Great technology should improve life, not distract from it - <AUTHOR> https://wellbeing.google/ <comment><USER2> My beef with this type of technology is threefold:

1) Most of it is just not very useful.

2) I like opinionated software built by obsessive people. This isn't that. You can smell it.

3) Most importantly, these AI/chatbot/nudge/assistant/automation tools have a critical flaw--they're not predictable. Trying to manage them is like keeping a bunch of state in your head at the same time and it hurts. Which device is going to remind me? When? When will it remind me exactly? An hour before? 5 minutes before? Are my notification preferences saved from my last device that I recently replaced? Are my notifications turned on? Do I have sound turned on or only badge icons?

I think software works best when it has a bounded utility, not popping into your life unexpectedly 24x7, but being lightweight, simple, useful, and predictable for the 30 seconds you need it and that's it.

<comment><USER3> I'll second that. A tool being simple and easy to reason about will beat one that tries to be fancy and do things for me any day.

Sadly, the tendency in tech people seems to be to make things as god-awful complicated as possible.

DOS: Install applications by copying a folder of files to your disk. They include their dependencies, and they can't really conflict. Can be "installed" to removable media.

Modern OSs: Install applications using a package manager that will automatically detect conflicts and grab dependencies for you, except when it screws up and hoses itself then it is time for a reinstall. Can only install applications from managed repositories. Can only install applications to hardcoded paths. Has no concept of installing applications to removable media so you can use them from any computer. Most don't even have the concept of downloading packages and their dependencies for installation on a different computer.

The modern tech solution to the problems caused by package managers? Containerization.

Sometimes I feel like it's a sport to see who can come up with the most convoluted pile of abstractions to solve the simplest problems.

<comment><USER4> .app on the Mac and .appx on windows implements self contained apps you can copy around as necessary. Appx is a bit newer on the windows side you see them called "universal", or "store apps" depending on the marketing era they were made in. On the mac .app is the universal way to distribute apps since Mac OS X took over (and before that on NextStep).

<comment><USER3> While App Bundles of NextStep/OSX fame are pretty much precisely the kind of simplicity I'm talking about, Appx on Windows is a clusterfuck. I've never seen them used outside of the package manager, you need crap like Move- AppxPackage to change their location, and from what I can tell you can't run them at all unless they're registered with the system.

Technically it is totally possible to make portable Windows applications and people do it all the time, but it isn't the way applications are typically built and that causes a bunch of problems. Linux has the same issue, really. Linux users will talk about how silly the registry is, but the file hierarchy full of hardcoded paths is pretty much the same damn thing. It is also technically possible to make portable Linux applications, it's just slightly harder than Windows due to a few factors caused by everyone always working within the distro+package manager paradigm. Where they do have some form of "portable" application, they've over-engineered the hell out of it and use containerization to make it happen. AppImage is ok, it's only slightly over- engineered, but sadly even that doesn't work everywhere because of how much of a mess Linux is.

<comment><USER4> Appx does have mini registries which makes them moveable at a technical level. The main restrictions come from registration with the sandbox - which I admit completely defeats that aspect of the design.

That's a common problem with Microsoft. One team makes an elegant design but another team doesn't fully understand it and thwarts the improvements made.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement. The fact that Google are finally acknowledging that they have a role to play to help their users use their technology in a healthy rather than unhealthy way is extremely promising.

Take for example, the feature that allows you to set a limit on the time you spend on YouTube per day and the fact that it works across both mobile and desktop. This would seem to be in conflict with all the efforts they have made up until now with the auto-play and related videos features to keep you on YouTube. Some how, someone at Google has finally recognised that perhaps the person who spends their entire day watching one video after another is actually not as valuable a user to them as the one that watches a healthier 1-2 hours per day is amazing to me.

Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one, I can see that the initial implementation doesn't quite go far enough. For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at midnight. Google's equivalent is that the screen simply goes greyscale. I would prefer that my phone simply turns off no questions asked (I know that you can schedule your phone to turn off at a particular time but it gives a 30 second warning which is too easy to dismiss - and when you do dismiss it, no more shut down attempts are made). Hopefully, Google will open enough access to these features to developers so that users can have the kind of control over their own technology that they need.

<comment><USER6> >I can't tell you how excited I am about this announcement.

You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their users?

> Edit: I should add that while my hope is that ultimately Google's > 'wellbeing' algorithm will align with my own internal one

Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?

> For example, I have a cronjob on my laptop that shuts it down every day at > midnight.

Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to shutdown your laptop? Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?

Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self- control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't coming to your home and turning it off for you? People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" mindset.

<comment><USER5> > You are excited that google is going to continue to monitor and spy on their > users?

No of course not. I'd rather they didn't spy on anyone.

> Why should everyone adhere to your "wellbeing"?

I don't want everyone to adhere to my definition of wellbeing. I am simply happy that Google are developing tools that I believe will help me personally. This has nothing to do with my expectations for everyone else.

> Are you incapable of just going to sleep? Do you really need a cronjob to > shutdown your laptop?

Yes.

> Why do you assume that your lack of self control projects to everyone else?

I don't.

> Instead of looking to google or tech companies, why don't you develop self- > control? Do you leave your TV on and then complain that broadcasters aren't > coming to your home and turning it off for you?

Believe me I've tried. I meditate, I see a therapist, I get help from my social group, I have hobbies and relationships to occupy me. That doesn't mean I am not also addicted technology.

> People like you scare me because you have a tyrannical mindset. The > "everyone must be like me or they should all be forced to be like me" > mindset.

This is such a bizarre conclusion to me. Firstly, I don't really care what Google provide for anyone but me. I think this is exciting because I think I will find it useful. I haven't said anything about how I think it will cure societies ills or anything regarding how it will affect anyone but myself. Secondly, you realise that up until now Google's algorithms are tuned very specifically to increase the time you spend using their products. They use all kinds of psychological tricks to bypass your normal self control. The best thing Google could do for me is to stop using these tricks but unfortunately, that would probably cost them a lot of money. Instead, here they are providing help for people like me who need it while not changing the experience of their services for the rest. I don't see why it's tyrannical to want the services I choose to use to have the features I want in them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is off-side. This is akin to a cigarette dealer being proud of the grotesqueries on the side of the cartons that warn you of their side-effects. Culture is in shambles and recovery from the magnificent impact of the Internet will need more than widgets, doo-dads, and yet more Google products.

I feel a sort of embarrassment on account of this marketing angle. The concept of digital wellbeing is a paradox. Yuck.

<comment><USER5> > The concept of digital wellbeing is a paradox.

No not really. Physical and mental wellbeing is linked to financial wellbeing. It makes sense for Google to want their customers to feel happier and healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.

<comment><USER8> Emphasis on _feel_ happier and healthier; it's enough for the perception to exist without the reality for Google's purposes.

<comment><USER9> You're making no sense. What does it mean to "feel happier" but not be happier?

<comment> V-eHGsd_ > What does it mean to "feel happier" but not be happier?

is this an honest question?

an alcoholic while drunk might "feel happier" while not being happier. a drug addict might "feel happier" while high, but not be happier.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand this, are you defining feelings of happiness based on some sort of average over time? If so, what is the period and how is it determined?

I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of an instant.

<comment> V-eHGsd_ > I think great great gp is using "feel[ing] happier" in the sense of > achieving higher baseline happiness, not maximizing the "happiness level" of > an instant.

I might be misreading who you mean by "great great gp", but I don't think scottie_m thinks that google is raising the happiness baseline. At least that's not how I interpret

> it's enough for the perception to exist without the reality for Google's > purposes.

Anyway, that's enough speculation about speculation for me for one day.

<comment><USER10> I was referring to my post's great great grandparent which was authored by spuz and contained the first use of the phrase whose meaning we're trying to nail down here:

> It makes sense for Google to want their customers to _feel happier_ and > healthier because they can be more productive, earn more money and > ultimately spend that money on products that Google advertises.

( _emphasis added_ )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Make sure to consume technology responsibly but make sure to make sure your tech is Google. ;)"

I agree with other posters saying this is akin to a cigarette manufacturer branding a "smoke responsibly" ad with their logo.

The problem isn't tech. The problem is the industry's rampant need to take over our lives with their own silos.

<comment><USER12> "Drink responsibly" kind of disclaimers are quite prevalent in Europe.

Wouldn't look out of place. Not that it isn't hypocritical but that's a start.

<comment><USER13> A start of what? Those same alcohol purveyors still make a majority of income from a minority who drink irresponsibly. It's like the army having, "killing is wrong" as a slogan, it's just mouth noises and a start to nothing.

<comment><USER12> It's an acknowledgement of the issue in itself.

Sure, I don't think it's actually effective but that paves the road to improvements, rather than flat out denial / don't ask don't tell.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is smart strategic positioning for Google because it feels like technology is creating dystopias.

Facebook depresses and alienates people, spreads disinformation and amplifies hate. Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians. Personal data gets stolen by criminals and hostile nations every day.

We're not going to unplug, and few people will roll their own alternatives.

So Google positions themselves as the safe, secure, trusted and healthy island in a sea of chaos, danger and distress.

<comment><USER14> >Uber and Tesla self-driving cars kill drivers and pedestrians

As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers? There are what, like 2 deaths attributable to self-driving cars so far? Some dystopia.

IMO the real dystopia is being unable to contextualize statistics and news reports, which have become a pervasive part of people's leisure consumption.

<comment><USER15> >As opposed to the hundreds a day dying from conventional drivers?

That does not justify putting half baked tech in a position where it could kill people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is fantastic, and Apple should follow suit. I hope this is just the beginning. These features are ones that I would use today:

* Disconnect at night. Wind Down gets your phone ready for bed by letting you schedule changes to the display. Activating Night Light reduces blue light and Grayscale gets rid of all color, reminding you to switch off for the night.

* Quiet your phone with a simple gesture. Easily turn on Do Not Disturb by flipping your phone face down.

* Manage your time spent in apps. The app timer lets you set limits for how much you use your apps. When you've reached that limit, the app icon is grayed out for the rest of the day.

<comment><USER5> My hope is that eventually they will build in app limits into an AI system that will learn what kind of prompts work on the user and which don't. For example, is "Hey, you used YouTube 3 hours, 5 minutes already today, would you like to take a break for a while?" more or less effective than "You used YouTube more than 99.9% other people today. Maybe time to take a break?". There is so much potential here for smart behaviour nudges here that actually work. Hopefully Apple and Google will compete in this area to be the most effective.

<comment><USER17> No, I hope they don't do this. I hope the concept of personal responsibility gets cleaned up a bit and served in a new, cool jacket which makes it the thing to do for those who want to be part of the new wave. Not just as a fad but for real, the idea that the individual is responsible for his or her approach to all those life & love & happiness-sucking lures out there on the wild, wild net.

Most people will be able to learn, some will not and they'll get hooked, just like most people learn to handle alcohol or marijuana or exercise or food or... well, all those other things which - when taken to extremes - can ruin lives.

The scenario of the AI-equipped device which tells you it is time for bed reminds me of the space ship in the WALL-E movie where humanoid slugs zipped around on powered chairs from entertainment to entertainment. This is not a future I want to be part of.

<comment><USER16> I suspect that the more we learn about self control, the more it will come to resemble what we know about intelligence. It's heritable environmentally, genetically, and it's a learned habit. It's not evenly distributed among the population.

So with that said, we already use technology to enhance our intelligence -- reading and writing, for example, or more recently things like wikipedia and google maps. Why not use intelligence to enhance our self control as well, if it leads to more fulfilling lives?

<comment><USER17> Because it won't be _self_ -control anymore if someone else - be it a sentient algorithm or a person - is at the controls. Mankind also used intelligence to create self-propelled carriages which most certainly enhance our mobility. That does not mean we need to give up on walking or cycling under our own power as that is proven to be disastrous for our well-being. I think - no, I am convinced - that the same goes for giving up control over (ab)use of technology to that same technology.

It might work for that part of the population which lacks sufficient self control just like insulin pumps work for that part of the population which lacks functional thyroid glands.

<comment><USER18> We haven't given up on walking or cycling but what about horseback riding? A tiny fraction of the population even interact with horses on an annual basis, let alone use them for anything but entertainment.

In this case, walking and cycling are like the basic functions of self discipline that almost everyone does like eating and going to the restroom. However, there are a significant number of people who need technological and human assistance with both of those things - whether it be because of age or genetics or poor life choices. All of those people are massively helped by technology.

Just because most people can walk on their own doesn't mean that we should force paraplegic to do so.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> This page is just a list of ads for Google's products; I was expecting something more like a discussion about the design intents behind good tech products, from a site like this.

</comment><comment><USER20> The biggest impact of this announcement will be in the consumer education about digital wellbeing and the pressure on Apple to compete on it.

The app dashboard is the only major new feature, which will likely be helpful for some but is only a small part of the equation, which Google acknowledges ("The first step toward digital wellbeing is often understanding more about how you interact with technology in the first place").

Siempo launcher ([http://www.getsiempo.com](http://www.getsiempo.com)) believes the design of the home screen is the root cause of the smartphone addiction problem. Stock and third party launchers have no protections against the persuasive techniques of engaging apps. Wind Down is a step in the right direction here.

</comment><comment><USER21> The aspect of this which feels tone-deaf is that Google recognizes that too much technology is a real problem, and their proposed solution is ... more technology. It feels like they've created a disease, and also the medicine for it.

YouTube has a "time to take a break?" feature now, but autoplay is still on by default. Android has fancy voice recognition so you can say "Turn on do not disturb mode", but "disturb me mode" is still the default. We wouldn't need these bandaids if the technology wasn't designed from the start to be addictive and distracting.

They're treating the symptoms, but it's not clear they even understand the root cause.

<comment><USER22> The problem isn't even with the amount of technology. It's that the technology is being designed to _abuse_ people. And then Google comes out and says that the solution to the problem of _shitty, abusive_ technology is _more shitty and abusive_ technology.

The solution should be technology focused on empowering users. But that doesn't make as much money as abusive tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Says Google, who's entire business model is based on stalking everyone and wasting their time with ads.

<comment><USER24> Google's business model is to charge more for ads because they target in a way to minimize waste.

<comment><USER25> And what exactly does minimizing waste entail? I'm sure it's great for their inventory I mean users

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Social media has become a social health problem and should be treated as such. YouTube still has the annoying auto play next set to on, and in my suggested viewing, I still see tones of shitty click-bait videos, for some reason.

They're creating distraction, not helping to solve it. They're driven by profit, why would they vaulanterly make they're products less addictive or vaunarable people?

Regadles, "Social Corporate Responsibility" has already proven itself to be a sham.

<comment><USER25> It's rapidly becoming a problem of nations, too. Democracy isn't designed with such powerful persuasion tools in mind.

A democratic system in today's world honestly just hands the keys of state to whoever controls these marketing nukes. Of course it's not nearly as bad now as it'll get later. We're about to be treated to a front-row viewing of just how easy it is to mess up every future election.

<comment><USER27> This has always been the case. No presidential candidate can win without millions of dollars in campaign 'contributions'.

Trump had a smaller budget than Hillary - so if anything, it proves the opposite of what you're claiming.

I understand that it's upsetting that the candidate you don't like is running the country - it is not helpful to throw reason out the window and cherry pick data that suit your emotions.

<comment><USER25> You're presuming a whole lot about my political views. We've seen for a long time that the size of a political campaign in dollar amounts doesn't really correlate with who wins. We're not talking about official campaigns here. We're not talking about Hillary vs. Trump, although I see that you're getting all offended because you mistakenly thought I was slighting your boy. Calm down, this has nothing to do with him.

This is about the future. Social media moguls will arguably have immense power to choose which candidates can win or even compete in elections by selectively limiting or pushing coverage and managing incredibly insular social circles of people online. Forget superPACs or whatever. People who control a system this powerful don't need to campaign through the old-timey official political advertising system, they just push their agenda on their own network with no rules whatsoever.

And it's not national. It's global. Tons of actors are seeing just how effective it can be, and you better believe that people will be grinding that axe like mad in elections from here on. It's going to be very difficult to even quantify how broad an effect it has. As these algorithms get even more effective than they already are, we're going to essentially see the end of legitimate elections. PAC advertising has absolutely nothing on this new tactic.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> > Great technology should improve life, not distract from it

(Almost) everyone agrees.

> Great technology should improve life, not distract from it

 _Google then goes on to offer something superficial._

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love? What about inventing something new? What about offering something that will actually save some of your time, by the way?

Nope. This is an ad about a stupid mobile phone app.

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

No negativity intended here. Sure, it could help to know you are wasting your time with apps—as if you didn't know that. Some apps are indeed useful and improving lives. But offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android comes off as rather patronizing.

> Learn more about your time spent in apps.

I can't help but picture this ad with the missing clock ticking icon or with the inevitable skeleton in a hoodie carrying a scythe...

<comment><USER5> I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or spending time with your family and people you love?" \- that is exactly how they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is going to allow you to do exactly that.

> offering people to waste their time tracking their own habits on Android > comes off as rather patronizing.

I agree it is pretty weird to offer a product that is so good that users are literally addicted to it, and then offering tools to help users limit that addiction. You might imagine it would be pretty stupid for a a slot machine designer to include prompts every 30 minutes asking you to stop playing.

However, the difference is that a person when prompted to stop watching YouTube might decide to spend their time and money building a website on Google's cloud platform, or even realise they need to buy that thing they just saw an advert for and hence the prompts might actually help Google's profits, not hurt them.

<comment><USER28> > I don't really understand your complaint. "What about going outside or > spending time with your family and people you love?" \- that is exactly how > they pitch this initiative. They want you to feel that their technology is > going to allow you to do exactly that.

Well maybe because the pitch is different from what they actually offer. In effect you are going to spend ages monitoring shiny graphs that will not tell you anything of substance, as opposed to free more time for you to do something more interesting.

For example, suppose said Google app shows that you have spent 3 hours watching Youtube that day. Well that's pretty bad for your productivity, right? Except if you were writing a novel or working on something while quietly listening to Vivaldi. You didn't even watch it—many Youtube "videos" are just sound recording, with static images or slideshows that you wouldn't bother to even look at.

Again, we can (almost) all agree that

> technology should improve life, not distract from it

This is a very good pitch, great copy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Can you substitute self control with shiny apps like this? I don't mean that there isn't anything that can help avoiding distractions, but (from my own experiences) I have doubts about the effectiveness of soft measures like this. Dismissing a notification about going to sleep or taking a break in the middle of a youtube-binge doesn't require much effort, and investigating what takes all your free time takes significant energy. A commenter mentioned a cron job that shuts down his/her laptop at midnight - this measure can be more effective, because it requires effort to continue what you were doing, not to stop it.

Not to mention the irony of using apps to make you spend less time using apps.

</comment><comment><USER30> I would be interested to see a (opt-in) social experiment by YouTube where they enforce a hard 1.5 hour limit of watching per day.

This would encourage users to ration their time, making the decision of which videos to watch far more conscious and deliberate. Given a small enough ration, users will demand higher quality videos from content creators (whether directly or indirectly). Just take a look at all the click-baity content-farms out there pumping out listicles and "you won't believe...!", not to mention the new phenomenon of "YouTube Face".

If I'm watching a video of yours and you don't cut to the chase, fluffing up the video length in hopes of more favorable ad-revenue treatment, it's going to waste my ration and I'll switch to someone else.

Economics teaches us that value comes from scarcity. Life is short, so you better spend your time wisely. Money is valuable because you don't have unlimited wealth -- instead each purchase is an opportunity cost. We should bake that concept into modern social media and content platforms.

It may play out well for YouTube if users in this experiment end up more happy and more engaged with the content they're watching, and therefore ads are more effective. I question whether ads are as effective as they could be when people are just droning on through hours and hours of clickbait and low- quality content-farm material.

In this age of information over-abundance, maybe artificial scarcity can help.

</comment><comment><USER31> the notifications aspect of this mimics a lot of the functionality of my Ultimate Alerts app: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.org.imsono...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.org.imsono.emailnew)

been out for 7 years! :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I think this is going in a good direction (in contrast with many commenters). I love the idea of an assistant - remind me about stuff, help me become more productive, etc. :-p

I see these apps becoming more and more useful as we build more and more distractions for ourselves - from KFC, to Social media apps, etc.

</comment><comment><USER33> All [#] technology improves life, but the problem is _cognitive load_. My electricity supply has almost zero cognitive load, and when i have to change a fuse, a actual freaking law made the electrician write which fuse controls which circuit (upstairs lights, downstairs mains)

But this only works for _commoditised, well understood tech_

For everything else - where we are still getting to grips with the right metaphor for the tool, the right approach is not configuration - it's API and openness.

All of the Facebook privacy issues go away if there's is an ecosystem of API providers and scripts to manage the problems - look at how eu banking is expecting the Payments directive 2 to go

[#] handwave on nuclear weapons technology etc

</comment><comment><USER34> Much of the distraction started with the mobile smart phone. Prior to 2007, although you could get addicted to desktop activities, most people out and about were not constantly glued to a shitty feature phone screen.

I wonder how many of the people claiming this is a PR stunt by Google will say the same thing when Apple introduces their version. Apple also benefits from addiction to their devices, even if they don't run the addictive mobile services (exception iMessage) that create the constant demand to use them.

I view showing people where their time is spent as the same as showing them calories consumed. Whether for PR or not, it is useful information to have.

</comment><comment><USER35> Well, I don't think there's a need to judge so fast. This is a first step. If we see more steps, we will be able to tell if they are going in the direction they say they want to go. I would just encourage them to do it right.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is the one part of google that i find outright creepy. It sounds like an authoritarian party leader defining how long you should watch videos, when to sleep etc. It's big brother stuff 'for your own good'.

It would be less dishonest if they just used health data to notify the user about things like missing sleep etc, and letting him choose what to do. The way it's presented as a digital nanny is kind of infantilizing.

</comment><comment><USER37> I didn't realize the URL was related to Android P (just above [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17024245](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17024245))

That release seems to add some late but useful ideas (launcher with useful action for the selection, really worthy in real life). The timers, the shush or fade out feature. Technically simple, but really valuable as a user IMO

</comment><comment><USER38> If you're just trying to see how much time you're spending on things, and you don't want to be locked to Google/Android, I highly recommend RescueTime. It tracks how long you are active (i.e. not idle) on apps or websites. You can see how much time you spend on Hacker News by month, week, day, or hour.

[https://www.rescuetime.com/](https://www.rescuetime.com/)

</comment><comment><USER39> I can't wait to open this app and be faced with shame as I stoop lower into my depression induced by attention-maximizing technology. I want to change, google throwing low key shade on me via specific details about my habits isn't going to change that. The problem isn't to what extent I am wasting my time – that much is obvious.

</comment><comment><USER40> I want this to not suck. I have my doubts since gmail is ridiculously buggy with automatic syncing turned off. Only notifying for 'urgent' notifications reeks of just not getting it. That's just to pick on one of many examples of how their services are meant to be disruptive and are defective otherwise.

</comment><comment><USER41> Oh look devil in disguise does it again. So unhelpful to people already in trouble. Is like throwing a medical kit at a somebody and let them figure out how to treat themselves. You may start by not selling people's lives.

</comment><comment><USER42> I went to the city the other day and it was surreal to see the amount of people glued to their phones and this is just 2018. I can't imagine when we will have sleek and compact AR glasses available.

<comment><USER36> Well, it's all about attention. People choose to divert their attention to a tablet because they don't want to attend the people around them. So, i don't think AR will make a difference here, it distracts you with the real world, when all you want is the digital one. The real world is finished already, it can't compete with the digital one in addictiveness.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> People that are excited by this are being way too naive here.

<comment><USER5> Please elaborate.

<comment><USER43> This is clearly not a good-faith effort for Google to have you stop wasting time. Youtube has been around for over a decade and they're just getting to this now? I think this is clearly a minimum amount of effort to prevent backlash, and it is against their interests to invest in technology that helps you use their technology responsibly.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Watched the key note yesterday and clearly two messages. AI and tech social responsibility.

Might be marketing or reality but clearly the messages.

</comment><comment><USER45> [https://youtu.be/BOksW_NabEk](https://youtu.be/BOksW_NabEk)

</comment><comment><USER46> This is great news.

Relatedly, does anyone know a way to block websites on android? It seems impossible without a rooted phone.

<comment><USER47> It depends on the type of blocking you want. Firefox + ublock origin is an easy way but mostly for adverts. Or if you want a bit more hardcore without root install blokada from [http://blokada.org](http://blokada.org) You'll have to "allow external APK sources" though from device settings, as it is not in the Play store. It routes your traffic through a local VPN, so works in all applications, and has black and white listing of hosts. By default it uses a blacklist that blocks advertising hosts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> haha, if I used all of these google apps I wouldn't have time to take a poop, much less eat, but then I wouldn't have to poop cuz I wouldn't have time to eat or have a life from all of the google apps I would be using trying to improve my life, if you do not see this open your eyes.

</comment><comment><USER48> Weirdly app stores taking a cut of every in app purchase incentives curators in the opposite direction

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm not sure, but somehow I don't trust them. All the slogans sound so cheesy, maybe that's why.

</comment><comment><USER50> Google is a corporation; why does it care about the well being of it's users?

Google is putting in place this claptrap, but yet hasn't done anything to curb it's illegal advertising to children.

I'm sorry, I don't trust google to have my well being in it's best interest. There must be some hidden angle.

<comment><USER5> There is another angle - healthier user's are more productive and spend more of their money on google's and its advertiser's products. Why would they NOT care about the well being of their users?

<comment><USER50> That feels like the public line. I understand google isn't the illuminati looking to dominate the world from behind the scenes, but I am highly skeptical about their motives behind this.

In the US, other than YouTube, google has very little in the way of dopamine as a service, like Facebook, Twitter, Snap, IG, etc. This feels like an attempt to get in on the technology addiction by feigning to be anti- addiction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Maybe it's a filter?

The people who get distracted too easy won't reproduce, so only the rest remains ;)

<comment><USER52> I'd like to see you put your data where your mouth is.

<comment><USER51> I did.

The only thing I found was about how broadband internet affects fertility.

And the effect was positive, because at least the better educated women could work from home now which makes having a career and kids simpler.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love the cognitive dissonance here. The same people attacking google for monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users are celebrating google for monitoring/storing private information and manipulating users.

They don't want "daddy google" but yet they want "daddy google" to tell them how much youtube to watch, what to search, when to go to bed, etc.

When google starts talking in a paternalistic manner, I worry. And my skeptical side just sees this as google's ploy to justify monitoring people. "Hey, we keep your private information and monitor you for your benefit.". Yeah right.

<comment><USER5> We're well past the point of Google storing private information and manipulating their users. If you're going to assume we have already lost those two battles, wouldn't you prefer your adversary to concede you a little bit of freedom to sleep better and feel healthier? The only alternative is to drop our technology all together, or develop a kind of self-control that most people have demonstrated they don't have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Well played, Google! Well played!

</comment><comment><USER54> Hmm. Maybe a good step would be not implementing policies which make people worse off:

 _Google Bans Bail Bond Ads, Invites Regulation_ [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020444](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17020444)</comment>


Square Enix Graphics Designer Manabu Daishima Has Died - <AUTHOR> http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/news/2016-08-08/square-enix-graphics-designer-manabu-daishima-passes-away/.105134 <comment><USER2> I was really saddened by this. A game involves a lot of people, and you never realize who was the actual person responsible for that tiny bit you love so much.

I'll quote here the related post in techraptor.net:

 _If you think about it, what are the chances that Daishima is the only designer on the Square team who has passed away? There may be tons of graphic designers out there who are practically anonymous, but help bring to life our favorite games. [...] We may not know much about every single developer who works on a game today, but their work is never in vain. For someone like Daishima, his contributions will always live on._

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hours of my life sunk into this man's creations (I believe every Secret of Mana player is in the same situation).

</comment><comment><USER3> He worked on Secret of Mana at age 22 and Chrono Trigger at age 24. What amazing feats to have under your belt at such a young age.

</comment><comment><USER4> His artwork inspired me to look into design/illustration as a kid. RIP

</comment><comment><USER5> Chrono Trigger was amazing. Thank you RIP.

</comment><comment><USER6> Amazing games, which I think will live on for a long time. Chrono trigger is my personal fav, and keeps getting remade. I'm playing the 3rd remake on my 3DS.

</comment><comment><USER7> He worked on games from my childhood, and from where I stand, this is the top most link on the front page.

My childhood needs to quit getting to the front page like this.</comment>


Danish Study: We Don't Know How Well Antidepressants Work' [pdf] - sahin-boydas https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/bmjopen/9/6/e024886.full.pdf <comment><AUTHOR> Antidepressants work but they don't work for everyone and they are probably too quickly prescribed too. There are people that have had no improvements with talk therapy but have changed with a simple pill. I think that the problem is that the filters that point to the people that really need them are faulty and people that really can't benefit from their use are being prescribed them.

I suspect that there are no incentives to tighten the filters since it would mean less sales therefore less money to the companies that sell them.</comment>


GitHub abandons 'master' and 'slave' terms to avoid row - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-53050955 <comment><USER2> I'm sure the people who made this decision at github will lay their heads on their luxury goose down pillows tonight thinking they've done their part to make the world just a _little_ bit better. In reality, they didn't actually help anyone, they've set the stage for coding/machine related headaches for years to come, and they've made themselves look like idiots.

On the other hand, fascinating to see the power of a modern angry mob in action.

<comment><USER3> There are 2 distinct angry mobs now. I haven't counted the responses, but it looks to me like the great majority of people who responded to this here on HN, reddit and on twitter are against it and/or are questioning the value of making such a costly change.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> "Slave" is not a term used by Git or Github, and its use of "master" is not related to the vocabulary of "master/slave". Not the first to say this, but the media seems to be getting this all wrong.

<comment><USER5> How does GitHub use "master"?

In particular, how is it different from what is called "mainline" in other VCS systems?

<comment><USER6> git uses "master" to mean the canonical, pristine version as in the usage of the term in art and photography:

      master
      5b: an original from which copies can be made
      especially : a master recording (such as a magnetic tape)

[https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/master](https://www.merriam- webster.com/dictionary/master)

You can branch from master the way you duplicate a master tape cassette, and the copy is not any worse or subordinate. In fact the whole point is that the branches are improvements.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In addition to being weird terminology, I have never found a case where "master/slave" is even used correctly. In almost every instance "primary/replica" would be a much better description for how the system actually behaves.

<comment><USER8> replica doesn't imply a power relationship. Master controls the slave , which is accurate

\- Master database tells the slaves what to write

\- Master clock tells slave the time

\- Master HDD controls the computer , so indirectly controls secondary -- though in this case slave HDD is more auxiliary rather than subordinate (this terminology isnt used anymore anyway)

In any case, master/slave terminology is historical and generally unproblematic, except apparently in the US, but so many words are problematic for someone somewhere that it's not wise to go down that road

<comment><USER9> In slavery, the only correct thing for a master to do is to abdicate power, and it is not wrong for a slave to reject that power relationship.

When people use it for hardware and software, there's a tacit understanding that the power relationship must be preserved.

These two are diametrically opposed.

<comment><USER10> > In slavery, the only correct thing for a master to do is to abdicate power, > and it is not wrong for a slave to reject that power relationship.

Once that happens, they are no longer master and slave, of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I hope GitHub abandons the term "git", because dumb people might not be comfortable with it.

<comment><USER12> It would satisfy 100% of the same audience asking for this change

<comment><USER13> Do you disagree that making black developers more comfortable is worth making changes?

<comment><USER14> Are black developers uncomfortable with the existing name?

<comment><USER13> Some are, yes.

As I said in another comment, merely "avoiding offending black developers" isn't reason alone. It's about what actions an individual and a company can take to explicitly work against the normalization of racism, while acknowledging the implicit bias against, and lack of input from, minority people during the creation of these technologies.

If you'd like an interesting example I heard from a POC photography friend - she wondered if default camera settings tended to dramatically underexpose when working with black people subjects, if more black people had been involved in early photographic technology development.

<comment><USER15> > Some are, yes.

Can you point to people telling their stories of how the common name for default Git branches affected them? All the people I've encountered advocating for changing "master" to something else in Git have been white (when there was any information to attempt categorizing people as PoC / not PoC).

> It's about what actions an individual and a company can take to explicitly > work against the normalization of racism

In reference to disposing of "master" in Git, I interpret this as "We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it."

Yes, this history of film with regard to different skin tones is interesting. I think even more black people were involved, the most common "or default" film still would have favored lighter skin because there could be no one film that would be good for all complexions. Maybe having multiple stocks to choose from would have been more prevalent.

<comment><USER13> > Can you point to people telling their stories of how the common name for > default Git branches affected them?

Not without doxxing friends in a kind of "Dance for the nice man, Timothy, so I can win an internet argument" way that doesn't taste very good to me. If there's blog posts out there, perhaps? I haven't seen any.

> "We must do something; this is something; therefore, we must do it."

I am with you that we should always be on guard against milquetoast corporate bullshit. I got an email from my Texas senator John Cornyn about how he supports Black Lives Matters, but of course there's nothing in his email and no statements from him condemning racist dogwhistles from his party leader. Hollow words and hollow actions allow people and companies to "cash in" on a movement at cost to the real activists.

That being said, this isn't just github doing this. Most companies in my personal sphere are taking similar steps. My gf's, mine, my old coworkers across the industry, here and in New York... it's a sort of solidarity movement at this point.

<comment><USER15> Thank you. While public blog posts or social media threads would be better, if you've personally seen or heard black friends or colleagues talking about being bothered by Git branches being called "master," at least that's something.

A statement of support not paired with more concrete action is not much but at minimum a clear statement establishes a standard they can be held to in the future, e.g. "you said you support Black Lives Matter, why aren't voting for Bill 1234?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I hope gitlab will not follow this trend which is purely PR (pun intented), (if Sytse is reading this thread) , it will give one more reason to love them. As I really do think it's purely short-term thinking.

As other may have said, regardless of where it comes from, most of people now use it with the idea it means "master copy".

Soon:

* git itself is an offensive term and is renamed

* git blame too and is renamed

* grammar nazi can't correct my broken English anymore (goodwin point <\- but how do Jewish people feel about this term ? )

* robot comes from the term robota which mean slaves, but it's okay because that's not English. If it's not offensive in the USA, that's fine i guess ?

And to finish, being of European background, master/slave for me is more linked to the greek cities period.

<comment><USER17> It is harder to use the "A: I am offended.B:So what?" today. The more vocal proponents are not above going after you personally if you exhibit wrongthink.

That said, the robot example may end up being interesting. How far can this particular language purication can be taken?

<comment><USER16> I totally agree with you, we're replacing democracy by "power to the loudest".

> How far can this particular language purication can be taken

I'm not anti-american (damn I have to put this kind of disclaimer), but it will go as far as these american-culture-centered people will think X or Y go against their view.

I think I understand more and more my Chinese friends who don't understand people who are trying to convince them "you're living in a dictatorship that's bad, see democracy is sooo good, why are you not listening to me", and they're just "I don't care, I don't understand why it's so much of an issue to you ?"

and yes for robot, the more I think about it, the more I don't understand why that's not the first word to have been reviewed, because the very idea, popular conception of a robot is the humanoid-metal-thing doing your chores, you can't do closer to the meaning of "slave" they don't want to hear about !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> English isn't my native language; I've always read the "master" in "master branch" as kind of a "high-quality reference copy", similiar to its use in audio; my native language has a very similar word that doesn't have a slavery connotation, so maybe that's why, but does this usage have a slavery connotation to a native speaker that I'm missing? Is that also true with "mastering a challenge", master sculptor, etc.?

<comment><USER19> To the best of my knowledge, you'd have to do a "4 degrees of separation" from git back to its ideological ancestors to find out that master was indeed referencing a "controller" with an attendant "slave" function.

But, also to the best of my knowledge, it's not used in that manner in git itself; it's used as you explained it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is mentioned elsewhere, but the connotation of master in the context of source control seems to be more along the lines of master used in terms of artifact creation. For example, where you have a master copy of a film or album. This is quite different from the definition of master in master/slave terms. This is definition 27 on dictionary.com.

       of or relating to a master from which copies are made: master film; master matrix; master record; master tape.

[https://www.dictionary.com/browse/master](https://www.dictionary.com/browse/master)

<comment><USER21> The master terminology in Git is very likely historically tied to the master/slave metaphor, originally from bitkeeper.

[https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2019-May/...](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2019-May/msg00066.html)

<comment><USER20> But a branch from master is not a slave by any definition. Whereas a branch is a copy of a master. To be clear, I'm not against them changing this. But it just seems odd to base it on the implication that they meant it as master/slave when it clearly isn't used that way by anyone.

<comment><USER21> I was responding to your very general claim that "the connotation of master in the context of source control..."

Here is the bitkeeper documentation[1] saying "we are then going to modify the file on both the master and slave repository and then merge the work."

Safe to say that's in the context of source control? If you meant to say "based on how git works..." then sure, that's a more accurate claim.

[https://github.com/bitkeeper- scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/H...](https://github.com/bitkeeper- scm/bitkeeper/blob/master/doc/HOWTO.ask#L223)

<comment><USER20> I agree that bitkeeper should change from master/slave if they so desire. I'm not aware of anyone using master/slave in terms of git or any other mainstream vcs. And github's specific use of master does not use slave. By changing it, they do seem to imply that they meant it in terms of master/slave though. Branches are not slaves to a master. In standard usage, a branch overwrites the master.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> master/slave can definitely go - plenty of alternative terms and worth replacing the dated jargon. primary/leader/writer - or something more specific to your domain - all work.

One piece I don't quite get - what does the branch name have to do with that? I always assumed "master" was from audio recording - i.e. a master record. Does that term also have dubious roots?

<comment><USER23> > I always assumed "master" was from audio recording - i.e. a master record.

You are correct (according to the guy who picked master as the name) there [https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577](https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577)

I think this whole thing has been blown out of context. Master/slave I get, that's a direct correlation to one guy telling everyone else what to do. But the master branch has no say on the other branches. There are no implied slaves or demands.

Going down this road implies any use of the word master in the negative

All that said, I hope they go with trunk. We talk about branches, pruning, and trees yet the "trunk" of the tree is the "master"

<comment><USER10> They would never use `trunk`, it resembles SVN too much. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Uhh, I am not going to get worked up over this. It is about as silly as whitelist and blacklist ( and who knows, maybe that will happen in my lifetime ).

I do find it interesting that the movement broadly associated with BLM appears to have corporate sponsorship. But the pendulum is swinging way too hard and too fast.

Examples such as these are already being used to discredit BLM. Very reminiscent of OWS btw.

<comment><USER24> They are looking to abandon whitelist/blacklist: [https://www.clockwork.com/news/creating-inclusive-naming- con...](https://www.clockwork.com/news/creating-inclusive-naming-conventions- in-technology/)

<comment><USER17> I am officially too old for this world. Thank you for sharing this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ohh c'mon seriously.

This is absurd and will break lots of docs

bye to --set-upstream origin master

<comment><USER26> Naming the default branch "master" is only a convention, not a requirement. Therefore, docs should not make any assumption about the name but give it as an example or <variable>. The deficiency here is clearly in the docs.

<comment><USER27> You said that: any example that uses "git rebase origin/master" would be broken.

<comment><USER13> Only if a project has used master as the main branch. We use "develop" for whatever reason and "master" (created by default by gitlab) hasn't updated since initial commit.

I agree that teams should be making these decisions on their own. It's just a branch name.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Dupe:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23518123](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23518123)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23500093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23500093)

</comment><comment><USER29> A few days ago I submitted a post[1] to an accepted pull request on the OpenZFS project to remove references to "remove references to slavery"[2].

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484466](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23484466) [2] [https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/10435](https://github.com/openzfs/zfs/pull/10435)

</comment><comment><USER30> What about SPI and I2C protocols? In any case I always refer to those devices as nodes...Master and nodes.

<comment><USER27> I use controller and device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is performative. Meanwhile there are literal slave markets in Libya and elsewhere in the world. Yet if you resist this feckless renaming side-show or call it out the mob proclaims you complicit.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Moderator - why was this post flagged? I used the article headline and it is an interesting move that will affect a lot of us (we will need to consider this during naming strategies for instance).

<comment><USER32> Moderators don't flag, users do. Presumably because this is a duplicate, it's been submitted at least twice already.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ahh - I did look but didn't see one when I submitted it. Fair enough :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Are there any thoughts on what technical change will actually happen? Will github change existing branches? If I make a new git repo with the defaults locally and push, will github and local have different branch names?

What git would do for this makes sense (git init -> branch main), but I'm not sure what Github functionality could change that'd make sense.

</comment><comment><USER34> Meh, just PLEASE don't call it "main". That's too generic. I like "trunk".

<comment><USER35> Trunk is offensive because it reminds me of people who hunt elephants for their trunks

<comment><USER16> it's offensive to people who have suffered with SVN !

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Anyone holding a Master's degree is now guilty of something.

</comment><comment><USER37> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23500093](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23500093)

</comment><comment><USER38> I don't want to throw a tire on the fire but I'm going to emit my $0.02 at this time:

If it's not a big deal, change it.

If it is a big deal, change it.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h You're conflating cost:reward. If it's a large cost and doesn't actually matter, maybe don't change it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I don't get the title "GitHub abandons 'master' and 'slave' terms to avoid row". What row has this avoided? It seems it has generated a huge one, avoided none.

<comment><USER40> You have to assume that something happened that lead to this. Perhaps that was the row.

<comment><USER41> Can I 'assume' that there was a 'row' everywhere that decided to change away from master-type terminology? I could also assume that there was an overwhelming conscensus since they were able to act so quickly on something like this. Both arguments would not be based on any actual fact though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Script to change it back [https://github.com/DaniruKun/rename- branch](https://github.com/DaniruKun/rename-branch)

<comment><USER43> There is talk on the originating GitHub issue to make a list of repos/authors that still have master as a branch name as a way to shame them into compliance.

<comment><USER27> Do you have a link?!?

<comment><USER43> [https://github.com/git-for- windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomm...](https://github.com/git-for- windows/git/issues/2674#issuecomment-643842448)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I suppose some other terminologoes will soon be questioned, I hope parent/child always remains

<comment><USER45> parent node and child node used to be father node and son node before it was renamed to be more gender neutral

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> A lot of people are missing the point here.

Regardless of why it's called master, the term bothers some people quite a bit and the cost to use a different term is trivial.

There is a small cost to updating existing projects, but for new projects, the cost to use a different term is zero. In return you make your workplace less hostile to some of your co-workers (or potential co-workers). This should be an easy decision.

<comment><USER47> Scrolling through the Twitter threads that spawned this debate, I'm presented with nothing but the faces of (almost exclusively) white liberal men.

It seems to me that, unless it comes from the mouth of a black person, opinions as to the offensiveness of "master" are worse than worthless.

<comment><USER46> Then maybe you should read the words of a black person on the topic:

> So it's like, you know what you're saying is not right. You're just not > trying.

[https://madamenoire.com/1167067/working-while-black-my- cowor...](https://madamenoire.com/1167067/working-while-black-my-coworker- used-a-master-slave-analogy/)

<comment><USER20> This link shows the problem of using master/slave. I think everyone in this thread is ok with moving away from using those terms. The problem is that the usage of master in terms of git, and github in particular, has nothing to do with master/slave. The word slave isn't even used in standard git or github parlance.

What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave, which is what people are disagreeing with. In the recording industry, everyone uses the term master to denote the production copy of combined tracks. The tracks that make up a master are not slaves. In the same way that branches that make up a master vcs are not slaves.

In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment. And branches are where you work on features. When branches are complete they merge back into master. How does this relate in any way to a master/slave definition? Based on the logic used, I would expect record studios to be moving away from using the word master as well.

<comment><USER46> > What you're saying is that all uses of the word master implies master/slave,

What it implies depends entirely on reader perspective. What I'm suggesting is that with at little or often zero cost we can avoid this whole issue and make some users more comfortable working with us.

I could understand the argument if there was some kind of big cost to changing. The company I work with uses the master repo and I'm not advocating internally to change it right now. But for future, I'll use main. Because there is zero reason not to.

> In git parlance, master is where your builds come from for deployment.

As has been pointed out multiple times on this topic, use of the term in git did not come from the record industry. Git almost certainly uses the term master because Linux kernel developers used Bitkeeper prior to git. And Bitkeeper absolutely used the terminology master/ slave.

[https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2019-May/...](https://mail.gnome.org/archives/desktop-devel- list/2019-May/msg00066.html)

<comment><USER20> Just to make you aware, the actual author of this in git does not say the same thing. While he wishes he had chosen better names ([https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577](https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577)), he did not mean master in terms of master/slave ([https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441](https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1272280760280637441)).

<comment><USER46> He also very clearly agrees that master is a dated term which should be left behind.

> I have wished many times I would have named them "main" (and "upstream") > instead. > Glad it's happenning

[https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20](https://twitter.com/xpasky/status/1271477451756056577?s=20)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> For all the people who don't like this change, here's an analogy. Try thinking of it like you're making your bed. Admiral William H. McRaven has a terrific speech (link: [https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/make-your-bed-by- admir...](https://jamesclear.com/great-speeches/make-your-bed-by-admiral- william-h-mcraven) ) about making your bed, with some excellent quotes:

"Making your bed will also reinforce the fact that little things in life matter. If you can't do the little things right, you will never do the big things right."

"If you want to change the world, start off by making your bed."

No one really thinks that renaming "master" branches is going to save the world, or really, do much of anything. I'm going to do it because it's a little thing that takes less than a day. After that I'll move on to something else.

<comment><USER20> The problem here is that the implication that all uses of the word "master" are equivalent to the combination "master/slave". So tomorrow you will not be able to make your bed in your "master" bedroom. And the day after that you won't be able to display your "master" degree on the wall. And avoid restaurants with "master" chefs.

<comment><USER49> I've already heard people I know talking about avoiding the use of the term Master Bedroom.</comment></comment></comment>


SSL Decoder - <AUTHOR> https://www.tls.so/

<comment><USER2> Nothing happens? Javascript console shows > Uncaught InvalidStateError: Failed to execute 'setRequestHeader' on 'XMLHttpRequest': The object's state must be OPENED</comment>


Objax, a new high-level JAX API with a PyTorch-like interface - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/google/objax <comment><USER2> OK, so why this and not Pytorch?

<comment><AUTHOR> see this thread explaining why Objax: [https://mobile.twitter.com/D_Berthelot_ML/status/12992751458...](https://mobile.twitter.com/D_Berthelot_ML/status/1299275145886875650)

<comment><USER2> Skimmed it, but still not convinced. Not seeing any killer features that would motivate me to switch from Pytorch. Maybe some advanced autograd machinery, but that's all provided by Jax, and Jax already has half a dozen of higher level NN frontends. I'm afraid this one is DOA.

<comment><USER3> If you're not interested in Jax, you're not going to be interested in Objax. Objax is more for people who are interested in the features of Jax, but find it awkward to write code in it and prefer the API of PyTorch.

I think the features of Jax are quite appealing - there's a reason PyTorch has been trying quite hard to copy its features (vmap, forward mode autodifferentiation, numpy compatibility).

<comment><USER2> I'm obviously interested in Jax (otherwise why would I bother commenting on this post?), but it's clearly not mature enough yet for regular DL practitioners. For cutting edge research, especially done at Google, sure. This is fine, it will get better, and I can see myself switching to it in the future. But today, looking at Jax based NN libraries, it's a mess. Stax, Trax, Flax, Haiku, now Objax. It's like the TF mess all over again: old style core TF, Keras, TensorPack, eager mode, estimators, ugh... From what I can see, Flax is the leader (8 months old, 800 commits, last commit is yesterday, similar enough to Pytorch to make the switch easy). So if I wanted to switch to Jax today from Pytorch, why would I choose newborn Objax over Flax? I looked at the documentation and I have no idea how it is more "object oriented" than Flax, or why would I care. The main dev being so bad at marketing his creation leads me to believe it's DOA.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


3D printing with cellulose - <AUTHOR> http://news.mit.edu/2017/3-d-printing-cellulose-0303 <comment><USER2> This claim is pretty incredible:

"After we 3-D print, we restore the hydrogen bonding network through a sodium hydroxide treatment," Pattinson says. "We find that the strength and toughness of the parts we get … are greater than many commonly used materials" for 3-D printing, including acrylonitrile butadiene styrene (ABS) and polylactic acid (PLA).

<comment><USER3> Maybe a bit too incredible.

How do thick-walled materials have their hydrogen bonds restored? This process seems rather more involved than regular 3D printing.

<comment><USER4> Sounds like they soak the print in a NaOH solution. I imagine if the material is porous enough to evaporate acetone, it's also porous enough to absorb a NaOH solution.

<comment><USER5> Just in case someone else gets bogged down in chemistry, NaOH is better known as lye or caustic soda.

<comment><USER4> They called it Sodium Hydroxide in the article as well. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If you scale it up you could 3d print houses from Cellulose. Since 3d printing is inexpensive and the material abundant you can 3d print an outer isolation layer of a honey comb structure, bio inspired from bees. If the outer isolation layer becomes degraded from years of contact with wind and rain you can simply print a new one.

<comment><USER7> Is 3d printing really the most efficient way to make such a structure? Could you not pack straws together and then squish them? Could you not make a corrugated sheets like cardboard?

<comment><USER8> Mass 3D printing an item that can already be manufactured through e.g. injection moulding or assembling standardised parts is never going to be efficient at scale. That's not what it's for. Where 3D printing excels is at producing one-offs or short runs, immediate production (no time consuming buildout phase manufacturing moulds and setting up production lines), on-site or mobile manufacturing, or making designs that are not amenable to traditional manufacturing processes such as objects with complex geometries or internal voids.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is fantastic. If the properties and aesthetics are good, I can see a lot of demand driving the filament manufacturers to adopt this material. Paste- like extruders for open-source machines exist on the market today for chocolate and clay.

Only concern for me is it sounds like post-processing is required.

<comment><USER10> From the article:

> As the acetone quickly evaporates, the cellulose acetate solidifies in > place. A subsequent _optional_ treatment replaces the acetate groups and > increases the strength of the printed parts.

<comment><USER5> Effectively, dipping the thing in lye.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've been researching thermoforming polymer materials for the last few weeks, and there is a well established category of materials known as PLA.

 _Polylactides (PLA) or polylactic acids represent a relatively new group of thermoplastics for packaging applications obtained from renewable resources. In extensive tests the functional and thermoforming properties of PLA are compared with those of other polymers. They are a biodegradable /compostable polyester manufactured from plant based resources. At 60°C and relative air humidity of 80% PLA will degrade completely after 60 days.

PLA's properties make it suitable for various thermoforming applications, particularly cups for cold bevarages and trays for fruit and vegetables. To produce high-molecular PLA, a process is used that is sustainable, solvent- free, and environmentally friendly.

PLA can be obtained from cassava, corn, maize, sugar beet, sugar cane, wheat, or agricultural byproducts containing natural plant sugars.

Although PLA has been known for more than a century, it has only been of commercial interest in recent years, in light of its biodegradability.

While PLA is one of the most promising bio-basedplastics, its main disadvantages are high price and unsatisfactory mechanical properties._

My understanding is that thermoforming is however only really utilized for sheet-based PLA material with essentially non-convex configurations. Also, it tends to degrade over 60 degrees celsius.

I wonder how this process and its output differs step-wise, limitation wise, and in terms of resulting material's mechanical properties. From the sounds of it, it's essentially a layering process and too early to judge limitations, though a small temperature range could perhaps be expected.

<comment><USER12> maybe I'm missing something, but PLA is just 3d printer filament. There's only two plastics commonly used for extruder-style 3d printers, and they're ABS and PLA.

<comment><USER13> This is a bit out of date. Nylon, PETG, TPE/TPU and polycarbonate are quite common for home 3D printing now as well as a number of hybrid materials.

<comment><USER14> Polypropylene is coming in too. PVA for water-soluble (mostly as support material).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Looks like the website is under heavy load.

Here's a mirror: [https://archive.fo/eoohY](https://archive.fo/eoohY)

</comment><comment><USER16> Sounds promising for both 3D printing applications and the need for non- petroleum based plastic-like materials.

</comment><comment><USER17> Just a funny coincidence but, did you see "TreeMaker" origami software just below this thread? :-)

</comment><comment><USER18> For the last few months I was wondering if there were a way to implement logic in cellulose ..

<comment><USER19> What application do you have in mind?

Cellulose absent water is extremely inert, so inert that we use it as long term information storage, it is also an extremely good insulator.

You'd be more likely looking at using the cellulose as a non-conducting carrier than as part of the logic itself.

<comment><USER20> Are there an any advantages to using hydrodynamic vs. electrodynamic forces for carrying signals? Hollow cellulose nanotube structures could be printed to carry fluid to different areas of a three dimensional circuit.

Would you be able to sacrifice some of the raw "speed" you gain from using electrical current to carry the signals in a traditional PCB if it meant you could work with significantly reduced heat? Or is my rudimentary understanding of the physics here betraying me? Friction is going to exist, so it's quite possible that these types of organic fluid logic gates would be useful for other reasons, but not in the ways I've imagined.

Without some(all?) of the electromagnetic changes associated with the continued reduction of die size for traditional electrical circuits, can you build significantly denser (and eventually more powerful) mechanical circuits with fluid-filled cellulose nanotubes?

<comment><USER19> It's prone to rotting in the presence of fluid, if you make it wet I think that would be a quick and messy ending.

<comment><USER20> Good point. Would an oil-based transport fluid mitigate that to some degree, or is the organic nature of cellulose going to be a liability to hurdle to making a durable component regardless of the fluid used?

<comment><USER19> The problems are size and shape change as it saturates and losing structural integrity (soggy...). Capacitors are a nice example, they're always wrapped in something else both to contain the fluid and to keep things in one place.

Any kind of acidity would also be taboo. It would be very hard I think to make something like this but I'm more than willing to admit that none of these are 'dealbreakers'. That's why I asked about the application, after all, if that's the only way to do it and the application is valuable enough then maybe there is a reason to invest a large amount of $ for R&D.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> so it's practically paper?

<comment><USER22> No, it's similar to hard plastic.

<comment><USER21> I thought it was plant based

<comment><USER23> Cellulose acetate was one of the first materials used for many of the things we use petroleum based plastics for now. Early Lego were cellulose acetate.

It's still used for lots of things.

<comment><USER24> Cellulose is a very useful chemical. It was generally replaced by petrochemical synthetic polymers for many of its original applications because the latter may be more stable at higher temperatures, under UV light, in contact with certain common chemicals (like water), etc. And most of the petro-plastics are cheaper to manufacture.

Cellulosic thermoplastics often appear in products where you don't want the plastic component to last forever, particularly textile fibers.

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

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

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

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

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

This 3D printing application seems similar to processes used to produce rayon and cellophane, but instead of producing the more universally useful fiber and sheet forms as a commodity, it forms an end-product directly and then stabilizes it chemically.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


I'm a Lawyer. Why Should I Care About Typography? - <AUTHOR> http://www.thejuryexpert.com/2011/09/im-a-lawyer-why-should-i-care-about-typography/

<comment><USER2> Typography for Lawyers:

<http://www.typographyforlawyers.com/>

Provides excellent advice on Typography in general</comment>


Chinese automaker to sell cars at Wal-Mart, Costco? - <AUTHOR> http://www.leftlanenews.com/chinese-automaker-to-sell-cars-at-wal-mart-costco.html

<comment><USER2> This would be welcomed by those who just want cheap, reliable transportation. Those who see their cars as status symbols and reflections of their own unique personality can continue to pay for the traditional dealer experience.</comment>