Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/news/technology-41776215 <comment><USER2> They're listening, but not to your voice or with a microphone.

Facebook is listening to your data--to all of our data, all at once. They have locations, searches, clicks, messaging, photos, hashtags, and any other form of browsing patterns for everyone in your country, everyone in your neighboorhood, everyone in the same room as you.

They have enough data with such advanced analysis that on occasion they can get really close what you're thinking/doing without you explicitly telling them. They're doing this frequently enough to creep a lot of people out and they're only going to get better at it over time.

What we have here is something like Turing test for privacy: _a sufficiently advanced amount of data and analysis will be indistinguishable from surveillance._

It's simply unnecessary to listen with a microphone.

Edit: found this slide from F8 in 2015 where they said they store 300PB and process 10PB (with a P) of data per day [https://www.instagram.com/p/0tUjrQKH6R](https://www.instagram.com/p/0tUjrQKH6R)

<comment><USER3> Right, like the example from Target. It is possible that facebook has access to a stream of Target purchases or credit card purchase information. I'd be 0% surprised if there was a data sharing agreement with credit rating companies.

Even if they just knew the price of the purchase, combined with the job (burn risk) and location data (traveled from work to nearest store with pharmacy during the day), it's possible that you might be able to infer a burn with enough accuracy to be valuable to advertisers.

<comment><USER4> My suspicion on this is that stores offer "reward cards" so they can get you to sign something that allows them to gather and sell your data.

<comment><USER5> Rewards cards / loyalty card are designed to incentivize you to spend more with the stores. Ostensibly reselling data is a lot less valuable than directly trying to convince you to shop more at their establishments

<comment><USER6> That was true at the beginning of the loyalty card phage. But now the big chains are learning how to data mine and discovering the value of their data to others.

Now your loyalty card data is worth twice as much. Once to the retailer for internal marketing, targeting, purchasing, etc... and again selling it to outside parties.

<comment><USER4> thanks, sorry to reply to this late. I often wonder if I take a loyalty card and then for example I purchase twice as much double cream as the next person, does this get sold to health insurers who then charge me a higher premium? The permutations are endless eg too much beer. too many condoms. Too much spicy dip.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > "At work, happened to me though earlier this year. Working as a barista, got > a burn, talked to my partner in person about it, went to Target, bought the > burn cream, and saw an ad on FB for the exact product I purchased. Never > searched for product either," wrote Brigitte Bonasoro.

Facebook has data sharing agreements with many, many companies. It's most likely that the cream was bought with a card then linked together with your facebook profile. It's not that hard, especially when you use the same email identifier for all those loyalty cards you have.

EDIT

A video that explains what Facebook does [https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dy...](https://www.ted.com/talks/zeynep_tufekci_we_re_building_a_dystopia_just_to_make_people_click_on_ads)

<comment><USER8> I have a similar anecdote. Girlfriend was having some symptoms, we briefly talked about it then walked to the pharmacy and bought a pregnancy test. Maybe 30 minutes after purchasing the test we watched a youtube video on her phone. The ad on the video was for the exact test we bought.

I figured that youtube got the credit card info from the purchase but I was shocked at how quickly that translated into something showing on the screen. I've always thought about these things in the back of my mind but this was still eye opening for me.

I'd never had it happen to me personally since I aggressively block all ads :)

<comment><USER9> Advertisers are suckers.

Facebook and YouTube are selling ads to people who have already bought their product.

<comment><USER10> In a sense, they are suckers. Plus, as another story on HN suggested, their abandonment of advertising you things you don't need right now(but you may find you want later in life) proves counterproductive. A heck of a lot of things advertised to me on Facebook are things I already searched for and either purchased or already decided wasn't worth buying. I don't believe that modern internet ads are as valuable as the industry seems to think, which may be a sign of an impending bubble burst.

<comment><USER11> Internet ads are far more measurable than most other forms of advertising.

The advertiser certainly has all the data necessary to see if it's profitable or not to do those seemingly counterintuitive ad campaigns.

<comment><USER12> except the data is controlled by the entity selling you the ad, so they have reasons to make the profitablity difficult to discern

<comment><USER13> But still, when you advertise X to people who searched for X' (or even X itself), you can see the conversion rates of those ads, right? And you should be able to measure if that setup is profitable or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > "I run ads product at Facebook. We don't - and have never - used your > microphone for ads. Just not true," Mr Goldman wrote.

Personally, I am so used to corp speak and word play by major companies that it is difficult to take anything at face value. Therefore, I think the nature of the question asked to Facebook should be different. It should be on what they do rather do they do X. So, here's my question - "What does Facebook use data gathered from user microphones across any devices for?"

<comment><USER15> How could they respond to remove all doubt they're listening?

Edit: [https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook- smartpho...](https://www.theverge.com/2016/6/3/11854860/facebook-smartphone- listening-eavesdrop-microphone-denial)

        In a statement issued on June 2nd [2016], Facebook said it "does not use your
        phone's microphone to inform ads or to change what you see in News Feed."

That's pretty fucking clear to me.

 _Original comment:_

If they had said something like "We don't use microphones to gather data to drive personalisation on users profiles" there would be comments here on HN complaining about corporate speak and how they didnt just flat out deny using it for advertising.

Apps get busted for doing dodgy things all the time. The Facebook app has been decompiled and network traffic inspected and studied so often that if this actually was true then it would have been proven by now. Instead, all we have is this weird 'survivorship bias' where _one time_ someone said something out loud there was a tangentially related ad on FB.

Today I was looking up bars in Budapest and found one on Google. I started looking at images, at the only one that loaded so far on the slow internet was of food. "Wow, Google knows me so well. All I care about right now is food and the first image it loads is of food" I said out loud to my friend. Eventually the internet caught up and the rest of the images that loaded were of food. It only showed me food photos (in a bar thats more known for its decoration and alcohol). Nothing more than a coincidence.

<comment><USER14> My question was NOT "Does Facebook use the phone's microphone to inform ads or change what we see in the News Feed?". It seems you have misunderstood my question. Let me repeat my question again :

"What does Facebook use data gathered from user microphones across any devices for?"

<comment><USER16> "When did you stop beating your wife?"

<comment><USER17> No, it's not a loaded question. It's much more like "list everything you've punched". Maybe with "in my house" appended as an analogy to it being user microphones.

The question does not presume any misuse. It just leaves _no_ room for implications.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Once happened while remarking on the Fruit Loops shake at Burger King. Opened Facebook minutes later and got a Fruit Loops ad. I assure you I don't message, post, or in any other way remotely suggest an affinity for Fruit Loops. Commenting on it at Burger King was the definition of a one-off incident.

I guess another possible explanation is some very sophisticated combination of location tracking and Kellogg's targeting people they know will be primed by that promotional item. And then of course it could always just be an amazing coincidence.

All I know is I revoked microphone permission after that.

EDIT: Something just occurred to me. Facebook doesn't have to be the one using your microphone to target ads. The ad buyers just have to have a way to match your phone to your ID (which they can easily; there was a site posted here a while back that sells that) and then listen in through ANY one of the apps you have installed. If this were the scheme, Facebook could reasonably get away with saying "WE don't use your microphone to target ads."

<comment><USER19> I was once sitting at a bar having a beer, chatting with the bartender (one of my best friends) and the guy sitting next to me, whom I had never met before. I pulled out my phone to show my friend something that had been posted on Facebook and, while browsing Facebook right after that, the app showed the guy sitting right next to me as the first person under "People You May Know". I had not "checked in" or posted any updates while I was there, FWIW. It was at that point that I removed all permissions (i.e. location tracking) that I could from the Facebook app.

More on-topic: I recall reading that the Facebook app would activate the microphone when one was posting a status update, apparently listening for things like a movie playing in the background and such.

 _ETA:_ Related Snopes articles:

[https://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/facebooklisten.asp](https://www.snopes.com/computer/facebook/facebooklisten.asp)

[https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/04/professor-claims- facebook-...](https://www.snopes.com/2016/06/04/professor-claims-facebook-is- eavesdropping-on-their-users/)

<comment><USER18> After Obama's comments on the NSA surveillance program back when sh*t was hitting the fan, I'm always keenly parsing these kinds of statements for word play. There's usually a way out of accountability and liability through evasive rhetoric.

<comment><USER19> I agree. Really, I don't see why Facebook _wouldn 't_ monitor audio like this for targeting ads. If you make money from serving ads, that seems like exactly the kind of thing you would _want_ to do.

Like you, I have gotten pretty good at noticing "weasel words" and such in the government's statements (denials). It is clear that they take their time to make sure they word their statements ever so carefully.

<comment><USER20> > Really, I don't see why Facebook wouldn't monitor audio like this for > targeting ads.

Horrible battery life?

<comment><USER19> From another comment [0] in this thread:

> _Remember the time they kept the app open in the background on iOS devices > by sending an empty audio buffer to the phone for playback?_

> _People started discovering that after iOS introduced the battery /power > usage section in the Settings app._

They couldn't do it 24/7, of course, but they could certainly take "samples" at regular intervals or in certain locations or something. From my own experience, it doesn't seem that Facebook has ever been worried about battery life or preserving it.

[0]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580748](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580748)

<comment><USER21> What would be the purpose of taking "samples"? How is this possibly supposed to work?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Many people here may have missed something. From the link in the article, Facebook does listen using your microphone. They say so themselves, they say that you have to give the app permission, and that it's used to listen to say a background music or TV show. they also deny using it to target ads, but they say they do use it for other things.

now, I also remember them writing that they only listen when the app is open and a status is being written, but I'm not sure about that statement. Anyhow, the key thing is that Facebook does overtly and publicly use your microphone with its app.

<comment><USER23> We can look at the OS permissions to see what it's doing in the background. Facebook definitely doesn't have the ability to listen to the mic in the background on iOS unless you're implying that Apple created a back door for them...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> The thing that frustrated me with Lance Armstrong over so many years was the smirk on his face when asked whether he used drugs, and he would reply, "Hey, I passed the test, isn't that good enough for people to stop asking?"

I suspect Facebook is falling in that same boat - technically following rules so they can answer questions the right way. But we're not seeing the smirks on their faces as they give that answer.

<comment><USER25> Besides Facebook denial and the complete lack of empirical evidence, what are you looking for? Why do people keep talking about "this one time it maybe happened", when it should be happening to everyone all the time, if it's happening at all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I was totally skeptical when I first heard stories about people's feeds being curated to suit what they were talking about in front of their computers, but then a couple of things made me rethink my views.

I was in the car with my friend once (both our phones were in the car with us too), and we were driving and it started raining. His wiper blades were shoddy and doing a bad job of clearing his windscreen. We had a 5 minute discussion on cleaning blades, where was the best place to get a replacement, etc. Neither of us picked up our phones, or did a search on 'wiper blades', nor asked Siri etc. about nearest places to buy.

But the next day, for the first time ever, I started seeing ads for wiper blades on my feed. They disappeared after a few days, but it was spooky, as it was for an item that I have never ever discussed, or seen on my feed before, or since.

Another anecdote. I was sitting working in my office the other day, when my son came in to talk to me about something. While chatting, he picked up a bass guitar that sits behind my desk and started playing the riff from 'Seinfeld'. I may have said something like "Oh, the Seinfeld theme - you _know_ that was played on a synth and not an actual bass guitar?". Our conversation though, was about something else altogether.

A day later, on my feed, I see an ad about "How they played the Seinfeld theme" [0]. A totally specific ad like that, within 24 hours, totally unrelated to any searched I had done in my past. This one too disappeared within a couple of days.

[0] - [https://twitter.com/dsabar/status/924763005014831104](https://twitter.com/dsabar/status/924763005014831104)

<comment><USER27> This is called the "Frequency Illusion" (also often called / a similar thing is called the "Baader-Meinhof Phenomenon").

<comment><USER26> I would disagree with that phenomenon. In direct contrast, my awareness of these ads kicked into overdrive after seeing them for the first time, so I was hyper aware and looking out for them afterwards, which is why I noticed they disappeared a day or two after popping up.

Since then, my feed has been a bland sea of adverts for mattresses, knives etc. that almost all of my friends complain about seeing.

I don't use ad blockers, due to my development work in web apps etc. I like my browsers to be as stock as possible, and I do actually at least glance at nearly all ads I see in FB etc. just to see how their targeting is being skewed by my search history or messaging online.

These were two quite distinct cases of ads that I've never seen before, which popped up within 24 hours of me talking about (but not doing anything else online related to them) and then disappearing soon after.

Sure, an anecdotal sample size of 2 could just be pure coincidence, but something about it still doesn't sit right with me.

<comment><USER28> It would be weird if that sort of coincidence never happened. Two incidents of this happening to you _ever_ doesn't sound like much. Maybe even a bit low.

If they really are using audio for ad targeting like they do with search history, then it should be easy enough to prove it by experiment.

<comment><USER26> Sure. I am used to, nay, I _expect_ ads for software tools and music gear given my work and hobbies in my life, as I frequently talk about those things to my friend on FB and IRL all the time.

But wiper blades is so off the charts for me, that I was totally surprised to see about 3 ads for them the day after I had a discussion in the car. I don't even go to sites remotely associated with the automotive industry. Not even locality based, as it was a full 4 months out of the real 'wet season' we have later in the year. (NOTE: Not even in our wet season did I see random ads for wiper blades).

Having said that, I won't be surprised to see more wiper blade ads now that I have been talking about it on HN - who knows if they have linked up the data from online forums back to FB etc.? The handle I use here I tend to use on nearly all online forums I belong to.

<comment><USER29> I read that you do web app work and like to keep browsers stock, if it's not too forward consider debugging in private mode in a pinch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> They do record your conversation [1]

> Here's how it works: if you choose to turn the feature on, when you write a > status update, the app converts any sound into an audio fingerprint on your > phone. This fingerprint is sent to our servers to try and match it against > our database of audio and TV fingerprints. By design, we do not store > fingerprints from your device for any amount of time. And in any event, the > fingerprints can't be reversed into the original audio because they don't > contain enough information.

And my previous comment :[2]

> Notice how they say they do not store sound or recordings. But what if it is > converted to text?

Notice below they say that the fingerprint cannot be reversed into the original audio because it doesn't contain enough information. Text cannot be converted to the ORIGINAL audio but it can be converted to audio.

This may be just me being paranoid, but I do know that legalese is designed exactly to say something without saying everything.

[1] [http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to- sh...](http://newsroom.fb.com/news/2014/05/a-new-optional-way-to-share-and- discover-music-tv-and-movies/)

[2] [https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=foxfired](https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=foxfired)

<comment><USER31> The length of the audio snippets they fingerprint is pertinent information.

If it's syllable- or word-length fingerprints it's not much solace that they won't be able to get the original audio.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Dozens of times in the past few years I've been served relevant ads on some topic instantly after discussing it in person in proximity to a smartphone. I've encountered countless other anecdotal stories from friends. When this happens I feel an acute sense of violation and vulnerability. It's hard to imagine a less sinister explanation for this phenomena.

<comment><USER33> You can't imagine a less sinister explanation other than Facebook or some other entity is secretly recording your voice and the voices of millions of people, in violation of numerous state and federal laws, through their smartphone microphones, uploading it to their servers surreptitiously, performing voice analysis on it to determine who is speaking out of 350,000,000 possible cases (presumably they've already cataloged everyone in the country somehow?), and then use that to serve you more targeted advertising?!

I mean, really?

<comment><USER32> True, it seems far-fetched at first. We should keep in mind that a even few short years ago theorizing about the US Government operating a widespread domestic electronic surveillance dragnet was still the realm of delusional conspiracy theorists.

<comment><USER34> I remember the days when we thought archiving Usenet was technically impossible... Then DejaNews announced they'd been doing it for years already...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> crooked-v No microphone access is needed for the spooky ultra-targeted advertising claims. You just have to keep in mind that Facebook is cross-referencing all your information with everyone physically near you (even people without Facebook accounts, as they can be extrapolated from their relatives and from photo geodata and tags), and cross-referencing all of those results with cookies from ads all over the web and with purchase history results from credit card companies and retailers.

</comment><comment><USER35> They don't at all deny listening to conversations in this article. They only deny using that information for advertising.

Now about the confirmation bias thing, it seems more likely to me that your credit card history or the store member card purchase history is being mined.

</comment><comment><USER36> A few weeks ago, I went into a Lenscrafters because I needed some cleaning wipes for my glasses. I have Wifi, Bluetooth, and Location services disabled for Facebook.

Someone messaged me on Facebook Messenger, I responded, put my phone back in my pocket, and finished the transaction, and then left Lenscrafters and walked down to the store that I was actually in the mall to see.

Within the day, I started seeing contextual ads for eyeglasses in my facebook feed, along with ads in other apps for eyeglasses.

I'm only suspecting that there's a service that does some flavor of ultrasonic beacon/listening technology, and facebook (along with DFP and the other large ad markets) are buying that service in troves.

<comment><USER37> Or like the article said, you just noticed the contextual eyeglass ads because you had just been to lens crafters and it seemed weird to you. Also, by contextual ads, do you mean the eye glass ads were related to context they were shown next to?

The other explanation is Facebook has data sharing agreements with the payment instrument you used for the wipes.

<comment><USER36> I had been to Lenscrafters, but, there were no location services (no wifi, gps, or bluetooth) turned on...just my cell phone data.

By contextual ads, I mean, "News stream ad/in game ad" \-- basically, anything that had been targeted to be sent to my device.

I believe I read something about Facebook using DataLogic info (which tries to tie payment instruments to advertising clients), but, apparently the music supplier for LensCrafters also has "Audio Beacon" technology for their clients to use ([http://us.moodmedia.com/social- solutions/](http://us.moodmedia.com/social-solutions/)), so, it could be one of the two.

<comment><USER37> Rather than contextual, I think "native ad" is closer to what Facebook's ads are versus Google's old system that tried to match ads with the content they were shown next to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> oh-kumudo From a technical perspective, it is not very likely that they will listen to people's voice to push advertisements. They needs to listen to you ALL the time, collecting your voice from all kinds of noisy environment, uploading to their server for further analysis. And in order for this service to be profitable, they need to train model to extract the part of your conversation that hints a shopping intention.

This requires infrastructure at a really large scale I don't think even FaceBook can sigh up for that. And if they have a legal department, which I assume they do and a functional one, those ideas would be killed before it moves to implementation.

<comment> wu-ikkyu >in order for this service to be profitable, they need to train model to extract the part of your conversation that hints a shopping intention

So basically just listen for any time someone says a variant of "I need/want x"?

<comment> oh-kumudo Well, there are a lot of needs: I need to go. I need some sleep. I need more time. I want to quit...like you name it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was skeptical until I experienced an ad in my feed which in my estimation could only attribute to data captured by a conversation had hours earlier. Of course there is the possibility of coincidence but I find it hard to believe.

I took advantage of the option to see why I was shown the ad, and was told demographic information, as well as a data partnership with DLX. I would like to know if others who see and ad they suspect was displayed due to microphone captured data have this DLX data supplier source in common.

<comment><USER39> It did something very similar to me and really made me second guess myself, but there is no other explanation other than it used my microphone to listen to my conversation at work. I felt so paranoid about it and was very weirded out.

My backpack zipper broke when I was walking to work. When I arrived at work I told my coworker I needed to buy a new backpack. She and I talked in her office about what type of backpacks her son liked, did they have enough pockets, are the zippers strong. I never used my phone to google anything about backpacks, never looked anything or searched for a new backpack online. That same afternoon- boom backpack ads in my facebook feed. Totally creepy.

<comment><USER27> > but there is no other explanation other than it used my microphone to listen > to my conversation at work

You'd have not noticed if you saw a backpack advert at some other time. Just how many adverts do you see that _aren 't_ standing out? Huge amounts, probably.

This could be quite easily explained by the frequency illusion.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> [https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2013/02/20/snapdragon- wake...](https://www.qualcomm.com/news/onq/2013/02/20/snapdragon-wakes-mobile- world-snapdragon-voice-activation)

[https://developer.qualcomm.com/blog/using-qualcomm- hexagon-s...](https://developer.qualcomm.com/blog/using-qualcomm-hexagon-sdk- device-speech-processing)

"Industry wide adoption"

2013

The rest is PR.

<comment><USER41> IMHO this is irrelevant to what is being discussed here.

> enables devices powered by Snapdragon 800 processors to be "woken up" by a > custom voice command (beginning with a custom phrase set by the device OEM > like "Hey Snapdragon", for example)

Because they are always on and have to use minimal power, these chips are used to recognise a very specific term (probably why these companies don't let you customise how you summon the assistant), and cannot do anything like voice transcription, network calls, ... (which would just kill your battery).

<comment><USER18> Why would audio have to be transcribed locally on battery power? You could do that server-side and/or keep the data stored locally as audio until the device is charging and on WiFi.

<comment><USER41> Record audio data continuously on disk? I'm not sure if this is even worth debating, it is a fact that this is not happening (these chips are on most new Android phones, and they do not save audio).

<comment><USER18> Wait are you trying to say there's no way to record audio on a smartphone app? And also, why are you calling it "disk"? Smartphones use flash memory for storage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> amiga-workbench Its proprietary software, I have no idea if its malware or not, so I stick to the mobile website and do not install their apps.

</comment><comment><USER42> One thing I've wondered was that Facebook began showing the recent photos you'd taken at the top of the app, and prompted you to share them. Are they sending every photo you take to their servers to feed it back to you at the top of your stream? I realize they could implement this feature by displaying local photos without sending them to their servers, but I've never seen confirmation that photos remain on your device only until you post. I uninstalled the app awhile back, so maybe they don't do this anymore, but anybody have any insights into how they handle your photos?

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't play golf or have any interest in it, but I was talking to my brother about him using golf carts on his farm as vehicles. I kept getting golf cart adverts in Facebook for the next month. Maybe it used location data to suggest we might be interested in the same thing, but it was a bit weird.

</comment><comment><USER44> I used to dismiss these rumors as paranoia/conspiracy theories in a maybe naive application of Occam's razor. But concrete leaks and tech news of recent years made me a believer. I sure believe Facebook is capable of this, nowadays. The only thing that makes me skeptical is that there should be reproduceable cases someone has documented for concrete evidence. All I ever hear is anecdotes.

<comment><USER45> >All I ever hear is anecdotes.

The fact that there is no hard evidence makes me very skeptical.

Every anecdote is explainable another way. Someone in the comments said they were having a conversation about storage units and saw an ad for storage units immediately after. Even if they had never searched for storage units -- and can we really be sure? That would be easy to forget -- Facebook might just have extrapolated they they would need a storage unit from related searches, like searching for a moving company.

I would be willing to bet this type of algorithmic extrapolation explains every one of the microphone-ad-conspiracy stories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> A fairly reliable and simple test is this: leave your phone around content for several hours of a different language and see if ads related to that language show up.

It's surprising to me that people here are still debating this. I believe it's been going on since the original iPhone came out after a friend told me a very specific product appeared for her on Facebook immediately after she spoke about it and went to go look it up on her phone.

I don't think Facebook would stop at any measure to get all the data they can from you if they can get away with it and frankly anyone who does is extremely naive. It's right there available to them. There has never been and may never again be a time when companies (particularly Facebook and Google) to obtain as much sensitive data as is available to them from us without our knowledge, without external oversight, and without repercussions due to the lack of legislation.

</comment><comment><USER47> I am not sure if this is real. However, there are people on YouTube talking about topics they have never typed, never cared about, or never shared on Facebook and sure enough, the ad appears.

It would be great to really inspect the traffic and see if this is really the case. Independent of what Facebook claims.

Either way, I am happy I have deleted it off my phone. I have never been happier each day not reading garbage and actually focusing my time on apps that improve my life and move my life forward.

</comment><comment><USER48> Technicalities and choice of words are amazing ways to deny what isn't _exactly_ happening here.

For example, why use the word 'recording' when the problem is accessing the microphone at all... Facebook doesn't have to 'record' to stream the audio to their server for audio recognition without 'recording' anything.

Of course all of this is just from the title of the article but the paranoid will pretty much always be able to find wiggle room.

</comment><comment><USER49> Couldn't somebody decompile the android or iOS app and try to find evidence for one way or the other?

<comment><USER50> Or just have a proper methodology with many samples, control group, etc.

<comment><USER51> The kind of people who believe these conspiracy theories about Facebook are not the kind of people who believe in scientific methodology. Fuzzy bigfoot syndrome and all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I think the risk versus reward for Facebook and other companies is very high. All things being equal, I think it's more likely than not they will record things, will listen for words you say, and use that. The risk is enormous if it comes out with proof, but let's say they only listen a small percentage of the time, that kind of AI analysis is priceless.

<comment><USER53> I doubt it will make a difference to most people. The staunch pro-privacy stance really only exists on tech-savvy forums like HN. Go on reddit sometimes and observe how people will say "so what if Google has all my info, it's useful and free". If Zuckerberg calling his users dumb fucks for trusting him didn't get them off the platform, a "small" privacy violation like this won't either.

<comment><USER54> This reddit post is the very top of /r/all right now: [https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/79i4cj/youtube_user...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/79i4cj/youtube_user_demonstrating_how_facebook_listens/)

And the general sentiment appears to be very far from what you claim. I think it's possible that this issue is going to come to a head this time around. I don't know what the outcome will be. Just saying it's confirmation bias (the likely real explanation?) may not be enough to satisfy people.

<comment><USER55> Reddit is a small vocal tech savvy minority. The moral majority just don't care or are too busy working three shifts to care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> For anyone interested, the iOS app is composed of about 18,000 classes. Here is the dump:

[https://gist.githubusercontent.com/quellish/473f513fbd131023...](https://gist.githubusercontent.com/quellish/473f513fbd1310233a8e/raw/ddfa17d01435d43ee43751fb6fe17f4d0c8911c6/FBClasses.txt)

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm inclined to dismiss it as confirmation bias, but I've had this experience personally - a conversation followed shortly by an _extremely_ specific advertisement on FB shortly thereafter.

<comment><USER57> As suggested in the comments on Reddit, there's another possible explanation for this -- someone else in the conversation does a search based on what you were talking about, clicks on a result that sends tracking data to Facebook, and then the ads are retargeted to you based on a shared public IP address.

<comment><USER56> The last time I noticed this, it was a conversation between my wife and I, and I (we) poked around in her search history for that reason. Nothing that I could see, and it was within minutes of the conversation.

All that said, I still lean towards confirmation bias.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> What I'm getting out of "We don't use your microphone for ads" is that they use your microphone, they just don't use it for ads. Which as many comments have already stated makes sense because you don't really need the recordings to determine a suitable ad when they are already getting all the data they need from just using facebook.

What I think they do is, they record everything using the microphone, and they store it if you are a person of interest. A person of interest could be that maybe you have a over 1000 friends or something, maybe your a ceo of some tech company, maybe you're a lead programmer at intel, maybe you're someone the US government wants to track, maybe your a senators staff member, maybe you work for the Skunk Works at Lockheed, maybe you said a key word/phrase that throws you into the 'person of interest' category like 'electrogravitic propulsion'. When these surveillance companies do this type of stuff, they do it to people of interest, and if they ever need to put the squeeze on someone, or steal important information like get secret information about a stock trade or something, they go to that person of interests microphone records (which probably get transcribed into text by some program) and search for whatever they want to know. This is why this shit should be utterly banned, it controls people, it steals from people, it destroys innovation and scientific progress before they ever get off the ground, and its just plain manipulative.

</comment><comment><USER59> One thing the internet does which is super incompatible with how people deal with information is that it amplifies anecdotes and selection bias.

If you were just talking to a sample including a small fraction of your friends and acquaintances, and you found that like 10 of them had noticed that Facebook seemed to be showing ads based on their conversations, that would be compelling evidence that something was up. And since for the vast majority of human history, that was the kind of information you had access to, that's the way we tend to process things.

But now you can go online and mention this weird thing that happened to you, and a thousand other people will all see it. Suddenly you have _super_ high odds of a "cold hit", even though the phenomenon was purely random.

And to make matters worse, it's _not_ purely random. Facebook has algorithms that are trying, often successfully, to model your life based on the information you give it. So the chances of "eery" ad targeting are significantly higher than if it were just random.

I think we're going to see this kind of conspiracy theory more and more as time goes on, and we need to figure out cultural tools to counteract this problem.

</comment><comment><USER60> Of course they deny it. Even if they did there is absolutely no way they'd admit it. This article asserts nothing.

<comment><USER61> On the other hand seeing as this must be done client side then someone should be able to do an investigation and see if Facebook sends voice data to their servers.

And not to mention how many engineers that work on Facebook that could be whistle blowers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> But has anyone scientifically validated any of these assumptions? It doesn't seem very hard. Speak, then visit pages with FB ads and take note.

Seems like the internets has taken these serious accusations as some sort of corporate conspiracy but I haven't seen any independent, credible study of how Facebook's apps (confirmed) access to microphone are actually being translated into ads.

<comment><USER63> Can not one decompile the Facebook app, or just somehow instrument it to see when it accesses the microphone feed?

<comment><USER64> None of the people who think this is happening can.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER65> Wouldn't it be possible to detect this?

If this is happening then it must require some amount of CPU and memory use on the device, which even if hidden from the OS can be detected via power use and heat dissipation. It should be possible to indirectly measure a phone's CPU load (including any hidden processors) by filming it in the infrared and/or by attaching it to power and measuring the wattage consumed from the supply.

If this is happening it must also require some network I/O. Something must be phoning home and reporting the data if the data is to be useful.

Note that there is an intrinsic trade-off between the heat dissipation angle and the bandwidth angle. If the device is doing parsing, speech recognition, AI, etc. locally then it must be consuming more energy and dissipating more heat. If the device does these things remotely it must upload more data. Compressed audio is far more bandwidth intensive than digested meta-data.

This seems like something security researchers can and should look into.

<comment><USER66> Remember the time they kept the app open in the background on iOS devices by sending an empty audio buffer to the phone for playback?

People started discovering that after iOS introduced the battery/power usage section in the Settings app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> A few days ago I ate a chili pepper out of boredom, and after finding out what a bad idea that was, I opened Reddit. The frontpage of /r/todayilearned had a post about someone learning that birds can't detect capsaicin and that peppers evolved it to deter mammals (which have grinding teeth).

These kinds of cosmic coincidences happen to me and everyone else every few weeks, and they mean absolutely nothing. We're just wired to see patterns. I (and millions more) see hundreds of Reddit posts per day, you (and millions more) see hundreds of ads per day. A crazy coincidence every 10,000 ads isn't very strange.

Something like this should be piss easy to prove, especially on Android. Traffic monitoring, monitoring when exactly the microphone is accessed on a rooted phone, anything really. The fact that this rumor has been going about for years and nobody has found anything, means it's just nonsense.

</comment><comment><USER68> It is interesting that they feel the need to officially deny it. The Twitter user co-hosts a podcast where users can call in to tell him whether they think Facebook is listening or not.

One could argue, from a PR perspective, it does not matter whether Facebook is listening or not.

First, some users do not trust them. Maybe Facebook is worried about those users telling other users.

Second, some users believe it is technically feasible to listen.

Finally, there is no legal/regulatory framework in the United States to _effectively_ stop Facebook from listening[FN1], if they wanted to do so. They have clear business incentives to listen because the objective is to gather more personal data about users than their competitors.

NB: Added "in the United States" for clarification.

FN1. Incorrect? What are the theories of liability? What are the sources of law or regulation in the United States? _Is injury required?_ What is the injury? How does one prove the injury?

<comment><USER69> Hm... what about the expectation of privacy? I'm guessing in some states and countries this is illegal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER70> As long as it is possible (closed source software and hardware which is unaudited by trusted organizations), then it's going to continue to be assumed to be happening.

</comment><comment><USER71> If they do listen and present you ads based on your conversation, can't you fool it (and test it) by talking about (let's say) buying new running shoes? Shouldn't you observe ads about running shoes?

Edit: added missing word

<comment><USER72> There are some videos of people who did exactly that: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=U0SOxb_Lfps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=4&v=U0SOxb_Lfps)

<comment><USER73> I thought iPhone apps couldn't silently listen to the microphone.

<comment><USER74> That's correct. Apps must request access to the microphone, and iOS shows an indicator while the app is recording.

This is pure confirmation bias. If someone tests this and doesn't get a relevant ad from Facebook, they won't upload a video or tell their friends. Note that even in this confirming case, it took _two days_ before the guy saw a cat food ad. We don't know how many other ads he scrolled by before that one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I've learned to never believe an entity that says they won't do something without any way to verify such a claim.

</comment><comment><USER76> I don't see definitive proof one way or the other, but I've never given Facebook microphone access on my iPhone. And many others users claiming they've received targeted ads haven't either. But something interesting that is being pointed out on Reddit is that they can use your gyroscope to detect vibration and convert it to soundwaves when your phone is on a flat surface. The PM at Facebook denies listening to the microphone, but what about the gyroscope data? Technically, what he is saying could be a true statement, but still invading privacy just as much.

</comment><comment><USER77> Regardless of whether or not they are doing it purposely, the capability is certainly there. But the other data they have from cross referencing other web traffic, financial data, etc is probably much more powerful than what they could get from listening in to our conversations.

However, I still turn off microphone access for facebook and instagram. It's probably not fool proof, but it can't hurt.

</comment><comment><USER78> Why don't we just try this out, get a fresh device and block location services then create a new Facebook account. Make sure you don't search for the thing you're aiming to get Ads for (Cat Food, Carpets, Jumper, etc.) on the device itself or nearby devices. Then just talk about those things and see if the ads come up.

</comment><comment> m-p-3 No one should trust what they say they can or cannot do. What we can only assume is their capabilities in doing it. This is where end-to-end encryption is important. If you can't encrypt it in a way that only the other end can see it, then assume that someone in the middle can eavesdrop it.

</comment><comment><USER79> There have been plenty of stories of malware eavesdropping over smartphone microphones in the last two years.

I doubt Facebook does it with their app. It's too much trouble, blatantly illegal and easy to get caught. It's most likely malwAre selling the info to fb, who has no idea how any advertisers get their info.

</comment><comment><USER80> Couple doesn't own cats. Talked about cat food to test if Facebook is listening. Started getting ads in FB for cat food: [https://hooktube.com/watch?v=U0SOxb_Lfps](https://hooktube.com/watch?v=U0SOxb_Lfps)

</comment><comment><USER81> To add an anecdote to counteract confirmation bias: I heard this rumor months ago and we started talking about motorbikes with smart phones held up for a few days (20+ mentions). We saw no motorbike ads.

</comment><comment><USER82> Like webcams, microphones should (and even be required to) have a status LED.

</comment><comment><USER83> I wonder do FB buy user ad preference data from 3rd parties, that may in turn buy them from another listening app.

If I was FB, I'd either process the audio on the device to avoid network traffic, or buy the results from a partner, to keep the actual listening at arms length.

It wouldn't be that hard to imagine another ad-tech company collecting the data in some other app and feeding the data back to FB. I can't imagine FB would be asking as many questions from a 3rd party as it would to internal teams.

</comment><comment><USER84> Once it happened to me that Facebook has shown me under "People You May Know" a person that was on the same WiFi as I was. We had zero mutual friends and no known connection prior.

<comment><USER85> IP address is obviously sent to Facebook

</comment></comment><comment><USER86> According to this post on Reddit, Apple gave Uber access to a private API. He's speculating that Facebook might have access to a private API and is using it to spy on its users. Does anybody have more information about this?

[https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/79i4cj/youtube_user...](https://www.reddit.com/r/videos/comments/79i4cj/youtube_user_demonstrating_how_facebook_listens/dp2gshm/)

<comment><USER87> It would be trivial to decompile the app and see if they were using some hidden or undocumented API.

Why has nobody ever been able to find actual evidence in the code?

</comment></comment><comment><USER88> I think people are really underestimating how much they can use your friends search data (especially ones you have been in close proximity to) for your ads. Or how big their interest "niche" is. There are only so many categories of web users, even on the very fringe there are probably 10k who think and search just like you. And when they are searching/clicking on products, Facebook will show you similar things.

<comment><USER46> I have a story about this.

A girl I was seeing years ago was looking for a new apartment. She texted me telling me she found a new apartment on 20th and Gladstone Ave and asked me if I wanted to go with her to see it. Minutes later, I get a Google Now update saying "It would take you 43 minutes to get to 2020 Gladstone Ave if you leave now".

I thought it was cool at first - Google Now was getting really helpful with the driving suggestions. I also thought it was strange that it was for a specific address - I thought that was a glitch, or the nearest address to that intersection, although Google Now has worked with intersections in the past.

I thought Google telling me the time it would take to travel to her apartment showing was impressive enough to actually tell this girl what my phone did. She was not amused and thought that I had hacked her phone. She wanted to know how I knew the exact address of the apartment!

I was curious how this could have been possible since she never texted me the exact address and found out she did look it up on Google Maps. So it's clear how Google had the data but sharing it with me seemed like a huge breach of privacy.

Perhaps the craziest part of all this is that not 5 minutes after telling this girl what Google did, when I went back to take a screenshot of the suggestion - the Google Now card CHANGED to 20th and Gladstone Ave!

I was seriously wondering they were analyzing my conversation afterwards expressing my concern of this breach of privacy and had the "privacy invasion" level turned down a degree.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> I just don't think anyone could record an analyze audio constantly without absolutely killing battery life. We're saved by the hardware.

</comment><comment><USER90> I know that smart TVs and the now defunct Kinect have the ability to monitor conversations. Hell I remember when I first used Soundhound! I was flabbergasted, what will they think of next.

But I also know corporations are usually scrupulous about following laws so unless there is something in Facebook's ToS/EULA that mentions doing this I'm skeptical.

<comment><USER91> > so unless there is something in Facebook's ToS/EULA that mentions doing this > I'm skeptical

I don't see why the vague terms in their data policy [1] couldn't include audio (all-caps are my own emphases):

> We collect information FROM or about the computers, PHONES, or other devices > where you install or access our Services, depending on the permissions > you've granted. [...] Here are some EXAMPLES of the information we collect:

> \- Device locations, including specific geographic locations, such as > through GPS, Bluetooth, or WiFi signals.

If device location is merely an _example_ of information they gather from my phone then why couldn't audio just as easily be another example?

[1] [https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy](https://www.facebook.com/full_data_use_policy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER92> On a sufficiently short-lived and well-targeted A/B test, nobody knows you're a listening bug.

</comment><comment><USER93> What can we do to prevent this? Use another service? Make it more difficult to link information together with use of per-website generated emails, burner phones, etc? Just seems there is room for something to come along and change the game, just not too sure what that thing is.

</comment><comment><USER94> I removed Facebook from my phone years ago when I learned they were accessing my sms messages. Simple.

<comment><USER15> I'm so glad my phone doesn't allow apps to do that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> If this is legit it seems hard to explain in any other way:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0SOxb_Lfps](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U0SOxb_Lfps)

</comment><comment><USER95> I'm not versed in the facebook tos, but it very well could be included. If that bothers someone they should just stop using facebook, what's so hard about it?

</comment><comment><USER96> If we (theoretically) assume that Facebook actually does listen and use the data for advertising: what would be the legal consequences?

Could this become the next Volkwagen?

</comment><comment><USER97> With all the data gathering and listening, how doesn't any organization get the information to stop the attacks that we know about?

</comment><comment><USER98> Sooner or later we'll have to get in the offensive and break their business model by rendering ads ineffective. It's either that or the Internet we used to know won't exist for much longer. As long as they don't seem to give a fuck about user privacy we don't need to play nice.

</comment><comment><USER48> Linking to the discussion that just jumped off the front page for my own benefit when I get back: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580281)

<comment><USER48> Rumors That Facebook Is Secretly Recording You Refuse to Die | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580281](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15580281) (Oct 2017 18:20, 80+ comments) [http://hnrankings.info/15580281/](http://hnrankings.info/15580281/)

Facebook denies 'listening' to conversations | [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15581114](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15581114) (Oct 2017 20:30, 171+ comments) [http://hnrankings.info/15581114](http://hnrankings.info/15581114)

Basically the same discussion on separate stories covering the same topic, both on the front page simultaneously. The second only took off after the first was flagged off the page or something.

I didn't want to summon the dupe police before I had a chance to review it a bit closer. Also didn't want to lose both to the flagging committee.

Mostly planning to review participation by various HN users. #facebook #haterade

PS. Neither one is worth an up-vote from me, let alone adding as a favorite!

</comment></comment><comment><USER99> Facebook is definitely creeping on your conversations

</comment><comment><USER100> Facebook obviously doesn't do this, but I wonder how this will end. Lots of people wanting to regulate Facebook right now, maybe some ineffective laws will get passed.

</comment><comment><USER101> i don't get why this is a debate. can't we just use wire shark or something similar and see if audio data is sent to fb?

</comment><comment><USER102> Facebook is liar and privacy violator!!

</comment><comment><USER103> There's an easy way to verify this: run tcpdump and record it happening. The fact that nobody has done this, instead only offering anecdotes, strongly suggests that these are coincidences or from other forms of targeting.

<comment><USER91> tcpdump? How do you record HTTPS connections (with pinned certificates, I might add) via tcpdump?

<comment><USER104> Regardless, it's easy enough to dump HTTPS traffic (pinned or otherwise) if you have root access to the client, which in the case of Android is not difficult to get.

<comment><USER91> > Regardless, it's easy enough to dump HTTPS traffic (pinned or otherwise) if > you have root access to the client, which in the case of Android is not > difficult to get.

Hm, well okay, would you mind explaining the easy procedure that lets you capture Facebook traffic then? I have tried lots of different methods (Fiddler, Xposed modules, etc.) with root access and have failed. It's no problem in theory, but practice is another matter...

<comment><USER103> If you have root access to one end of encryption, you necessarily can inspect and save it. The way I would do this is by issuing a certificate for facebook.com that I mark as trusted on the device. This will let you do a man in the middle "attack." But you can probably do this directly on the device: just look for where the encryption is taking place, and intercept it.

<comment><USER91> > The way I would do this is by issuing a certificate for facebook.com that I > mark as trusted on the device.

Half the entire point is "mark it as trusted" doesn't work when the application has already pinned the certificate it's expecting. Have you actually done this yourself at all?

> But you can probably do this directly on the device: just look for where the > encryption is taking place, and intercept it.

"Just" intercept it? You mean "just" spend several weeks if not months trying to disassemble/decompile their code, figure out how to inject your own, somehow locate the relevant in-memory data structures for encryption, & reliably patch them at runtime? all while preventing the application from crashing? That's "easy" to you? Have you done any of these things you're suggesting yourself? How often have you done them? and how long have they taken you that you found them "easy"?

<comment><USER103> I've done all of these things since it's my job. I haven't tried Facebook, because I don't have any confidence in the surveillance hypothesis, but my first guess being inapplicable doesn't change the fact that root access would allow people to prove this is happening, and that hasn't happened.

Furthermore, this could be proven with some fair reliability using correlation only. Is more encrypted data sent when you're speaking? Is more encrypted data sent when the microphone permission is enabled? Does the app access the microphone while sleeping? Nobody has presented anything _close_ to evidence.

<comment><USER91> > I've done all of these things since it's my job.

It's weird that this is your day job and yet you tell me that I should mark a certificate as "trusted" when we both explicitly acknowledged that the problem was with certificate pinning. You didn't answer this part: how long does it take you to manage to intercept Android HTTPS traffic for a brand-new, never- before-seen application that uses certificate pinning on your day job?

> I haven't tried Facebook, because I don't have any confidence in the > surveillance hypothesis

Well then try it with Facebook. If this kind of thing is really your day job then it shouldn't take long, and you'd do everyone a favor by (a) showing that nothing is going on, and (b) teaching people how to do it themselves so that the myth doesn't keep spreading. People would appreciate it.

> Furthermore, this could be proven with some fair reliability using > correlation only.

No, it can't. They don't need to be sending raw audio. They could just do some rudimentary speech recognition and send it along with some other routine data.

> Does the app access the microphone while sleeping? Nobody has presented > anything _close_ to evidence.

I've personally logged it accessing the microphone when I've been scrolling on my news feed. Though I don't see why you'd believe me anyway.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> [dupe] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578016](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15578016)

</comment><comment><USER105> [https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/](https://puri.sm/shop/librem-5/)</comment>


Ask HN: What is the software for video editing on Linux? - <AUTHOR> Thanks in advance! <comment><USER2> Web search leads to many results, e.g. [https://itsfoss.com/best-video- editing-software-linux/](https://itsfoss.com/best-video-editing-software- linux/)

</comment><comment><USER3> [https://www.fossmint.com/awesome-linux- software/#videoeditor...](https://www.fossmint.com/awesome-linux- software/#videoeditors)</comment>


Top 10 programming languages of the future - you voted! - <AUTHOR> http://www.foundread.com/view/top-10-programming <comment><USER2> I'm not sure there's an appropriate response to this other than "WTF?". Here are some things listed as programming languages within this article:

HTML/CSS (markup and presentation languages)

.Net (I suppose you _could_ write .NET bytecode by hand)

Oracle (a database that uses PL/SQL, which is listed separately)

Windows NT4 (everyone's favorite operating system)

ASP (a web programming platform that supports several languages, most of which are listed separately)

Ajax (a programming technique, using Javascript)

</comment><comment><USER3> Voting is exactly not the way to figure out something like this.

<comment><USER4> Whatever "this" is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is so dumb. How can anyone with a clue believe this guy when he says these sorts of things:

>Trevor's note: Even though Ajax and CSS/HTML are markup tools, not programming languages

Huh?! AJAX is a markup tool?!?!?

Also,

"2. Javascript 7.3 3\. Ajax 7.2"

Hello... aren't these two the same thing?!

<comment><USER6> He does the same thing with C# and .NET. Where C# is a programming language that runs on the .NET framework.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Trevor's note: (...) Javascript might even warrant an argument.

It's obvious that that guy only knows buzzwords and has not written a single line of code in his entire life.

<comment><USER8> Well, hey, if such people can choose your coders for you...

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any embedded (or systems) programmer would probably chuckle to see 'C' so far down these types of lists. If you placed the same quiz on a site like embedded.com, the results would be different. +1 for the pointless vote.

</comment><comment><USER10> I see List/Scheme as one of the options. Trocess lists by 2013.

</comment><comment><USER11> On behalf of the rest of Canada, sorry! We're not all this stupid about programming languages!

</comment><comment><USER12> Erm since when were 'ajax' or 'html/css' considered programming languages?

<comment><USER13> What, are you a Turing-complete-language chauvinist?!?!

<comment><USER14> HTML and CSS are still programming languages in the formal sense of the term even though they aren't Turing complete. But including AJAX makes no sense whatsoever: that's more like a design pattern.

<comment><USER13> I should clarify that I was being sarcastic. I, in fact, am a Turing complete chauvinist and don't consider HTML and CSS to be "programming languages". ;-)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Dumbest thing I've seen in a while... I just glanced at "Ruby or Ajax?" subtitle and already felt the smell. Over half of things presented are not even languages with ajax being just a method invoke...

Well... the profile of the submitter explains this nonsense perfectly: _"Head of Marketing at the Go BIG Network. The World's Largest Community of Startup Companies."_

</comment><comment><USER16> The question isn't even one of personal desire. They ask which will be in demand, even if it is a bad thing that the technology is highly demanded today and in 2013.

</comment><comment><USER17> When did Ajax become a programming language? (Or is this a different Ajax that I don't know about?)

</comment><comment><USER18> HTML/CSS??</comment>


The Decline of marriage? - <AUTHOR> http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1802/decline-marriage-rise-new-families

<comment><USER2> It seems interesting that they identify people as moving from historically marrying for "financial stability" towards marrying for love, yet divorce rates have increased. Although it is perhaps slightly counterintuitive, I think it actually makes a lot of sense. If you are relying on a spouse for financial stability, you are more likely to stick it out through the hard times of a marriage. Love is a bit more fickle.

<comment><USER3> Financial stability vs. love is a false dichotomy. You could also say that shift is from Community & Family Commitment to Emotionally Driven Radical Autonomy. Read Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam or look at what "love" marriages are doing in India.

In the 60's everyone was casting off (often shitty) cultural restraints, but it was an _overcorrection_ that was almost completely narcissistic. Suddenly you have no fault divorce and a culture that increasingly doesn't view that as a problem. Fast forward 40 years and my generation is largely self-serving paxil-popping automatons. :-)

Facebook brings us together but it ultimately doesn't make us really sacrifice for each other. That's an infinitely harder problem that technology will probably never solve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _The share of births to unmarried women has risen dramatically over the past half century, from 5% in 1960 to 41% in 2008. There are notable differences by race: Among black women giving birth in 2008, 72% were unmarried. This compares with 53% of Hispanic women giving birth and 29% of white women._

That blew me away... I would of never guessed it was that high.

<comment><USER5> Similarly (though sort of in the opposite direction), I was shocked to see that 32% of respondents reported that "Premarital sex is wrong"

I would have expected about half of that, at most.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm not really surprised all that much. Having moved from the middle east to north america, the culture is so different that I'm surprised marriage is still practiced over here.

Marriage is mostly a social construct but a large part of it is also religious in nature. In large part it serves to conserve the tradition and culture of society or a community.

As social relationships become less centered on family bonds, marriage will weaken. And as western societies become less and less religious, there's less motivation for any couple to get married.

This is not even unintentional. I think at the heart of the feminist movement lies a belief that marriage is a tool devised by society to control women, or something of that sort.

<comment><USER7> _I think at the heart of the feminist movement lies a belief that marriage is a tool devised by society to control women._

Why do you think that? As far as I know, the feminist movement is a part of a greater civil rights movement focused on equal political, economic, and social rights regardless of race, religion, sexual orientation, and yes, in the particular case of feminism, gender. What makes you say that feminism is mainly focused on destroying marriage?

On a separate anecdotal note, I grew up in the former Soviet Union where religion was largely absent and yet marriage was very strong.

<comment><USER6> Ah, I didn't say they're set on destroying marriage.

For all I could tell, they couldn't care less.

But from what I understand, they have this notion of the "patriarchal society" where the males control everything, including language, and gender roles, and everything else. It's obvious that marriage is a byproduct of this patriarchal structure.

I've heard a certain feminist (who happens to be married) say on TV that marriage is an old and failed system that we should get rid of. I think this is not too inconsistent with what the western culture(s) subconsciously believe.

The point of marriage is the creation of families in a social structure where pre-martial sex is strongly frowned upon, and where the social network is built mostly on top the "family" unit.

In the west, pre-martial sex is rather encouraged, and the social structure is _not_ built on top of the "family" unit.

<comment><USER8> _I've heard a certain feminist (who happens to be married) say on TV that marriage is an old and failed system that we should get rid of._

There are over 6 billion people on Earth. Many of those people are just insane. And television shows have an incentive to bring on the real nuts in order to keep things exciting. As such, the fact that you heard one representative from group X go on TV and say something nutty doesn't allow you to make any inferences about what the median person in group X actually believes.

 _I think this is not too inconsistent with what the western culture(s) subconsciously believe._

Strange. If western culture "subconsciously believes that marriage is a failed system that should be disposed of", then I don't see why marriage is (1) held in high esteem and (2) heavily subsidized. I mean, when I got married, everyone I knew was delighted and no one told me "this is a terrible idea -- marriage is a failed system". Why would the government give me money once I got married if there was a social consensus that marriage is a failed system?

The problem with asserting things about an entire society's "subconscious beliefs" is that your assertions are impossible to refute. Which suggests that these assertions are meaningless garbage.

<comment><USER6> Calm down. I'm not trying to attack anyone, just stating what I'm observing. I'm not saying anything about whether or not it's morally right or wrong.

While I agree that person I heard from on TV is a nut, she's a rather prominent figure among the feminist movement in the middle east (Nawal El Saadawi).

In the west, marriage is the last step after a long long relationship. In the middle east, it tends to be the first step. This already suggests that marriage is much less important than it used to be, and I can only see it getting less and less important as time goes on.

<comment><USER8> _Calm down._

I think your arguments would be more convincing if you spent less time worrying about other people's emotional states and more time making claims that are testable.

I note that you haven't disputed my point that claims about what entire societies subconsciously believe are meaningless since you can't prove anything about them.

 _While I agree that person I heard from on TV is a nut, she's a rather prominent figure among the feminist movement in the middle east (Nawal El Saadawi)._

Um, how do you know? It seems like you've never actually read any feminist writings...am I wrong? And it also seems like you've never discussed feminism with any actual living feminists. So how exactly would you know how well this one person on TV represents living breathing feminists?

 _In the west, marriage is the last step after a long long relationship. In the middle east, it tends to be the first step._

I've read this half a dozen times and I still can't figure out what it means.

<comment><USER6> We studied feminism briefly in a Communications course I took at the University, the prof (female) was very sympathetic of the feminist movement. I didn't make up the notion of the patriarchal society.

> I've read this half a dozen times and I still can't figure out what it > means.

When a man and a woman fall in love, the first thing they try to do in a traditional/conservative society is to try and get married. In the west, the first thing they do is go out together, make out, have sex, maybe move in and live together for years and have children without ever officially getting married.

Unless you want to say this only happens in F.R.I.E.N.D.S but not in real life.

<comment><USER8> _We studied feminism briefly in a Communications course I took at the University, the prof (female) was very sympathetic of the feminist movement. I didn't make up the notion of the patriarchal society._

I didn't claim you made it up; but your presentation doesn't strike me as very accurate. In particular, "It's obvious that marriage is a byproduct of this patriarchal structure" seems wrongheaded. Marriage is a social institution; that means that the structure of marriage reflects the existing power structures in society.

Even in the most egalitarian societies, like Sweden, people still get married in great numbers. What's more, many of those who don't get married in fact do get married in all but name: they live together like a married couple indefinitely. Since there are often few benefits to explicit marriage, their choice represents little more than a willingness to forgo a religious ceremony. But it shouldn't surprise us that people in very secular countries decide to avoid big religious ceremonies; that's just common sense.

 _When a man and a woman fall in love, the first thing they try to do in a traditional/conservative society is to try and get married. In the west, the first thing they do is go out together, make out, have sex, maybe move in and live together for years and have children without ever officially getting married._

As I understand it, a great number of unmarried couples in traditional societies make out and have sex; the big difference is that they sneak around when doing so. But if you like, we can pretend that everyone in traditional societies actually strictly observes all their social norms.

Moreover, a great many people in western countries get married and stay married for many years. It seems silly to pretend that they don't exist. Your claims would be more persuasive if they were backed up by numbers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I don't particularly care for the institution of marriage, although I will say that I think weddings are tons of fun, and the only issue I have with the decline in marriages is that I don't get to go to very many of them.

<comment><USER10> The loss of another socially acceptable reason to drink in public is always a sad occurrence.

<comment><USER11> Have you considered celebrating obscure holidays? I know some Americans who celebrate Guy Fawkes' Day just because it gives them an excuse to have a party and burn someone in effigy.

If you get some friends on board and act like what you're doing is perfectly normal, you probably won't be hassled about drinking in public. Everyone will assume that you're _supposed_ to be doing whatever it is you're doing.

<comment><USER12> Hell, if you can get enough like-minded friends into it, just make up your own holiday.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Not just this, but I've noticed a lot of my friends that _are_ married are in open marriages, which seems to be the trend I've noticed more than marrying less.

</comment><comment><USER4> Marriage, like many things include software, is only as good as the foundation that it is built on. I have no doubt that my wife and I will ever get a divorce. It just isn't an option. I've seen others who hold the same belief and through very hard times they don't change when it comes to that... and in the end their marriage is even better than before. I've seen the same with us as well.

I have no problem if people don't want to get married, but if you do, I wish more couples would discuss that _before_ they get hitched.

</comment><comment><USER14> I don't plan on getting married, unless a few key things come up. One big one is insurance, the second is hospital visitation rights, and the third is tax benefits.

Other than that, I think it's pretty archaic. Also note I don't want children... that might affect such things, too.

<comment><USER15> In what sense is marriage "archaic"?

The bond of family is unlike any other bond.

Friendships, business partnerships, strategic alliances, romances, all of them are transient in ways that family is not.

But the family you're born with is a happenstance. Apart from marriage and adoption, what other discretionary act allows two adults to create a new, deliberate familial bond?

I don't want to get too "no true Scotsman" about this; I accept that there is divorce (partly because we've embraced divorce as a culture, partly because we've embraced casual marriage as a culture, and yes, partly because as a society we have rightly grown out of practices that secured marriage, such as single-income households) and failed marriage.

But marriage as a concept has a clear, practical value. It's more challenging to realize the concept in 2010 than it was in 1910, but that doesn't mean the concept itself is outdated.

<comment><USER14> I guess I just don't feel the need for such an actual act. Take my current situation: I've been seeing this girl for about three years now, it's my third 2+ year relationship, and it's going exceptionally well. We live together, we have a joint bank account... why bother getting married? It doesn't change the way that either of us feel about each other. Not only that, but marriage implies a few things about our relationship that are simply not true.

The only value it actually holds is getting certain benefits from organizations that are still structured around the idea that a man and a woman end up loving each other very much, and decided to be together forever. That's the concept I'm talking about when I mean it's 'outdated,' I think that the vast majority of relationships won't actually last forever, nor should they.

<comment><USER15> So, you're not married. Family bonds last forever. Deep and lasting friendships do not. Just because marriage is valuable doesn't mean everyone should be married.

Home ownership is also a good thing. Clearly, everyone should _not_ be buying houses; even if you have the means, it often makes the best economic sense to rent. But neighborhoods are still built on a foundation of homeowners.

There is a notion that everyone should own a home. There is a notion that everyone should be married. Those notions are what is archaic.

<comment><USER16> Family bonds do not last forever.

<comment><USER15> I agree only to an extent that leaves a gap unresolveable without a nerdy dorm-room argument.

<comment><USER16> I have no idea what that is supposed to mean, but good, I guess...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is the saddest comment thread I've read on HN.

I had no idea geeks were so against marriage.</comment>


I Let IBM's Watson Tell Me What to Cook for a Week - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/how-we-get-to-next/i-let-ibm-s-robot-chef-tell-me-what-to-cook-for-a-week-d881fc884748 <comment><USER4> _" And, in essence, this kind of sums up Watson for me. You need to tinker with it a bit before you can find something usable."_

I think this is the most interesting part. Watson seems to work WITH you rather than for you.

Presently it appears to work very well as an inspiration and suggests things that are so far out you would never come up with them yourself. An example is the radish, cod, ginger, olives, tomato and green onions pizza.

I would've loved a bit more focus on what other people thought though. I got the impression that the writer was a bit biased to love the dishes before he tried them.

<comment><USER5> "Watson seems to work WITH you rather than for you."

Absolutely right, and that interaction is the most interesting part. This also reminds me a talk about Palantir at GovCon. The speaker tells us two stories.

The first story was about Advanced Chess. We know that human and computer both are good at chess for two very different reasons. We also know they these skills can complement each other. So in Advanced Chess, instead of playing against each other, human and computer form a single team and fight against another team.

It's easy to think that if we take the single strongest chess player and the single most powerful computer, they might dominate the tournament. But that didn't happen. The team that won the tournament was a modestly skilled chess player with a regular laptop running freely available open source chess tools. So how did this happen?

It turned out there was a third factor nobody consider. It was the quality of interface between the man and the machine. How easy it is for a human to develop the strategic oversight, the guidance and to rely on the computer for tactical component. Focusing on, on what they are individually good at.

The second story is about Paypal. At the time of Paypal, several other companies were trying to get involve in online payment industry. The other companies were CitiBank, eBay, Western Union. But one by one they folded back where the Paypal succeeded. What happened?

It turns out large corporations were trying to develop a better system to automatically verify transactions. But Paypal went the other way around. They tried to increase the effectiveness of their human analyst by providing better computing service. Everything on the computing side was to empower/help the analyst to explore his data faster, detect anomalies and to make a quick/better decision. It's the man not the machine that had the final decision in Paypal.

I think the core idea of these two stories is how differently can we use our computing power, and how we are doing so far. I think most solutions are trying to develop a set of fixed answers, and hoping their answer are better then their competitors. But I think, it should be the other way around.

Computers are here to assist us. The design of a system should not be reaching a fixed the goal, instead it should help us; acting as a guide providing necessary information helping to make an informed decision. And if used properly, human can already attain superpower.

And I am really curious to see how IBM Watson fits into this bill!

<comment><USER6> You mentioned Palantir's talk at GovCon. Do you know if it's available online?

<comment><USER5> Yes it is available on YouTube. Here : [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f86VKjFSMJE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f86VKjFSMJE)

He tells us the stories within the first 10 minutes. In the following 10 minutes, he talks about what how Palantir's software fit into the picture.

And in the last 20 minutes, he demonstrates the software as an intelligence officer, who is tracking some bad guy across multiple countries. Information have been fed to the software by informants. And now he job is to organize those information into patterns, and trying to come up with a hypothesis about what these bad guys are doing, and what they will do in the future. Finally he shared his hypothesis with his colleagues.

Just like Advance Chess, they are trying to reduce friction between data and the data analyst.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work on the team that designed and built Chef Watson, both the current app that is available at [https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/](https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/) and the food truck that we had at SXSW 2014. If you have questions about the technology or Watson stuff in general, such as the IBM Watson Developer Cloud, let me know and I'll attempt to answer them or track down the right person to answer them. As it is a holiday weekend here in the United States, if I need to track down someone for an answer it might take a couple of days - so I'm not hiding, it just might take a bit of time.

<comment><USER8> If Medical Watson works for and is paid by cancer hospitals, does that affect Chef Watson's recommendations (either in a positive way, to keep us healthy, or in a negative way due to the profit incentive)? In other words, do the various Watson implementations have any shared data or code base that could influence the other? I assume not, but how cool would that be?

<comment><USER7> That's a really interesting idea, but that's incredibly advanced thinking and would require some pretty wicked engineering.

Most of the different Watson tools share various code elements - for example, we're not writing a new system natural language processing, entity recognition, and relationship extraction for each tool. Watson technologies, however, are designed so they work inside of a particular domain or with a specific corpus. So, the work with MD Anderson ([http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2013/ibm- wa...](http://www.mdanderson.org/newsroom/news-releases/2013/ibm-watson-to- power-moon-shots-.html)) has a nearly 100% separate data set from Chef Watson with Bon Appétit. I say nearly 100% separate data set because there are some common data sets derived from publicly available sources (e.g. wikipedia) that may be used by both systems.

One of the other challenges is who the systems are designed for. Although anyone can use Chef Watson, it's not designed with everyone in mind. We've realized that the people with the best experiences are a little bit adventurous when it comes to cooking - they'll play around and improvise with flavors to create new recipes. This is a different demographic than would likely be using the health care system (doctors and care providers).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > _You may need to make a "do I want to put mashed potato on this lasagne?" > leap of faith, and you're going to have to actually go with it if you want > the app's full benefit._

I didn't try it, but I don't think it so strange. Here in Argentina we eat something slightly similar: "pastel de papas" [http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastel_de_papa](http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pastel_de_papa) . I really like it. (It's very similar to "cottage pie" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_pie](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cottage_pie) )

<comment><USER10> I've actually made something very similar myself, as an experiment: a basic baked pasta dish with ground beef, tomato sauce sour cream and so on (lasagna in all but the shape of the pasta, really), with mashed sweet potatoes thrown in.

And it was pretty good! Fundamentally, I don't see why it couldn't have been _great_ in the hands of a better chef.

Besides this sort of experimentation is how you make interesting, unique dishes. It's a lot of fun.

<comment><USER11> Sweet potatoes are more akin to pumpkin than to ordinary potatoes, I think. In that sense they function as half vegetable, half starch source.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I had no idea Watson was being used for recipes. It reminded me of the genetic algorithm recipes from xkcd ([https://xkcd.com/720/](https://xkcd.com/720/)).

I wonder what else can Watson suggest. Vacations? Clothes? Gadgets? ... Dates?

This has so much potential it's not even funny. Computer inference plus human common sense seems like a match made in heaven, and dissipates some of the Skynet-scenario fears.

Go Watson!

<comment><USER7> If you'd like to get an idea about the different ways people are using Watson Technologies, check out some of the Watson Ecosystem Partners ([http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/ecosystem.h...](http://www.ibm.com/smarterplanet/us/en/ibmwatson/ecosystem.html)). There's a variety of partners that aren't listed on our partners page, in particular you mentioned Vacations, so you might be interested in WayBlazer ([http://wayblazer.com/](http://wayblazer.com/)), a new company founded by Terry Jones - former CEO of Travelocity.com and founding chairman of Kayak.com.

The big thing with Watson is that it works _with_ people to make them smarter, rather than replacing people. Watson isn't designed to be a single global AI system that will enslave us (well, at least not yet), rather it's designed to be trained so it can go in depth on various topics to make humans smarter at their jobs - whether that's medicine, finance, travel, cooking, or who knows what else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Ibm still doesn't understand mobile... Great write up, I went to the site and tried to sign up for beta access to Watson chef, only to have the Watson chef website tell me that they don't support my screen resolution for sign-ups... [http://imgur.com/O5n8rZU](http://imgur.com/O5n8rZU). Edit: I'm using an iphone5s

<comment><USER14> It would've been great to have this available on mobile too. Do they expect people to cook next to their computers? Phones/tablets are _the_ device to use in the kitchen for this sort of thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [https://xkcd.com/720/](https://xkcd.com/720/)

</comment><comment><USER16> As an amateur cook avid to try new things, I was extremely disappointed to see a Facebook or IBM account is required to access Chef Watson. I don't have a Facebook account.

No registration would be best, but email / OpenID or even other OAuth authenticators such as Twitter would be nice.

<comment><USER17> What's wrong with signing up for an IBM account, then? It seems like it'd be the same as email registration, only using their existing infrastructure rather than rewriting it for Chef Watson.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Counterpoint: [http://www.fastcodesign.com/3045147/ibms-watson-designed- the...](http://www.fastcodesign.com/3045147/ibms-watson-designed-the-worst- burrito-ive-ever-had)

Applying Watson to recipes is brilliant marketing, period.

<comment><USER7> The ironic thing about that burrito (it's the Austrian Chocolate Burrito, for those of you with the cookbook at home), is that it was designed on a very early version of the system that required significant help from a professional chef. At that point the system was mainly flavor pairings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> "A disclaimer before we start: Chef Watson isn't great at telling you when stuff is actually ready and cooked."

"Yes, it's has great potential, but their are so many nuances that go into a simple meal."

The right programming will probally eventually solve the problem, and AI will replace chefs? I hope it doesn't progress that far though.

Maybe I'm the exception, but when I make myself a meal, these thoughts go through my mind--sometimes(Most of the time I greatful there's food in front of me.) but here goes:

Too much food is probally not healthy--obesity potential and believe in calorie restriction. Did I get enough exercise in order to eat a big meal today? I ate too much protein yesterday, I will cut back today. I will use a little less salt tonight because I need to watch my blood pressure--especially if stressed. Did I include enough fiber because the the medication I'm on is affecting my digestion? Should I eat another portion of fish--the Mercury. Is my date allergic to anything I am cooking, or they a vegan, vegetarian? Did I wash the organic lettuce enough? Can I use all the milk in the recipe, my roommate will not have enough for her Cheerios to tomorrow. Oh, and this portion of ingredients I just pulled out of the frig. just doesn't look right, and I don't want to take a chance on food poisoning.(The expiration date is O.k., and it smells right, but there's something telling me to throw it out. (I notice a cat I feed hovers over it's food sometimes, and doesn't eat the perfectly good can of cat food. I sometimes think, he's not being just finicky, and I'm not going to second guess a few million years of feline nasal receptors; I will just give him a different can of the same food.)

I don't think like this over every meal, but sometimes these thoughts do run through my mind occasionally. Sometimes I think I have a lot of unconscious thought that affect my daily life? It's these nuances that, I think, hope-- differentiates humans from machines. In reality, AI does scare me becaucase I think they will get all the kinks worked out, and there's not a day that goes by that I don't think about the warning from Hawking's, Gates, and the Tesla guy.

<comment><USER20> > I ate too much protein yesterday

I can honestly say that's never a statement that has ever crossed my mind, haha.

> Is my date allergic to anything I am cooking, or they a vegan, vegetarian?

This is incredibly frustrating. It seems like every single young woman has bizarre food taboos that are based on no rational basis. The gluten-phobia thing has gotten out of hand, but in general there is just so much food woo going around.

<comment><USER21> > It seems like every single young woman has bizarre food taboos that are > based on no rational basis.

I'll ignore the blatant sexism.

As a young woman, although admittedly not single, who happens to be vegan I really don't understand the point you are trying to make here.

I am vegan because I would rather not have had a sentient animal purposely killed for my meal - and it is a decision I came to after years of thought and consideration.

And yes, there is a growing trend of people caring what they put in their bodies - whether it is noticing that caffeine after 2pm disturbs their sleep, or that as they age they need to consider an increase in b12 or vitamin D - the majority of these choices are very rational ones - I have yet to meet a person whose diet choices fall out of the range of rationality - except, perhaps, the excuses people give me for not cutting down the amount of <insert foot they acknowledge they eat too much of> in their diet.

<comment><USER22> > I'll ignore the blatant sexism.

Stating a fact or observation is not sexist by itself. The anecdotal data around me shows that the people with food intolerance and I won't eat X because someone in the newspaper misinterpreted a study have a even number of X chromosomes. To make sure there is balance - there is a lot of bronutrition in the opposite direction.

> I have yet to meet a person whose diet choices fall out of the range of > rationality

Any person that observes religious restrictions - that is not rational. Also any person that refuses to eat X based on pseudo, improperly conducted or improperly understood science.

> I am vegan because I would rather not have had a sentient animal purposely > killed for my meal - and it is a decision I came to after years of thought > and consideration.

That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.

<comment><USER21> I will agree that there is much ignorance in the world surrounding what we eat and in science in general - however, as I said, when I talk to people who have dietary restrictions they tend to have a sound, rational basis for them.

> That will push you only to vegetarian. To go vegan you need more reasons.

There are no animal products which do not involve the killing of sentient creatures (if you doubt this I would suggest learning about the process by which milk or eggs are farmed).

<comment><USER22> Sound and rational means peer reviewed paper ...

I spend the summers on a (nonindustrial) farm, have taken eggs directly from under the hen, milked a cow, drank honey directly from the centrifuge and slaughtered some chickens (funny) and pigs (meh). I am well accustomed to the process.

Your vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - to grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.

Edit:spelling

<comment><USER21> > Sound and rational means peer reviewed paper

"My doctor has told me I should not take in as much potassium as I have been so I am reducing my consumption of legumes" and "I have an ethical objection to killing sentient creatures so I restrict my diet in ways that minimize such killing"

Are both sound, rational judgements which do not require a peer reviewed paper.

>You(sic) vegan foodstuff also require the killing of sentient creatures - <USER2> grow food we have displaced a lot of animals from their habitats. Sometimes quite forcefully. So yeah - you probably have fewer animals on your conscience , but you have some.

I agree with you, completely - it is an uphill battle. It is very difficult to not directly compensate the killing of creatures in a world that considers it moral to kill 50+ billion animals every year (not including marine life) - <USER3> my ethics require that I at least try.

<comment><USER22> > "My doctor has told me I should not take in as much potassium as I have been > so I am reducing my consumption of legumes"

That is rational, also requires peered review paper somewhere in the chain. The doctor read it and formulated advice based on it. Or at least that is the way medicine works. I hope.

But is having ethical objection to killing rational itself? We become what we are as being the better killers. Anytime, anywhere?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Fantastic article. I've been hearing about Watson and food on NPR or on HN for the last few months, but this article did a great job of detailing the experience. My wife had signed me up to make dinner tonight. We're going to my parents' place to hang out with them and with my brother's family. I think I'll plop my laptop on the kitchen counter and have us play with Watson until we find a fun and AI-ishly-weird recipe!

</comment><comment><USER24> I've made something similar but in Swedish: [http://matsidan.com/](http://matsidan.com/)

What goes well with what is based on around 5k recipes.

Haven't worked on it for some time though, kinda got stuck. What I'm trying to solve is to make it easier to make a weekly food plan and grocery list.

</comment><comment><USER25> It won't allow me to create variations of pot brownies. Marijuana isn't an available ingredient. IBM? Fix?

</comment><comment><USER26> I'd like to use Watson too. How do you get access to the API? How much does it cost?

The website for it is pretty vague.

<comment><USER27> It's pretty easy to sign up at [https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/](https://www.ibmchefwatson.com/)

It's free, and there's a pretty decent web UI once you're logged in.

<comment><USER28> I could be wrong, but I think the previous poster was asking about getting API access to Watson itself, not the cooking site.

<comment><USER29> [http://www.ibm.com/watsondevelopercloud](http://www.ibm.com/watsondevelopercloud)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> I want to see them do this for cocktails too!

In related news, I asked it to make me something with: beer, whiskey, vodka, wine, tequila,cognac, sherry,gin,triple sec,bitters, champagne, merlot, pinot noir

And I'm actually curious to try it!

<comment><USER7> There's a few cocktail recipes in the system if you know how to haze it well enough. Unfortunately, Watson tends to _really_ like bacon in cocktails as it can easily connect a multitude of flavors (sweet through carmelization, salty through the curing, meaty, etc). It's always a bit of a buzzkill for folks with dietary restrictions. Chapter 7 in the "Cognitive Cooking with Chef Watson" cookbook as a few recipes.

<comment><USER31> What is unfortunate about bacon?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> Really glad to see anthropomorphism like this becoming justifiable in everyday life. The move away from anthropocentrism will usher in a new era of understanding of our surroundings and fellow beings.

</comment><comment><USER33> Luckily the author seems like he isn't too afraid of trying new things. I know a lot of people that would refuse to eat any of those things.

<comment><USER34> It takes a bit of "free your mind" and sometimes a lot of water.

Source: IBMer who has had a good bit of Chef Watson food. Favorite: Austrian Chocolate Burrito.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> tldr: everything tastes great with lots of butter and salt.

seriously, an interesting article and I would love to work with watson in the kitchen, but it obviously sounds like watson leans on butter and salt too heavily to make dishes delicious.

<comment><USER36> It's a true point, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I tried watson too, but it told me I needed to hire 30 "IBM" chefs at 2000USD each per day, but instead of top chefs they sent a team direct from the subcontinent who were being paid 100USD each per day who had never ever cooked.

<comment><USER20> bahahaha. Too true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> "robot"

<comment><USER39> "wiseness"

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I volunteer to eat whatever chef watson cooks _for_ me.</comment>