Steve Jobs Succumbs to Alternative Medicine - <AUTHOR> http://www.skepticblog.org/2011/10/06/steve-jobs-succumbs-to-alternative-medicine/ <comment><USER2> First, Steve's family asked us to respect their privacy. They never made his fight with cancer a public matter and it's terribly rude to speculate like this. That aside, I did have some thoughts on the alternative treatments this article is talking about.

With close family members having fought cancer more times than I can count on one hand, my honest impression is that for several forms of cancer the _current_ state of "orthodox" treatment (typically chemotherapy and radiation) is a joke worth skipping in exchange for what quality of life you have left.. which in one case has turned out to be 15 years and counting (following two surgeries.)

What makes a lot of alternative methods appealing to me is not their anecdotal evidence. It's that many of them (at least the ones I'm familiar with) don't have such torturous and long lasting side effects. For folks like my wife and I who have already come to the conclusion that we would not pursue chemotherapy and radiation treatments for many forms of cancer, we've got nothing to lose. We've already decided we'd rather die what we consider gracefully than suffer the side effects and slow, agonizing death of a long drawn out battle.

Not trying to convince anyone here, just trying to explain this from the other side.

<comment><USER3> It depends on the type of cancer. For some classes of cancer, there are now treatments which dramatically improve the prognosis, with relatively mild side-effects. This is summarized well in the book _The Emperor of Maladies_.

Pancreatic cancer is particularly intractable. The survival rate is extremely low. I don't blame him for trying everything. He had nothing to lose.

<comment><USER4> As I understand it (and I'm only going by what he said in his Stanford commencement speech here) he had a rare form of pancreatic cancer which is treatable:

 _The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months...

I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now._

Ouch.

<comment><USER5> What about the possibility of remission?

<comment><USER4> Well yeah, that's what happened afaik

Whether the nine month delay before getting surgery increased the likelihood of remission is a question I'm not qualified to answer. But until contradicted by an oncologist I'm going to go with "probably".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here is part of the abstract from "Use of CAM results in delay in seeking medical advice for breast cancer" (1)

"On average, [Women who discovered a lump] took 8.7 weeks to inform the family and 17.2 weeks to first physician visit. Fifty three percent delayed seeking medical advice. Common reasons were;

antecedent use of complimentary/alternative therapies (34%), lack of significance attached to the lump (23%), fear of surgery (22%), conflicting personal commitments (7%), fear of cancer (5%), and others (8%).

 _Twenty nine percent practiced CAM before visiting any physician._

Common methods used were

homeopathy (70%),

spiritual therapy (15%) and

Ayurvedic medicine (13%).

CAM use was associated with delay in seeking medical advice (OR: 5.6; 95% CI: 2.3, 13.3) and presentation at an advanced stage of disease (OR: 2.2; 95% CI: 1.01, 4.6). Patients who delayed seeking medical advice more often had positive axillary nodes and stage III/IV disease. Breast cancer patients in Pakistan frequently (53%) delay seeking medical advice. _Antecedent practice of CAM is widespread and a common underlying reason. The delay results in significant worsening of the disease process._ "

tl;dr - people delay medical treatment, and part of the reason is that they try alternative treatments, and only go to the doctor when the problem gets worse. This worsens the progress of their disease.

This is why alternative medicine is bad. Because it kills people. Imagine how mad you would be if someone you loved delayed treatment for a real problem because they were following advice to try alternative, "natural" medicine they'd received from a friend.

We are responsible for the outcomes of what we do, not just the sentiment behind it.

1) <http://www.springerlink.com/content/k8p0400u2u77242l/>

<comment><USER7> Those 29% who "practiced CAM before visiting any physician" would be better served visiting a physician who utilizes CAM as an adjunct to his practice, who would recognize their concerns, and encourage those patients not to delay any required treatments.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, though, few homeopaths would give this type of advice. Most homeopaths actively recommend people not use scientific medicine.

The following quotes are from an investigation of what type of advice real homeopaths give when asked to recommend treatment for someone planning to visit areas exposed to malaria.

"... I tried to find out what homeopaths would offer to a young traveller seeking protection against malaria. Working with Alice Tuff and the charity Sense About Science, we developed a storyline in which Tuff would be making a ten week overland trip through West Africa, where there is a high prevalence of the most dangerous strain of malaria, which can result in death within three days. Tuff, a young graduate, would explain to homeopaths that she had previously suffered side-effects from conventional malaria tablets and wondered if there was a homeopathic alternative."

...

"Next Tuff found a variety of homeopaths by searching on the internet, just as any young student might do. She then visited or phoned ten of them, mainly based in and around London. In each case, Tuff secretly recorded the conversations in order to document the consultation. The results were shocking. Seven out of the ten homeopaths failed to ask about the patient's medical background and also failed to offer any general advice about bite prevention. Worse still, ten out of ten homeopaths were willing to advise homeopathic protection against malaria instead of conventional treatment, which would have put our pretend traveller's life at risk."

<http://www.1023.org.uk/whats-the-harm-in-homeopathy.php>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So how exactly does this article square up with Steve's 2005 Stanford Commencement address?

[http://www.roj.com.np/life-inspiration/steve-jobs-how-to- liv...](http://www.roj.com.np/life-inspiration/steve-jobs-how-to-live-before- you-die/)

"About a year ago I was diagnosed with cancer. I had a scan at 7:30 in the morning, and it clearly showed a tumor on my pancreas. I didn't even know what a pancreas was. The doctors told me this was almost certainly a type of cancer that is incurable, and that I should expect to live no longer than three to six months. My doctor advised me to go home and get my affairs in order, which is doctor's code for prepare to die. It means to try to tell your kids everything you thought you'd have the next 10 years to tell them in just a few months. It means to make sure everything is buttoned up so that it will be as easy as possible for your family. It means to say your goodbyes."

"I lived with that diagnosis all day. Later that evening I had a biopsy, where they stuck an endoscope down my throat, through my stomach and into my intestines, put a needle into my pancreas and got a few cells from the tumor. I was sedated, but my wife, who was there, told me that when they viewed the cells under a microscope the doctors started crying because it turned out to be a very rare form of pancreatic cancer that is curable with surgery. I had the surgery and I'm fine now."

He had the surgery. Successfully, as far as the doctors were concerned. And he lived the median number of years for those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer. This information was not hard to dig up.

Stay classy, exit.

<comment><USER4> * And he lived the median number of years for those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer *

The median number of years for those diagnosed with pancreatic cancer, or the median number of years for those diagnosed with this particular type of rare, operable pancreatic cancer?

<comment><USER8> The median number of years for those diagnosed with islet cell carcinoma. For the regular kind it's 3-6 months.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> A more in depth discussion:

[http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/steve- jobs-...](http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2011/10/05/steve-jobs-dies- his-unorthodox-treatment-for-neuroendocrine-cancer.html#)

</comment><comment><USER9> And taking a contrary position, here's the editor of Natural News saying that Chemotherapy and Radiotherapy killed him:

[http://www.naturalnews.com/033793_Steve_Jobs_chemotherapy.ht...](http://www.naturalnews.com/033793_Steve_Jobs_chemotherapy.html)

(For clarification, I think the article is bullshit, I just put it out there as part of the discussion about Steve's medical treatment and about people jumping on his death to further some view or other).

</comment><comment><USER10> The reports of Jobs' treatment elections are conjecture.

"although neither Apple nor those close to Jobs were willing to discuss the treatments he elected or the course of his disease," the community continues to assume that rumors about Job's health coming out of financial publications (Forbes) are somehow accurate.

This post is trite and condescending no matter how long it came after Jobs' death. Dealing with death is a personal matter. You have no right to demand that anyone submit themselves to the cold, alienated approach of aggressive medical treatment. Let people pass with dignity, however they choose.

The purpose of life is not to be a mobile mass of cells for as long as technologically possible. In fact, the statistics show that people who skip the N+1th round of chemo and switch to hospice care have better outcomes. [http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_...](http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/08/02/100802fa_fact_gawande)

<comment><USER7> Great reply. I thought the OP toxic enough to make one ill.

<comment><USER11> The thought of bullshit fake medicine taking another life should be enough to make anyone feel ill.

<comment><USER7> Speak for yourself.

<comment><USER11> I am. "Should be enough" is _very clearly_ an opinion.

My _opinion_ is that it _should_ be enough to make _anyone_ fill ill, because _everyone_ should approach the matter rationally.

The _fact_ is that alternative 'medicine' is not rational.

<comment><USER4> "By definition, alternative medicine has either not been proved to work or has been proved not to work. You know what they call alternative medicine that has been proved to work? Medicine."

\- Tim Minchin

<comment><USER12> see this journal:

 _"Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine."_

<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/>

<comment><USER11> The point being made here is that if something has been proven to work, it is no longer _alternative_ medicine. "Evidence based alternative" is a contradiction.

<comment><USER12> Alternative medicine is any healing practice: "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine." <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_medicine>

<comment><USER11> "Conventional medicine" being "medicine for which there actually exists evidence of it working."

<comment><USER12> source ?

don't forget : 51% Unknown effectiveness ..

<http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp>

one example "Unknown effectiveness"

"Pancreatic cancer New option(s) added for: Chemoradiotherapy for resected pancreatic cancer One long-term follow-up study added. It found no significant difference between adjuvant chemoradiotherapy and surgery alone for overall survival or progression-free survival at 11.7 years' follow-up. Categorisation unchanged (Unknown effectiveness), as the evidence is not strong enough to draw definitive conclusion."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I suspect in a few more decades it will be revealed that the true cause of death was failure to cryopreserve. Pretty much all our current medicine can do is buy a few decades at the most. With his wealth, Jobs could have hired his own team of superbly qualified surgeons and perfusionists, and started an apple-themed cryonics vault that would (supported by his fame) last hundreds of years. He would have inspired thousands, perhaps millions of Apple fans to come along for the ride. What a wasted opportunity.

<comment><USER14> Harsh words, but valid point. The first cryoperservations could be billionaires in the hight-tech industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> All I can say is that I hope we did not lose a visionary due to a reliance on alternative medicine.

<comment><USER16> ... because conventional medicine has cured pancreatic cancer.

<comment><USER17> It very likely would have cured his particular form of it.

<comment><USER18> ...he had a liver transplant. I hardly think you can say he 'avoided' conventional medicine...

<comment><USER17> No, he didn't avoid it, but according to the article, he also didn't avail himself of it until it was clear to him that his "alternative therapy" was not having an appreciable effect. The delay in effective treatment incurred by this poor judgment could easily have cost him his life, or at least prevented him from enjoying several more years of relative comfort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I wasn't aware that Steve favored alternative medicine, sad to hear that, but I wouldn't judge him for it. The reality is, despite its proven efficacy, western medicine's answer to cancer is still painful/debilitating and sometimes borders on humiliating, especially for someone with such a ubiquitous public image. For many, alternative medicine finds its appeal as an escape from the grim and down right scary inevitability of chemo and surgery, it's a way to feel like you're doing something without having to sacrifice your hair, lunch, and dignity. It's a self delusion that I can't blame anyone for indulging in.

<comment><USER11> The proper term for 'western medicine' is 'evidence based medicine'. The term 'western medicine' can incorrectly imply an equal footing for so called 'eastern medicine'.

(I did not downvote you)

<comment><USER12> not true .. 'western medicine' is NOT 'evidence based medicine'

 _"What percentage of the around 3000 treatments included in Clinical Evidence fall into each category:

\- 11% Beneficial

\- 23% Likely to be beneficial

\- 7% Trade off between benefits and harm

\- 51% Unknown effectiveness

\- 5% Unlikely to be beneficial

\- 3% Likely to be ineffective or harmful"_

<http://clinicalevidence.bmj.com/ceweb/about/knowledge.jsp>

</comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>=

and _"Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (eCAM) is an international, peer-reviewed journal that seeks to understand the sources and to encourage rigorous research in this new, yet ancient world of complementary and alternative medicine."_

<http://www.hindawi.com/journals/ecam/>

Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine (ECAM) and Pancreatic Cancer:

[http://www.hindawi.com/search.aspx?startindex=1&field0=9...](http://www.hindawi.com/search.aspx?startindex=1&field0=9&q0=Pancreatic%20Cancer)

<comment><USER11> I understood vectorpush to be mistakenly using the term 'western medicine' when he in fact meant 'evidence based medicine'.

My understanding was correct.

So your comment is a non sequitur.

<comment><USER12> >when he in fact meant 'evidence based medicine'.

Are you an evidence based mind-reader?

and again:

'western medicine' is NOT 'evidence based medicine'

<comment><USER11> _"Are you an evidence based mind-reader?"_

I made a guess, he confirmed I was correct.

I suggest you read the entire conversation tree when you consider responding.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> brown9-2 I don't understand. This post claims that the median survival period for this form of cancer is 10 years.

So therefore, his survival (7-8 years), whether or not alternative medicine was used, lasted close to the average one could expect.

So what is unexpected here?

<comment><USER20> Given how young Steve Jobs was when he was initially diagnosed in 2003, how good his health was, his ability to pay for the best treatment, his large support network and his insatiable drive, I would have expected better than median survival.

<comment><USER21> Yes, though there's still a lot of chance involved.

Young age does not necessarily help with fighting cancer. Younger people have a faster metabolism, and that often allows the tumour to grow faster than in older people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> It would be one thing if we were talking about rubbing crystals all over your body. I would not consider a modified diet "alternative" medicine. There is legitimate science around diets and how it affects cancer growth (see TED video):

<http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/william_li.html>

<comment><USER23> But going to a naturopathic doctor for a diet prescription _is_ rubbing crystals all over your body. William Li (the speaker in that talk) is an MD bringing evidence-based medicine (i.e. science) to bear on the question.

On the other hand, as naturopathic doctors themselves explain, "tradition- sensitive naturopathic practitioners ... which have tradition-based paradigms articulating vitalistic and holistic principles, may have significant problems in relating to the idea of EBM as developed in biomedical contexts." <http://www.liebertonline.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2006.12.323>

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Counterpoint: Having been irrevocably harmed by modern medicine, I encourage everyone to _always_ be a skeptic and a self-advocate when undergoing any approved or alternative therapy. Do research. Get multiple opinions. Be a strong, vocal participant in your plan of care.

</comment><comment><USER25> Confirmed Steve Jobs did Chemo and Rad. Now think.

[http://www.marksmarketanalysis.com/2011/02/steve-jobs-on- che...](http://www.marksmarketanalysis.com/2011/02/steve-jobs-on-chemo-may- have-only-weeks.html)

[http://gawker.com/5737092/steve-jobss-cancer-secret- revealed...](http://gawker.com/5737092/steve-jobss-cancer-secret-revealed- following-sources-death)

</comment><comment><USER26> On the one hand, Steve Job's opinionated and stubborn nature helped craft some of the most successful consumer products in history, but tragically it may be that that same stubbornness and free thinking could very well have led to his early demise.

</comment><comment><USER27> Nonsense Steve, your diet "just works".

</comment><comment><USER28> Way too early for this, and quite frankly, it's none of your business.

</comment><comment><USER29> Normally a cold lasts 7 days, but with aggressive medical treatment it only lasts a week.

</comment><comment><USER30> Once again, more intellectually dishonest 'arguments' from the self-labeled skeptics. How about actually discussing what Steve Jobs did, why he thought it might be effective, and his logic about the pros and cons.

You know, actually doing some work instead of just trying to rack up some cheap page views off of the man's death while contributing nothing of value.

<comment><USER11> If awareness of alternative 'medicine' gained from this incident cause _a single person_ to go to a real doctor and have their life saved, it will be Steve Jobs' greatest legacy.

Stop thinking about gadgets for one minute and consider _human life_.

<comment><USER31> Alex3917 did not say anything about gadgets.

<comment><USER11> It was not my intention to imply that he had.

<comment><USER31> What was the point of bringing it up, then?

<comment><USER11> I was anticipating protest, and addressing it before the fact.

<comment><USER31> I don't understand what kind of protest you were anticipating. Calling for deeper discussion of the motives or thought process behind a mistaken action is in no way an endorsement of gadgets over human life. It sounds more like you were trying to twist this into something about Apple.

<comment><USER11> I was anticipating this: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3080812></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask YC:  A site for the dying (e.g., in the spirit of Randy Pausch's last lecture)? - <AUTHOR>

In case you are not familiar with this, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Pausch
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5700431505846055184
It seems to me that there are dying people out there who would like to tell the world something in their last moments. <comment><USER2> I don't think you've thought this through. First of all, it's extremely morbid and ... ick. Second... I guess you could do it as some kind of grim community service, but what would people think of you if you tried to make money at it?

amichail, you seem to have a lot of pretty outlandish ideas, and while that's not bad (creativity is good), I sense that you don't have a great filter for what might work and what won't. And I say this realizing that I'm not that adept at figuring those things out either.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you about the filter problem. But isn't that a problem that everyone has? After all, this is an empirical area. And a way to see whether there is interest in something is to ask others to see what the majority think.

As for this idea, it is rather curious that some dying people have a strong need to tell the world something. I think it's a form of therapy for them.

<comment><USER2> No, some people have a really keen sense for what products will fly and which ones won't.

<comment><USER3> Steve Jobs, to name just one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I think that a service catering to that wish could do well, if tastefully done. You'd have to really think critically about the customer need though -- just standing up yet _another_ social network and saying it's for terminally ill people probably wouldn't get you far.

<comment><USER5> Pius is absolutely right. You might look to funeral homes, religious organizations, and Hospice for some ideas on how to handle the topics of terminal illness and death in a tasteful manner. But the core idea isn't a bad one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> here's one place you can go for that <http://www.tdcj.state.tx.us/stat/executedoffenders.htm></comment>


Inflation: It's a Wealth Redistribution Scheme - <AUTHOR> https://mises.org/blog/inflation-it%E2%80%99s-wealth-redistribution-scheme <comment> j-pb We should simply abandon all taxation and let the state print the money it spends. This would replace taxation with inflation. Encourage investment and discourage dept.

Best of all we could get rid of all those tax lawyers and inspectors.

Ideally you combine this with Universal basic income and adjust it's amount to inflation.</comment>


Lab-made? CoV2 genealogy through the lens of gain-of-function research - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@yurideigin/lab-made-cov2-genealogy-through-the-lens-of-gain-of-function-research-f96dd7413748 <comment><USER2> That was a fantastic read. It doesn't prove that it was lab-made, but I think it soundly rejects current arguments that it is a natural recombination. It also is a wonderful explanation of the furin cleavage site and why that is such a key mutation for amplifying the virus' infectiousness.

<comment><USER3> > It doesn't prove that it was lab-made

It does prove they were doing SARS research. Just great.</comment></comment>


Highland.js - <AUTHOR> http://highlandjs.org/ <comment><USER2> Highland is a great option, even easier to use than Caolan's previous library Async.js.

Re: Highland vs. RxJS, RxJS operates at a lower level interface [0]. As a plus for RxJS, Reactive Extensions are available for multiple languages, not just JS [1].

[0] [https://twitter.com/_ericelliott/status/551814104231723009](https://twitter.com/_ericelliott/status/551814104231723009) [1] [https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/...](https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/mapping/highland/whyrx.md)

<comment><USER3> RxJS author here. Right, an advantage is if you know the Java, .NET, Python, C++ version, etc, then you know the JavaScript version. That and we try to adhere to an Array#extras style following all of ES2015/ES7 Array methods.

Another advantage is that many frameworks such as Angular 2.0 are shipping with support for Observables, so that's a huge win for users of RxJS that it automatically just works.

<comment><USER4> Yep I'm confused why Highland exists. Maybe if it was a sugar layer over Rx?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Nice library, but _please_ don't use the underscore variable (_). So many people use Underscore.js and Lodash.js that it makes reading your docs confusing.

<comment><USER6> You can name it whatever you want. That's one of the benefits using a module system.

<comment><USER7> So why do we have this trend of using meaningless and ambiguous identifiers, and in particular, why would you do it in example code? I thought that as an industry, we'd moved past the folly of giving things terse and unhelpful identifiers in order to save a few bytes or keystrokes.

<comment><USER8> You notice that all the libraries that do this (underscore, jQuery, Lodash, et al.) offer features that are almost language features. Things so useful but generic that they could almost be integrated into the language syntax.

In this case, there's also the problem that 'Stream' is already used by node.

<comment><USER7> > In this case, there's also the problem that 'Stream' is already used by > node.

Haha, well, your grandparent would like you to know that's no reason to avoid a particular name. Module system! ;)

      > var BoringStream = require('stream');
      > var Stream = require('highland');

Or if we like special chars, we could get really cute:

      > var $tream = require('highland');

It's like Stream, but, you know, blingier.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Looks similar to Lazy.js (to my uneducated eyes) and also rx.js. To the author: Why should I use Highland.js instead of either of these?

<comment><USER3> RxJS authoer here. Instead, here are the reasons you may want to consider RxJS instead of Highland [https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/...](https://github.com/Reactive- Extensions/RxJS/blob/master/doc/mapping/highland/whyrx.md)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very interested as I use Async.js in virtually all of my node projects. I'm liking the idea of a 'toolkit' approach more than Async (which just feel like a monolithic lib), will definitely be trying it out soon.

<comment><USER11> async.js changed my life, async programming can get out of hand in a hurry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So what's the benefit of using streams instead of a normal array?

<comment><USER13> Processing data as it becomes available instead of waiting for the whole thing, amongst other things (that's what we do in Scala anyway.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What's the deal with non descriptive titles on HN?

<comment><USER15> Yes, I would prefer if they mentioned what it did in a few words instead. Maybe they are aiming to trigger curiosity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Is this similar to what transducers do in Clojure? My understanding there is that they allow you to do things like map over core.async channels.

<comment><USER17> According to my understanding of transducers (warning: possibly inaccurate), that's one use-case of transducers. Transducers are a way to let you map over _anything_ , including (but not limited to) channels, streams, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I love highland one of my go to libraries these days.

</comment><comment><USER19> "This site or app is sending too much traffic to rawgit.com. Please contact its owner and ask them to use cdn.rawgit.com instead, which has no traffic limit."

</comment><comment><USER20> If it's not a drop in replacement for underscore or lodash, please don't use "_".

<comment><USER21> I see nothing wrong with using "_". It's just a variable name. The first snippet of code and preceding paragraph are:

> If you prefer using highland under the name _ like is done in the examples > below, you can then simply use: > > var _ = highland

So it's not like you are required to use "_". And if it is a local variable, there is no risk of colliding with Underscore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> " If you prefer using highland under the name _ like is done in the examples below, you can then simply use:

var _ = highland"

No. No, no, no. Goodness me.</comment>


Ask HN: Non-specific negative feedback on product ideas. - <AUTHOR>

I'm in the process of building a product for myself and my colleagues. Today I met with someone who wasn't excited about it. The feedback was non-specific, more like 'meh'. Comments like "I don't see myself using something like this." or "I'm busy and wouldn't have time for this."
This really surprised me, because previous feedback from several people had been very positive. I talked to the guy more, but couldn't pin down any particular reason- he just wasn't interested.
This bothers me. What do you guys do with this kind of feedback? I don't think the other people were just being nice, but of course I don't know for sure. <comment><USER2> Situations like this used to bother me greatly. In fact there have been several times in my life where I dumped ideas simply because someone told me it was a bad idea, only to watch that idea turn into a million dollar opportunity a year later with someone else. Over time I have learned that not everyone is going to like every idea or product. You could have the greatest product in the world and there will always be detractors who have no interest or a bad opinion. Unless every body you talk to has the same reaction I would not worry about the few who could care less.

Even Henry Ford had people who thought cars were a crazy idea and they would never use them. Now look where we are with vehicles. In short, don't worry about it.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe try Lean methodology? Make sure you're clear on the problem you're solving and who you're solving it for. Then come up with a hypothesis and ask specific questions validate or invalidate the hypothesis. [https://www.leanstartupmachine.com/validationboard/](https://www.leanstartupmachine.com/validationboard/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Make sure to interview as many people as possible to to ensure that the consensus is generally positive. But expecting 100% approval is a pipe dream.

</comment><comment><USER5> Why did you meet with this person? Is he a manager/peer or an actual part of your target market? Is your peer-group or managers your target market? Political dynamics can complicate product development. The "not invented here syndrome" is a classic.

People may not want to show the product respect or attention for selfish motives.

Alternatively, consider the 10x better benchmark. Many people will face legitimate costs to switching their routine/existing solutions. So, for a 10% better product, the ROI is still negative for them. This is a more legitimate and yet still common form of 'resistance' that is expressed as general apathy in many contexts. Particularly in enterprise or big-co outside customers.

To try to evaluate if it is the former or the latter, consider approaching a mix of people for feedback. Most importantly, evaluate their credentials and motives as part of your process.

<comment><AUTHOR> Very helpful- thank you. I'm ok with actionable negative feedback, but apathy I don't know how to interpret. This person is a peer- and the target users will be my peers. I've talked to several peers (some friends, and others more like co-workers). The product is more social than for business, but I do keep in mind that people have to get some return/value for time spent though.</comment></comment>


Use Jonathan's card to buy yourself an iPad - <AUTHOR> http://sam.odio.com/2011/08/12/i-took-625-jonathans-card/ <comment><USER2> So essentially you're proud of stealing huge amounts of money from a fund set up by people for a specific purpose, and then you channel this money to suit your own needs while claiming _moral superiority_?

You know, even if the money you stole for "the little children OMG think of the children" really reaches the intended recipients, which it probably won't if this is a typical 3rd world development fund, you still betrayed everybody's trust and you're actually proud of it.

Sam Odio is either the worst kind of stealing hypocrite out there, or he's genuinely living in a cardboard box under a bridge giving all his money away to charity. I think I can guess which one is the case.

I apologize for the tone of this post, but the sheer amount of arrogant jerkiness on display here actually makes me angry; and that's saying something.

On the plus side, I suppose now we know who kept on abusing the card (people were wondering in other threads).

<comment><USER3> Jonathan said it was a social experiment. This, and people's reaction to it, is part of that.

<comment><USER4> The social experiment revealed that there are in fact people miserable enough in this world to senselessly steal from such a good will fund. In fact, so miserable that they see fit to even brag about it and pretend to themselves their actions were noble. The experiment revealed that the name of one such miserable person is Sam Odio.

<comment><USER5> yuppies buying each other coffee: a goodwill fund.

<comment><USER4> Why not?

Care to give your definition of goodwill? Or are you just going to repeat things and not justify your apparent condescension?

<comment><USER5> Sure, it's goodwill... just the really empty kind of goodwill that makes everyone feel good but nobody actually better off.

Sorry, I probably came off more condescending than I intended. I'm only trying to inject a measure of perspective. People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do. He could have stolen the money and never said a word (which would have been lame), but he played within the bounds of the experiment by reporting his contribution.

<comment><USER4> _"People (yourself included) are acting like this was a "miserable" and "disgusting" thing to do."_

I am not acting like it is, I am saying that it is.

And yes, I know that I am doing that... since _I_ am doing it. Regardless of wither or not it was within the bounds of the experiment it was an asshat thing to do.

<comment><USER5> How is this worse than someone who buys coffee with the card, and never contributes any money?

<comment><USER6> I guess it's about as bad as someone who buys $600 worth of coffee and never contributes any money. That's 200 $3 coffees, or almost 3/4's of a years worth assuming one a day. Of course, this is also in the span of weeks.

<comment><USER5> A total aside: I could definitely spend $600 at starbucks in a week.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "Or am I alone in thinking that helping a stranger find their next caffeine fix is not what we should be worried about in today's world?"

 _sigh_ This is such a silly, stupid point to make:

Buying an iPad? What about world hunger!? Going to the movies? What about the modern slave trade!? Painting a picture? Women in Sudanese refugee camps can't go to the bathroom at night without fear of rape, and here you painting a picture. The way you take your privilege for granted makes me sick, you selfish bastard!!!!

Yes there are problems in the world. Does this mean no one is allowed to do anything frivolous until they are all solved? In my opinion, no.

Get off your high horse, OP.

EDIT: Neat project tho! Took the originator's project in a new, unexpected direction, which makes it even more interesting. Kudos!

<comment><USER8> Eh, I found Jonathan's "Buying yuppies coffee will improve the world!" naivete far more offensive.

I didn't see OP as criticizing frivolity, I saw him more criticizing Jonathan's suggestion that this game was meaningfully altruistic.

Eye of the beholder I guess.

<comment><USER9> Not forgetting, of course, that it was all an elaborate (or not) marketing campaign by somebody connected to Starbucks.

<comment><USER10> It wasn't. Jonathan denied it, Starbucks denied it. The "proof" was flimsy at best.

<comment><USER9> As the man in orthopaedic shoes said ... I stand corrected

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm probably going to get down-voted to hell, but I'm not sure what this counter experiment is trying to prove... we all already knew it is easy to take from Jonathan's card.

When people noticed that money was disappearing off Jonathan's card $100 at a time, most people thought it was an uninformed, karma-less nobody stealing from the card. It is incredible that the transactions are due to some educated do-gooder imposing his beliefs onto the donors of Jonathan's card.

I've read many of Sam's comments before, and respect them as thoughtful and intelligent. However, just because you don't like the idea of "yuppies buying yuppies coffee", doesn't mean that you should try to destroy Jonathan's card. Some people feel good and more connected with others by adding to and taking from Jonathan's card.

By taking money out of the system, you are in effect going against donors wishes and imposing your own beliefs on them. It is almost like taking from the vault of a charity that you dislike and giving the proceeds to your charity of choice. Its less atrocious than pocketing the money and buying an iPad, but obviously still bad.

EDIT: I feel sorry for Jonathan and his good intentions.

<comment><USER12> I agree with you except on one point. Sam is exactly the kind of person I thought was taking the money and I think most people probably suspected the same thing. I thought it was someone sitting around watching the twitter feed stealing money 150$ at a go. Someone who looked at this, possibly silly probably naive, social project and said 'This is stupid and I'm gonna show them how stupid it is.' I also knew that this person would eventually write a blog post about how smart they were for figuring out how to steal from people giving away money and how the project wasn't just foolish it was immoral.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> God I hate this mentality.

Yeah, you can exploit this, but are you doing anything fun or interesting by it?

I live in a community that has a lot of cyclists in it. If I'm at home, I tend to spend a lot of time on my front porch working on my bikes with my friends. Most of them know that I keep some tools slightly "hidden" there, and I've told all of my friends that they're welcome to come over and use them if I'm ever not there.

Could they steal these tools?

Yep.

Would they would demonstrating some OMG SECURITY HOLE in my "Ryan's Porch" scheme?

No. They'd be acting like assholes, which is exactly what this guy is doing.

I'm an amateur locksmith. I usually keep a half diamond pick and a torsion wrench in my car, and sometimes I even carry it in my pocket. _Could_ I steal half of the bikes locked up across the street from my house?

 _Could_ I break into buildings and steal things from them?

What if I donated the money to poor people?!

Sam Odio, you're being a jerk here. Knock it off.

<comment><USER14> > _but are you doing anything fun or interesting by it?_ //

140 comments here would imply that it is at least interesting.

<comment><USER13> Most of the comments here are scolding the person for it. Similarly, if a prominent YC alum broke into our local hackerspace and stole some of our tools, there would probably be a lot of comments scolding them for it.

That doesn't mean the breakin itself is interesting.

(What I meant was that the "hack" wasn't interesting)

<comment><USER14> Certainly not all. Several address the morality and question it further. I'm sure you'll agree there is a lot of noise from people saying the same thing (aside: this wouldn't be the case under if votes were visibly I think, me toos aren't needed then).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> _Since I don't find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very interesting I decided to mix things up a bit._

OP/Sam, I understand that you believe there are worse problems in the world. I have no doubt that you are correct. However, this does not change the fact that your own social experiment amounts to you taking advantage of the good will of those who contributed to the Starbucks card by stealing from them. Contributing the money to a charity afterwards does not change this fact.

You are not Robin Hood stealing from a corrupt Sheriff of Nottingham. So please don't act like it.

<comment><USER16> Robin Hood is all about stealing to the rich to give to the poor and in that respect, I think Sam is right on.

<comment><USER10> Okay, but I'm not rich and Sam stole from me.

<comment><USER5> No, you donated to a commons. You expected it to be used in a specific way, but it was used in a different way.

<comment><USER4> He donated to a fund that was intended to be used in a very particular way. Sam Odio took money from that fund, used it otherwise, and insulted everyone who placed money into it.

Sam Odio stole from the fund, Sam Odio stole from zacharycohn.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What I find most interesting about this is Sam's comments in the previous thread:

1) Claimed that a large purchase was him buying food for two homeless guys: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2857712>

Sam, is this true? Did you actually buy food for some homeless guys (and then later decide on this strategy), or was this cover for your experiment?

2) in response to a comment about the card being ripe for abuse, he said the balance seemed to be holding at a low and steady value, and _"That would imply that the card is currently being used as intended."_ <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858511>

Interesting, then, that he's most definitely _not_ using the card as intended. An "edgy/controversial twist" for sure.

</comment><comment><USER18> Congratulations. You broke Johnathan's Card. But more than that— I think you made a valuable point.

Lots of people who were exposed, maybe for the first time, to the idea of a stranger doing something nice for them for no reason, and then to the idea that they might then do something nice for a stranger in return, have had that illusion shattered. There is no act so charitable that somebody won't steal from it.

You take money from yuppies to give to charity. The people who run the charity take 10% off the top to pay the bills— they have children too, you know. When the food actually gets on the ground, local warlords come and take half for themselves.

The yuppies still drink coffee, the charity still pays its salaries, the warlords still try to kill each other, and children are still starving to death. The experiment has changed nothing— except that a few of those yuppies maybe believe in the idea of random acts of kindness just a little bit less.

Point _well made._

</comment><comment><USER19> I personnally never donated anything significant to charity. I haven't tried Jonathan's card either (for lack of time), but if I had, I can picture how I would have felt, and how it would have changed my views on human nature and altruism.

Jonathan's experiment was letting people experience other people's generosity and let that change their minds.

And then Sam comes and ruins everyhting. And he's totally convinced that he's doing the Good Thing.

You're not, Sam. You are destroying an opportunity for people like me to become less individualistic assholes.

</comment><comment><USER20> Strip away all the fluff that Sam put in his blog post and what do you have? You have Jonathan's 'take a penny, leave a penny' project. You have Sam who thinks he's very clever by showing how someone can come in and siphon off the pennies and whoa ... spend it on other things.

The amusing thing is Sam thinks he's done something really amazing or insightful. The whole 'donate to charity angle' is just Sam trying to justify his actions and put a veneer of credibility on his uninspiring actions.

<comment><USER21> Agree ... There is no honor in his acts, just shame ... Please never say to your kids about u doind this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Great, you donated $600 to kids who really needed it. Next time you get the desire to do so, I suggest you build your own crowd-sourced donation scheme, or donate your own money. Either way, you won't be leeching off of other peoples' hard work.

<comment><USER23> If I were that charity, I would immediately stand up, return the money, and chastise him for his illegal and unethical actions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Donating money to starving children in Africa well-meaning, but cruel. Life in Africa sucks, and making people live there longer is not a good deed. The West has invested incredible sums of money into Africa, and the result is corruption, violence, and stagnation. They are begging us to stop:

[http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00...](http://www.spiegel.de/international/spiegel/0,1518,363663,00.html)

I believe that about as strongly as Sam believes that donating to Africa will help (this time is different!). Buuut I wouldn't feel justified in stealing from a charity in order to act on that belief.

</comment><comment><USER25> Used to work for Starbucks. We once had a day where all of our customers decided to 'pay it forward', and buy the next person's drinks.

It led to a lot of accounting for me, but the final tally was something in the vein of 800 transactions in an unbroken chain.

The high points involved folks buying $50 or more worth of transactions, down the line. The low points involved people trying to put down $20 and the next person using all of it up on silly frappucinos.

To answer another topic, I think that the assertion here that buying Starbucks coffee for someone else as intrinsically frivolous, when we could be doing something valuable, like perhaps Saving the Children, or Helping Starvation, is itself frivolous.

Helping one another is helping one another, and criticizing how it's done is missing the point altogether. I have to wonder where the utility is in comparing the weight of one charity versus another. It seems pointless.

</comment><comment><USER26> The original post about Jonathan's card Stated that the experiment is inspired by "'take a penny, leave a penny' trays at convenience stores in the US".

Then here is what happened:

People started using the tray, taking them as well as leaving them. Then one day a guy started showing up at the store. He would intermittently dump the tray into his knapsack whenever there were enough pennies. Not only he did this for many days, but later he also proudly publicly announced that how he did it. Since all the people who show up at the store are rich and wealthy, it makes more sense to give that money to poor in some other parts of the world.

If this logic is acceptable then I should be allowed to break apart any petty charity collection box and use the money for the purpose I deem more noble.

<comment><USER27> _> If this logic is acceptable then I should be allowed to break apart any petty charity collection box and use the money for the purpose I deem more noble._

Not really. Jonathan's Card is not charity. It's like saying you should be able to take change from the give a penny, take a penny tray at the supermarket and drop it into the breast cancer awareness tin instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I feel sorry for the moron who thinks he's making a statement with this. The card was a brilliant social experiment regardless of critics claiming it a stealth marketing campaign. People who participated felt good giving whether someone was free-riding. However, this just leaves a bad aftertaste. You ruin it for everyone then pretend it's okay by "donating" money that isn't even yours and killing the experiment then brag about the ordeal. Kudos to you. Bravo indeed.

Having said that I'm not at all surprised by the outcome just didn't expect something like this. Now I'm sure some yuppie wannabe is going to try and score an iPad for themselves.

</comment><comment><USER20> Sam has posted on Google+ ([https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NB...](https://plus.google.com/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1)) ... however be aware that I suspect he is deleting posts and blocking people (^) that are critical of him as I posted the following:

"It's not much different to taking money out of the church collection plate and donating it to a charity that you prefer over the churches. Whilst I acknowledge this could be considered an extension of Jonathon's social experiment - it's hardly insightful or clever - you took money from an open fund and spent it. Hardly mind shattering stuff. The whole 'charity versus coffee' justification is little better than the 'think of the children' arguments that are used in similar ways. For the record, I don't think what you did is theft or immoral (it was a social experiment after all), but it was just a lame move that served no purpose and made no point."

... and now it doesn't appear in my stream and i can no longer post on the comment thread.

(^) There is a chance I'm just not understanding how to use G+ and Sam has done nothing of the sort - I only started using it recently.

<comment><USER29> He has disabled commenting on the post. And, as such, now no one can even view the comments. He puts himself up on a pedestal only to be a fascist when criticized.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > "Since _I_ don't find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very > interesting"

Wow, This is some serious sense of entitlement of someone _else's_ money/experiment.

I don't believe in many of people's belief. However its their beliefs and it is Jonathan's (and other donors') social experiment. If you do not agree with its philosophy, don't participate in it, but ruining it would be as senseless as me trying to make a personal mission to harass people on having belief's other than mine.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is clearly theft. What he used the money for is not relevant. The card was put out for a specific use, and this use case was not the intended one. Had he actually bought an iPad, everyone would agree that it's theft. Transferring money between someones else's card and your own with out permission is theft.

</comment><comment><USER32> I find it ironic that the OP, who hacked the experiment to divert funds onto his own card (which are now going to a just cause), is the brother of the person in the original comments thread who was posturing about whether or not the card had been hacked.

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858120> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2858226>

Perhaps Sam made this script well after there was a question as to whether or not the card had been hacked, but if not, this is just funny.

<comment><USER17> Good find.

Also note that danielodio put some of his startup's money on the card ($100, $49, $300 mentioned in HN comments, and a total of $85 mentioned on twitter). So he almost paid for Sam's withdrawals.

EDIT: I find myself wondering if, in a few hours, Sam and Daniel will give this as a further explanation, and reveal that they'd actually donated the full amount to the card that was taken out. The whole thing is a social experiment; it may not be over.

<comment><USER33> Indeed: @Socialize has paid $625 to @Jonathanscard to promote our SDK Speed Challenge. That's enough for an iPad, @sodio! <http://besoci.al/q2I0QE> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875>

<comment><USER34> If you and Sam are related, then I suspect you are only 'donating' money into the card because Sam can get it straight out again, free publicity?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I think I've changed my mind about the project, reading everyone's opinions here. At least sort of.

An analogy: You have some clothes, and you build a little covered rack outside your house on the street and put a sign up that says "clothing swap, takes some for yourself or leave some for someone else." Some people take some clothes and drop some off. THEN some guy comes along and says "this is BS, it's just a bunch of yuppies trading clothes" and proceeds to take _all_ the clothes and bring them to the goodwill, where he believes they'll be put to better use. He does this a few times.

Now, if I were the project founder or a clothing donor (or taker), I would be _pretty pissed_ if someone decided to take all the clothes and give them to Goodwill because s/he thinks "they'll be put to better use" there.

1\. There's an ulterior goal here (community building) that is scuttled by you taking all the clothes 2\. How do you know I don't give to poverty related charities already 3\. I have my reasons for not giving to Goodwill 4\. Even if you think it's stupid _it's not your decision_.

On the other hand, if I leave a pile of dollar bills in a bowl on the street with a sign that says "please take only one," would it be reasonable of me to get upset when someone takes more than one? In my opinion it would not be reasonable. Someone abusing the system was the _inevitable_ conclusion of this experiment. That doesn't make what he's doing "right," per se, but it seems silly to rage about something that was predictable with 100% certainty.

EDIT: downvoter: which part didn't you like? I put a couple of different points in one post (I know, my fault) so I can't tell what you're objecting to. :P Just curious.

<comment><USER29> Your argument with the dollars fails on two accounts. First, the "take a penny/leave a penny" concept has one MAJOR security guard that this experiment doesn't have ... a monitor. That monitor being a sales clerk. The second a MAJOR security breach, the anonymity factor.

All arguments to make this experiment analogous to any "Take/Leave" scheme is flawed on these accounts. (Not that I don't appreciate the analogies, I do.) Would Sam (or anyone) have acted the same had they been in the same position with any of the "Take/Leave" assumptions. My guess, no. Sam like the anonymity of being able to take without consequence. Now that he has revealed his duplicity he's not liking the consequences.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The rich steal stealing from the rich to eventually pass a percentage on to the poor. I'm sure it seemed much more Robin Hood-y at the time.

There are _far_ less scummy ways to do something like this. Game a Bing promotion, take advantage of lax security in some other MegaCorp rewards programme - or _gasp_ use your own money. Mind you, those guys are more likely to sue than a disparate bunch of well-meaning folks.

<comment><USER35> In my blinding e-rage I do seem to have forgotten about the 'social experiment' aspect of the card. I guess this could be interpreted as being fair game. I think the attitude that came across in the post makes it seem worse too. So I revise my pointless internet opinion to: hmmm ok, but still _feels_ rotten.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Another lesson here is to be careful with @font-face styling - <http://i55.tinypic.com/1z342ee.png> \- the whole thing is barely readable on Windows.

<comment><USER37> It's not even that readable on my box.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> This is the same Sam Odio that had a scam Iraqi Dinar exchange...

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lcq2LXSAn_U>

The service received a cease and desist letter from the government...

<http://www.iraqidinarmoney.com/dinar-profits/>

Sam Odio seems to exhibit the traits of a sociopath,defined by the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual as "...a pervasive pattern of disregard for, and violation of, the rights of others that begins in childhood or early adolescence and continues into adulthood.

Why YC supports people like this is beyond me.

<comment><USER39> I am claiming responsibility for the above comment. It was wrong of me to leave such a snarky comment from a sock puppet account. Someone pointed this out to me so I am trying to do the right thing by taking responsibility for it.

The reason I left the comment is that I myself am a YC alum and it makes my quite upset when I see members of the YC community behaving in ethically questionable ways. It reflects poorly on the YC community and threatens the reputation of the entire program.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I can't help but feel that this just isn't the right way to go about helping the less fortunate. It's just too underhanded.

Just build something similar that doesn't involve taking advantage of J's Card. Man up.

</comment><comment><USER41> No wonder the card's been empty every time I try to use it (I'm on vacation in the States). People like you steal the money. Fuck you, and fuck your script.

</comment><comment><USER42> Cached copy of the page: <http://bit.ly/pKIoGi>

<comment><USER43> Whoa, a bit.ly link? Was that really necessary?

<comment><USER44> Excuse my ignorance, but what's wrong with bit.ly? Or are you simply objecting to the need to shorten the URL?

<comment><USER45> A bit.ly link prevents a HN reader from figuring out where the link is going to send him/her. When there is a limitation of 144 characters, URL shortners make a lot of sense. I got the feeling that people generally don't prefer them on HN.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> Sam is such a great guy. I'm sure he donates all of his earnings to charity and doesn't own a single luxury, so he's definitely qualified to judge how "yuppies" spend their money.

On a slightly darker note: He sure seems proud of himself for donating to a charity that keeps children barely alive, just long enough for them to have more children that no one can provide for. It seems slightly counter- productive to me.

</comment><comment><USER8> Gift cards held by a group are an interesting way to move money around with a little deniability.

If there was an easier way to cash in Starbucks gift cards, Starbucks could take over Western Union.

<comment><USER47> Coffee-laundering. Interesting thought.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Yeah, it's cool, but also nefarious, charity or not.

<comment><USER7> Not really... I don't think that the people who put money on the card have any claim to determine how the money is used. It's like giving a gift, once you give it you don't get to control it anymore, and they are giving a gift to an anonymous recipient. If they want to control how the money is spent... perhaps don't put it on a publicly accessible debit card? ;)

<comment><USER49> It's not like giving a gift. It's making a donation for a specific cause and then having the funds misspent on something different. The publicly accessible debit card was part of the 'social experiment' which seems to result in what we already knew a long time ago. People are happy to abuse the system for what _they_ believe to be the greater good.

<comment><USER7> How is what he's doing not "part of the social experiment?"

Q: What happens if you let everyone contribute to and take from a Starbucks card? A: We are in the process of finding out, and the answer wasn't what we expected!

Why isn't this just an interesting, unexpected result? Furthermore, condemning this guy is like condemning Lulzsec for exposing security vulnerabilities. Do you think that _no one_ would have figured this out if OP hadn't? He's exposing the vulnerability and sending the proceeds to charity, would you prefer that Mr. Unscrupulous just silently steals it all?

<comment><USER10> This isn't anything like "exposing a security vulnerability." Everyone understood that the card COULD be misused.

That doesn't make the misuse of it okay.

<comment><USER50> But at the same time, if Jonathan knew that the card could be misused, he either should have attempted to provide some security or disclosed that problem up front to the community, to let them make an informed choice.

<comment><USER10> No one is surprised that someone was able to take advantage of it. Everyone immediately recognized it was possible and easy to take advantage of. People made an informed choice.

Just because it's easy doesn't mean it's okay. I can reach in and grab $50 from the tip jar at a restaurant while the cashier's back is turned. I can walk into most stores, stuff something under my jacket, and walk out.

Just because it's easy doesn't make stealing okay.

<comment><USER50> I never said that stealing was O.K. Read my post again.

Both of your examples of ignore that there is an "appropriate" level security for those contexts. The tip jar is in the plain view of other diners and staff; the store has staff and video surveillance. I'll leave it to others to decide whether an unsecured cash account accessible to millions of anonymous users has appropriate security in place.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Mr. Odio lives up to his name. This is a truly odious act.

</comment><comment><USER52> meh. don't care who you are donating too, its still shitty. get down of your high horse.

<comment><USER5> Meh. I don't care who you are donating too, it's still shitty. Get down off your high horse.

FTFY

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> I'm Starbucks illiterate. How did they transfer the value from Jonathan's card to theirs?

<comment><USER54> My guess would be that someone wrote a script to figure out the pin number. Starbucks pin is just 8 random digits. There is no captcha if you put an incorrect pin. One should be able to figure out the pin pretty quickly like this. Once you have the pin you can transfer the money onto your own account or write a script to automate the process.

<comment><USER5> "to transfer the money off the card I had to do it IRL, at a Starbucks location"

[https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqh...](https://plus.google.com/u/0/113956160418597123621/posts/MAqht3NBAp1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER55> I don'5 know who is OP but I believe what he did is wrong, both in legal ground and moral ground. Obviously Jonathan didn't allow him and his friends to transfer money off the card, is that enough to sue him? I'm no lawyer but I can't believe that's acceptable. Also, he misused the card + donate other people's money -- what did he think? And one last point, he said they did that many time but he only intended to donate that $600, what about the other attempts? Can we do something, please?

</comment><comment><USER56> I've seen a lot of hostility in this thread to the perceived egotism of this act. I've also seen some people who dislike that the donations were used for something other than their intended purpose. Since my initial reaction was that he's in the right here (accusations of high horse and such aside, I'd rather not go into that), I'm curious to hear people's reasoning on why they dislike this so much. So, some hypotheticals and questions...

1) What if it had been anonymous and "Ego free". Would you feel better about it if it were disconnected from status?

2) Most people would agree that giving to charity is better than giving a coffee (note I said charity, not Africa specifically. There can be some debate over whether aid helps or harms Africa, but I'm less interested in that now). If charity > coffee, why is this such a bad thing?

3) I understand the hostility to statements about "You should be doing charity instead" because there's always an element of hypocrisy to them, but if the statement is divorced from the person, isn't it correct? So why should there be so much hostility when it's put into practice in this case?

I'm not trying to judge anyone for their opinion here, I'm just curious about their reasoning since it differs from my own.

<comment><USER4> 1) No, I would not feel better. I have an intense hatred of people who anonymously abuse TOR to torrent movies for their own personal use. Not knowing who did it doesn't make it better.

2) It was not his to give. The money was put forth by other people for the express purpose of being used by others for coffee.

3) No, the statement is not correct. _"You should be doing charity instead"_ is a poor philosophy because it does not recognize the needs of individuals that need to be fulfilled by themselves. This philosophy cannot be universalized because it expects too much of people.

reasonable statement:

      "*I* should be doing charity instead"

unreasonable statement:

      "*You* should be doing charity instead"

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I think Sam/OP should transfer all the money he took back onto Jonathan's card. In small increments of course in order to curb further abuse like what he committed.

</comment><comment><USER58> cache [http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsa...](http://google.com/search?strip=1&q=cache:http%3A%2F%2Fsam.odio.com%2F2011%2F08%2F12%2Fi- took-625-jonathans-card%2F)

why he's installing memcache for a single-server wordpress I have no clue - just install wp-super-cache and use .htaccess to do rewrites to static files - only way to bypass the (lack of) performance nightmare that is wordpress

</comment><comment><USER59> I'm surprised at the outraged expressed in this thread.

Everybody expects participants in this experiment to be divided into givers and takers, right? Why would anybody donate and then claim if they could just buy their own cup? The very nature of the thing is that both party's are anonymous, so the givers have no right or expectation to the "worthiness" of the taker or the purpose it is put to (on-selling included). However, it is clear that the hope and intention is to spread good will and kindness.

Originally, Jonathan provided a means to distribute these gifts to random strangers. The demographic was somewhat limited by technical and geographic constraints but Sam figured out a way to broaden (a small portion of) the benefits to a wider audience. To my mind that is entirely in keeping with the spirit of the original experiment (i.e. spreading goodwill and kindness).

Also, it's worth noting that Sam did not explicitly moralize about this - other than to say that he didn't "find the idea of yuppies buying yuppies coffees very interesting".

Can anyone explain why it has provoked such an aggressive response?

EDIT: I've no connection with Jonathan or Sam or Starbucks (really).

</comment><comment><USER60> Jonathan's card strikes a good point beyond giving to Yuppies and not those seriously in need. The social implications of this experiment I think shows that people are willing to help others if its relatable and also accessible for them to do so. Besides, I am sure somewhere someone bought a coffee with Jonathons card and then gave it to a hobo

</comment><comment><USER61> This Sam Odio guy sounds like an absolute douche.

</comment><comment><USER62> Jonathan's card, at worst a marketing experiment, at best a means of charity for those who are privileged enough to learn about it and who like to frequent Starbucks, has been subverted to give to the truly poor and needy. Does it leave a bad taste? It might. Truly, a shame. This toy for the well off might now be broken for good. I might have used it, I might have even given to it (in the spirit intended by the creator), and in either case this exploit would not upset me. I don't see why there is so much umbrage present in these comments.

</comment><comment><USER63> Very interesting experiment on an already interesting experiment.

Would everyone be up in arms if he didn't publish how he did it on his blog and publicly post the code on github and instead used it to buy himself coffee for life?

He saw a "flaw" in the system and is publicizing it. Sounds pretty holy to me. Certainly holier than buying yourself a luxury item from an exploiting corporation, meanwhile deluding yourself into thinking you're doing something good for society by donating 5 bucks to said cause.

<comment><USER29> He saw a flaw and abused it and publicized it for others to abuse for a while BEFORE he announced it to the world. Had he announced he had found a flaw (or better, contacted Jonathan that there was a flaw) his altruism would be real.

And, they (we/I) are not deluding themselves into thinking they are doing something good for society. They/We are showing goodwill to others.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> But I thought everybody giving according to their ability, and taking according to their need would work out just great?

</comment><comment><USER65> Actually I have an idea which I will implement soon hopefully. It involves a vending machine for the homeless and money donated by people. If you're interested in participating, and have some kind of experience, contact me. <http://magarshak.com/contact>

</comment><comment><USER66> Would someone care to explain how is this fundamentally different from the Firesheep experiment a few months back, which was heavily applauded by the community here?

</comment><comment><USER67> It was never meant to be an experiment about charity. It was meant to be an experiment about yuppies buying other yuppies coffee. That is it.

</comment><comment><USER50> Jonathan's Card claimed to be a social experiment, but it was never clear to me exactly what the experiment was supposed to test. As an outsider looking at this experiment, the first question I has was: How would he prevent unintended use of the card's funds?

Sam is just part of the experiment. Yes, he's spoiling the good fun of buying coffees for each other, but if it weren't him taking the money, it'd be someone else. At least we still have data on the where most of the money went.

<comment><USER50> I equate the downvotes as "disliking" this argument, however I still think my question is valid: What exactly was Jonathan setting out to learn (other than that the world is full of untrustworthy people.)

<comment><USER4> Why don't you ask him?

<comment><USER50> He was responding to posts on the original thread. I asked this same question there.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> So what happens if you steal from a charity and donate it to another charity? Is this cool? Hey it's all for good purpose :)

</comment><comment><USER69> I like the message that replaced 500: "too. much. traffic. Please wait while I install memcache."

<comment><USER70> I don't get it. Why not serve the original content statically instead of that message? That's bound to be faster than memcache.

<comment><USER69> Maybe he wants to preserve commenting, or maybe getting memcached up and running is faster than generating a static copy. /me shrugs

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Hacking the hack of the hack: @Socialize has paid $625 to @Jonathanscard to promote our SDK Speed Challenge. That's enough for an iPad, @sodio! besoci.al/q2I0QE <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2878875>

</comment><comment><USER71> An alarmingly high number of comments are saying pretty much the same thing, would be great if people writing had something new to say, if not just upvote a well written comment that states your view!

</comment><comment><USER72> how does this work? is he using stark's card balance to buy a new starbucks card?

</comment><comment><USER73> _gasp_

Rich people toying with the emotions of the proletariat? I am truly shocked that such a thing happens in America!

</comment><comment><USER74> This seems like an unauthorized use of the card and could be criminal theft. If I give you my stored value card to buy coffee and you instead steal all the money, it doesn't matter whether you're donating to charity or disagree with my cause - it's stealing.

Regardless, it's certainly a shitty thing to do.

<comment><USER7> You _no longer control_ the money once you donate it to an anonymous recipient! You _don't get to choose_ how the money is spent. If you're not comfortable with that, __don't put money on a publicly accessible debit card!! __

<comment><USER74> I'm not sure that's the case here. It's not an anonymous recipient, it's Jonathan's stored value card and therefore Jonathan. Jonathan authorized anyone to use his card to buy coffee. He did not authorize anyone to steal his money.

Another way to look at it is as a common fund dedicated to the purpose of buying coffee. Using it for anything else seems like embezzlement.

<comment><USER75> agreed and sharing the code ensures that others with more devious ambitions will pretty much ruin this experiment.

<comment><USER7> "I was doing an experiment to find out what would happen if I had a leave a dollar take a dollar jar in an alley, but then some jerk took all the money and ruined the experiment."

1\. If the experiment initiator here didn't see something like this coming (someone taking advantage of a free pot of money), he is naive beyond belief.

2\. An experiment not turning out how you DESIRE it to does not mean it's "ruined;" to the contrary, it's how learning happens. "Oh, I didn't know _that_ would happen!" _takes notes_ <\- Science

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> Why does a project that's about a minor form of good will always need to be trumped by something else? Like we need to be incessantly reminded that there are starving people for every decision we make in our day to day lives?

It's nice that he's trying to increase the awareness of starving children. But I don't see why he feels he needs to basically destroy the system Jonathan has come up with.

Yes, apparently the one second you were thinking about your own needs, or anyone OTHER than a very poor person, was selfish and horrible. We should all stop buying things, walk out into the street and start screaming at the futility since there are people in the world who are worse off than us.

</comment><comment><USER29> Guess Sam couldn't handle the heat. He cutoff commenting on his G+ thread. Hmmm, could he finally be realizing that he messed up and actually did wire fraud and stole money?

<comment><USER73> No, because a bunch of assholes were threatening him with bodily harm

<comment><USER77> So his social experiment didn't work out they great? Bummer...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> wtf

</comment><comment><USER64> Awesome. What a hack. Can everyone please shutup with their dumb subjective value judgements already? Grow up, these were both fun, benign, experiments.

</comment><comment><USER79> I love how his site is now down... I'm sure some one in the HN community is responsible... thank you.

</comment><comment><USER80> Hi Sam. I know a lot of people are going to talk shit to you about this, but I think what you did was right. You shouldn't have published though. Next time just take the money and run.

</comment><comment><USER81> I think some people on here took too much offense to his 'holier than thou' attitude. the kid showed off a neat little hack (we're all nerds here) showed it to the world, put the money towards a good cause, and hopefully educated some people about security issues. i think is hilarious, I give sam some props, and I can live another day without free coffee...

</comment><comment><USER82> To all who want to slam on Sam Odio's moral code:

You're seriously arguing that a hack that converts money into fat, caffeinated Americans and corporate profit is better than a hack that hacks that hack to feed the poor? We should be finding more ways to prevent the conversion of money into American fat. In fact: as a doctor, there's my challenge to you: please find ways to catch calories before they land in middle-class American bellies and convert them to some better good.

I know the HN crowd is pretty libertarian, but Sam's behavior is, by definition, thoroughly with the scope of acceptable behavior in a libertarian polity. By the way, Sam's fairly successful startup guy. If you're on HN and not your text editor, you should probably be noting this is how successful entrepreneurs behave, and emulate Sam.

<comment><USER83> He's not feeding the poor, he's feeding his ego and acting holier than thou. If he wanted to make a donation to charity, he could do that without subverting an experiment under the guise of "helping people who really matter."

I find this entire episode disgusting and if being a "successful entrepreneur" means acting like a douchebag like Sam, may I never be successful. Incidentally, MOST successful entreprenurs I know (and many are far more successful than Sam could ever hope to be) don't act like this. They have better things to do than jack money off a community Starbucks card so that they can create Internet drama.

<comment><USER14> > _They have better things to do than_ //

Better things to do than steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed starving people ...

The internet drama is being created by others.

I see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not a "subversion" of it. FWIW people in his sphere of influence appear to have added more money on than the worth he subtracted.

Edit: that->than

<comment><USER4> _"Better things to do that steal coffees from wealthy Americans in order to feed starving people ..."_

Why stop at coffee? Steal their cars too. Evict them from their homes and set up shelters in them. Kidnap their children and hold them for ransom.

 _"see this as a really interesting, surprising outcome of the experiment, not a "subversion" of it."_

The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated by people acting grossly out of what is reasonably expected from people. As a result, the scientific value of the experiment was completely lost. That is what Sam Odio appears to have attempted to cause here. He didn't want to participate, he wanted to destroy the experiment because he found the very notion of such an experiment to be offensive.

<comment><USER14> > _Why stop at coffee?_ //

Because missing out on a cup of coffee is not going to really affect anyone involved in this experiment in any significant way. They probably drink too much of it anyway.

> _The Stanford Prison Experiment was invalidated_ //

Excuse me? It was a highly successful experiment it demonstrating how moral judgement can be manipulated, how people react to roles and outward signs of authority.

To say an experiment was invalidated suggests that it didn't have the right outcome, experiments don't have right outcomes they have results. Sure results can show that you should have used a different methodology or that more experimentation is needed but results aren't wrong unless they fail to show what happened in the experiment.

<comment><USER4> [https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_pris...](https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Stanford_prison_experiment#Criticism_of_the_experiment)

Contrary to popular believe, the scientific value of the experiment was lost. It's only real value today in the field is as an example of how _not_ to run an experiment.

<comment><USER14> > _the scientific value of the [Standford Prison] experiment was lost_ //

I strongly disagree. It has informed psychological experiment strongly since, yes partly by being an example of how not to conduct experiments but not wholly. It has also strongly informed understanding of human nature and the conditions in which minimal pressure can modify moral action.

Under test was how "assignment of a label" would affect the development of "norms, rules and expectations". The results showed how such assignment could affect a persons character dramatically even to the point of drawing in Zimbardo to the point that he had to be corrected by his partner to stop the experiment.

<http://www.prisonexp.org/links.htm> is a good source.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> Thought this was already revealed as a viral marketing campaign by starbucks:

[http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and- the...](http://www.coffeestrategies.com/2011/08/08/starbucks-and-the- starkbucks-jonathan-card-viral-marketing-campaign)

Not sure if that means there's more of a reason to exploit it or not, at least Sam's doing it for good =)

<comment><USER85> There are people who may or may not wear tinfoil hats who have shared circumstantial evidence suggesting this. Jonathan, his friends, and Starbucks have all denied this is the case.

My experience is that when confronted with the evidence, the people behind "viral marketing campaigns" have no trouble 'fessing up, they usually boast of it and use it to drum up more business for their "social media agencies." A company like Starbucks as zero incentive to lie about it and a huge disincentive. If even one employee spills the beans that it was a marketing stunt and that Starbucks is lying, their brand equity takes a huge hit.

It is difficult to "prove" things one way or another to the standards of science or law, but I'm personally satisfied that it was not a marketing stunt.

<comment><USER86> I kind of agree with your point, but saying that the Starbucks brand takes a "huge" hit is a bit of an overstatement.

<comment><USER85> If Starbucks does a viral marketing campaign, gets outed, and says "Yes, we did a viral marketing campaign," there's no hit to speak of. But I do think that if they deny in writing that there is a viral marketing campaign and then are busted for lying about conducting a viral marketing campaign, this is a scandal that would end up on the evening news.

I suppose there's room for conflicting views over how much damage that might be, but I can't see any marketing person thinking that it is worth the risk.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Damm Algorithm - <AUTHOR> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damm_algorithm

<comment> dj-wonk The original dissertation is in German: [http://archiv.ub.uni- marburg.de/diss/z2004/0516/pdf/dhmd.pdf](http://archiv.ub.uni- marburg.de/diss/z2004/0516/pdf/dhmd.pdf)

Translations, anyone?

Wikibooks has code examples: [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algorithm_Implementation/Checks...](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Algorithm_Implementation/Checksums/Damm_Algorithm)

</comment><comment> dj-wonk Interesting. The Wikipedia article says:

> Despite its desirable properties in typical contexts where similar > algorithms are used, the Damm algorithm is largely unknown and scarcely used > in practice.

To what degree is this true?

</comment><comment> dj-wonk This is a placeholder for the inevitable punning that will (and should?) ensue.</comment>


SVG Girl IE9 HTML5 Promo - <AUTHOR> http://jsdo.it/event/svggirl <comment><USER2> We live in the era of CSS3, embeddable web fonts, & the text-shadow property, yet this is what represents IE 9's support for web typography: <http://jsdo.it/event/svggirl/img/movie/img_loading_01_en.png>

If you're going to resort to raster graphics at least do a better job hanging that apostrophe in the word "it's".

</comment><comment><USER3> Don't you get it, now web pages don't require IE because it's broken and doesn't support web standards, they require IE because it's so web standard compliant that it's not compatible with any other browser!!

It's brilliant marketing!

<comment><USER4> _"it's not compatible with any other browser"_

Works just fine with Chrome (beta channel) here on my Macbook Pro 5,5. Quite fluid too, except for the "floating mountain part". Certainly more than 10fps average.

<comment><USER5> Same here with Chrome on Ubuntu Linux. Played fine.

<comment><USER6> Chrome 10.0.648.205 on win7 here. Played flawlessly and smoothly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's definitely technically impressive. The thing is, though, I will never understand why people show this kind of thing off. Nobody is going to make a video like this in SVG except when they're showing off the capability of the browser - it's simply not worth the money or the time.

I mean, sure, it's a tech demo, and a damn impressive one at that. But what's it showing off? Those of us who know why it's technically impressive know that it's never going to be worth it to do anything of this scale. Those of us who don't don't see any difference between this and, say, a flash video.

Regardless of whatever it is that I'm missing, this is fantastic. I can't even imagine just how difficult this would have been to make.

<comment><USER4> It's not like there have been thousands of Flash movies and games made this way. No no no.

It's showing off that SVG movie playback is there, and that we killed the chicken and egg problem of another area of Flash: now we only need authoring tools whereas before who would build SVG authoring tools when there was no player?

Which brings us to how difficult it could have been to be made, as it really comes down to what authoring tools they did use. Interestingly enough, after the animation they offer a "simple mode" to trivially alter colors of the animation.

I see it as a strong signal of: \- cross-browser compatibility went a step further. \- one more thing we don't need a proprietary crashing blob anymore as there is an open alternative. I was also pleasantly surprised at how well it played on my Mac and Chrome. It was a bit slow at start on Firefox 4, and was (surprisingly to me) even faster than Chrome on Safari.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I find this rather bizarre, not least for the incredibly short cartoon skirt. Who is it aimed at? Do the creators think that they will win over some mythical basement-dwelling anime-loving "nerds" (male, of course) with this campaign?

Is this what the marketing department thinks tech-savvy people are into?

EDIT: I mistakenly thought this was made by Microsoft; of course a more careful reading on my part would have made it obvious that it is not.

<comment><USER9> Occam's Razor: it is geeky because the company behind it loves geeky things and, indeed, is pretty much based on them.

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

(Broadly, on the intersection of tech and geeky, for any value of "geeky" be it anime subcultures or D&D, it is an _inevitable_ consequence of "scratch your own itch" that tech overallocates resources to the fields of interest techy people are likely to have versus those they are not likely to have, which will tend to reproduce similarly lopsided distribution in the future. This is profitably exploitable. Exploit it.)

<comment><USER8> I see your point; and I think most of my confusion stemmed from the fact that I thought this was made by Microsoft. I simply didn't read carefully enough, and was under the impression it was part of a Microsoft official marketing campaign (like the Google Chrome comic books or something).

I love the business hustle view at the end of your comment, though!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> works fine in chrome... the entire thing is wrong on so, so many levels...

<comment><USER11> Yeah...I got to the baby voice and the phone and shut it off. It's a little pedo-creepy.

<comment><USER4> Not so much a baby voice as a robot voice. Robotic voices often have high pitch distortion kind of tone in Japanese culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I love that the progress loader behaves just like windows 98 application installers do. Linear count up until object 56/107 loaded... 30 second pause... sudden jump to 80 objects loaded, and the loading UI flips out trying to catch up.

Microsoft is nothing if not consistent(ly bad).

<comment><USER4> It's an object counter progress loader, not a progress bar. It has no reason to be linear.

<comment><USER12> That's fine, but the way the UI behaves appears to be tied to the load % completion. So the fact that it freaks out is a bit of a problem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Probably showing my age here, but to me it is very reminiscent of the IE4 DHTML tech demos (that's right, that's a four).

They were technically impressive in what they were able to achieve, but it was technology no one was ever going to (and never did to my knowledge) use.

</comment><comment><USER14> Volume warning for those at work!

Minus the IE9 politics, I kinda liked that.

Felt a little "Witch Hunter Robin" meets "GITS SAC".

<comment><USER15> More like a less gloomy <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serial_Experiments_Lain>

<comment><USER12> without the musical aesthetic or the barest sliver of sanity that SEL had.

and 100% more creepy near-upskirt camera angles.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> For those wondering, the voice at the beggining is counting from one to nine in Japanese: "ichi, ni, san, shi, go, roku, nana, hachi, kyu". Probably related to the IE version progression.

Then says "I. E. nine ..." and I don't get the remainder.

</comment><comment><USER16> i love the IE electrical ghost brainslug thingie, that explains so much.

<comment><USER17> "IE 9: It will go all Exorcist on your brain, then make you hallucinate."

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Curious. Am I the only one who can't seem to make it work even in IE9 (Tried Ubuntu/Chromium Beta, Ubuntu/FF3.5~, Windows7/Chrome Canary, Windows7/IE9 (and Compatibility Mode, just for kicks), and Windows7/FF4). Perhaps it's just overwhelmingly more underwhelming than the fanfare? For reference, I get to the part after the video has ended and the background slides away from behind the frame. After that point, the music plays for a little while and everything else is quite frozen and non-interactive.

</comment><comment><USER19> yeahi can't imagine why it's ie9 only. also, 10 frames per second? i can't feel that's impressive. it still looks choppy. it's not till about 15 that most people stop noticing choppyness, and really talk to me when you're doing 30 fps.

<comment><USER20> 10fps? wow it ran super smooth on FF4... awwww...

<comment><USER21> it is programatically locked to 10fps I do believe. They even say specifically that is what it runs at.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Yeah, IE has a tendency to make people lose their mind.</comment>