Fake Obama created using AI tool to make phoney speeches [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/technology-40598465/fake-obama-created-using-ai-tool-to-make-phoney-speeches <comment><USER2> I was really suprised when the original paper for this didn't make it to the top of HN: [http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/AudioToObama/](http://grail.cs.washington.edu/projects/AudioToObama/)

Nor any of the follow-up articles I posted. Given onslaught of fabricated "news" that spread around the last election, this type of ML technology is almost guaranteed to play a role in the next one.

<comment><USER3> After watching the video from that link, I'm very fearful for what people are going to do with this technology in the next decade. This combined with Adobe's new "speech photoshop" will make excellent propaganda.

<comment><USER4> At first I was also fearful of people using this tech to make fake "evidence" of things...

But now that I think about it, the most damage will come from making people even more incredulous... of everything.

It will become even harder to use evidence to prove a point. Uninformed people will just say "yeah sure, it's probably faked".

On the other hand... who could blame them?

<comment><USER5> I'm not surprised that a forum full of people who work in the information technology industry cannot see the epistomological failure of mass media, but these problems are not new, and the idea that nothing communicated through a screen can be trusted will most definitely cause more good than harm outside of the very near future.

Democratic institutions not only functioned but were put into effect before the advent of recorded or transmitted audio and video. Mass media has already been distorting the truth for over a century.

"Trust nothing you read online" becoming commonplace is something to be celebrated!

<comment><USER6> There's also another possibility: that media literacy will take off, and children will learn to verify sources. This was the original proposal early blogospherists: that ordinary citizens would learn to do journalism so as to keep microcommunities informed.

This is in fact happening, to everyone's benefit. Only in matters of vague mass policy (do we need giant walls? can markets sell health?) has it been largely corrupted by corporate propaganda. Which is probably not terribly worse than before. That scale has always been a big enough target to make it worth the effort to corrupt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I wonder if it's easier to make a fake speech of someone who talks the way Trump does? Not making this a political thing, but I've noticed that he's not very eloquent and frequently starts and stops in his speech and changes what he's saying mid sentence. Might it be easier to synthesize that type of speech pattern since any awkwardness can be hid in the erratic speech the real person employs?

<comment><USER8> I've seen claims that translators struggle with Trump because of this - accurately translating what he says comes out as incoherent, which makes people think that the translator is doing a bad job.

Although I think to some extent he _relies_ on fragmented speech. It's all about emotional pattern recognition, rather than something that people engage with rationally. Tony Blair also tended to do this, with long verbless sentences.

<comment><USER9> The Daily Show had a segment on this: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qL1un6NPZA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qL1un6NPZA)

<comment><USER10> Wow, that's like 100% scripted to please the target audience

<comment><USER11> yeah. The Daily Show has got a pretty standard formula. I read an article about how they, and their spin off shows like John Oliver, basically use the same script pattern for most of their shows in order to hypnotize their audience.

Hold on, I'm going to try to find the article.

edit: well, the only source I can find after a quick search is this post on an anonymous message board, but it covers the main points pretty well: [http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1479/14/1479145599055...](http://img.4plebs.org/boards/pol/image/1479/14/1479145599055.jpg)

a more detailed discussion is here: [http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/98690960/](http://archive.4plebs.org/pol/thread/98690960/)

<comment><USER12> "The SJW is the odious little Eichmann with his jackboots up on a fair trade coffee table..."

Really??? That's rich coming from /pol

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> When an open source package author releases a pile of source code, that person typically also releases a cryptographic checksum of the code.

In the future, when the President (or CSPAN, or CNN, or Fox News, or whoever) releases a segment (which they do all the time), they'll need to release (in a public, 'timestamped' way) a cryptographic checksum of the content.

I have many of the same fears as people here about future fake news, where the reality of something already comes as a distant second behind the outrage produced. So even if we had this big pile of content and checksums, the outrage echo chambers will still be going nuts.

But it's at least a partial technical solution to these problems.

(And I'm glossing over all kinds of other complications too, such as 'what format' and 'where does it get stored' etc etc)

<comment><USER14> I think it's reasonably certain some alternative network with these kinds of features will emerge, validating authenticity of the contents origination was a known requirement of theoretical networks , because it's hard, both technologically, but more fundamentally the sociopolitical aspects are mind boggling, loss of privacy, trust in the state, etc etc, this will take a while to resolve, but someday people will be looking back and laughing :)

<comment><USER13> I spend a non-trivial amount of time hoping that people, myself included, in the future will look back at many things and laugh. (:

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It makes you wonder just how far fake content--and fake content involving real people--can go.

Imagine a world where a service exists to which you can upload a dozen images of someone, along with a voice clip. In response, it can generate all kinds of videos--from the benign, to the person saying horrible racist things, to the person starring in graphic pornography.

It seems technically feasible in the medium term. But how do we react to it? Strict limits on the production or storage of these pseudo-artifacts? Criminal penalties for distribution? A cultural rejection of pretty much all video and audio evidence?

<comment><USER16> Oh man, it's gonna get way crazy. Imagine the 'mean girls' in HS with this tech. Imagine trying to be a male HS teacher with this around. We're gonna have to regulate the shit out of the internet just to keep teachers in schools and verify that they did not in fact cuss out a classroom and chug vodka.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm truly frightened by this. We are still struggling with how to deal with the "post-truth" world, and that's with the assumption that pictures are hard to fake, video even more so, and audio nearly impossible.

Fake news is going to reach a fever pitch when "speeches" of Obama leak saying, "We have to take all the white people's guns". And conversely, when a genuine "grab 'em by the pussy" leaks again, a huge chunk of people willfully will not believe it.

Seems possible that we could come up with technological and journalistic solutions, given enough time, but it's moving too quickly.

<comment><USER18> From the material posted it seems that this is basically a high-tech, convincing version of those late-night sketches where they have a fake version of their mouths moving; it doesn't actually solve the audio problem.

<comment><USER19> would be pretty easy to use an impersonator or something like lyrebird.ai to create the audio.

<comment><USER20> Yes but you can also track down the original video to prove something is fake. In order to have something truly convincing you need a video of Obama (or anyone else) that no one else has.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I have been saying for a while now that our current systems are all relying on the inefficiency of an attacker.

Soon, video and audio of an event or speech be proof of anything.

The only way to prove identity will be to have a device which can do challenge-response.

Without it, you won't be able to prove you're not a robot over the internet.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14787882](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14787882)

Forget "hacking elections". A botnet will be able to hack our trust in one another ( _see CIA reputational attacks_ ), AI will be used to chat up girls online better than any person ( _see fb AI sales bots_ ), and so on.

Computers can already beat us at Chess, Go, etc. How much different is humor, honor and reputation once companies add one more breakthrough to deep learning to model them?

An attacker that can make 100,000 jokes a second each of which is excellent? The missing breakthrough is how to automate the "human judging" factor. This is the problem when figuring out diets or treatments etc. Clinical trials take a long time. Same with textbooks.

Once we figure out how to speed that part up, we are going to be able to make AI that knows what's probably going to be funny ahead of time.

</comment><comment><USER22> Looking ahead 10-20 years, I don't see how anyone born from 2015 onwards has any solid concept of reality the way I feel I know it. Between things like this and AR, I feel like "real" vs "simulated" will seem to the AR natives to be a pedantic distinction... Like how my parents still distinguish between "having met someone" and "someone I have talked to on the internet."

<comment><USER18> > Like how my parents still distinguish between "having met someone" and > "someone I have talked to on the internet."

I am not sure that that distinction is really gone.

<comment><USER23> Where'd you two meet? On the internet.

<comment><USER18> I think it's a bit of a stretch to claim that because such an exchange is plausible there is no meaningful distinction between online and in-person communication.

<comment><USER24> I really don't think there is much of a difference anymore. I remember meeting people online and hanging out with them (talking, working on projects together, playing games, etc) and it honestly didn't feel any different than meeting someone in person and doing the same thing despite the fact that I have never seen some of these people in person.

I find it especially difficult to differentiate a meaningful distinction between the two when my interactions with people go from in person to online or vice versa. We just do the same stuff we did normally, albeit maybe those things occur in different settings such as at a computer instead of face to face at a restaurant or wherever.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I really recommend the Adobe demonstration of their VoCo speech audio "photoshopping" because of Jordan Peele's reaction: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3l4XLZ59iw).

More technology demos should have unscripted, sincere reactions like that.

<comment><USER26> > More technology demo should have unscripted, sincere reactions like that.

I'd agree with you if you scratched _like that_.

See here for an opinion on this demonstration: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13002787](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13002787)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The next generation of fake news is going to be fantastic.

<comment><USER28> I look forward to a time when journalists doing journalism is what's valued in the news.

When technology to fake things is everywhere, maybe we'll pay for accurate newspapers again. With something other than our willingness to be manipulated by advertising.

<comment><USER29> > When technology to fake things is everywhere, maybe we'll pay for accurate > newspapers again.

We didn't pay for them _before_ , how could we do so _again_? Advertisers have always been the main funding for newspapers and sensationalism (clickbait before clicks) and propaganda have always been major influences on the medium.

Sure, things got worse for decades leading up to the arrival of internet news, and continued to get worse after that, but the golden age of readers footing the bill for accurate newspapers _never happened_.

<comment><USER28> This is kind of a slap in the face to anyone who's considered themselves a journalist, as well as anyone who bought a newspaper for the news. It also makes me wonder how the news industry ever got started if it never sold "news", but only something wrapped in that veil.

I don't know anything about the history of news; do you have any good reading material to recommend?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> The audio itself can also be faked now.

[https://lyrebird.ai/demo](https://lyrebird.ai/demo)

<comment><USER31> That would not fool anyone. Impressive nonetheless.

<comment><USER32> It'll only get better over time.... by them or someone else.

<comment><USER32> Just imagine what will happen when state actors start to use this as part of psychological warfare...

Future looks grim!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> What worries me is that this is just a public research done in uni. What should we expect from secret projects then?!

</comment><comment><USER34> [http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/frequency- of-...](http://starecat.com/content/wp-content/uploads/frequency-of-miracles- time-graph-camera-invented-photoshop-invented.jpg)

Basically, we now have the video version of this graph. It came a little later than Photoshop, but as with any technology, anything that is technology possible will be implemented by somebody at some point in the future.

</comment><comment><USER35> After the Falkland island war the British anarchopunk band Crass spliced together and leaked a tape that made it seem like the attack was a false flag and that Reagan wanted to start a war with the soviets in Europe

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

</comment><comment><USER36> This demonstrates an immediate need for a trustworthy video hosting service-- maybe with a companion app that records using some combination of crypto/proprietary formats/trust networks/I don't know what else, this isn't my area of expertise. Things are going to get pretty bad here soon if video evidence loses its street cred.

<comment><USER37> But how is it considered trustworthy? That's basically the central struggle every media organisation has right now and I don't see an easy answer.

Yours is an interesting idea, though. I dread to think how much it would have to exclude though - probably have no Android client because I'm sure a rooted phone could easily provide a fake video source. Maybe even on a jailbroken iOS device too. And once that becomes possible the entire platform is ruined.

<comment><USER36> Yeah, it might need to be a custom-made camera, made for news organizations and wealthy vloggers. And each device would need to be audited regularly. It would be a nightmare but not as much of a nightmare as not knowing whether anything you see on video is real or computer-generated.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Now we just need some way to digital sign speeches (and hopefully eventually with quantum cryptography).

I'm not sure how but perhaps this could actually improve the issue of fake news with or least the assimilation if there as a broader realization how easily things can be faked... probably not though (I'm eternally an optimist).

<comment><USER39> Signatures only solve half of the problem.

What if someone is filmed doing something wrong?

They wouldn't sign it, and anyone could just say the footage was faked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> Well...this kind of thing is here to stay, and at least some good may come of it. We can all be reminded that even "true" words are still just words.

An example from all of history: (This is only semi-serious, but felt like a good thought experiment).

> Oligarch to politician - "Make this economic change." > Politician to team - > "Give me post-facto justification for this change I am making." aka "Spin > this" > Team - _Applies economics to numbers_ > Team to politician - "Here > you go." > Politician to people - "Economics does not lie." > Vaunted > economics publications - "Sold. And thanks for the like." > _Economic > failure_ > Future politician - "Well, we just didn't know then what we know > now." > Historian of the future - "Their economic calculations lacked the > full set of economic forces and incentives. The economists of the time were > in effect hand-waving because they ignored a fundamental economic force--the > oligarch. Given the size of the oversight, I'd say they were complicit."

Thoughts: \--Economic policy sold without disclosure (or even acknowledgement) of these massive forces is knowingly flawed, and a willing lie to handle people. \--Economic theory is rooted in psychology. When an economic decision is spun to cover hidden motives, the psychological motive basis of that instance of economics is, by definition, false. \--Data can still fool good economists when it is cherry-picked; any data produced by a non-omniscient process is going to be flawed to some extent.

* This is not to say anything good or bad about oligarchs. Merely that they are a tremendous force, and economics, political policy, and civil discussion could greatly improve with a more accurate model of their effect on global systems.

* I'd love to see an economic modeling tool able to place "black boxes" where market distortions are occurring due to probable hidden forces. Captive markets are a real nuisance.

</comment><comment><USER41> I hope they call it Fauxbama.

</comment><comment><USER42> There's been a growing fear of how much dirt is going to get spilled when the current generation with omnipresent camera-phones goes to run for office. But this signals that we could be nearing the end of the age of embarrassing leaked video or audio!

From now on, it could be plausible to deny a video and say someone built a neural net and faked it - 'at least I have no recollection of those events.' (The excuse will work for supporters)

The Mitt Romney's '47% are takers' could go down historically as the last great leak where leaks could be believed.

</comment><comment><USER43> Time to learn how digital signatures work.

</comment><comment><USER44> If you've ever gone through the pain of trying to convince someone why some picture or video is an obvious fake then you know just how terrifying this technology is.

</comment><comment><USER45> Like with other, more easily forgeable conteby, such as text quotation, we will find ways to provide a chain of trust in order to authenticate what has classically appeared much more difficult to spoof, such as voice or video. The only challenge that will remain is explaining to people that the nonsense they watch on Facebook is not factual just because it is on Facebook.

"Use the force, Harry" – Gandalf

</comment><comment><USER46> Is the first section of the video badly out of sync for anyone else? Both the real and fake initial segments appear way off to me?

<comment><USER47> Came here to say the same thing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Isn't this similar to Adobe project Voco? If not how are they different. There is also another tool called Face 2 face. I think overtime people will assume everything to be fake unless it agrees with their pre-conceived notions of truth.

<comment><USER49> _...their pre-conceived notions of truth._

This is the wrong way to think about this, I think. Think of media consumers, instead, as Bayesians. We have prior beliefs, we consume media, and our posterior beliefs are a function of _both_ of those. As the process iterates over time, our priors are updated, but more slowly over time.

This is why children believe everything they hear from authority figures, while those with memories e.g. tend to doubt the offered justifications for the new war when we consider how similar they are to the previously-offered- but-eventually-disproved justifications for the previous wars.

<comment><USER48> Perhaps...but this has been my observation recently. A persons ideological position is always used as a gauge to judge the quality/value of his opinion on a particular topic. If a person is of/ perceived to be of an ideological disposition different then mine and then whatever he or she says gets discounted. Your argument about people being Bayesian assume that they are rational. In practice, you find people sticking to their prior beliefs even more strongly even when the evidence to contrary is stronge, so called backfire effect. In fact, a lot of people reject the evidence simply based on the Ideological disposition of the source that it comes from and terming it as XX wing conspiracy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I guess that we will start to rely on multiple recordings of an event to consider it proven. Until, of course, 3D recreations start to appear rendering that useless as well.

<comment><USER51> I dread the narcisim this allows to unleash, as people will just select whatever they believed in the first place to be true.

The only solution to this is a education towards knowledge masochism. Destroy what you believe in, only in failure there is truth.

<comment><USER52> > I dread the narcisim[sic] this allows to unleash, as people will just select > whatever they believed in the first place to be true.

I think we've gone past this point already.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> This also may allow high quality educational videos to be created. (Think of all those smart people who are bad presenters)

And high quality entertainment.

Ain't all bad.

</comment><comment><USER54> What's the benefit with a technology like this? Seems like it can only cause harm

<comment><USER55> If you were able to make it work in real-time you could do some really cool stuff with characters in multi-user VR spaces. Your avatar could be shown to move its mouth in a realistic way as you spoke to other users, which would go a long way towards building a feeling of "realness".

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> "And make no mistake."

</comment><comment><USER57> I read a book last month that featured a faked president video created by an AI.

Kill Process by William Hertling Link: [http://amzn.eu/c1ZJNcv](http://amzn.eu/c1ZJNcv)

Seems it was closer to non-fiction than I expected.

<comment><USER57> Why the downvote? Am I not allow to link to a book that shows fact has caught up with fiction?

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> and then you have this as well: [https://lyrebird.ai/](https://lyrebird.ai/)

</comment><comment><USER23> Proof of provenance.

We're going to need signed videos...

</comment><comment><USER59> Well it's better than what we have now...</comment>


Hospitals Say They Want Affordable Care, but Actions Aren't Clear - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/hospitals-say-they-want-affordable-care-but-actions-arent-clear-6118eae8-d364-4481-ae01-0c03178a82ba.html <comment><USER2> Clear?

Yes their actions are clear. They say they need to merge to improve quality and eliminate duplication. Then after the merger they immediately raise prices.</comment>


Social TV Startup Dijit Buys Miso To Re-Define The Second Screen - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2013/02/01/dijit-buys-miso-really-yes-really/

<comment><USER2> Congrats Jeremy and team!</comment>


Denver officers won't be able to delete body camera video - <AUTHOR> http://denver.cbslocal.com/2014/03/11/denver-officers-wont-be-able-to-delete-body-camera-video/

<comment><AUTHOR> I started a white house petition about this:

[http://wh.gov/lEb2V](http://wh.gov/lEb2V)</comment>


Fairchild Symbol Computer - <AUTHOR> https://fermatslibrary.com/s/fairchild-symbol-computer <comment><USER2> A tradition at the iconic Asilomar Microcomputer Workshop (46th edition cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic) was that Symbol was mentioned at least once during every Workshop. Mazor and others from the Symbol team were attendees in the good old days. While Symbol was not a commercial success, it was the motivation for much innovation including the DIP (Dual Inline Package).</comment>


Israeli hacker posts '100,000′ more stolen Facebook logins - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/facebook/israeli-hacker-posts-8216100000-8242-more-stolen-facebook-logins/7837

<comment><USER2> Sigh. As a citizen of Israel, I'm upset and somewhat worried about the "cyberwar" that has begun between Israel and people who dislike us. I have no doubt that it's possible to wreak havoc on the Israeli economy given enough time, effort, knowledge and Internet access. That knowledge and access is now increasingly available in Arab countries, and there are plenty of people there who want to hurt us in some way.

The Israeli government claims that they are taking such threats seriously, but I'm not convinced. Rather, I'm concerned that this is the beginning of a low- level online war that cannot end well for anyone.

My concern doesn't, however, translate into support for online vigilantes who think that playing tit-for-tat games of exposing Arab users' accounts, credit- card information, and other data is acceptable or even desirable. Exposing the online data of innocent Arabs won't improve Israel's security, won't help to improve our image in the world, and won't deter Arab criminals who enjoy the publicity and notoriety of exposing Israeli credit-card numbers or bringing down our national airline's Web site.

I'm all in favor of the Israeli government using its security knowledge to defend its citizens, or to attack our enemies. But it's going to be a nightmare for a lot of people, Israelis and Arabs alike, if we encourage in any way, shape, or form individual criminal acts and exposure of innocent bystanders' data.

<comment><USER3> As a citizen of Israel, couldn't agree more. I'm very worried about what's going to go down here. It's going to be very ugly for everyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Politics aside, how does Pastebin manage to keep up its business?

They seem to have become one of the very few reliable communication hubs for individuals with, let's say very strong personal views (i.e. Anonymous, Hackers, Etc).

<comment><USER5> I have been thinking the same thing for a while now, I hope that someone has a clue on this one.

<comment><USER6> They adhere to the DMCA and safeharbor laws..?

Simple as that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Jewish people named me as the general of Israel's hackers.", "If they appear again, I again come to save Israel." - I would say that this guy is highly delusional or this is some cheap way of trolling people supporting Israel.

<comment><USER8> Delusions of grandeur are fairly common among people with no regard for the law.

<comment><USER7> Yes, but I reckon that a person with such delusions and skills to acquire 100,000 accounts would at least be able to generate a message that doesn't sound so retarded as this one. Or realise that google translate is actually useful.

<comment><USER8> With regards to skills, executing scripts written by others and finding zero day exploits require different levels of skill. Additionally he also may be very young, thus not understanding the implications of what he is doing, or how others perceive immature language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Could it not have been just simple phishing? The low number of compromised passwords (20k according to the article) would make me think so at least.

</comment><comment><USER9> Are there any ZDnet that aren't link bait? It seems that every article from there is low on content and high on sensationalism.

<comment><USER10> Not in my experience. Invariably terrible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I wonder how many of these are even real. It would not be hard to generate a big text file of emails and passwords.

<comment><USER12> This dataset is indeed with very low quality - I spotted multiple duplicates, empty lines and logins without emails.

I estimate that there are actually ~80k of unique accounts there. And really not sure whether any of these works.

<comment><USER13> After quick grep of the files, I get < 15k emails. Likewise, not sure if they actually work.</comment></comment></comment>


Pavlov's Rat: Scientists Demonstrate That Rats Have Imaginations - <AUTHOR> http://motherboard.vice.com/read/pavlovs-rat-scientists-demonstrate-that-rats-have-imagination <comment><USER2> "But what about human reasoning is truly a human-unique feature and what aspects are shared with our nonhuman relatives?"

Doesn't it make sense that much of human cognition is shared by other animals? We share common ancestors and countless physical traits.

<comment><AUTHOR> The problem is there has been thousands and thousands and thousands of pages written about cognition (human or otherwise) since the mid 1800s.

Ultimately, I'm not even totally convinced human cognition exists: explain to me how we're not just some sort of weird behavior exhibited by a massively parallel pattern matching engine; our ability to match patterns is the basis of all of our culture, our language, our everything.

We're organic regular expressions.

<comment><USER3> _explain to me how we 're not just some sort of weird behavior exhibited by a massively parallel pattern matching engine_

The very question would seem to assume that one can be cognisant of an explanation.

<comment><USER4> An explanation being a description of the repeated pattern that was recognized and condensed into an explanation using pattern matching?

<comment><USER3> No, probably it would involve explaining why that is bollocks. But I may be biased by the illusion of cognition.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


What are your favorite AR resources? - <AUTHOR> I'm interested in learning more about AR, especially AR development, but I'm not sure where to start. What are the best resources for learning about AR? <comment><USER2> What's AR? Maybe write that in the title.

<comment><AUTHOR> My bad, AR = augmented reality.</comment></comment>


The Helsinki Bus Station Theory (2006) - <AUTHOR> http://www.fotocommunity.com/info/Helsinki_Bus_Station_Theory <comment><USER2> TLDR; For a professional craft, the first few years down any path are well- trod by many other people, and you'll have a hard time separating yourself from the rest of the pack. Rather than be discouraged, abandon that expertise, and try to find a new path, "stay on the bus." As time goes on you'll find your path has fanned out from all the others and become quite distinct. In other words, your expertise will become clear and visible but only if you stick with it for a long time.

This seems like a different spin on the "ten thousand hours" idea, or any number of other aphorisms that encourage individual professionals to stick with the grind for the long haul in order to reap the rewards which come only after a long time invested in a particular field.

<comment><USER3> The 10k hours idea, to me, feels like it's more about the distribution of competitors' skills. By the time you reach 10k hours, you're way on the right- hand side of the bell curve and there are very few more-experienced competitors.

I'm guessing that staying on the bus line doesn't hold up for directly competitive things like sports, where fanning out from the field doesn't matter if it doesn't increase your win rate.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A thread from 2017: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14728495](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14728495)

2015: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10764682)

(Links for the curious. Reposts are ok after a year: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsfaq.html))

</comment><comment><USER5> How come a website so obviously devoted to visual perception doesn't have a mobile version of it? :(</comment>


Rescuers pinpoint location of injured walker on Flinders Island using what3words - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-05-13/what3words-used-to-locate-missing-walkers-on-flinders-island/12241352 <comment><USER2> Here we go again. They seem to have taken a bit of a break but looks like they dusted off the good old propaganda machine again.

For those who don't know, W3W is a proprietary service which maps locations to a unique 3-word identifier, similar to Plus Codes aka Open Location Codes: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Location_Code](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Location_Code)

The company behind it is extremely scummy. They provide absolutely no additional value compared to existing Plus Codes and their only attempt to profit is heavy PR/marketing (like this article) to encourage adoption, after which they will presumably be charging lots of money to developers for the right to do W3W <-> GPS coordinates lookups. Their terms explicitly forbid reverse-engineering the algorithm and even caching results of past lookups. They have also used DMCA claims to take down alternative clean-room implementations even though no copyright was violated; at best it would be a patent infringement (if it even stands, as some jurisdictions don't recognise software patents). Seems like their new domain is now available and still working as of now: [https://whatfreewords.net](https://whatfreewords.net)

The stories around W3W are always the same. Someone gets stranded somewhere, magically has a fully functional phone with GPS & cell reception, can call emergency services and open Google Maps but is apparently unable to read back GPS coordinates or use "send my location" in their messaging app but manages to click on a link that takes them to the W3W webpage where it displays the W3W code which they relay back to the emergency responder and get saved.

The problem of course being is that if you have a phone and data connection to be able to click a link and access W3W, you can also click a link that just relays your GPS coordinates directly or use your messaging app's location- sharing feature, or open your maps application and relay the GPS coordinates manually or even rely on E911 which should absolutely work in these specific conditions, and thus W3W is absolutely unnecessary and is an extra step and point of failure.

It's almost like they are paying people to get stranded on purpose in very controlled and favourable conditions (where both phone and data service is available) and then to play dumb and unable to use GPS coordinates until W3W magically comes up and saves the day. Sad.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Location referred to in the story was [https://what3words.com/murky.founding.spoonfuls](https://what3words.com/murky.founding.spoonfuls)</comment>


Asteroid discoveries 1980-2010 - <AUTHOR> http://www.geekosystem.com/asteroid-discovery-from-1980-2010/

<comment><USER2> That's one of the neatest visualizations I've seen in a long time. I hadn't realised how many asteroids are being discovered.

I'd like to see something similar for exoplanet discoveries.</comment>


Jeff Bezos' ex-wife cedes control of Amazon in divorce deal - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-people-bezos/jeff-bezos-ex-wife-cedes-control-of-amazon-in-divorce-deal-idUSKCN1RG2CI <comment><USER2> I know them being the richest couple in the world with a publicly traded company makes this a special case, but I can't help feeling a little strange seeing the details of one's personal affairs broadcast in such an enterprise-y, "update to the people" manner. It feels just as fake as any other "letter from the CEO" I used to read at a fortune 50.

<comment><USER3> This pertains to their ownership stake in a very large, very public company that has impacted the lives (and often livelihoods) of almost everybody in the US, for better or worse.

I don't see what's wrong here. All the articles reprinting the salacious texts he sent to his girlfriend? That's another story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Something is terribly wrong when you can slash $30 billion from a person's net worth in a single day, and they are still the world's richest person.

In Amazon's case it implies monopolistic margins and anti-competitive exploitation of marketplace dynamics, coupled with dramatically undercompensating employees for the value they have created in Amazon.

<comment><USER5> The economy is not a zero-sum game. If you look at the amount of value created by Amazon, it vastly surpasses that 30 billion.

Amazon has driven down the price of goods substantially and made a huge variety of products available worldwide. That is of significant value to society, the price-pressure alone benefits all consumers, especially those with low incomes.

There are also significant competitors both nationally and internationally (Walmart & Alibaba) to name a few.

<comment><USER6> Lower prices on Amazon don't happen just because. Somebody didn't earn those money that they'd otherwise do.

In the end, it's the same society that earned less. Majority of consumers are providers at the same time. Aside from pensioners and ids.

<comment><USER5> That's not necessarily true. Amazon may provide cheaper distribution/shipping thereby reducing the end-user price even though the supplier is paid the same.

Amazon is also increasing the overall reach of each supplier thereby increasing demand and sales volume.

It also opens up new arbitrage opportunities. For some people, the convenience of Amazon is worth paying a higher price for certain items. Due to those consumers, sellers like this can make substantial profit: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzrtdUCsYTQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vzrtdUCsYTQ)

The behavior shown in the video is a great example of the 'pie' actually expanding. The arbitrage seller is creating demand at Walmart and other local businesses, Amazon is making some profit, and the end-buyer is also better off since they gained the convenience which they likely value > the original price + arbitrage margin.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The joyless world of data-driven startups - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@zambonini/the-joyless-world-of-data-driven-startups-b6f475f11f5f <comment><USER2> > Sometimes it works. Sometimes it's critical. But sometimes it fails, or > results in unintended consequences that we may not notice for years.

> Data-driven journalism gave us Buzzfeed

> Data-driven music gave us X-Factor and Pop Idol

> Data-driven movies gave us 25 Hollywood sequels planned for this year

> Data-driven education gave us Key Performance Indicators and Teaching to the > test

These first three examples are awful examples. A ton of people love all of those things. The only failure of data-drivenness here is the failure to generate content that _the author_ wants. Now, the author can attempt to make some argument about how websites, TV shows, and movies have a moral obligation to strive for whatever objectives the author prefers, but that's a separate issue to settle.

The fourth example is a little different, because we're talking about mandatory education programs for children, rather than products that people choose to pay for or consume. Also, I don't think that data-drivenness itself is a significant contributor to those problems in education.

<comment><USER3> The failure is the failure to generate novelty or adequately explore alternatives.

Enough people might reliable go see 25 sequels, but none of those films will be memorable. None will advance the art of film-making. None will change anyone's life or mentality or affect the culture in any meaningful way.

Being data driven means chasing the biggest, loudest signal in your data set. It means pandering to that signal, because it swamps all others. A data-driven approach is not going to lead you anywhere new.

In machine learning / AI we refer to such algorithms as "greedy." A classic example would be simple hill climbing a.k.a. gradient descent. These algorithms are known to be very good at optimizing within the bounds of a simple well-behaved and regular fitness landscape, but they readily become stuck at local maxima when presented with any solution space with any complex structure.

We're living in what I'm tempted to call the dark age of the local maximum, the age of gradient descent.

<comment><USER2> > The failure is the failure to generate novelty or adequately explore > alternatives.

Perhaps you value novelty more than the average person. What might not be "adequate" for you might very well be adequate for a huge portion of people.

Throughout this comment you mention several potential goals of content producers (being memorable, advancing the art, changing someone's life, etc.), but you make no argument for why those goals ought to be prioritized over other goals, other than the implication that you personally prefer those goals.

<comment><USER4> > Perhaps you value novelty... > What might not be "adequate" for you...

It isn't about what he values versus what you value. What the author complains about are well known problems with recommendation engines. Take the naive reco algo - "You just bought a 50 inch Philips TV. You might also like - 50 inch Sony TV, 50 inch LG TV, 50 inch Samsung TV, 50 inch ..." \- See the problem ? I already bought my fucking TV, you can't expect me to buy more & more of the same or similar goods.

Then there's the CF algorithm & its variants, with well known problems - namely, they don't actually match content to one's preferences. Typically, one POV dominates across the board due to the sparsity of the matrix, & getting the diversity required for the matrix to fill out takes a long long time and a very large number of people with diverse opinions. You mistakenly give a five star rating to Godfather & you are bombarded with mafia movies for a long time. You attempt to confuse the system by giving Pretty Woman five stars as well. Then the system tries to gamely proceed by suggesting "Those who watched Godfather AND Pretty Woman are more likely to watch - So I married an Axe murderer."

Can't win.

There are auto-complete screenplay software that basically make a composite of the top 100 best selling screenplays & do what in the industry is called a flip. Namely, change male to female, winner to loser, comedy to tragedy etc. These data-driven screenplay software might suggest that if you take the ladies from Thelma & Louise & replace them with grizzly old men, you get Unforgiven.

There are lyric generation software with the same flavor, umpteen loop generators & infinite jukeboxes, content recommendation systems along the same lines - since you just starred this code sample on angular, you will enjoy this github repo on react,...

Hopefully you see the downside.

<comment><USER2> I understand the general argument, and I don't disagree _in general_. My intuition is that showing 50 inch TVs to someone who just bought one is not ideal [0]. My point is that the specific examples provided (Hollywood blockbusters, etc.) are not accompanied by any evidence or reasoning to convince me that these industries are not doing a good job of satisfying the market.

[0] That said, I've seen lots of counterintuitive but very real phenomena regarding user behavior, so I won't claim to be _that_ confident about this being ineffective. Perhaps people return TVs a lot and buy other ones. I don't have the data.

<comment><USER5> The data might just show that offering 50 inch TVs to someone who just bought one is actually a rich opportunity. Perhaps both televisions were stolen in a burglary. Or someone is finally upgrading all their televisions from CRT to flat screen -- maybe they moved from a house to a small apartment. It would not surprise me in the least if people were 10 times more likely to purchase a television having just bought one, compared to individuals randomly selected.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think the article goes a bit too far against data. Hits like Bohemian Rhapsody are by their nature freak events and not easily reproducible. Nobody is suggesting (I hope) that you can achieve that kind of success without a healthy dose of luck.

However I agree that for early stage startups data driven decision making can be difficult. My experience is its expensive and you often have very little data.

The other issue is this kinda uncanny valley of false rigor. On the one extreme you have very informal analysis. For example, we tweaked our blog post template and increased newsletter signup rates but I can't tell you exact %s because at this stage we don't track it. We seem to be getting a lot more signups, but perhaps its illusory. That's ok. At our level of traffic it really isn't important. At the other extreme you try to model non-stationary processes and all that and have rigorous control over sources of error. In the middle is where I see many companies with, say, A/B testing, believing they have a high level of statistical rigor but not actually achieving that rigor in practice due to many uncontrolled sources of error. This middle spot, where you have too much faith in faulty reasoning, is where I _believe_ bad data driven decision making resides.

Oh, and on turd polishing: [http://www.dorodango.com/create.html](http://www.dorodango.com/create.html)

<comment><USER7> > Hits like Bohemian Rhapsody are by their nature freak events and not easily > reproducible.

Just like startups...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The so-called data-driven science have not understand the notion of science. In a minimal sense, science is to produce knowledge. There are two things to it: hypothesis generation; testing the hypothesis. As the history and philosophy of sciences have shown, there is no algorithmic way of generating hypotheses. Or if you generate hypotheses algorithmically, you are still left to figure out whether these hypotheses are ad hoc or not. After all, the history of sciences have given powerful heuristics to reduce the solution space to generate hypotheses to solve or explain problems or facts. Here, whether one picks 'solve' or 'explain' depends on which philosophy of science one picks up.

Whenever I see statistics and data-sciences, I see tons of adhoc bullshit masquerading as sciences/knowledge. It is always easy to come up with a hypothesis to explain a set of chosen facts; in order for that hypothesis to be non ad hoc, it has to predict surprising facts.

As the fad continues, we may hear like robots replacing scientists to produce knowledge about various phenomena. For a best critique of AI, check the book by UCBerkeley philosopher Hubert Dreyfus: what computers can't do, a critique of artificial reason.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Epistemology", he whispered.

Using data is good, but "based on" offers a lot of wiggle room. A 10% increase in CTR is nothing to sneeze at, but it does not answer the question of the best use of your engineers' (or designers', or marketers') time. Should they have instead been working on the thing that has a 50% chance of a 20% improvement? How do we account for all the data we didn't bring to bear?

The data is small, the interpretation is big.

There is also the problem that philosophers call "regress", which is that every rational decision has to trace back to a premise that one assumes in. Should we be in the business we are in, compared to all the other potential uses of talent? We can't know that empirically, at root.

<comment><USER10> +1 for epistemology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Premature optimization: still the root of all evil.

One of the better takeaways from the article was the notion that being data- driven means you're aiming for average, and you might not even hit it. Aim for the moon, you might only achieve orbit instead.

I watched a CEO make arbitrary layoff decisions based on what the numbers said should be the size of a development organization and the the ratio of developers to QA. The actual software being built was irrelevant to his figures. He used numbers to justify grinding the dev organization into the ground.

</comment><comment><USER12> I'm not afraid of computers acting like people (AI). I'm very worried about people acting like computers.

Every circuit, every program is based on a principle: comparators (analogue) = NAND (digital) = if statements (software). Machines choose their answer by taking a huge amount of information, and sorting it. By design, this leads to some monstrous conclusions. For example, eugenics might be logically efficient, but it is morally abhorrent.

Taking risks, making mistakes: these are not flaws, they are the very essence of being human.

Test yourself! I guess that everyone on here is very rational (as I am). I only discovered this problem in my character after a conversation with an artist, a good friend from high school. She makes all her decisions based on the heart, rather than the mind. Try to do something totally random! When things make no logical sense, the emotions wake up again. You'll "feel" again. It doesn't matter if that's a good or bad feeling - acting like a machine makes you feel nothing at all. A machine can defend every action it takes, because it's never wrong. But machines can't apologise.

There will be data-driven businesses. They're not actually run by humans (whatever the management says), they're run by machines. Those companies could ultimately be fully automated away. It's far better, as a human, to be creative (even if the most creative thing you can do, like me, is teaching machines how to talk to other machines).

<comment><USER13> > She makes all her decisions based on the heart, rather than the mind

Maybe I reading the wrong thing into that. I make decisions with my heart and mind.

Heart = I care about my kids and want them to be healthy

Mind = To care for them I vaccinate them and don't use homeopathy

Maybe I'm misinterpreting this but my general experience is someone who "makes all decisions based on the heart, rather than the mind" generally makes some very poor decisions that actually don't lead to the results they want.

<comment><USER14> @Greggman - I like your Heart/Mind example more approachable variant of Bertrand Russell's "The way forward for humanity is compassion guided by knowledge".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The most important skill, in order to be data-driven, is to ask the right questions. If you're looking to get to product market fit, the questions you should be asking are very different from the ones you should be asking if you're looking to grow a "good" product. In both cases, data can help you reach your goal, but only if you ask the right questions.

If an early-stage startup tries growth hacking before it reaches product market fit, it will likely end in disaster.

</comment><comment><USER16> Lots of ignorance in the article and some of the comments regarding data- driven decision making. Does the author realize how much of the civilization around us is built and guided by data-driven decisions? Also, people/companies not being able to effectively use their measurements to their advantage is not really evidence against the idea itself. When your model doesn't work, it's not modeling that's broken, it's just your model.

Gut reactions can take us only so far: they break down as we move away from single human-scale familiar problems (ones that the brain has some built-in, evolved capacity of handling, such as reading other people's facial expressions).

<comment><USER17> Do you realize how much of civilization was built through intuition?

As great as data is, it is also limited. Why? Because we can never gather enough data. All our data is just a simplification of what's actually going on.

Essentially we're just grabbing data that's generated by black-box tests on systems that are astronomically more complex then we can comprehend. In many cases the data tells only a fraction of the story. It's akin to some alien race trying to understand the a computer desktop by measuring the electrical inputs on a usb port and seeing how that effects the voltage output of the hdmi port.

\--

Here's a telling example of the power of intuition by a quote from steve jobs responding to Marc Andreessen inquiring about the "critical" problem the iphone had of "not having a physical keyboard.":

'They'll get used to it.'

Any datapoint you gathered on keyboards back in the day would have told you otherwise!

<comment><USER18> I pretty much agree with you 100%, but I hate it when people use Steve Jobs quotes. He was better at this than almost anybody else, the rest of us need some help and some luck.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >> Everyone tells early stage startups to use data for big strategic decisions.

This is not even remotely true in my experience working at and advising startups. Sure, data is important, but more so for tactical matters like ad performance and A/B testing. Big strategic decisions typically employ far less data relatively, pretty much definitionally since no data exists for "big strategic decisions".

</comment><comment><USER20> There is a looming disaster of a similar nature coming in healthcare too.

Data shouldn't be used to set goals it should be used to achieve them. It may also tell you when it is not currently possible to achieve your goal. That doesn't mean you should throw up your hands and set goals that the data seems to indicate are achievable because (among other things) that is tantamount to believing we can actually predict the future.

<comment><USER21> I would love to buy you a beer sometime and discuss that with you. If you have any sources for that epiphany... please let me know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is one, and only one reason to be 'data driven'. Or to test one's hypotheses, for that matter. And that is to make sure you aren't fooling yourself; that you haven't fallen prey to the myriad cognitive biases; to prevent your preconceived notions from clouding your judgement of reality, aka what is actually going on.

While data always provides more information, the less strong your prior beliefs, the less informative your experiment will be -- If you believe something and it turns out to be majorly false, you get a nice shift in expectations. If you believe in something and it turns out to be very true, you gain lots of information in terms of quantifying the effect you are looking into.

If you are Google, looking to eck out every last 1/1000th of a penny on ads, yeah, maybe a/b testing the shade of blue of a button can be justified.

The more other companies are "Data Driven" [like the somewhat unfortunate examples the author chose], as opposed to "Hypothesis Driven", the more there is room for somebody else to fry bigger fish.

In other words, it's not the "data's" fault, it is ours.

</comment><comment><USER23> Oh thank goodness it isn't just me.

</comment><comment><USER24> This article omits one important aspect: the data isn't used only to create. It's also a guide what to delete/abandon. Sure, it might be influenced by chaotic fluctuations but anyway can help make a decision. Sometimes making any decision is better than wandering around with ambivalent gut feelings.

</comment><comment><USER25> Personally I enjoyed this article.

I'm working within several different businesses right now, and the consistent theme I'm trying to relate to the folks I work with is that data-driven techniques can take you right up to the edge of what is known to be possible. It's the people who work with the ambiguity there and take leaps into the unknown that ultimately change things. It's fine to want to be part of the pack, but for the really ambitious folks being at the front-edge of the pack is still being part of the pack. Learning to make the move out in front is the hard part.

</comment><comment><USER26> > Sometimes it works. Sometimes it's critical. But sometimes it fails, or > results in unintended consequences that we may not notice for years.

A bit off-topic, but it explains why we got Windows 8x and the upcoming Windows 10 - data driven metrics.

When will Microsoft learn that developers and advanced users turned off the "phone-home" metrics gathering functions in Windows XP, Vista, 7 and Office?

People want Windows 10 to be Windows 7.5. It would be nice to get some lost Windows XP functionality back and shell bugs fixed that are in since Vista.

</comment><comment><USER27> Being data-driven is detrimental when it replaces common-sense (talking to users, collecting feedback, improving based on feedback).

Before the internet (and being able to track every single action), successful companies were built. It can be done. Using data to drive decisions has some value, but it's not the end-all solution, it's merely a piece of the puzzle.

</comment><comment><USER28> Anyone read the Crunchbase profile of the company the author is the CTO for?

"Bipsync provides a research automation platform to maximize the productivity of professional investors. Founded in Silicon Valley in 2012 by experienced investors and software developers at Stanford University, the company uses modern technologies and user-centered design to speed up data capture, automate research maintenance and identify insights that drive better decisions for investors and funds." [1]

I mean, maybe I shouldn't be looking for patterns, because, y'know, data. But it seems oddly conflicting to be pitching a product that encourages the use of data to drive decisions and then publicly condemning... the use of data to drive decisions.

Aside from that contradiction, the company just got seed funding four months ago. It's probably far too early to make decisions about the efficacy of being "data-driven." From personal experience, trying to manage people by telling them, "I'm right, let's do it my way," is terribly demotivating (and very prone to error). Conversely, trying to weigh everyone's input equally and sift out good ideas is an organizational nightmare that creates a ton of complexity. Complexity slows down execution. And who decides on the best ideas?

Creating a mental framework for hypothesis testing and building a product based on optimizing for specific metrics is, in my mind, what being data- driven actually means. There are no inconsistencies or personal biases. It's scalable. You can teach the entire team how to approach the design of a feature as a problem with a testable hypothesis. Politics go out the window as execution strategy is determined by return on investment of engineering resources. Being data-driven doesn't discourage creativity, it just allows you to reframe problems.

Buzzfeed clickbait titles are but a small (and, well, effective) subset of a vast array of largely positive things that come from being "data-driven." Attempting to demonize patterns of logical, rational decision-making because you (personally) don't like one outcome is... well, an anti-pattern. (It happens all of the time. See: The history of the scientific method. ;))

Sure, it's not sexy. But it doesn't need to be. It just needs to work.

1\. [https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bipsync](https://www.crunchbase.com/organization/bipsync)

</comment><comment><USER17> In God we trust; all others must bring data.

</comment><comment><USER29> The problem with the data-driven approach is you might be optimising towards a local maximum.

<comment><USER30> Only with naive optimization algorithms, of course. There's a whole academic field of study devoted to optimization, and avoiding local maxima is a big issue of course. Hundreds if not thousands of papers are published on it, every year.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I struggle to reconcile the data-driven approach to running products and companies with innovator's dilemma.

It seems like micro-decisions are best made after looking at the data, but macro decisions are not.

</comment><comment><USER32> Data-driven decisions will get you into local maxima, but you'll get stuck there when there's a good chance that a more radical change would help much, much more.

</comment><comment><USER33> Vision is a fancier way of saying "dumb luck".

<comment><USER34> Yes, luck is there, but i think it's only a part of it

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This reminds me of Warren Buffet's approach to investing. It's better to be approximately right than precisely wrong. I fear that all we are doing with data is figuring out a precise way to fail instead of focusing on being right.

"But fail often and fast" the cliche goes, but what about the opposite, it should be true by simple negation of logic right?

"Win seldomly and slow", then suddenly collecting data on every useless piece of data becomes futile. You are not focused on winning and without the burden of speed and pressure to screw things up. You are absolutely calm and able to think things through.

<comment><USER36> Business may proceed as usual: fearful managers might use data to make their jobs more secure, savvy managers might use data to move fast and break things.</comment></comment>


Genetics Affect Susceptibility to Phthalates - <AUTHOR> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/06/190613121100.htm <comment><AUTHOR> Is there any way to minimize exposure to plastics in modern society? Modern homes all have PVC water piping, too.

I'm guessing even the "safe" plastics will turn out to be not that good for us.</comment>


Ask HN: Hearing the same audio being recorded on Memojis like the recent FT bug? - <AUTHOR> I'm noticing about a half a second of audio being recorded before I even press the record button for Memojis on an iPhone X. Am I crazy? <comment><USER2> Can you record a demo of this happening? I just tried to do this and it worked normally for me.</comment>


Canon blocks copy jobs by keyword - <AUTHOR> http://www.itnews.com.au/News/235047,canon-blocks-copy-jobs-by-keyword.aspx

<comment><USER2> I was surprised a few years ago to find that a similar thing was already happening for big company email servers. My small company was working a joint proposal with a division of a big company. Every time the teammate at BigCo sent me his copy of the Word document containing the proposal, it would mysteriously disappear en route through his Exchange server.

Once he removed the "Confidential Property of BigCo" footer from the document it went through just fine. He was hitherto unaware that such a restriction existed.

It was a violation of his company's policy that he send a document with that footer outside of his network. It was also a violation of policy for him to remove that footer from a proposal for which his company would be the prime contractor. There's a lesson in there somewhere about centralized automatic enforcement of policy.

<comment><USER3> Happened in the UK parliament - their email system was quietly deleting emails about child pornography, from the committee debating the rules for censorship of child pornography.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The more accurate and less alarming title should be: _Canon provides capability for administrators to block copy jobs by keyword_.

<comment><USER5> Better yet: _Canon provides capability for low tier support technicians to obtain copies of sensitive documents._

"The server will email the administrator a PDF copy of the document in question if a user attempts to do so."

Seriously, WTF? Aren't they just replacing one security leak with another? Why would you want a printer technician to get a complete copy of a blocked document? A simple, nondescript notification/log entry should suffice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Essentially, this is a form of secret, artificial intelligence that frustrates your plans. As such, I predict epic fails.

You know, like when the publication has a rule that all references to "the queen" should be changed to "Queen Elizabeth." Then they publish an article on bees, which states "Queen Elizabeth can lay thousands of eggs at a time..."

Similar crap will happen. Some keyword will silently block the copying or printing of an innocent but important document and cause hilarity and/or a major problem. "We lost the contract! We couldn't fax in the proposal by the deadline because it wouldn't print!"

<comment><USER3> Or writing about the US sprinter "Tyson Homosexual" - [http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/christian_si...](http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/07/christian_sites_ban_on_g_word.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is an interesting way to plug an "analog hole" in secure environments (or, more accurately, environments where information security is desired). It reminds me of stories of financial institutions filling the USB ports on desktop computers with epoxy.

Here's my question....It seems that the confidential information with the highest value is small and qualitative. "Company X is considering the purchase of Company Y." Obviously, the value of that information for insider trading is huge. But, if I've read that memo in the law firm's office, I don't need to make a photocopy to profit.

Perhaps the next tier down is where such hole plugging makes sense: A customer list is valuable, but I couldn't remember 10K names and email addresses, so I'd have to make a copy (digital or analog). One headhunter at a local office of a national firm told me that their client/resume system was Citrix-hosed and had copy/paste disabled to make it harder for employees to harvest data before leaving. Of course, access was logged at the record-level as well.

What about cases where a needle might be found in a haystack? Copy all 10TB of a law firm's documents, take them home, and look for deals which might happen in the future. In either the digital (thumbdrive) or analog (copymachine) cases, it seems easy to figure out retrospectively that a breech occurred -- Look, Bob copied 5K documents and then quit!. However, the horse is already out of the stable at that point. Perhaps the preventative nature of this copy machine technology is what makes it attractive?

Restaurant POS systems have all sorts of rules in place to prevent employee fraud. One scheme involves a server's friend making a purchase and leaving a HUGE tip on a credit card. The server gets his paycheck, and then the friend disputes the charge. To prevent this, POS systems can be configured to require a manager's approval for a tip larger than X%. I wonder if similar schemes could be employed to force collusion in data theft. Let's say that any user could print 100 pages without manager (or even peer?) approval, but someone else would have to vouch for the legitimacy of the request after that point? I wonder what percentage of breeches that would prevent. The same could be done with accessing documents from a law firm's document management system -- You can see N documents not related to your own clients before somebody else has get involved.

</comment><comment><USER8> Having worked at a law firm and in the legal department of a large Wall Street bank, I don't think this is as huge of a freedom issue than you'd think. I don't expect this to get used outside that environment.

<comment><USER9> I agree - I'd think the most common words on the list would be "Confidential", "Private" or a phrase like "Do not copy"

<comment><USER6> "Well, Bob, the programmers are ticked because they can't print their training handout on public and private variables..."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> >>The server will email the administrator a PDF copy of the document in question if a user attempts to do so.<<

The document is important enough to not allow to print, yet lets make a few extra copies and store them on the mail server.

<comment><USER11> I think the assumption here is that you'd know about the copy on your mail server, that is also hopefully locked down. After all, free access on the mail server is probably much worse than a single PDF.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of the banknote copy protection which is builtin in many scanners and copiers, the so-called 'EURion Constellation'.

It consists of a number of circles in a specific configuration. For a picture and more info, see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurion> and/or <http://www.grimes.demon.co.uk/security/currency.htm>

</comment><comment><USER13> Would it not be slow? Binarizing and OCR'ing documents is not cheap. I would hate it if I had to wait for 2 minutes before I could pick the printout.</comment>


Imagineering in a Box - <AUTHOR> https://www.khanacademy.org/humanities/hass-storytelling/imagineering-in-a-box <comment><AUTHOR> About this course:

"Have you ever wondered how theme parks come to life? Disney Imagineers from hundreds of career disciplines around the world share how they use a wide range of skills – from story development and conceptual design, to math, physics and engineering – that all come together to create immersive experiences. Imagineering in a Box allows you to explore different aspects of theme park design, from characters to ride development, as you design a theme park of your very own."</comment>


I'm the guy who went flat broke and this is what I'm doing about it. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.outernet.io/article/331/a-breath-of-fresh-air

<comment><USER2> good for you... my offer still stands if you need or know someone who needs to make extra money holding-up road-side signs for meshipu.com let me know. All the best.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks man. I appreciate it.

To everyone else who offered to help: thank you too. It meant a lot.</comment></comment>


Facebook, Twitter, and BlackBerry respond to proposed social network ban in UK - <AUTHOR> http://memeburn.com/2011/08/facebook-twitter-and-blackberry-reply-to-proposed-social-network-ban-in-uk-2/

<comment><USER2> One comment I read on Twitter:

      Without Twitter I would've walked straight into a street
      that was currently experiencing mugging and violence.

The clean-ups were also organized overnight via Twitter.

Communication can be used for good and evil.</comment>


App Links: Link Anywhere on Mobile - <AUTHOR> http://applinks.org/ <comment><USER2> Hooray, now it can join URX[1] and DeepLink[2] in this "making links actually do things" space. Of course, being the free, open source option I do hope this prevails, but it amazes me the lengths we've had to go (URX even raised $12m) in trying to get the iPhone to do what Android has been able to do for years. Parsing URLs really shouldn't be this difficult.

[1] [http://urx.com/](http://urx.com/)

[2] [http://www.deeplink.me/](http://www.deeplink.me/)

<comment><USER3> Similar to the proposed methods of Google and Twitter, Applinks is Facebook's proposal for how developers expose their deeplinks to the web via meta tag markup.

In addition to their meta tags, Facebook also released an API that lets developers send Facebook a request with a URL to receive a response for the equivalent deeplink. This solution works best for deeper native integrations and those who want to go through Facebook to get this mapping. Fortunately, URX omnilinks already support Applink tags and don't require any code-level integration for developers to start linking to other apps.

Basically, the tags are open source (good), much like URX's working proposal [1], and the implementation of using the tags goes through Facebook. Facebook requires a native integration and does get around browser flashes, but is much more difficult to integrate than omnilinks, where you simply put urx.io/ in front of any weblink.

[1] [http://urx.com/documentation](http://urx.com/documentation)

<comment><USER4> "implementation of using the tags goes through Facebook"

No, it doesn't. You can use the SDKs without any dependency on Facebook.

Omnilinks are cool. I hope we can all work together to make mobile better.

<comment><USER3> To be more specific, I was talking about "Facebook App Link index" which seems to be the way for a developer to find a deeplink based on a given weblink while going through Facebook.

Look forward to discussing further and seeing how we can work together here to connect the webs.

<comment><USER5> Well, there is nothing to prevent someone from creating a Facebook-free app index. And I'm sure that will exist soon.

I think omnilinks and applinks are both cool. Anything that can get us closer to a pseudo-standard for intra-app linking is a win.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, and do think that will exist in the near-term as well. It's so exciting to see all the movement in this space.. it's a huge win in the name of user experience and I think that things will continue to move quickly here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> "mobile" being iPhone? Because android apps can handle their own (http[s]) urls just fine.

<comment><USER7> I think Android definitely has a stronger story than iOS, but Android also allows any app to handle any url, so multiple apps can attempt to handle a domain (like facebook.com), whereas app links allows you to direct the link to a single app (or a suite of apps).

"mobile" also means more than just iOS and Android, although they're the two dominant platforms today.

<comment><USER6> what happens if two iOS apps try to register the same scheme?

<comment><USER8> I believe that the behavior is undefined, but I haven't checked since iOS 7 came out. The docs used to say it was undefined, and I think people reported that it would pick the app that was most recently installed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Can anyone explain how this differs (if at all) from the deep linking support built into Android? [http://developer.android.com/training/app-indexing/deep- link...](http://developer.android.com/training/app-indexing/deep-linking.html)

<comment><USER10> From a quick glance at the docs ([http://applinks.org/documentation/](http://applinks.org/documentation/)) it appears that this standard depends on the web to define app links independently from the apps themselves. Basic flow would look something like:

\- user submits content with a link to [http://imgur.com/vxKOi](http://imgur.com/vxKOi) to your social app of the month

\- another user taps that link in the app

\- the app would look at that url's header and pull out any applink information.

\- using the downloaded links, the app would try to open the imgur app with the provided url

\- the imgur would then open, showing the content for the url that was tapped.

Note that none of the above mentions being on an iPhone, thus the cross- platform nature of the solution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Can someone explain how and why I would truly want to link out to another app on someone's phone? I get the whole android intents thing and having a "share" button and letting other services handle some of those things, but in what cases is it super beneficial to link to another app and leave your app?

The only thing I can think of are things like PDF viewers or maybe cross linking your own apps?

<comment><USER12> Sure. So let's say you run Skype. Currently the way skype works is to add somebody, they have to find out their Skype name, tell it to you, you receive it, they type it into a search box, pick from a list, then wait for the other person to confirm. That is, shall we say, terrible.

Deep app links would let you just send somebody skype://user/jim89 or better yet skype://invites/9384jr83 which provides a massively better on boarding experience.

Not only that, but I am working on an app where you don't even have a username, so there's nothing to type in a search box. A URL-based scheme like this one allows you to eliminate an entire field and the whole "create an account" step.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> From one perspective this looks killer: It looks like it supports a long-time pain of being able to direct someone to download an app and then open a specific location within the app. You could now have a QR code that when scanned from a shop didn't just download the right app for the phone, but the applink would also describe what to open once the app is installed.

But from another perspective this looks like a nightmare: It entrenches apps as the universal interface, and not the browser, by keeping people within the world of apps.

I can see why advertising companies want this, the browser is a battleground for control of the presentation layer (adverts) and apps help protect that (by locking out adblock add-ons, etc).

<comment><USER14> "It looks like it supports a long-time pain of being able to direct someone to download an app and then open a specific location within the app. You could now have a QR code that when scanned from a shop didn't just download the right app for the phone, but the applink would also describe what to open once the app is installed."

Is that what it actually does? If I have an iTunes url to my app can I imbed an argument to send to the app once it runs after being downloaded? I would have thought a standard requires implementation by apple for that to be the case.

Ive read the fb post, saw the f8 section and watched their video and I still don't know what it does. Maybe Im dim.

<comment><USER15> These links don't preserve intent for users who don't already have the app, due to the App Store's and Google Play's problems with attributing app downloads.

My company, Tapstream, fixes this by pairing our attribution platform with a deep link redirector - users who have the app already are deep linked, and users who don't have the app are sent to the App Store.

Then, once the new user installs the app, the app receives a callback with the user's source and any query string parameters on the original link. Docs: [https://tapstream.com/developer/deferred-deep- links/](https://tapstream.com/developer/deferred-deep-links/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is good. I'm left wondering about a couple of thing.

\- Would a parallel standard be useful that allows the rel="" and type="" attributes of <a> to signal the kind of app (for mobile and desktop) that could better handle the resource than the browser? I've been enamored with this idea of general cross-linking between browsers and native apps for quite a while, but it seems like a pipe dream.

\- Is it even possible to have general data types that multiple apps can handle (and what would the selection UI look like for that)? Think lat/long for mapping apps, addresses (for a variety of apps), events (time/data/address), etc.

I should add that the referring app UI for iOS is clever, great job whoever thought of that.

</comment><comment><USER17> Didn't 2 other companies just raise millions to do this?

<comment><USER18> [http://www.urx.com/](http://www.urx.com/) would be one.

techcrunch.com/2014/04/28/mobile-deep-linking-startup-urx-raises-12-million- launches-universal-link-service-called-omnilinks/

<comment><USER19> Yes, but it failed to support Windows Phone.

<comment><USER20> @CmonDev We [URX] definitely have looked into support for Windows Phone deeplinking, but found it difficult to find any examples of websites using Windows Store meta markup properly, which would be a prerequisite for us to support such apps. Can you point us in the direction of any good examples?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> How does this work in the case of namespace collision? Will we have squatters on the uri schemes?

<comment><USER22> The details are OS-specific, but the user is prompted to choose which app to open the link with on iOS.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Here's a link to Facebook's blog post: [https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2014/04/30/app- lin...](https://developers.facebook.com/blog/post/2014/04/30/app-links/)

</comment><comment><USER24> I want to see the App Links for the apps in their service, the Pinterest and Spotify links would be nice to have access too. Pinterest is notorious for being closed off, only recently opening open an API. Will the list be open?

</comment><comment><USER25> One problem I'd like to see solved across platforms is the case when you click an app deep-link for an app you don't have installed. Currently we're having to do some crazy hacks so that a single link goes to the relevant app store if the app is not installed, or opens the intended app if it is. Solutions for iOS and Android are also currently quite different, and it's a PITA. Do AppLinks solve this problem?

<comment><USER22> AppLinks is supposed to enable you to prompt the user to install the app if they don't already have it, which is the reason why the spec calls for developers to embed the al:ios:app_store_id, for instance.

From the docs ([http://applinks.org/documentation/#uxguidelinesrecommendatio...](http://applinks.org/documentation/#uxguidelinesrecommendations)):

"You may choose to take a user to the native app store when the app is not installed or display the name of the app based upon the App Link metadata for a given link."</comment></comment>


Software engineer salary numbers in the US - <AUTHOR> https://devskiller.com/infographic-software-engineer-salary/ <comment><USER3> The bay is greatly skewed down by the number of startups skipping on base and offering buckets of equity in exchange. More established companies offering less in equity but keen on retention are driving compensation battles resulting in medians closer to 250/y.

But even then I'm shocked at some of the numbers. A median of 98 is poverty level in the city of San Francisco when you consider studios can go for 2500+/mo in the outskirts of the city. Shoot, after taxes as well as rent and _before_ utilities and other costs of living, my napkin math suggests you'd be left with less than 24,000 a year. Doesn't matter how much equity you get, that's not liveable.

Considering I'm also a hiring manager and have seen others' offer letters when negotiating (and have also seen some of the competitive research that goes into pricing our own roles), I'm also pretty convinced the dataset used here misrepresents reality.

<comment><USER4> I'm really curious, how is ~$2000/month not livable?

<comment><USER5> $2,000 a month livable? I have a small ~$230k mortgage and just the cost of owning the house (power, water, sewer, city taxes, insurance, mortgage payment) comes to over $2,000 a month.

We have a hard time making $4k a month cover expenses when you factor in a home repairs, car, gas, food, health care, internet, cell phone. Shit adds up so fast. Saving for retirement or a vacation is not easy.

<comment><USER4> Once again, I was replying to a post saying that $2000/month _after rent and taxes_ is not livable. I don't live in SF so I am genuinely curious how two thousand US dollars is not enough _after taxes and rent_ to live comfortably.

<comment><USER5> My bad, skim reader here :/

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This graph is interesting for a few reasons:

1\. The range is way off. The top of the range is $113k with someone with 15+ years experience making $101k? Where do those number come from? Salary.com has the median for a Software Engineer V where I am at $150k with 75th percentile of $170k and I'm in New Hampshire not SV (small suburban State north of Massachusetts / Boston)!

2\. No Boston in the list of cities?

3\. Using high heels as a symbol for woman. Really?

Edit: Apparently they changed the graphic so #3 is no longer relevant. Except for the fact I think it is relevant that they chose that symbol in the first place.

<comment><USER7>
       3. Using high heals as a symbol for woman. Really?

Refresh, it has changed.

And read the comments before :)

<comment><USER6> I know I'm not the first one in this thread to notice that (I upvoted the other post that said something) but I opted to include all my thoughts in one message even though there is another thread for #3. I mean... technically I'm not the first one to make point #1 either in this thread. I think some duplication of thoughts is OK.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> It's so strange seeing these numbers and thinking "Really, I thought we got paid more?" It's making me think that perhaps I'm in a bubble. Everyone I know around me (friends, coworkers, etc.) makes at least 200k combined income, with the average being in the high 200s. This is at FANG, mind you. Are the salaries outside of FANG really that much lower? Even in LA/SF? Can anyone comment on that?

<comment><USER9> I don't know anyone making $200K outside a bank. Senior salaries in NYC (which is a high-price/high-salary city) tend to run around $150K, give or take 20% (for 10+ years of experience, not someone with 2.5 years experience and a "senior" title).

<comment><USER5> I assumed by `combined income` the commenter meant household combined - <USER2> two earners, I'm unclear on what the intention meaning is now.

<comment><USER10> The original linked article calculated combined income by combining salary + bonus + profit sharing.

<comment><USER5> TIL I need to get a new job.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I just don't know if this data is accurate. The people around me all make around 150-200k, but this graphic makes that out to be exceedingly rare. Yet I know I could do a quick search and find plenty of opportunities in that range.

<comment><USER12> it's hard to know how to interpret all this data when the sources report such different values. in particular, i really wonder what to make of the fact that the bureau of labor reports median pay that is significantly higher than most of the values for average pay reported by other sources. if this were actually true, it would indicate a very wacky pay distribution.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Probably goes to show that tech bubbles are real - perhaps for every developer/engineer working at big tech or in startups there are several working at SMBs or in other industries on unsexy line of business stuff for mediocre or low wages?

I've certainly applied for jobs at a few non-tech places (or at least places were they don't identify themselves as tech even when it's pretty central) in non-coastal states and discovered that even asking for $80k or more can be asking for much more than current leads or senior devs/engineers are being paid. Has lead to some awkward phone interviews. At some of them there also seems to be a sort of naive thing going on where they don't feel comfortable paying developer "engineers" the same or more than their "real" (mechanical, civil, chemical, aerospace, etc.) engineers when they're hiring someone to "just" work on web-based line-of-business type stuff.

(Somewhat related, I'm _very_ _very_ done with job ads/recruitments that don't somehow indicate competitive compensation up front. So many places sort of understand that they don't pay well, but feel like it's somehow justified because employees are supposed to put the business first or something stupid, and still seem to think they can find decent employees. Which, given that wages in many places don't seem like they've changed much over the last few years, they probably are at least finding minimum viable employees at their rates.)

</comment><comment><USER14> In one of the infographics, high-heeled shoes represent women and mustaches represent men. Seems strange to choose two gender attributes that are so ... optional.

<comment><USER15> How many men were high heels and how many women have mustache? I don't think the infographics introduce confusion.

<comment><USER6> That's not the point. No one was confused.

Heels are a controversial thing in the work place. Some people see them as a symbol of oppression for women because they are uncomfortable and serve little purpose but to make women taller and their legs look longer (which to many people translates to sexier).

On the flip side. In past history men have worn high heels too. And some feminists see them as a symbol of empowerment.

There have been more than a few controversies over workplaces forcing woman to wear hears. Especially on jobs where they are on their feet all day like retail.

In any case, not the best choice of a symbol.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The contrast between colors in some of the national maps is really bad...I can't associate the colors with the data, especially for the lime green one.

</comment><comment><USER17> Those number are way off for the greater Seattle area. $70k is what university students make their first year if they interview well and have had an internship/summer job before graduating. You factor in contracting rates for folks with 10+ years experience and principle salaries at Microsoft, Amazon and local Google/Facebook expansion offices and you start moving strongly into the $200k/year + stock & benefits neighborhood (assuming you can stomach the political bullshit, that is...).

</comment><comment><USER18> These seem low. Glassdoor and other websites don't normally account for stock options and the massive stock appreciation that has been occurring.

<comment><USER19> Aren't these sites powered by self reported data, which, I would imagine, skews high instead of low. As averages I totally believe them. Reading HN, you'd think everyone makes $300k but these comp packages are for outlier employees at super outlier companies. Find me a software developer at a small mom-n-pop company that makes that much. That company's president doesn't even make that much!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Here I am in the lovely state of JT.

</comment><comment><USER21> These numbers seem low, based on both anecdotal evidence, and compared to Hired's 2018 tech salaries map: [https://hired.com/state-of- salaries-2018](https://hired.com/state-of-salaries-2018)

</comment><comment><USER22> "Given that compensation is the second biggest obstacle to attracting top talent, companies may need to be more flexible when it comes to negotiating pay. This means that candidates have gotten used to and are now more confident when negotiating pay. As an employer, you need to prepare a strategy of how you want to communicate during negotiations."

This will exacerbate gender differeneces rather than improve them. [0] It introduces bias and favors hiring people with more aggressive self images.

[0] [http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-avoid-salary- negotiation...](http://gap.hks.harvard.edu/do-women-avoid-salary-negotiations- evidence-large-scale-natural-field-experiment)

</comment><comment><USER23> I can't wait for my plumbing engineer to come fix my toilet.

</comment><comment><USER24> doesn't mention what programming languages they used for the data.

<comment><AUTHOR> a really good idea for the next infographic. If anybody can help with sources, I'll be happy to go through the data</comment></comment>


Police Can Use a Legal Grey Area to Rob Anyone of Their Belongings - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2016/08/how-police-use-a-legal-grey-area-to-rob-suspects-of-their-belongings/495740/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> This is why counter-suits against police departments are worthwhile; once you have a counterclaim, likely for more money than they seized, they'll be willing to settle.

During this time of pending marijuana legalization in Canada, my company has seen great success with federal suits against police departments. If one takes a cue from the scientology lawyers (file motions to get their lawyers removed for prejudicing the police's case with their bias, etc), you can drag the lawsuit out for two to three years, at which point the police will be unable to convert/sell the seized property, and will be practically begging you to take the stuff back.

<comment><USER3> This is genius. Synthetic lethality for lawyers ;-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Civil forfeiture: just in case you thought the government respected the constitution...

<comment><USER4> black custodian helmet :D</comment></comment>


Automatic Differentiation in Machine Learning: A Survey [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://jmlr.org/papers/volume18/17-468/17-468.pdf <comment><USER2> AD reminds me of another idea: in cryptography, you can determine eg. how bit dependencies propagate through a state vector by running the regular code for your compression function or whatever, but on "numbers" that actually track the dependencies of bits. Details vary, but a simple idea is to use as a "number" a vector of symbolic equations for each bit in the number in terms of symbolic variables for input bits to the function. You can then easily calculate items of interest eg. at this many rounds, has every input bits affected every output bit?

So, jets instead of numbers for differentiation, systems of boolean equations instead of numbers for answering some crypto questions... anyone know of other tricks in this vein?

<comment><USER3> What you're describing sounds like Abstract Interpretation[1], a technique used in static analyzers and compilers (e.g. for bounds-check elimination). You can pick any abstract domain you want, but the more complex the domain — i.e., the more complex/precise your tracking of the possible values associated with each variable — the longer it takes for the analysis to run.

[1]: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_interpretation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstract_interpretation)

<comment><USER2> Abstract interpretation would be the equivalent of symbolic differentiation in this analogy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another paper related to AD was posted last month: The Simple Essence of Automatic Differentiation [0]. Video presentation [1]. I found it pretty awesome, just in case you hadn't seen it.

[0]: https//news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18306860

[1]: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne99laPUxN4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ne99laPUxN4)

<comment><USER5> Also not mentioned in the Baydin et al paper (which has been knocking about for a while: it was submitted in 2017, so not surprising):

* F. Wang, X. Wu, G. Essertel, J. Decker, T. Rompf, _Demystifying Differentiable Programming: Shift /Reset the Penultimate Backpropagator_, see [1], and [4] for a presentation based on this paper.

* S. Laue, M. Mitterreiter, J. Giesen, _Computing Higher Order Derivatives of Matrix and Tensor Expressions_ , see [2], discussed in [3].

Quite a bit of exciting work in better understanding backpropagation going on right now.

[1] [https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10228](https://arxiv.org/abs/1803.10228)

[2] [http://www.matrixcalculus.org/matrixcalculus.pdf](http://www.matrixcalculus.org/matrixcalculus.pdf)

[3] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18464003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18464003)

[4] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRLKYgpHy0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=igRLKYgpHy0)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I skimmed the article and I enjoyed it. Recently, I was looking for a good reference to cite that discussed the link between automatic differentiation and back propagation. From those I know if the field, they knew about the link for a very, very long time, but I had a hard time finding a paper to cite. The best I found was an article titled, "Backwards Differentiation in AD and Neural Nets: Past Links and New Opportunities" by Paul Werbos, which can be found in the book "Automatic Differentiation: Applications, Theory, and Implementations" published in 2006 by Springer. That article is preceded by one written by Louis Rall titled, "Perspectives on Automatic Differentiation: Past, Present, and Future?", which also provides some good history of AD. Anyway, if someone has a better paper to cite linking back propagation and AD, I'd be interested to hear.

<comment><USER7> I thought the article itself did a good job of explaining it. Backpropagation is just a special case of one way to do AD, apparently. AD prescribes a method of taking derivatives, and if you use it on a neural network, there you go, backpropagation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Dual numbers are favorite idea of late. Nilpotence seems under appreciated.

<comment><USER9> Can you elaborate? What makes you think that nilpotence is under appreciated?

<comment><USER8> Well in this case, dual numbers have this nilpotent constant epsilon that's analogous to i such that epsilon ^ 2 = 0. It's the basis of automatic differentiation. I don't fully understand it yet, but it seems that nilpotence is useful for smoothness and differentiability.

<comment><USER10> I think you are thinking about this the wrong way. nilpotence doesn't relate to smoothness (of what) and differentiability (of what). Dual numbers happen to, the way I see it, _model_ forward-mode differentiation. There are a couple of ways to see how eps^2=0 is a good model. But the easiest to get across is that in many calculus derivations, you take dx^2 to be 0, since dx is "a very small number".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Great but machine learning is too change in these days in their algorithm</comment>


Intel 4004 schematics published as Creative Commons - <AUTHOR> http://www.4004.com/mcs4-masks-schematics-sim.html <comment><USER2> I guess we should find a cheap fab plant and start selling these to hobbyists?

<comment><USER3> cant. they chose a "non commercial" license.

<comment><USER4> Find a cheap plant, ask for donations and give them away for free?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Can't wait for the 8088 schematics, now that was a groundbreaking CPU!

</comment><comment><USER6> <http://ht.homeserver.hu/html/emulatorfastz80.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> Sorry but this does not matter except for nostalgic feelings.

<comment><USER8> I think it matters quite a lot in terms of educating undergraduate electrical engineers.</comment></comment>


USGBC Sued Over LEED Program - <AUTHOR> http://www.solarfeeds.com/energy-boom/14784-usgbc-sued-over-leed-program

<comment><USER2> There is some merit to the claim that LEED doesn't save energy because it is based on analysis of the building's design and specifications rather than the energy performance of the building after occupancy.

In other words, certification is based on what was done before the building was used. If the occupants are uncomfortable and adjust the thermostats or the photovoltiac systems don't adequately power the lights or the motorized solar shades fail after two years the rating is unaffected.</comment>