counterweight makes the robot more unpredictable and dangerous. What happens when someone steps behind the robot, and the robot needs to swing the counterweight back to keep its balance? Does it hit the person with that massive weight or fall flat?

<comment><USER23> I suspect that this is an exercise in learning how build a two-wheel balancer that doesn't "hunt" around the vertical position. A normal two-wheel balancing robot is continuously controlling to keep the robot at an unstable equilibrium point (the "inverted pendulum" problem). The only actuators it has to do that are the wheels, so a normal two-wheel balancer is continuously rocking back and forth as it controls for vertical stability. The counter-weight gives a second actuator to control for equilibrium, so that it doesn't have to use the wheels for small corrections.

Also, recall from freshman physics that the pendulum problem is non-linear. Most balancing robots linearize the problem around the stable point. Which means if the robot gets far away from the equilibrium point, you either have to switch to a different controller or live with the consequences. One of the consequences is the robot racing off to the horizon as it tries to get the wheels under the CG again. (Which may happen anyway whether or not you switch controllers.)

Thus, my standard advice to all newbie robot builders: Your first robot should have a low enough mass that a missing semicolon will not punch a hole in your living room wall.

If this kind of thing is interesting to you, MIT 6.832 Underactuated Robotics by Russ Tedrake is posted on YouTube going a few years back, and the Spring 2019 version is being live-streamed every Tuesday and Thursday, picking up again next Tuesday after spring break.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's absolutely insane to me that this thing works with suction caps and isn't designed to actually pick up the boxes by supporting the weight from the bottom. That would seem like such a basic requirement for any boxes with relatively heavy payloads.

<comment><USER25> I would think the boxes have to be spec'd to contain the suspended weight of whatever is inside them anyway. I doubt they can depend on always being supported from the bottom throughout the whole delivery chain.

<comment><USER26> Where exactly in the process of delivery are the majority of boxes not being supported from the bottom?

<comment><USER27> The vast majority of human lifts that start from a belt or cramped shelf - <USER2> sorting, loading, and last mile. Humans will sometimes rotate the box to center the load over an edge or regrasp from the bottom - but any given box is definitely going to experience moments with no support from the bottom.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I have spent far too much of my life in a warehouse doing this robot's job. A job that according to every pundit from the "smart" to the stupid was supposed to be gone tomorrow. Mostly I'm just disappointed in how clownish all those futurists look.

Completely retooling the society after 70 years of postwar infrastructure is going to take more than anyone would willingly sacrifice. You would have to bomb everything more than a few years old flat. At no point will it be feasible to keep leaving major investment in business and industry tied to the promises of modernizing through bleeding edge technology. The world is so vast and involves such a colossal distribution of existing resources. So many of the systems here are only functioning through broad and cheap standards, like containers, rail gauges, ship sizes.

I don't want my job. I want a machine built to put me out of it for good. I have been saying that along with a generation of workers told robots were coming for their jobs since the day i was hired. That was fifteen years ago.

We need a Manhattan project for the basic tools of industry. Now. There are thousands of novel or unproven methods of doing the most basic forms of labor our economy is based on, and we are leaving the creation of things that need to be ISO standard across the surface of the earth in order to succeed to entrepreneurs and startups and scholastic vanity.

The modern technological landscape across all disciplines looks terrifyingly similar to the cambrian explosion, which produced so many things, at such a cost of living suffering, that did not survive what came after. I'm afraid our civilization might have run out of low-hanging fruit.

To me that is the line of demarcation between the "developed world" and whatever precedes it. I don't think what is beyond that is peaceful. It necessarily undermines the infrastructure the whole society is founded on.

<comment><USER29> Serious question. What would you do for work if we did get a robot to do your job?

<comment><USER30> What would I need to work?

Look, we're rapidly approaching a point where all human needs (food, shelter, etc) can be handled by automation. If we reach that point, why do people need to have jobs? Why can't we turn our lives towards something better?

<comment><USER31> I've researched this extensively and I'm convinced we could have done this in the developed world starting 100 years ago, but individuals in a position of power preferred to accumulate wealth themselves rather than distribute earnings equitably.

So I don't believe an automated utopia is going to happen automatically. We've got to work to create corporate structures that naturally reward all of the workers instead of a few at the top. Cooperatively run companies are one way to do this. If the major companies of our world were cooperatives, a wide swath of the population would gain the wealth our world is increasingly producing.

But technology alone won't solve the problem. We need to intentionally structure our society in a way that makes this socialist utopia possible. That's what I study and I'm trying to figure it out. I'm also a robotics engineer.

<comment><USER32> I don't understand how technology alone won't solve the problem. If I have a technology that can provide me my basic need (food,shelter,etc) and it cheap enough and easy enough for me to operate myself, in a way that I can be self sufficient without relying of other human, how is the notion of traditional job will not change in this situation ?

<comment><USER31> Total individual self sufficiency is not really the best solution - <USER3> self sufficiency is. But once we start collaborating, we fall in to structures where all the benefit we create ends up in the bank accounts of a few people instead of building a utopia. It takes a different structure to society, not mere technology, to change this situation.

Moreover: liberating technology will not be developed by the capitalist establishment because our liberation runs counter to the opportunity we represent as tools to be exploited. This is why Silicon Valley relies on surveillance and the big companies don't share their key source code. They don't have the goal of liberating us.

<comment><USER32> Do you mean someone or some group of people is going to prevent the invention of this technology (individual self sufficiency) ?

Invention of technology doesn't rely on capitalist establishment though, as long as there is at least one engineer out there to work on it just for the sake of it. For example, the invention of linux.

<comment><USER31> No, but technology does not spontaneously occur. I am in fact a huge advocate of the development of liberatory technology like Linux, but I emphasize that actual people have to be working on that problem for the technology to develop. It is not the case that it simply "will happen". It will only happen if we build it. The capitalists will not build it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't think Warehouse Robotics in ambient are of anything urgent. There are still plenty of affordable labours and tools to help with lifting. Warehouse Robotics in Cold Storage is an entirely different scenario, no one wants to go into the freezer even when you have full suits and helping machinery. The constant changing of temperature from -20C ( -4F ) to 3C ( ~40F) over a long period of time causes all sort of damage to your body. And it is increasingly hard to find anyone willing to work in these environment even when substantial premium are paid.

I am still baffled as to why Cold Storage today is still not fully automated.

<comment><USER34> >no one wants to go into the freezer

it's great if you're hungover.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Genuine question - why 2 wheels, not good old 4? Only because these robobees look cooler this way?

<comment><USER36> My guess is that [1] 4 wheels don't solve the fundamental problem of lifting - counterweights (unless your 4-wheel "platform" is so wide to not easily fit / maneuvre in the warehouse), and [2] 2 weels are _enough_ \- with modern motors, microcontrolers and feedback algorithms, 2-wheel platforms (think Segway) are perfectly stable.

<comment><USER26> I don't think Segways are exactly a great argument for practical design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> When I see this video, I keep thinking of Terror Birds.

[https://naturalishistoria.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/terror...](https://naturalishistoria.files.wordpress.com/2013/03/terror- bird-reconstructions.jpg?w=416&h=399)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phorusrhacidae)

A robot like this, able to move on 2 wheels, could be quite versatile for combat in tight spaces. Giving it a 4 wheel bogey like on an iBot, with the ability for the bogey to fully rotate, would also enable stair climbing.

[https://msu.edu/~luckie/segway/iBOT/iBOT.html](https://msu.edu/~luckie/segway/iBOT/iBOT.html)

The single manipulator could be mounted with a gun/bayonet, which could also be turned around to provide a surface for a door breaching ram. The thought of such a thing is pretty terrifying.

<comment><USER38> This is pretty much all i see whenever i see boston dynamics attempting to do a cute "oh look at the robot picking up a box" video.

put an ak47 in that robot's manipulators and install some level 3 armor on the important bits and you've basically build a automated mobile weapon of terror and oppression

i don't remember the source but the only reason big dog was rejected by the us military was the sound it generated + power requirements. not really a problem if it's also firing guns at the same time and is deployed from a mobile self driving charging base. maybe the robot charges itself from the nearest tesla power station...

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The bobbing abdomens lend credence to my claim that the way to build a giant mech robot suit is to include an autonomous tail

</comment><comment><USER40> Nice. It's fast enough to be useful. It's all electric - the hydraulic systems are gone.

Palletizing is a routine robot task.[1][2] This is just palletizing with a mobile base. Now Boston Dynamics has to compete on price with the twenty or so other companies that do palletizing. If this turns out to be cost effective, Kuka will probably do it, too.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiuFkMkReSs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiuFkMkReSs) [2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgiUWycNFC0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EgiUWycNFC0)

</comment><comment><USER41> I don't think these types of robots will ever get smart as humans and que terminator music... i think rather companies like [https://www.neuralink.com](https://www.neuralink.com) will start doing surgery on human brains and slowly humans will become more and more cyborgs until at some point... yes, a human with a human brain will have all these artifical parts and 1/2 his/her brain now a robot etc. And maybe that "person" will lose track of which side they are on in the human vs robot war?

<comment><USER42> Or they'll get in influenced by anybody having access to the parts software and will subtly lose free will and never notice they did.

But of course the part makers will say they are super secure and will have a PR making them look like as legit as google or amazon today. Because it's convenient, people will do it, considering the warnings comming from tin foil conspirationists.

Soon society will expect the level of productivity those parts give you, and most public and private services will assume this interface so the people not doing it will be more and more excluded from the regular system.

<comment><USER43> > and will subtly lose free will and never notice they did.

Isn't that happening for decades now ?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eJ3RzGoQC4s)

> the people not doing it will be more and more excluded from the regular > system.

Same with cars, phones, internet

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> There's something I don't understand, perhaps someone knows and can explain.

Why have the chosen to build it with only two wheels? It's clearly unstable and has to constantly adjust it's position and counterweight to stay balanced. Sure, it's super clever and I think it looks amazing. But surely it would have been far cheaper and easier to build it with three of four wheels so it naturally stable. It would have looked less cool, but I feel like that can't be the only reason.

<comment><USER45> I think the idea might be to have them for different kinds of works. We might be seeing 0.1% of the work these robots (this particular design) will actually do.

<comment><USER44> I still can't really think of any kind of work where 2 wheels and that body shape would be any better than just having 3 wheels and more stability. It would be just as flexible. Using wheels means it's not like it's going to be doing anything particularly off road anyway, that's for the walking robots.

Literally the only thing I can think of is that this is a pure tech demo to show off how clever they are that will never make it into production at all. Which is fair enough I guess, it certainly achieves it's aim if that is the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It looks like the warehouse needs to be redesigned not just the robots inside it. Warehouse lighting is likely unnecessary, heat can be reduced, sensors everywhere... its now a machine environment. The floor markers, etc should all be part of that environment. Build the environment to the automated worker and you'll get a more effective result. I think Amazon has gone this route already.

</comment><comment><USER47> I like how Boston Dynamics decided to monetize this YT video. Those robots don't pay for themselves

</comment><comment><USER48> What they now need, is somebody to re-design a wherehouse around the new capabilities of robotics.

<comment><USER49> You should check out Ocado - they have literally done this

[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-38897417/the-ocado- wa...](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/business-38897417/the-ocado-warehouse- run-by-robots)

<comment><USER50> It looks a bit different now [https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england- hampshire-47168430](https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-hampshire-47168430)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Would like something like that for masonry.I wish some more robotics and automation for house/roads construction. Is anyone working actively in that area? I have some interesting ideas how and what can be done to reduce total construction costs a bit.

<comment><USER52> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16698167](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16698167)

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> At this point I feel like Boston Dynamics has a designer whose job is to make their robots look cool/interesting, beyond what their function requires.

There's always something mesmorizing about them!

<comment><USER54> I had the opposite thought: that they are designing their robots strictly for function and letting the form follow.

To be sure they are "cleaned up" but the way the counterbalance is slung underneath, and "Wheeler"-like ("Return to Oz" reference) mobility, single arm with some kind of suction gripper .... it screams utility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> What I'd like to know about this thing - how would you program it for what to do in a real warehouse environment? I would expect that many real warehouses have plenty of small differences in what needs to be done day to day. It's easy to tell a person to do something a little differently. How tough would it be to tell this robot to do it, and to make sure that it actually does it right?

</comment><comment><USER56> I wonder what the noise level will be with ten industrial vacuums on wheels running around.

</comment><comment><USER57> Looks ridiculous ... but I get it. The first computers look fairly ridiculous now.

</comment><comment><USER58> The issue I think of his how much maintenance will one of these robots need? What will happen to the robot (or me) if I don't pay for any maintenance?

I bring this up as warehousing is all about reducing costs from all angles.

</comment><comment><USER59> I wonder why the one stacking the boxes gently lowers each box until it is in place before letting go, but the one putting boxes on the roller conveyor just gets them near and then drops them on?

</comment><comment><USER60> This reminds me of Tim Lewis' Pony kinetic sculpture...

[https://vimeo.com/60894098](https://vimeo.com/60894098)

</comment><comment><USER61> Warehouses typically have shelves four, five or six tall. Thus, forklift operators. This thing seems limited to sorting boxes at floor level?

</comment><comment><USER62> Very clever, but if it has battery issues it's going to fall on its face. An automated forklift seems a bit safer in that scenario.

</comment><comment><USER63> I want to see a robot picking up LEGO bricks out of a pile, and then stacking them up, _then_ I'm impressed.

</comment><comment><USER52> Can it get back up if it were to fall over?

</comment><comment><USER64> The balancing slows everything down so much. Is it really needed?

</comment><comment><USER65> depalletozaurus rex

<comment><USER66> Now that _was_ funny.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I have worked with people with less personality.

</comment><comment><USER68> the 2 wheel approach looks redundant. just use 4 wheels and all that extra balancing is not needed.

</comment><comment><USER69> Moves and sounds like something from The Surge. I want to target it's head to get some sweet new head armor.

</comment><comment><USER46> AI Ostritches are taking over!

</comment><comment><USER70> How does that gripper work?

<comment><USER39> I think vacuum. Like those wall-climbing robots.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Will be good to move human bodies after the machine uprising of 2048.

</comment><comment><USER72> The way to defeat one of these guys is to put a bucket of water in front of it, and then just relax and enjoy watching it dip its head in and out forever.

</comment><comment><USER73> Url changed from [https://www.technologyreview.com/the- download/613240/watchin...](https://www.technologyreview.com/the- download/613240/watching-boston-dynamics-new-robot-stack-boxes-is-weirdly- mesmerizing/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER74> Dupe: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19516378](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19516378)

</comment><comment><USER75> THICC

</comment><comment><USER76> We need basic income now.

</comment><comment><USER77> I wish they had a better co-op internship program it seems they don't have one at all.</comment>


OkCupid's Unblushing Analyst of Attraction - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/technology/okcupids-unblushing-analyst-of-attraction.html <comment><USER2> I really enjoyed reading OkTrends posts, but having near radio silence for three years (apart from one post last July) followed by a full-on PR blitz for a new book (comes out on Tuesday) makes me a little sad.

This piece almost makes it sound as if Rudder has been blogging based on OkCupid results this whole time... and if you go to the OkTrends site, you see huge inline placement for Rudder's new book.

<comment><USER3> OKTrends went dormant when OKCupid was sold to the company that operates match.com. I don't know what Rudder's involvement with OKCupid was after that, but he was no longer one of the owners. He might have still worked there, but kept his blog silent under pressure from management.

<comment><USER4> I used to work at OkCupid, on OkTrends.

You're not the first person to propose this question - there's a comment like this almost every time OkCupid makes the front page - and here's what I wrote the last time[0], which I think explains it well:

There were a number of factors. A bit part is that, in 2010, there were 2.5 people working full-time[1] on doing research for OkTrends, which allowed us to research, write, and publish posts much more often.

The blog posts took a _lot_ of work. "The Real Stuff White People Like"[2] took almost two months of my time, plus some from Max and Christian as well. (Much like the product design process, since we didn't start each post off with a clear end result in mind, not all the work was visible in the final product).

I left to go back to school. Max ended up taking on more responsibility for other data/stats work, which slowed the pace a bit, and he left at the beginning of 2012 to do his own stuff. And Christian became in charge of running OkCupid after the acquisition, which meant he had even less time then he did before Max and I joined.

People asked me for the last three years whether the reason OkTrends hadn't posted since 2011 was because of the Match.com acquisition and whether Match shut them down and I had to tell everyone "No, trust me, they're still around! It's just a coincidence!". Thankfully I no longer have to. :)

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8097780](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8097780)

[1] 2.5 full-time means: Two of us full-time, as well as Christian, though he split his work time between OkTrends (the blog) and other stuff.

[2] [http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-real-stuff-white- peopl...](http://blog.okcupid.com/index.php/the-real-stuff-white-people-like/)

<comment><USER5> Christian had time to write a book, but did not have time to update the blog.

I would suggest that in the interests of the OKCupid business, updating the blog would have been a better thing to do than write a book. The blog drew many users to OK Cupid. It's possible that writing a book was in Christian's interest.

If Christian was no longer working at OK Cupid while he wrote the book, then I understand. In that case the error is on the part of the New York Times for describing him as currently in that role.

<comment><USER6> Perhaps Christian took his own time to do what was in his own best interest (and also beneficial to the company).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have a lot of respect for the people behind OkCupid. They tread a lot of grey areas that many online entities are scared to.

On the whole, I also think usage of willfully submitted and gathered user data for things _other_ than advertising is amazing. Too many companies have invested too many resources into data analytics purely for increasing revenue from advertising.

I think if companies can find ways to gain better social understanding and from that provide better value to end users (rather than to advertisers as in the advertising model) in a way that gets them revenue, it will be amazing. I am all for social media companies doing research from their user data, in the hope that we can move on from the ad-driven web.

<comment><USER8> > I have a lot of respect for the people behind OkCupid.

Those people being match.com - the same people that operate the 'tinder' app.

Much like how the company that sells the eco-friendly smoothies is probably Coca Cola.

Ultimately match.com want to own online dating. Since there is always going to be a niche for free dating sites (as well as the subscription model), they have to have the best 'free'/freemium dating site going. The marketing/PR consists of 'insights' rather than TV adverts or social networking thingies. The site is just one part of their strategy to own online dating. People on the site might not pay, however those adverts probably bring in a lot of revenue - see Plenty of Fish story.

Returning to the eco-friendly smoothies - there are no saints at the helm of the company determined to make a better world, they are just doing what is needed to bring in the revenue for the parent company and making sure nobody else is in that space. Another analogy - big software company making sure their software is reasonably easy to pirate so people don't use any other software, free or paid for.

Clearly OKCupid was more valuable to match.com than anyone else hence they bought it. However the idea is no more respect worthy than the operations of the eco-friendly smoothie company owned by a fizzy drinks giant mega corporation.

<comment><USER7> I see what you're saying. Sure, by some definitions the people behind match.com are behind OkCupid, but I'm pretty sure they're quite hands-off from okc's operations and general demeanor. Of course, they are probably involved in their profit strategies as you say, and that's hard to avoid.

I still have respect for whoever came up with the eco-friendly smoothies and was able to pose enough of a threat to Coca Cola, but instead of getting crushed by them is able to harness the giant's resources to make more eco- friendly smoothies. It's a lot better than folding under the evil.

There are no saints at the helm of any for-profit organizations, or they'd get destroyed. I'm talking within that (very realistic and tolerable) space, they do some creative things [as a past okcupid user and as someone interested in their data] that provide interesting value to the customer that are hard to find elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'm always confused by the phrase "African-American." OkCupid is international. Why does somebody with African ethnicity have to be classified as "African-American"?

<comment><USER10> It's a question I've been asking, as a black man for a very, very, _very_ long time.

Couldn't count on two hands, even a third if I had one the number of different answers I've gotten, and not a single one of them-no matter the rationality or validity behind the _history_ of it, has yet to answer why we _still_ use it.

That said, "Person of Color" seems to be the new trendy thing and that baffles me even more (well, to be succinctly snarky about it: other people's reactions to that phrase are what baffle me. That's an entirely different conundrum not fit for HackerNews, though.)

<comment><USER11> I remember seeing an article talking about a black British model, born and raised in the UK, in a French fashion shoot, described as African-American. Her own country would refer to her as British, not African-British...

Here in Australia we're getting infected with this compound term, to reassert that heritage doesn't mean non-citizen. It's really annoying, because I grew up in a suburb of Greeks and Italians, who were also Australians... and now (from some corners) it's Greek-Australian and Italian-Australian. It wasn't perfect - the stereotypical Australian is still seen as a WASP - but this compound noun system isn't the answer to fixing the problem.

<comment><USER10> Agreed. John McWhorter brought up a lot of decent and salient points about the words we use to describe individuals, and how simply substituting one for another doesn't really solve the problem ([http://time.com/2369/richard- sherman-thug-n-word/](http://time.com/2369/richard-sherman-thug-n-word/)). That can be said about a _lot_ of social ailments in swiftly moving, developed civilizations, if I must offer a caveat.

There's a lot of bluster that goes on among certain "progressive" crowds that ultimately sums the solutions up to policing of rhetoric; and while I have to admit they're somewhat onto something with the notions that "language informs impressions", a lot of their approaches seem deeply misguided if only because there's a vacuum of nuance.

I personally don't have the answers to how to remediate the baggage that comes with cultural nomenclature... I do however believe rather sternly, that demanding a change of vernacular is not a silver bullet.

<comment><USER9> I'm in favor of saying "ethnically African." It says nothing about nationality.

In the context of a statistical analysis, like the OkCupid analysis, it's completely correct to segment people by ethnicity and by nationality separately, and it makes a lot more sense in that context to say "Americans of African ethnicity." "African Americans" is an equivocal phrase in an analytical context because people use it to refer to ethnicity, when it actually refers to both nationality and ethnicity.

<comment><USER11> Ethnicity also includes culture - a black person in the US sharing the same phenotype as a black person in Africa is not ethnically African, no more than an English white is ethnically French. It's difficult in that there isn't a clean solution, otherwise it would already have been found.

<comment><USER12> Do people not say "of X extraction" anymore?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is really annoying (emphasis mine):

>Mr. Rudder is particularly interested in the divide between the mates people claim they want and their actual online pursuits. Witness the actions of 35-year-old heterosexual men on OkCupid. These men typically search for women between the ages of 24 and 40, Mr. Rudder reports, yet in practice they rarely contact anyone over 29.

> _"I see this as a statement of what men imagine they're supposed to > desire,"_ he writes in the book, _"versus what they actually do."_

For a guy talking up all the awesome science he thinks he can do, this is rather unscientific. I'm sure he realizes there are other explanations for this trend (older women are more likely to be divorced or have kids, for example), but by promoting his own narrative he muddies the waters. For what it's worth I don't think his interpretation of the data is correct in this case.

A lot of other stuff on the OKCupid blog, e.g. claims of racism because black women receive fewer first messages than women of other races, fell into the same trap. The blog was very interesting to read, to be sure, but I couldn't take it seriously because there was so much pseudoscience and just-so stories, even if it was backed up with mountains of data and nifty charts.

<comment><USER14> > A lot of other stuff on the OKCupid blog, e.g. claims of racism because > black women receive fewer first messages than women of other races, fell > into the same trap.

I don't see how that was faulty.

It's pretty clear that Black women are involved in interracial marriage at a significantly lower rate than women of other races, or even black men. Then if you look at response rate by race (a previous OKTrends post), black women generally have a lower response rate from men of all races compared to women of other races. Data supports the idea that black women are generally not favored.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The blog was dormant for 3 years, apparently they just posted a new post... Of course I unsubscribed last month :D

</comment><comment><USER16> I'm still not sure why this article is equating preference with racism. If I'm attracted to white women and I'm white, it has nothing to do with racism.

<comment><USER17> Individual preference (it seems to me) isn't racist, but in aggregate it at the very least raises questions about where those widespread preferences come from.

<comment><USER14> > Individual preference (it seems to me) isn't racist, but in aggregate it at > the very least raises questions about where those widespread preferences > come from.

Thank you. It's so easy to brush under the rug peoples racial preferences as if they are sacrosanct

<comment><USER16> I see. So if a gay female only looks for other females, are they sexist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Might be cool stuff they're doing but it doesn't make it any less unethical no matter how much they try to whitewash it. This is slippery slope stuff

<comment><USER19> Using aggregate data (ie. not any individual's personal data) about interactions to study societal behaviour is unethical? On a website that you willingly sign up for, no doubt with disclaimers about how they're allowed to use your data?

As far as slippery slopes go, Facebook crossed that line quite a while ago...

<comment><USER20> When you publicly disclose the results, without any way for the data to be peer reviewed? Absolutely.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Off-topic, but why am I getting told to log in on the NYT website?

</comment><comment><USER20> The spookiest thing is not the data or the experiments, but the off the cuff conclusions.

For example: _> As a group, for instance, Latino men rated Latinas as 13 percent more attractive than the average for the site, while they rated African-American women 25 percent less attractive._

That is an insane generalization going on.

What metric are we using to determine this? Is it possible that people who tend to participate in the rating of the looks of potential mates are more inclined to align with race? Not purely Latino men. Which is an enormous initial generalization to be making at the outset.

 _> Witness the actions of 35-year-old heterosexual men on OkCupid. These men typically search for women between the ages of 24 and 40, Mr. Rudder reports, yet in practice they rarely contact anyone over 29._

Again on this one, was age the only possible metric that caused the under 30 to be contacted more by 35 year old men? There isn't anything else that might be different about an under 30 profile that causes more communication to occur?

This is the actual scary stuff to be publicly releasing as real science. Just as the general public is ill informed about the experiments going on, they are also not aware of what metrics are used to determine these results. In my experience, many of these metrics are not as concrete as the appear and full of pushing the data to fit a narrative etc.

Combine that with the fact that most of this data is proprietary and private with no way to be peer reviewed. Dangerous stuff.

<comment><USER22> > That is an insane generalization going on.

yes, it can be shocking to be presented with plainly spoken, cold hard facts when you grow up in and are surrounded by a sterile bubble of non-fact-based discourse. especially in a topic as taboo as dating, sex, race, and marriage. this is called cognitive dissonance.

trust me, as an asian american male, none of the cold facts of reality were ever hidden from me behind a facade of soothing lies. when i was much younger, i couldn't get laid, and i had to face reality head-on, and seriously work on myself to get ahead of the curve during my 20s.

> In my experience, many of these metrics are not as concrete as the appear > and full of pushing the data to fit a narrative etc.

in my experience the okcupid blog's conclusions fit the narrative of reality when it comes to sexual market value, race, and attraction, whereas you're espousing a more politically correct kind of conclusion that fits an _artificial_ narrative of egalitarian bullshit that in no way, shape, or form applies to the modern sexual marketplace (online dating and the hookup scene). there are winners, and there are losers, period. if you're not getting laid, you are losing. there is no long courtship period anymore. chivalry is dead.

how is it so radical and "dangerous" to conclude that men generally prefer younger, more fertile women, or that latino men generally prefer latino women? i mean are you even being serious?

<comment><USER20> So while its fun to play around with data, these are not real insights. The very idea that they can think some metric you've gathered via an online app can determine whether someone finds someone else attractive is goofy. But then publicly publishing that narrative, which is straight up pseudo science, is dangerous as people in the general public will use this kind of thing to say stuff like, "I read online that they did this study about Latino men and it said that they all think black women are ugly".

Grow up and take some responsibility for the world around you.

<comment><USER22> > "I read online that they did this study about Latino men and it said that > they all think black women are ugly"

what you're doing is called "projection" \- you're taking your own thoughts, and assuming others have the same ones.

ironically, i bet you're a white guy - because all of the black, latino, asian guys i know talk about this stuff openly. in general, my white friends find this kind of talk extremely unsettling and uncomfortable.

<comment><USER20> _> people in the general public will use this kind of thing to say stuff like, "I read online that they did this study about Latino men and it said that they all think black women are ugly"._

Maybe you should go back and read what I wrote one more time. I said that "people in the general public", not "I think that".

1\. I know this is pseudo science so I don't read anything into it. 2\. Plenty of people have no experience with data science and do not know the difference between causation and correlation.

Can you do me a favor, and stop projecting your issues with political correctness onto me? I'm sorry you've had your difficulties with it in the past, but my comments have nothing at all to do with the topics making me uncomfortable. It's because as a society as a whole, there are many people that will use this type of information to spread hate. If okCupid or anyone else is going to do it, they need to release all of their data publicly at the same time so that there can be a complete and two sided discussion with all the data available.

Lastly...

 _> because all of the black, latino, asian guys i know talk about this stuff openly._ [http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20Have%20Bl...](http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=I%20Have%20Black%20Friends)

<comment><USER22> so in other words... i'm right, you're a white guy.

<comment><USER20> No, I was just trying to point out how racist you sound. Saying things like "my white friends"? Seriously? I now just realized that you are a very stereotyping person and exactly the kind of person that makes these okCupid releases dangerous. Yikes.

<comment><USER23> Ooh. The guy has "white friends". He must be such a bad person.

/sigh</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Help categorise images to fight Varroa destructor (bee parasite) - <AUTHOR> http://www.varroa.vision/ <comment><USER2> [http://pybossa.com/](http://pybossa.com/) provides a template for projects like this one. Does varrao.vision make use of PyBossa?

</comment><comment><USER3> It would be nice to have a little more context on this project</comment>


Harrison Ford Confirmed for Bade Runner Sequel - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/the-multiverse/2015/02/harrison-ford-confirmed-for-blade-runner-sequel/

<comment><USER2> "Bad Runner", really?</comment>


The App That Reminds You You're Going to Die - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/01/when-death-pings/546587/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I for one hope that Silicon Valley's immortality efforts succeed.

Notifications induce enough anxiety as they are--I don't need more reminders that, as things stand, I am likely going to die.

<comment><USER3> Then again, you don't want to wake up 80 years old and realize you forgot to live. That might not be a problem for you personally but it is for a lot of people. I fear that more than actually dying.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> No. I don't want multiple anxiety attacks in a day.

</comment><comment><USER5> Everything about this is just obnoxious posturing.

</comment><comment><USER6> This too shall pass</comment>


Ways that language betrays character - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170720-the-hidden-ways-your-language-betrays-your-character <comment><USER2> I read a bit but stopped when I saw Abraham Lincoln described as an extrovert and louder and chattier than other people.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is one of my blocks writing I feel to vulnerable and exposed

<comment><USER4> Only if you share it. :) This might make you feel less alone: Everyone feels this way.

Do you want to write? Why?

Here's a book I recommend for anybody that makes stuff and puts it out in the world: "Art & Fear: Observations on the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pfui. Even the use of "introvert" and "extrovert" are simply fashionable alternatives to phrenology.</comment>


Ask HN: Image recognition books and resources - <AUTHOR>

I'm interested in learning some basic image recognition and analysis techniques. The ideal resource would be one that starts from scratch and includes lots of examples and code.
There are several expensive books on Amazon and the web turns up plenty of technical papers, but I'm not sure where to begin.
Any recommendations? <comment><USER2> Here's my list:

For a general introduction:

* "Digital Image Processing" by Gonzalez and Woods

* "Image Processing, Analysis, and Machine Vision" by Sonka, Hlavac, and Boyle

After you learn the basics, some more advanced and specialized books I'd recommend:

* "Morphological Image Analysis" by Soille.

* "Insight into Images" by Yoo (explains many of the algorithms in the ITK library).

I hesitate to recommend this book because it is so dated (1992), but I refer to "Computer and Robot Vision" by Haralick and Shapiro quite often.

</comment><comment><USER3> Image recognition in what domain? Do you want to be able to look at a photo and determine what objects are represented, or do you want to be able to do OCR or do you want to filter biometric data or something else entirely?

<comment><AUTHOR> Good question --

I'm interested in detecting objects in images. For example, whether or not a car is present in a photo.

<comment><USER4> For that I suggest "Feature Extraction and Image Processing" 2.ed by Mark Nixon and Alberto S Aguado. But "Digital Image Processing" (DIP) by Gonzalez and Woods as suggested by monk_the_dog is pretty much the standard prereq. Actually DIP may get you what you need depending on how deep you need to go.

<comment><USER5> Starting with some basic knowledge of machine learning (clustering, NN, bayesian inference, etc.) and some basic computer vision / processing (edge detection, color, basic shapes), how much theory is needed for achieving that objective? (recognizing vehicles in photos, and more interesting objectives: extracting 3d structure from a single 2d image).

<comment><USER2> "How much theory for recognizing objects in images?": Some pattern recognition, lots of image processing.

For the most part, it doesn't matter what classifier you use: k nearest neighbor,support vector machine, random forest, neural nets. They'll all give about the same performance. You should have a general idea what they do, but I don't think it's worth the effort to become a "neural net expert". You should know enough pattern recognition so you don't fool yourself (by over-training, for example), and have an idea for how to choose the right features.

Where should you put your effort? Into finding useful features for the object you want to classify. And the more image processing you know the more useful features you'll be able to try. How much do you need to know? Depends on the problem. If you're finding cars in the desert then not so much. Your feature set might be "has long straight lines and is not sand colored". If you're trying to tell American made cars from Japanese then it's harder (unless they are moving, in which case it can't be American).

<comment><USER5> Thanks!! Very interesting explanation!

And what is needed for face recognition (face matching, not just detection), in the same terms? Are the same kind of tools enough for this? (from what I read, it seems so, but so far I couldn't completely believe it)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was in your boat several months ago when I had to learn image processing from scratch to implement a requested feature

"Digital Image Processing Using MATLAB" ended up the most useful, along with some basic Matlab tutorials

here's what I ended up with [http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2009/08/robust- ocr-in-video.h...](http://yaroslavvb.blogspot.com/2009/08/robust-ocr-in- video.html)

</comment><comment><USER7> There is a draft of Computer Vision: Algorithms and Applications by Richard Szeliski available for free online <http://research.microsoft.com/en- us/um/people/szeliski/Book/>. It's good overall, but some sections are still incomplete (missing diagrams, for example).</comment>


Google Wave: You need to pay attention to this - <AUTHOR> http://www.jasonkolb.com/weblog/2009/09/why-google-wave-is-the-coolest-thing-since-sliced-bread.html#more <comment><USER2> Wave, in a lot of ways, is just a XMPP client/aggregator. I don't mean that in a condescending way, it's very cool, but it's hardly "the first truly revolutionary leap since HTTP itself".

The article says that this revolution hinges on XMPP letting you "talk directly to ANYTHING, and ANYONE", but that's just false (it's decentralised but not peer-to-peer) and hardly "HUGE": SMTP is such a protocol where "Social networks and proprietary transports no longer have an exclusive license to deliver content", it's just too old and crusty for us to slap some buzzwords on it and claim that "it can easily turn into a bona-fide platform for next- generation applications".

<comment><USER3> XMPP is only the connection part of the Wave - the other, if not more complex then at least much less understood part, is [http://www.waveprotocol.org/whitepapers/operational- transfor...](http://www.waveprotocol.org/whitepapers/operational-transform) which is a theory about how to change a document according to concurrent editing commands streams. The idea is that using a special document structure and operations you can emulate the interface of any communication application (in email that document is a thread of conversation with rules allowing people append new 'emails', irc channels can be similarly represented with the document being the channel 'screen', you can even represent a chess game as a series of editing of the chess board). This generality let's you mix and match freely the communication modes used in different communication tools (like wiki and im etc).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> (woke up grumpy)

A. XMPP is the major leap since HTTP. Wave is just some bloated junk that abuses it.

B. XMPP is not the intermediary network that allows anyone in the world to talk to each other, the Internet is. XMPP is just the model that makes it practical.

Just as the main job of the HTTP protocol is to define client-server communication. The main job of the XMPP protocol is to define client-gateway- gateway-client communication.

Wave is just a bloated, locked-in protocol for asynchronous user group communication. Since it targets users directly, and not communication in general, it will ultimately lose to customer-driven social networks. Meanwhile, you can build stuff on XMPP that's a lot more awesome, because like all the successful protocols before it (IP, DNS, FTP, HTTP, TCP, E-mail, Web Services), it doesn't really do that much. You decide what it does.

<comment><USER5> What about Wave do you feel is bloat?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> This some good analysis. I had no idea of the bigger vision of the XMPP protocol.

In the near term I've been working through how we could use Wave within some of our (relatively) simple content-creation processes at work, particularly around those items that require review by a number of stakeholders before being made public.

The key thing for me around Google's implementation is how one Wave, full of modifications and history, can spawn a new Wave in the form of a published version. We continually struggle with content management, and the balance between easy-to-use and "actually-managed." Version history, content re-use, blah.

If Wave can deliver that alone, it'll be worth our effort to use it. If it can deliver all of what Jason talks about this article, it'll be one of the most leveraged chunks of technology in the whole business . . . and insulate us from the whims of Big Software Companies.

This is exciting.

</comment><comment><USER7> I have no idea what wave is. I keep hearing about it and follow up by purposefully avoiding learning anything about it.

I figure if its really really good, it will simply work it's way into my life somehow without any effort on my part.

<comment><USER8> You raise an interesting point. I have a sandbox account and while I've seen a couple of cool things on there (in a limited amount of time spent), I've yet to see anything that makes me feel 'I must use this...all the time'.

Great for threaded discussions - HN could probably be re-implemented easily - but so far I haven't tripped across any bold new paradigms with it. Anyone have suggestions for particular things to check out?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wave _is_ an immature and new technology. And the Wave client does _not_ speak XMPP; it's not an XMPP client.

Federated Wave servers, potentially owned by different parties, need a standardized way to open a persistent socket and send messages back and forth, with security, authentication, etc. XMPP is used as a transport layer for that.

</comment><comment><USER10> XMPP is defined in two RFCs. RFC 3920 specifies the low level transport between servers and clients. Wave uses the server to sever transport defined in RFC 3920. RFC 3921 specifies messaging and presence. Wave ignores RFC 3921.

</comment><comment><USER11> I keep saying this with every Wave article: Wave is _HARD_! It's not the XMPP server-to-server stuff, it's the server-to-client Javascripting that is a giant pain in the ass. You literally have to have a HUGE textarea or designMode parser or just flatout write your own input methods.

<comment><USER12> Anyone have a reference for this? I'd be curious to see what the code looks like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I think it might be impossible for Google Wave to live up to the hype at this point. The problem with declaring something is revolutionary or will change the Internet as we know it (blah blah) is those choices are made by massive numbers of users at a grassroots level. You can't just say hey, this is great, you should stop using all the tools you're content with because it's technically better. It doesn't work that way. I'm positive it will be a useful tool to a certain group of people but it doesn't pass my "will my Mom be using this in 3 years?" test. It doesn't even come close. Google should have probably kept this one under wraps until they were ready for a pretty good public beta. Announcing it so far ahead of time creates an environment where lots of people want to project lots of different ideas on top of it without any understanding yet of how people may actually want to use the service.

<comment><USER14> it's not in public beta yet. not the way google defines "beta". at the monent, only developers get in on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a wave account. I logged in, and I could not even figure out if the thing could send an email to a normal account.

Google Wave is very hard to understand at the moment. It's something that has to be addressed.

<comment><USER16> Totally. I can't comprehend that anybody thinks that busy mess of frames, text, icons, is an "incredibly sexy client".

<comment><USER17> Yeah, it's pretty crazy when you log into the dev account, but if I had thousands of people all CCing me at once, my email account would be just as, if not more, confusing. I suspect it will be a lot easier to get a hold of once they open up "real" accounts and I can just participate in waves with people I know.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I found this to be one of the more coherent and simple introductions to wave.

</comment><comment><USER19> Meh.</comment>