I hacked my body for a future that never came - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2017/7/21/15999544/biohacking-finger-magnet-human-augmentation-loss <comment><USER2> > Another panelist shut them down immediately: doctors and scientists aren't > even close to solving the phantom pain and limited mobility that most > amputees face, let alone building something uniformly better than a human > limb.

To repost a slightly tounge-incheek description of features your "standard model" has:

1\. Supports a very large number of individual movements and articulations

2\. Meets certain weight-restrictions (overall system must be near-buoyant in water)

3 Supports a wide variety of automatic self-repair techniques, many of which can occur without ceasing operation

4\. Is entirely produced and usually maintained by unskilled (unconscious?) labor from common raw materials

5\. Contains a comprehensive suite of sensors

6\. Not too brittle, flexes to store and release mechanical energy from certain impacts

7\. Selectively reinforces itself when strain is detected

8\. Has areas for the storage of long-term energy reserves, which double as an impact cushion

9\. Houses small fabricators to replenish some of its own operating fluids

10\. Subsystems for thermal management (evaporative cooling, automatic micro- activation)

<comment><USER3> Many of the things the human body was optimized for aren't really that important in the modern world. E.g. I'd take a body (or brain...) that was 10 times stronger but required ten times more energy. Energy is abundant now.

Another serious downside is fragility. Sure it can self repair. But it's very slow and only works for minor damage. Id prefer to just swap out the broken part and fix it quickly.

And the whole fluid system is connected, so if a single part breaks it can drain the whole system. Not to mention the whole pain thing. It can't even extreme temperatures or environments at all.

<comment><USER4> > Energy is abundant now.

Good luck paying for energy equivalent to ten times your food budget, and the time taken to charge.

<comment><USER2> Currently in our civilization, blind calories aren't that expensive. I think the bigger issue is how you _carry_ that energy while moving, since I don't think anyone wants to operate tethered to an outlet.

In terms of stored energy per kilogram, regular old fat kicks the ass of any consumer battery tech.

Suppose that your augmentations rely on battery-fed electricity, and you eat 2,000 kcal per day for your bio-bits, and charge 18,000 kcal each night for your mech-bits...

In that scenario, you'd need to carry around an extra 120 kilograms of lithium-ion batteries to cover your daily activity, which probably won't involve much jumping.

<comment><USER5> Affordability of food is because food prices exclude most externalities (and subsidies). Food is one of the biggest global warming drivers. So we cannot afford more food consumption unless our diet composition changes.

<comment><USER2> > Food is one of the biggest global warming drivers.

I'd say _meat_ is one of the biggest global-warming drivers. That's why I referred to "blind calories", as in, calories and you don't care where they came from.

<comment><USER5> But you can't not care of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Obviously this article is full of self-modification for fairly whimsical reasons. It's easy to make fun of.

But this kind of problem is more serious and discouraging when you think about aging. You know cells in each organ are going to mutate, get protein aggregation, fibrosis, and so on. Instead of trying to figure out something to do about each of those things individually at the molecular level, it might seem simpler to just replace organs periodically. Every 20 years, just get a new heart, etc.

Nontrivial and risky, of course, but perhaps less so than the even less- developed alternatives. But as TFA points out, surgery is hard on the body, and the body likes to reject transplants, be they biological or mechanical. Integrating vasculature is hard, integrating nerves is REALLY hard.

So in short, I think even if these particular applications are frivolous, hopefully people who are doing this will help push forward knowledge on the general question of "how do you add/replace/integrate body parts safely and robustly". They are truly pioneers, in all senses of the term -- they're pushing forward the frontier at great personal risk.

<comment><USER7> Replacing organs (for now) is a task that often involves immunosuppression. Perhaps it will be possible to work around this with techniques like gene therapy + xenotransplantation: [http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/hgp- write/2016-05-10/trans...](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/transcripts/hgp- write/2016-05-10/transplantation/)

In the mean time, there's also some work that can be done on the the anti- aging front by picking very simple mutations that cause delayed aging phenotypes (skip to "longevity" section): [http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic- modifications/](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/genetic-modifications/)

<comment><USER6> I work in aging research. A very nice set of notes you have there. The field is not really thinking in this direction. By "picking" mutations, I suppose you mean gene therapy.

As you probably know, NIA does not consider aging a disease, just a risk factor for other diseases. So we cannot possibly test anything remotely risky in humans for the treatment of aging, and that certainly includes both transplants and gene therapy. We have to backdoor our way in via stuff like Alzheimer's, dementia, sarcopenia, etc, and it seems unlikely that most gene therapy interventions that target aging per se would have enough efficacy on that kind of disease to justify the risk. They are too advanced already.

Even so, this is the kind of thing I think about while driving to work, frustrated at the slow pace that occurs while working within the system :)

I am inclined to agree that the problems with transplantation, both biological and mechanical, are mostly solvable though. I think the kinks will have to be worked out in other fields where prosthetics, surgery, and gene therapy have a better perceived risk/reward ratio than aging.

<comment><USER7> Well dude, I have some funding for crazy gene therapy projects, so let me know if you want to work on things that matter. But it's all somewhat outside of academia, so it doesn't really appeal to everyone.

Some very high-level background on where this is coming from: [http://diyhpl.us/wiki/hplusroadmap/](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/hplusroadmap/) (we hang out mostly on IRC and would love to hear your project ideas).

Much more modest in scope, this is one of our recent projects: [https://blog.kitmatic.com/2017/06/28/electroporation-is- now-...](https://blog.kitmatic.com/2017/06/28/electroporation-is-now-quick- high-yield-and-commodity-priced/)

<comment><USER8> Just wondering, if you "have some funding for crazy gene therapy projets", what does that mean? Where does "outside funding" usually come from? I imagine Larry Ellison flying you over in his private jet and saying "kanzure, I want to live longer, here's some cash please make it happen". Is it like that?

<comment><USER7> Yes, it's exactly like that.

.... Eliezer leaned back in his chair. "Mr. Musk, what can I do for you?". The two engaged in a blissful staredown as their eyes locked. After several overbearing teary-eyed moments, Elon replied with a simple request. "World peace." And thus began a long, unproductive partnership between Big Yud and Peter Thiel-- I mean, Elon Musk -- a partnership focused not on the practical realities of actually building relevant transhumanist technology, but rather a venture focused on theories of world peace-- er, I mean, friendliness-- and writing fanfic instead of executing on important engineering/lab skills to achieve technological goals.

This story continued here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXARrMadTKk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXARrMadTKk)

More seriously... Some projects don't really require that much funding to happen. Often you can use specialized knowledge to forego otherwise hugely expensive efforts. It mostly starts with skill and knowledge, not money. As an example, trying out random CRISPR-Cas9 projects can actually be really cheap, less than $5k/project if the projects are structured just right. The trick is to pick projects that happen to be within budget and interesting enough to everyone involved. And if there needs to be a larger budget, sometimes the project is interesting enough to attract outsider funding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I never asked for this.

If you can perform all these tasks with your smartphone cheaper and without invasive surgery, you can't really call it an augmentation or upgrade. Frankly, if implantable magnets and NFC/RFID chips are the full extent of the contributions of the biohacking community, then the community completely lacks imagination and creativity.

We can use radio waves to measure heart rate and breathing and use that data to measure a person's emotional state. It would be interesting to see someone hack together an internal sensor that does this and have it attached to implantable led's, so your body could "glow" particular colors based on your emotional state. Or use electronic ink tattoos to make an animated gif on your body.

Just copying the same two uninspired trends isn't what I would call hacking.

<comment><USER7> > Frankly, if implantable magnets and NFC/RFID chips are the full extent of > the contributions of the biohacking community, then the community completely > lacks imagination and creativity.

Don't let the grinders get in the way of progress :-) There are many at-home genetic engineering folks that don't proselytize implants every n seconds: [https://groups.google.com/group/diybio](https://groups.google.com/group/diybio)

The downside to this other community is that the general public has an overbearing fascination with bioluminescence (sigh): [http://www.the- odin.com/gene-engineering-kits/](http://www.the-odin.com/gene-engineering- kits/)

<comment><USER9> iGem always produces some fascinating projects, amazing high school kids! : [http://igem.org/Main_Page](http://igem.org/Main_Page)

There's also this BioHacker Space in SF that seems to have interesting meetups: [http://biocurious.org/projects/](http://biocurious.org/projects/)

Although it's not auto-biohacking, some group created yeast that produces thc, allowing for marijuana infused beer

<comment><USER7> agreed about igem, i worked on a list of one-sentence summaries of all the previous igem projects: [http://diyhpl.us/wiki/dna/projects/#igem-2014](http://diyhpl.us/wiki/dna/projects/#igem-2014)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yeah, I got mine out after a few years. It lost sensitivity as magnets do, and I didn't want to pinch a nerve. They have new ones that are much slimmer now, but also much more difficult to remove...I passed.

We actually do have promising 'batteries' for this sort of application as of 2017, though; lithium hybrid supercapacitors. They're roughly an order of magnitude worse than Li-Po batteries today, in energy density and cost. But the advantages over LiPos are a higher ~10C charge/discharge rate, no thermal runaway "Galaxy S7" issues, and a maximum charge retention rate on the order of 80-95% after 10,000 cycles should let them last decades at least. A very compact 100F/24mAh module is available today at 1.8-2.7V from Murata, and I think Taiyo-Yuden has offerings too.

I think we're still making progress. Anyone buying one of those magnets knew they were buying into an alpha version of a product; it's not like we asked the FDA to approve things first.

<comment><USER11> Not a good choice for implanted batteries, but possibly the replacement for the power storage unit for EMALS. The electromagnetic catapult on the Ford- series carriers apparently works fine; it's the flywheel energy storage system which powers it that's giving trouble. They need something they can charge up in a minute or so and then discharge in a few seconds. Ultracapacitors are starting to look good compared to the flywheel thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Just the description of the nonsense these two have done gave me a shiver. The toward the MRI part, I prepared for the worse. Had he forgotten about the magnet, it could have gone really bad.

And I think to myself, what a ridiculous world.

<comment><USER3> Do they run patients through a metal detector before putting them in an MRI?

<comment><USER13> The hospital/clinic will ask a series of questions that are risk factors for having metal in your body. Here is a typical form (no association) [pdf]: [http://radiology.ucla.edu/workfiles/referralforms/MRI- safety...](http://radiology.ucla.edu/workfiles/referralforms/MRI-safety- screening-questionnaire-outpatient.pdf)

If the patient isn't able to answer or is unsure it gets a little complicated based on the risk factors, how soon the image is needed, etc.. Sometimes screening imaging of the orbits (eyes) is done if there is a history of metal working or a CT head/orbits (bullet fragments in brain = no bueno), chest X-ray if you can't get documentation on a pacemaker, and so on.

<comment><USER3> That seems a lot less efficient than a metal detector. Perhaps they just aren't sensitive enough?

<comment><USER14> Metal detectors don't (typically) detect body jewelery so I don't think they are very useful in a clinical setting since they'd have to detect that sort of thing.

Source: I have a bunch of body jewelery and been through a bunch of metal detectors and never set any off.

<comment><USER3> Well yes the ones used in security checkpoints are probably only set to detect big pieces of metal like guns and knives. It's a pain if they go off every time someone walks through with an earring or a metal button or zipper.

But people do use metal detectors to reliably find bottle caps, jewelry, coins, etc, under several inches of sand and soil.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's merely a future that is much further out. Scientists and doctors aren't even close to being able to interface man made technology to nerve endings and brain waves in a way that could compete or enhance the natural. The same is true with AI and machine learning that is supposedly due to destroy humanity any minute now. It's all a bunch of hype.

I quit subscribing to Popular Mechanics and the like many years ago because they were always so hyped with the next big breakthrough that never happened. It was science fiction (which I do love to read, but not when it is proclaimed as reality).

People buy into these cults and do bizarre things like this all the time, people want so badly to believe the comic books.

The narcissism of man is on full display with things like this. Do you realize just how little we understand about anything? Any field of science, medicine, exploration, psychology, philosophy. All whose pillars of truth are overturned regularly. I wonder why people are so stupid as to believe the next thing the surgeon general recommends them to eat or not eat, just to have that completely changes 5 years later. People basing their child rearing on psychologists whose studies cannot be reproduces almost 90% of the time.

Here is my philosophy. Wither you believe in creation or evolution, look back to learn how our bodies should stay healthy. The things we should eat and not eat. The exercise we should do. Look back before man started screwing things up (I'm talking hunter gatherers here). Use common sense when taking care of the planet. Look how interdependent everything is and don't screw that up.

Use your head, don't listen to someone else's hype. They are just trying to make a buck or gain power and influence.

<comment><USER16> The things that get hyped when they're fiction stop being hype when they become real. I used to watch Beyond 2000 and marvel at the tantaluzing future it promised me: wireless phone calls using a grid of "cellular" microtowers, vision corrective surgery with tiny cuts made into the cornea, athletic shoes that provide extra cushioning with small gas-filled chambers in the heel.

Cellphones, LASIK, and Air Jordans are just part of the fabric of everyday reality now. We've seen their benefits but also their drawbacks. As they became widespread consumer products and services, not just experiments in a lab someplace, thwy lost their sheen and became the new normal.

But we still live in wonderful times, even if we choose not to see it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I came to the same conclusion instantly at the moment of my first encounter of a finger magnet idea on YouTube - "Cool, but I want a ring that does that and that I can tune, replace and put on and take off at will...".

Alternatively: nanites like in DX1 and DX2.

<comment><USER18> From the article:

 _The better wearable devices get, the less sense it makes to permanently modify your body. Things like exoskeletons, smart glasses, and external brain- computer interfaces are safer and much easier to upgrade than their implanted counterparts. Plus, you can take them off in inappropriate situations: you won't get stuck trying to swim with a metal limb, for example, or wearing a permanent version of Google Glass to a laid-back dive bar._

I really think wearables make vastly more sense for enhancing ourselves than this kind of body modification.

<comment><USER17> Yes, I read the article, that's why I said I came to the same conclusion ("wearables > implantables").

My 'ring' answer for magnet in finger was just an example of a counterpoint in such a debate between these two transhumanism approaches. I of course approve smart glasses, rings, bracelets, wearables, exoskeletons, etc. over implants, surgeries and metal bones (Wolverine from X-Men excluded ;). Of course nanites easily trump wearables but they are way too far into the future at this point I'd think.

<comment><USER18> I think I misunderstood your comment.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I checked out the biohack.me forum mentioned in the article and it's really disappointing that the only implants currently being tried are either magnets or NFC/RFID chips. I was expecting to find a vibrant sub culture with all sorts of new ideas for implants being tried out.

<comment><USER7> nah just skip the NFC/RFID stuff and go straight to actual research projects [http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/implants/](http://diyhpl.us/~bryan/papers2/neuro/implants/)

I think wireless power induction should be one of the minimum requirements.

Also this is another related community: [https://groups.google.com/group/diybio](https://groups.google.com/group/diybio)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The bit about wearables reminds me of this quote from _Neuromancer_ :

> He stared through the glass at a flat lozenge of vatgrown flesh that lay on > a carved pedestal of imitation jade. ... it was tattooed with a luminous > digital display wired to a subcutaneous chip. Why bother with the surgery, > he found himself thinking, while sweat coursed down his ribs, when you could > just carry the thing around in your pocket?

</comment><comment><USER21> I did the opposite, in a sense. I ignored my body for a future that did come, contrary to expectation. During the 60s-70s, every year without nuclear holocaust seemed like a gift. Now I deal with it. So it goes ;)

</comment><comment><USER22> The thing is there hasn't been many (if any) technological break throughs in past 7 years (since the end of 2010) that would conceivably be used for bio hacking. The title is bad and the author should feel bad. How did she think magnet in finger would be "prepare" her for the future? It was a gimmick and it worked for years. What more could she ask for?

</comment><comment><USER23> Would it be possible to re-magnetize an implanted magnet that has weakened over time? Or would that require exposing them to very strong magnetic fields, which would rip them out of the body? (I've seen videos of magnet manufacturing, and when they exposed the new magnets to strong fields to magnetize them, they were always firmly clamped in place so they would remain stationary).

<comment><USER24> Yes you need high magnetic fields to re-magnetize a magnet. Seems like you need between 1 - 2T magnetic field to saturate a rare-Earth magnet. So it's not something easily achievable in a homemade setup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Body hacking of this nature hasn't gone away... It's just getting more sophisticated with actual medical uses. For example, a paper I coauthored at RFIC 2017 based on work done at Google[x] / Verily Life Sciences:

[http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7969066/?reload=true](http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7969066/?reload=true)

Abstract: A wireless system-on-chip with integrated antenna, power harvesting and biosensors is presented that is small enough, 200µm x 200µm x 100µm, to allow painless injection. Small device size is enabled by: a 13µm x 20µm 1nA current reference; optical clock recovery; low voltage inverting dc-dc to enable use of higher quantum efficiency diodes; on-chip resonant 2.4GHz antenna; and array scanning reader. In-vivo power and data transfer is demonstrated and linear glucose concentration recordings reported.

Edit - PDF copy of paper: [http://www.travisdeyle.com/publications/pdf/2017_rfic_implan...](http://www.travisdeyle.com/publications/pdf/2017_rfic_implantable_sensor.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER26> north, electro magnetic fields. Before we implant anything, we need an interesting small sensor in general.

Any small sensor that does anything interesting for me? Requirements: For prosthetic learning it must react fast and the signal should change with muscle/body movement.

How I wire the signal to my body is antoher issue, but first show me an interesting sensor. Best I can come up with is remote temperature sensing, still booring.

<comment><USER27> I wonder if enhancing existing senses might end up being easier than engineering new ones, at least in the short term.

<comment><USER26> Right, while I still want X-ray vision, night vision might be more feasable.

Our body is pretty good at all the relevant stuff of our physical world :). And in the digital the interesting stuff is high-level or can be automated or removed.

<comment><USER28> I disagree, our body is pretty limited. Pretty limited field of vision and weak detection of dangerous gases and liquids, for example.

Also, flaky sensors too. My mother recently had a couple of episodes of BPPV[1], and in the process I found that a _lot_ of people have it at some point in their lives. A friend of ours had vertigo for almost a month(!) and was absolutely incapacitated.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_paroxysmal_positional_v...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benign_paroxysmal_positional_vertigo)

<comment><USER26> I nearly never encounter undetectable dangerous gases or liquids. A simple beeper or probe would do there, no need for a new sense.

Flaky sensors is something else, when a sense breaks down it makes very much sense to replace it.

<comment><USER28> What about the field of vision? As cars become quieter, I'd love to be able to "sense" one coming from behind, especially when I'm walking in rural roads with small shoulders.

<comment><USER27> I'd rather have the cars sense me, if we're that sophisticated, and skip the neurosurgery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Didn't people do this to seem counterculture/edgy? I mean, it looked kind of cool the first time I read about it, but that was only because of the novelty factor. That sixth sense doesn't really help us, and I'm pretty sure that more animals would have a magnetic sensor if beneficial. Some pigeons have magnetic sensors to determine their orientation to the earth.

<comment><USER30> A little glad I missed out on this when it was fadish (even unused ear piercing can get males in trouble for being out of regs in the military).

Though it did for a while get me interested in senses we lose because we don't have words for them. Color identification along cultures/languages being the easiest to actually prove.

<comment><USER31> In what way do you suppose we've lost "color identification"?

<comment><USER32> People who speak a language where two given colors have the same name will have more difficulty telling them apart than someone who speaks a language where those two colors have different names.

[https://vimeo.com/120808489](https://vimeo.com/120808489)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Magnets wear out? I didn't know that. How come?

<comment><USER34> Entropy man. You think that a whole bunch of neatly aligned atoms would stay that way over time?

<comment><USER33> Eventually, sure, but I have crappy old fridge magnets that are still going strong after 30 years. What's different about little neodymium rods that they fail in 5?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I feel like a magnetic piercing would be more practical than putting it fully under the skin.

</comment><comment><USER36> I think that bio hacking has lost it's initial hype but it does have a chance to jump the chasm if it got a killer app. Or even creating non invasive ways to perform the current set of tasks.

</comment><comment><USER37> Has anyone attempted a modification (electronic or pneumatic) that lets you hear your own heartbeat 24/7? That might be useful for monitoring and controlling your health and emotional state.

<comment><USER38> Believe me, you don't want to do that. One of the side effects of my sinus trouble is that I "hear" my heartbeat (not just throbbing), and it took me years to learn how to tune it out and not have it feed a feedback loop that led to some very stressful moments (140bpm resting).

<comment><USER39> I second this. I don't know why, but I can feel my heart beat at all times. After strenuous exercise, it throbs very forcibly, but it's also very noticeable when lying in bed (I sleep in a prone position). It's not a great feeling, because, for one, it reminds you that you have a thing that's beating all the time and would kill you if it stopped, and also because it's just annoying to be feeling your heart pulsing inside you every moment of the day.

<comment><USER40> For me it's a lovely piece of mechanical sympathy I can have with my own body: it lets me tell if I'm agitated or soothed in ways I'm not immediately aware of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> _one futurist gushed over a visually striking prosthetic arm, musing that it might be worth amputating for the "upgrade." Another panelist shut them down immediately: doctors and scientists aren't even close to solving the phantom pain and limited mobility that most amputees face, let alone building something uniformly better than a human limb._

You can upgrade your current arm by eating better and going to the gym. If that isn't enough to get the visually striking look you are after, tattoos and the right clothes can help.

I can't believe there are nutcases in the world ready to embrace becoming a Borg. This is bizarre.

<comment><USER41> Your comment is silly. Accusing someone of being a "nutcase" is not constructive, nor is a comment about becoming a Borg.

Yes, at the moment it's not plausible to upgrade one's arm. In the future it will become plausible, though, and the upgrade will at some point be much better than what you can do at a gym. In fact, you can only get a stronger arm at the gym (or an arm with more endurance), but a bionic arm can be much better.

<comment><USER18> Much better in what way?

I have had reason to become somewhat familiar with what happens to the body when organs are transplanted with natural organs from other people and when metal pins are used to repair damaged parts and so forth. None of it is anywhere near as good as keeping your own parts functional and healthy to begin with. It all comes with serious complications, and I think people vastly underestimate just how bad it really is. I think it is far worse than people think.

<comment><USER28> Sure, _currently_ it is. But that's not written in stone. Lots of medical procedures used to have huge mortality rates and extreme side-effects, and are now much better, often even just a couple of decades afterwards.

<comment><USER18> The component parts they use are inherently problematic. You put enough metal in the body, it causes metal poisoning. This is a fundamental problem. You solve it by moving to other materials entirely. Other materials that have some hope of working tend to be more organic, and then we aren't talking cyborg- like outcomes anymore. We are talking some other paradigm.

So, I don't see it.

<comment><USER33> I think you're focusing too hard on the chromesteel cyberpunk angle. A prosthetic made of silicone, plastic, and carbon fiber is still just as "cyborg".

And metal will still have its place. _Most_ people are quite tolerant to titanium, and there's been some advances lately in hydrophobic coatings for implants that keep them from interacting with your blood. I think it's unlikely to be a _primary_ component, though, because it's heavy and expensive and its primary advantage--strength--is useless if the body it's attached to gives out first.

<comment><USER18> Look, I am not arguing against creating prostheses for people who need them for some reason. If you are going to die without it or if your functionality is sufficiently impaired due to lack of a body part, there are certainly cases where it makes sense.

But I have difficulty imagining it will ever not be crazy to be willing to lop off a perfectly healthy arm to "upgrade" it. That was what I was reacting to. It isn't like I am decrying the _evils of cochlear implants_ here.

<comment><USER33> > _But I have difficulty imagining it will ever not be crazy to be willing to > lop off a perfectly healthy arm to "upgrade" it._

Then say that and be done with it. Don't cloud the issue with misdirection about metal poisoning.

<comment><USER18> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14829343](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14829343)

That is exactly what I said in my first comment. And then a bunch of people piled on to have a cow about that statement. And the longer this discussion has gone on, the weirder it has gotten in terms of people trying to put words in my mouth and claim intent that isn't there.

You could just give it a rest yourself. It takes two to make for good discussion. Both people need to be engaging in good faith. It only takes one to undermine that process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Cody from Cody's Lab on YouTube did this a while ago.

It was _really_ cool. He's done a few videos on it, including putting it in and taking it out.

</comment><comment><USER43> "Hacking your body" the way this article describes seems more pathological than anything.

It's like people who fetishize about getting amputated.

<comment><USER28> People have always altered their bodies for improvement. Cutting off parts of their penises (circumcision), perforating their skin for earrings and piercings, shooting lasers at their skin to destroy their organs that produce hairs, etc.

<comment><USER44> I am struggling to see the "improvement" in having a magnet in your finger. What use was it, because she describes a number of downsides?

<comment><USER28> I'm not talking about that particular modification, just in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Author throws their uninformed and limited view of injectables against their previous empty and uninformed optimism for wetware grinding due to their #fingermagnetennui (which to be fair is No Joke™), is saddened.

Includes such deep insights as:

• Stitching a cellphone into your arm maybe isn't the future

• Replacing body parts for fun doesn't make sense yet

• biohacking is in decline because Trump was elected

</comment><comment><USER46> Not many people are impressed with this silly shit to have it done to them?

You know, I don't often say this, but the general populace was right on this one.</comment>


Ask HN: What should I expect in IT as a prospective math major? - <AUTHOR>

A bit about myself: I'm just about done with my first year as an undergrad at a top public university in the US. I have a pretty good CS + devops background for my age. I worked over my summers as a software engineering intern. The first company I worked for was mainly front-end development. Last summer I interned for a database startup and I've agreed to work for another database startup this summer.
Almost three years ago, I started a web hosting brand that I still run. I have an interest in business administration and finance as well.
I decided to major in math (with a financial concentration) rather than computer science. I figured I could get the most out of my tuition by majoring in something I didn't know much about / something I'm not very good at. I found CS classes to be rather boring, and I get more out of learning from internships and working on real projects.
So what should I expect in terms of jobs in the future? I'd like to stay in software development and devops. I feel like companies might be turned off by my non-CS academic track and they would be more inclined to choose someone majoring in CS. <comment><USER3> The cool thing about IT is that a lot of people don't care what your major is (though admittedly there could be some "must have degree" at large companies). There's CS people, Information Technology, Infosec, Information Management, and more. There's not just 1 major. I worked with a Linux admin with a masters in Physics, and was entirely self taught.

There's a bunch of neat things you can do with a math degree in IT. Off the top of my head, anything involving statistics. Most people can't do any statistics at all, and the ones who can are limited. There's a lot in the areas of business intelligence that requires math majors. I think my company employs a few.

Another area is algorithms. There's a lot of algorithms to be had - <USER2> filters, job schedulers, search, etc. It could be a good fit for you if you're into that area.

</comment><comment><USER4> Edsger Dijkstra had pointed out that there is a difference between the USA and European view of Math and CS. In Europe CS is far more like an applied math discipline.

Have a look at the online CS resources for Stanford and MIT and compare them with your university's treatment of the subject. Then you might be able to decide whether what you are being taught as CS is comparable. If not, then I agree with @quaffapint re considering changing.

Some employers, e.g. in merchant banking, might value your math training more than some run off the mill CS education. Especially considering that you could show a good track record of completed projects in your CV.

</comment><comment><USER5> I've got a math bachelors and a math related masters. Like you I also had a very heavy computer background. I can only speak from my perspective but through my career as a developer, the math degrees has been lumped in with the CS degrees. It shows them that your mind can handle the logic. Though I have to ask if you want to stay in software development maybe you just need to find a better cs program.

</comment><comment><USER6> I did a Math/CS dual 20 years ago and while CS opened doors, it's the math degree which distinguishes me (since it's relatively unusual) and has given me the discipline to tackle particularly tough problems.</comment>


Show HN: SVGnest – irregular bin packing in the browser - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/Jack000/SVGnest <comment><AUTHOR> so part nesting is a pretty common problem in the laser cutter/CNC world. Commercial software that does this is pretty expensive, and I couldn't find any open-source implementations out there so I thought I'd write it myself.

</comment><comment><USER2> Very impressive! I'm going to investigate whether I can use this for my flatpack cnc design files.</comment>


The magical -- and not harmful -- rebase (Git) - <AUTHOR> http://jeffkreeftmeijer.com/2010/the-magical-and-not-harmful-rebase/

<comment><USER2> Rebase makes long-lived branches much more manageable.

Everyone who's worked with one knows that long-lived branches are a bad idea - the performance-improvements branch that the intern started last year and has been running on beta for a while but hasn't really kept up to date with the new features we added on production. The time required to merge one of these seems to grow faster than linearly with the time since it diverged, and a year-old branch is basically impossible to merge.

However, long-lived branches happen (features get shelved and then picked up again, refactoring gets postponed due to deadlines...). Rebase doesn't make long-lived branches a good idea, but it makes them much easier to deal with:

* you can rebase once a week and keep your branch up to date (to avoid the superlinear growth of merging effort). You can just about do this with frequent "latest changes from master" merges, but it clutters the branch history, and merge commits complicate things if you ever _need_ to rebase. (Also, anyone who tried to do this with Subversion probably got shivers down their spine at the thought of merging the branch back in after all those merges from master.)

* when the branch inevitably conflicts with master, it's _much_ easier and less risky to resolve the conflicts a commit at a time, rather than resolving them all at once as a merge would force you to.

<comment><USER3> I would say that your problems were not caused by a long-running branch per se, but rather were caused by the intern not pulling from production often enough. Linus talked about this in one of his Git talks. Responsibility for merging should lie with the team working on the new feature in the side branch, not some other team that knows nothing about it.

<comment><USER2> Agree (the intern was hypothetical, but agree that long-lived branches are usually symptoms of human rather than tooling problems). However these things happen, and if you are in a hole, it's nice if your tools let you dig yourself out :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Using rebase this way is not harmful, but the author didn't explain the situation when it is!

As usual, the Pro Git book does a great job explaining: <http://progit.org/book/ch3-6.html>

In short, if your team develops with an old-school, SVN type model, where there is one reference repo (the remote) that all developers pull from and push to, rebase to your hearts content. But if your team pulls from each other, you really want to be careful with rebasing. I believe this is how the Linux kernel is developed, which explains all of the warnings about git rebasing. After all, it's logical to assume that you should do exactly as the Linux kernel developers, for whom git was created, do!

</comment><comment><USER5> It should also be mentioned that if you are going to be doing some rebasing that you should look into enabling git rerere. What isn't mentioned in his article if you do multiple rebases to the same branch you will have to resolve the same conflicts over and over without rerere enabled.

        git config --global rerere.enabled 1

</comment><comment><USER6> _You could simply merge that into your feature branch, but that would result in one of those nasty merge commits...It's as if you didn't start working in the feature/login branch before the commits you pulled in were made. Nice, huh?_

I'm genuinely not sure how I feel about _git rebase_. Two questions. First, what is so nasty about such a merge commit? People complain about these merges a lot, but is the objection just aesthetic? _Why_ is such a merge bad? Second, from a historical point of view, you _did_ "start working in the feature/login branch before the commits you pulled in were made." So why would you want the history to look otherwise?

I completely understand the use of _rebase_ or _\--amend_ to fix a typo or a forgotten file commit, but in a case like this, I'm not sure what to think. I'm inclined to prefer the history to show what actually happened, rather than a tidied up version of the past.

<comment><USER7> A merge is totally fine, if you really are merging something. But in the case of feature branches you often have the situation, that you work on a very isolated thing. Simultaneously, someone works on the branch which you branched your feature off. You want to get the current state for some reason. By using a merge you would add complexity that is not necessary at this point, because it would just originate in the fact, that you branched off sometime sooner. It would not really be a merge in "content". I find rebasing in this occasion perfectly suitable, since it removes this layer of complexity that noone needs at this point. You just pretend to have branched off later, which is alright. When you are finished with your feature you use a regular merge to get back in your dev branch, since now you really ARE merging something.

<comment><USER6> _By using a merge you would add complexity that is not necessary at this point, because it would just originate in the fact, that you branched off sometime sooner. It would not really be a merge in "content". I find rebasing in this occasion perfectly suitable, since it removes this layer of complexity that noone needs at this point._

What exactly is the complexity you have in mind here? (I'm not trying to be contentious: I honestly don't see it.)

<comment><USER7> When you merge the dev branch in the feature branch, you create a new commit with 2 ancestors. While this is all done very well in git and allows for perfect inspection, it makes it nonetheless harder to follow the history of your feature branch, since now you have two sources for changes. I just find it easier to make the history linear in that case, because it is easier to analyse in retrospect.

<comment><USER2> I actually prefer having two ancestors, because you can analyse different _kinds_ of change in isolation. If your branch was to add a new widget to the UI, and there's a regression I'm trying to find in the backend data munging code, it's better if I can trivially ignore all the changes from the new-ui- widget branch, because I know that's very unlikely to have broken the data munging. That's harder to do if you've linearised the history.

<comment><USER8> Not really, because every changeset from the new-ui-widget branch shows up after the point at which the rebase happened, so there is a clear cutoff in the git log between branch changes and master/upstream changes after you've rebased.

<comment><USER9> You will thank me later:

       git log --graph

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> One way to get really used to rebase is to use git-svn, which pretty much requires it.

</comment><comment><USER11> This relates to a question I asked on Stackoverflow a while back: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/457927/git-workflow- and-r...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/457927/git-workflow-and-rebase- vs-merge-questions)

Reading the Oreilly git book (the one with the bat) was immensely useful for me to understand rebasing (and merging and cherry picking). It makes it clear when and where it's harmful, when it might cause problems, and when it's perfectly safe.

It's taken me several years, but I've come to appreciate rebasing, and I recommend it to others now

</comment><comment><USER12> I heart rebase, but I haven't figure out how to keep a remote branch in synch, I rebase and when I try to push to the remote branch it fails, I sometimes end up just creating a new local & remote branch :/

<comment><USER2>
        git push --force remote local-branch-name:remote-branch-name

(or if local-branch-name and remote-branch-name are the same:)

        git push --force remote branch-name

(N.B. if there's a chance that anyone else is working on the same branch, then think twice before doing --force, because you may spoil their afternoon. Read 'git help push' for more info.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Good, if short, article. Commendations on having a healthy relationship with merge, which is highly useful. Recently it seems people have gone way overboard with rebasing.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is one of the better explanations of `git rebase` I've seen. Hardcore git users seem to have a hard time relating git concepts to non-git users. Nice write-up, Jeff.</comment>


CallStranger UPnP vulnerability exposes routers, gaming systems, TVs, printers - <AUTHOR> https://www.geekslop.com/news/technology-news/hacking-and-security/2020/new-callstranger-exploit-takes-advantage-of-upnp-vulnerability-in-millions-of-routers-gaming-systems-tvs-printers-and-other-internet-connected-attachable-devices <comment><AUTHOR> Researchers just announced the discovery of a UPnP vulnerability that impacts any UPnP device exposed on the Internet. The attack, called CallStranger (CVE-2020-12695), is being used for massive DDoS attacks , to exfiltrate data, and to scan ports from Internet-facing UPnP devices.

The attack takes advantage of a Callback header value in the SUBSCRIBE function so you can block all SUBSCRIBE and NOTIFY HTTP packets in ingress and egress traffic for protection. DDoS protection can be configured to block NOTIFY packets too.</comment>


Tern (JS type inference engine) reaches 15K stretch goal for editor integration - <AUTHOR> http://www.indiegogo.com/projects/tern-intelligent-javascript-editing/x/2619041

<comment><AUTHOR> You can vote on which editor you want Tern to be integrated with (aside from emacs and vim): <http://ternjs.net/vote.html></comment>


Steam Is Coming to Chromebooks with Ubuntu-Based "Borealis" Feature - <AUTHOR> https://www.omgubuntu.co.uk/2020/07/ubuntu-steam-chromebook-gaming <comment><USER2> "Borealis" is a name that has some pretty interesting Valve history: [https://half-life.fandom.com/wiki/Borealis](https://half- life.fandom.com/wiki/Borealis)

It seems that whoever at Google codenamed this project is a fan of the company's work. :)</comment>


A multitouch musical synth built in Typescript/React - <AUTHOR> http://femurdesign.com/theremin <comment><USER2> I don't think it needs to be depending on Facebook stuff. It fatals out if Facebook is blocked or down.

More and more developers are forgetting that some users won't load all or some of the script tags. I have people linking me stuff like this all the time, and all I see is a blank screen.

</comment><comment><USER3> Fun to play with! Sadly, touch interaction is broken in Firefox: 1) multitouch doesn't work 2) tap and hold without drag doesn't work. It works well in Chrome, though. I was able to play with 8 fingers at the same time. My touch screen supports 10 fingers at the same time, so I guess it is a limitation in the app (the source code says "VoiceCount: 8")

</comment><comment><USER4> Really nice! Loving the multi-touch.

Small bug:

Using in Firefox browser on iPad and playing with four fingers. When I go to move all four fingers to change the pitch of all four notes this causes my iPad to attempt switch to a different app. When I then release all four fingers the notes I was playing 'stick' and continue to play. To stop them I have to refresh the page.

<comment><USER5> Unless you actually use four/five-finger swipes to change apps, you may want to disable it at Settings > General > Multitasking > Gestures (switch to OFF).

<comment><USER4> I generally do the four finger swipe.

The point was more that the notes 'stick' after I return to the Firefox window. With four fingers playing the sounds can be a little wild. It took me a couple of tries to figure out why it had happened so I am guessing another user might be similarly confused.

Not to take anything away from this delightful little app. I just wanted to help out by reporting a little bug I found.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> So AFAICT there's no reason this shouldn't be able to run in phones and tablets it's just that you have to start the audio in a touch event to get things started and the page doesn't seem to be doing that? Or maybe it's intentionally trying to encourage downloading the app?

<comment><USER7> Does it not work for you? It's working perfectly on my iPhone 5 in mobile safari.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks like it could have been a "Show HN"...something to play with submitted by its creator. Nice work.

</comment><comment><USER9> Is there a way to enable keyboard input? (Or, how easy would it be to add?) Sounds amazing!

</comment><comment><USER10> Damn dude, you and your friend white vinyl have some very awesome work up. Keep it going!

</comment><comment><USER11> This is really slick! Would love to see how the UI/React code interacts with and models the audio data, especially if using something like Flux/redux

</comment><comment><USER12> Is there some amount of ring modulation happening at any/all settings? I see some additional side bands on even the sine wave.

<comment><USER13> It seems like "Scuzz" introduces some side bands. Maybe through something like ring modulation, or additive synthesis. Then there is the delay effect, which will naturally add some additional frequency content when the time isn't a multiple of the sine period.

But with all of those turned down, there are some interesting shapes in the frequency view. Maybe some sort of stereo spread effect that get mixed to mono for the FFT display?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What is the point of the React, here?

<comment><USER15> I'm not the creator of this, but to me React isn't about speed, it's about creating isolated, testable components within an understandable architecture. Given that, it's just as useful here as it would be anywhere else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> i just made a sweet sunn o))) cover, cool project.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is lovely</comment>


Ask HN: What can you add to this grassroots innovation directory? - <AUTHOR> http://www.phibetaiota.net/2010/07/design-for-the-other-90-exhibit-%E2%80%9Cmicro-giving%E2%80%9D-global-needs-index-to-connect-rich-to-poorfullfill-global-to-local-requests/

<comment><AUTHOR> I have been gradually adding innovations to this list and have covered a lot of territory. I think it would be cool to see an innovation supermarket online that listed every one of these kinds of innovations to be available for purchase/distribution. I would appreciate anyone who has further awareness of products to be added to this list. Perhaps I will eventually post a wiki for this somewhere.</comment>


Morrisons signs deal to sell food to Amazon customers - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-35684829 <comment><AUTHOR> An interesting move by Amazon, will be interesting to see how this pans out.

In the short term, the deal crucially allows Amazon to move into the fresh- food market with a credible fresh food offer quickly, all the while avoiding the potentially huge cost of building a fresh food supply chain platform. While it will probably take some time to build, it will most likely be an effective, credible and deep-pocketed additional market share thorn in the side of the UK incumbents. Given the importance of drop densities, those with greatest exposure to higher population density areas (i.e. Sainsbury, Tesco and Waitrose) will have the most to lose.

I am curious how the demographics of Prime Now customers will mix with Morrison's customers.</comment>


Female exec hired to help Magic Leap appeal to women sues for sex discrimination - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/feb/14/magic-leap-faces-sexual-discrimination-suit <comment><USER2> Sadly, this doesn't sound far off from some situations I've been in and seen. It's a tragic cycle.

HR at Company X - "We don't have any women. We should hire some women. I don't really know why, I just read it in this newsletter that it's a good idea." First female employee - "I see why you don't have any women here. I quit." Executive at Company X - "Silly women. I told you we didn't need them after all."

I'm honestly not sure if it's that large groups of men tend to act like jerks toward women (which happens pretty often). Or that they become large groups of men when the women leave, if the men were acting like jerks to them. I rarely see a company becoming more diverse after that point, and then it seems to feed back in on itself, as part of the culture.

There's a lot you can do that isn't quite to the point of discrimination or harassment that can get people to leave, that's why it's such an insidious problem. And rarely are these places a great place to work for anyone.

</comment><comment><USER3> > A new hire orientation included the unprepared advice: "in IT we have a > saying; stay away from the Three Os: Orientals, Old People and Ovaries". > Campbell was told the person in question would not be giving new hire > orientations in the future as a result, but that did not happen.

And from this Forbes article[1] :

> "All the engineers and others in predominately-male Magic Leap could > conceive of to make the product female friendly was to produce a version in > pink," the lawsuit said.

I can't imagine that a company like this wouldn't have many other major dysfunctional communication/team/management problems. In my experience, situations like this usually also come with teams people that can't deal with productive disagreement or differing opinions.

[1] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2017/02/13/former- ma...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/aarontilley/2017/02/13/former-magic-leap- executives-lawsuit-accuses-company-of-sexism-and-misleading- marketing/#7ba391fc4323)

<comment><USER4> "All the engineers and others in predominately-male Magic Leap could conceive of to make the product female friendly was to produce a version in pink"

However sad, this is not grounds for a legal case.

Most of the items in the article are like this.

She's offered evidence that ML is maybe not a great place to work for women in some ways, but none that they are acting in a discriminatory fashion.

Your first quote is particularly crude, but I don't even understand the context - why would they stay away form 'Old People' 'Ovaries' and 'Orientals'? There are tons of Asians in tech. Obviously extremely crude, but I don't even get the point of it.

Maybe there's more to it, or I missed something.

Seems like they need help, not to be sued.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> > One of the three or four core apps that will ship with Magic Leap's headset > "is a game, 'Dr. G.,' that has no female heroes or lead characters". The one > female character in the narrative, who isn't in the game itself, "is a busty > woman depicted on her knees grovelling at the heroes' feet in admiration".

So in 2017 it's a hostile work environment if there aren't female characters in the video game that the company is producing?

I know that not the whole suite but, it highlighted as part of it.

Are people at the Gillette going to sue because they make a whole line of razors that are pink? Are people going to sue at fashion companies because the clothes they make are too revealing or tight?

Are we going to bring subjective criticism of art into the courtroom not out it own merits to society but, judging it on the basis of how it makes one of the employees of the company feel?

I'm not saying that the whole suite it without merit. This one point was just especially egregious to me.

<comment><USER6> People harping on these single points like the one which bothers you prevents action from occurring and quickly muddies the water. These claims are meant to be taken as a whole. It is about the environment that the little small things create as a whole, not an individual event.

<comment><USER7> The problem is that all of the points as a whole don't really amount to anything particularly bad.

Like, sure they aren't good, but if you have skin so thin that a few immature remarks and the lack of a gender in a video game is damaging to your life, it's nobody's problem but your own.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I can (kind of) understand racism. If you don't grow up, go to school, etc. with other races, they are "the unknown", "the other". I am not saying it is good by any means but I can see how it happens.

Misogyny though? That makes no sense to me. Pretty much everyone had a mom and a lot of people have sisters. Unless your grew up in Sparta, respecting women should inculcated by the time you you get old enough to work with women.

<comment><USER9> To the contrary, I would argue it's easy to fall into misogyny.

If the few women you had in your life as a kid were awful people, you could have subconsciously picked gender as an identifying marker of being an awful person. Add some teenage sexual frustration and bruised ego, mix, and let stew in your head for a few years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> "A new hire orientation included the unprepared advice: "in IT we have a saying; stay away from the Three Os: Orientals, Old People and Ovaries". "

Oh wow. I thought my grandpa was the last person on Earth who actually still calls Asian people "orientals". Guess he ain't alone after all.</comment>


Ask HN: A way to adblock "we're using cookies" popups? - <AUTHOR> Whatever the intent of the GDPR was, the practical result is that now I have to click away the annoying "we're using cookies" popup on every website.<p>Is there any way to do this automatically? If there isn't - there should be. Maybe people should  use some special tag for them, so that it would be easy for users to block them on all the websites, if they want to. <comment><USER2> If you are already using ublock origin go to settings > filters list > annoyances, turn on easylist-cookies.

<comment><USER3> I am amazed, at how much that annoyed me, too - and why I never bothered to find out, that ublock origin has this as a hidden feature. Awesome. I just also turned on all of the other annoyance settings. Is there a good chance of real content getting removed, on occasion, or do they work quite good?

<comment><USER4> It's pretty easy to make your own, too. I use the element zapper and picker to block Reddit's incessant demands that I use "new" reddit and get a "premium" membership. I also use it to block Facebook's "trending" bullshit.

<comment><USER5> Either an element zapper or a one click sticky-header killer should honestly be standard issue features in browsers nowadays. The web would be a miserable without them, especially on mobile.

<comment><USER4> I'm just concerned that's inviting an arms race where unwelcome page elements get randomized CSS namespaces. Fuck that noise.

<comment><USER6> In that case we could just match by the CSS rules' content - i.e. match all elements that have style X, Y, Z applied to them. That kind of arms race would be over real quick.

<comment><USER7> The arms race is that the next time you come back to the page, the offending element has a slightly different style (randomized CSS class name, RGB values changed by 1, font size changed by 0.1...) and your browser doesn't recognise it as being the right element to block.

<comment><USER6> Match by ranges so changing values by 1 doesn't work. At the end of the day a human would have to come up with an entirely alternative style for the page to defeat your filters.

Pretty much any machine generated variations can also be defeated automatically by a machine. If defeating your filters takes a lot of work, and only helps until a few days later you update your filters in a few minutes, nobody is gonna bother.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The EU cookie laws were well-meaning, but have had the unintended consequence of making the web more annoying, more difficult to use, and more fragmented. We shouldn't have to resort to ad blockers just to make the web usable again.

The solution? Cookie consent should be a built-in feature of browsers and http, not something that is reimplemented in a slightly different way by every single website.

Your _browser_ should pop up a standardised cookie consent request when you browse a new site, and enforce your selection as part of its security policy. If you choose to block all cookies (ie: private browsing mode) then the cookie consent request wouldn't need to appear at all.

<comment><USER9> > Cookie consent should be a built-in feature of browsers and http

Didn't we have that from day 1? A browser is free to disable cookies.

<comment><USER10> Browser only allow consenting between no cookies, first party cookies and all cookies.

The EU laws are more concerned about the intent of the cookies. Are they functional cookies or tracking cookies designed to reduce user privacy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Yes, quite easily: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care- about-...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/i-dont-care-about- cookies/fihnjjcciajhdojfnbdddfaoknhalnja)

<comment><USER12> That is the way, but there's no need to install an extension just for it. Just add the IDCAC filter list to uBlock Origin (uBO settings => Filter Lists => Import, at the very bottom):

[https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/](https://www.i-dont-care-about- cookies.eu/abp/)

Also on that same page you can enable some of the 'Annoyances' filters. Just be aware that some of them block social media buttons (FB/Twitter like/follow embeds), which you may not want.

<comment><USER13> Isn't uBlock Origin an extension?

<comment><USER14> Yes, but uBlock and can do everything IDCAC can do, and more, so there's no point in having both installed.

<comment><USER13> Sure but what if you only care about cookie warnings and use site that are supported by ads?

<comment><USER15> Tangential question, but I would _love_ to know if a group of people who prefer ads but not cookie warnings exist? Do they rank supporting the website above minor inconvenience of pop-ups and advertisements? That's gotta be a unicorn in terms of internet users.

<comment><USER16> Uh, I'm in this group.

I think that if I'm visiting a website and using its bandwidth, the website ought to get paid. If the ads are too egregious, then using the website isn't "worth the cost" and I go to a different website.

I do however pay for Scroll[1], and I use Firefox's Enhanced Tracking Protection. Due to the latter, many websites think I'm using an adblocker and complain, which really irks me.

\---

1: [https://scroll.com/](https://scroll.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> So you mean government involvement in tech both didn't serve its intended purpose and its an annoyance to the end user? I would have never guessed....

<comment><USER18> The government doesn't enforce cookie banners. They enforce that there shouldn't be tracking. It's the tech companies who think it's worth while to annoy the users with coockie banners in order to be able to do more tracking (my assumption is that some make the banners extra painful as a way to steer anger towards legislature ...)

<comment><USER19> I mean, still, the practical effect of the govt legislation was to annoy countless people and waste who-knows-how-much-effort implementing the stupid banners.

To argue that this leglislation would've had a good effect in some hypothetical alternative world where businesses had different incentives is beside the point!

(Side note, if it were not for govt investment in the dentralized, open internet, we'd probably all be using some ungodly-advanced version or America Online. So I'm certainly not advocating govt has no place in tech!)

<comment><USER20> Another way of looking at it: the effect of the legislation has been to expose that just about every website tracks you.

Websites don't have to put a cookie banner for every kind of cookie. They have to show it whenever they collect identifying data about you. If they choose not to collect info on their visitors, then they don't have to put a banner.

<comment><USER21> With most of my customers the conversation goes something like:

\- Customer: We must still implement that cookie popup before launch!

\- Me: No. You don't _have_ to. If we just disable SomePerformanceMetrics and GoogleAnalytics, we're done: we don't need a pupop.

\- Me: who is using the performance metrics ATM? And who is acting on GA? How do you _use_ them? Would this (shows three really neat Log-analyzers as alternative) suffice?

\- Customer: We don't use them yet. But we might want to in future. And we then we might need all that data. So we want to start collecting it now.

Point is: you don't need Google Analytics, you don't need any of those 20+ tracking cookies if you actually look at it. But there's a lot a FOMO, combined with "but this is how we have always done it, so shut up".

There are some rare cases where GA, new-relic, tagmanager etc are really _nessecary_ and none of the privacy-friendly (ie no-cookie-popup required) alternatives cut it. But those are rare. I daresay that a vast majority of tracking cookies is just there because the developers/business is too lazy to take a serious look at the problem.

Which is why I truly welcome more legislation that turns "collecting vast amounts of data" from "free" into a real and looming liability.

<comment><USER20> You don't even have to fully disable GA. You just need to disable individual level tracking, as far as I know.

<comment><USER22> With the anonymizeIp parameter?

[https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection...](https://developers.google.com/analytics/devguides/collection/analyticsjs/field- reference#anonymizeIp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> We should encourage the EU to remove this ridiculous requirement.

<comment><USER24> We should encourage websites to stop tracking us.

<comment><USER25> The 2 aren't mutually exclusive.

Seriously, I wonder if adding those cookie banner impacted tracking in any significant manner, because it definitely _significantly_ impacted the usability of the web.

<comment><USER24> Actually, it only impacted the part of the web that is trying to track it's users. Things that didn't have cookies aren't impacted.

The only world in which your statement makes sense in one where user tracking is assumed to be acceptable and something that must be done. Neither of those things are true.

<comment> james-skemp Not OP, but I completely agree with their statement that "it definitely significantly impacted the usability of the web."

As others have noted, a ton of sites seem to have just thrown the necessary JS on their site without actually seeing if they needed to, or if they did, if they could make minor changes that would remove the need.

From a usability/user experience perspective, now users have these popups displaying on some number of sites that they visit, often developed with the assumption that they will be accepted by the user.

Based upon some of the experiences I've had, I would say a number of teams neglect to properly test their sites as a user that has not accepted/dismissed the pop-up/overlay.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I use vimium[1] to close _most_ pop-ups by typing "f" and then hitting the letter that pops up next to the close button.

If that doesn't work, I use a bookmarklet called "Remove Sticky"[2]. I type "bre" and hit enter when sticky things pop up to get them gone.

[1]: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogba...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/vimium/dbepggeogbaibhgnhhndojpepiihcmeb)

[2]: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23446504](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23446504)

<comment><USER27> That's actually a smart way of using vimium, thank you! I'm gonna set more bookmarklets for various tasks now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I can't believe this isn't handled by the browser. Make a standard API like the location or notification pop ups. Have a setting that says I understand what cookies are and I accept all.

<comment><USER29> The problem is you're expecting the developers and website owners to voluntarily opt-in to this browser standard.

It'll probably have about as much adoption as Do-Not-Track...

<comment><USER30> So show a warning when it's not detected like SSL.

<comment><USER31> Wouldn't that hurt simple websites which don't track by default?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> I feel like something should have been implemented at browser level through HTML meta tags to display the cookie banner. This would allow websites to declare technical cookies that cannot be blocked and other cookies that can be blocked by the user. We could even have a standardized, native cookie banner in the same way as the permissions asked by the browser.

Any idea if there's a chance to get this one day?

<comment><USER33> That won't work because most people will want to just permanently block tracking cookies. You could legislate it, but it would effectively kill targeted advertising.

The dialogues are only necessary because the website owners want to send you tracking cookies. If they choose not to, there is no need for any kind of banner, native or otherwise.

<comment><USER32> > That won't work because most people will want to just permanently block > tracking cookies. You could legislate it, but it would effectively kill > targeted advertising

So? The only difference between what I suggest and what we have is user friendliness. The law is already here.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, but technical obtuseness is intentional. First, to force users to click "accept all" and second to make users hate the law.

It could be more user friendly, but that is not desired political/economical result.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> There's an "I don't care about cookies" plugin for Firefox, it just hides the cookie popup. It's not perfect but works well enough.

<comment><USER36> I use this on all my machines. I even donated to support the project. It works like a charm. It removes most of these cookie popups. I wish there was a better version like someone stated directly in the browser - currently this is a mess.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> For people who are disabled, dismissing cookie dialogs is one extra difficult pointless thing they have to do _every_ time they visit any website.

Is this a violation of human rights?

<comment><USER38> Yeah, just like how movies existing that blind people can't watch is a violation of human rights.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I would recommend the Consent-O-Matic ([https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O- Matic](https://github.com/cavi-au/Consent-O-Matic)) plugin. It doesn't get rid of everything, but it does automatically fill in the forms on practically every website, and you can submit an issue to them when it misses one. I have it set up to automatically deny.

</comment><comment><USER40> I've always thought this should be a browser feature. It would be more useful than the DNT header, anyway...

<comment><USER41> This is what happens if browser vendors don't solve the issue with technical measures, being too afraid to break things.

(Not surprising, given that a the largest one, being or close to being a de- facto monopolist, has conflict of interests on the matter of user tracking and profiling.)

We get a legal solution which is poorly understood, has weird unintended side effects (because it was made by non-experts) essentially breaking things (just... non-technically), and doesn't really prevent the bad actors from continuing what they did.

<comment><USER42> This issue can't be solved purely with technical measures, unless you're willing to accept major loss of functionality. The GDPR is fine, enforcement is what's awful.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> There is a really frustrating thing happening on this thread where people are downvoting answers that are technically correct, which suggests they must be simply disagreeing with the writers opinion on underlying politics. That is a sad way for hn to go.

<comment><USER44> It's been that way for a very long time. I get down-voted if I say anything from a conservative perspective here.

<comment><USER45> I believe you when you say that you notice you get down voted for expressing a conservative view on HN, but I seem to notice the opposite.

HN has a way of defending Trump and quickly down voting direct criticism of conservatives, at least in my own n=1 experience.

edit: ...and this comment was flagged. Case in point.

<comment><USER46> You guys are probably both running into the notice-dislike bias: [https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&que...](https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=true&query=by%3Adang%20notice%20dislike&sort=byDate&type=comment)

I can give you long, long lists of commenters complaining with complete certainty in the bitterest terms that HN is extremely biased in favor of $side and the mods are totally biased in favor of $side, but $side varies entirely with the political feelings of the perceiver. This is one of the most reliable phenomena that exists on HN.

I wrote a long thing about this earlier today: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23530467](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23530467).

<comment><USER45> That's interesting, thanks for linking your comment.

I believe it 100%, which is why I tried to discount my own claim too ("n=1" etc).

>We don't see the world as it is, but as we are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> They most of the time shouldn't be "we're using cookies (and we've planted all of them without your consent, oops)" anyway, but consent managers.

But yeah, this could be handled in a more user friendly way, if there was a standard way to express the consent options (with the cookies and their functionalities) that the browsers could parse. Then the page could check if the browser handles it or if it has to fall back to what they're doing now.

<comment><USER48> As mentioned in another comment, it's actually possible: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23524626](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23524626)

<comment><USER47> Makes sense. Actually it could very much work without the active participation of the web sites, at least for cross-site tracking. Because we can collect and identify and categorize those cookies.

And now that we're talking about it, Firefox does have something similar accessible from the URL bar, called "Enhanced tracking protection".

<comment><USER48> Well, enhanced tracking protection is closer to what an adblocker/content blocker would do as far as I know. They classify some domains as trackers based on a static list from Disconnect then use that information to either block requests or enforce extra restrictions on those (like blocking cookies/storage).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Any solutions for mobile (iOS)? This problem is really painful on mobile devices where (in Safari) the popup takes up half the screen after the url+nav bars takes up a quarter leaving you with 25% of the screen to look at the actual content (with autoplaying ad videos every few paragraphs if you are lucky!) until you dismiss the popup.

Argh, makes me angry just thinking about it. The web is becoming increasingly painful to use through a UI browser.

<comment><USER50> AdGuard on iOS works well for those (in addition to ads, social media and other trash).

<comment><USER49> Wow that was awesome and super easy. Thanks for the tip, didn't know iOS Safari had an API for content blocking, I will need to explore that more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> For "manual" cleanup I'm using slightly extended universal "Sweep Stickies" bookmarklet [1], based on idea taken from "Kill Sticky" [0]. Removes generally all those banners and overlays obscuring content and eating viewport. (Userscript available [2], but I prefer good old bookmarklet way for this.)

It literally crawls all elements in page, tests their computed style and removes those with sticky position (and a bit more). Works quite well for me.

[0] [https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky- headers/](https://alisdair.mcdiarmid.org/kill-sticky-headers/) [1] [http://myfonj.github.io/utils/bookmarklets/sweep- stickies.ht...](http://myfonj.github.io/utils/bookmarklets/sweep- stickies.html) [2] [https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/370572-sweep- stickies](https://greasyfork.org/en/scripts/370572-sweep-stickies)

</comment><comment><USER52> Try These,

\- For Safari, if you're using 1Blocker, in "General" > "Block Annoyances".

\- For NextDNS, I thought I saw "Annoyances" but could not find it now. Should have it somewhere.

\- Chrome have a plethora of Extensions that "don't care about cookies" or similar. Other than that, as someone else commented, uBlock Origin > Settings > Filters List > Annoyances

<comment><USER48> It's pretty unlikely that a DNS blocker (like NextDNS or others) can effectively remove cookie notices since content blockers rely on injecting custom style sheets in practice to tackle them (which a DNS blocker absolutely cannot do).

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Depending on how bad the warning is, it might be easier to disable javascript. Have found that this gets around some noiser news sites.

</comment><comment><USER54> Still have to click to remove it the first time, but I made an extension for this very purpose: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ekill/lcgdpfaiipae...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ekill/lcgdpfaiipaelnpepigdafiogebaeedg)

</comment><comment><USER55> Check out Cliqz Autoconsent: [https://github.com/cliqz- oss/autoconsent](https://github.com/cliqz-oss/autoconsent)

 _This is a library of rules for navigating through common consent popups on the web. These rules can be run in a Firefox webextension, or in a puppeteer orchestrated headless browser. Using these rules, opt-in and opt-out options can be selected automatically, without requiring user-input._

 _This library is primarily used by the cliqz browser in order to automate user-consent, and make a cleaner browsing experience. There is also a standalone addon that can be installed in Firefox._

</comment><comment><USER56> I'm tired or ad blockers, they make the page usually slower to load. Even if they save you some downloading, they usually block the loading pipeline, so they end up costing you more time. I use a combination of "I don't care about cookies" to automatically accept all cookies, so websites are free to show the ads they want and send me the cookies they want. Then I use Firefox Enhanced Tracking Protection in strict mode to delete all tracking cookies as I go. It has worked great so far. Yes, I see ads, but they're not targeted and the page loads fast.

</comment><comment><USER57> I use Safari User Stylesheet. This is mine:

      /* "custom" */
      [class*="as-oil"]:not(body, html),
      [class*="optanon"]:not(body, html),

      /* "generic" */
      [class*="consent"]:not(body, html),
      [id*="consent"],
      [class*="gdpr"]:not(body, html),
      [id*="gdpr"],
      [class*="announcement"]:not(body, html),
      [id*="announcement"],
      [class*="policy"]:not(body, html),
      [id*="policy"],
      [class*="cookie"]:not(body, html),
      [id*="cookie"] {
       display: none!important;
       visibility: hidden!important;
       transform: scale(0)!important;
       opacity: 0!important;
       width: 0!important;
       height: 0!important;
       z-index: -1!important;
       background: transparent!important;
       color: transparent!important;
       font-size:0!important;
      }

</comment><comment><USER58> 1Blocker for iPhone filters most "we're using cookies" annoyances.

</comment><comment><USER59> At this point we're better off building a _samizdat_ -like shadow WWW which simply loads the genuine content by using the URL as a content identifier, but without relying on the HTTP server on port 443 on the A or AAAA record mentioned in the domain. URLs are also URIs, after all, and nobody said we have to put up with broken servers being the only content resolver available.

</comment><comment><USER60> I never get Jehovah's Witnesses knocking on my door to talk about Jesus anymore.

Instead I have the EU asking me about Cookies on every other web page.

</comment><comment><USER61> Yes. Install uBlock Origin. Right click on ad / pop up -> Block Element ( a rule is automatically generated ) -> Create. Voila ! You might have to do it 2-3 times for the same element as it might have several layers. But then you're done and you haven't been forced into clicking. "ok"

</comment><comment><USER62> I use "Banner Hunter" for Safari which does just this and nothing else. Unfortunately it will sometimes leave the websites unusable because it removes the modal cookie banners but not the "greying out" layer over the content that disables it while the banner is visible...

<comment><USER63> "Behind The Overlay Revival" Firefox addon solves this!

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> Thank you.

There are numerous sites I go to regularly incognito to log in as an admin vs. end-user: several have low-profile, low-contrast cookie warnings which disable all other menus until you acknowledge them (without an apparent overlay). Just that little extra bit of friction every day adds up.

</comment><comment><USER65> In addition to taking whatever technical measures you are taking, if you're in the EU, consider also grabbing one web site that has a particularly bad consent flow (e.g. a dozen clicks to not get tracked, or a "click or scroll anywhere to consent"), and report them to the appropriate DPA.

The DPAs often only work off consumer reports.

You need to know that these popups are a result of two separate laws: The ePrivacy directive aka Cookie Law, and GDPR. GDPR is enforceable one that you care about. A web site can process your data (e.g. for personalized ads) for one of the explicitly given reason, the most common ones being "legitimate interest", "fulfillment of a contract" and "consent".

There have been a couple recent statements about what counts and doesn't count as legitimate interest, fulfilling a contract, and consent.

You also have the right to ask the controller of the data (not the processor) for a list of data stored about you. Try it with one of said web sites! Make a clean cookie jar, use the site and only the site, send them the cookie jar, and see what data they store. (If they don't, file a complaint with the DPA)

</comment><comment><USER66> When my browser just hides the popup or banner, which setting did I choose?

The GDPR is pretty clear that opting out must be the default choice, but it wouldn't surprise me if some use a system that only follows that if it is actually shown.

<comment><USER67> I wish member nations were more proactive in fining people over this, because I'd then happily report every system like that.

On a related note, has anyone ever seen the corresponding consent popup that would let me _opt back out_ of tracking cookies? I haven't. Which strikes me as weird, since consent was supposed to be as easily to rescind as it is to grant it.

<comment><USER68> >has anyone ever seen the corresponding consent popup that would let me opt back out of tracking cookies?

I have but only once, I don't remember where, it was probably an obscure site that didn't have whatever I was looking for. The pop-up was a big list of third party companies with checkboxes (Android style, slide left to uncheck) that had to be disabled individually. I don't think that was legal, consent was given by default unless I manually unchecked each box. There was of course no "uncheck all" button.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Import the following filter list into uBlock Origin: [https://www.i-dont-care- about-cookies.eu/abp/](https://www.i-dont-care-about-cookies.eu/abp/)

</comment><comment><USER70> Most cookie popups are using javascript so when one is popping up i use the chrome extension "Quick Javascript Switcher" to toggle the Javascript off. This does not always work but it works in most cases.

I tried external list for Ublock as well. They say they will remove those things but they sometimes break things. Video's or slideshows for example did not seam to work when Ublock removed the cookie pup-ups.

</comment><comment><USER71> I use "I don't care about cookies" extension for Firefix, seems to work well.

<comment><USER72> This is a great extension and also available on Chrome.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> Don't drag the GDPR through this mess. It's not the fault of the GDPR that everyone decided that these cookie consent walls are the new normal.

[https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/06/no-cookie-consent-walls- an...](https://techcrunch.com/2020/05/06/no-cookie-consent-walls-and-no- scrolling-isnt-consent-says-eu-data-protection-body/)

</comment><comment><USER74> 1\. Cookie policy management should be done at browser level with using standard HTML/JS constructs. Instead, everyone nowadays is doing it by adding custom HTML to their own pages to handle the panel/popup logic: they're doing it wrong, because it makes it much harder to detect which part of the page hosts the cookie settings panel.

2\. Also, many of those panels have "Accept all" as a default option. Many make it purposely hard to disable some trackers without going deep down into crowded cookies preference pages. This is also the wrong way of complying to GDPR, and the sites that do it must be appropriately punished. The default should be "Deny all except for non-third-party functional cookies".

3\. In the meantime, NoScript helps blocking some of that crap. If you never whitelist domains like cookielaw.com you're unlikely to see many of them.

</comment><comment><USER75> > The EU cookie laws were well-meaning, but have had the unintended > consequence of making the web more annoying, more difficult to use, and more > fragmented.

Not really. GDPR says that non-transactional cookies should default off.

</comment><comment><USER76> except giving me more troubles whether as a developer or a web surfer, I don't know what value is given by GDPR

</comment><comment><USER77> My heritage is of a web that worked just fine without cookies at all.

</comment><comment><USER78> Contact the EU and tell them to remove that non-sense rule as it makes the internet waste time clicking annoying things that nobody reads or cares.

<comment><USER79> On the contrary. I love it, because now it is illegal for me to be tracked without my consent (and my not clicking on decline is not consent), which is why American news sites block EU IPs because they can't just data mine me without my knowledge.

<comment><USER80> Works as intended. It's not the regulators task to put the law in a nice UX.</comment></comment></comment>


Work Stress Is Killing Us, but What Can We Do About It? - <AUTHOR> http://www.glamour.com/story/so-work-stress-is-basically-killing-us-but-what-can-we-do-about-it <comment><USER2> Not being afraid to say I'm overloaded or taking a break is good to be reminded about. I find myself giving too much maybe. My boss has often said I "...fear that you're going to burn out [given all the things you're volunteering for]". I've since become better at taking needed holidays</comment>