Engadget shutting down Germany and Spain sister sites - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2018/04/30/engadget-closing-germany-spain/?sr_source=Twitter <comment><USER2> > I won't dwell on what brought us here.

No need to dwell, how about just a mention? I think most of us can speculate, but I'd rather not.

<comment><USER3> Reduced or flat revenue (most likely online ads) not being enough to sustain the German and Spanish editions. English / international website is probably the only one that is still profitable or breaking even.

Totally my guess btw, not what Engadget said (or didn't say) in their post.

<comment><USER4> Maybe the name was an obstacle to sell anything in spanish. Is pretty annoying to type or mention in a casual conversation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> When I hear the phrase _" Engadget's German- and Spanish-language sites will cease publication"_, I think of those sites as being translations of the English site, but looks like they had their own writers (or in the case of the German site, writer) and topics.

\- [http://de.engadget.com/](http://de.engadget.com/)

\- [http://es.engadget.com/](http://es.engadget.com/)

Was surprised that there was a German site, one that ostensibly has more of a focus on EU/Germany tech stories. But did the Spanish site cater to Spain (seems like a pretty small market), or to a Spanish-speaking audience at large?

</comment><comment><USER6> Am I correct in assuming that this action is being taken because GDPR goes into effect on May 1, 2018?

<comment><USER7> _GDPR goes into effect on May 1, 2018?_

It becomes enforceable on May 25, 2018

<comment><USER6> Sorry. The GDPR FAQs website I landed on said that it "will be in force in May"; I leapt to the assumption that that meant May 1.</comment></comment></comment>


Cargo, Rust's Package Manager - <AUTHOR> http://crates.io <comment><USER2> This is sweet:

For example, if I have three packages:

       - uno depends on json 1.3.6
       - dos depends on json 1.4.12
       - tres depends on json 2.1.0

Cargo will use json 1.4.12 for uno and dos, and json 2.1.0 for tres.

Hopefully rust builds a culture that respects semantic versioning better than the Ruby & Node cultures do. That has to start at the top. There were several Rails 2.3.X releases with minor ABI incompatibilities. Truly respecting semver would have required these patch level updates to get a new major number.

<comment><USER3> Don't equate Rails with Ruby (some projects follow semver very closely).

Rails follows a shifted semver version, as documented here: [https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/guides/source/mai...](https://github.com/rails/rails/blob/master/guides/source/maintenance_policy.md)

Bumps from 4.x to 4.y might contain smaller breaking changes.

For a large project as Rails, I find that reasonable, otherwise, we'd be at Rails 20 by now, which also doesn't quite give a good sense of how the project evolved.

<comment><USER4> MRI didn't follow semver up until recently, and even now it has some caveats about it.

Ruby as an ecosystem doesn't really care for semver. Some projects follow it anyways, which I can respect, but they aren't the norm.

<comment><USER5> MRI _still_ doesn't follow semver but core doesn't really give a crap.

<comment><USER6> They claim "Semantic Versioning type" versioning, which is, of course, not SemVer, but I think what your parent was referring to.

[https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version- po...](https://www.ruby-lang.org/en/news/2013/12/21/ruby-version-policy- changes-with-2-1-0/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'd love if

$ cargo cult

would build a new project/module from a template.

<comment><USER6> The plan is for that to be `cargo project`, but that might be a fun alias. :)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And here is the announcement from Yehuda Katz:

[https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust- dev/2014-June/010569...](https://mail.mozilla.org/pipermail/rust- dev/2014-June/010569.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> Will this play nicely with the package management tools OSes already have, or is this going to end up being yet another source for files/packages to accumulate that are outside the view of well-documented and designed administrative tools?

<comment><USER9> Ha! There is nothing well-designed about the mutually incompatible, political hell that is OS package managers.

The best solution (as taken by npm, virtualenv and others) is to install libraries locally to the project that is building them.

That way, package management becomes the sole concern of the build system.

"Accumulation" is a good thing, it means each project has the exact version of a package that it was tested with, not some later version that a sysadmin decides it "probably should work with".

<comment><USER2> OS package managers make two assumptions:

\- that packages follow semver

\- that the OS packagers are in a better position to test package combinations.

If the author releases a new version of libfoo, and A, B and C in an OS repo depend on libfoo, then the OS packagers do not release a new version of libfoo until the tests for A, B & C pass.

These are two good assumptions, and the language package world would be in much better shape if they followed those assumptions too.

<comment><USER10> Which OS are "OS package managers"? There is a world out there greater than GNU/Linux.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I haven't been following the development of this package manager, but previous attempts at making a package manager for Rust have failed. Is this package manager supported officially now? I really hope it will stick around.

<comment><USER12> Yes, the developers are actually domain experts being paid by Mozilla. The release of this website also coincided with the move of the source repository into the rust-lang organisation: [https://github.com/rust- lang/cargo](https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo) .

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> How do you pin a dependency to a particular version or git sha? I can't find anything in the FAQ or docs that implies that it's possible.

<comment><USER14> From announcement email:

The next features we're planning on working on are: \- Supporting refs other than `master` from git packages

<comment><USER15> As a workaround, I guess you could fork a specific version on your own github account, and use that as the dependency?

<comment><USER16> You don't even need to fork it on Github, Cargo is just passing the URI straight to the git tooling.

You can keep it on your local filesystem and reference it w/ `file:///path/to/repo.git` -- you can also use SSH and HTTPS URIs from any other repository host, not just github!

So you could just clone the repo to some `vendor` directory and move `master` to whatever version you want!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This looks like yet more awesome stuff coming out of the Rust camp.

I'm pretty excited to see Teepee and Rust come together so I can really give it a spin doing what I'm currently doing daily for a job.

</comment><comment><USER18> While I support semantic versioning, people need to be aware that it's only as good as the package maintainer. I have used packages that have (unintentionally) broke semver conformity. Nothing really stops an author from releasing breaking changes when going from "1.2.1" to "1.2.2".

<comment><USER19> The goal is to use package manager defaults and community pressure to keep things on the straight and narrow. We'll see how it goes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is very welcome news, indeed. I will have to give it a try as soon as I can make the time.

I hope it will be more stable and work better than the Haskell package manager, Cabal. I literally _never_ got that to work on any machine. It would typically destroy itself while attempting to update itself...

</comment><comment><USER21> I would really love to see some docs on how to actually install and get started with Cargo.

It doesn't ship with Rust and the docs on GitHub and crates.io are not very enlightening.

<comment><AUTHOR> This was how I installed it (Mac):

      1) Install latest version of Rust found here: http://www.rust-lang.org
      2) git clone --recursive firstname.lastname@example.com:rust-lang/cargo.git
      3) make
      4) make install (could be that sudo is needed for you)

<comment><USER22> There is no brew formula?

<comment><USER23> Rust has a brew package. Cargo is new so it may be a day or three before it gets out there too.

<comment><USER24> Hmm, well, rust's brew seems a little outdated (0.10), so if you are intent on using Cargo soon, I would recommend on building rust yourself or grabbing a new binary from their website.

<comment><USER25> There is a homebrew-cask of Rust's nightly binary. I think this should work:

      brew tap caskroom/cask
      brew install brew-cask
      brew tap caskroom/versions
      brew cask install rust-nightly

<comment><USER26> Stuff being either in Cask or Homebrew is just terrible. Homebrew also has a versions tap. Those two projects should combine efforts and remove ambiguity.

<comment><USER25> I 100% agree with you. It took me like an hour to figure out where I thought it made sense to put rust-nightly, and I'm still not really sure I did it right. But it works and is _way_ better than the morning compilation cronjob I used to use.

<comment><USER26> I agree, it works, but we need to keep pressing those guys... or contribute. Cask still doesn't have reinstall/upgrade. As far as I know, Homebrew can't upgrade packages with head versions, and, worst pain of all - Homebrew doesn't support Yosemite or any unreleased OS X version. Being a tool for developers primarily, all the above are must-haves!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Learn two things:

1\. Wycats (Yehuda Katz) is on Rust apparently :)

2\. `.toml` -- some crossbreed YAML/INI file format that I like

<comment><USER28> It'd be really nice if it didn't impose a hard choice of json-ish to use for the manifest, even though that's a rather small thing. Just don't want to be stuck with toml if it doesn't gain wider acceptance than it has so far.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What about binary only dependencies?

<comment><USER29> I think mixed is also very important. For example, sometimes you really do only have a binary dependency (e.g., .NET assemblies), while other times, you may have a binary + source dependency (e.g., library + header files).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is good news. a better alternate to conventional techniques

</comment><comment><USER23> If someone can log into github and enter a ticket to say no to toml. Yaml would be perfect for it and it is mature and people already know it.

<comment><USER6> I don't have strong feelings about toml, but the YAML spec is incredibly complicated, and has way too many features for a config file format. And security vulnerabilities O_O

<comment><USER31> I don't know about the security vulnerabilities, but it works fine as a config file format (we use it at my company for a lot of in-house stuff). I had a similar reaction to the language. Even if not YAML, why not just use JSON? It's universal, dead simple to use and understand, has extensive libraries in just about any language, etc...

That said it's not that big of a deal. At least it's not an in-house markup like Haskell's cabal...

<comment><USER6> > I don't know about the security vulnerabilities,

About 14 months ago, it caused some of the most serious vulnerabilities in the Ruby on Rails world ever: [http://tenderlovemaking.com/2013/02/06/yaml-f7u12.html](http://tenderlovemaking.com/2013/02/06/yaml-f7u12.html)

> why not just use JSON?

JSON is not really human-editable. Those quotes and commas, ugh! Also, JSON lacks comments.

The vulnerabilities in YAML (which is a superset of JSON, by the way) point at why YAML and JSON both aren't appropriate for configuration: they are _serialization_ formats. Configuration isn't what they're built for.

And you're right, it's really just not a huge deal in any way. Especially once we have `cargo project` to autogenerate the basics.

<comment><USER32> > About 14 months ago, it caused some of the most serious vulnerabilities in > the Ruby on Rails world ever: > [http://tenderlovemaking.com/2013/02/06/yaml-f7u12.html](http://tenderlovemaking.com/2013/02/06/yaml-f7u12.html)

Live by eval, die by eval. But more seriously, nobody is forcing a Rust YAML library to support arbitrary structure deserialization (or maybe as an optional switch). I don't think you'd want such a switch on in a build system configuration file.

<comment><USER6> Then you're not supporting YAML, you're supporting your own subset of YAML.

<comment><USER32> That's one way to look at it. On the other hand, when a format presents useful, but potentially dangerous characteristics (eg, XML entities expansion), it is entirely sensible to offer a way to not take them into account.

<comment><USER6> Quite fair. Depends on what kind of tradeoff you're looking for: this personally makes me search for a new format. It's reasonable to make a different choice.

<comment><USER33> I don't even think that's fair. What happens when everyone implements their own pet subset of a standard?

<comment><USER32> It's not an hypothetical future, you can often disable dangerous features in XML parsers. It seems sensible to me to do the same with YAML parsers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Why not just use JSON?

Infact, why not just use npm's package.json?

<comment><USER35> I may not be a majority here, but I see JSON as a data transportation format, while I see TOML or YAML as configuration formats.

You cannot write comments in JSON, for instance.

<comment><USER36> Example from the website in json

        {
          'package': {
             'name': 'hello-world',
             'version': '0.1.0',
             'authors': [ 'firstname.lastname@example.com' ]
          },
          'bin': {
            'name': 'hello-world',
            'comment': 'the name of the executable to generate'
          }
        }

So where is the problem ?

And you have the advantage, that other tools can use the complete file including the comment. In TOML you need an extra parser to grab the comment.

<comment><USER37> I don't really care what format the cargo files use (that's just an inconsequential bikeshed as far as I'm concerned) but in your example "comment" is really not a comment. I would expect to be able to put free-form comments anywhere I want and have them thrown away by the parser.

Your solution works fine for docstrings, but comments and docstrings are not the same thing (although many languages that don't support docstrings in the syntax hack them together using comments, admittedly).

But beyond that, what's the argument for switching to json? Is there some kind of intercompatibility with npm/Node.js to be gained?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Hofstadterian Loops - <AUTHOR> http://katbailey.net/blog/hofstadterian-loops <comment><USER2> I read the book a while back. It was engaging: he's got interesting thoughts and expresses them well.

But Hofstadter's idea of loops is really just a metaphor to help you think about consciousness. So far as I can see, it doesn't advance the actual understanding of consciousness.</comment>


Facebook is terrifying - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@jitbit/facebook-is-terrifying-8dc4a016b64b <comment><USER3> I deleted my Facebook account in 2010 after appearing in the Times regarding technology addiction. It was my most time consuming social media application at the time. For the article, they had me install an application tracker to see how much time I spent in focus on a particular app. I was alarmed at how often I checked Facebook chat.

Today, after much investigation, I've come to a hypothesis that technology's purpose is to gently erode the concept of "self" as it grows in power and scope. We drive this growth, but at the same time more than a few of us worry about how the growth is affecting our "right" or "natural state" of privacy to be who we want to be without blame or for someone speaking (in aggregate) to what our actions may hold in the future. It _seems_ obvious privacy is a good thing, because as long as privacy exists someone can't take your information and do things _in private_ with it as they see fit. The more tech they have, the more they can do with your data and the more they can "invade" your privacy.

Facebook's accumulation of information is concerning, not so much from the standpoint of the addiction that causes us to contribute to the quantity of data, but from the standpoint of collective _thinking_ that arises from it.

I don't want to be part of a collection or be told to think _with_ the collection. I want to be me and think about things that are important to myself. I want to do that without anyone else telling me how to think about it or speaking for what I know at a later date without knowing me.

<comment><USER4> You know you have an account anyway, right? FB makes and manages profiles of people who don't have accounts, even of people who have _never_ had accounts. They use this for their ad network, among other things.

LinkedIn does this as well. I don't know about others.

<comment><USER5> How does that even work? Where does FB (or LinkedIn) get the information from that they can determine who you are even if you've never signed up for an account?

<comment><USER6> It's called shadow profiling[0].

Even if you haven't signed up for a facebook account but someone you know has an account, they by proxy, you have an account. Merely existing as a contact in their address book is enough to create a shadow profile with facebook. Their deep-learning algos can collate such data from all your friends and serve you correspondingly appropriate ads.

In fact, I just thought of an experiment that you could try sometime.

1\. Buy a new cellphone number and store a small number of contacts (say, about 5) in your phonebook. Make sure all 5 of them have functional & active FB accounts.

2\. Install the FB app on the phone and grant it access to your phonebook.

3\. Open the app, create a new user and check out the list of suggested friends.

I think you'll be surprised.

[0] [http://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles- privac...](http://www.dailydot.com/news/facebook-shadow-profiles-privacy-faq/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Its not just faces .. me and a friend had a little jam session recently and posted a picture of our cool little setup, consisting of a few pocket-sized machines (synthesizers and controllers) on our table in front of us. Just an innocent little picture of our jam setup.

Within seconds of posting this picture of the machines, my friend was getting targeted ads from the manufacturers of those devices - within seconds!

This was a watershed moment for us. We won't be posting much to Facebook in the future .. far too scary for us!

<comment><AUTHOR> I had a similar moment (and ironically I'm a musician too).

I went to a bar, where a band was playing on stage... After a while I realized I know the drummer. I played with him before, in another band, years ago. We had a beer, chatted a bit and went home.

Now, we hadn't posted any pictures, nor statuses, we have no mutual friends on facebook, no connection at all... Heck, Facebook DIDN'T EVEN EXIST when I last saw him.

 _The second I got home the app suggested him as a friend_

Gosh this was scary.

(OP here)

<comment><USER8> Not to say this is definitely what happened, but he could have looked you up on FB which might tip off the suggestions algorithm.

That's a whole other can of worms, of course.

<comment><USER9> Occam's razor, I agree. I've heard several times these kind of stories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "If you're not paying, you are the product"

It used to be that the law couldn't catch up with the fast change in technology, now it's us the people that can't keep up. All my friends using Facebook don't comprehend what is going on, it's just pictures right? The idea that FB is creating highly detailed profiles of every user, and selling them to anyone who will pay, is just dismissed as a joke. What good can come from this I wonder.

<comment><USER11> That's because they are not selling those very pictures to anyone who'll pay.

They (facebook) are the middle men - people who have money come to them to sell their product, and facebook knows who to show those products too.

your friends (and mine, and a huge percentage of facebook's userbase) trust facebook enough for that to happen.

And it does not help anyone's cause when people say "X company (be it Google, Facebook etc.) are selling your info".

<comment><USER12> Yeah, as someone who has used Facebook for advertising, what they're doing is pretty obvious and not really that nefarious IMO. When I set an ad, I get to say "I want people within 10 miles of this zip code who like dogs, shopping, sports, and breweries" and Facebook limits my ads to only that subset of people. I don't get a list of their names, I don't even know who they are. They just see my ad and I'm charged $1.

Whenever someone asks "what nefarious thing is this company doing with my data?" the answer is rarely "something really, really bad!". Rather, it's almost always "trying to sell you something".

<comment><USER13> That's true, but Facebook knows the real names, and that targeting technology could just as easily point to religious / political affiliations and personal experiences.

FBI (via NSL):

"Hey FB, show me all the posts from right-wing pro-gun users in within 20 miles of X because we think there's something going on near there".

or

"Hey FB, show me all the people with pictures taken outside the US with Middle East looking faces/names who are living in South East Michigan".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I am not on Facebook.

But that doesn't mean that I believe I am not on Facebook.

I am pretty sure that Facebook are able to construct most of the shell of me from fragments provided by less careful friends or just strangers.

I imagine, and do not believe I am wrong, that Facebook have a ghost profile already with photographs of me already associated, some preferences and interests already in place.

A montage almost indistinguishable from the whole, or perhaps in some respects better... have they got to 3d models for their Oculus universe yet?

They probably know my name, am I even a necessary part of that picture? What's missing?

<comment><USER15> Any friends of yours who have installed any FB application will have uploaded your contact details. All FB needs to do is merge all of those profiles of you from each of your friends and they will have a pretty accurate informational profile. Since many people have also added a photo of you to their phone contact entry, FB gets that too. Any time you visit a website that uses an FB Plugin, for commenting or sharing, FB drop a ghost profile cookie against you. If at any point you somehow leak your email address or cell number on one of those sites, they can now tie that ghost profile to a real person, thanks to your friends using FB, even when you don't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What is the proposed recourse? Ban Facebook from analyzing data that users give it? I use Facebook's automatic tagging because I find it useful. Should it be illegal for me to use this feature because someone might unintentionally be identified in a photo that I took? Is the argument that Facebook--or any other company--should never be allowed to develop software that could process data that could identify folks, even when the data was willingly provided by a user that's complying with the law?

I'm not arguing in defense of Facebook, I just don't understand what someone that's privacy-minded would want. If I can legally take a photo, should I not have the right to have a company analyze that photo on my behalf?

<comment><USER17> Not saying I agree, but an argument could be made that other people need to be blurred before it is shared with a third party, if they have a legal right to control images of themselves.

If you accept that people do have this right the logical conclusion is then you are infringing and causing harm to them by taking their photo and sharing it with Facebook. If you don't think people should have that right, I am not convinced there is any infringement going on and this creepy database is just the inevitable end result.

<comment><USER18> Symmetric key encrypt the image, upload the encrypted image with the symmetric key encrypted by your friends' pubkeys.

When you add a friend just append new pubkey encrypted symmetric key for each asset. Friend removal is even more expensive and requires the client side to reencrypt everything :(

I'm sure there are better cryptographic constructs out there with multi key encryption that can alleviate some of the insertion and removal costs.

You could do it with decent trade-offs for the content provider as well. You could obfuscate everyone else's face but yours and allow them to get access to that image and then just encrypt the map for your friends. Of course then it's all about just creating enough mock accounts to recover the full images throughout the graph. Or just take custody of a user's keys in exchange for features.

Still though, it's marginally more expensive to build a mass surveillance app!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> There is a '/etc/hosts' blocklist here: [https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporatio...](https://github.com/jmdugan/blocklists/blob/master/corporations/facebook/all) in case you do not want facebook on your computer...

<comment><USER20> But that doesn't address the issue mentioned in the article, unless everyone around you uses that hosts file.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Once things get rolling, any visa overstayer who shows up in a Facebook photo should expect a visit from ICE.[1][2]

[1] [http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/illegal- immi...](http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/14/illegal-immigrants- who-overstay-visas-almost-never/) [2] [http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-vows-crackdown- on-...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/trump-vows-crackdown-on- immigrants-who-overstay-visas_us_57c329aee4b085c1ff29d437)

<comment><USER22> Gonna be tricky when people peaceably assemble to block all the entrances and exists of every building ICE operates out of.

<comment><USER23> [https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers- in-...](https://theintercept.com/2017/01/19/republican-lawmakers-in-five- states-propose-bills-to-criminalize-peaceful-protest/)

      Republicans in Washington state have proposed a plan to
      reclassify as a felony civil disobedience protests that
      are deemed "economic terrorism."

Similar laws are being proposed in multiple states. You can protest, but don't imagine you're immune from prosecution by a sufficiently annoyed DA.

<comment><USER22> Oh I'm well aware of that. And I predict the more heavy-handed the attempts to restrict protest become, the more people will come out to oppose them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Facebook, Google, and likely others (observe Amazon with their Echo for instance) are effectively trying to build an electronic Jeeves. But in the process they are building up a dataset on every user that would make STASI look like the keystone cops.

</comment><comment><USER25> I'm almost 100% positive that some of your best and brightest employees working in critical divisions at Facebook, Google, Microsoft, etc. are NSA moles. I have zero proof but it's what I'd setup if I was part NSA leadership. Just think about what that means for our data.

<comment><USER26> Think about being one of the best and brightest hackers out there... why would you want to work for the NSA? What incentive do you have, other than a boatload of money? Isn't the regular, guilt-free FB boatload enough?

<comment><USER27> FB pay plus the substantial NSA bonus perhaps? Maybe also the added benefit of access to NSA career networking (even assistance to land those top jobs in the first place)?

All supposition on my part of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> That's why I ask my friends to tag themselves as me periodically and I tag myself as them.

The neural network is all confused and now it tries to tag the wrong people.

<comment><USER29> More people should do this. And be thorough, agree to consistently tag the same people with the same wrong tags.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's not just Facebook. As more images become publicly accessible on the internet, that capability will be available to many organizations and individuals.

If that scares you, you should think about how we can protect ourselves from tyranny without anonymity.

<comment><USER31> I wonder what will happen when it becomes possible to search the entire corpus of nude selfies on the whole internet, by name.

<comment><USER32> Last year facial recognition was used [1] to out porn stars in Russia. Today Google Image Search will return real names (or alleged real names in cases of mistaken identity) for many selfies of people who were doxxed at some point. We're not that far from this.

[1] [https://advox.globalvoices.org/2016/04/22/facial- recognition...](https://advox.globalvoices.org/2016/04/22/facial-recognition- service-becomes-a-weapon-against-russian-porn-actresses/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I can't get into my Facebook account right now because it's prompting me with a request to provide government-issued ID (eg, drivers license, passport) to verify me. Suffice it to say, I am no longer on Facebook.

<comment><USER34> How did that happen? I have a 'fake' Facebook account (the only kind I'd ever have!) and I wonder what it would take for Facebook to ask for 'verification'.

<comment><USER35> I have found these ways for Facebook to require verification:

1\. Created a fake account in one country and used it a few times, then many many months later I tried to login from another country and Facebook promptly required government-issued ID.

2\. Created another fake account and changed the E-mail address after a few days and Facebook promptly required government-issued ID.

It makes me really happy that so many are deleting their Facebook account, or at least trying to use it less.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I've been using Facebook since college (circa 2005). Never "hidden" my profile from anyone or the public. Never deactivated anything or deleted a post. Recruiters and acquaintances look up my profile all the time. Still, I have never had the data I've given them come back to haunt me. I still trust Facebook leadership very much in this regard. Maybe it's because I trust myself and how I utilize the technology. Or maybe it's because I am cut from the same cloth as them when it comes to technology and I understand it at a very instinctive level. In light of the recent election, at this point I wouldn't trust any other entity with that kind of data (like Amazon, who seems to use my data to raise prices on me, frequently). In fact, I would wish Facebook to contract with and take over identity management systems (ie. social security, drivers license) away from local and federal government - <USER2> to dictate policy but just to dictate infrastructure. I really don't care about privatization or policy in a general sense, just progress in this regard.

10 years later I still don't get the point of these articles besides fear mongering and at most to provide a technological challenge to engineers and developers on "the other side". I understand ad-blocker companies are fighting a messy war right now with both content and ad providers. I guess that is another way, albeit much slower, way to achieve progress. Hacking goes both ways.

<comment><USER37> >Still, I have never had the data I've given them come back to haunt me.

Are you sure? Facebook has a patent on lowering your credit score based on who is in your friends list[1]. They also feed data to credit score companies who directly examine your posts and use it to tweak your credit score yet further[2].

It's totally possible that your use of Facebook has affected your ability to buy a car or house, or get a job[3]. The lifetime cost of your mortgage could be $20,000 higher than it need be due to your use of Facebook. Maybe you got passed over for that job that would have been in the perfect place for raising your new child, due to your posting. How would you know? Did you really think they were going to tell you?

Maybe you're not at a time in your life where these things have happened to you yet, but I have bad news. The data you've submitted to Facebook will _never_ be deleted. It's invisible baggage, following you everywhere. Honestly, you have no real idea of what impact it's having on your life, because it's not in the interest of any of that data's consumers to tell you what they are doing with it.

[1] [https://qz.com/472751/facebooks-new-patent-lets-lenders- reje...](https://qz.com/472751/facebooks-new-patent-lets-lenders-reject-a- loan-based-on-your-friends-credit-scores-but-dont-freak-out/) [2] [http://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-your-facebook- profile-c...](http://www.ajc.com/news/national/how-your-facebook-profile-can- affect-your-credit/dGASsQw6MBsxjspFdzwoZK/) [3] [https://www.creditkarma.com/article/why-some-employers- check...](https://www.creditkarma.com/article/why-some-employers-check-credit- history-1014152)

<comment><USER38> > It's totally possible that your use of Facebook has affected

The really scary possibility is that your _non_ -use of Facebook has negatively impacted your credit score.

My (mostly) non-use of LinkedIn (which is even worse than FB IMHO) has almost certainly had a negative impact on my career.

<comment><USER37> It's definitely something I have a serious concern over. I also have serious concerns about certain types of personal account being required for employment. I have personal microsoft, github and google accounts that I don't want, but had to create because I had to access msdn/github/google cloud console or I would not be employable. None of them provide a mechanism where my employer can open an account under the name of the company (so I bear no liability), bestow it upon me as a work asset, and then revoke it when I leave. AWS provides this in the form of access keys which are god damn great, but they're an exception.

At some point, we will have to start auditing and regulating the responsibility that companies owe to society once they come to dominate a field. There's a scary chance that LinkedIn might capture almost all the professional job market. Once that happens, we /need/ to be able to audit them to ensure they are fully complying with witness protection requirements, and to make sure their algorithms don't contain race biases.

Look forward to that one being the hot topic of 2025's legal circles.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The data accuracy is terrifying, really. Also, I visited shopping centre last week and in the next morning, I got Facebook Notif asking me if I would like to review the visit. I felt very annoying.

The problem is real.

<comment><USER40> Annoying? That's terrifying and I'd feel terrified.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Anyone know this technology well enough to know if sunglasses and a scarf of some sort would prevent my being recognized if not making me look somewhat silly or suspicious.

<comment><USER10> You may be interested in the movement against facial recognition [1].

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

<comment><USER42> My iPhone camera face detection was able to detect some of the camouflaged examples instantly.

<comment><USER43> Worth making the distinction between a human face in general, and the face of a specific human.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> And people are always wondering why I ask them to delete pictures of me if they take them without me stopping them first. Been doing that for years just because I don't want my face to Facebook or Instagram...

</comment><comment><USER45> What made me stop caring about Facebook is how damn sneaky they try to be to keep you from logging out or turning pretty much anything off. It's really easy to accidentally leave things on, and stuff like chat can decide to turn itself back on.

Awhile back I noticed that fewer and fewer Facebook pages offered any of the top menu items (including "log out"), requiring you to be more and more explicit about _which_ Facebook page you were viewing to even _see_ a way to log out. I am sure the idea is to have you "accidentally" stay logged-in and then view half the Internet so they can track you.

The final straw for me is that now I see no log-out link AT ALL, not even if I reenter the root facebook.com into my browser to go to the home page (which used to restore the links on top). There is now no apparent way to log out without killing my browser so I am done with them.

</comment><comment><USER46> Would Facebook's facial recognition work as well in an airport or train station scenario? It is definitely an easier problem to recognize one face out of a few hundred or few thousand (your friends) than it is to globally match across their entire database.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well, considering all the computing power they have (more than 100k servers across dozens of datacenters - and that data is from 2010) this is not a problem.

Hell, they can even quickly detect copyright infringement a posted video right? Ever posted a video with some background music? I don't think computing power is a problem...

<comment><USER47> The problem isn't computing power, it's algorithm accuracy. If there are thousands of people who are a close-enough match to your face, then when they see your face in a random crowd at a train station, they don't know which of those people you are.

To fix this they'd probably need other heuristics, which for all I know they're already using. An easy one would be to narrow it down by location, though sometimes that'd be wrong. A more sophisticated method would be to build a model of human movement, keep track of locations where they have high confidence it's you (e.g. in pics of you in small groups with your friends) and combine these into an estimate of the probability of each candidate match being at the train station.

<comment><USER48> There are companies who are selling tech that will recognise a person rapidly walking past in a conference crowd (had it demoed to me), so yes the tech is definitely capable now

<comment><USER47> That's still a small population to choose from.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I use facebook.com as a tool for networking just as I would LinkedIn, no app, no messenger, just the site. I know people who don't need facebook at all, I know others that use it to share their creative content and others that just post useless articles. However it is still a tool for many, if you don't want it to collect a massive profile of yourself either limit the amount of posts you share online or don't use it at all. I don't understand the massive fallout of facebook on HN, the 'collective think' mentioned earlier and companies like Cambridge Analytica seem like bigger issues than the data facebook collects itself.

<comment><USER50> Facebook collects information about you whether you use it or not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> > Even if you're extremely cautious, even if you never post anything on > Facebook, even if you have "location services" disabled on your phone at all > times etc. etc. Facebook still knows where you are. You can't stop other > people from taking selfies in an airport.

This seems a bit over the top. What are the odds I'll end up in the background of someone's selfie that they post on Facebook? I imagine the chances are incredibly small. And if I choose to take a picture with someone, I just have to be aware that it may end up on social media and be OK with the baggage that comes with that.

<comment><USER52> > _What are the odds I 'll end up in the background of someone's selfie that > they post on Facebook_

Uh, pretty high? Depending where you live, I suppose.

I frequently find myself in _front_ of someone seemingly 'selfy-ing', and always feel slightly uncomfortable since it looks exactly as if they're taking an ordinary photograph of _me_.

I'd have only to be behind instead of in front of them in order to be in their 'selfie' (assuming that is what they're doing!) - and I'd have thought that would happen even more often than being in front, assuming some of them feel just a modicum of embarrassment at the ridiculousness of the activity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> > a little privacy tip: use Facebook in mobile Safari, with an adblocker, and > delete the iOS native app — helps a lot AND saves you from tons of ads and > 3rd party cookie tracking. Not to mention wonders for the battery. I'm sure > there's a similar solution for Android.

This is how I use it on my phone. I don't use the app because the app cannot be trusted with any specific permissions I provide with the belief that it won't be misused or that more data won't be collected.

> On a desktop — use an extension like Disconnect to block 3rd party cookie > tracking.

On a desktop/laptop, I have it a lot better. I use Firefox with uBlock Origin, Privacy Badger and a few more extensions (like removing the Facebook link redirector PHP script from links within FB).

</comment><comment><USER54> I am still totally amazed by what people share from their private life FOR FREE on Facebook. If you want to beat Facebook you only have to make a similar platform that actually pay people for posting their private stuff. Would be a nice startup :)

<comment><USER55> That's one way to look at it. I think you'd admit that this _isn 't_ how a lot (if not most) people look at it. Facebook and other platforms provide them a convenient way to share their parts of their lives with their friends and family. Reasonable people can view this same situation differently.

You're almost assuredly right that there are still opportunities out there in this space. I do think paying people to post would change the dynamic: it would change what and how often people would post. It's definitely an interesting problem!

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I like how he doesn't get around to actually suggesting that you get rid of Facebook.

</comment><comment><USER57> Every claims to not use facebook anymore (in no small part due to posts like this), but at every quarterly earnings report the daily and monthly active users continue to grow.

So where's the disconnect?

<comment><USER58> Part of that is probably Facebook getting into more emerging markets that previously had limited connectivity - probably why they're getting into the infrastructure business.

But you certainly don't hear people talking about Facebook any less in the States, yeah. Maybe the demographics that use it most don't read the sources that put out these sorts of pieces?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> How many people here have a Facebook account? I never have. I tried and liked G+ because it was more focused, but that died. My wife has a FB account and it is funny I hear updates about my friends that live out of state from her!

I have a number of friends that work there. They keep trying to get me to join. The running joke is that I ask "does it require me to use Facebook?" Them: "Yes" Me: "Sorry that's a deal breaker." :)

FB is doing some really cool stuff in the networking space with OCP.

</comment><comment><USER60> Google is not any better either. I see a website about loan rates and it's blasting me with bank loans. Everything I do on the Internet is being tracked. A profile of me is developed and I get precision targeted. It's like they have an AI that will do anything to make you click an ad.

Nothing you do is safe on the Internet. I sometimes get a feeling that may be Chrome itself is tracking every website you visit and what you click.

</comment><comment><USER61> Agreed with the general thrust of the article, but the oft cited stat that Facebook's algorithm beats a person's mother is misleading. The test was very narrowly defined and in any case it does not reveal how often false positives happen when you are matching more than one person, which anecdotally in my experience happens way more often than the stats suggest.

</comment><comment> loup-vaillant And the article is _not_ advising us all to quit Facebook as soon as possible?

In a way, this is even more terrifying than the content of this article.

</comment><comment><USER62> Everyone on HN should read "To Save Everything: Click Here":

[https://www.amazon.com/Save-Everything-Click-Here- Technologi...](https://www.amazon.com/Save-Everything-Click-Here- Technological/dp/1610393708)

I don't entirely agree with it, but it's a much needed contrarian viewpoint.

</comment><comment><USER63> If they're unsure about the identity being provided, they'll just suspend your account until you provide copy of legal official government issued identification. That's a way to make sure that identities aren't getting mis- presented and users can't utilize pseudonyms.

Note: A generic comment about these spy (social) networks.

</comment><comment><USER64> Article says nothing new and barely had a coherent story arc.

Wish I could downvote articles. This is click bait.

<comment><USER55> For submissions, you can flag them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Maybe a photo app should be created that pretended to be the camera and would mash up faces, mix parts of old photos and recorded images of deep learning "dreams" and passed them off as photos to help poison the fb database

</comment><comment><USER66> I agree with the jitbit that we should consider the impacts of the growing global facial recognition system, but I find the focus on Facebook puzzling.

Facebook is one of the companies that seems like the best keepers of this data. They are committed to keeping their data private - because that's how they make money. They make much more though building accurate profiles and selling ads to demographics than giving away the goose.

A state actor can demand access to Facebook's database - just like they can demand access to anyone else's.

I think Facebook is a fairly mundane company using a terrifying new technology in distinctly benign ways. They've given us a glimpse of the power of the tech while not obviously abusing it. On balance, I'm pretty happy about that.

<comment><USER67> There aren't many companies that have the capability of doing this. You not only need billions of images (which not many companies have access to), but the accurate and active tagging of those images - of which Facebook is one of an extreme few.

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> Try Lyra instead! We're a nonprofit focussing on control and a respect for language and conversation. www.hellolyra.com

</comment><comment><USER69> sounds like the plan then is to confuse facebook's deepface. Just mis-tag everybody you know & care about.

</comment><comment><USER70> I can tell you what is wrong with the world and Facebook. It is that you all think that you are a bunch of animals waiting to die. And all you can do is to squeeze that tomato to get as much pulp as possible until you hit the fan. It is your faith or lack thereof that makes you worry about everything because you feel so helpless facing a world that is trying to rip you off on every possible level.

</comment><comment><USER71> I don't have facebook, not since 2009. But my wife has facebook...

Therefore, I basically have facebook.

</comment><comment><USER72> For Android you can use Firefox and ublock origin. FF allows you to use add- ons.

</comment><comment><USER73> "Facebook is terrifying... for my bussiness"

Google.

</comment><comment><USER74> Facebook is terrifying. Bit of a leading statement...

</comment><comment> jeffrey-sean It's not as easy for many to just delete their Facebook account. For instance, people use it for their jobs, to find work, or even to use the Facebook Workplace app. For some, it's a cheap and efficient way to communicate with friends or family. However, I agree that it's critical to mind what data you share on Facebook.

People post so many things, and they don't realize how the data is being interpreted, or how it could be taken out of context and viewed the wrong way.

For people who do decide to use Facebook, check out this app to find any posts you might not want to be associated with your account: [https://wwwrepnup.com](https://wwwrepnup.com)

</comment><comment><USER75> Facebook, rogue money grabbing service.

</comment><comment><USER75> Facebook had blocked peoples account if they have different opinions and thats just is big no no. I prefer services where I don't have to be thinking what facebook is thinking of my post.

People please get out of these internet ghettos where they restrict your "freedom of speech" to zero.

Facebook, so gone!

</comment><comment><USER76> Yo, how do you guys survive with all of these things being terrifying and scary? Do you live in a world with a perpetual fear response and adrenalin running all the time? Like, you walk down the street and there's a security camera and you're terrified?

I can't imagine someone lying in bed terrified at the thought that someone somewhere took a selfie with them in the background. That doesn't sound normal at all.

<comment><USER77> You're right; it's not normal. That's the problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER78> I expected this article to be with all the political garbage that is posted now that Trump is president.

</comment><comment><USER79> If only there were some way to avoid Facebook's nightmarish hellscape of intimate monetization. Hmmm, I can't think of any, guess that's it let's just throw in the towel boys.

</comment><comment><USER80> I truly wonder what the _net value_ or profit is for the average Internet user, at least, in it's current form.

Will all this tracking, suggesting, snooping and profiling really improve our world?</comment>


Polymath: A Markup Language for Everything - <AUTHOR> https://jwmza.com/polymath/ <comment><USER2> Seems like a good idea, however I think it takes Markdown only a step in the right direction, without going the full way — allowing the user to specify custom "tags" and allow for custom styling of those tags (with html/css or some user friendlier way).

Basically, LaTeX, but:

\- web ready, no pandoc tex→html mangling

\- user friendly, allowing for 0 customization and still giving nice results

\- with nicer markdown-like syntax for the common things, and a non-obtrusive way to include custom tags

\- with an easier/better language behind it (not just macro expander)

I'm still just a student, but I frequently find the need to use something other than just math/list/image/link, e.g. theorem&proof blocks, Q/A blocks, you name it. The thing I'm currently using is Pollen [1], but it doesn't come with common tags defined and so the initial setup is a bit of a hassle.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

Sorry, from your wording I'm not sure whether you are suggesting custom tags or saying there already are, but to clear up any confusion, there will be.

That's kind of what I was hinting towards at the end of the demo - you can define custom tags and styling behavior (either globally or at a block level, or site-wide in your preferences) with keywords like "@"

Trust me, I know the struggle of setting up like 500 custom math and environment macros in LaTeX. I'll try to find the best solution for this sort of thing - Polymath should work very well out of the box, but it should also allow for a fair amount of customization.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the reply! Yeah, I was implying that I'll miss custom tags, so I'm glad to hear they are planned!

I was planning to do something similar myself (note-taking/blog-making system with good defaults and customization in a sane language), but you beat me to it. I'm looking forward to new updates!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> This looks nice!

I and many many others have been using org-mode for years for these sorts of things; specifically the easy LaTeX integration and code highlighting, but there's a kitchen sink worth of goodies that the user base has added over the years.

Besides not requiring emacs, is there a value-add with Polymath? Or is this mostly scratching your own itches — which is a fine thing to do but a different one?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thankyou :)

I actually haven't tried org-mode but I've been hearing about it for a while now. Can't comment.

> Besides not requiring emacs, is there a value-add with Polymath? Or is this > mostly scratching your own itches — which is a fine thing to do but a > different one?

I don't have a concise and perfect answer for this yet, as it is basically just a very early version of a personal project I've been itching to work on, but these are what I think I'd like to do:

\- The vanilla implementation of Polymath as an SSG should be extremely easy to learn - even easier than doing a pure HTML (+CSS?) site. The reason why is because I see a lot of professors with really great content but their page is basically pure old HTML and looks absolutely awful on a modern computer or smartphone. I want something that supports 99% of the (static) features most people want right out of the box: video support, great typography and layout for all devices, interoperability with most of the other languages or formats they already use, and a very easy learning curve. It should basically be possible to have _only_ a bunch of Polymath files and render to a beautiful static website without needing any other technical know-how.

\- Super long term focus: I want to make this the right way now and then be able to use it for the rest of my life, so it will be done from a perspective outside of the status-quo technology, as in, I want to think about the best way to concisely format a specific kind of information, in a way that is easy to render out to any current or future format (PDF, HTML, LaTeX, ...) that way anybody who builds up a considerable base of Polymath files should have minimal friction in adopting future technologies and swapping their infrastructure.

\- Support other kinds of pages and layouts, like for example [https://jwmza.com/portfolio/switzerland](https://jwmza.com/portfolio/switzerland)

\- Something maybe a bit crazy: I have this idea to read TeX or tables and automatically generate interactive graphs, which I think could be really useful for people who do a lot of STEM writing. Say you write {x f(x):x\mapsto x^2}, I'd like to automatically guess the relevant domain, codomain and bounds, and create a little interactive graph.

<comment><USER4> You mention supporting graphs of functions. I use DOT [1] to render graphs of nodes and edges very often. Do you plan to support that type of graph as part of everything?

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT_(graph_description_languag...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DOT_\(graph_description_language\))

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the link!

In my example I was referring to the Cartesian plane graph of _x_ vs. _f_ ( _x_ ), but I do certainly hope to support the kind of general graphs / directed graph structures you're referring to. If there are open source libraries to process those kinds of things, I may be able to hack MVP-type usability quicker than otherwise.

Unfortunately Polymath is a side project that only has a limited resource pool available at the moment, as I have other work responsibilities.

I'm considering the options available to me in finding some way to fund a dedicated long term development of Polymath. Maybe a paid hosting service for ready-to-go blogs or something like that, or a Patreon-type deal if it's better to just keep the whole thing open source. Very early in the project right now - definitely open to any suggestions on expanding it.

<comment><USER5> Mathjax supports a latex graph library, AFAIK Katex does not. It would be nice to have tikz or at least a subset of tikz.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm open to MathJax or KaTeX or anything, nothing is set in stone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > The only third-party components so far are the KaTeX\KaTeXKATE X rendering > engine which generates beautiful and insanely performant HTML/CSS components > from TeX\TeXTE X expressions – it is much, much faster than MathJax, which > seems to be by far the most common

But is it as fast as running MathJax pages through mathjax-node-page to create static pages which don't need JS at all?

<comment><AUTHOR> > But is it as fast as running MathJax pages through mathjax-node-page to > create static pages which don't need JS at all?

Not sure, I should note that I've only ever used MathJax and KaTeX with the client-side JS rendering option, primarily because it's just faster to hack onto an early prototype.

If you prefer to do server-side rendering to avoid scripts, I imagine that the end user performance is roughly the same, however it is my understanding that MathJax has some advantages here in (a) also supporting MathML and (b) rendering to PNG, SVG, etc, while I believe KaTeX only has one rendering option in fairly CSS/HTML heavy nested sets of HTML elements and an imported web font.

Thereby I could see a potential preference for MathJax (esp. to render just a few PNG/SVG equations into the static site and serve those) but I think for _really_ long documents, pre-rendered KaTeX might still be superior because you only need to load a single web font and the HTML itself instead of numerous copies of the same symbols in hundreds of image files. KaTeX also seems much faster if you do client-side rendering with JS.

Btw, your site has been a big source of inspiration to improve my own (in both design and infrastructure). I liked your post about A/B testing CSS and HTML, and the margin footnotes are really cool.

<comment><USER6> > Btw, your site has been a big source of inspiration to improve my own (in > both design and infrastructure). I liked your post about A/B testing CSS and > HTML, and the margin footnotes are really cool.

Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I am using Jekyll with KaTeX and am reasonably content. The only thing I'm missing is a hyperlink checker. Since the whole site is static, Jekyll could check all the links to all the pages (even the ones to images or external sites). But it doesn't.

<comment><USER8> I never understand why static site generators expect me to write the real link in my content, rather than a placeholder e.g. tofile:foo/bar.md which the SSG replaces with the permalink.

<comment><USER9> Antora's cross-reference feature[1] might be what you're looking for. It also has the very, very useful concept of content catalogs; it's an SSG for documentation sites.

[1] [https://docs.antora.org/antora/2.2/asciidoc/page-to-page- xre...](https://docs.antora.org/antora/2.2/asciidoc/page-to-page-xref/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Apropos "[...] for _Everything_ ", [https://github.com/kisonecat/tikzjax](https://github.com/kisonecat/tikzjax) might be of interest. It uses a WebAssembly copy of tex.

Regrettably neither KaTeX nor MathJax support category theory diagrams. And I'd like to try making interactive diagrams, to explore using mouseover supplements to reduce the learner cognitive burden of keeping track of all the moving pieces and their significance. Perhaps they might be combined with a generic js diagram library... but it doesn't look like anyone has bushwacked that path.

<comment><USER11> I'm trying to set up a chat system that would enable category theory diagrams. It seems like webAssembly is the only way. I've come across this library before, probably will take the plunge and try to get it to work in a larger chat system.

<comment><USER10> [https://github.com/yishn/jsx-tikzcd](https://github.com/yishn/jsx-tikzcd) and [https://github.com/yishn/tikzcd-editor](https://github.com/yishn/tikzcd- editor) look interesting.

<comment><USER10> [http://bl.ocks.org/larsenmtl/86077bddc91c3de8d3db6a53216b2f4...](http://bl.ocks.org/larsenmtl/86077bddc91c3de8d3db6a53216b2f47) is an example of using d3 with MathJax.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> alok-g I have a basic question partly related to the project. When a markup can be compiled so fast, what's the fundamental reason we don't have WSYIWYG software that saves in the markup format as the norm.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm sure that could be done but I'm not sure if it's the right thing to do. I think it's important for people to understand the syntax and what they're using.

I think it'd be cool to do a side-by-side web app where you can type your Polymath code and see the resulting page at the same time.

<comment> alok-g Think about how many people in the world are missing on the benefits of such markup languages because they aren't interested in non-WYSIWYG/M. The market potential could be much higher if syntax learning can be avoided.

<comment><AUTHOR> It really depends on the specific user and _why_ they need the language.

Ultimately, Polymath is meant to provide a file format that will work for the long term, so I don't think users should be always getting an abstraction of the language through WYSIWYG, because then they don't understand the files they are preserving.

If you only care about having a nice blog, then sure, WYSIWYG might be convenient, but the whole reason for using Polymath instead of pure HTML/CSS + JS libraries is because it gives you the same/similar level of convenience as a WYSIWYG editor without losing exactness and understanding.

<comment> alok-g I follow that viewpoint and am OK with the direction being taken.

On the other hand, even after asking many, I have never received a good answer to why the exactness and understanding cannot be obtained with a WSYIWYG/M markup editor.

<comment><AUTHOR> They abstract away from the underlying code.

You wouldn't be able to tell the difference between

      {b Bolded} {b text}

and

      b Bolded text

this becomes especially concerning with TeX, custom styling, etc

<comment> alok-g That makes sense, and I can imagine that.

However, should it not be possible for the software to find a minimal cover for the formatting that would produce the same visual output, thereby practically recovering what hard-crafted markup would have been?

Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, if I'm interpreting your words correctly, this would be like turning

      p {b This} {b text is} {b bolded} this isn't

into

      p {b This text is bolded} this isn't

But then the issue is as follows:

In Polymath, I'm planning on allowing basically arbitrary CSS styling by parent, id, class, etc. So if the user later wants to do something like put a rounded box around each span of bolded text, those two, while initially looking identical in WYSIWYG, end up completely different.

<comment> alok-g I can take that. Thanks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The syntax and features remind me of Pug[1]. I find it's very nice to look at, but the significant indentation means you really have to have editor support for writing lengthy text blocks, without having to constantly manually add/remove whitespace. That's an advantage of Markdown, you can write it as easily in a textbox than a dedicated editor.

[1]: [https://www.npmjs.com/package/pug#syntax](https://www.npmjs.com/package/pug#syntax)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, and actually, you should be fine with just a text editor.

If the text editor doesn't support line folding spaced indentation, you can fall back to tabs, and if it doesn't support any indentation, you can actually write a paragraph all on one line. The manual wrapping is completely optional, I just like the way it makes my source code look.

Worst case scenario, you can always wrap any block in {brackets} and completely forget about all that indentation and newline stuff :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Hi, just a heads up that I already have a FOSS project that might be a direct competitor: [https://github.com/zyrolasting/polyglot](https://github.com/zyrolasting/polyglot)

Not here to talk about which is better. I am excited for you and your project in any case since I understand the problem you are working on. But if you want to monetize this, you might want to be aware of Polyglot.

<comment><AUTHOR> Okay, I've had a look at the project, and it seems to me like these are two fundamentally different things solving two different problems.

Doesn't seem like a direct competitor - although the names are 60% similar.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Looks excellent. One thing I'd question is why it should deviate from html / css like it does - why choose corners: 4px over border-radius: 4px?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! I've actually been putting some thought into that exact question with a lot of things (i.e. using Markdown-style identifiers for things like Headings [#, ##, ...])

I think what I'll probably do is support both the raw CSS/HTML keywords as well as a subset of more human-readable keywords and presets (my gripe with border-radius is that more often than not when I use border-radius, I don't even have any borders, what I really _mean_ is corner radius)

Another example is box-shadow: I think the syntax for this CSS feature is horrible for people who don't use CSS all the time. I think some presets like `shadow: soft` would be nice in addition, where

      shadow: soft  |-->  box-shadow: 0px 2px 4px rgba(0,0,0,0.1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Pretty cool! Seems like it would be a good fit for Jupyter notebooks? Data scientists might be interested in having something more powerful than Markdown

<comment><AUTHOR> Definitely! In fact there are a lot of concepts from notebooks I've been borrowing for Polymath / other features on my website.

I'd certainly much prefer to use the Polymath syntax when using something like Jupyter (although Markdown has been pretty good thus far ngl)

The real advantage of Polymath will come once things like CSS grid features and block-style-macros are fully functional.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is really good. I will plan to test it out tomorrow. You've solved some very real problems in an elegant way.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! Currently the MVP is basically hardwired into my personal backend but I've added an email subscription button which will notify you once I release a public/beta version. Still have a few things to fix up!

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> As an open source developer, I have to ask: Will this be released as open source, readily available on GitHub?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure yet, especially considering that there are a few different components to the overall thing.

The language itself will almost definitely be open source, and I've created a MIT-licensed GitHub repo to support it as of earlier today.

The site generator, maybe a hosting service, and other such things might have a paid or freemium model to support the development of the language - but I'm not sure what to do yet. Might also just do some kind of donation backed fully open source thing.

<comment><USER17> Nothing wrong with trying to make money for your hard work. For the lurkers, here's where the Polymath markup language GitHub repo may end up residing: [https://github.com/jwmza/polymath](https://github.com/jwmza/polymath)

For my own site, I wrote a text-to-HTML converter in PHP to handle the basic kind of markup I need so things look better than just having simple HTML tags on a web page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Nice, also look into AsciiDoc, which is a surprisingly well designed markup language for similar purposes.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the reference!

I've had a look at a lot of examples and it seems great, but I really dislike the idea of homodirectional delimiters because I fear it unnecessarily complicates formatting and introduces a pointless risk of collision.

That's why I want to only use two kinds of delimiter:

\- EOL, unless content is continued on the same indentation immediately without a gap, defines a block separation

\- Strictly heterodirectional delimiters, e.g. () [] {} <>, define inline blocks and nested blocks, or can provide a bypass of the first rule

I feel that this design decision will save a lot of time, even though

      *italics*

is technically less characters than

      {i italics}

(however, in Polymath you can also just use a newline and save a character:)

      i italics

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Cool project. Every date on your site seems to have an extra 1 appended to the start.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is the Human Era ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocene_calendar))

I believe it is a humbler, more appropriate calendar for talking about human history. I use it on my personal site because I don't need to conform to societal standards on my own site (although I don't use arguably superior numbering systems like dozenal or base-60 because that would be far too confusing)

I feel that Gregorian makes it pointlessly difficult to talk about anything between 10k BC and 0BC, and warps intuitive understanding of some of the most important time periods in human history - for example, ancient Rome _sounds_ ancient, but understanding that it existed 10,000 years into human society and we are only 20% later is helpful.

Personally, I think the ~0BC Mediterranean societies carried out some of the most important and interesting work of humanity, and I'd like to improve my feel for the course of history around and since those times.

I'll probably do a blog post soon with an interactive map and calendar from 0 HE to 12,020 HE that really showcases the true time in between important historical periods.

<comment><USER20> I hadn't run across the Holocene calendar before. Interesting. I have a similar peeve around the diagrams showing the history of earth as a day and humans evolving in the last second or so, which makes our tiny sliver of time seem like "the end" as opposed to a tiny sliver on the way to the earth getting burned up by the aging sun.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a really great thought! I hadn't considered that before but what you're saying is really important for intuition as well, I think, for considering something like the Fermi paradox or great filter.

Perhaps not only is the Earth a rare planet with the right characteristics to support sentient life, but perhaps too we have evolved in a very tiny window between two much longer periods in Earth's life where something like a human cannot evolve.

It's always good to remember that where you are right now in your life is just in the middle of what will one day be a much longer past.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I signed up. How do I see how the markup language looks like?

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll send an email to everyone on the list when there's a prototype you can play around with.

I've also made a GitHub repo where I might keep code and a wiki, or I may host a wiki written in Polymath on my site. It will explain all the intricacies of the language and people can do a custom implementation if they don't like mine.

As of right now, the demo page (this article's link) showcases the language itself in the preformatted text sections below or to the right of the document content (depending on whether you have a mobile or desktop screen)

The primary goals of the syntax are:

\- Human readability

\- Clear, explicit nesting

\- Very easy learning curve

<comment><USER21> D'oh, I never noticed the right hand side. Thanks. The markup looks clean and usable

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is this supposed to be a non-free/non-open standard?

<comment><AUTHOR> I basically started this thing very recently so idk what I'm doing yet, but the plan is for the language to be open source. I'm just trying to figure out what type of monetization I can potentially build around it (maybe a paid hosting service, maybe a donation type thing, idk) to help fund the development of the language.

But the language itself is open, it's just syntax, anybody can do whatever they like with it :)</comment></comment>


Boromir Death Simulator - <AUTHOR> http://boromir.toolness.org/ <comment><USER2> Heh. combat.js comments - he's using stats from the D&D Player's Handbook for the algo. Nice.

</comment><comment><USER3> Maybe I'm new school, but I kept hoping that a "severed part would fly off in an arc".

</comment><comment><USER4> My Boromir got to 32.

Might record the runs & generate me a spreadsheet.

</comment><comment><USER5> haha... this is great fun. well done!

</comment><comment><USER6> After killing 14 orcs, Boromir died.

Anyone got more?

<comment><USER7> In my run, Boromir got to 16. I was starting to wonder if the simulator was flawed.

<comment><USER6> Maybe Boromirs rage is inversely correlated with his HP? I got down to ~25 HP on orc 10, and after that Boromir started slicing and dicing, and cutting heads off while dodging everything.</comment></comment></comment>


U.S Unemployment By Education Level - <AUTHOR> http://www.bls.gov/news.release/empsit.t04.htm <comment><USER2> Here's the unemployment rate data by education level in chart form:

<http://www.deptofnumbers.com/unemployment/demographics/>

It's interesting to observe the structural nature of these series. At no time (in the visible history of the chart) does the unemployment rate of a higher education level exceed the unemployment rate of a lower education level. Through recession, recovery and expansion, education looks to be a verifiably sound strategy for increasing your employment prospects.

Also worth noting (from the original link) is that the labor participation rate (employed + active job seekers as a fraction of the population) is higher as education levels increase. You're more likely to be working or looking for work the more education you have. Lower education levels have greater rates of people not working and not looking for work.

<comment><USER3> "Through recession, recovery and expansion, education looks to be a verifiably sound strategy for increasing your employment prospects."

That assumes a causal relationship. The chart only shows correlation.

<comment><USER4> This is the oldest, yet often useless, criticism in the world. Statisticians know that when they are observing correlations they don't have statistical evidence for causation. That requires you to take a step back, decide what other variables could cause something, and test for that.

But here it's more than some vacuous claim to correlation.

Do you get unemployed as a BA first, or do you get your BA?

Econometrics is all about identifying causation in correlations in natural data (i.e. you can't run scientific experiments on people's lives, like telling random sample of people to go to college and others to not). Here, you just need intuition to realize that one thing consistently is a prerequisite to another, to realize that it's not just some statistical garbage.

There are three possible models to explain the correlation:

1\. Something influences both one's propensity to get more education (E) and not get laid off (L).

2\. One's education determines one's propensity to not get laid off

3\. One's propensity to not get laid off influences one's education. This is nonsense.

In a Bayesian network, you can visualize 1. as features f0,...fi (say race, parents' income, etc) influencing both (E) and (L), with (E) also influencing (L) directly. 2. would be a set of features f0,...,fi influencing (E) but not (L), with (E) directly influencing (L).

So to conclude, "This chart only shows correlation" is a useless comment to make unless accompanied by an analysis of the possible probabilistic models that the evidence supports.

<comment><USER5> > "This chart only shows correlation" is a useless comment to make unless > accompanied by an analysis of the possible probabilistic models

Correlation implies causality until proven otherwise? Do you work for the government?

> Statisticians know that when they are observing correlations they don't have > statistical evidence for causation.

Scientifically inspired voodoo is still voodoo. Say those with higher education have lower employment, you still don't know why. These people could be wealthier than the rest and have better opportunities in life REGARDLESS of their "education" (as one example). The macro-economist would then cite this data point is proof for needing more spending in higher-education, when in reality, this may not be the case.

<comment><USER4> _Correlation implies causality until proven otherwise?_

Where did I say that? I said that a comment like "this chart only shows correlation" is as useful as "The sky is blue." The sky is probably blue.

 _Scientifically inspired voodoo is still voodoo. Say those with higher education have lower employment, you still don't know why. These people could be wealthier than the rest and have better opportunities in life REGARDLESS of their "education" (as one example)._

Please refer to the models that such data could support (my previous post). The joint influence of other variables like f0,...,fi is certainly discussed.

 _The macro-economist would then cite this data point is proof for needing more spending in higher-education, when in reality, this may not be the case._

Please refrain from judging a profession unless it is one that you are familiar with. I mentioned econometrics, which is a specialized form of statistics that focuses primarily on extracting information from observational data.

<comment><USER5> You claimed OP had no right in claiming causality could not be established unless an opposing data-set was present. Who says this data has to be present? Are econometrics infallible?

You're trying to analyze the human motivation for action in hopes of altering future action, all inside a vacuum void of real-life tests. You claim this type of empirical knowledge is impossible to attain, "(i.e. you can't run scientific experiments on people's lives, like telling random sample of people to go to college and others to not).", but I would disagree.

Companies go to great length to mine data about their customers and their behaviors, with the opportunity to run a-b tests and isolate causal relationships. We should should recognize econometrics for what it is, and that is a theoretical science, and that anyone has the right to question the integrity of claimed causal relationships.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it frustrating that those with an associate degree are counted with "some college". I'd be willing to bet the numbers are much better for people who completed an associate degree than for those who failed/dropped out of college.

</comment><comment><USER7> It's too bad they stop with Bachelor's - does the trend continue for people with graduate degrees?

<comment><USER8> Or does it get worse? Do they get written off as "over qualified"?

<comment><USER9> I.e The boss is feeling threatened excuse.

<comment><USER10> Or too much of a "flight risk" when a higher paying position elsewhere arises, wasting the employer's investment in training.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> A story submitted in the last day or so

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2522135>

seems not to have had much discussion, perhaps because the submitter retitled the story, but the submitted story has a lot of good discussion on the value (or not) of attending college, and is worth thinking about in connection with the statistics submitted here.

</comment><comment><USER12> Not surprising. Decent jobs where a lack of high school or college education is acceptable don't really exist anymore, and we use the checkmark of high school/no high school or college/no college as a screening device.

I saw a posting for my local city's parks department for a person who basically mows grass. Education requirements? High school diploma, associates degree preferred.

The correlation/causation issue is that we assume that no jobs for folks out of high school equates to no "low skill" jobs.

<comment><USER13> It seems to me that the real reason is that the attributes one posses to drive them through college are also valuable attributes in business success.

Someone who has no interest in working hard to attain good grades in high school and therefore does not go to college is, generally speaking, someone who has no interest in working hard to get a good job. However, if you took one of those employed college grads and stripped them of their degree, I think we would find their success in business would remain unchanged. It is the person, not the degree, that leads to employment.

Ultimately, we simply do not have enough information to reach any conclusions from the data.

<comment><USER14> I really do wish we could find a way that was cheaper than college for what is, in these cases, essentially a personality/intelligence test.

<comment> m-photonic Employers used to give out aptitude tests all the time, prior to the rise of disparate impact lawsuits. Who knows how much better we could have gotten at testing these sorts of things if colleges hadn't essentially been granted a monopoly on employment psychometrics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Well, it sure sucks to be a high-school dropout.

But the situation is much worse than the statistics show. They dont count people who are too discouraged to look for work, those who would take a job if one were realistically available. Also not counted are those who are working fewer hours than they want. Typically the unemployment statistics underestimate by a third. I surmise, but havent dug into it, that the under- counting is correlated with education: unemployment is probably double the BLS number for the dropouts. And for those under 25, it is over 50%.

Apologies for the lack ok citations.

<comment><USER16> You can see some of that in the participation rates.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Too bad the highest education level in the survey is "Bachelor or higher". I would have really liked to see the impact of having a Master or Phd. I wonder if an education level above Bachelor makes any difference in regard of unemployment or just for income. I am also curious how these numbers looked 30 or 40 years ago.

</comment><comment><USER18> Also interesting:

NY Times: The Jobless Rate for People Like You (2009)

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/econo...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2009/11/06/business/economy/unemployment- lines.html)

Plots unemployment by race, education level, age and sex.

</comment><comment><USER19> So what would a contractor, or an actor, or someone not actor but from the entertainment industry report? Some of those folks are regularly without job for sometimes more than a month, until they are on to a new project...

<comment><USER20> They would probably report as self-employed, although unemployed is possible.

Unemployment in government statistics is an economic-political term basically defined as "people who are able to work, who are actively looking for work and have been for the last 4 weeks"

Its important that they are "actively" searching for work. This is generally (in most countries, including Canada and the United States) defined the same as it is in the relevant welfare codes: looking at job ads, submitting resumes, making physical effort to find a new job (albeit, the extent to which that effort is made is hard to measure)

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This apparently refers to the people registered as unemployed (and who keep registering every week), versus people who do not get a regular paycheck. I am not sure if the latter statistics exists for the US.

<comment><USER11> In the United States, these official statistics are based on sample surveys. There are distinct survey questions about labor force participation and the more narrowly defined concept of "unemployment." Description of the methodology used in the United States is found here:

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/faq.htm>

and, specifically,

<http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm>

The United States federal definition of unemployment and labor force participation are

"Who is counted as unemployed?

"Persons are classified as unemployed if they do not have a job, have actively looked for work in the prior 4 weeks, and are currently available for work.

"Workers expecting to be recalled from layoff are counted as unemployed, whether or not they have engaged in a specific jobseeking activity. In all other cases, the individual must have been engaged in at least one active job search activity in the 4 weeks preceding the interview and be available for work (except for temporary illness).

"Who is not in the labor force?

"Persons not in the labor force are those who are not classified as employed or unemployed during the survey reference week.

"Labor force measures are based on the civilian noninstitutional population 16 years old and over. (Excluded are persons under 16 years of age, all persons confined to institutions such as nursing homes and prisons, and persons on active duty in the Armed Forces.) The labor force is made up of the employed and the unemployed. The remainder--those who have no job and are not looking for one--are counted as 'not in the labor force.' Many who are not in the labor force are going to school or are retired. Family responsibilities keep others out of the labor force."

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Is this normal? Or a recent development?

</comment><comment><USER23> Correlation is not causation, etc.

<comment><USER24>
      > Correlation is not causation, etc.

This certainly is a true and tested adage, but I've got a feeling that the correlation-backlash has gone too far in the other direction. Don't just repeat it without _getting_ it. If substantiated through proposal of a suitable mechanism, correlation is solid corroboration of a causality-claim.

More precisely, correlation most definitely never implies absence of causation.

<comment><USER25> Upvoted because that is the most succint way I've read the response to that common retort in this entire thread.</comment></comment></comment>


Seeing Freedom in Their Future, Psychics Reveal All - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/29/nyregion/the-secret-to-the-psychic-trade-its-in-the-parole-board-transcripts.html <comment><USER2> While I believe it is a scam, I don't think relying on the testimony of someone trying to get parole for abusing their "psychic gifts" is a solid approach for getting to the truth.</comment>


Snowblowing is NP-complete - <AUTHOR> https://punkrockor.wordpress.com/2015/02/09/snowblowing-is-np-complete/ <comment><USER2> I don't understand the reference to lawn-mowing being NP-complete - I thought I had a good algorithm: mow once around the outside, blowing grass inward, to get the edges without hitting things with the exhaust chute, then afterwards mow concentrically, blowing grass outward. Once the width is less than the turning radius of the mower, switch to only mowing along the long axis of the area.

Now, when there are rocks, stumps or trees within the area things get more interesting, depending on your tolerance for having to sharpen the blades...

<comment><USER3> Yards are generally not in shapes that look like mazes crossed with Hilbert space filling curves, which the problem statement permits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Now I feel less bad about the vague suspicion that I was mowing my dad's lawn suboptimally for all those years.

</comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of Sokoban, which is NP-hard [1]

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoban](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sokoban)

</comment><comment><USER6> I don't think the author understands what np complete actually means. I don't think that it is easy to verify that a snow Blown path is optimally efficient. It's interesting to discuss the complexity of day to day tasks, but optimal cleaning seems to be np hard, not np complete. You may think that you have the optimal solution until a friend of yours shows you his solution.

<comment><USER7> The author uses NP-complete correctly. Section 2.2 of the paper establishes the problem is in NP and not merely NP-hard.

Your intuition about verifying optimal solutions has misled you here. Interesting optimization questions such as "shortest" or "best" are conventionally reformulated as decision questions about a particular bound. The verification then becomes easy: check to see, for instance, that the certificate path works and is shorter than the specified bound. A log-time search with such a verifier as a subroutine produces a polynomial verifier for the original optimality question.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for pointing out there was an attached paper!

It seems in section 2.2 the author points out that for a very special case of the snow blower problem, it is np complete ( see section 8 where they show a domain of polygons with holes). This special case might apply to snow blowing narrow paths through a field.

Right afterwards, the authors note that

> "the hardness of SBP in the fixed-throw model and in simple polygons is > open. In fact, we do not even know what the optimal solutions are for simple > cases like a square or rectangular domain."

which to me says that for the domain similar to an open field, or just a very wide pathway, the problem may be more complicated than NP-complete and they have not yet found an optimal solution for it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What if you're raking wind rows... how does that affect the mowing problem? :)</comment>