New Creative Tools on Instagram - <AUTHOR> http://blog.instagram.com/post/87703266532/new-creative-tools

<comment><USER2> It's 2014 and still Instagram image resolution is 640px by 640px

<comment><USER3> 640px is the exact width of the iPhone 5's screen.

While you may want larger images, the fact is that Instagram has a large number of users in foreign markets and they're trying to expand their presence there. Increased resolution means larger resource requirements, and ultimately, a slower/reduced experience for the users they're trying to reach.

To be honest, a community like 500px might be more along the lines of what you're looking for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Looks like Instagram is trying to be more like VSCO?

<comment><USER5> that's exactly what i thougth when i saw this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'd much rather they allowed you to automatically pad non-square images so that they can be uploaded without cropping. All of my friends on instagram shoot with fancy DSLRs, add padding in photoshop, and then upload the resulting image from their phone. They're a great product already because it's so simple, but if everyone that I _want_ to follow on instagram (great photographers) already take these actions, why not make it easier for them?

<comment><USER3> Why not use a community that is geared for professionals like 500px?

<comment><USER7> Because everyone's on Instagram

<comment><USER3> True. And there _might_ be a reason for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's interesting that they are adding all of these features for improving the appearance of an image but there's still no way to zoom in on an image in the app.

</comment><comment><USER9> They could inspire creativity by letting me upload photos from my desktop...

</comment><comment><USER10> Feeling that ios 8 heat, huh?

</comment><comment><USER11> No kitschy launch video?</comment>


Economists take aim at wealth inequality - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/04/business/economy/economists-take-aim-at-wealth-inequality.html <comment><USER2> Society is about 6-meals away from a riot. I think once people have secured food, shelter, utilities and no fear of losing any of the above a society becomes quite stable and more egalitarian towards the rich and other classes.</comment>


Microsoft Face API Guesses age, matches faces and more - tuna-piano http://www.projectoxford.ai/demo/face

<comment><AUTHOR> Impressively nasty scroll hijacking on that page.</comment>


This is a Facebook-free Zone - <AUTHOR> http://scripting.com/stories/2011/12/24/facebookfreeZone.html

<comment><USER2> I have never got myself into the facebook train, and I haven't lost much.

But what it's starting to annoy me are the widgets. While I'm aware it's a very nice source of traffic, this is getting out of hand and the reason is simple: the iframes.

iframes are one of the slowest elements in HTML (in my personal experience) and while having one or two loading into your site, is not really a bad thing, it really adds up when you load 10 or more Just check Seth Godin's main page [<http://sethgodin.typepad.com/>], try to scroll down and look how it blocks your browser for a few seconds. I think that's a very bad experience.

When I started using Adblock, the web started loading a LOT faster without all the ads (loaded with an iframe). And now, I'm starting to block these widgets on a site basis (starting with Seth's blog, via adblock), but I'm sure pretty soon I'll have to block them all.

I think this is one of the main reasons Google Reader sucks so much: the Plus One button. It has no keyboard shortcut, it's slow to load, it freezes up the browser-- I had to create a Greasemonkey script to block them all and now the experience is a little bit better. Let me know if you want me to upload this GM user script.

What I'm trying to say is that if you're going to build a professional website/webapp in 2012, you'll have to consider mobile. And if it freezes my browser for a few seconds, imagine what would it be for my smartphone browser. I think here's a good idea for a startup: widgets without all the lag (and privacy concerns).

<comment> mike-cardwell "Just check Seth Godin's main page"

Loads and runs lightning fast for me. Of course, I'm using RequestPolicy, so I don't have to load all of the third party crap that he includes from addme.com, google.com, sethgodin.com, facebook.com, quantserve.com, youtube.com, feedburner.com and scorecardresearch.com

</comment></comment><comment> mike-cardwell How about you make it a Disqus free zone too?

<comment><USER3> What's wrong with Disqus?

<comment><USER4> One disadvantage is since the comments are inserted with Javascript, certain robots have a hard time parsing them.

<comment><USER5> Other disadvantages:

You're handing over control of your user base to a third party. Some people don't like Disqus tracking them all over the web.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> when i try to like your post, it asks me whether I would like to share it on facebook or twitter.

<comment><USER7> To fix this, the author of that website can go to the settings tab of his Disqus account and uncheck "Enable Like Buttons"

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the tip. I just turned off the Like buttons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> <http://teamgoblin.net/fb/>

</comment><comment><USER9> just mashed this together in ps: <http://i.imgur.com/nW7ut.png> somebody probably can improve a bit on shading and proportions - but you get the idea...

<comment><USER10> White on white doesn't look good. I'd suggest a red symbol instead. It also needs some aliasing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why is this on HN?

</comment><comment><USER12> Up next: red-octothorpe-free zones.

<comment><USER13> I think its a great way to show people that they can link to a part of your web page.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Review my startup: JobKaster Google Maps for Jobs - <AUTHOR> Hey guys / gals, after validating the idea of using the Google Maps API to search for jobs and a successful beta, we've relaunched - implementing much of the feedback and comments from both the HN and Reddit communities.  Plus, we've got an all new design which I couldn't be more excited about!
Would love to get some feedback from you guys.  What do you love?  What do you hate?  Any WTF's?
Currently we're focused on service type jobs and food service as these types of jobs are most dependent on location, but we'll branch out soon.
Thanks for your support!
The site can be found here: www.jobkaster.com
Regards,
Paul Chittenden Co-Founder JobKaster
firstname.lastname@example.com <comment><USER2> From a technical perspective its beautiful. but what's makes you different from the other 100,000 job sites? they all have mapping and you can save a search and get alerts and drop them on a map... So I guess I don't get it...

I currently work for a big job board and have been working in the JB online market for 10 years.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the feedback and great question!

Why build another job board really? Job boards are dying (so is SEO, right!?) and with the advent of LinkedIn, I can easily find the recruiters or hiring managers in the companies I want to work.

But people will always need a way to find open positions. That's what job boards are all about.

The landscape may be changing, but there is still opportunities to do things better.

JobKaster was built because the other 100K job boards couldn't do what we wanted them to - a simple local job search.

Traditional job boards use a zip code based search using distance from the zip code. It seems that this would work, but when I was searching and ended up frustrated, the results were returning up jobs 15 miles out of my specified range.

I think the difference here is the fact that location becomes the most important aspect of the job search where on the other job boards, it is simply another filter.

If you work for one of the big job boards, you probably have several niche boards under your umbrella as well. Each of those serve a specific niche which is the same thing we are trying to do.

We want to help people find jobs when location is paramount. I hated my commute, and I just wanted to find something closer to home. My Co-Founder, wanted to find a job close to the beach. But what about others? What about the single mom that wants to be close to her child's day care? What about the guys and gals taking public transportation to work? What about students trying to find something close to campus? I could name 100's of examples, and I think JobKaster fits that niche quite well.

I would love to talk about this more in depth, especially with someone who has so much experience in job boards. Feel free to shoot me an email at email@example.com or we can continue the discussion here if you like.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Quite frankly this falls under the great category of "why didn't I think of that". I like this idea and the website is beautiful. Please make with the mobile app that automatically provides directions to the job you applied for on the website. Well done you guys.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We're still a while away from the mobile app, but great idea!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is pretty awesome,I'm not even sure you need to branch out any time soon. You guys could overlay the map with transportation options at some point in the future?

<comment><AUTHOR> We're going to prove ourselves in this market in the short run, but long term we'd like to branch our into other job markets. We definitely want to add in the transportation options soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> have you looked at mapbox.com? they make beautiful openstreetmap based maps -- which you can really use in powerful ways because you have access to the raw data. It will definitely pay off in the long run if you're looking to build a map-based app.

PS: not affiliated with mapbox in any way.

<comment><AUTHOR> We've looked at Mapbox, but decided to go with Google Maps for now. There are some cool things we can do with Google Maps, but it's still an option for the future depending on the direction we decide to go. Thanks for the feedback!</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the must-haves for a new startup office? - <AUTHOR>

My 2 co-founders & I are setting up a new office space for ourselves which is going to be our non-stop work centre for the next few months.
We are planning on renting a 3 bedroom apartment and using 1 bedroom + common area as our office. The rest will be used to crash in occasionally and sometimes for extended periods of time by one of us.
We want to set up a really productive environment and focus on a fun culture at the same time. All feedback is welcome! <comment><USER2> You need 3 chairs, 3 tables, 3 computers and internet connection. That's all you must have:-)

Might be nice to have a coffee machine also...

<comment><USER3> While not a "must-have", I would also add something for storage and preparation for simple comfort foods. This might be as simple as plates and utensils or as complex as a small fridge, microwave and hotplate/small stove. While going on walks is awesome, having to always leave the office to satisfy hunger/thirst can be a productivity killer, especially if you don't have a corner store and quick eats right nearby.

<comment><AUTHOR> Couldn't agree more.

We got a 'bar fridge' to store stuff we are hoping to score from sympathetic friends/family + any deliveries. Also, planning on putting up a 'pantry budget' for everything from ramen to soda to instant_meals etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> So far we have

3 chairs 3 desks (regular or standing) 3 extra monitors (all on laptops) 1 printer/scanner/photocopy all-in-one 1 large tv screen for dashboard/stats 1 whiteboard 1 full size fridge 1 couch Broadband connection + wifi router Tons of ramen/chips/soda/juices/Tea/Coffee/Tea Pot/Cookies Music Cleaning service Clean bathrooms Insurance (renters) Quiet/Do Not Disturb sign for each desk A sound policy for meetings & phone calls Quiet fans Plants

</comment><comment><USER4> White boards for collaborative brain storming and planning. Basic I know, but could be helpful.

<comment><AUTHOR> Whiteboard +1</comment></comment>


Python Application Dependency Management in 2018 - <AUTHOR> https://hynek.me/articles/python-app-deps-2018/ <comment><USER2> Excellent article. I think `poetry` is future as it seems to take fresh approach to Python packaging hell.

However, I am currently still sticking to pipenv as it seems to be closer to pip/venv and lot easier to migrate to. I also found UX quite nice. However, I keep hitting into bugs from time to time.</comment>


Meet the Firehose Seven Thousand Times Bigger Than Twitter's - <AUTHOR> http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/meet_the_firehose_seven_thousand_times_bigger_than.php# <comment><USER3> 1000 tweets/second seems quite low. IIRC, when I was still doing financial software (2007), the markets threw off about 50 GB/day, and a given trade was about 80 bytes. That's perhaps 600 million trades per day, or an order of magnitude higher than Twitter. And at the time, stock market volume had quadrupled over the last two years or so, so it's probably much higher than that.

I wonder how much, say, FaceBook's newsfeed volume is. Or how much data Walmart or Fedex or Safeway process from their point-of-sale systems.

<comment><USER4> > Or how much data Walmart or Fedex or Safeway process from their point-of- > sale systems.

Walmart is in its own class. There was a rumor a while back that they were trying to correlate their video feeds (of the POS/checkout) with their transaction database. That would mean matching video of customers with their transactions. All of them.

<comment><USER5> What would you want to get out of that data? (I can see that it's useful, I just want to hear what you can imagine.)

<comment><USER4> In general, an isolated video is not interesting. It becomes more interesting and potentially scary once you have a digital, searchable, analyzable history of video customer transactions.

Reduce leakage/theft:

If a cashier has been already flagged and the customer matches up in the network of cashier's friends (Facebook?), possibly in conjunction with another theft deterrent system, be able for managers to watch in real time a potential leakage event (where they don't scan certain items).

Hyper-targeted marketing:

(New) wedding ring detected. Commence deluge of in-kind marketing partnerships with Home Depot, maybe even Crate & Barrel.

Customer over the past three months has been showing signs of possible pregnancy relative to their baseline body mass index. Somehow, non creepily, market to them via 3rd party mailing lists who had no idea how you learned she was expecting or more subtly by changing the default landing homepage of walmart.com to reflect more future mother when her cookie is detected.

Kids. If the kids seem hyperactive in the overhead view, email coupons for toys that appeal to ADD-type kids.

Over the last year of transactions, customer's head has been exhibiting signs of male pattern baldness. Send them targeted coupons for hats to see if they think its something they need to cover up.

RFID:

If RFID ever really enters the picture, via Walmart customer RFID cards - <USER2> you can get into real dystopian scenarios of following someone through the entire store.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Notegoo – Remember your life by microblogging a personal journal - <AUTHOR> http://notegoo.com <comment><AUTHOR> I created this initially for myself to keep up with things around the house, such as when was the last time I cleaned the A/C filter, who borrowed stuff from me and did they bring it back, etc. I'm also using it to keep track of my blood pressure on a daily basis so I can show a chart to my doctor. If you have a moment, try it out and please provide feedback. Thanks.</comment>


Jeremy, I think you'll wan't this job - <AUTHOR> https://jeremyaboyd.com/post/jeremy-i-think-you-ll-wan-t-this-job- <comment><USER2> This is so relateable. I generally reply to all recruiters from NY/NJ and tell them I don't ever want to talk to them. I have no desire for hedge fund backed companies. Another thing that always get me is when so company wants x number of years experience with y technology, but x is larger than the total time since technology was available. Worst thing I had a recruiter do to me was send me an email, and instead of BCCing all the candidates they CC'd them thus disclosing all of their recruitment efforts. Also they're emails.</comment>


Fun with Snapchat's Gender Swapping Filter - <AUTHOR> https://blog.evjang.com/2019/05/fun-with-snapchats-gender-swapping.html <comment><USER2> > I have a friend who does drag. It's a lot of work! I'm excited for > technology like this, because it will make it easier for makeup & drag > artists to experiment with new ideas and identities cheaply and quickly.

Similarly, I'm transgender and use those applications to come up with new ideas on how to make little changes to my appearance to feminize my features. Sometimes coming up with makeup ideas is hard since I lack in experience and equipment. I don't want to purchase a bunch products I'll end up never using. Technologies like this allows me to quickly test makeup ideas. For example, I have green eyes so they automatically add purple eye-shadow to make my eyes look brighter. I've since incorporated this color in my daily makeup. I've noticed that they overdraw the lipstick to make the lips look fuller, so I also do that when I want a more polished look.

However, this is a double edged sword.

Those filters raise expectation on what you might look like after a gender transition.

I've seen a lot of angry and disappointed people because of that. Those applications change a lot about your face, sometimes in subtle ways you won't notice. The curve of the jaw is slightly different, the eyes are a bit farther apart, your skull is more round, etc. Changes that are pretty much impossible even with facial feminization surgeries.

People strive to reach that "perfection" and end up being stuck in limbo, unable to reach it so unable to free themselves from their gender dysphoria. It's easy to spiral down from there.

<comment><USER3> >Similarly, I'm transgender and use those applications to come up with new ideas on how to make little changes to my appearance to feminize my features.

Do you ever feel like these applications are re-enforcing physical gender stereotypes? Like "you selected female, here is what females should look like." If gender is a social construct, tech like this is clearly maintaining that construct, yet nobody seems to have a problem with it.

<comment><USER4> There's nothing inherently wrong with maintaining the construct of gender, if it has been defanged to do no harm to anybody.

If "gender" just means that you put on a dress and makeup and now you're "a girl", or you put on a suit and cut your hair and now you're "a dude", then "gender" isn't really anything to be afraid of, because _anyone_ can put on or take off a gender any time they like, and it's no longer an inherent property of a person. It's just a word describing voluntary roles that anyone can assume at any time—archetypal character profiles that one can choose to "wear" to indicate that people should identify them with that archetype (like wearing a mask in an opera; or "disneybounding.")

We're not there yet, mind you, but that's the direction the LGBTQ movement has been trying to push things for decades now: making it less about "am I female?" and more about e.g. "am I a dainty princess?" where anyone who wants to play the role of "a dainty princess" can do so; and anyone who wants to opt out of that role can do that, too, and nobody in particular is expected to take that role upon themselves.

But if-and-when we have all that, then there would be nothing wrong with wanting to conform to the stereotype of "a dainty princess", or to any other gender-based stereotype; and there wouldn't even be anything wrong with gatekeeping such roles, insisting that "a dainty princess" has a particular look and behavior, being picky about who does or doesn't fit the mold of "a dainty princess", etc. If nobody is already slotted into any gender by default, then "gender" becomes a matter of finding the gender that perfectly suits _you_ ; rather than something where you're stuck with a gender whether it suits you or not, and so have to fight for the mind-share required to deform your gender's definition to ensure it includes you.

<comment><USER5> If you remove the link to sex, then what's the difference between gender and personality? My understanding is that gender is a social construct that maps behavior onto biology... if you sever that link, then you're left with behavior. Why do we need to maintain these categories of masculinity and femininity? Why are we reifying archetypes instead of moving past them?

<comment><USER4> The thing gender "actually is", when you pare everything else away, is a set of role scripts. Culture is made of rituals, and these rituals have labelled slots for people to fit into. The labels are genders (and also ages, social classes, and familial relationships, but that's less relevant here.)

Think of it this way: a wedding has a "bride" and a "groom." One way to think of it—the beach-head gay rights have established for us—is that either a man or a woman can be "a bride"; and either a man or a woman can be "a groom." Therefore, you could have a wedding with two "brides" who are both men, if you wanted.

Another way to think of it, though, is that being "a groom" (and all other such similar roles) is _what it means_ to be "a man." In this model, a wedding is one of many _rituals_ —a stage-play with a script—and one character in this stageplay is called "the bride", while another character is "the groom." You can't have two brides; that's not how the play of "The Wedding" is written. But anyone can _play_ "the groom." And whoever plays "the groom" in the wedding, is also known as "a man"—at least for the purposes of the wedding script. If you happen to always play the set of roles in role-scripts that say that "a man" plays them, then you _are_ "a man." Your gender is something you _deduce_ from the set of roles you favor.

The work that goes into being transgender—the hormones, makeup, clothes, all that? Other than for the few people with true Body Dysmorphic Disorder (who would get reassignment surgery even if there were no other humans left on Earth to observe the results), the whole goal of the transitioning process is to get other people to "cast" you as the role you prefer to be identified with in these cultural role-scripts. A transman is someone who wants other people to intuitively place them as "the groom" at the wedding. That's the essential quality of it.

And, if you don't go for any of the available gender role-scripts that our culture defines? Then you don't have a (simple, obvious) gender, according to said culture. You would be genderqueer, nonbinary—whatever the word is today. Even if you're accidentally a completely central example of masculinity or femininity—if you aren't _playing the role_ associated with that presentation, then it ain't your gender.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't usually pay attention to things like this, but I have a younger sister who uses Snapchat. She used this filter and the output was essentially a perfect photo of our brother, but with longer hair. I couldn't help but be impressed.

<comment><USER7> What about the brother -> sister mapping?

<comment><USER8> Judging from my family's group chat that also works really well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> You can follow artists like Mario Klingemann to see people experimenting on the cutting edge of this stuff:

[https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1127906469108756480](https://twitter.com/quasimondo/status/1127906469108756480)

</comment><comment><USER10> It's fantastic to see how far this tech came in such a short time.

It's also scary, because soon it will be very dificult to trust anything you see in video. What now demands a big CGI budget, will be possible to do with a simple App.

<comment><USER11> I would argue it's a good thing. This was already possible for people with a lot of money, but nobody knew about it because it was so rarely done. When anyone can do it, these fake videos will become common and people will realize you can't trust it just because it's in a video. The only drawback is that there will be an awkward period where smart people can do it but most people can't, so nobody realizes what's going on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> From a machine learning standpoint, I would guess that this is achieved with a partially supervised approach. The idea would be to embed an entire face dataset from a number of different poses to a latent space by some method (could be as simple as PCA, or as complex as an arbitrary neural network). An arbitrary classification method (using a partial labelling of faces by gender) yields a hyperplane which optimally separates the labelled points. Then, something like a simple reflection across this hyperplane yields another point in the latent space, and the generator yields a corresponding face of the opposite gender.

Anyone know if this has been implemented for a task like this?

</comment><comment><USER13> Are there other online Machine Learning apps out there for this? Or is Snap- Chat the only one?

I remember back in the VRML/SecondLife heyday where you could pick an avatar that was another gender. I still do that. But the emphasis for voice chat in modern games and MMORPGs make it far more difficult. A low gruff voice does not bode well coming from a feminine avatar. Catches too many off guard.

<comment><USER14> My company, Modulate, is building "voice skins" for exactly this purpose: customizing your voice in chat for online videogames!

It's a really interesting technical challenge. On the one hand, changing your timbre to another human voice is much more complicated than basic pitch shifting, so we ended up using deep neural networks for a kind of simultaneous speech-recognition and speech-synthesis approach (though training this system to preserve e.g. the emotional complexity of your input speech while still changing out the timbre convincingly is difficult - we use adversarial training on the raw audio waveform, which is powerful but also pretty much unknown territory compared to images).

On the other hand, it's important to run with very low latency on your device while you're playing, which means that we can't simply "throw the biggest network we can" at the problem. So we have a tradeoff between model latency, which is easy to characterize, and audio quality / voice skin plausibility, which is pretty ambiguous and subjective.

Finally, as this kind of tech improves the potential for misuse becomes an important problem, so we need to build in protections (like watermarking the audio) that can help prevent fraud while not compromising the speed of the algorithm or the quality of the output audio.

<comment><USER15> > Finally, as this kind of tech improves the potential for misuse becomes an > important problem, so we need to build in protections (like watermarking the > audio) that can help prevent fraud while not compromising the speed of the > algorithm or the quality of the output audio.

Legitamate question: (absolutely not rhetorical, I don't know the answer!)

What the potential misuse of a gender voice changer? If someone wants to change their perceived gender in a video game (presumably to avoid harassment), should that be detectable? If both genders should ideally receive identical treatment anyway, is there any harm in swapping?

<comment><USER14> I should definitely expand a bit: the voice skins that we're building give you a _specific_ person's timbre (or you can do some cool "voice space" vector manipulations to combine timbres). The cool application here is being able to sound like a character or celebrity in the game, but the risk of misuse for having a specific person's vocal cords is much greater than that for just swapping your gender.

That said, there _are_ some interesting things to be careful around, even for changing your gender, or age, or other basic variables around your voice. We're mostly worried about what impact this would have for communities built around these kinds of commonalities: for example, is it okay for a child to masquerade as an adult in an adults-only social group? I don't think there's a clear answer to all of those situations - but until we see more use of realistic voice skins in the real world, we're playing it safe and building in these kinds of tools!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I appreciate seeing posts like this as someone who doesn't use any of these apps themselves. It's intriguing what we're already able to accomplish in this area with sufficient funding and data, it makes the future seem very interesting.

</comment><comment><USER17> For shits and giggles, I installed Snapchat just to play with this, after seeing some friends having fun with it.

For background, I am guy, but with long hair and a beard. I wouldn't look out of place in a mosh pit at a heavy metal show. I've also been told I look like Jesus.

To my amusement, my beard and hair seem to break the female face filter. I take picture with it, and nothing changes. Conversely, if I use the male face filter there's quite a difference. My hair gets trimmed, my beard is darkened and my jawline made more square than it already was. The male filter still gets confused by my hair and fails to remove all of it much below my jawline; I can still see my natural hair transitioning back into existence about my neck and shoulders.

This makes me think that the filters are mainly working on hair length, or perhaps me already having hair short-circuits the filter and it forgets to address my cheekbones, jawline, lips, nose and brow.

Scratch all of that. It just worked properly. Compared to the male filter, it did soften my jawline, blur away my beard, and kept my natural lighter hair color (though it took away my natural curls). It could have stood to reduced the size of my nose. Still in the uncanny valley for me, but much closer to crossing that threshold in than some other filters I've seen in the past.

</comment><comment><USER18> What an awesome thing. This is probably a rare example of using technologies like machine learning and face recognition for good.

Also, it means that we cannot trust photos anymore.

<comment><USER19> > What an awesome thing. This is probably a rare example of using technologies > like machine learning and face recognition for good. Also, it means that we > cannot trust photos anymore.

You can't trust any social media anymore.

Between Lyrebird, GPT-2, Deep Fakes, Sybil attacks on social media sites, and abusing Facebook/Google targeted advertising to leak targeting information on anyone, any sufficiently motivated individual, group or nation state has enough power to locate audiences and reorient them through tailor-made content to the attacker's objectives.

Today's cat-picture-viewing joke-seeking social media user faces adversaries who can deploy coordinated attacks from multiple points-of-origin (via Sybil clones) using multiple mediums (via audio, video, text generation) against specific targets without collateral damage to non-targeted audiences (target discovery via surveillance platforms like Facebook, Google). The information weapons deployed can change minds, destroy relationships with family members, undermine friendships, cause confusion, addict, and waste time that could be spent organizing against the attacker's policies.

In your profile, you state that you're a Russian developer. Consider that it's known that the Russian government interfered with American elections using these divide-and-conquer techniques. Consider that we have to question whether or not your profile is a Sybil account designed to slightly shift the perspective of HN readers towards the idea that Russians are not undermining elections by presenting the idea that educated Russians are naive to the threat. Likewise, consider that this response might be a cointel operation. One can _hope_ that you're genuine, but that's about it.

Sadly, the untrustworthiness goes far beyond photos.

[https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/05/13/deepfakes- why...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/2019/05/13/deepfakes-why-your- instagram-photos-video-could-be-vulnerable/3344536002/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I looks like what you could see in "A Scanner Darkly" [https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/](https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0405296/)

<comment><USER21> You read my mind! I was just going to post this -

So here's a real application than Snap and kiddie jokes (not saying they are not fun!) - a scramble suit to protect witness/whistle-blower identity

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Mirror: [https://web.archive.org/web/20190513170015/https://blog.evja...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190513170015/https://blog.evjang.com/2019/05/fun- with-snapchats-gender-swapping.html)

<comment><USER23> Strange, I can still call this up at the original address at the moment. Just in case: [http://archive.is/lTgGj](http://archive.is/lTgGj)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> That is just crazy impressive to me. I'm not a fan of those kind of apps myself but it's pretty cool what they're engineers get to spend time on.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm guessing this filter is only available on certain phones? I installed Snapchat to play with it, but apparently I don't get access.

<comment><USER11> Did you find the filters? You have to hold down on your face when the selfie camera is activated. It's on my LG G7, which basically nobody uses, so I doubt they only targeted certain phones (unless they block generic criteria like less than 2 GB ram or something).

<comment><USER26> > Did you find the filters? You have to hold down on your face when the selfie > camera is activated.

This right here is why I hate Snapchat. I've never seen a more unintuitive UI.

<comment><USER27> There's theories out there that Snapchat's confounding UI is to make older people frustrated with it and avoid it, keeping it cool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Physical gender stereotypes? The differences in physical appearance, like the shape of the bones in your face and the fact some people have penises and other people have vaginas, caused by activation of the SRY gene (the sex determinism gene), are not social constructs.

<comment><USER29> The makeup and haircut applied by the filter are social constructs, though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Did the post get deleted? Getting a 404.

<comment><USER31> Looks like it.

[https://web.archive.org/web/20190513170015/https://blog.evja...](https://web.archive.org/web/20190513170015/https://blog.evjang.com/2019/05/fun- with-snapchats-gender-swapping.html)

<comment><USER32> I wonder if Snap offered him a job to take it down.

<comment><USER33> If anything, it is free advertising. Not sure why they would be bothered.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Lost Chapter - <AUTHOR> http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/essay.html?id=80 <comment><USER4> _Institutional investors made the mistake - again, and again, and again - <USER2> validating Mark's duplicitousness by pouring literally billions of dollars into his company, and then billions more into startups seeking to emulate it. Some of their investments created out of thin air industries that contribute absolutely nothing to, and in many cases even detract from, society. . . . Most mind-boggling of all, it's been clear for a long time that Mark's "social" business model doesn't work anyway: venture capital returns are down, and not just a little bit. Meanwhile, the opportunity cost to society is enormous: with engineers and capital allocated to virtual-sheep-throwing, worthless advertising and sharing ad nasuem, almost a decade's worth of real innovations got the short end of the stick, including but not limited to mine._

There needs to be a label placed on the idea of feeling the need to bow to the wishes of critics who try to limit the idea of valid entrepreneurship to activities deemed "beneficial to society." I propose Founder's Guilt Complex.

Why on earth - when life is so big and beautiful and complex - should I feel guilty if I make money from an activity that does nothing more than give people a diversion from life's burdens and problems? College football may be a joke to pointy-head types but then reading Latin (my own peculiar idea of fun) is equally a joke to the cheering fans who join in inter-collegiate rivalries. Likewise for playing video games or hiking in the woods or listening to rock- and-roll or producing reality-TV shows or most any other activity you can name whose main goal is relaxation, entertainment, escape from life's burdens, or just plain self-indulgence. And social networking is no exception. I may not do much on Facebook (I don't) but so what? Others can and do like to share things with people of varying degrees of relationship to them and more power to them for liking to do this. It is their choice. It is a free country. It is not for me to be a scold who upbraids them for doing so. Nor should I be crabbed or pinched about what founders choose to do to create and market products and services designed to satisfy such proclivities or to make money from them.

Yes, I can set about in life to conquer diseases or to abolish poverty or to alleviate people's suffering and all such things are ennobling. I can do such things via a profit-making venture or I can make my money on other things and then use it to advance higher goals through giving. Or I can devote time and energy to helping others in my personal life. All of that is great but it hardly defines the boundaries of worthwhile human activity. Life has enough problems without having someone of a judgmental spirit continually taking us to task for wanting to have some fun as well or for trying to promote fun things for others. In a free society, there is room for fun things as well and for those who see it as worthwhile to take risk in building companies that seek to market less-than-weighty things to the public.

Life certainly can be perverse. In 17th century England, as modern western society was taking shape, you had, on the one side, royalists who despised political freedom, who valued rule by a church hierarchy, and yet who were much given to licentious habits in their lifestyles while, on the other, you had those who agitated for political freedom, who fought oppressive forms of centralized rule, who ultimately broke away to form what became America, and yet who in their personal lives bore the grim face of the puritan that sought at every turn to chain, quarter, and shame everyone all about who thought it might be fun to dance or to have a little fun in life. It seems that in our modern society we have ported over the spirit of the puritan in castigating others even as we have won the freedoms that allow us under law to enjoy life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Well, if the pursuit of happiness was deemed a worthy goal of a society's founding documents, far be it from me to stand grim-faced telling others that they should feel guilty in not conforming to my narrow view of acceptable life activities - and that _includes_ how I choose to make my living or start my business.

I don't think this is a mere technical issue either. I believe that no guilt or stigma should attach to ventures doing legal things just because they don't set out to solve World Problems. The poor have always been with us. So too have wars, rapes, and murders. Ditto for disease and death. I am the first to say "bravo" to those who do not sit resigned to accept all these destructive elements in life but who instead spur themselves to do something to help make things better not just for themselves but for the broader society too. That said, such activities cannot be the only things that define our goals in life, nor should they be. There is value in having enjoyment and fun in life and this is a transcending value that betters society. In the entrepreneurial world, there is no room for a spirit of self-righteousness. Therefore, I say away with Founder's Guilt Complex. If you want to do a venture, do it honestly and with integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just don't let others tell you that you should feel guilty about offending their scruples. Enjoy and make it work without guilt. You can deal with Weighty Issues too if you are so led. Just don't listen to those who say that what you are doing is not worthwhile unless it is narrowly confined to them.

So if the VC industry chose to pour all kinds of money into creating something called social networking, and if all kinds of talented engineers have flocked to that industry in pursuit of money or other personal goals, that is by definition a great benefit to society because it has given many, many people the chance to do things that were scarcely thought possible just a decade ago - and to derive simple pleasures from the diversions or other benefits afforded to them through such networking. Whatever the flaws associated with individual people or companies in such an industry, there is nothing whatever wrong with those who devoted their money and their efforts to making all this possible.

<comment><USER5> Jeez, did you have to write all that? Anyway, although I think you are focusing on the weakest part of Greenspan's argument - the point where he comes closest to bitterness - I was wondering if you'd like to invest $20,000 in my new venture. I'd like to sell crack heroin to junkies in Detroit. I'm sure as a fellow champion of guilt-free founder consciences, you will support my endeavour as I give gangbangers the chance to flock to this exciting new industry and do something they scarcely thought possible - to help give people a diversion from life's burdens and problems.

And don't worry, I'll do it with plenty of integrity, drive, boldness, and energy. Just like Zynga : )

<comment><USER6> Ok, Corporal A. Gumbo: Write it better.

Do it and I'll donate $1000 that I promise I was not going to donate anyways to Partners In Health.

There's an idea common to forums that I don't frequent that I recently learned of called an "ideological Turing test". The idea is to take a group of people divided along a controversy, and to get each side to anonymously write a coherent argument that capture's the other side's perspective. Then everyone tries to tell, "which is the real argument, and which is the cunning fake?".

In that spirit: if you think you understand what 'grellas is trying to say so well, go ahead and take a whack at saying it better, and demonstrate that you actually grok his perspective.

<comment><USER5> Okay, here you are:

People should stop trying to make entrepreneurs feel guilty for not living up to their personal ethical standards. One of the advantages of our free society is that people can choose to work on weighty issues or fluffy diversions. As long as you abide by the law, you should not be criticised for the style of business you decide to pursue. If a lot of people can make money from social networking then that is definitionally a good thing (i.e. a good thing is a thing which makes some people money.)

<comment><USER4> Here is my shortened version:

"What I choose to call 'Founder's Guilt Complex' is a false sense of guilt imposed on founders who are told that the only worthwhile venture is one aimed at shaking up the world - I say, relax and use your talents to build the business you want. Keep it legal and do aspire to more in life than that. But forget about the censors. Like the Puritans of old, they would put you in a straightjacket for no good reason. And for this reason too, though there may be bad actors, there is not a thing wrong with social networking as a worthwhile business endeavor."

Does this short version achieve the same goals as the original? Yes and no. Context matters a lot in writing (see, e.g., my thoughts on legal writing: <http://grellas.com/articles.html>). The original here is flawed in that it is in the nature of a first draft (which is the case with all my posts at HN) and could be streamlined. But when one seeks to advance an idea that is bound to meet resistance among readers who are not used to hearing it, it is important to develop it and not simply state a summary of it. If this is misplaced for the forum (my posts do seem to generate a lot of meta-discussion about "walls of text"), then that is one thing. But there is no doubt that a merely summary version of such an argument will not have the same impact as one that is illustrated and developed.

By the way, I am not thin-skinned. I have appreciated your comments in this thread as well as those of others who have taken me to task on this or that point. We can disagree and still appreciate each other.

<comment><USER7> "it is important to develop it and not simply state a summary of it."

One suggestion I do have to help with readability (and with someone deciding whether they want to read the entire comment) is to place a summary ( _longer than a sentence_ ) at the beginning of what you are writing if it is long and detailed.

I've found that this practice is helpful not only when writing to customers, but when writing to "important people" who most likely aren't going to want to take the time to read an entire detailed _CYA_ type email with my opinion on something they have asked me about. That way if they want, they can dig further. And if anything happens it's on them if they did not read the fine print and only followed the summary to make a decision.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The accumulated evidence of Zuckerberg's poor character was already overwhelming. For me, all it took was the infamous "dumb fucks" quote to make me decide to never use Facebook. That alone disqualifies someone to be a responsible custodian of my privacy. This article's evidence isn't as significant as other established facts like Zuckerberg's invasion of other people's email accounts, but it is consistent with everything else we know: in one of the modern world's great ironies, a person with no respect for his fellow human beings is the de facto gatekeeper of "friendship" on the net.

<comment><USER9> How old was he when he made that comment? We all do/say dumb things when we are young...

<comment><USER10> It was about 5 years before he became a billionaire.

If "he was young" is a defense, then "he is too young to trust as a CEO" suddenly becomes a very very valid criticism of Zuck.

<comment><USER11> > he is too young to trust as a CEO

Considering he has 57% of the voting power, isn't this criticism largely moot?

<comment><USER12> It is not moot when considering whether to use facebook's services or not (which is what OP was talking about).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> "Perhaps the lesson here is that competing with and using your 'friends' in serial fashion until you totally and completely ravage each relationship is key to achieving financial success—but then it's certainly no way to define friendship."

That's certainly not the lesson. In fact what's always made me believe these sort of attacks against Zuckerberg's character is the fact that you don't see this happen with really any of the other startups that got big. Nobody is accusing Larry and Sergey of these sorts of shenanigans.

I'd say if anything, being a moral person is more blessing than curse when it comes to amassing wealth. It's obviously not a requirement though.

<comment><USER14> Larry and Sergey are different from other star founders who've been accused of evil (Jobs, Gates, Zuckerberg) in that they were older so maybe more mature and also relatively less entrepreneurial- their goal was academia, unlike all the young dropouts. Maybe many extremely entrepreneurial people don't respect the law. In Zuckerberg's case it does seem like he doesn't care about patents at all whereas Aaron is still mad about the IP and hates that Zuckerberg ignored the rules (re: patents, Facemash, dropping out, and everything else) and got rewarded for it.

Reading the logs I don't get the sense Zuckerberg is being dishonest or that he even considers Aaron to be a friend. The main conflict seems to be the accusation that Zuckerberg stole ideas, which is a big question for software in general: ideas want to spread so the concept of IP is arguably against the nature of ideas. At the same time, we want people to be able to get rich off a great idea even if they don't implement it successfully. This question re: IP and copyrights is something we're still resolving as a society. Until it gets resolved, if ever, lots of people are going to have lots of unfair things happen to them and it's understandable to be mad about that.

But that's what life is: unfair. Just like we can't go through life feeling guilty about how lucky we are to have survived infancy unlike some absurd percentage of humans in poor countries, we can't constantly hate on other people who are even luckier than we are re: how they don't deserve their success. No one deserves anything. Life is unfair.

<comment><USER5> 1) I don't think Greenspan is mad, he seems more disappointed.

2) It is absolutely possible to treat your fellow human beings well and find richly-deserved success - Mark Zuckerberg however does not seem capable of this.

3) Even though our society might tolerate and even reward (in the short-term at least) this sort of behaviour, should we be happy that a master-exploiter of this unfairness is the guardian of social relationships on the internet?

<comment><USER14> I don't know Zuckerberg but want to play devil's advocate to give him the benefit of the doubt until he actually gets convicted of something.

> 2) It is absolutely possible to treat your fellow human beings well and find > richly-deserved success - Mark Zuckerberg however does not seem capable of > this.

From Aaron's account, it looks like Mark does not believe that these software ideas were original or IP. If you buy that perspective, he wasn't wrong to execute far better on the same ideas that have appeared repeatedly in the history of social networks- he was simply a sucky friend, which is unlikeable but not illegal.

He's made a bunch of people very rich with Facebook. Do you think D'Angelo, the Winklevosses, and Saverin would rather have never met Zuckerberg or would rather he never created Facebook?

>3) Even though our society might tolerate and even reward (in the short-term at least) this sort of behaviour, should we be happy that a master-exploiter of this unfairness is the guardian of social relationships on the internet?

The sin Mark's accused of is stealing people's ideas, assuming ideas are steal-able, and thereby breaching the trust of people who considered themselves his friends or coworkers. If he's guilty, I guess the question is whether someone who is immoral/amoral in one respect is able to be ethical in other areas.

Since the movie makes a good case that Zuckerberg betrayed some of his close friends, I don't trust him (or any random person) not to betray me, a random stranger / Facebook user. But I do trust Zuckerberg to want to do whatever is good for Facebook. Are people scared he's going to somehow blackmail them into staying on Facebook by threatening to release their private data to everyone? I'll be scared of that scenario if that ever seems like the best plan for Facebook.

Who else could run Facebook? Most people are less intelligent or less competent or less interested in Facebook's future. Almost anyone in Mark's situation would cash out and grow indifferent but Zuckerberg persuades me he's not doing it for the money. So I guess I'm happy he's running it because regardless of his moral judgment or human loyalty at least I feel like he cares about Facebook.

I think many problems with corporations arise from leaders' interests not being aligned with those of the company. Facebook is one of the few examples where I don't believe that's the case. It might seem psychopathic to care more about Facebook than your best friend and/or cofounder, but is that really a big problem? Maybe from the corporation's perspective (or from the user and shareholder perspective), it's actually a virtue.

<comment><USER5> I appreciate that building Facebook to the point it is at now, and maintaining focus on the future company despite buy-out offers, is not trivial. Mark is clearly a talented individual.

However what is good for Facebook =/= what is good for Facebook users. And one point that emerges from Greenspan's description of Mark is that the man may be a genius for cutting out friends and building an empire, but when it comes to human warmth, he's lacking. And the problem with that is that it may very well limit Mark's ability to imagine how something like Facebook could evolve and work, and thus limit his ability to better equate what is good for Facebook with what is good for users.

A subsidiary point is that, due to network effects, Facebook's vulnerability to a poor core philosophy is reduced, at least in the short term. Once a social network grows into our lives, it isn't easy to replace. So if Facebook is indeed "rotten at the core" (I'm not arguing it is necessarily... just saying) then it may be able to buy itself a lot of time, even if it acts in its "own" interests, not its users'. But as technology continues to develop and its environment destabilises it won't remain invulnerable forever. Unless you are interested in slavery and extortion, eventually, under our moderated democratic capitalist model, what is good for a company is being good for its users.

<comment><USER14> I think I agree with your points assuming Mark is evil.

I am not convinced Zuckerberg's lacking "human warmth." It didn't strike me that Mark thought he was actually friends with Aaron or thought he was betraying anything- that's Aaron's perspective, which was understandable but we can't be really nice to everyone who considers themselves our friends or disagrees with us on who owns an idea.

Facebook so far hasn't done anything I really disagree with. But my feelings on privacy etc aren't that strong yet, maybe a failure of my imagination because nothing bad has really happened to me yet (knocking on wood).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I read the transcripts, all very fascinating. Aaron's focus is on building stuff whereas Mark's is human interaction- Aaron focuses on products and consulting whereas Mark was already thinking big picture about social. Aaron seems more ambitious than almost anyone and Mark seems 10x even more ambitious than that.

Even if Aaron is the superior engineer, Mark is the superior psychologist. Vision and navigation of systems constructed by humans turns out to be more important than building a lot of stuff no matter how cool or new it is.

Also seems like mark argues there aren't any ideas to steal and admits facebook's been done before- just this time he's going to execute it better.

</comment><comment><USER15> "Stuck in a moment."

And once again, in Greenspan's own transcripts, Zuckerberg comes off better -- more focused, more observant, more strategic, seeing opportunities rather than obsessing on risks, and even more generous with offers of collaboration -- than Greenspan himself.

<comment><USER16> Maybe so. But still as an immature dick.

Maybe I'm being too rosy and idealistic here, but I prefer integrity over those other traits you mentioned. Many people have a good balance, so why compromise?

<comment><USER17> He was 20 years old and joking around in private AIM conversations. Who shall throw the first stone?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> It's damn hard to pull emotion out when writing about one's life story, but Greenspan's writing style so distracts from the meat of his story that it's frustrating.

For instance:

"both so-called Facebook veterans (a phrase that actual veterans might find laughable)"

or

"It was an expense I simply could not afford all over again (unlike the Winklevoss twins, my father did not have millions of dollars of disposable income)"

or

"[Mark] didn't understand how to speak like a mature person his age."

Bits like those just scream "I'm a vicitim" and come off as whiny.

If Greenspan laid out the timeline and the documentation sans his editorializing it would be more powerful.

Carry these same points through any follow-up interviews, testimony, etc and I sense that Greenspan would be much happier with his outcome.

<comment><USER19> The worst was complaining about a cab fare(?) to JFK.

But don't shoot the messenger. There are plenty of facts he's giving us. It is not pure opinion. An eye witness is an eye witness. He was there. As long as he is credible, his character, for our purposes, is irrelevant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Aaron is (understandably) still butthurt from failing to make his houseSYSTEM successful. And Mark clearly was not only deceiving him but also downright stealing his work. Ultimately though that lack of character doesn't really matter - Mark was obviously more driven and had a clearer vision. I think the only lesson we can learn here is that dedication always wins over talent. And besides: Stealing and building a students directory across universities is one thing, creating a profitable business and amassing 900 Million users is a completely different story (and a task to which zuckerberg had a comparatively small contribution).

</comment><comment><USER21> Here is what I don't get about this whole thing: Friendster - 2002 Myspace - 2003 LinkedIn - <USER3>

Not to mention the dozens of other social media clones around that time (I remember being members of countless social media sites in those days)

Its not like anyone at Harvard stumbled upon an amazing new idea that was going to change the game. They were building what they hoped would be better versions of things already out there. Mark registered thefacebook.com because "Face Book" is a very common phrase/object.

For better or worse, Zuckerberg won the social networking race. Congrats to him, everyone else at Harvard at that time trying to stake a claim needs to just get on with their lives.

<comment><USER22> I remember thinking that nobody would ever overtake MySpace.

80 million users!

Facebook gives me great comfort that the race isn't always to the swift.

And the contrast between Facebook and the launch of Google Wave has demonstrated that having a dense social graph early is critical to success.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> People get screwed over all the time. Getting screwed over by Zuckerberg, well, that's an elite club, but time to move on with your life. If you keep it only as a good story for the grand kids maybe it won't eat up the rest of your potential.

<comment><USER24> Seriously, does this guy not have any parents/siblings/super close friends who can tell him it's time to move on? This is a great happy hour story, but not such a great epitaph.

On the bright side, at least he's thematically consistent! "I keep getting screwed over by life" is the only reason I can think of to start the post with so many words about Final Clubs before the pivot.... Suffice it to say, anyone who can graduate from Harvard with a CS degree and feel screwed over needs some perspective.

<comment><USER5> I can see how Greenspan's experience would not exactly be easy to move on from. At stake is not his own personal success, but his belief about how the world should work. Greenspan sounds like a pretty moral guy, the kind of guy who gets upset when things happen that he thinks are wrong. Basically, you're asking him to shrug and move on but for him, an antisocial bastard is in the spotlight smiling and waving and being showered with praise by the press. It sounds like, for someone like him, fixing this mistake is more important than any other typical SV-type venture he could throw himself into.

Or he could just be incompetent and bitter. Who knows.

<comment><USER25> Or... maybe he just needed some traffic to his website.

It seems everyone who had anything remotely to do with Facebook's origins has tried to cash in.

This bothers wantrapreneurs because it highlights just how much luck plays a role in a story like Facebook's. They want to believe that one founder or a few co-founders succeed based on some factor(s) under their control (hardwork, skill, etc.)

Greenspan is just another one of those people who was involved and is trying to cash in.

If anyone needs to "get over it", it's people who just can't accept that huge fads like Facebook are unpredictable and uncontrollable, and that when faced with the possibility of huge sums of "money for nothing" it brings out the worst in people all seeking a share of the bounty.

The web is a lottery.

Time to re-read the recent speech from Princeton's graduation ceremony by the author of Liar's Poker.

<comment><USER23> > _The web is a lottery._

This is quite an overstatement. You don't simply move to Palo Alto and then have a 1/65,412 chance of starting the next Google.

Instead you have to have a great vision, great execution, and great luck. Now Zuckerberg may not have Jobsian vision and execution (or maybe he does, only time will tell), but you can't argue that he executed _the hell outta Facebook_ and he definitely has a vision even if you find it morally bankrupt. This definitely did not just magically fall in his lap, and he certainly deserves most of the credit regardless of what individuals he screwed over at various stages.

<comment><USER25> I agree.

/The web is a lottery./d

(except I think it's quite possible for someone to do what's been done with Facebook without also being morally bankrupt)

But is the rest of the comment an overstatement?

Also, you forgot to mention great marketing. In the IM's I believe both of them at one point agree that great visionary ideas, no matter how well they are executed, (alas) do not market themselves.

<comment><USER23> No I don't disagree with anything else.

Re: marketing, meh, I think Facebook pretty much went viral. Maybe there was more conscious effort there than I give it credit for, but it doesn't strike me as important for Facebook's rise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I don't understand why this person thinks Mark owed him all the information he complains about not being given. Am I obliged to inform my competitors of my intentions at every turn? Am I obliged to tell them when I change my mind about my plans? Am I indeed obliged not to deceive them? How do we know that Mark even viewed this guy as a friend, rather than perhaps as a friendly acquaintance? I can say for sure that I had many more and longer conversations on AIM with my real friends.

Maybe this guy has a reasonable beef, but it's far from clear to me.

<comment><USER5> I don't think Greenspan is complaining - I think this is meant as a warning. He's not saying that Mark acted unfairly and that he should have been nicer to Aaron (which would come across as petulant, and I think Greenspan seems quite realistic and calm about what happened), but that Mark has acted with only ruthless, narrowly-defined "self-interest", displaying no loyalty or kindness, and this bodes very poorly for the company, its investors and its users. Facebook is Mark's creation, and at the core of the company, beneath its social-open-sharing buzzwords there is no philosophy of human relationships, only Mark's shallow, self-centered heartlessness and lust for power and profit. We might think so what, but maybe we've been desensitised by the often shitty and kinda sociopathic (or socio-agnostic) behaviour of web entrepreneurs. Anyway point is the arbiter of "friendship" on the internet is a megalomaniac who seems to understand nothing about friendship - a strange situation perpetuated by a star-struck, gutless press too busy slathering him with praise to think critically. Greenspan is just pointing this out, fairly it seems.

<comment><USER11> Isn't this basically the same as saying tesla and spacex will fail because Elon Musk is a jackass?

<comment><USER26> You don't hear stories about Elon Musk shafting his friends and acquaintances, stringing them along and stealing their ideas.

Apparently Musk was a bit of a jerk when x.com merged with PayPal, and is supposedly difficult to work for even today (he works 100 hour weeks, probably demands the same high standards of his employees as he does of himself), but there's none of the skeletons in the closet with Musk as there is with Zuckerberg.

Plus there's the fact that Musk is tackling really difficult problems like online payments (fraud), mass-producing electric vehicles, making solar installations viable and _aiming to make humans a multi-planetary species_. Zuckerberg just created the latest social fad, IMO which is now in the process of self-destructing.

<comment><USER11> Did you not read about his divorce?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> _So it happened that in my junior year of college, I came across the web site of one of the many finals clubs on campus, the Fly Club._

It's "FINE-UHL clubs" not "FINE-UHLZ clubs."

 _And he shockingly did not understand why information privacy might be a controversial issue._

And then

 _He had been searching the houseSYSTEM Facebook for the twins' profiles_

So much for privacy.

 _Aside from the Facebook, the sites had overlapping features for course schedulers, photo albums, message boards, digital posters for student groups, and eventually exchanges for buying and selling on campus and mapping your network of friends._

Irrelevant. People only used Thefacebook for obvious and simple things: connecting with people they knew, poking, messaging, and photos. No one used mapping your network of friends (which sucked, incidentally, and also was faily most of the time) and no one even used the course scheduler. To state the obvious, facebook was not successful for its features, it was successful because how it was executed!

This was claimed to have been written for historical significance, but I know that every time an article is written by this author and about this subject dozens of people are thinking the same thing: move on. Create a successful company first, then retire and write about this topic. I'd love to see blog posts regarding Think Computer's technology. As it stands, this blog post gained a lot of attention but there isn't even a a sidebar with "Hi, I'm Aaron Greenspan and I'm the CEO of Think Computer. We have this product, click here to learn more." It's a marketing failure to not capitalize on such an opportunity.

<comment><USER28> > click here to learn more

There's a reason there is no such link. FaceCash is currently prohibited from doing business in California by the Money Transmission Act. Aaron is trying to resolve this, but until he does his hands are kind of tied.

<comment><USER29> > FaceCash is currently prohibited from doing business in California by the > Money Transmission Act.

Aaron Greenspan has a whole song and dance about how the state of California screwed him over, too. The guy comes across as nothing but a professional victim.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Regardless of Greenspan's own character or his particular situation, he gives us a peek at the facts, which others are so quick to ignore.

I think there will be poetic justice in this story. Because the web is much bigger than Zuckerberg, or Facebook or even Google. The world is still getting online. It's early yet. But what Zuckerberg has done, how he has carried himself in the presence of enormous luck, he cannot erase. He will live with this reputation as a con his entire life. Building a website, millions of people signing up, enormous hype, making millions from display ads might seem impressive today. It won't remain that way in years to come. We're just getting started. Technology will be taken for granted. There will be more attention to the things Zuckerberg carelessly disregarded.

"Dumb fucks" indeed.

Thank you Mr. Greenspan for telling your side of the story.

<comment><USER5> Sir, I like the cut of your jib.

<comment><USER30> It's jib - as in the the front sail of a sailboat ahead of the mast. The saying is 'I like the cut of your jib' in that the way the sails are set determines both direction and style of sailing.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> As smart as Greenspan is he has no clue whatsoever what it takes to create a widely used service. He is constantly stuck on legal matters and splitting hairs that no one else cares about. He would be so much better off spending his considerable intellect and productivity on more valuable activities.

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm not going to publicly speculate on either party's moral character. But I did skim the transcripts, and I noticed one curious fact:

Zuckerberg starts and ends most of the conversations.

To clarify: I'm not sure precisely why I find it interesting, it was just one of those phenomena that raised an eyebrow, and passed my "don't publicly engage in debates about people's character whom I haven't personally met"-test. (To be fair I do make practical judgments based on moral reputation when deciding whether or not to enter relationships with others.)

<comment><USER33> Can you clarify why that's interesting?

<comment><USER34> It's not if it's once, but if it's always the case? Seems kind of transactional - I need to talk to this person for this, so I do; I completed that, so we're done.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Logline: Zuckerberg mistreats Aaron Greenspan, is therefore greatest con of all time.

<comment><USER35> I think this lacks a bit of compassion. It's one thing to have some idea, not work on it, and then later see someone who made it happen. It is another thing entirely to work on an idea for years, bring someone into the group that is working with you on it (or at least advising) and then have them roll off with it and become one of the richest people in the country. Sure a zen master might take some comfort in validation of your ideas, but man it has to really hurt to not be a billionaire. That can really screw over your psyche in a bad way.

I know I would be pretty bitter in a similar situation.

<comment><USER6> I'm never going to be a billionaire. I would prefer that billionaires not get themselves elected President to cut the top tax rates, but that's about as far as it goes. We are sailing on an ocean of executable ideas, and we've got some of the best winds we've had in 10-15 years. Who has time to write 3000 words on someone else's "unjustified" success?

<comment><USER36> Tally up how many words you type into HN each day. Is it close to 3000?

I think he said at one point in the IM's to Zuckerberg Greenspan said that he writes stuff to vent. And Zuckerberg said he could understood the need for that, but kept such thoughts to himself. (See e.g. Greenspan's White Paper enronforkids.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> This poor soul has been grinding this axe for years. He's simply blaming others for his own failures. The prose is magnified by his clearly high intellect but it's easy to see through it. You need only take a look at the mess that was housesystem (his attempt at a campus social network among other things) to get an idea of why it didn't take off like facebook. Or if that's not enough, how about his payments startup facecash. No evil Zuckerberg character to blame there.. It was just a very poorly designed and executed project. Facebook won because it was better and Mark was right not to hire this guy. The sad thing is he (Greenspan) is clearly hyper intelligent, and if he'd only focus that intellect on figuring out where his work could improve instead of laying his problems at his more successful classmate's feet...

</comment><comment><USER38> A very large chunk of his articles are negative <http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/index.html>

Not saying they aren't all true, I'm sure they are.

Why focus on the negativity? Recognize it and move beyond.

<comment><USER39> 95% of the news is negative.

<comment><USER38> probably true, but rarely all from one author.

<comment><USER40> Ever read Techcrunch?

<comment><USER38> Yet another source of info that won't inform you constructively.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Have a look at the last IM exchange between Greenspan and Zuckerberg on the idea of protecting the privacy of students' home adresses from being accessible to any student at any university using Facebook. It is toward the end of the timeline.pdf document. The problem: Thanks to some sloppy php, anyone at any univeristy could download a .csv file of all of someone contacts including their home addresses and other private information, if that person had ever requested to export her data to csv format. Greenspan wanted this security hole fixed promptly. Zuckerberg didn't care; he just fired off an email to someone else (same guy who wrote the sloppy php?) and put it out of his mind. Then when Greenspan made others aware of the problem, Zuckerberg was upset because [un]"savvy" users might learn of security holes in Facebook. What a terrible thing that would be. We see that same sort of denigrating view of users and concealment attitude continuing at Facebook to this day.

Say what you will about Greenspan but at least the guy is responsible. We can't say the same for Zuckerberg. The kid is reckless and unremorseful.

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands To me, it's like Aaron lost the game with Zuckerberg because Zucks wasn't fighting fair and Aaron expected him to. The expectations were clearly different on each side. Zucks wanted to win the game and take all the marbles any way he could, and didn't care at the who's expense it came, including his friends. I think Aaron expected more fairness and is hurt, but not surprised Zuckerberg hasn't changed.

</comment><comment><USER41> > "...and the directors and officers of any person that controls the applicant > are of good character and sound financial standing." Here, the "good > character" requirement would clearly preclude Mark, whose character has now > been called into question more times than most of us can count.

I'm not aware of a common definition for "good character," but merely having your character "called into question," especially as a high-profile CEO (and celebrity, at that), should not be the sole grounds for being denied a license to transact money. I'm not saying there couldn't have been more to it in the case of Facebook/Zuckerberg, but in general, public defamation should not be, in itself, enough to prevent someone from building a legal business.

</comment><comment><USER42> Wowzers, why are people so keen to be negative? Facebook are doing awesome in their mission to make the world more open and connected. And regardless of fluctuations, Facebook's value still sits around, what, $48 billion? This is far too personal - Mark was 19 and in a private chat with a friend (and he's remarkably more motivated, mature and respectful than many guys I went to uni with at that age lol). We all grow and learn a heap from college days, so to link the success of a company today to factors from almost a decade ago is a low shot. Go forth and direct your energy into creating your own empires!

</comment><comment><USER43> I fully believe that Zuckerberg is every bit the scumbag his former friends assert. But _bitter, much?_ This is a diatribe more than an essay.

</comment><comment><USER44> Agree with all of you who say it is all about execution and timing. Zuckerberg had the right vision for what he wanted of Facebook though: a casual place to procrastinate. That is something that nobody else saw as clearly as him...and that's why his product won.

</comment><comment><USER45> This article reads as being full of blame.

</comment><comment><USER46> This article actually demonstrates Zuckerbergs savvy in being the one who took the social network to market. Mark played everyone extremely well and deserves credit for implementing an idea that everyone had. THis story isn't about coming up with new ideas, it's about shipping something people want.

</comment><comment><USER47> From the AIM chat logs:

> zberg02: but probably like 8k

> zberg02: i think that qualifies as real cool

8k isn't cool. You know what's cool...

<comment><USER48> 10k?

<comment><USER49> 640K should be enough cool for anybody.

<comment><USER50> I spat out my coffee at this point! Excellent :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Sour.Grapes.

<comment><USER52> I don't think you are using that correctly, you seem to be using it as a synonym for jealous/hater. I don't get the impression Aaron is disparaging fame or success; he is making the claim that Mark Zuckerberg has a questionable moral compass. That really doesn't relate in any way to the Aesop's Fable you reference. The fox didn't claim to dislike the grapes because they were ethically dubious; he disliked them as a way to feel better about not being able to acquire them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> The lesson is (again): It's all about execution.

</comment><comment><USER54> I don't know the right phrase for the opposite of 'preaching to the choir', but that's what I think this post here on HN is: the opposite of preaching to the choir.

<comment><USER55> Maybe something like "Fall on deaf ears" or talking to "a brick wall".

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Previously: <http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/zuckerberg.html>

</comment><comment><USER57> Zuck's business model doesn't work? What a joke. They're profitable and make billions and billions of dollars a year.

</comment><comment><USER58> Perhaps this is one of the places where legal action is justified? Maybe he should've got a patent like all those monsters out there today. At least his would actually have a product behind it.

It's nice to here it from the horse's mouth instead of second-hand from a movie made to generate revenue though.

<comment><USER59> He mentions his own settlement somewhere in there, although it's not discussed further.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I've been reading Robert Greene's 48 Laws of Power recently, and throughout this essay, I can't help but think just how all the "moves" Zuckerburg were accused (and infamous) of were exemplary of a number of these laws. Not trying to pass judgement on Zuckerburg's virtues or lack thereof (it's best to accept the inherent unfairness in life on the road to power), but he is a master of power plays:

Law 3: Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies. If only Zuck's "friends" knew about the first part of the law. Zuck was, however, a master in exploiting and gaining information from his "enemies". Further, he used what his competitions to frame what his product should be.

Law 4: Conceal your intentions. "Keep people off-balance and in the dark by never revealing the purpose behind your actions" -- apparent in both the Winklevoss and Greenspan's stories. Zuck misled and deceived until the right time.

Law 5: Always say less than necessary...classic Zuck, "There was a need for facebook, so I made it"

Law 6: Court attention at all cost. His fight to receive coverage in the Crimson ensuring the early dominance of thefacebook.

Law 7: Get others to do the work for you, but always take the credit. If any of the stories about facebook is true, then Zuck's a textbook example of observing this law. According to Greene: using other people's work "not only will [...] save you valuable time and energy, it will give you a godlike aura of efficiency and speed". Clearly it has worked to achieve his "genius" aura.

Law 9: Win through your actions, never through argument. He never let the lawsuits detract him away from the work too much. Now that facebook is too big, what actually happened really doesn't matter anymore.

Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you. Facebook is too big now...G_G

Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim. The part about facebook's frequent change and backtracks of privacy must has something to do with this.

Law 13: When asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude. Zuckerburg appealed to Greenspan's desire to help entrepreneurs when asking for advice. Also, his claim that Greenspan was one of those on his level can be seen more of a classic ego-stroking rather than admission of admiration.

Law 14: Pose as a friend, work as a spy. "Knowing about your rival is critical. Play the spy yourself to gather valuable information that will keep you a step ahead. [...] There is no occasion that is not an opportunity for artful spying". Yeah, Zuck's a master at this.

Law 15: Crush your enemey totally. Check.

So out of the first 18 laws, the rise of facebook and Zuckerburg have observed 11, textbook style. His amoral approach to power and life is definitely key to his success.

<comment><USER52> >His amoral approach to power and life is definitely key to his success.

Bit of a hasty conclusion. Have you really analyzed the sum-total of his behaviors/moves and feel you can conclusively state that the above 11 "laws" are the cornerstone of his success? I doubt that. Also, the book you reference is really not useful for any human being that intends to be part of a actual society. It is a great primer for a sociopath, but I will assume that is not what you aspire to be. Some people see successful sociopaths and incorrectly conclude their sociopathy is what made them successful. That is like assuming Steve Jobs, who was somewhat notorious for being...blunt, was successful because he was an asshole, instead of in spite of that characteristic. It also willfully ignores a lot of non-sociopaths that are successful and disregards other factors that may be more causative.

I would take that book with a _big_ grain of salt and not use it as a manual for life. Or you can, I just don't predict great success. I would predict a long string of people telling other people what an ass you are and causing you to have countless doors closed to you without ever knowing it or knowing why; primarily because people don't relish partnering with/working for/associating with sociopaths. For every "successful" sociopath you see that lives by those "laws" there are millions of others that also live by those "laws" that have nothing to show for it but a string of failed relationships and a complete and utter lack of friends. Beware of survivorship bias[1], it can teach you only the wrong things.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Survivorship_bias>

<comment><USER60> Thanks for the comment, you're right, my conclusion was definitely hasty and very much lacking reading it the second time. The 11 laws were illustrated through historical examples, showing how observance and transgression of each primarily resulted in the win/loss of power. I found it very interesting that Zuckerburg's rise illustrated many of these laws.

However, I don't think the laws outlined (or at least all of them) only apply to sociopaths. Law 2: Never put too much trust in friends, learn how to use enemies. This is just as defensive as manipulative, we would like to think our friends will always be loyal, but that's simply not true.

Law 3: Conceal your intentions. Law 4: Always say less than necessary. Law 6: Court attention at all cost. Marketing and public relations use these all the time.

Law 7: Get others to do the work, and you take credit. Indeed, this one breaks hearts and how we wish that no one ever does this. You can chose to play the game, or learn how it can happen to better defend against credit-stealing. If only Tesla was aware...

Law 9: Win through actions rather than arguments. I actually don't see anything sociopathic about this law at all.

Law 11: Learn to keep people dependent on you. Gaining early traction is pretty important for a startup's success.

Law 12: Use selective honesty and generosity to disarm your victim. This is mostly used in adversarial situations, more like a law of war rather than law of life. But again, "crush your enemy totally" is preached in Sun Tzu's Art of War, but the book is still a classic.

Law 13: When asking for help, appeal to people's self-interest, never to their mercy or gratitude. This is one of the tenet in Dale Carnegie's "How to win friends and influence people", simply explains human nature.

Like every piece of knowledge, the laws outlined in the book really depend on your own interpretation and how you apply them. It's similar to learning about security so you can protect yourself against exploits and make robust products.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Hm, anyone else have old AIM conversations stored on their computers? Seems convenient.

<comment><USER62> I do. My chat clients are set to automatically log, so that when I talk to someone a week later, I can look at the history. More importantly, a lot of questions get asked and answered over IM, so I can check it for answers to "why is X broken" or "How do I Y, again?", or "what was your mailing address?" without having to actually _ask_ the person again.

I've never looked back at archived IMs from years past, though, but they are still squirreled away on the removed hard drives from past machines.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> feeding the tinfoil hats industry: the European Commission blocked this website and flagged it as illegal/scam :)

I apologise for not contributing, but I can't access the page so I have no idea what it says.. but by the amount of extensive comments here, I'm dying of curiosity

</comment><comment><USER34> Has everyone on HN always been this cynical?

</comment><comment><USER64> And let's not forget the Google smear campaign, only last year, orchestrated / bungled by Burson-Marsteller.

<http://www.wired.com/business/2011/05/facebook-google-smear/></comment>


Sketchpad: The first object-oriented software system (1963) - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOZqRJzE8xg

<comment><AUTHOR> Alan Kay: "I asked Ivan Sutherland, 'How can you possibly have done the first interactive graphics program, the first non-procedural programming language, and the first object-oriented software system in one year?' He said, 'Well, I didn't know it was hard, there was nothing like this before!'"

<comment><USER2> I'd believe it. I remember when I was just learning to program, I used to do crazy hacks to do stuff I had absolutely no idea how to do because I didn't know it was hard. That is, I tried anyway and tried weird ways I mightn't even think of now, simply because _I didn't know any better_. The code was terrible, but I got results.

Nothing near as hardcore as _the first interactive graphics program, the first non-procedural programming language, and the first object-oriented software system in one year_ , sadly ;-)</comment></comment>


A benefit of having no (or very little) money ... - <AUTHOR>

For various reasons I ended up on this page: http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/02/throwing-away-working-code.html
Originally submitted here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500713
From that article:

  > We eventually uncovered the problem, that
  > a core aspect of our product concept was
  > deeply flawed. And along the way we learned
  > our first profound lesson in the power of
  > metrics, what I would later come to realize
  > was a key part of the fundamental startup
  > feedback loop.
 Hard lessons to learn.  But there's another lesson:

  > None of it would have happened if we had
  > plenty of cash, or were content to count
  > our progress by traffic or product
  > development milestones.
 That seriously struck home with me.  If you have plenty of cash you don't have to be particularly efficient to survive for a while, only to realise as you run out of cash (near wrote cache!) that you are in the habit of being inefficient, and change is hard.  Newton's laws about inertia really do apply to organisations.
So even if you have cash, you need to pretend you don't. Only spend it if you can prove you'll get a commensurate return.
As always, there's a trade-off, but as with most things, it may not be where you think it is.  It's probably closer to the "DON'T SPEND" end of the continuum than you think.
And it emphasises yet again that you must engage with your customers.  And if you don't have customers, get some, even if it's only one. <comment><AUTHOR> Clickable:

[http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/02/throwing- away-w...](http://www.startuplessonslearned.com/2009/02/throwing-away-working- code.html)

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=500713></comment>


Centrifuge Volleyball - a fun Javascript game - robert-boehnke http://william.hoza.us/centrifuge/volleyball/ <comment><AUTHOR> It's a good idea and somewhat funny but I keep wondering every day how hard is it to implement keybinding changes in javascript (or rather, all browser based) games? WSAD is impossible to use for at least ~150 million internet users due to keyboard layout. I'm talking about people who have never even heard about QWERTY keyboards and much less seen one.

<comment><USER2> It's no easier than any other language. At the least, it requires a keybinding interface to let you set the keys.

And that's a pain in the rear for almost no benefit. Most of the people browsing English-language pages have a qwerty layout. If I produce a 1-off, free game, I'm not going to spend the time and effort that goes into a AAA production.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This is great. I can't keep up with both the blue and yellow. Perhaps to make it more engaging for the game should control the blue ball and user can only control yellow one. This way I can play for more than 10 seconds :)

I would love to see source and how you made it as well!

</comment><comment><USER4> I just played the yellow side and almost lost to the stationary blue blocker. Very challenging.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is awesome! I didn't realise you can jump with the up key.

Also, I broke the single-player demo version by switching on bounce and upping the speed to 9999999. Oopsie.

</comment><comment><USER6> Now I feel sick.

</comment><comment><USER2> Putting 'fun' in the description always seems desperate to me. You can't convince people something is fun if it isn't.

And this... I don't find it fun. Interesting? Sure. But I don't enjoy it.

<comment><USER2> Wow, people aren't allowed to offer criticisms and offer opinions on here, huh?

<comment><USER7> You're not giving a criticism, you're just being a dick. As for offering opinions, you might want to try 1) making them constructive, and 2) not following a silly statement about the title being "desperate".</comment></comment></comment>


Design Driven Development - <AUTHOR> http://robots.thoughtbot.com/post/2609622814/design-driven-development <comment><USER2> I honestly just prefer good old fashioned Development Driven Development.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think "User Experience Driven Development" is better name for that methodology coz design now is more "look" than "feeling" of product.

User experience is base of all products.

I select such algorithm:

1) UX

2) Layouts

3) Features <-> Specs <-> Code

4) _Design_ (look of product with awesomeness, but shape determined by ux)

5) ???

6) Profit!

</comment><comment><USER4> Well-put: "Everyone is a designer. Design is a fundamental part of everything."</comment>


A Basic Introduction to Neural Networks (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://pages.cs.wisc.edu/~bolo/shipyard/neural/local.html <comment><USER2> Looking at headers:

        Last-Modified: Tue, 30 Apr 1996 18:53:31 GMT

Still, looks good, if a bit dated. For me, these two tutorials were the ones that helped me understand NN the most:

\- [http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/](http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/)

\- [https://mattmazur.com/2015/03/17/a-step-by-step- backpropagat...](https://mattmazur.com/2015/03/17/a-step-by-step- backpropagation-example/)

<comment><USER3> Just adding a +1 for [http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/](http://neuralnetworksanddeeplearning.com/). It is really excellent. Clear, but mathematically rigorous. Highly recommended.

<comment><USER2> Agreed - it gives a very solid overview of the field. Truth be told, it was a bit _too_ mathematically rigorous for my taste, so I had trouble producing code for backpropagation. However with the second link (backpropagation step- by-step, with numbers so you can check progress) and then TensorFlow Jupyter notebooks I think I cracked it. Now I just an excuse to use ANN at work... ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This is neither basic nor an introduction, and has several inaccuracies. My guess is the info is from the 90s era of neural networks.

Reply to below: it uses pretty complicated language and doesn't explain many terms (e.g. activation functions, supervised learning, etc. are not explained). Errors: the statements the article makes about the error surface are really misleading and in some places wrong. Same for the statement about sigmoids. Some of their definitions are also wrong today, such as "epoch." The list goes on.

<comment><USER5> What actually is new since the 90s, besides convnets?

Is ML becoming more prevalent because of theoretical breakthroughs, or is it because of hardware improvements, or perhaps because there is more training data available now?

<comment><USER6> What enabled the ML revolution we're witnessing now is mostly the advent of powerful and low-cost GPGPUs and the abundance of training data, as you mentioned. Of course, there are theoretical breakthroughs and interesting new applications [1], but it wasn't the deciding factor. Even ConvNets aren't new. For example, AlexNet is basically a much larger reimplementation of the original Lenet idea [2] from 1998.

This is not to discredit any new work that's being done. I think it's awesome to see so much progress in a field that's certainly on its way of defining an era. I'm just pointing out that we have known about most of the fundamentals for a long time.

[1]: [https://tryolabs.com/blog/2016/12/06/major-advancements- deep...](https://tryolabs.com/blog/2016/12/06/major-advancements-deep- learning-2016/)

[2]: [http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-01a.pdf](http://yann.lecun.com/exdb/publis/pdf/lecun-01a.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have to do some research. I'm primarily commenting on this to keep track of it.

Ultimately I want technology to be my better half. Fill in my gaps if you will. I want my vitals linked to a server, a "CRON" job monitoring my sleep/wake cycles. I've been doing some scraping. I'd like to develop my own thing runs "autonomously and grows"

Gotta read, between this and machine learning. Gotta focus though. Not sure when I'll come back to this. Thanks for posting this.

<comment><USER7> After reading that article and what I just described, it does not seem like neural networks is what I'm after. Still it is something to use.

I wanted to write a "quick search" scrape pages related to a search (though last time I checked, the Google API wasn't available anymore where you could search Google back end.)

Anyway. Maybe a source like Wikipedia. Still parsing words and assigning them values...

That part about using ANNs for finding regularities in patterns. That sounds interesting. It seems many successes came by determining the next step in some form of evolution whether it was a product or service. Blockbuster to Netflix, Blackberry's to iPhones, etc... Maybe look at something like that.

At any rate, gotta read. That was quite informative. The whole thing of "not knowing what it actually does" is pretty nuts too. Give it data and watch it go!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Better off learning from the man himself: [https://www.coursera.org/learn/neural- networks](https://www.coursera.org/learn/neural-networks)

</comment><comment><USER9> For a good basic intro, this is excellent:

[https://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Neural-Network- ebook/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Make-Your-Own-Neural-Network- ebook/dp/B01EER4Z4G)

</comment><comment><USER10> We wrote a decent intro to neural nets here: [https://deeplearning4j.org/neuralnet- overview](https://deeplearning4j.org/neuralnet-overview)</comment>