Jwz: Google's pseudonym support "obvious bullshit" - <AUTHOR> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/eff-declares-premature-victory-in-nymwars/ <comment><USER2> Everyone is also missing the bigger point that Google's idea of a valid real name is incredibly north american and anglo centric. There are plenty of cases of people using their real names, be in European, or African or what ever and google still kicking them off.

Google's policies do not work, and are verging on racist.

I know some people who would be better off using a fake anglo name than their real name to keep using google+. That is defective.

<comment><USER3> Do you have some examples of the cases you refer to?

<comment><USER4> Ironically enough, Chinese residents in Hong Kong who do in fact go by Anglo names (an expression of their mixed cultural heritage in a former British colony) are getting systematically bounced:

[http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=40356...](http://www.google.com/support/forum/p/gmail/thread?tid=40356d87de8509c0&hl=en)

By some accounts, this is the reason for the odd "in one language" qualification in the Google Plus notions of what a "real name" ought to be. FWIW, there's at least one American-born Chinese who's gotten similar treatment: Ping Yee, who got bounced because someone insisted that his only Real Name (TM) was Ka-Ping Yee --- which is what it says on his birth certificate, but which no one (even family) uses much.

<http://zestyping.livejournal.com/259131.html>

What makes this one particularly odd is that Ping is a Google employee (or at least, he was at the time).

I suspect Anglosphere-born Chinese who go by "Alexa Chung", or whatever, aren't getting this level of systematic grief, but that only makes things more ridiculous: why should the acceptability of a name depend on where someone lives?

<comment><USER5> To be totally nitpicky, while Canada is in America, a lot of people might think that by "American-born Chinese" you mean "US-born Chinese", but Ping was born in Canada.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, what a blast of fresh air, reading this. I miss the old Internet, when Aunt Sally still couldn't figure it out and certainly would be horrified to find her birthday party photos posted on it, much less would she even conceive of going and posting them herself _under her real name_.

Why does online marketing have to be built around maintenance of a database of people's Real Identities® ? If it's a page full of comments about guitars, stick a Stratocaster ad on it and be done. The Internet was supposed to be about freedom and personal expression. I used to scoff at things like Second Life and people on BBSes with ridiculously fake avatars, but now we have the horrors of everyday life invading and taking over the "virtual" space, which is less and less virtual every day. Even the visual and auditory carnage of MySpace was preferable to the cookie-cutter sameness of Facebook, helpfully tracking your every single move before you even think to make it, and broadcasting the mundane minutiae of everyday existence to all your "friends".

I used to love Google when it first came out, it beat the pants off Alta Vista and it was a fantastic way to extract cool links from the vastness of the 'net. Now people log on to +1 each other on all the right topics and say all the right things and fit themselves into all the right pigeonholes. What if you want to go online not to maintain your identity as it is now, but to explore new ones? What if you need more than one identity? What if the whole notion of "identity" is something you find burdensome and ultimately repugnant? Well then, there must be something wrong with you and you must have something ghastly and awful to hide.

So yeah, fuck those guys.

<comment><USER7> Unfortunately they are going against the famously unethical and privacy- eroding facebook, which has a real-names policy and the bans to show for it (also, NSA alumni on the board). And besides "the competitor already does it", here is what Google's reasoning may be:

Requiring your real name makes it easier for people you know in real life to find you.

Interactions with people who know you in real life will keep pulling you back in, because these people are harder for you to ignore.

Once you give your real name and the rest of your identity (they have been badgering for phone numbers for a while, to keep your youtube account, or open a google account, or to avoid annoying security/recovery notices when logging to gmail), you won't be asking yourself "should I be sharing this" questions, because you'll be in the habit of trusting them. Other features, like payments, deliveries and phone notifications, won't have to nag you for explicit personal info anymore.

So I think they will offer temporary or per-circle identities at most, while people who want privacy from Google or the US and affiliates will have to fake it while it remains possible, or be shown the door.

<comment><USER6> For what the future holds, we need look no further than the über-Netizens of the world, the South Koreans. If you want to get on Cyworld (30% of the population, 90% of the 20somethings according to Crunchbase), you send in a copy of your national ID card, your home address, phone, etc. and wait to be approved for an account, after which you may post on the site.

I still think there is a hugely underserved market in the social space, comprised of people like me, who don't want an extension of their real life identity to follow them around online. Hacker News is full of people I don't know, but interactions with all these people I don't know are plenty effective at pulling me back into the site.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was the 4th guy at Google and back then they were not evil (duh).

I left to do my own thing but I email Larry and Sergey from time to time and so far they have been pretty cool about listening to me (they have a 747 or whatever it is, I have a Dodge Sprinter, sort of establishes the pecking order, I'm way way down on the list, so the fact that they sometimes listen is cool)

I think that Google wants to not be evil but the whole money thing kinda messes that up.

I also think that they listen. If you want Google to not be evil, it's a lot like wanting our government to not be evil. If you sit back and complain when they get evil, oh, well, that's what you might expect. If you apply pressure that says "hey! don't be evil, we liked that part!" you might be pleasantly surprised.

It's passive or not. If you are passive and unhappy with the results, try being more noisy, I think there are a lot of people that want to do the right thing but if the only noise they hear is from money people who want more money, well, they take care of those people. Make some noise.

<comment><USER9> 4th guy at Google eh? I'd love to see an Ask-Me-Anything post!

<comment><USER8> I doubt you'd be that excited about the reality of that post. I was only there a month before I moved on to do my own thing. It was a fun (and profitable for me) month, but there isn't a lot of light I can shed on the workings of google from such a short stay.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hypothesis: Google data indicates that pseudonymous users make a net-negative contribution to the quality of an online community (c.f. The WELL). They want a real name not for any commercial reason, but to hold users accountable for their behaviour. Google's real names policy for G+ isn't part of some complex conspiracy, but in fact standard Google practice - following the data, even when the data contradicts what users say they want.

Is it evil to put the interests of the entire network above the interests of a small minority? If you can say for sure, you're either an ideologue or you've solved the most fundamental problem of politics.

Personally, I think there's room on the spectrum for a variety of standards of identity. At one end there's 4chan, at the other carefully-vetted private communities. In the middle you've got sites that require a "real" e-mail address, or Something Awful charging $10 to join. Google's real names policy is distinctly flawed in execution, I think largely as a result of scale, but I don't think it's a fundamentally bad idea and certainly not categorically evil.

<comment><USER11> I think the biggest problem for me is the assumption that there needs to exist a mapping between First/Last name and identity. Its the abutment of two constructs made arbitrary by the media (names and physical self), with the assumption that what emerges is more "real" and thus more consequential to the agent driving it.

It's complete bullshit and flies in the face of history, not just what is "right."

<comment><USER12> To take an example from "history". Ask a random person on the street who Ioseb Besarionis dze Jughashvili, and most of them will be completely clueless. Ask them who Stalin was, and they'll at least have a rough idea...

<comment><USER13> Totally off topic, maybe. Examples like yours are used, I've noticed, a great deal in the history lessons of James Burke ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historia...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Burke_%28science_historian%29)). He regularly describes what someone did, using an uncommonly-known name. Then uses the name everyone knows as a fun little reveal at the end of section.

Why not totally off-topic... Well, he also seems to use it so that he can focus on the person's actions in the descriptive context of the person's time/inventions which he has been using up to that point. See, if he brought in the well-known name early, then he well effectively be changing the subject from what he was talking about to what people know about the famous person. And that harms his attempt to show a new angle on the well-known person. This is Somewhat similar to a pseudonym allowing an position/argument to float free from the particular individual stating it, and thus be judged on its own merits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think he's missing a distinction here.

There's people's right not to have their name associated with stuff in public. Either because they've established a pseudonym they want to be associated with or they want to speak freely without risking harm to their career, family, etc... That's what I consider pseudonymity and that might take a while to implement.

Then there's straight up privacy. That's what he's talking about. The right for you not to be forced to share your name with Google when using a Google sponsored service.

I can understand why a person would be concerned with both but I consider both to be different things

<comment><USER15> > _That's what I consider pseudonymity_

But that's not what pretty much everyone pushing pseudonymity in this fight considers pseudonymity, so your distinction is not very helpful.

<comment><USER14> Was there a vote I was unaware of?

(Sorry, the unflinching confidence in your statement made the snarkyness irresistible to me)

I realize there's a spectrum to every debate and it's sometimes hard to know where the fringe is. But I have to assume most people realize Google has the right to know who they are providing a service to.

Again, I see the distinction here between Google knowing your name (which I think they have the right to do) and Google using your name to build a whole database on you (which I don't support). But these are all privacy issues.

Pseudonymity is about how you present yourself to the community at large and to the best of my knowledge it always has been. For example, Samuel Clemens published under Mark Twain but his publisher paid Samuel Clemens.

<comment><USER16> Are you sure that the publisher paid Samuel Clemens, or are you just assuming that? Things like that are often directed through lawyers in order to maintain the pseudonym. Writers often take pseudonyms seriously, one reason being because what you write could have consequences in your real life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'm sick of these posts. What I got out of the article was "I think I know how Google should design its product, and thus I deem decisions not in agreement to be total bullshit."

Personally, I prefer to respect the work they've put into the product and to accept that they may have insights deeper than mine. It's evident from Google's announcement that they see more complex issues around pseudonyms, and I will form an opinion after I see their changes. I do not understand this attitude of "Fuck those guys" - so much anger over a social network!

<comment><USER18> Why do you think they're hiding these "deeper insights," do they think we're too stupid to understand?

<comment><USER19> Hiding one's deeper insights into a market's dynamics is frequently a competitive advantage.

<comment><USER18> If these Google insights into the undesirability of anonymity are so hidden, can they even be said to exist? As the poster asserts?

<comment><USER19> Asking if a hidden insight can exist is a peculiar phrasing, but anyway, one example I can think of is some study that demonstrated people using their real names were 50% more likely to remain active users two years after registration. Or "abuse", however defined, was reduced by 40%. Whatever. The point is that if Google keeps such knowledge secret, other networks that allow anonymous users will be at a competitive disadvantage.

I have no idea what such effects may be, I only allow for the possibility they exist.

<comment><USER18> Seems like pretty thin reasoning to hang the (great-) grandparent's assertion.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Solution: Don't use Google+ to speak out against your authoritarian government. "Fuck those guys" is a pretty strong response to people who've decided their product isn't for you.

<comment><USER21> I agree. Also, why is this kind of post even on the front page? There was just a short speculative paragraph ended by an expletive.

Google releases one product you don't like and people are "deserting" all their products. How childish can you get?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _I'll bet they still require you to register with your "real" name, but then they'll graciously allow you to have a linked nickname or two,_

I agree, and I think this is probably the right thing for them to do. (Well, probably stop kicking people off, too.) And I think they're probably doing this in an attempt to allow people to better represent themselves in the ways that they choose, and more in line with how they can offline. I just wrote this today: [http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/11670022371/intimacy-is- perfo...](http://blog.byjoemoon.com/post/11670022371/intimacy-is-performance)

 _meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you to authoritarian governments or advertisers at the drop of a hat._

I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout the law? Or just not gather any of the information in the first place? What purpose would this have for them, in that case?

Seems fairly obvious that anyone who's really worried about authoritarian governments or advertisers shouldn't be using google products.

<comment><USER15> > > _meaning they're still fully prepared to roll over on you_

> _I'm not sure what the suggestion is here. They should be prepared to flout > the law?_

Why would you draw that inference? JWZ seems to be presuming the opposite, i.e. that Google plans to comply with the law---and since they will have carefully collected legal names to go with every account, they can be maximally helpful to the authoritarian governments who want to track users down.

> _Or just not gather any of the information in the first place?_

This one. Or at least, if not "any of the information", maybe not gather _all_ of the information. Permit users to associate their account with their established pseudonym and provide exactly as many RL details as they feel comfortable providing.

<comment><USER23> The idea that Google having your Real Name via Google+ helps them be helpful to governments (authoritarian or otherwise) is... odd.

If a government wants to tie a Google account to a Real Name, they have plenty of options:

\- get a history of IP addresses that accessed the account and contact the relevant ISPs

\- track other Google accounts logged into from a similar pattern of IP addresses and see if there's a Real Name for any of them

\- look at the content associated with the account (e.g. email), which may reveal the Real Name and/or give pointers to other services (e.g. Paypal) that might well have it

\- if you use an Android phone with the Google account in question, Google can tie the account to a SIM and an IMEI. If the SIM is postpaid (or even prepaid in many countries), that will directly lead to a Real Name (note: authoritarian governments are very likely to require all SIMs be associated with a Real Name). Even if a prepaid SIM isn't directly associated with a Real Name, there still could be a payment trail for the SIM and/or top-ups ...

\- probably other angles I haven't thought of yet

These are additional steps, but many of them are easy because they involve actors (e.g. ISPs, carriers, credit card processors) that are known for cooperating with governments (and sometimes even private actors like the MPAA & RIAA). Beyond that, anyone trying to tie a Google account to a Real Name is likely to do some or all of these things anyway to check whether or not you lied to Google.

Giving Google your Real Name for Google+ affects whether or not they can use it. If you're not happy with how Google is going to use your Real Name, Google+ isn't for you (and probably wasn't even without the pseudonym issue, since you have concerns about Google's business practices). Giving your Real Name to Google for Google+ doesn't meaningfully change whether or not a government (or other entity in a position to legally compel Google) can tie your Google account to a Real Name.

<comment><USER24> All of those methods are very easily avoidable by somebody who wants to remain anonymous. And Google complying with a subpeona or National Security Letter is certainly not odd, and should be expected since Google is law-abiding.

If you have not heard of National Security Letters,

>between 2003 and 2005 the FBI issued more than 140,000 specific demands under this provision -- demands issued without a showing of probable cause or prior judicial approval -- to obtain potentially sensitive information about U.S. citizens and residents.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/03...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp- dyn/content/article/2007/03/22/AR2007032201882.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> While I don't know what their plans are, I think it's reasonable to require you declare whether your the name you use is your real name or a pseudonym, which is a non trivial change.

</comment><comment><USER26> If Google still requires you to use your real name to register but allows you to show only a pseudonym, the problem ceases to exist because there is no one able to rat you out.

That is, unless they write an algorithm that checks for "Dear realname" in your emails and compares it to your purported name & pseudonym. Yuck.

<comment><USER27> the point is that Google is still able to rat you out (on a warrant or a subpoena)

If you wanted to use the platform to protest against the government, or if you fucked the head of CIA's wife and he found out your g-mail address on her phone, you might be in deep shit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Great. Another opinionated post with no substance that reaches number one. What is this garbage? It's not like this person even has any first-hand knowledge of anything with regards to the cited excerpt. Why would anyone upvote such a short, speculative rant?

<comment><USER29> Because:

1) The short, speculative rant is well-reasoned. If you disagree with his reasoning that Google saying it will take "months" to implement pseudonyms implies that their solution is significantly more complicated than simply "stop deleting accounts with names we don't like", it would be conducive to discussion if you explained _your_ reasoning.

2) This short, speculative, well-reasoned rant is written by JWZ, whose insight and wisdom is held in wide regard by many, many people. He's earned the right to have his speculations taken seriously many, many times over.

<comment><USER30> I'm afraid I'm spitting into the wind here, but..

Let's say there is a right way and a wrong way to do pseudonyms (empirical evidence: YouTube, HN).

You think Google would haphazardly enable them as JWZ proposes without making damn sure they had the best chances of it turning out the right way rather than the wrong way?

Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years (I believe he said that in an interview recently). I think JWZ is vastly oversimplifying the careful testing that Vic and co. are putting into this. If you believed the company's livelihood depended on it, wouldn't you?

<comment> buff-a Lets say that in a system where you go to this huge effort to develop and then advertise a self-selection system (circles) that there is no wrong way to do pseudonyms.

 _Larry Page thinks without Google+, Google is doomed in 10 years_

I'm a google fan boy. I use apps, gmail, gae. Today I deleted my google+ account. So if Page thinks that without Google+, Google is doomed, why (to paraphrase Vilos Cohaagen) is he fucking making it happen?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> buff-a Yeah, I killed my Google+ account today.

</comment><comment><USER31> How did this post get so popular? Google isn't doing any of this behind your back. If you don't want to share your identity with Google, don't use their services. Simple as that.

It is no secret that Google is a corporation. The only thing that matters to a corporation is to make money. Google doesn't spend millions on improving their search engine and developing a fantastic social networking service because of some altruistic motive. Don't be so naive as to expect companies like Google and Facebook to adhere to your idealistic views of privacy and anonymity if that means a reduction in profit.

Direct your energy to keeping the internet free. As long as we have that, we can represent ourselves however we like by being able to choose which services we use.

<comment><USER32> but what about people who do want to share their real identity with Google but who are banned from google?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I'm shocked that they haven't come down on William James Adams, who seems to have managed to set up a profile under the name "will.i.am".

<https://plus.google.com/109351399938437494273/posts>

</comment><comment><USER34> I've been using Google pretty regularly for the past 11 years, and have had a gmail account since soon after it was announced. However with the release of Plus and the revelation of their policies on "real names", I've come to realize that I no longer trust google.

Gmail accounts can be effectively anonymous. Yet plus accounts cannot be?

Google does not need anyone's real name in order to track and advertise to them. I'm fine with google tracking and advertising to me. Assign me some arbitrary UID and give me a 20 year cookie you refresh whenever I load a page with adwords or visit plus or login to gmail. I've been fine with that, all along.

But requiring a real name, tells me that google doesn't just want to track me to advertise to me. They want to correlate my online activities with my offline identity.

I consider that a violation of my privacy.

And so, I'm removing myself from google. I'm setting up mail services elsewhere, I'm migrating my Google Apps and App Engine accounts to other services. I've stopped using Plus, and as I move things elsewhere I'm deleting them from google.

For me, they've gone too far, and I no longer trust them.

Hell, even their search results have been in steep decline lately, so DuckDuckGo, here I come!

PS-- I agree with jwz. The only reason that it would take months to implement is because they're using some authoritative method - maybe ISP customer info, or government supplied info- to correlate users to reveal real identity. I don't see this recent change as google actually relenting on the issue.

<comment><USER35> What are the best alternatives for email?

<comment><USER6> Don't know about best, but www.fastmail.fm/help/overview_features.html is pretty cool. It is what it says, fast. No graphics, clean web interface, runs quick on anything, including crappy old hardware or phones. Opera recently bought them so if you run Opera on your phone it is especially nice. Very reliable, hardly ever down and on the rare occasions it goes down it's usually back up within minutes. You can hook up pretty much any client you like, of course. And they don't read your mail to serve you ads.

<comment><USER36> I recently converted to Fastmail. $20/year for spam protection and a 1GB inbox. For my personal mail on my Android phone it's gold.

They have a lot of nice features for configurability too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> One of the commenters on that article says: "The idea that anyone should ever need to show ID to use a social network is so fucked up that I find it astonishing that it is a point of discussion." Not really. I recall, in 199x, that a BBS required me to physically mail a copy of my driver's license, along with my payment, before they would give me access. It wasn't an "adult" BBS. I think that the requirement was that I was at least 18, just so that they wouldn't get into trouble over anything that might happen with regard to age minimums. Rather than the exception, the idea of showing ID, to use a social network, used to be considered a normal part of doing business.

</comment><comment><USER38> Does anyone else find it silly that Jamie Zawinski uses his real name on Facebook?

<comment><USER38> lol, great responses.</comment></comment>


Facebook not trusting heroku domain redirects? - <AUTHOR>

Facebook shows this message when someone opens my _.heroku.com website redirected from a facebook message/post.<p>"Facebook thinks this site may be unsafe. If you're not familiar with it, please provide feedback by marking it as spam (you'll be brought back to Facebook)."<p>Since when did facebook start doing this?? Does anyone else have this issue? <comment><USER2> I haven't faced it yet. I'll let you guy know when i get too see it.

</comment><comment><USER3> we are facing this as well just recently. haven't found a work around at this point. Anyone else?</comment>


An (may be dumb) idea that stroke me. please tell me what you think. - <AUTHOR> https://docs.google.com/document/pub?id=1mG3AWD3YK5xvjjAs75X2BmSyqdSPVyUzA53XvU5cHDc

<comment><AUTHOR> Project Description:

A website that will collect donations of used clothes and deliver them to people who really need them. Please contact me: elvirs /at/ gmail /dot/ com

Givers:

       1. Will have to:

       1. Register on the webpage
       2. Submit new donation. Mentioning name of each item, best date/time to pick up.

       2. To stimulate motivation and satisfaction will be able to:

       1. Monitor which of their items have been requested, shipped to where.
       2. Receive anonymous thank-you note from the buyer.
       3. Mention special notes on where the items can go to.

Takers:

       3. Will have to:

       1. Register on the webpage filling out their contact info and physical address.
       2. Enter their sizes and type of clothing they need.
       3. Confirm if the shipping has arrived or no.
       4. (Optional) Leave feedback/thank-you for the items they have received.

       4. To prevent abuse and ensure fairness won't be able to :

       1. Browse among all of the available stock and request anything they want.
       2. Request more than a certain number of items per person.
       3. Request more than a certain number of items for certain period of time per person.
       4. Request items that were not mentioned as needed.

We:

       1. Notify a cargo company to pick up the items and ship them to the storage
       2. Dry clean arrived items, take photos of items and enter full description of items to the website
       3. Notify eligible takers about new relevant items.
       4. Ship the package when request has been approved.
       5. Notify the giver and taker about the shipment.

Alternatives to cover shipping, dry cleaning and operational costs:

       1. Ask cargo companies fully or partially sponsor the shipping

       1. In return put their banners on the website, on packages, etc.

       2. Ask dry cleaning companies fully or partially sponsor the dry  cleaning

       1. In return put their banners on the website, on packages, etc.

       3. Charge small amount of money for most requested and/or valuable items available
       4. Sell advertisements on website
       5. Accept money donations
       6. Ask takers to cover their shipment costs.

<comment><USER2> "A website that will collect donations of used clothes and deliver them to people who really need them."

This makes it sound like a kind of charity but your description does not, who is the target audience here?

<comment><AUTHOR> actually it is a kind of charity. the purpose is to establish an efficient channel of distribution of clothing to people in need. target audience is people who can not afford to buy new clothes at boutique stores but have to wear something and people who buy new clothing constantly and have clothing that they do not wear anymore. btw, it is not a business idea, nobody is trying to get rich. it just stroke me and i wanted to check if the world really needs something like this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> As far as I know, there are bins for that in a lot of places as well as just calling Salvation Army and other existing groups. Solution for problem that does not exist.

<comment><USER4> _Solution for problem that does not exist_

Yup - that's my reading of the situation as well. I'm moving to London in a few weeks so have been cleaning house for months. Both my beautiful wife and I have rounded up a LOT of clothes in good condition that aren't useful to us anymore - these were put into bags, and I did multiple runs to nearby charity bin _at a time when the motivation struck me_. Five minutes from thought to being rid of the clothes.

It was easy as pie to do so, and those clothes will be sold for cents on the dollar to people who need them _who can go to any number of thrift stores and take immediate possession_. Easy browsing, no shipping costs or time or web access to consider.

Good to see someone chasing charitable projects online. This one doesn't strike me as being practical, but perhaps the next idea will be.

<comment><AUTHOR> thanks for your comment, made many things clear.</comment></comment></comment>


The Evolution of the Male Falsetto - <AUTHOR> https://frieze.com/article/evolution-male-falsetto <comment><USER2> This article mentions pop voice specifically, but doesn't delve into the actual physiological phenomena associated with head voice/falsetto, in part because of current limitations at understanding how we make sound. Male head voice and falsetto are related to crico-thyroid (antagonistic muscles to vocal folds) dominant phonation, as opposed to thyro-arytenoid (vocal fold) dominant phonation. The differences from there can be attributed to a number of additional factors, like subglottic air-pressure or pharyngeal shape. If you're interested in further reading or research on the subject, the writings of Richard Miller or Ingo Titze would be great places to explore.

</comment><comment><USER3> Falsetto in rock has a strong relationship to the low mid content of electric guitars.

This means a vocalist needs to get in the upper register to have sonic space.

Some of the best rock vocalists of all time, for example axl rose and Chris Cornell, are actually low baritones singing almost exclusively in an idiosyncratic blended falsetto.

Related: pre distorted electric guitars, baritones were considered the most attractive in pop music... Elvis was a tenor who sang in the baritone register, I believe.

<comment><USER4> The first time I heard Axl Rose speak in an interview I couldn't believe how deep his voice was! Listening to basically every GnR song had led me to expect a much higher pitched voice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> There's a bit of a debate over the definition of falsetto. It's either synonymous with "head voice," or it's a breathy, disconnected head voice sound. As long as it's connected, with a good singing, you might not even be able to tell where it begins. It's like the difference between Journey and the Bee Gees.

<comment><USER6> Really?

I'm not sure where the debate would lie; falsetto is a clearly identifiable physical voice register that, without deliberate training, sounds quite different from the usual 'modal' voice. Futhermore, there is generally no 'in- between'\--it's either one register or the other. Some singers can switch between the two without audible seams, but it's very difficult.

<comment><USER7> When I sing a scale in head voice starting on a high note going down on low/mid volume, it seems to be quite seemless. I suppose on higher volumes, its easier to notice for me personally.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> >> Plant is the original metal vocalist

Actually, Led Zeppelin are not metal. And it's strange to read an article that praises male metal vocalists for their falsettos without even a passing mention to the indisputable god of all metal falsettists, gay and straight alike, whose name I don't even have to actually say. He is that conspicuous by his absence in that article.

Oh, alright. I mean Rob Halford. Who writes an article about falsetto vocalists and leaves out the man who sang this?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM__lPTWThU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nM__lPTWThU) (Painkiller)

Or this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkRRdkPTtg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGkRRdkPTtg) (Exciter)

Or this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tv-e9DJqK4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8tv-e9DJqK4) (The Sentinel)

Or, well, this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_1hLiqwq7c](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_1hLiqwq7c) (Heavy Metal)

</comment><comment><USER9> Makes me think of the "diva dance" song from Fifth Element, which was thought couldn't be sung.

Here it is sung by Dimash Kudaibergen, a 25 yo Kazakh:

[https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23HYymUjIHE&t=3m32s](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=23HYymUjIHE&t=3m32s) (at 3m30s)

He is university trained in classical as well as in contemporary music and is known for his wide vocal range of 6 octaves, from D2 to D8 (and 6 octaves and 5 semitones, from A1 to D8, with vocal fry). This spans from the bottom of the bass range beyond the top of the soprano range.

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

You can hear more typical range in the first half of that video.

</comment><comment><USER10> I find it odd that there is no mention of the counter-tenor voice in classical music. I suppose that a lot of the parts now taken by counter-tenors were originally written for castratos, but there have been quite a few pieces written since those days.

<comment><USER11> Really good article about countertenor (both history and a current star) from last month in the New Yorker[0]

[0] [https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/22/a-millennial-c...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2019/07/22/a-millennial- countertenors-pop-star-appeal)

<comment><USER10> Most interesting, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> It's disappointing there was no mention of King Diamond!

<comment><USER5> Can't say I really wanted to read about Adam Levine, so I'm happy he was left out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> i'm assuming article is resurfacing now because of the vox earworm video from earlier this week. if you haven't seen it yet, it's a good watch (like all the earworm videos)

[https://www.vox.com/2019/8/13/20801974/we-charted-pop- music-...](https://www.vox.com/2019/8/13/20801974/we-charted-pop-music- falsetto)

</comment><comment><USER14> The trick with falsetto is to transition flawlessly to and from. Singers have to work on extending it downward. If you stay in falsetto while reaching for low notes, that's when things can awkwardly falter. There has to be decent overlap with the regular voice (" _modal voce_ "), for easy transitioning.

Singing with too much falsetto is annoying; it should just be used to reach a few high notes, IMHO. If someone has to falsetto the whole song, it's in the wrong key or register for them.

In the 1970's, supposedly, radio stations used to advertize "Bee-Gee-free weekends", ha.

</comment><comment><USER15> I can't directly disagree with anything in the article. However it's a bit shocking to me to hear about influential singers using falsetto for parts of their songs and not even a mention John Lennon, Geddy Lee, or Howard Jones in passing.

</comment><comment><USER16> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HQh29nQcvs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_HQh29nQcvs) If you haven't seen this as a viral post years ago, a great example of falsetto.</comment>


Contract for the Web - <AUTHOR> https://contractfortheweb.org/?2019 <comment><USER2> Irony: the contract for the web, while giving you the option to control your cookie settings at first glance just drops to a prompt that all cookies are strictly necessary, so you should just accept them, because they are a request for service.

No wonder Google and Facebook signed on so quick! They'd be happy to give the appearance of accommodating to grant you control, whilst in reality nudging you right back toward the typical exploitation path.

Furthermore, some of the principles seem to be self-defeating. "Gender responsive" and most of the principles that have to do with "systemically underserved groups" assume the capability to granularly determine or "target" those in that group; something that defeats the purpose of not being able to isolate one group or another from service. This is one of those cases where setting access constraints on a geographic basis would actually be helpful, as it removes any semblance of an individual's identifying information or circumstance (except geographic location) from the equation.

Will update as I get further, just got through the government section, and I'm liking what I see in general, but I still feel that there is a heck of a lot of concession in the form of implicitly playing exploitative behavior by large actors getting enshrined in this thing.

Edit:

Under "Keep the Internet available all the time", there are the typical carve outs for trying to allow content takedowns in ways grounded in law, but consistent with human rights without any concession to any of the problems such a carve out creates. See copyright trolling, DMCA abuse, et al.

Government protection and establishment of data rights is actually pretty good.

The Companies section is basically a regurgitation of the Government principles with slightly modified language. No comments offered with regards to multi-nationals, or any responsibility to not act in a parasitic manner to the user base at large. Again, I can see Google and Facebook buying into this, because legalistically speaking they can say they've already done most everything, and there is no implied commitment to actually do or remedy any of the socially unhealthy things they engage in as business verticals.

Principle 6 has the potential to become problematic, as what is the "best" and "worst" of humanity changes with the beholder. I.e. businesswise, the worst aspects of human nature drive the best KPI's; so from their point of view given massive blinders, they'd be doing exactly what they are supposed to on the tin.

The Citizen section is okay; though 8 still enshrined traceability of groups. Building that in just seems to be championing the process of using web-based metadata collection as a viable course of doing business, and does nothing to condemn targeting of specific groups.</comment>


Why BlackBerry Storm Is An iPhone (and G-1) Killer - <AUTHOR> http://gigaom.com/2008/10/29/blackberry-storm-should-be-blackberry-stealth/ <comment><USER2> For a long time I was an unflappable Blackberry fanboy. The reality of the situation currently is this:

1) Enterprise ready isn't the unique feature it was 18 months ago. ActiveSync on WM no longer sucks to the point it lowers the barametric pressure in the area (although that's about all the compliments I have for it), the iPhone has compelling Exchange integration, and I have heard good things about Nokia's Exchange support (will know more when my wife's E71 arrives this weekend).

Having to pay an extra $15/mo/device for BES service, plus BES server hardware + BES license fees, just to maintain parity with the other products is a _huge_ disadvantage. The best thing they could do is walk away from BES, but the carriers won't do it because it's margin for them.

2) They release phones _so slowly_. I appreciate that the build and radio quality of the phones are top notch, but slipping announced release dates (AT&T BB Bold, at least Sept-Nov, and maybe Jul/Aug-Nov) is not cool. I don't know if that's AT&T's fault or RIM's fault, but the whole process is under control of two major corporations -- get it together. If the Storm's release happens at all similarly, it better have iPhone v3 killing features -- that's what it's going to be competing with.

3) The BB App store has a 2009 release date and appears to be a me-too announcement. Unless there's some magic that has escaped announcement, it's not going to be a notable feature at all.

<comment><USER3> They also have an awful browser. The bold I tried couldn't even load Slashdot - it just died. Even the S60 browser can manage to load it, albeit badly.

<comment><USER2> I wrote that before lunch when I was hungry and cranky. I saw that it was going downhill, so I shut it down. The browser situation is something I didn't cover, but it truly is the most awful smartphone browser experience.

By far the most charitable thing I've heard about the blackberry browser is that the phones can all run Opera Mini.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I find in the past, once something was labeled an X-killer, it wasn't ever as successful as X. These labels are cute for getting clicks but lack in substance.

<comment><USER5> The iPhone was an "other smartphone"-killer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I don't really feel the article hit on too many "killing" points and wasn't deep enough to support his claims that it will beat out the iPhone. He didn't even mention the G1 in the article (aside from the title).

Also, the [Insert Product Name] Killer is getting stale fast.

<comment><USER7> Just reading the article, it looked to me like the "clickable" touchscreen has the potential to be a "killer" feature -- or, barring that, a widely copied one.

I haven't heard of any touchscreens that distinguish between pointing at something and clicking it, without adding an additional tap gesture or a press of an external button. Allowing both actions in a touchscreen interface combines the expressive power of a mouse (hot zones, tooltips) with the intuition of a touchscreen. It also lets you distinguish between a swipe and a drag -- gestures that are intuitive with this pointing device but difficult or impossible with others.

This feature gives Blackberry a slight edge, like the iPhone's multitouch... Actually, in light of the swipe/drag distinction, I think this feature is more desirable than multitouch. Looking at Apple's recent laptop touchpads, it's obvious that they, too, see the value in such a feature; I wouldn't be surprised to see a similarly clickable screen appear in a future iPhone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have found the iPhone to be good at everything except being a phone. We have two in the family (a v1 and a v2), both on the same network as me (I have a Razr). I get great reception with the Razr where the iPhones don't. Dropping calls is common for them. My phone is my business line and I can't risk that. A good alternative would be nice (or a better iPhone!).

Anybody else have these issues with the iPhone?

</comment><comment><USER9> What's the development environment like? I know you can use Java ME, but is that it?

<comment><USER10> The SDK is much like Android's. That is, it implements the full java language, then provides J2ME classes as well as its own Java packages.

The J2ME stuff is there so it can run old apps, but when you're writing a BlackBerry app, you typically use the net.rim.blackberry.* classes, as they provide a ton of extra functionality, UI etc (similar to how on Android you use the android.* classes)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> gigaom is the new cnet. nothing to see. move along.

</comment><comment><USER12> it's basically an iPhone clone, which will allow them to remain in the market for a short while longer.

<comment><USER10> You're aware the iPhone wasn't the first full screen touch-based smartphone on the market, right? Apart from that, what exactly the Storm 'cloning'? Or is 'cloning' some new slang for providing a ton of functionality which is either non-existent or broken on the iPhone?

<comment><USER12> by clone, i mean it offers the same thing that the iPhone already does. it's practically a genetically identical. i mean if it could only connect to itunes seamlessly...

<comment><USER10> Let's see. Product X comes out with functionality A. Product Y comes out with functionality A, B and C. Product Y is therefore a clone, because it offers a superset of the features?

But hey, let's apply your argument to the iPhone itself. You see, the iphone is a clone of the LG Prada, since the Prada came out months before that and the iPhone offered the same thing... Believe that doesn't make any sense to people without an Apple fanboy mindset.

<comment><USER12> a clone of a clone is a clone

iphone is a clone. so?

i don't get what you're complaining about. if storm came out first i'd say iphone is a storm clone. butthurt much?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Mark Zuckerberg Agrees to Give Away Fortune - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703493504576007982500939482.html?mod=djemalertTECH <comment><USER2> Fantastic.

I wonder if all these very public proclamations are going to shift people's attitude towards taxes? Most people think of the government as wasteful, inefficient, incompetent, and corrupt to more or less degrees, and I know I'd prefer to see money allocated by smart people like Gates, Buffet, Zuckerberg than by politicians who need to keep constituents happy and win votes.

I committed a while back to giving 10% of my income to charity henceforth, probably for my whole life. I know I've felt much better when I raised money for St. Jude's or Grand Ormond Street children's hospitals than when I wrote a check to the IRS to fund the latest special interest-fueled debacle.

There's a "the evil rich are against us" narrative in movies and stories a lot, but I wonder if the perception will start to change when all the good from these endeavors is realized. I think it's quite likely that smart people allocating resources intelligently will do 10x, 20x, 50x more good with the money than a politician possibly could.

<comment><USER3> I don't like estate taxes. Governments are typically terrible financial stewards and bad examples of financial responsibility. Give the government one billion and it will find a way to spend two.

But I also don't like the idea of a permanent aristocratic class where generation after generation are born into opulence because your great grandfather created a great company.

The movement towards philanthropy is a great alternative as long there are clearly defined and applied metrics of success. Gates Foundation does a good job at this. If you claim you're going to change the world, but you can't prove it, you won't get funding again.

<comment><USER4> I'd argue one of the points of estate taxes (which are heavily favored by Buffet, Gates, et. al) is to encourage you to will your fortunes to philanthropy - so it doesn't end up in the hands of the government.

<comment><USER5> The biggest lobbies for increased estate taxes are life insurance companies:

[http://blogs.forbes.com/hanisarji/2010/12/01/life- insurance-...](http://blogs.forbes.com/hanisarji/2010/12/01/life-insurance- industry-is-spending-millions-lobbying-for-the-estate-tax-afbfs-latest-issue- brief/)

"The estate tax is a cash cow for the life insurance industry – and the industry's lobbyists guard it zealously...[o]nly three industries – pharmaceuticals, electric utilities, and oil and gas – spent more over the same period."

<comment><USER6> Of which Buffet owns several. Which may or may not play a role in his support.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't think it does. The life insurance contribution to Berkshire Hathaway results is quite small. The bulk of the income is from reinsurance and P/C activities.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> After someone asked Warren Buffet why he wanted to give away all of his fortune, he replied:

"I want to leave enough money to my children that they can do anything, but no so much that they will do nothing".

<comment><USER7> The British entrepreneur and investor Peter Jones also worried about that problem and decided to double any money his children earned for themselves.

<comment><USER8> I don't like that as an incentive. For a start, it keeps your children in your financial orbit for the rest of your life. Secondly, it communicates to your children that you _don't_ expect them ever to make as much money as you did.

Whenever I wish I were super-wealthy, I try to remember that super wealth probably just creates all sorts of problems when raising children. If I ever _do_ get super wealthy I'll plan to spend all but a few million dollars, secretly and out of sight of the children, before they reach the age of twelve, so that I don't have to worry about them growing up with the typical rich-kid problems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I happen to have just watched a brilliant TED talk on the value of angel investment (not aid) in Africa. The talk underlined how it is capitalism rather than charity that creates wealth.

It would be wonderful to see some of SV's glitterati create more for-profit investment networks (bigger than Kiva, smaller than VC (...YC?)) in other hungry markets.

Kudos to Mark for committing to this. If he applies his product-brilliance to how he goes about it I'm sure he will do wonderful things.

(Alexis this has your name written all over it BTW ;)

<comment><USER10> I will bet anyone that 20 years from now we will see that China's "greedy" investment in Africa has done more good than all the decades and $billions of "selfless" western aid, both public and private.

And I also will bet that privatized school systems will perform better than public school bureaucracies that receive hundred million dollar gifts.

The invisible hand is puckish like that.

<comment><USER11> I'll happily take that bet — but please check the local situation first.

You remember the Oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and its impact on local business? There has been the same disaster, continuously for decades, thanks to oil extractions by "greedy" Shell. Somali pirates? They were fighting illegal radioactive dumps that contaminated their food, that were more "lean and efficient" to leave there rather then properly process. When locals are up in arms, the local economy rarely benefit.

According to friends who worked for the UN or US Aid, there is far worst to come, thanks to Chinese company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I think if Mark wanted to give back to the world he should do what Elon Musk is doing and start high risk businesses that can create widespread beneficial change in the world.

<comment><USER13> by consuming government money making sports cars? Please, no, Mark.

<comment><USER14> Starting with sports cars seems like a good plan to me. Let the people who can afford to pay a premium help fund development of the technology which can then be used in cheaper cars for the masses.

A lot of automobile technology is developed in race cars like Formula 1 many years before making it's way into mainstream cars.

I can't comment on the government subsidies though.

<comment><USER13> of course not. it doesn't matter if government takes over venture funding. its not like they're bad at stuff

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'd rather see more people following the lead of Elon Musk than Bill Gates. Instead of throwing money at problems that will always exist and producing no real value, Musk is creating high-tech jobs and advancing the state of humanity.

<comment><USER16> It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed a quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems that will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces no "real value."

<comment><USER2> > It's certainly a testament to the power of perspective that you've dismissed > a quarter of the planet living sick, hungry, and in poverty as "problems > that will always exist", and decided that doing something about it produces > no "real value."

Can we spare the moral condemnations? Today's advances in the cutting edge of sciences become the life-saving and enhancing cheap commodities of the future, and being skeptical that poverty can ever be truly defeated isn't exactly a radical position.

That said, I agree with you more than the original poster, and I think philanthropy is fantastic. But let's spare the moral condemnations and shaming of someone who has an alternative point of view.

<comment><USER16> I find it a really shameful comment. It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars per (e.g. <http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities>). I'd like to hear why that is not real value. No doubt most First World businesses produce technology and efficiency advancements that are genuinely useful, but I doubt that very many are _that_ useful.

I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some _convincing_ math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. I condemn it without reservation.

<comment><USER2> > I find it a really shameful comment.

You can still debate the merits civilly - and that makes it more likely to actually change someone's opinion than just expressing outrage.

> It seems like unbelievably wishful thinking to claim that high-tech startups > are the most important thing everyone should be doing when the going rate > for saving lives from tuberculosis or malaria is in the hundreds of dollars > per

There's no conflict here. New technology saves lives, often by use in unexpected ways. Eradicating disease saves lives. They're both good.

> I can't imagine how you could hold the original poster's view as stated > unless you literally don't value human life very much, or you have done some > convincing math about how much good Tesla Motors is likely to do the world. > I condemn it without reservation.

You don't see how electric cars could save lives? Coupled with better batteries and advanced nuclear power, it goes a long way towards obsoleting fossil fuels and driving down the costs of transportation. That's _huge_ \- lower pollution and lower costs on _everything_ \- medicine, food, housing - lower transport costs makes _everything_ more affordable.

As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be.

<comment><USER16> _As for the condemnation? Why not just, y'know, state your point of view without the moral condemnation? I don't think it adds much to the discussion. By the way, I'm more in agreement with you than the OP, though I think it's a bit more nuanced than you make it out to be._

Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them.

Having electric cars that are more efficient and cleaner than existing cars would be great, and it would save a lot of energy and labor, but the amount of money and effort spent on attaining that goal is far greater than what (e.g.) Tesla is spending individually; it's the net total of many years of research and many years yet to come of implementation and manufacturing. (That is, it's not like Elon Musk is singlehandedly bringing us to an era of ubiquitous electric vehicles.) It strains my credibility to imagine that the same money and man-hours, if they were allocated with equal passion toward education, disease, or the elimination of poverty, would not turn a much greater ROI over a few decades than more efficient cars.

Our current situation is such that thanks to culture, incentives, and human nature, ninety-nine percent of educated, able people with the ability and drive to work very hard, decide to work at some personally profitable business or industry. I am not inclined to take the remaining one percent and criticize them for plucking what seems like extremely low-hanging fruit from the other tree.

The choir is my favorite place for preaching so I'm glad you agree!

<comment><USER15> > _Well, mostly because my comments read more dramatically when I take the > opportunity to cast a good antagonist for them._

Only in your own mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I think of this as sort of a cop out (on the part of all the people who do it). If you're good at business, then you can have a far bigger impact by creating businesses than by simply giving your money to some charity.

It's ultimately a socially lauded thing to do that divorces the donor from any ultimate responsibility for the amount of "greater good" done with the funds. I think they do it out of fear that they were a lucky, one-hit wonder... and out of low self-esteem or fear of the angry mob.

YC is a great example of a way to use wealth to make a real difference. PG uses his acumen to help a lot more people level up. This multiplies wealth. Spending it on charities simply redistributes it.

It makes me very pessimistic to see that the world's wealthiest people feel the need simply to pledge the money away, and no need to risk total failure by going out on a limb to do something bigger than whatever got them there.

What if Bill Gates tried some long shot idea and it flopped? What if Zuckerberg or Case did? That would take real courage. This pledge nonsense reminds me of the self-satisfied smirks people emit when publicly putting money into the collection basket in a church. Why isn't one of these rich guys going to bat for Wikileaks? (Probably because it feels a lot better to be praised all the time for being such a great person by all the sycophants trying to get you to write a check!)

<comment><USER18> It may seem that they are just giving it away to charity. But many of the donations that Bill Gates provides are making new waves in terms of research, development techniques and expanding microfinance.

They are not just pledging money away. These are serious investments that are evaluated in the same way a VC/Angel pick a startup. A colleague of mine tried to apply/pitch to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and the event (many people pitched) lasted six hours with two reviews and rigorous questioning. He was not successful, but he said it was a very thorough examination.^1

Bottom line: A portion of these pledges are more than putting money into collection baskets, it is putting it into the baskets of third world women who need an extra sewing machine to make ten more shirts so their kids can go to school and have food.

1 - I am sure not every donation is made this way

<comment><USER17> I realize Gates does this and I think it's great.

I just wonder if Gates might have the ability to do far more if he just invested in himself.

<comment><USER16> No, not a fair question. What does this even mean? If you really think you know anything at all about how Bill Gates should spend his time and money, feel free to go ahead and actually say what you think he should be spending it on, instead of mouthing platitudes about "bigger ideas" and "investing in himself."

<comment><USER17> I don't know how he should spend his time, nor do I claim to.

Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world.

I also worry about the overall risklessness of what he's doing. He's pledged all of his money, so who can criticize it? For most people it's beyond reproach just because of the stated goals.

When Gates dropped out of Harvard he was doing something that a lot of people thought was stupid. That's how big ideas are. I'd like to see him doing something that might actually result in people mocking him for having lost his fortune on a bad idea.

<comment><USER19> _Personally, I'd like to see him start a company that would invent a mobile phone battery that lasts for a month and can power an RC aircraft to fly all the way around the world._

Instead of, say, eradicating malaria? You're kidding, right?

<comment><USER8> grandalf has a fair (if self-interested) point. He's not gonna contract malaria and neither am I. But I'd kinda like a phone battery that lasts a month.

<comment><USER17> Not just self-interested. I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts.

<comment><USER8> _I think such a battery would result in greater malaria eradication than direct efforts._

I might accept "greater good". There's no way I'll accept "greater malaria eradication".

The Gates Foundation is working on malaria eradication because it's one of those things where you really _do_ get great returns by just attacking the problem head on. Batteries have nothing to do with malaria.

The other thing about super-batteries is that there's no shortage of sensible profit-chasing money pouring into it. If Sony, Samsung, Ford, Toyota, General Electric and Rolls Royce are all already pouring billions of dollars into it, there's not much point in Bill Gates throwing a couple of billion onto the pile. But apart from the Gates Foundation hardly anyone with deep pockets is targeting malaria.

<comment><USER17> The cotton gin eradicated lots of diseases. If you think that the battery I describe wouldn't have a similar impact on developing economies, you're experiencing a bit of an imagination failure.

I just used batteries as an example. The money being poured into batteries is commensurate with the overall value to society of creating them. This is not a market failure. The reason money isn't flowing to malaria prevention is because the structural problems that lead to the disease prevent the resulting human capital from having much of any economic value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> How much liquid wealth does Mark actually have? Isn't the vast majority of it purely theoretical based on Facebook equity purchases?

<comment><USER21> Important paragraph in the article:

 _"Mr. Zuckerberg, who founded Facebook in his Harvard University dorm before dropping out of college and working on the business full time in California, is one of the world's youngest billionaires, worth an estimated $6.9 billion, according to Forbes. Yet since his wealth is from his ownership stake a company that has yet to list on the stock market, much of that wealth is theoretical at this point."_

<comment><USER20> Right. So is there anyway to estimate his actual liquid wealth?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There is no reason for Facebook to go public anytime in the near future. It will be more and more revenue positive as it refines its advertising model. Zuckerberg's contribution is therefore worth very little at the moment, outside of the tremendous commitment it implies for Mark. At some point, he will probably control huge amounts of wealth and it's bold of him to sign away most of the cash before he ever has control over it.

But wouldn't it be amusing if Facebook were to go the way of preceding social networks, and leave the "world's youngest billionaire" looking a little silly for pledging a fortune that never materialized?

<comment><USER23> They'll probably let him off the hook if he doesn't end up a billionaire...

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It's certainly commendable to give away a vast fortune, and I don't want to take away from this honorable act in any way.

But I wonder why more ridiculously wealthy entrepreneurs don't, ya know, preneur? Especially in the nonprofit "make a difference space".

A billion dollars to charity is cool. You know what's really cool? A billion dollars towards a celebrity billionaire-spearheaded do-good project. (Or 1 million dollars each towards 1000 projects, etc.)

Maybe I'm missing something, and I'm certainly no billionaire, so I probably am. But if I were a billionaire, I'd be more interested in angel investing (in promising, impactful projects) and my bringing my own ideas to life.

But I digress. Bravo to the billionaires. Really, this is awesome.

</comment><comment><USER25> This is from the PDF on the giving pledge website:

"The pledge does not involve pooling money or supporting a particular set of causes or organizations. The pledge asks only that the individual give the majority of their wealth to philanthropic causes or charitable organizations either before or after their death."

Interesting way to do this. I still don't really understand the need for a pledge of this magnitude, but at least they aren't pooling the money or soliciting for specific causes.

That being said, I still think Zuck is far too young to make such a strong commitment.

<comment><USER26> > That being said, I still think Zuck is far too young to make such a strong > commitment.

Do you really think so? Mark is a few years older than me, and I've already arrived at the decision that I'd do much the same as him if I ever had the same cash. He's bright, quite savvy regarding the public, and he's got a great inner stamina. I doubt he worries if he's capable of making money — maybe he'll never equal Facebook's success, in fact probably he won't, but I doubt if he started all over again today he'd fail to make himself a comfortable, cozy living.

It's not like he's being asked to live an ascetic lifestyle, though all stories I've read say that he's fairly minimal. He's just being asked to give away most of his money to help other people. In his case, "most of his wealth" still leaves him more than I've got at present.

<comment><USER25> I'm just saying that when you're young, and you've had your head buried in work, hearing sage advice from mentors, advisors, and board members, it's possible that now isn't the best time to make that sort of decision. I'm not condemning it, and if it's what he wants to do, who am I to stop him, but something just doesn't feel right about it. That's just my .02

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is really great to hear. We need more of this.

I'd pledge if I had any hugely significant sum like the others in the pledge, but alas.

<comment><USER28> > I'd pledge if I had any hugely significant sum like the others in the pledge

Lives in the developing world can be saved for less than $1000/life (that is, something like $20 per disability-adjusted-life-year). You personally could save dozens--perhaps hundred--of human lives, which I consider to be hugely significant.

<comment><USER25> but for how long?

<comment><USER28> I quoted $20 per disability-adjusted-life-year (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability-adjusted_life_year>). That means for $1000 you could allow one child who otherwise would have died an infant to live into old age, extend the lives of 10 people by 5 years, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> You can give it away while you're alive, or split it between your loved ones and the state when you die. I think it would be more fun giving it away to those most in need rather than enriching those who've already had a pretty good life... and your loved ones, too.

<comment><USER25> perhaps, but if you teach and educate your children how they can duplicate your success, and give them a headstart with the fortune you've built, then you can do just as much, if not more, than the charity down the street.

Look, I'm not advocating against giving, but I don't think jumping into pledges is the smartest way to begin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If I had billions I would certainly pay great attention to where I would put that money to work in order to create most goodness and wealth out of it. I would be wary of many charities as groups can get as confused from big money as individuals do.

</comment><comment><USER31> AFAIK, Jobs has still not committed.

<comment><USER32> From his Playboy interview, aged 29:

Playboy: What does the money actually mean to you?

Jobs: I still don't understand it. It's a large responsibility to have more than you can spend in your lifetime--and I feel I have to spend it. If you die, you certainly don't want to leave a large amount to your children. It will just ruin their lives. And if you die without kids, it will all go to the Government. Almost everyone would think that he could invest the money back into humanity in a much more astute way than the Government could. The challenges are to figure out how to live with it and to reinvest it back into the world, which means either giving it away or using it to express your concerns or values.

Playboy: So what do you do?

Jobs: That's a part of my life that I like to keep private. When I have some time, I'm going to start a public foundation. I do some things privately now.

Playboy: You could spend all of your time disbursing your money.

Jobs: Oh, you have to. I'm convinced that to give away a dollar effectively is harder than to make a dollar.

Playboy: Could that be an excuse to put off doing something?

Jobs: No. There are some simple reasons for that. One is that in order to learn how to do something well, you have to fail sometimes. In order to fail, there has to be a measurement system. And that's the problem with most philanthropy--there's no measurement system. You give somebody some money to do something and most of the time you can really never measure whether you failed or succeeded in your judgment of that person or his ideas or their implementation. So if you can't succeed or fail, it's really hard to get better. Also, most of the time, the people who come to you with ideas don't provide the best ideas. You go seek the best ideas out, and that takes a lot of time.

Playboy: If you plan to use your visibility to create a model for people, why is this one of the areas you choose not to discuss?

Jobs: Because I haven't done anything much yet. In that area, actions should speak the loudest.

<http://apps.ycombinator.com/item?id=1920287>

<comment><USER33> Fascinating. Knowing Jobs' penchant for secrecy, the Steven P. Jobs Foundation could well exist today, only as a collection of charitable organizations under various names.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I find it odd how people such as Gates and Zuckerberg obsessively stomp down their competition through any means possible, and then turn around and grandiosely pledge to give away their gains.

<comment><USER35> Many consider it to be the job of the businessperson to do everything they can to help their business' success within the legal framework it exists in. As long as that legal framework is democratically constructed, I don't see any reason to think of that as immoral, so I don't really see any contradiction there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> This is great; Rather than having government's and or NGO employees who pulls normal salary and aren't experienced in efficiently managing the spending of billions of dollars of development aid and end up harming the recipients, we are now getting the billionaires - people who excel at efficiently investing billions of dollars to reap billions more - to allocate these resources.

</comment><comment><USER37> Hey Sergey, Larry, and Steve, heads up.

These guys all have around the same net worth as Zuck, but much more liquidity. Sergey "don't be evil" Brin's absence from the list is a particularly curious... Anyone know what his philanthropic track record is like? Is it mostly through Google.org?

<comment><USER38> is not donating to charity evil now? man, thats escalated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I like that it's about thinking how to give responsibly and effectively, pledging early in life so they can put their creativity to good use, as the article says. People who sign are trading ideas and logistical advice, it's like a book club for philanthropy.

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder if you can buy real groceries using facebook stock, yet.

<comment><USER8> Well I'd be willing to give you a gallon of milk and a dozen eggs for, say, 0.1% of the company. So yes.

<comment><USER41> BREAKING NEWS

Facebook valued at 12 billion gallons of milk in private exchanges

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> _Yet since his wealth is from his ownership stake a company that has yet to list on the stock market, much of that wealth is theoretical at this point._

</comment><comment><USER43> Someone once said, "No man is rich enough to buy back his past." If you ask me, this just might do it for Zuck. Congrats Man! I hope you find yourself surprised by how many other young entrepreneurs follow suit. But seriously, do yourself a favor, quit renting your little college house and buy yourself a little home while interest rates are still low.

</comment><comment><USER5> There is at least one billionare who is thinking different:

<http://www.mercurynews.com/business/ci_16792615>

That's a story about the eight philanthropies Thiel is funding, which are much more oriented along the lines of "give a man the plans for a new fishing machine" than traditional philanthropy.

</comment><comment><USER44> It's commendable for anyone to give away their money, but especially so when it's a guy in his mid-twenties.

<comment><USER45> He doesn't have a billion dollars until the IPO. Good Luck Zuck.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Stating that the global population was heading towards 9 billion, Gates said, "If we do a really great job on new vaccines, health care, reproductive health services (abortion), we could lower that by perhaps 10 or 15 per cent."

Another billionaire signs up for Gate's depopulation agenda.

</comment><comment><USER47> Well, this will properly be nice for those who receive those founds, but I have to wonder why he did it. Why get a fortune just to give it away?

<comment><USER48> > Why get a fortune just to give it away?

Why climb Mount Everest just to come back down?

<comment><USER49> Because if you don't, you'll be dead within the next day: [http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on- everest.ht...](http://godheadv.blogspot.com/2010/04/abandoned-on-everest.html)

Your point still stands though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> The big question will be does Zuck's fortune liquify at anywhere near the level that it is now. :)

<comment><USER51> Buffet's, Gate's and most of the other "big-dog's" hodling can't be liquidated for their Net Worth $ anyway. This story reminds me of Zuck turning down the near Billion $ acquisition offer from Yahoo! To him, its not about the wealth and I like that. Even if he never leaves a multi-billion $ fortune (which I think he will).

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Would be better spent donating that money to research. Technology helps way more people than food stamps do.

</comment><comment><USER13> After much cajoling, I have agreed to accept it.

</comment><comment><USER53> zuckerberg doesn't even have $10mil cash, let alone billions. it's all on paper.

<comment><USER54> This is false.

<comment><USER45> Prove it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> I wouldn't.

</comment><comment><USER55> This makes it okay that he sells my list of friends to advertisers!

</comment><comment><USER25> With great wealth, comes great power, and with great power, comes the ability to change the world.

Though I loathe the way he's built Facebook, I trust someone like Zuck with several billion more than I trust someone without the ability to earn it. Who is going to be managing this money, and where is it going? Is this just a pledge, with no strings attached?

The article isn't very forthcoming, and neither is the website: givingpledge.org

I don't understand what's happened with Gates, and though I admire his sentiment, I think putting pressure on young entrepreneurs, who already have thousands of voices in their heads, is a wrong move.

Call me callous, but this whole thing seems insane. Mark can do more good with his money by building new technologies than this fund could do manage multiple billions of dollars. It's rare that money on that scale is managed well.</comment>


Our Machines Now Have Knowledge We'll Never Understand - <AUTHOR> https://backchannel.com/our-machines-now-have-knowledge-well-never-understand-857a479dcc0e <comment><USER2> This is just bad epistemology.

> _As a consequence, if you, with your puny human brain, want to understand > why AlphaGo chose a particular move, the "explanation" may well consist of > the networks of weighted connections that then pass their outcomes to the > next layer of the neural network. Your brain can't remember all those > weights, and even if it could, it couldn't then perform the calculation that > resulted in the next state of the neural network._

Why did you reduce the neural network to the connections and layers but maintained the "brain" at the level of the whole? If you want to compare apples to apples you should also reduce the brain to neurons and connections. When a ball is about to hit your face your brain "can't remember how to calculate the velocity and acceleration of the ball and predict that in 100ms it will impact your face and thus you need to send a signal for your hand to move to cover your face". Yet we do it, how? Well, it's encoded in the complex system of nerves and networks just like the the information about the various potential Go boards and moves is encoded in the neural network.

> _And even if it could, you would have learned nothing about how to play Go, > or, in truth, how AlphaGo plays Go — just as internalizing a schematic of > the neural states of a human player would not constitute understanding how > she came to make any particular move._

Similarly if you were to study the neurons, nerves, and networks and their firing patterns that are involved in protecting your face from the ball you wouldn't learn anything about balls, acceleration or even pain.

<comment><USER3> > When a ball is about to hit your face your brain "can't remember how to > calculate the velocity and acceleration of the ball and predict that in > 100ms it will impact your face and thus you need to send a signal for your > hand to move to cover your face".

It's likely doing optical flow calculations (much simpler), rather than integrating an ODE. Richard Dawkins apparently makes the same mistake about "catching a ball" in his book.

<comment><USER4> By 'optical flow calculations' do you mean a linear extrapolation of the projected 'image-space' position of the ball?

If so, that seems like it would be insufficient since a thrown object doesn't move linearly, let alone its projection.

If not, then I'm curious what you're describing, and how it's much simpler than integrating an ODE?

<comment><USER3> Not quite. If you're interested take a look at,

[https://youtu.be/eKaYnXQUb2g?t=6m10s](https://youtu.be/eKaYnXQUb2g?t=6m10s)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz9UVIo_ZUo&list=PL0AknDL1Vt...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iz9UVIo_ZUo&list=PL0AknDL1Vt- nEn1U-ztDulFATxiPvrELY&index=10)

Camera homography preserves straight-lines, but it also gives a heuristic to avoid obstacles. Apparently this is also how bees and birds navigate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Neural networks get a bad rap for being "black boxes" and "uninterpretable". But any decent machine learned model is incredibly difficult for people to understand.

There was a machine learning system specifically _designed_ to produce interpretable models. It's called Eureqa, and it does symbolic regression. It finds the simplest possible mathematical expression that fits the data. Instead of millions of neural weights, you get a nice simple equation. How could not not be interpretable?

But in any nontrivial case, it's still impossible to decipher. "Why is there a sine there? Why on Earth is it using mod? What could this constant possibly mean?" One biologist used it on some data he had been struggling with. And it found a simple equation that fit the data perfectly, which is what he had been looking for. But he couldn't publish it, because he couldn't possibly explain why it worked or how to derive it. You can't just publish a random equation with no understanding.

I think the best method of understanding our models, is not going to come from making simpler models. Instead I think we should take advantage of our own neural networks. Try to train humans to predict what inputs will activate a node in a neural network. We will learn that function ourselves, and then it's purpose will make sense to us. I suspect most of what NNs do isn't complicated in an absolute sense. Its just time consuming to go through the data and work it out. (Maybe we could outsource it to something like mechanical turk... "What do these images have in common?")

There is a huge amount of effort put into making more accurate models, but much less into trying to interpret them. I think this is a huge mistake. Understanding a model lets you see it's weaknesses. The things that it can't learn. The mistakes it makes.

<comment><USER6> >> You can't just publish a random equation with no understanding.

This has happened a lot in the past iirc: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_mathemati...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_mathematics) Imo if you can 'proof' it's really true, publish it, maybe some else some day can actually proof/explain it. Meanwhile we can use the formula where it works (at your own risk).

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This feels only one step removed from "databases contain more information than any human can remember!"

<comment><USER8> s/databases/books/

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is baloney. The workings of any machine learning algorithm is not beyond our understanding. Even on an intuitive level, it is easy to watch what it is doing and derive theories about what is going on. If you spend the time to investigate it is possible to map out what is going on. You can determine "This pathway delivers a high signal on pictures of brown cats, this pathway lights up with pictures of black cats." Or whatever.

This kind of breathless "Oh we CAN'T understand!" editorializing gets clicks because machine learning is so strange to most people, but it's terrible. We should instead be spreading knowledge about the very simple principles that are underlying the complicated behavior.

Our brains are far, far more complicated than even our most advanced machine learning right now. Yet we are constantly making progress on understanding the workings of our brains. This article is just terrible.

<comment><USER10> Leadup: Dr. Thompson used a genetic algorithm to program a FPGA to detect one of two tones. The result was:

> Dr. Thompson peered inside his perfect offspring to gain insight into its > methods, but what he found inside was baffling. The plucky chip was > utilizing only thirty-seven of its one hundred logic gates, and most of them > were arranged in a curious collection of feedback loops. Five individual > logic cells were functionally disconnected from the rest— with no pathways > that would allow them to influence the output— yet when the researcher > disabled any one of them the chip lost its ability to discriminate the > tones.

(from [https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of- circuits/](https://www.damninteresting.com/on-the-origin-of-circuits/))

Granted, the results were probably due to the quirks of the FPGA gates on that particular chip (and that particular area of the chip) but without further (potentially destructive) investigation, Dr. Thompson (or us for that matter) may never know the actual reason that circuit worked the way it did.

<comment><USER11> Backpropagation doesn't work like genetic algorithms on an FPGA.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So this article assumes that the problem of understanding how an AI solves a problem is a problem beyond any possible AIs ability to solve?

Aren't we constantly iterating over these AI algorithms specifically to give us ones that can help us understand things "We'll Never Understand"?

<comment><USER13> Exactly. My first thought when I read the title (and I only read a paragraph or two in), was that this seems like a similar problem to analyzing astronomy data. It's a BigProblem problem to which we can apply "stuff."

And to answer a probable objection, "It's BigProblem, all the way out."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Bullshit, bullshit everywhere.

Learning is not some abstract mystery, it is a process of "evolving" and maintaining a structure (of neurons or of bits - does not really matter) which reflects some particular aspects of reality (presumably not socially constructed) and could be used in a meaningful way to have advantage in the similar environment. This is how birds know how to make nests or babies read facial expressions of strangers.

Knowledge is not some abstract philosophical crap, it is a "trained" structure with reflects aspects of what is.

BTW, the structure of the sand floor of a lake, which reflects all the past waves could be called "knowledge", but it is totally useless. Most of flawed, socially constructed models are of this kind.

</comment><comment><USER15> Or alternatively, "machines are still too simple to relate their decisions in an abstract, conceptual manner."

</comment><comment> self-diversity I'd love to remind the author of the original headline (it appears to have been changed) that there's a huge difference between not understanding something now and knowing you'll never understand it.

</comment><comment><USER3> And many people have "knowledge" we'll never "understand". So ?

(Is anyone excited about the implications AI has for philosophy ?).

<comment><USER16> I do think it's having some impact now. Google, for example, did not used to use ML for ranking sites. So they had a reasonably good handle on why sites would end up ranking where they did.

They then introduced several different ML add ons, like Vince, Panda, Penguin, etc. They know roughly what the algorithms are doing. But, as I understand it, it's still opaque enough that they can't explain exactly why a specific set of results is what it is. Especially since they don't all work together. They run one after the other, like a pipeline.

That is, there are some amount of false positives or negatives they can't explain. If you report something, they can guess and experiment around a bit.

For some spaces, they are basically king makers or breakers. So ML decisions are driving real world consequences. To the degree, though, that the results are "good enough", it won't ever get looked into. The acceptable error rate is the one that doesn't affect Google too much. An actual flaw could go unnoticed for quite some time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> I'll never understand the knowledge of Picasso, Einstein, or Bezos either. AI does not operate according to principles of magic they operate according to the principles of computation. They can be understood, but how much value does it bring?

</comment><comment><USER18> If we spent the same amount of effort working to visualize RNNs (and train them to explain themselves) as we did whining about how Turing machines are not very observable AGAIN, we'd have ML systems directly synthesizing the JARVIS voice to give us their reasons.

The fact that we can't observe specifically how a brain works doesn't mean we can't work out some structure. The fact an ant doesn't explain to us the individual rules to us doesn't mean we can't divine them via observation.

These articles irritate me, because they act like NNs are magic and they are anything but.

</comment><comment><USER19> There might be some aspects of this article that over-reach, but I think that it is a useful explanation to the many people who still don't understand the difference between connectionist or high-dimensional statistical algorithms and good-old-fashioned symbolic AI.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Since we first started carving notches in sticks, we have used things in the > world to help us to know that world. But never before have we relied on > things that did not mirror human patterns of reasoning — we knew what each > notch represented — and that we could not later check to see how our non- > sentient partners in knowing came up with those answers

This is alarmist and completely untrue. The scientific method specifically involves forming a hypothesis, trial, and error. We don't know much until we experiment.

That deep learning makes things possible before we fully understand them is nothing new.

I can understand this fearful attitude coming from non-scientists who fear the black-box nature of machines. However, technologists should understand that the functionality of this tech _can_ be reverse engineered, or verified, with additional legwork.

We should proceed cautiously and with vigilance. Saying we'll "never" understand the inner-workings of such algorithms is too much.

</comment><comment><USER21> Our brains are Turing complete. Anything that is computable/ understandable, can be understood by humans.

<comment><USER22> > Our brains are Turing complete. Anything that is computable/ understandable, > can be understood by humans.

Our brains are fallible, and so only approximately equivalent to Turing machines; and even ignoring that can only compute every computable thing given both infinite error-free storage capacity (which they don't have internally or externally) and sufficient time to execute the necessary steps of the computation.

Realistically, there are computable functions which no human brain will be ever be capable of computing.

Whether being able to compute a thing is sufficient, necessary, or tangential to understanding it is also a question.

<comment> charles-salvia >> Our brains are fallible, and so only approximately equivalent to Turing machines; and even ignoring that can only compute every computable thing given both infinite error-free storage capacity (which they don't have internally or externally) and sufficient time to execute the necessary steps of the computation.

So are actual computers. They're just "less fallible" and closer to a Universal Turing Machine than human brains in certain ways. A Commodore 64 is also incapable, in practice, of computing certain computable functions, due to memory limitations and what have you, but nobody would really claim a Commodore 64 is not Turing complete.

<comment><USER22> > So are actual computers

Sure, but no one was making claims about actual computers other than the human brain that requires pointing that out.

> but nobody would really claim a Commodore 64 is not Turing complete.

Actually, it's a rather common observation that real-world computers are not Turing complete (languages, considered independent of the limitations of concrete machines, may be) and particularly that concrete machines with limited storage space and operating with finite time constraints may not be able to compute all computable results, even though the abstract model they approximate, without those limitations, can.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Im not so sure anymore.. humans could miss subtile developments, curves that overlap every full moon, and reach a never reached result.

Darpa is not pumping money into safety on NN Nets research because confetti ran out.</comment>


Show HN: Deception - A Generalized Turing Test Game - <AUTHOR> http://playdeception.com

<comment><USER2> This is absolutely hilarious. (I'm the detective in this game.)

<http://playdeception.com/finished/dkgvomtf>

Great work on the game, I really enjoyed it!

</comment><comment><USER3> Could you add an audible alert when it's the current player's turn to respond, and a countdown timer for the last 5 or so seconds? Several games I've joined thus far have been canceled due to player negligence :/

That said, this is awesome - fantastic concept and well implemented.

Edit: also, when recreating a game, the question field should be auto- populated with the previous game's question.

<comment><USER4> I'll vote for an audio cue as well. And ideally, the counter would show in the browser tab, so that when I'm looking at other things while waiting, I can just glance and see how long I have left before I need to input anything.

Excellent game.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Really enjoying the game, but the leaderboards seem to be who has played the most games/put in the most time. An average would be better, I think.

<comment><AUTHOR> Good idea! I just put that up there quickly to give some indication of how well people are doing. You're totally right though.

If we get enough players to make it interesting, we'll add a much awesomer leaderboard and do breakdowns by role (detective, liar, and truth teller.) First we need enough people though. :)

<comment><USER4> Also - I can't see how to win a game. It only seems possible to tie?

<comment><USER5> In a way, the game is a collaboration between the judge and the truthteller - they both get the same number of points. The liar can definitely win, but the truthteller and judge can only tie. The fun part is, the judge is collaborating with someone - but who?

<comment><USER4> I meant to say, that even when I get 1100 points in a game, it doesn't show in my player stats that I won the game. I suspect this is because it was a tie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Hahaha, I really enjoyed this game. I totally got tricked by the description of liar, but yeah, I now see how the liar fooled me. <http://playdeception.com/finished/vmxurgsa>

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't understand the rules. What stops the liar from telling the truth?

<comment><AUTHOR> Well the liar has to convince the judge that he is not lying about the answer. However, the answer is the one given by the truth teller and not the liar. So what incentive would the liar have to tell the truth?

<comment><USER7> Yep, I understand it now. Upvoted, it's pretty cool. I thought the idea was that the liar had to lie about everything :S.</comment></comment></comment>


Have a new startup or a project? Let's validate (PaloAlto) - <AUTHOR>

One man's hell is another man's heaven.
I'm looking to help validate your startup idea by closely going through the customer development cycle with you. You don't have to pay me, I just want to help out in this process.
Your startup will have an employee to help out at least 20 hours/week. You should be in the Palo Alto or MV area and be able to meetup regularly.
email@example.com <comment><USER2> Cool, I emailed you.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, looking...</comment></comment>


Performing meaningless rituals boosts our self-control - <AUTHOR> https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/07/11/performing-meaningless-rituals-boosts-our-self-control-through-making-us-feel-more-self-disciplined/amp/?__twitter_impression=true <comment><USER2> Fascinating. I've seen at least 2 prominent books (one on a featured books rack in Barnes & Noble) by ex-military officers proclaiming what a life- and world-changing habit it can be to fastidiously make your bed every morning.

Looks like there may be a scientifically valid connection between consistently done arbitrary tasks (or rituals) and personal success.</comment>