Marathon Man: A Michigan dentist's improbable transformation - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/08/06/120806fa_fact_singer?currentPage=all <comment><USER2> I am a runner also (finished one marathon with a time that is nothing to write home about), and was looking forward to an interesting story. I read this whole article with a growing feeling of incredulity, not about the cheating that it describes (yes, I understand that there are confabulators of this type - Stephen Glass was already mentioned in the comments), but about the effort and space that a national magazine would spend on this story. I kept waiting for SOMETHING of momentous importance towards the end somewhere that would justify all this buildup, but it never came. Yup, a guy cheated in a bunch of races. Yup, he is a confabulator who will invent any number of details and fake personas to build up his fantasies. Yup, he was caught in due time. You could summarize this in five lines. This is not just beating a dead horse, this is shooting it with a howitzer, repeatedly.

The only truly interesting detail would be the method by which he cheated, which the reporter, at long last, admits that nobody has figured out. This leaves the possibility that other people are cheating the same way, although maybe less brazenly. Again, this could be summarized in a line (it's clear that he cheated, the method is difficult to figure out). What is this, a slow news year?

<comment><USER3> The _New Yorker_ likes to publish long, meandering human interest pieces. If you don't like those kinds of articles, skip them.

<comment><USER2> It's not my favorite magazine, but I've read long _New Yorker_ human interest pieces, and they've always had more, well, interest than this.

The problem is that when you see a long piece in a respected magazine on a subject that you are interested in, it's hard to decide at some point that all the rest is garbage, and put it down.

I started reading this story expecting a tale of a middle-aged dentist who transformed himself into a remarkable marathon runner. Pretty quickly, the story veered into a tale of cheating. I could see there is another 30 pages left to go, and kept wondering what I'd learn about. A secretive group of marathon cheaters who jet around the country and subvert race after race? A group of vigilante marathoners who help bring them to justice? Maybe Kip Litton's whole life is a lie, and he is not a dentist, but a spy from Gondwana? Maybe we at least get some fascinating psychological portraits painted by the masters of investigative journalism?

No, in the end, it's a pile of boring and irrelevant details. "At 7:34 the next morning, Joe Blow leaned over his model M keyboard, and, with keystrokes echoing crisply through his split colonial house, posted a message to the forum revealing that he has a photo of Litton at the 10K timing mat". Ok, that's not a quote, but the article is very much like that. In the end, Kip Litton is indeed a dentist from somewhere in Michigan, who for some unfathomable reason decided to start cheating at marathon races for amateurs. And that's it. Nobody knows why, and in some cases, we don't know how. This is a 10,000 word article in a major magazine. 30 to 40 printed pages. Come on. I have just as much right to express my disappointment, as the _New Yorker_ has to print this nonsense in the first place.

<comment><USER4> I'm with you. I enjoy a well written long and meandering article, but this one was just a dud. The story just wasn't that interesting. I kept expecting it to pick up right until the very end; then I just felt disappointed.

<comment><USER5> Exactly. It was very well written and held my interest to the end. But the article didn't have an ending at all. Not the fault of the author really, the real story really didn't have an ending either. It just ended like "...and I guess we'll never know. The End."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I found this a pretty interesting read. hackerish reasons: \- The scale of the fraud. This guy is making up a race on the internet. complete with other runners, their profiles and so on. Its the sting come to life.

\- The data based approach to cheating detection. Random runners can look up, in seconds, stats for any other runner. Not just their times and placings, but checkpoint by checkpoint timings. Its then easy to profile the normal runner and then the cheat.

\- The photo aspect. disqualifing a guy because he didn't appear in any photos shows how far we've come in having 100s of photos of every event.

\- The lack of on-the-ground cheating detection. This guy presumably left and entered the route of the race, with no one noticing. Runners noticed themselves going from position X to X-1, but not ll of them complained.

\- The issues of internet anonimity. We see yet another internet comminity with pseudonyms. This doesn't prevent it being a commumity. it doesn't prevent people spotting strawman accounts.

and less hackerish reasons: \- The lack of clear motivation. Why did he do it?

\- the weird overreach. Why did he aim for a high ranking? If he'd come 50th no one would have cared. Why did he talk to someone from the new yorker? Why did he make up a whole event?

<comment><USER7> People do step off courses--for restroom stops, to chat with friends, to have blisters tended--and then back on. I once stepped out of the Marine Corps Marathon about the 10 mile mark to chat with some friends who were near the Georgetown end of Key Bridge, for I knew already that my time would be nothing special. When I pushed back in, there were some spectators who supposed I was cheating, and why not--there is nothing so memorable in my appearance that they should have noticed me leaving the course.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Oh boy... as a D1 runner, I have heard far more about this guy than I care to. If you want to read more, this topic has been discussed extensively at Letsrun: <http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=3863010>

<comment><USER9> I think Mark Singer's writing is great. Did you think he represented the situation accurately, though?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If this were a movie, I would expect his twin brother to be revealed.

<comment><USER11> That's where I thought this was going.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of Stephen Glass [1], the reporter who fabricated entire events and wrote about them in The New Republic, as well as the movie Catfish [2].

1: <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Fabulist>

2: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catfish_(film)>

<comment><USER13> You don't think that spoils anything of the FILM at all?

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> A great investigation and writeup but wasted on a problem that is not really a crime but simply a nuisance to society.

I guess some poor people shoplift out of desperation vs some wealthy dentists fly around and cheat on marathons out of boredom.

I wish that investigative energy would have been aimed at banks, wallstreet or billionaire tax cheats.

<comment><USER15> There's plenty of energy aimed at these institutions. Matt Taibbi for one example. There's a lot of good investigative journalism around.

Problem is most Americans does not seem to care based on the votes they cast for the politicians who keeps the status quo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Thanks for posting this, it's an interesting yarn but the two the best takeaways are:

1\. People generally care only about the bullet points - that is, it seems all too easy to fool people with things such as resume padders because few people have the time or energy to investigate further

2\. Granularity in data is everything. Even (actually, especially) when the data are bullshit. With some data science skills, it can be trivially easy to expose frauds. How hard would it be to look over all marathon results that have split times and filter for those who improved in the second half?

</comment><comment><USER17> I hadn't heard anything about this guy until now. I wonder if he is secretly loving the attention? We all do things to get positive attention. A narcissist is different in that negative attention is an acceptable substitute when they aren't able to get positive attention.

I couldn't help but feel a little sad though, there is such a wild variety of damaged people out there.

</comment><comment><USER18> I find Richard Feynmanns accounts of hacking (non-computer) systems at Los Amos to be fascinating - I was hoping once the cheating was revealed we were going to be treated to a story of how someone cleverly found a loophole in the system that was then closed, improving the system for everyone. Rather we got a smear article...

</comment><comment><USER19> If you enjoyed this article and are unacquainted with the world of running, I highly recommend the book "Born to Run" by Christopher McDougall.

<comment><USER20> As a mere recreational jogger, what's there to know about running?

<comment><USER5> There isn't. But it _is_ an interesting book. It's about barefoot/natural running btw.

<comment><USER21> I'm not sure how you can say there isn't anything to know about running. Volumes upon volumes of books, magazines, and articles have been written about every aspect of running, from training and nutrition guides to novels and short stories.

There's no need to know that any of this even exists in order to enjoy running, that's part of running's beauty. But there's lots to know if you want to.

p.s. I should add that Born to Run is an interesting read about a part of running that lots of runners don't know much about.

<comment><USER5> We're in agreement. I should have worded it as: there isn't anything a recreational jogger needs from running books in order to enjoy and even get decent at running. Not to say running books are completely useless, but most of the things you could get from them are better learned from experience or passed down by a coach/trainer. Exception: Running magazines (or any magazine for that matter) are only there to entertain you and sell you things. Another exception: if buying running accessories/books helps motivate you, go for it, but I don't think I really needed anything more than a running journal/log.

Another really good running book for those still following along: Once a Runner -- [http://www.amazon.com/Once-Runner-John-L- Parker/dp/091529701...](http://www.amazon.com/Once-Runner-John-L- Parker/dp/0915297019?tag=duckduckgo-d-20)

<comment><USER7> I haven't bought a running magazine in 25 years, I suppose. But reviews of running shoes could be useful, I thought. And they carried schedules of races.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Wow, this is literally in my backyard. I live in a town in between Davison and Clarkston, one road gets you to either. Ultimately this guy sounds like a true douche. In this area as a dentist you are making plenty of money and to try and promote fake races to raise money for your son's illness is truly uncalled for.

I love all the trouble this guy went through to fake accomplish these runs. It's one of those you just put more work into cheating than just doing it the old fashioned way.

<comment><USER23> Given the context, I'd be inclined to start wondering whether his son actually had CF at all.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Additional and relevant marathon running time lying:

[http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says- hes-r...](http://news.runnersworld.com/2012/08/31/paul-ryan-says-hes-run- sub-300-marathon/)

I am not sure why people lie about running times.

But I've run a few marathons and you definitely remember the difference between a 4 hour pace and a 3 hour pace.

<comment><USER7> Definitely so, if you've run a 3 hour pace. I've run a number under 3; but what I remember about a sub-2:30 pace is that I couldn't manage it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Certain people (e.g. doctors, policemen, lawyers) seem to be defined by their jobs. If he had been a plumber this story would probably have been titled _An improbable transformation_

<comment><USER25> It is just a bit of a pun, as the movie Marathon Man has a dentist in a key role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> How often this Michigan dentist's story is similar to the way some startup businesses raise funds, and some open source software projects recruit developers!

</comment><comment><USER27> People cheat.

In some sports it's easier to spot than in others.

</comment><comment><USER28> What about multiple runners with the same shoe size?

</comment><comment><USER29> Good time, much better than that of some other "accomplished runner", [http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/paul-ryan- supe...](http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2012/09/paul-ryan-superman)

<comment><USER30> Please don't post comments like this. It doesn't really add anything to the discussion, and for that matter it doesn't really add anything to _any_ discussion.

I'm a fan of making fun of politicians, too, but you don't accomplish anything or convince anyone by doing so.

<comment><USER31> I am not American so I have no U.S. Political bias, but the comment is on point about someone not being truthful regarding their achievements. If this was not a politician you would have not complained. Its seems like you are more concerned about this being about a politician than someone not being truthful.

<comment><USER30> The OP was about a guy who cheats at marathons. The comment was about a verbal gaffe by a recently nominated and controversial Vice-Presidential candidate.

I'm not sure about your countrymen, but Americans have an annoying way of derailing every conversation and forum into petty, non-sequitur, assume-bad- faith attacks on politicians of the opposing party in a way that really adds nothing to the discourse. It's not that the comment wouldn't have bothered me if it hadn't been about a politician; it's that the comment wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't about a politician. There's this obsession with proving that politicians of the opposing party are terrible human beings in every possible way (so that we may feel righteous in our cause) instead of actually discussing things that matter. The end result is a sequence of catty remarks that only convince people who already agree with you, which stops any productive dialogue before it starts. It's the single most destructive thing about the American political culture.

HN is one of my few remaining refuges from that bullshit. If everyone else is suddenly fine with it, maybe it is time for me to leave.

<comment><USER29> First of all, it's a bit arrogant, to say the least, to make insinuations about someone's intentions, especially if you are such a big champion of non- BS contributions : I am an independent so I have no dog in this political fight and my comment had nothing to do with anyone's political affiliation. Second, I am amused that you call it "verbal gaffe." If you want to brag about your accomplishments, you better make sure you checked your data well or else you may end up looking incompetent at the very best. If you are not sure, say so, or simply abstain from bragging. That's what I expect from a professional or anyone (who should be) concerned about his or her integrity, and Mr. Ryan is a professional politician, so I see no reason to cut him any slack. You have a high threshold of tolerance for BS when it comes to politicians, it appears, but I am afraid it comes with the price of seeing BS where it's not.

My comment had to do with the integrity (be it professional or personal), which is the real issue of this thread and not some "guy who cheats at marathons" and it was your comments that turned it into some sort of political issue, and made you sound like an apologist for Mr. Ryan.

This piece ("it's that the comment wouldn't have even been made if it wasn't about a politician.") is not even wrong. What are you God? You think you know everything?

You made lame straw man insinuations that would offend anyone of normal IQ and then you hurry to close with "maybe it is time for me to leave" as if you wanted to prove yourself right and the issue were closed. But you are still wrong because your assumptions were never right. Sounds like a typical political "logic" to me, based on insinuations, twisting facts, and pandering to the audience. Yes, I too would like to see this place free "from that bullshit," because that's the real BS.

<comment><USER30> The point isn't _my_ tolerance or intolerance towards Mr. Ryan's statements. It's that loosely-relevant political pot-shots aren't really considered valuable comments on HN. I just thought it would be helpful to tell you why your comments weren't being received well. I'm sorry it didn't come across that way.

For what it's worth, even if it was Joe Biden, Justin Bieber, or Mark Zuckerberg who lied about running a sub-3-hour marathon, it still would have been a bad comment and I still would have made a similar response.

<comment><USER32> Well, it appears that other people received the comment well. I thought it was fair and relevant. However, it is tedious to read threads that have been hijacked by this kind of sniping.

<comment><USER33> Dude has a net karma score of -2. That's after all the upvotes from whoever "thought it was fair and relevant". Since upvotes are easier to come by than downvotes (not everyone can downvote), this suggests the comment _wasn't_ received well. Because philwelch is exactly right -- it simply doesn't add to the discussion.

It may appear that people are mostly siding with you because nobody else has verbalized support for philwelch. That's because we HN veterans don't generally post "me-too" opinions, we just quietly upvote the guy who's right and downvote the guy who's wrong. In this case, I've chosen to break the silence because you seem like you might be willing to learn HN cultural norms.

Here on HN, we ask that you not take cheap shots at politicians, religions, etc. -- even those we really don't like. It makes for boring reading. Instead, make comments that other people will come away from thinking "I learned something valuable from that".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> wall of text</comment>


Web robot that learns - <AUTHOR> http://bembot.com

<comment><USER2> Maybe it's just me, but sites like this _really_ annoy me. I feel that I've been duped into clicking on a link that's just asking for my email. It doesn't tell me what it does, what benefits it offers, why I should spend time even bothering to look at all.

In short, it's completely put me off bothering again.

If you want me to engage, tell me something. Anything. Don't just take. The more you give, the more people will be engaged.

<comment><USER3> It annoys me as well. Only interested people will bother to have a look at it and telling them nothing about you application won't get you their email id for sure. Either share more information or wait until your are ready to share it.</comment></comment>


WoodGas Cars: 1000 kg of wood = 365L of gasoline, no refining required - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wood_gas#Usage_in_internal_combustion_engines

<comment><USER3> Not to point out the obvious, but 1000 kg is a _lot_ of wood. If you were cutting down one tree to drive one truck 500 miles, you're going to go through your trees pretty quickly. I would say that using wood to power vehicles is hardly different from using wood to heat homes. Very heat, space and distributionally inefficient.

The only useful applications of this technology are in places where there is a lot of wood (or similar, see rice husks) and no oil, mainly due to transportation factors (ie, remote communitiies in densely wooded area) or, in times of crisis (such as war or rationing)

Still, cool to see the pics of Volvo 240's with mini-breweries on the back of them. (see lowtechmagazein.com article)

<comment><USER4> On the other hand, if you care about this sort of thing (personally I don't see this as all that big of a plus): effectively zero CO2 emission. Any CO2 that comes out of it was recently taken from the atmosphere when the wood was grown.

<comment><USER3> Well, not really - it takes a lot longer to soak up c02 from the atmosphere than it does to burn it and put it back in. 10-20 years to grow a tree - <USER2> hours to put it back. So yes, neutralised over a short-ish term timeframe. If you had even a small percentage of people driving cars like this, forests would disappear pretty fast.

All biofuels have the 'zero co2' factor. I'd rather see electrics powered by hyrdo and nuclear, myself, if you consider c02 to be important. Because those two options have zero airborne emissions completely, and that's a far bigger factor in air quality than the amount of c02.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought this was a much better and more informative article:

<http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2010/01/wood-gas-cars.html>

</comment><comment><USER6> In the show, The Colony (Discovery), the colonists built a wood gasifier using spare parts found within an abandoned warehouse.

Here's a video clip showing a wood gasifier (they eventually got it to work but that part isn't shown in this clip): <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkH6mFlfH3o>

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I'm picturing autonomous wooden robots with wood-gas hybrid engines crawling all over the Canadian north, building wooden wind turbines.

Not sure how to handle transmission, though.

<comment><USER7> Automatic, clearly.</comment></comment>


FFmpeg turmoil - <AUTHOR> http://lwn.net/Articles/423702/

<comment><USER2> Some threads from the list that might help contextualize this:

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118594>

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/119382>

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/123727>

<http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.ffmpeg.devel/118554></comment>


Top 8 Tips on How to Win an Industry Award - <AUTHOR> http://www.techvibes.com/blog/top-8-tips-on-how-to-win-a-industry-award <comment><USER2> This piece brought up a latent "back of the mind" thought I've been having for years.

How _do_ the people you see trumpeted by papers (and now Web sites) as the next big thing, the "hot 40 under 30", or such, get "found"? I know a lot of _modest_ high achievers who never get picked up by these things but I see the same old faces getting press and awards, whether it's at a local or international level. Are they really playing the PR game and approaching the press to get these accolades and column inches in the same way a company might run its PR?

<comment><USER3> Media and award-giving groups lazily crib from each other; this is one factor feeding the 'Matthew Effect' in notability:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_effect></comment></comment>


Why Don't More Female Figure Skaters Wear Pants? - <AUTHOR> https://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2018/02/why-dont-more-female-figure-skaters-wear-pants/552416/?single_page=true <comment><USER2> I don't see why figure skating men don't wear dresses. They look cool when you twirl. One would think that would be a (possible) artistic aspect of the performance. It would definitely get noticed as well.

<comment><USER3> Olympics cater to the masses for support. Men wearing dresses would turn off so many viewers I can't think of a faster way to shut it down.

<comment><USER4> > Olympics cater to the masses for support.

The London 2012 games cost £9.3 billion all-in. The sale of tickets to the masses raised £0.659 billion and TV rights another £0.350 billion.

I think at this point the Olympics are a media-corporate-government juggernaut that continues through its own momentum, not mass support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Maybe it isn't all about the skill?

<comment><USER6> [https://kotaku.com/sailor-moon-still-works-as-a-figure- skati...](https://kotaku.com/sailor-moon-still-works-as-a-figure-skating- routine-1794586305)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> So, what I get from all the various forms of "nowhere else in sport..." is that the author is completely ignorant of the existence of DanceSport.

</comment><comment><USER8> Why don't girls wear pants to the prom?

<comment><USER9> Some do when they are allowed to.</comment></comment>


Introducing UberLETTERS - <AUTHOR> http://newsroom.uber.com/st-louis/2015/07/introducing-uberletters/

<comment><AUTHOR> Backstory: St Louis is the one of the largest US markets in the country that doesn't have UberX.

By state law, 4 of the 9 members sitting on the taxi commission must be taxi fleet owners, and at least one driver. The current sitting chairman of the taxi commission is a notorious professional lobbyist.

The taxi commission has decided that while they typically accept emailed comments on matters before the commission, they will only accept actual written letters or faxes for public comment regarding UberX. So now Uber is offering to hand-deliver letters.

</comment><comment><USER2> In the future they will be picking up petitions, not letters. Something with some real legal weight. Mark my words.

</comment><comment><USER3> I wonder if this is a way to beta test a package delivery service without arousing suspicion?</comment>


'Acoustic attack' report on US diplomats in Cuba is flawed, neurologists say - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/aug/14/cuban-acoustic-attack-report-on-us-diplomats-flawed-say-neurologists <comment><USER2> Let's just consider this for a second from a political standpoint. What does Cuba have to gain from sabotaging the improving relations with the United States? The embargo is still a huge, huge burden for them, and they have no major allies (a la the USSR). Why would the Cuban government do this?

<comment><USER3> Cuban here (and actually living in Cuba, if that's even important or relevant.) This whole thing was puzzling for me from the get go, as I never thought our government could do something like this. If they wanted to freeze back relations, it would be simpler to just say "F __* off! " (and believe me, they can dream up a thousand somewhat-plausible explanations for that decision.)

It doesn't make sense from an Intelligence o Intelligence Gathering point of view. They have cheaper and better ways (like... actual people?), so I don't think that this wasn't some kind of (Cuban) intelligence equipment malfunction. Plus, from the reports it seems that the presumed attacks were taking place on diplomatic personnel residences and hotel rooms. In that environment the attackers do not have much control: what if there's an asset there? what if there's a child?

But what really makes me to think that this was not a Cuban operation or attack, is that Canadian personnel were also reported to be affected. That's a big huge no-no.

Since this whole thing was interesting for me, I have asked several people on their opinions. People from all walks of life and political leanings. Most of them just told me that they did not think it was Cuban behind the attacks, if there were attacks at all. The more cautious just waved off with "We need more information." Not one person, no matter where they stand, thinks we actually did this.

(Sorry for my English.)

<comment><USER4> who says it was the cuban government?

could've been any government's agency that had infiltrated cuba.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is the first article in which I've heard the sonic attacks described as the buffering of an open car window.

In one car that I owned, if I opened one of the rear windows while driving on the freeway, the buffeting was so "loud" as to be almost painful to everyone in the car. It wasn't exactly normal sound so much as some kind of oscillating pressure wave.

If diplomats are describing the sonic attack in terms of a buffeting car window then that raises the chance in my mind that these really were sonic or pressure attacks of some kind. I've never heard anything produce sound like that naturally.

<comment> Digit-Al I have suffered from tinnitus (which is thankfully clearing up as my ear heals) and I have experienced such sounds. Not the actual pressure waves, but noises in the ear which emulate such noises to a certain extent.

<comment><USER6> I've had severe tinnitus for over a decade, and know exactly what you're talking about. It's not just an audio tone, but I very much get these "pressure" feelings inside my skull that line up with the audio tone getting louder at times (the perceived volume of my tinnitus tone gets louder and softer depending on the day, tiredness, weather, etc).

I don't know how this could possible be related, as I've never heard of groups of people getting sudden tinnitus together, but I do agree with you that the explanation sounds similar to what I experience.

<comment> Digit-Al I wasn't suggesting that they all had tinnitus. The parent comment mentioned not hearing of anything natural that could cause such a buffering effect. I was pointing out there are natural phenomena that can cause such effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's always good to have more analysis and disagreement. But I'm not going to take the word of a few critics—who have never examined the victims—as disproving the thorough work of the excellent doctors at UPenn—who did. The next step would be to wait for those doctors to respond to the criticisms of their methodology and take it from there. It looks like they are in the process of doing that, so I'm looking forward to it.

</comment><comment><USER8> I read a story, wish I could find the link but can't, that at the same time as these "attacks" were appearing there was an ongoing special program at the CIA involving agents taking some kind of experimental nootropic. I guess the idea was to create some kind of super agents. The story suggested a link to the reported attacks, that the symptoms were actually an unintended result of the nootropics. I see no mention of that theory in the comments here. Anyone else see that story?

</comment><comment><USER9> Noise levels are easily measured. Apparently, no one measured noise levels on site.

</comment><comment><USER10> In my view the symtoms match very well with the symptoms of microwaves..

</comment><comment><USER11> > explanations such as mass psychogenic illness

Rheumatoid arthritis used to be a psychogenic illness. Parkinson's. MS. Etc. It seems most psychogenic illnesses over time prove to be real. Doctors need to stop using this as a crutch when they can't explain something, it's harmful. Just say "we don't know, this doesn't make sense to us based on what we know at this time."

<comment><USER12> > It seems most psychogenic illnesses over time prove to be real

Does it? Really? Should I be worried about Korean fan-death?

<comment><USER13> You can be dismissive of fan-death, but please know that the people who believe in it do so more out of national identity than reason. I have met many very smart lovely people who believed in it. Think of it more as regional pride in local barbecue than an actual belief. That said South Korea is far too hot in the summer to have a fan shut off automatically.

<comment><USER14> Could one compare it to the continued use of imperial units in the UK/US?

<comment><USER15> Imperial units are used because they're generally easier to relate to and use than the metric counterparts- simpler divisors, that sort of thing. It's the same reason we have 24 hours, 60 minutes, 60 seconds.

Even if you don't agree with that statement, it's what people who prefer imperial units will say, not that there's some mass delusion / patriotic identity.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Obligatory Hawkwind reference: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8pGS4cWbHo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8pGS4cWbHo)

</comment><comment><USER17> Canada and USA both in five eyes. If Australia New Zealand and UK Diplo say they have the same symptoms I'm going to go with malfunction in five eyes equipment.

<comment><USER18> The tinfoil conspiracy theory is that this is the 2018 version of the Anglos manufacturing another Spanish American War type of situation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> >"Functional neurological disorders are common genuine disorders that can affect anyone, including hardworking diplomatic staff," the doctors wrote.

Isn't "hard-working diplomatic staff" an oximoron?

</comment><comment><USER20> Would a device from space, like a satellite, be able to produce this attack remotely anywhere on Earth?</comment>


Google Announces Project Glass - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/111626127367496192147/posts <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3798171>

</comment><comment><USER3> How do you solve the most obvious problems of focus? Is there a really strong lens on the front of this thing?

I keep thinking of this problem when I hear about things like heads-up contact lenses and so on. It is a tremendous eyestrain for me to focus on anything within a meter, and so I'm often relaxing my eyes by looking away from my laptop at distant things. Within 10-20 cm or so it is extremely difficult to focus on anything; within 10cm it is actively impossible.

So are they really using a lens that can make a 1cm-away display look like it's 100cm away?

</comment><comment><USER4> _"one that helps you explore and share your world, putting you back in the moment."_

uhmm, am I not in the moment when I walk the streets without popup notifications on my eyes?

</comment><comment><USER5> the video makes this technology look awesome. But I am still skeptical to how well it will actually work.

</comment><comment><USER6> "Not in-game footage".

Just like the Google tablet mock-up video vs reality. Anyone can craft a mock- up video. Not everyone can execute on it, and in recent years Google isn't doing well on that score.

</comment><comment><USER7> If you're into this stuff, check out Steve Mann, who's been doing wearable tech since the 80's: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steve_Mann> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiFtmrpuwNY>

<comment><USER8> Don't forget Ted Nelson's Juggernaut :) (first wearable computer, around 1974).

PS: For some reason there's very little information about this one on the internet, I probably should check Xanadu instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The entire photo-taking thing is a bit funny - with the price of storage the way it is, there probably isn't much harm in leaving the camera recording by default and have the user turn it off temporarily if they wish. There's no telling how many amazing photos you could take in a single day with technology like that.

I guess the flip side of that coin is the massive surveillance potential if these glasses are controlled by a third party like mobile phones are; they're even worse than mobile phones because they spend most of the day on your head rather than in your pocket.

</comment><comment><USER10> Guessing this may be the first technology I'll make fun of my kids for using. The mock-up looks pretty cool is any case.

</comment><comment><USER11> I hope they will do something about people who already wear glasses for various reasons. May be project images on to existing glasses ?

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of "Use the force Luke". I hope people don't start walking around with things like this all the time. I feel like in a 10 years people will walk around talking to themselves all the time and acting quite odd for today's standards ;p (I still find the people talking on handsfree cells phones weird at times.)

<comment><USER13> Oh, I'm pretty sure they will, and probably rather less than 10 years. The interesting part will be how well the overlays can be meshed in with the "real" world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> We're living in the future now.

</comment><comment><USER15> please say I'm not the only person who thought of the "eyePhone" from Futurama.

</comment><comment><USER13> Videos are fun and all, but I want an SDK!

(Seriously, even if it's still pretty crude...)

</comment><comment><USER16> Why didn't the guy just use his glasses to purchase the ukulele book from an online source? Say, Google Play?

<comment><USER17> He's not shown paying for it. He could have scanned the ISBN and purchased it automatically (or put it in his wishlist for purchase later)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> 99% of the technology is having a really good connection either wifi or your phone company's wireless data.

I remember when I got a Nexus One and tried showing off the Google Translate app to co-workers; one Japanese, one Portuguese, one Bosnian but it took so long to connect it was embarrassing. I managed to get some Japanese translated after about 10 minutes.

Now I have a Samsung Galaxy S 2 (translate still sucks) through my phone company it has HSPA+ (21Mbps) but I have yet to consistently get anything above 3Mbps, I tend to get 1Mbps.

Also imagine this in a movie theatre or some place where they claim everything is copyrighted place or even walking towards police in a country where taking video of police could get you arrested.

It seems simple enough but holy can of worms Batman!

<comment><USER19> Not to mention that Google would be empowered to a live/recorded stream of video of every user.

That's a whole other can of worms for ya.

Coming up, put a Google chip on your brain and think like Google.

<comment><USER18>
      A few years ago Google wanted to record a few seconds of sound from the homes of people using the microphones/speakers on their computers.

      I'm quite sure it was the computer speaker since not every computer has a microphone but most if not all have speakers and a speaker is really a just a reverse microphone.

     People freaked out over that so I'd say recording live streams of video would be worse especially considering some things people may be looking at each day would be very private.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Ed Grimley endorses this technology.

[https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-A6pD_FWmYxg/T3xUSvVz8LI/A...](https://lh6.googleusercontent.com/-A6pD_FWmYxg/T3xUSvVz8LI/AAAAAAAAABk/qdfLOQRlrXE/s150-c/photo.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER21> This is great an everything, but I think Google really needs to concentrate on many of their half baked solutions they currently have. I am a huge fan of Google, but with their whole social drive recently and this (their take on augmented reality which to be honest just looks like another was of wrapping you into their facebook clone rather than providing any real context aware information) I'm beginning to feel they are really loosing it. I just bought a chromebook (as a lightweight browsing machine) and im massively disappointed because its just such a terribly laggy, glitchy and frustrating experience. Its very quickly becoming a 300 quid paper weight.

Google have many brilliant sounding pie in the sky ideas, but when it comes down to it they have to really ask themselves, will people actually be able to use this? Is it really worth chasing after this or will they concentrate their efforts and resources on other more achievable things.

</comment><comment><USER22> This looks ridiculous.

<comment><USER23> In fact, it does not. That's perhaps the best thing about the designs currently shown - they look like something a normal, even attractive human being might wear in public. For the first time, I'm starting to take this project seriously. The key, of course, will be the integration with the environment and the internet. But if the project dies, it will leave a good- looking corpse!

<comment><USER24> For me the key is making them inconspicuous, or at least look like normal glasses. I can't imagine adoption if they're bulky or have logos on them.

<comment><USER25> Unless the logos are from Armani etc. Glasses already have logos on them.

Just got a new pair of glasses. Currently there are Nike, Adidas, Harley Davidson and Armani (among many others). But the multi color Google logo...not so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> What this will provide for disabled and autistic people is amazing. It's too easy to get caught up in the "social sharing" part of this and forget that something like this can really help change people's lives.

Edit: To expand a bit, take an autistic adult that wants to do something, like go to the movies. It's simple for us, we wash up, get dressed, go outside, go down the straight, hope on the 132 Bus for 3 stops, get off, walk 2 blocks, pay for tickets, and go into theater number 5. For someone with autism, they can struggle with things like this. These glasses provide them with visual cues base upon their location, so when they finally do get to the theater, the glasses can show them what to do next, and give them that visual cue.

Currently working on an app for tablets for this sort of things, but having it work in glasses would be simply amazing. God, what I wouldn't give to be apart of this.

<comment><USER27> Also face blindness, or people with failing memory. Imagine if this system could automatically detect friends based on their face and summon their names and relevant context (recent calendar appointments, pictures, etc.)

<comment><USER28> heck, I think that a huge portion of the population would like that. I need to meet a person twice to remember their name, Having a thing that blips up "This is Eric, You met him 3 weeks ago at a workshop" would be worth early adopting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Prescription retro style inspired glasses please.

</comment><comment><USER30> A little off-topic. "Articles" like these make me think Google+ has become a blogging platform more and a social network less.

<comment><USER31> It really is, and it was kind of designed for that. Robert Scoble mentioned that he likes useing Google+ now more than sharing his news on Facebook or a Twitter link to his blog because he gets much more engagement from Google+. It's Blogger meets Wave with a built-in social network to allow for sharing things to other people. Google+ was never meant to be "Facebook... but by Google!" like I sometimes hear people talking about.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I didn't see any situation in this video where glasses would be superior to what I could do on my phone now.

<comment><USER33> The big step up is that you don't need to take these glasses out of your pocket every time you want to use them. Phones can't really serve as an "extension of the self" because you don't walk around with them in your hand all the time.

Using "always on" eye-devices would allow them to become second nature. Name/face/voice association would be automatic, looking up a word definition would be accessing slow memory instead of an annoying context-switch. A lot of the difference is not in that you _can_ do something with these glasses, it's that you _will_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I dunno, maybe I'm a Luddite but I don't think the tendency to never be disconnected is good for the human psyche. I know that personally my own mental well being tends to suffer if I don't let myself have considerable stretches of time where I'm not consuming any information.

Also, though cool, the video is probably a pretty inaccurate representation of what that tech would actually get used for. It shows some guy getting directions, scheduling events, and meeting friends. Nice enough, but the reality is that, like most mobiles, it's probably more likely to be used for Facebook addiction and sending pointless text messages.

[I guess the answer is "yes", I'm becoming a Luddite.]

<comment><USER35> The potential for this kind of tech so far exceeds what's being shown in the demo it boggles the mind. The demo itself is pretty depressing: it implies all this tech is destined for is to provide a hands-off interface for phone apps.

For an example of real-world uses of AR (that don't involve hipsters or food trucks) check this out: [http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-10/augmented-r...](http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2009-10/augmented- reality-goggles-make-marine-mechanics-twice-efficient)

<comment><USER36> I think the videos main point is that they're bringing it main stream, as a new multiple times a day tech for the average person

No doubt developers will do some amazing things with it when we finally get some practical hardware

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Great. Now we'll have Google Ads projected into our retinas.

<comment><USER35> Personally I'm holding out hope that Google collectively has enough sense not to torpedo this exciting new technology by turning it into a wearable AR billboard system. While I could totally see voluntary opt-in for merchant ad displays while walking around in downtown, I'm pretty sure it would have to be voluntary.

I'm optimistic that Google realizes they aren't going to be able to get away with anything more invasive than what's considered "acceptable" behavior for a smartphone. Example: I don't have merchants sending me unsolicited SMS whenever I'm within 200 yards of their storefront.

<comment><USER38> It doesn't need to be an active system. Google could monetize the hell out of it just by showing advertisers how effective their billboards, posters, and audio commercials are in the environment through passive collection.

<comment><USER35> There's an interesting idea, and one I wouldn't object to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> And I bought sunglasses today. Dang.

</comment><comment><USER40> where is the hardware? (processing hardware, power supply, and antennas)

</comment><comment><USER41> Googly Eyes(tm)

</comment><comment><USER42> This looks like a copy of TEDx Sixth Sense by Pranav Mistry.

[http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mistry_the_thrilling_potenti...](http://www.ted.com/talks/pranav_mistry_the_thrilling_potential_of_sixthsense_technology.html)

</comment><comment><USER43> This is super cool and all, but it's all fun and games until someone walks in front of a car.

<comment><USER44> I think with these glasses I might be less likely to do that as often as I already do poking at my cellphone while I walk around the city.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> Very cool. Except...

They forgot to show the "Ukulele $350" ad that pops up when he looks at the book. Also, "Monsieur Gayno Boxed Set - $24.95", "Feet hurt? Try walking shoes from Reebok!" and "John Smith for Mayor! I'll make the trains run on time."

<comment><USER46> It'll be only a matter of time before it's rooted and running AdBlock. :)

<comment><USER47> It's worth noting that Google devices typically do not need to be rooted. For example, Chromebooks have a switch you flip if you want root. (And, Google even _advertises_ AdBlock in the Chrome Web Store. So it's not certain that you will be forced to see ads in Glass.)

It's the cell-phone carriers (or OEMs) that want to sell you non-rooted devices, and that's a battle even Apple hasn't won.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure Apple is fighting very hard(or at all) about this. That would make them loose a lot of the control they need for the Appstore etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I know it has been said a thousand times, but Google could really take a cue from Apple on how to launch a new product. The "closed beta" approach generates a good deal of hype, but prevents early adopters from buying or using your product, which is insane! Google is tipping their hand to the competition. It may seem far-fetched that anyone else is working on a wearable computer like this, but I guarantee Google is not alone. If Google is slow to bringing this to market (which wouldn't surprise anyone), then this announcement gives Samsung/Apple/lots of others a chance to catch up in a potentially new market.

Ugh. Google, you have so many cool ideas and so little business acumen.

<comment><USER38> Also, you're immediately setting up your product for a negative reception. People expect all the cool stuff and tight integration shown in the concept video. If you can't deliver that...

<comment><USER49> Huh, I thought the video was actually really depressing except for two features: taking a picture to send to my friends, and sharing a stream of what I'm looking in a video call. I guess I don't really see the value of putting apps in my eyes. But I do see a ton of value in sharing my eyes and having people share their eyes with me.

<comment><USER47> I see the value. For example, I like to monitor my heart rate and speed while running. To do that, I have to move my hand out of ideal running form and look at my watch. With a wearable display, I can continue looking straight ahead to check on my information. Same goes for maps while driving or walking around.

I think a wearable computer that seamless integrates with me will be like having a friend that's always around. If you've ever asked someone, "oh, do we turn left here", then you have a use for a computer that can answer the same question.

<comment><USER50> I just saw a jogger this sunday, who had an acoustical feedback of his pulse. Zurich, Switzerland. Might be an immediate solution to your problem.

<comment><USER47> Yeah. I have a Garmin running watch that I can program to beep when my pulse is outside a range I set. But I really like to see the numbers. (It's easier when I'm cycling.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> prediction: by end of 2015 these will be as popular as iPhone and iPad. the future will have arrived : ) woohoo. <http://clippedcomic.blogspot.ca/2012/04/google-glasses.html>

</comment><comment><USER25> What percentage of the population wears glasses now? If you believe the 150 million (1) number, than less than half the population.

How many people can you convince to wear glasses that do not normally?

What about sun glasses? Will I need two pair of Googgles (2)? One for day, one for night?

Do you really think young women (or men) are going to wear these things?

My bet is that this project goes no where with Google in its current form. If anyone has a chance, it's Apple. Apple is the only large company with enough style to make something like this cool/socially acceptable.

If you can make the Camera etc, invisible, then that's a whole different story.

1) [http://www.aao.org/newsroom/press_kit/upload/Eye-Health- Stat...](http://www.aao.org/newsroom/press_kit/upload/Eye-Health-Statistics- June-2009.pdf)

2) my term

<comment><USER52> _How many people can you convince to wear glasses that do not normally?_

Probably the same number of people you can convince to buy and carry a metallic/plastic rectangle in their pockets everywhere. If it offers utility at an affordable price, people will embrace it.

 _My bet is that this project goes no where with Google in its current form. If anyone has a chance, it's Apple. Apple is the only large company with enough style to make something like this cool/socially acceptable._

Steve Jobs hired someone from MIT a few years ago who was a leading researcher in wearable computing ([http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/apple-hires- wearabl...](http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/03/16/apple-hires-wearable- computing-engineer/)). Apple has likely been working on such a device for some time.

It makes sense for Google to work on something too. How far will Google Glass go? Who knows. This is a public unveiling of a research project, rather than something that'll be sold in stores tomorrow (maybe by year-end though). There's probably a lot left to go before you can buy one, at which point it'll be a good time to evaluate it if it's any good or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> oh man, someone needs to trademark iGlass NOW

<comment><USER54> Too late. They do network monitoring solutions. (iglass.net)

<comment><USER55> iSpecs? Maybe iShades?

<comment><USER18> iZ

<comment><USER56> iSee or iC

<comment><USER18> iLook

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Its too bad Microsoft's not doing this. I was rather hoping for Clippy to make a comeback ;)

For those that don't know Clippy: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Office_Assistant>

<comment><USER57> I guess HN people don't like my sense of humor. Oh well..</comment></comment>


Ask YC Alumni: Are any of you available to read over our applications? - <AUTHOR>

Would any YC Alumni be willing to read over mine and any other YC applicants applications? <comment><USER2> Write to individual people directly (it worked for me in the past). They are incredibly helpful. Posting here will probably only get you the bystander effect.

</comment><comment><USER3> Some enterprising YC Alum could probably make bank starting a YC consulting agency...

<comment><USER4> Consultancy is a non-scalable business, exactly the opposite of the kind of mindset YC funds...

<comment><USER5> Yes, but the kind of disruptive mindset YC funds will think about how to make some previously non-scalable business scalable. I don't know the answer here, but it's a good question.</comment></comment></comment>


Facebook is alleged to be a Ponzi scheme. What is your ROI? - <AUTHOR>

I found this text interesting: http://www.jperla.com/blog/post/facebook-is-a-ponzi-scheme
I thought it would be beneficial to discuss ROI from facebook ads. What are you seeing for your business ROI from Facebook ads?
I recognize there is a selection issue with this data; however, I suspect the average HN reader knows more concerning successful advertising campaigns than many.
So what are you seeing? Putting more money in than getting out? <comment><USER3> Original article needs some basic education in economics. It certainly isn't a Ponzi scheme, but, that is a different discussion that already happened - <USER2> appears to be dead or searchyc doesn't find it.

I ran 2 campaigns this week for a hobby project. Decided I would throw $100 into the wind and see what came of it. This is the ad that played from their preview, I didn't think to screenshot it from the profile view:

<http://cd34.com/hr.png>

Targeting

        * who live in one of the countries: United States, Canada or United KingdomSee More
        * age 18 and older
        * who like apollo 13, nasa, space shuttle or space shuttle program

First run, 46849 impressions, 28 clicks, cpc $.34, Spent $9.56, resulted in 1 confirmed action, 1 that possibly bookmarked. Ad was paid based on $.50/cpm

Second run, 41890 impressions, 28 clicks, cpc $.80, Spent $22.40, resulted in 1 confirmed action. Ad was paid at $.80/click.

So, from that minor test, we can conclude absolutely nothing. In order to have any chance of valid data, we need two or more confirmed actions. So, what we did conclude is that it appears paying facebook by the impression for a non- branding ad is a little more cost effective in this case. Until we get a 2nd confirmed action, we really have no idea. What if the next view generated a click, our ratio would be halved.

What I think I can conclude from the first two tests is that the landing page (the twitter account) was an extremely horrible place to drop someone off. I ran out of time to get a nicer landing page which I will probably do before Apollo 13.

Key points, I'm not selling a product, I make no money from the project, but, was interested in testing a few things as a precursor to something else. It wasn't worth $30 to me for 2 followers on a twitter account. I do believe a better designed landing page rather than tossing someone to twitter would increase conversions substantially. There is still residual traffic from it, and it has gotten two more followers, but, I cannot attribute those to facebook.

Now, that is data collected this week. Historically, I can say that the ROI is marginal, but, most of the items I've advertised are not impulse purchases. Getting a person to contact us and the requisite followups close the sale. As far as lead generation, I would say that it is not a bad deal, but not great. Because of the way the pricing works, once you can figure out your ROI, you bid what it is worth to you, the people outbidding you eventually figure out they are paying too much, and the bid prices get regulated.

I would bet that 90% of the people complaining about their ROI on any advertising, aren't tracking enough metrics to even know why their advertising isn't working.</comment>