Radio and the Nazis – Ham radio's survival - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/nazis-pressed-ham-radio-hobbyists-to-serve-the-third-reich-but-surviving-came-at-a-price-90510 <comment><AUTHOR> (Actual title at time of submission: " _Nazis pressed ham radio hobbyists to serve the Third Reich – but surviving came at a price_ ", 10 characters over HN limit.)</comment>


Yahoo's $3.65 Billion Mistake: Yahoo Closes GeoCities - <AUTHOR> http://crenk.com/yahoos-3-65-billion-mistake-yahoo-closes-geocities/

<comment> brown9-2 Just because Yahoo spent $3.65 billion on this acquisition 10 years ago, and now they are shutting down the service, does not mean that the $3.65 billion was wasted.

The article makes no mention of technology, users, services, etc, that may have been integrated into Yahoo from Geocities - which certainly would not be a waste.

Just because they are now terminating the original service does not mean that the acquisition was a waste.

<comment><USER2> They got one of the most important things they wanted from Geocities, which was to remain the #1 (= most unique visitors) web site. That counted for a lot back then. Competitors like Lycos were pulling all kinds of tricks to jack up visitor numbers, like getting the NFL to put the Super Bowl web site at superbowl.lycos.com. One could argue that Yahoo overpaid to remain #1, but it was worth something.

That was practically the only thing Yahoo got from Geocities though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Cynical thought:

Is it really important to shutter these services to "focus on their core competencies" or is it really important to give Wall Street the _appearance_ of doing something, anything?

IOW, is Geocities really consuming management attention? is it losing buckets of money? Is it diluting Yahoo! brand?

Or is this just a way of showing the world that management is "getting serious" and "making changes?"

<comment><USER4> > IOW, is Geocities really consuming management attention? is it losing > buckets of money? Is it diluting Yahoo! brand?

Maybe it just has some good engineers tied up?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "To quickly download your published files, visit your GeoCities web site, right-click on each page, and choose Save Page As... from the menu that appears."

Ouch! They could at least provide an export tool.

<comment><USER6> True, however wget seems like a good option. Try

<http://www.nowindows.net/wp/?p=94>

<comment><USER7> It 503's if too many pages are requested at once...

However, you can submit a link to the Internet Archive and they'll spider that Geocities site. I asked the IA to save all that data. I don't know if it was because of my suggestion, and it's still not a direct copy of the whole of Geocities, but it's a good thing. (Note: Yahoo links to the IA 'add url' thing, and it's really prominent in the Geocities help pages, so I think they've done a good job).

[http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/geocities/close/close-17.ht...](http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/geocities/close/close-17.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Textfiles has been working hard to make an archive of Geocities. I need to call Jason and see how that went.

<comment><USER9> I wonder if anybody did something similar for Compuserve's version (ourworld.cs.com) before it closed up in July.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> My first webpage was on GeoCities. I learned HTML and made my own bullet graphics. I scanned a tablecloth and made a tiling background with Paint Shop Pro. This was all on Windows 3.1 and IE2, if I remember correctly.

Those were the days. :)

<comment><USER11> Wow, Windows 3.1. The TCP/IP stack on that was horrible, surprised to managed to get online ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> let its gifs spin forever in our minds.

<comment><USER13> "Under destruction"

<comment><USER14> Does this mean I need to adjust my webring? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> So was GeoCities the FaceBook of 1999?

<comment><USER16> No. Not even close.

<comment><USER8> No?

While scale wise it obviously wasn't, in the mid to late 90's it was the place that most people had their first websites and communities grow. People act like 'the wall' on FB is something new. Hello? Guestbooks.

<comment><USER16> I guess I didn't think of it that way. I was thinking more of the barrier for a regular user to get started. From what I remember, the wizard for a casual user wasn't that great, so knowing HTML was a necessity. But I could be wrong.

<comment><USER17> Perhaps, but the perception of learning HTML being a barrier to entry was much smaller back then. People were excited to be part of something new, and didn't really balk at having to learn something. Totally different mentality today.

<comment><USER8> HTML was a bit easier, and few cared about web standards or accessibility- as long as it worked. We didn't have much javascript (and what we had was counters and similar), XML, RSS, Ajax, Rails sites, etc.

Many of the sites were made in something like Frontpage even. There were templates and site makers, but also most people kept the stuff super simple.

And just because it was more complex doesn't mean it wasn't important. It was the easiest thing to come along. Before that you had to set up a web server, buy a domain, etc...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> well, GeoCities sure brought them a ton of users, and even if they were expensive compared to how Google or Facebook got their users, it was different back then, and buying a successful company may have been less expensive (and successful, at least) in the end than doing a lot of pointless tv commercials.

BTW, getting rid of Yahoo! Games, Yahoo! Shopping, Zimbra (given how poor the current Yahoo! Mail is) and del.icio.us does not seem very wise to me...

<comment><USER19> they are focusing on their core-competencies. yahoo can't be the best at everything, so they are going to sell the things that are distracting them from the goods

<comment><USER20> But as far as I can tell, the main thing they're good at is being a one-stop shop...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I hope all of that information was saved somewhere. Although I'm sure most of it turned into wikipedia pages.

</comment><comment><USER22> Yahoo isn't dead yet? Don't forget their podcast.com Mark Cuban bs and saying $37 a share was too low for a microsoft aquisition.

<comment><USER23> Their stock is pretty solid still.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Yep they have to consolidate their business there is a lot of waste there.</comment>


SpaceX Iridium-1 Webcast [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTmbSur4fcs <comment><USER2> I feel incredibly...relieved. Whatever you may think of Elon Musk personally, SpaceX work environment, SpaceX vs. Blue Origin, Kessler syndrome, etc., etc., it seems pretty clear that SpaceX's work with reusable space vehicles is a huge step forward for general human spaceflight, and I'm glad to see them successfully return to flight.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very nice. Space-X is back in business.

Now Space-X needs to catch up on their launch manifest and make some money. When they're not launching, they're not making money. They're about a quarter billion dollars behind from the pause in launches. Iridium alone has six more launches in the backlog. They don't put dates on their launch manifest any more; the constant slippage is too embarrassing.[1]

The first Falcon Heavy launch is supposed to be this spring. That was originally planned for 2013. There are at least three revenue Falcon Heavy launches in the queue. The crewed Dragon launch has slipped to 2018. The Brownsville launch site isn't scheduled to be used until late 2018.

Maybe 2017 will be the year Space-X starts to catch up. As a business, this is about launching in volume.

[1] [http://www.spacex.com/missions](http://www.spacex.com/missions)

<comment><USER4> It's almost like it's rocket science...Slow and steady beats fast and faulty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Bullseye landing of Stage 1! This is always so inspiring to watch live

<comment><USER6> We live in exciting times!

<comment><USER7> I asked my 3-year-old how old she would be when landed in a rocket, and she said, "Um, 6?". Pretty optimistic.

<comment><USER8> Last night, while reading about planets before bed, my 2 1/2 year old said "get dressed, put shoes on, go to Mars"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here is the technical webcast: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo)

Lots of good information on reddit (/r/spacex).

<comment><USER10> Much better, thank you!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Here's a video of just the first stage landing for anyone that missed it:

[https://streamable.com/la9m7](https://streamable.com/la9m7)

<comment><USER12> you can also seek backwards in the technical live stream[0]. they have uninterrupted footage of the first stage all the way from orbit to touchdown.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WimRhydggo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Both stages looking great so far. Stage 1 landed perfectly. I was worried after the earlier explosion with FB satellites. This worked perfectly. Great job SpaceX. I wish to see Elon Musk's expressions right now.

<comment><USER14> The weird thing is that fueling the vehicle was the worrying part not the landing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The countdown on the YouTube feed says "X minutes to live", but that's actually to liftoff. The feed usually starts 20 minutes earlier.

</comment><comment><USER16> Schweeet! I really liked that they now have a complete launch to landing video of the first stage, from the first stage.

Congrats SpaceX team and welcome back to active flight operations!

</comment><comment><USER17> I was skimming the recorded webcast and it seemed like the stream was stopped before they confirmed that all 10 satiltes were successfully deployed.

I chased down confirmation via this tweet:

[https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/820348655613800448](https://twitter.com/SpaceX/status/820348655613800448)

> Successful deployment of 10 @IridiumComm NEXT satellites has been confirmed.

</comment><comment><USER18> Now we have to wait if the Iridium people can also celebrate.

</comment><comment><USER19> Congrats to the SpaceX team. I'm looking forward to buying my ticket to Mars... after the kinks are worked out. ;)

</comment><comment><USER20> Anyone else notice the tumbling object ahead and to the left that appears at about 34:38? [https://youtu.be/tTmbSur4fcs?t=2078](https://youtu.be/tTmbSur4fcs?t=2078)

<comment><USER21> Likely to be the fairing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I just see a video of a spinning earth (with the count-up timer on top), no actual content. Anyone else having this issue? Any idea how to solve it?

<comment><USER23> Between launch/separation/landing and satellite deployment is a long coast phase of the second stage. That's what you see there. You can go back in time, though, to more interesting moments, or start watching at the very beginning.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Heh, I signed on just in time to see the landing. Smoothly done once again!

</comment><comment><USER25> Yeah!

</comment><comment><USER26> This is very exciting. But somehow sad to me at the same time. I don't wanna explain my feeling.

<comment><USER27> I guess I'm puzzled as to why somebody would find this great event saddening?

<comment><USER14> Feelings are complicated. Maybe he is considering it in contrast to other stuff that may not find as positive happening?</comment></comment></comment>


Assessing Game Balance with AlphaZero: Exploring Alternative Rule Sets in Chess - <AUTHOR> https://arxiv.org/abs/2009.04374 <comment><USER2> see also Wired article: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24431381](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24431381)</comment>


Bill Lorensen, co-creator of Marching Cubes, has died - <AUTHOR> https://discourse.vtk.org/t/bill-lorensen/2288 <comment><USER2> NVidia has this great article on marching cubes to generate complex procedural terrain.

It really drives the point home on how simple (which doesn't mean easy!) it can be, and was a a-ha moment for me about GPU streaming design, the power of shaders for procedural generation, and the connection with signal processing.

[https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch01....](https://developer.nvidia.com/gpugems/GPUGems3/gpugems3_ch01.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> AKA my first experience with patent law. Marching cubes is an incredibly obvious algorithm, and the owners of the patent for it sued people gleefully in my experience. I talked to numerous game and simulation developers at the time and the story was the same: a need to convert volumetric data into a 3D surface, coming up with the obvious approach, get a nasty letter that it was patented.

Very happy when the patent expired.

Condolences to his family, though. He sounds like he was actually a good guy.

<comment><USER4> There's also Marching Tetrahedra which wasn't covered by the marching cubes patent and was kindly allowed to be used freely (and had some small improvements). [1]

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Marching Cubes remains the most widely cited visualization algorithm ever".

It's an awesome algorithm that takes an isosurface (imagine a 3D map of weights) and generates a polygonal mesh. This algo was heavily used in the demoscene and often referred to as 'meta balls'.

Video of animated isosurface rendered with marching cubes: [https://youtu.be/PbH1TlnDYvo](https://youtu.be/PbH1TlnDYvo)

<comment><USER6> > This algo was heavily used in the demoscene and often referred to as 'meta > balls'.

No. It is used to implement 'meta balls' effect sometimes. But the two terms are not synonymous. From my experience it's more common to see meta balls implemented with raytracing or some screen-space techniques.

<comment><USER7> The guy wasn't wrong, "A is often referred to as B", doesn't contradict "B isn't synonymous with A"

<comment><USER8> "Gears are often referred to as 'pocket watches'" is not a correct statement, even though gears are sometimes used in the implementation of pocket watches.

Cf. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaballs](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaballs)

<comment><USER7> But they _are_ sometimes referred to as metaballs, _at the same time_ as being used to implement them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> The Marching Cubes triangle lookup table is a 3D Wang-tileset for corner connections, reduced for symmetries. Here is a 2D example of a Wang tileset [0].

[0] [http://www.cr31.co.uk/stagecast/wang/2corn.html](http://www.cr31.co.uk/stagecast/wang/2corn.html)

Edit: the defining quality of a Wang tileset is that it can tesselate a grid of N different colors with square tiles. Usually there are only two colors (with Marching Cubes inside and outside) because the number of tiles needed grows fast with N.

</comment><comment><USER10> My dad spent his entire career at GE research. One day he arranged for Bill Lorensen to give me a tour of their computer graphics lab. Great guy! Sad to hear that he has passed.

</comment><comment><USER11> [https://web.archive.org/web/20191217050317/https://discourse...](https://web.archive.org/web/20191217050317/https://discourse.vtk.org/t/bill- lorensen/2288)

</comment><comment><USER12> Used this algorithm in a capstone for my Bachelor's. Had a blast tuning and tweaking it to work in my very raw OpenGL application.

May he rest in peace. I'm glad I've had the opportunity to peek inside his mind in some small way.</comment>


Google's AI can tell when someone is peeping at your phone - <AUTHOR> https://www.engadget.com/2017/11/28/google-over-the-shoulder-face-detection/ <comment><USER2> Why not track the owners eyes and only render the part of the screen they are looking at? Instant security.</comment>


The Hardy Boys - The final chapter (1998) - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/05/AR2005120501092_pf.html

<comment><USER3> I have tears streaming down my face and I have been cackling like a maniac for 10 minutes.

I LOVED the Hardy Boys. They felt serious for that age. The hardbacks had a classic feel. The pages were thick, the illustrations mysterious and the covers were heavy and ornate. When I finished one I felt like I accomplished something. I would put it on the shelf in between 10 others and decide on the next one - usually by coolness of cover. I vividly remember the scene in "Missing Chums" when they drove the boat into the smugglers cave. My heart was pounding. I remember I got so nervous that I hid under a table and shifted positions constantly while reading it. It may have been the first time I got completely immersed in a book.

Knowing that he called the books, "The Juveniles," and that he viscerally hated every every word of every page, is like finding out that Santa Claus doesn't exist - at age 32.

And just to twist the knife, on my birthday the author wrote in his diary: June 9, 1933: "Tried to get at the juvenile again today but the ghastly job appalls me."

Ok I just woke my girlfriend up by laughing so hard. I don't know what to think. Goodnight HN. Thank you for the best thing I've read all year.

</comment><comment><USER4> First: Gene Weingarten is always a pleasure to read.

I know it is not relevant to his main angle, but I wish he had followed up on this part: _In 1959, many of the old Hardy Boy books were redone, streamlined, modernized, sterilized._

I, like many HNers, I imagine, first read the Hardy Boys in the post-1959 editions. A couple decades ago, when I learned about the rewrites, I decided to collect the originals, and compare them. It was a fascinating experience.

Weingarten's phrasing above gets to the key elements. Racial stereotypes were removed-- the old versions were quite offensive to modern sensibilities at times-- along with about 1/3rd of the text. Plots were simplified, and a much more formulaic approach to action (from one mini-cliffhanger to another) took over. Descriptive passages were omitted, more often than not.

So: if you really want to read Leslie McFarlane, be sure to check out the pre-1959 editions.

<comment><USER5> Indeed. When I started to read such fiction, I had 2 or a few more volumes of the novels and one of them was a pre-1959 edition. By comparison the newer ones were very thin gruel, and not having any way to procure the older ones and knowing science was my calling I concentrated on getting what Tom Swift Jr. books I could manage.

One funny thing happened with my 5th grade teacher sometime later: we realized we were both fans of Tom Swift and started reeling off titles, none of which the other recognized. He had of course read the original series about the (future) father, I was reading the 2nd focused on his son (Jr.).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> The original Hardy Boys books were what got me started reading really, when I was probably 6 or 7. My dad had a whole box of them from when he was a kid, and once I discovered them, I had my nose in them all the time. From there, I discovered the Tom Swift Jr. books, another Stratemeyer creation. I still think those books were responsible for 90% of my attraction to tech that ultimately led me here.

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Swift_Jr>

</comment><comment><USER7> I just met a guy who has ghostwritten a few of the newer Hardy Boys books. He says that he's given a picture of what the cover will look like and it's his job to write the entire story based on that.

<comment><USER8> Damn, that must take incredible creativity, akin to being asked to code a website from seeing a screenshot of the privacy policy.

<comment><USER9> How is it harder than trying to write a novel without the constraint of fitting in what's on the cover?

Constraints often make creativity easier. Tell me to write a Hardy Boys novel and I won't know where to begin. Show me a cover with a lighthouse and some treasure on the beach and stories begin to suggest themselves.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Two memories from the Hardy Boys:

1) first reading the word "rendezvous," which I never heard anyone say, so for years, my brother and I talked about secret "rend-a-visses"

2) never quite figuring out what a "jalopy" was, as chet's car was never a car, always a jalopy.

<comment><USER11> Also notice how Chet was never 'fat', but 'plump','chubby','stout', etc? I learned more synonyms for fat from Hardy Boys books than should have been allowed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Reminds me of the relationship Sir Arthur Conan Doyle had with Sherlock Holmes.

Doyle despised writing Sherlock stories and did not consider them serious fiction. At one point he killed Sherlock, only to revive him years later because of popular demand.

Today there are societies and museums around the world dedicated to the great detective.

<comment><USER13> I'm sure there are lots of people that have built complex and worthy stuff that make their money with silly and transient stuff that feel the same way about their code.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Popular writing reminds me of image compression: part eternal truth, part Human Visual System. People enjoy fiction because it connects with them somehow; pop fiction targets the Human Narrative System. Joseph Campbell has the idea of the universal monomyth; Orson Scott Card claims that a writer's best writing happens _despite_ the author. Orson is conceited enough to believe he's not a great writer, just a conduit of man's soul.

A clever writer can easily get carried away with himself - solipsistic, narcissistic - such as those quoted in the submission (the elimination pun; the parallel of temper and years.) Maybe being restrained was good for him? _if you come across a passage you think particularly fine, strike it out_. I actually enjoy the straightfowardness of his "bad" writing (including this image: "scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast.")

Popularity is a tricky measure of technical merit, because it has more to do with what people need than with what you have created. Perhaps the credit for mining that need here really does lie with the publisher, who specified the story.

<comment><USER15> "... scattering the town's 4,000 inhabitants before its terrific blast." is straightforward.

The 60 words in the sentence preceding that clause, are not:

"A leering tornado of flame from the southwest roared down through a half mile of underbrush upon the town of Haileybury basking sleepily in the September sunlight on the shore of Lake Temiskaming early Wednesday afternoon, ate its way across the railway tracks and then, fanned by a 60-mile-an-hour gale, ripped its way to the water's edge ..."

In general the phrase "the 60 words in the sentence" and the word "straightforward" are incompatible.

<comment><USER16> 60 mostly short anglo-saxon words and the long sentence, broken into multiple clauses, creates a sense of growing momentum that evokes the fire.

Good piece on this particular subject: [http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2009/08/long-...](http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/bookclub/2009/08/long- sentences.html)

<comment><USER15> 1\. That piece does nothing to imply that the style is straightforward, nor does it actually talk about using long sentences with many clauses to create momentum, unless you considered "consciousness and longing" to be momentum- ous.

2\. No it really doesn't create a sense of momentum, growing or not, especially when you talk about a town "basking sleepily in the September sunlight on the shore." A vaguely alliterative load of Ss does not make for an exciting sentence.

3\. "mostly short anglo-saxon words and the long sentence, broken into multiple clauses" is rather in specific compared to my statement of in general anyway.

4\. Tornadoes don't leer, and one would assume it was already traveling at 60 miles an hour so the momentum shouldn't be growing anyway.

5\. That sentence is straight up crap.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> And now we can have a big list of nostalgia which disappointed us. Like when I recently watched a Knight Rider episode for the first time after a dozen years and suddenly realize, how bad the actors and plots are.

German readers should probably revisit the TKKG novels for a particular disappointing experience.

<comment><USER15> Saturday morning cartoons are the big one for me.

My mom took the approach of just reading out loud whatever she read, so I grew up with Lord of the Rings and other good solid books. I personally read Madliene L'engle's books in 3rd and 4th grade then skipped directly up the ladder to Dune (making me the only 9 year old I've ever met that managed to make it through Dune Messiah (and man did I ever manage to miss the subtext and analogy and etc)) .

But cartoons, man I loved em all. Tried to watch GI Joe and Transformers a couple years back and could barely last an episode.

<comment><USER18> I was also read Dune aloud as a kid! Though I think I must've been older by then -- 12+. Definitely missed most of the subtext, though... Just like watching Forrest Gump.

<comment><USER15> No, I actually read Dune myself. I thought it was a book about political intrigue, crazy sci-fi and guerilla warfare, great stuff to a 9 year old. I was told later that it was in fact about US foreign policy with regards to the middle east.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> What's extraordinary is that those books remain the favorites of small boys everywhere. The Hardy Boys franchise has turned out hundreds if not thousands of more contemporary knockoffs over the years. These are all quickly forgotten, yet those original McFarlane potboilers, disdained by everybody with fancy taste (including the OP), still excite passion among early readers.

Is anything comparable? Children's literature that survives that long is usually regarded as classic; but these have survived whilst being regarded as trash. They keep going on the literary pleasure of children alone - <USER2> audience that can't be fooled. Each new generation just seems to discover them.

The passion of those first adventure novels only lasts a year or two before one begins to find them a little embarrassing. So even older children share McFarlane's opinion on the "juveniles". My son mocks their stilted dialogue now. But he devoured the entire series with fervor.

</comment><comment><USER20> If people like bad media, does that make it good? Or do we just have poor taste?

"Good" seems to be a combination of "quality" and "entertaining". Funny how we talk about these bad books, movies, and other media as if their literal quality were their only value.

<comment><USER21> Created things can aim to inspire and challege (art) or they can seek to comfort and warm (pop art). That Hardy Boys was great pop art. The books didn't challenge or inspire, however they did make you feel comforted, safe, and protected. The mystery got solved, all the threads got tied up in the end. Nice. Neat. Comforting.

<comment><USER22> It could still be comforting and not lousy though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Makes you wonder about possibility of such literary hearts who would be chucking out "SEO-compliant" articles at "2$/100 words" rate on freelance websites while their heart aches with misery attributed to nothing but their own creations.

<comment><USER22> Do such content factories really exist? That's horrible yet intriguing.

<comment><USER24> AFAIK this is how Demand Media (eHow) works. Hundreds of freelancers at low rates manufacture articles that are needed.

<comment><USER25> Also of note: textbroker.com : content creation as a service, with an API. Used them for several hundred pages of content for a client. (If an enterprising HNer wants to do same with better API and more upmarket writers, I would use it.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> This is why we have more developers working for others instead of working for themselves. They're in big corporations, working on the latest version of whatever snoozefest their information infrastructure needs to just produce a better TPS report that now highlights this stat instead of that stat.

It's not software you go bragging about in the next user group meeting, or even to your spouse or your kids or best friend. It does, however, pay the bills.

</comment><comment><USER27> _Just how they could be having this ludicrous discussion over the roar of two motorcycles is never quite explained._

The imagination of a 12-year-old boy is generally not so hampered by skepticism. Ridiculous, implausible stories are the most fun to read, anyway. Ironically, the parts that the adult Weingarten find to be the best are the parts I didn't like as a kid. I always found Aunt Gertrude to be boring.

The comparison with Little House on the Prairie interested me, as I read both when I was young. I probably could have identified LHotP has superior fiction, but in terms of enjoyment I most certainly did not care. Reading the Hardy Boys did not ruin my ability to appreciate Laura Ingalls Wilder.

<comment><USER28> Totally! I hated Aunt Gertrude... if it was up to her there would be no more adventures! I disliked her very very very much.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have never read a Hardy Boys novel, although I've always meant to, just out of curiosity. What I did read was the entire Danny Dunne series, about a young teenager whose widowed mother was the live-in housekeeper for a science professor. Danny always got involved in a complicated situation involving the professor's latest invention. I'm sort of afraid to go back and read them now.

<comment><USER30> Ooh, thanks for mentioning him; for this entire thread I've been thinking about those books, but I couldn't come up with any more of his name than "Dan or Daniel". And I was _not_ looking forward to trying to Google for "juvenile fiction scientist Dan". ;)

<comment><USER29> Glad to help. The first one I read was "Danny Dunn and the Homework Machine." In that story the professor builds a new type of computer that's much more powerful than anything else in existence, and much smaller (about the size of a Vax maybe). It was published in 1964, so that was small back then. Danny and his friends start using it to help them with their homework. Then they become dependent on it. Very prescient.

And I misspelled the series in my first post. Danny's last name is Dunn, not Dunne.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> In the past year, I have gone back to reading the Enid Blytons (Secret Sevens and Famous Fives) that I fondly remembered. I was amazed at how bad I found them this time around.

Especially, because I've read 2 Harry Potters recently and they are fairly readable. I also pick up Tintins and Asterixes from time to time and I still find them very enjoyable and appealing.

<comment><USER32> I've put off reading Tintin again, I liked it way too much as a kid.

I don't want to discover Captain Haddock and Professor Calculus suck :P

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> What a fantastic article. No idea what it has to do with HN but it was one of the best pieces I've read in a while. Thanks niyazpk!

<comment><USER33> Here's what I did with it: I imagined founders chained to startups they hate.

<comment><USER34> Why startups alone? How about the Haskell/Scala/RoR/Django hacker who has to get an MCSE and be a SharePoint 'developer' because it puts bread on the table?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> My 8 year old son LOVES the hardy boys, though he's mostly reading stuff a bit older now. I wonder sometimes about the...cheesiness and some of the less- than-PC content in this series and others, but I figure if I turned out OK he could too.

He likes the cheesy dialog, but I suppose he's young enough that I won't worry about his tastes too much. I'm just glad he likes to read. It's a huge load off--like now all I have to do is point him in the general direction if something he likes.

I think I'll hold off on mentioning the article, though. :)

</comment><comment><USER36> Interesting, the Hardy Boys were practically my childhood. I even chose my username because of that series. Knowing that the author hated writing the books sort of saddens me. But what makes an author hate the work he's writing? When I code a website for someone, it doesn't really make me hate making the website.

<comment><USER37> I'm not sure the comparison works though. He doesn't object to the act of writing a book, I suspect he didn't even really have too big an issue with writing a detective novel. He objected to being asked to do those things badly when he knew he could do better.

We're talking plots he felt made no sense, poor characters, clunky dialogue, and when he tried to improve these things he was told in no uncertain terms to stop messing about and go back to what the publisher was paying him for.

The equivalent for a programmer would be to be told to code a website with actively bad coding standards, no use of style sheets or code reuse, no normalisation or referential integrity in the database and no error handling. And every time you try to make something better, you get told to shut up and do it the way you've been asked.

I don't know about you but that would make me hate the project.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> FWIW, I loved the Hardy Boys and I've turned into an avid reader... at least for a 20 year old. The books are what they are, and if you're looking for any sort of depth, you're unlikely to find it.

I think the Hardy Boys books do two things well: 1.) sell 2.) get kids interested in reading

No harm there...

</comment><comment><USER39> A really brilliant, moving post. It is extremely difficult to work on something you despise. We don't get to know how many such artists had and will have to work on uninteresting stuff and work with stupid, demanding people. Having a family may increase the fear of failure and other apprehensions in people who work for their daily survival. I have never read Hardy Boys in childhood, as I am not a native speaker of English. But, I had definitely enjoyed some juvenile books (boy-detective fiction etc.) written for kids. Talented people often fall victims to such profit seeking organizations at the expense of their art and craft. Lets wish we will not be pushed to such extreme pains.

</comment><comment><USER40> I devoured Hardy Boys books between the ages of 8 and 12. I must have at least 50 blue hardback Hardy Boys books in my basement. I still remember the thrill of saving up my weekly allowance until I had enough to walk to the local book store and pick up the next volume.

Speaking of hackneyed writing, I laughed and cried while reading this essay. It definitely became a part of me.

</comment><comment><USER41> Wow. I used to love those books. I've always been wary of picking one up to read because I was sure that it couldn't now match the high pedestal On which they are perched in my memories.

</comment><comment><USER42> For those who like this sort of essay, may I recommend S.J. Perelman? His "Cloudland Revisited" pieces, on the movies and books of his youth, are splendid.</comment>


Bayesian networks and causality - <AUTHOR> http://jliszka.github.io/2013/12/18/bayesian-networks-and-causality.html <comment><USER2> This is Pearl's d-separation, right?

EDIT: Great write-up btw. Thanks for putting it together!

<comment><AUTHOR> yes</comment></comment>


Goreuse: Generic Code for Go - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/dc0d/goreuse <comment><AUTHOR> goreuse takes Go, modifies the AST by replacing those parts that are needed to be customized and generates a Go source that is specialized for concrete types. It is "go generate" compatible.

<comment><USER2> So it basically just monomorphises?

<comment><AUTHOR> Mostly. But since it is possible to replace/redefine the functions and methods too, it's a bit more capable than that and one can "override" methods or redefine functions.</comment></comment></comment>


No, you're not entitled to your opinion (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://theconversation.com/no-youre-not-entitled-to-your-opinion-9978 <comment><USER2> This ties in directly with 'balance' in reporting, in how when one side of an argument gets a certain amount of time the other side - no matter how crackpot insane it is - is supposed to get equal coverage because that's 'fair'. Ditto education. Equal time for creationism and other bs can be traced back directly to the perceived right to have an opinion and that all voices are equal.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_publ...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creation_and_evolution_in_public_education_in_the_United_States)

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

</comment><comment><USER3> "I'm sure you've heard the expression 'everyone is entitled to their opinion.' Perhaps you've even said it yourself, maybe to head off an argument or bring one to a close. Well, as soon as you walk into this room, it's no longer true. You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to what you can argue for." -- Patrick Stokes

Methinks Stokes has valid point, shame his position isn't the norm these days.

My background isn't philosophy, rather it's engineering; nevertheless many years ago I studied philosophy and it's one of the best things I've done. Whilst it's far from being a universal panacea, philosophy helped me to develop a more balanced and nuanced worldview on many a subject. It's enabled me to argue logically and to detect BS and sweeping statements made without supporting evidence a mile off; and in argument to know the difference between 'subject' and 'predicate'! Moreover, I'm often skeptical of my own ideas—especially so if I've not bothered to argue my case through.

I was enthralled when I first read Book I of Plato's Republic—'Of Wealth, Justice, Moderation, and Their Opposites'—I recall being amazed that a book so old could contain such cleaver and sophisticated arguments.

In this remarkable work Plato explains the meaning of 'justice' by using formal argument which inevitably leads the reader to one logical conclusion. This brilliant argument takes the form of a dialogue between the sophist Thrasymachus and philosopher Socrates and begins with Thrasymachus holding a worldview that 'justice is everyman for himself', and—step after logical step—it ends with Socrates having completely demolished this view and offering up a much better one. This is wonderful stuff, and it's little wonder that it's endured for nearly two and half millennia.

Technological and political changes over the last 30 or 40 years have meant that nowadays almost everyone has gained a voice irrespective of their expertise or experience—it's Warhol's '15 minutes of fame' effect. However, unfortunately these days this gain has been at the expense of formal argument much of which has been lost from the public discourse. Even worse, the precious little logical argument that actually remains is now lost in a background noisy dissonance and cacophony.

</comment><comment><USER4> See autism isn't listed as a serious side effect from the CDC website:

Severe events have very rarely been reported following MMR vaccination, and might also happen after MMRV. These include:

Deafness, Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, Brain damage

[https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side- effects.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/side-effects.htm)

</comment><comment><USER5> If you get past the provocative headline, it's a well written, and considered piece. I especially enjoyed his advice about inquiring as to why someone believes they're entitled to their opinion when that phrase is used to shutdown debate.</comment>


YouTube's Product Chief on Online Radicalization and Algorithmic Rabbit Holes - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/29/technology/youtube-online-extremism.html <comment><USER3> * Let me configure the recommender.

* Let me turn it off entirely.

* Let me adjust the relative weight that the current video gets vs my past views (i.e. do I want to see related videos to this one, or ones that YouTube generally thinks I'll click on)

* Let me adjust the weighting of thumbs up vs. watch time.

* Let me configure the homepage

* Let me make the entire recommender panel be just subscriptions or items from a particular list

* Let me replace the recommender entirely with something of my own devising, called back through a webhook

These things would make YouTube much more useful for me. I'm not going to YouTube just to kill time, and I pay them $13/mo. They're not getting any ad revenue from me, so why am I stuck with their recommender that only cares what it thinks will cause me to spend the most time on YouTube. I am not interested in spending the most time on YouTube. I'm interested in getting the most out of it in the minimum time.

<comment><USER4> I always call this Modern Day Tobacco.

At a certain level of volume, more transparency should be LEGALLY required for multiple companies (auto personalization / recommendation engines / etc.). At least the ability to opt-out. Just hard to define. Could you legally define "bubbling" or super duper smart recommendation algorithms?

Big tech knows this is the direction IMO.

It's my guess why they randomly started pressing so hard for screen time usage reminders.

They're selling addiction to kids (and adults).

YouTube, FB, Instagram, Twitter Moments all have liability when it starts to click with everyone.

It's a serious issue that is totally unregulated and not understood by most.

<comment><USER5> I built Pony [0], an email platform that delivers once a day, to see if it is possible for a platform that doesn't manipulate user psychology to succeed.

In the UI I eschew every traditional user manipulation technique I could think of: there are no notifications, there are no unread message counts. There even isn't read/unread message state. It's launching now, so finally I get to find out: can a platform that doesn't vie for attention, that lets users create their own unguided, unprompted experience succeed?

[0]: [https://www.pony.gg](https://www.pony.gg)

<comment><USER6> Non instant email. Very interesting.

<comment><USER5> Thank you, thank you :) I have been enjoying it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Whenever I went to YouTube I would get suggested videos that were either interesting and related to stuff I had watched, or not interesting to me, but no problem. The algorithm just didn't quite judge what I might be interested in as well as it could.

Occasionally I would try dismissing one of the suggestions in the hope I wouldn't see similar again, but then I'd still see it's kind repeated and was just disappointed it wasn't taking my request into account.

Suggestions are hard though. No problem.

One day, though, I made the mistake of following a link to YouTube which turned out to be to a video of an American political figure (not even sure if he is a politician) whose views were of the sort that court controversy - <USER2> purpose, I guessed.

What I didn't expect was that YouTube would then offer me videos featuring the same person - or people with similar ultra-polarising messages - every time I returned to YouTube.

I hadn't realised that not only does YT take into account what you have watched a _lot_ of, it also seems to massively favour what you have watched once - if that is something especially controversial or perhaps otherwise 'special'.

While I don't mind pointless suggestions I will ignore, it's very concerning that without 'liking' or repeatedly watching such material, people are being suggested it time after time, even when they ask to have it taken away.

<comment><USER8> > it also seems to massively favour what you have watched once - if that is > something especially controversial or perhaps otherwise 'special'.

This is my experience as well. YT thinks I love Jordan Peterson. Four or so months ago, I didn't know who he was, and clicked one clip, found it ridiculous and never clicked another one. But my recommendations are lousy with the guy.

<comment><USER9> You are the second comment here stating this specifically about Jordan Peterson. Weirdly enough, I had that same experience. I saw one video, didn't like it and yet YT keeps recommending this and that video of him or more right-wing people _DESTROYING_ someone. It's frustrating to say the least, not only because I don't want to see it but because I showed a video once when giving a talk, and after it had finished, all those garbage recommendations showed up for everyone to see, making it look like I am secretly some lunatic.

<comment><USER8> > after it had finished, all those garbage recommendations showed up for > everyone to see, making it look like I am secretly some lunatic.

This is kind of my nightmare! Condolences.

YT, wtf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > Sorry, can I just interrupt you there for a second? Just let me be clear: > You're saying that there is no rabbit hole effect on YouTube?

> I'm trying to describe to you the nature of the problem. So what I'm saying > is that when a video is watched, you will see a number of videos that are > then recommended. Some of those videos might have the perception of skewing > in one direction or, you know, call it more extreme. There are other videos > that skew in the opposite direction.

I assisted with data research on YouTube recommended videos ([https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/down-y...](https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/carolineodonovan/down- youtubes-recommendation-rabbithole)), and this claim is misleading at best. There may be _some_ videos that aren't extreme, but that doesn't matter if they are a) in the extreme minority and/or b) appear very far down in the queue of 20+ recommended videos when users typically either do "Up Next" or look at/action only the top few recommendations.

This isn't a "both sides" issue.

<comment><USER11> I don't think this is a fair summary of what the Product Chief is saying. When people talk about the YouTube rabbit hole, they're talking about watching video A, which links to B, to C, etc. until they reach content considered extreme.

This is simplistic, but say all videos are on a 1-10 integer scale in terms of politics. YouTube always recommends 80% videos that are on the same value as the currently viewed video and 10% are one value higher and 10% are on one value lower. It doesn't push anyone in either direction. Randomly clicking on recommended videos will randomly move you up or down (and usually not move at all). But, no matter where you begin, you can always reach either end in 4 clicks - cue people talking about the YouTube rabbit hole.

But hey, maybe it's not enough to merely prefer content that isn't extreme, what if we wanted to actively push people to the center? We could recommend 80% videos that are one value higher or lower towards the center spectrum (or the same is the viewed video is at 5 or 6), and 10% videos that are at the same value, and 10% towards one value away from the center. Randomly clicking on videos _will_ bring most viewers to the center in this system.

But we can still reach the extremes in just 4 clicks. This is why complaining that users can go down a rabbit hole feels disingenuous to me. They always will be _able_ to do so - unless YouTube never recommends videos that aren't more centrist than the video being viewed.

I suppose YouTube could just ban all videos that are at 1 and 10 in our spectrum, but that's basically just calling for censorship. And not to mention, 2 and 9 will just become the new definition of extreme.

Edit: many of the comment lead me to think that I haven't made what is and isn't in scope of my comment clear. Allow me to point out two things in particular.

1\. YouTube already does prohibit hate speech. How well it enforces its rules is a valid point of discussion, but not what I'm talking about here. I'm pointing out that the ability to get to the extremes of what _is_ allowed on the platform through recommendations should not in and of itself be a point of concern.

2\. I'm also aware that sometimes the recommendation are very messed up in context of the current video - e.g. shock videos getting recommended to kids. But this is more about trolls deliberately gaming the recommendation algorithm, which I see as a distinct issue from the alleged rabbit hole pattern of recommendations.

<comment><USER12> The alternative is that Youtube could choose NOT to recommend videos for large categories of videos, particularly those related to kids or other categories (for example, Rohingya-related videos in Myanmar in the current time period). You need not censor the videos, however you can choose to make their discovery less easy.

There's no law that says they _have_ to recommend videos. There is however sufficient evidence at this time around the rabbit-hole effect causing real- world harm. This isn't 2005. It's about time Youtube, and social media properties adopt the medical principle: "first, do no harm". Perhaps they will do this willingly, but somehow I doubt it.

To wit: [https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2018/10/11/memes- in...](https://www.bellingcat.com/news/americas/2018/10/11/memes- infowars-75-fascist-activists-red-pilled/)

<comment><USER11> I'm not sure how kids factor into this, I've always heard the YouTube rabbit hole in the context of pushing people to either ends of the political spectrum.

As far as "do no harm" goes, implementing safeguard against the alleged rabbit hole has a very strong potential to do harm by making YouTube a partisan platform. Bear in mind that concern over the alleged rabbit hole is not equal between liberals, centrists, and conservatives. Many of the recommended videos I've seen people reference as evidence of the alleged rabbit hole are videos I'd considered mainstream. What it takes to placate the critics has very strong potential to violate the principle of "first, do no harm".

<comment><USER12> I would suggest looking through that previous link regarding examples of where one can quickly end up in white nationalist content through recommendations. Again, recommendations are for Youtube's own growth-related ends. However, it is emphatically a choice to have them.

Regarding kids, this has been very well documented: [https://www.ted.com/talks/james_bridle_the_nightmare_videos_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/james_bridle_the_nightmare_videos_of_childrens_youtube_and_what_s_wrong_with_the_internet_today)

[https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the- in...](https://medium.com/@jamesbridle/something-is-wrong-on-the- internet-c39c471271d2)

<comment><USER11> Your medium post is not directly related to what I was referring to in my first comment. Yes, bad actors game the recommendation algorithms to troll people. That's what Elsagate was about. People deliberately making channels and videos that would appear as and presumably get recommended as kid friendly content when it was actually shock content. I'm well aware that recommendation algorithms can be abused. Perhaps I should have more strongly emphasized that my examples are presented in a very simplified scenario, that is limited to the alleged political rabbit hole and not things like Elsagate.

The point I am making is that pointing out the fact that it's possible to get to the extremes of YouTube by clicking through on recommended videos shouldn't be surprising. In fact, of you couldn't so that it would be evidence of deliberately trying to keep certain content from being popular.

The question of how well YouTube polices it's terms of service (which already does prohibit hate speech) is related to this question about the alleged rabbit hole because such content presumably exists at the edge of my hypothetical political spectrum values. But it's not directly related to the fact that clicking through on recommended links can bring people to 1 and 10 even if they start at 5 should not be surprising.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Why is it an acceptable expectation for the user to self moderate certain information but not others? For example, if I watch a video about modding a car, then that links me to another video of more extreme modification, and so on, up to the point that I am no longer interested and stop watching. That is OK for the people at YouTube. But when it comes to politics they feel that people cannot decide what they do and don't agree with and self moderate. I get that you could make the argument that politics is different, but is it that much different than some other topics that could lead to undesirable outcomes?

<comment><USER14> Car modding has a) very high up-front costs, relative to developing political ideas and b) arguably very little chance of doing large-scale damage to a society.

If car modding videos led you down a rabbit hole towards "watch how fast I can go if I cut the brake lines with these $3 wire cutters! Those braking requirements are just a conspiracy between big auto and the shadow government to keep you from reaching car enlightenment, so make sure to drive through the front window of your nearest car dealership"... and then people started doing that, we would have a different attitude about them.

<comment><USER15> Are they going to take the same stance to videos about gaming, because gaming addiction is a real problem and a progressive diet of "Lets Plays" normalizes unhealthy amounts of video games, by showing people whose entire life is video games?

Why is that different than politics?

<comment><USER14> I can't believe I have to say this, but it's different because political beliefs, whether they inspire one to shoot a bunch of people or just to vote for the "burn it all down" party can have a damaging influence over society as a whole. I.e. it's not just about the personal responsibility to oneself as much as the risk of being inspired to terrorism.

<comment><USER15> Gaming addiction is a systemic problem that's impacting the social stability of several Asian nations, and possibly Western ones — your argument isn't principled, merely special pleading.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Radicalization aside, is anyone just annoyed with how much worse the recommendations are compared to how they were? Damn near impossible to discover anything given how biased it is towards "popular" content as opposed to, y'know, related to what you're watching

<comment><USER17> Yup. It's just... shitty. I subscribe to a lot of channels and well more than half of the videos on the recommendations list are just recent videos from my subscription feed. I recognize that they are trying to create some sort of dumbed down landing page experience, but it just sucks. I feel as though there was a period of time when it was much better, but that time has sadly long passed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> > The first is that using a combination of those tools of authoritative > content and promoting authoritative content is something that can apply to > other information verticals, not just breaking news.

How is this not a clear admission they are a publisher and not just a platform?

</comment><comment><USER19> So it feels like the way YouTube's algorithms work re suggested videos is heavily related to "what other videos did the people who watched this video watch?". Now imagine you have a video that expresses some conspiracy theory. That video is watched by a bunch of people who are into conspiracy theories. Then you come along, and YouTube now recommends you videos that the people who watched the same video as you just watched. And bam you get sucked toward those others who were interested in that video.

Now this does work in the other direction, where someone with more normal viewing habits watching a video will steer the conspiracy theorists toward the types of videos they watch, but the size of the pools means it's the polarizing direction that would have a greater effect.

<comment><USER17> It's worse than that. YouTube tries to maximize engagement, so it will preferentially recommend videos watched by highly engaged viewers. Guess what category of viewers are highly engaged? Indeed, conspiracists, polemecists, etc. Imagine walking into a college campus and asking the registrar for some recommendations on classes to take and them telling you to go listen to the crazy religious nut shouting from atop a milk crate, because they were so much more engaged with their material than anyone else on campus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The thing is this is how algorithmic timelines, lists, etc. work. They're programmed to drive engagement. Fear, hate, outrage, sensationalism, and controversy are what does that as has been known since the time of P. T. Barnum.

</comment><comment><USER21> At one point, if you watched an Asmongold video, you'd be bombarded with suggestions for more of them.

Never seen it happen as strong with any other topic.

I don't know about increasing levels of extreme, but I can definitely see it possible that suggestions could get people to a place where they are feeling like an idea or a thing is more popular than it really is.

He talks about it briefly here (nsfw)

[https://youtu.be/Rstb4IRXZLQ?t=625](https://youtu.be/Rstb4IRXZLQ?t=625)

</comment><comment><USER22> Seems to be a complaint that the Internet's Overton window is difficult to easily control. Good.

<comment><USER23> Seconded.

My beef with all this is our current Overton window has been compressed to right of center economically.

American opinion and general support for solid, center left economic policy is high and growing.

Medicare For All, and friends.

Our mainstream media simply does not report on, nor offer much opinion favorable to labor, and or framed from a labor point of view.

It used to. When I was a kid, we would compare the various points of view, learn to identify them, and discuss what having the means to society.

This lack of control is a good thing. I think we've got problems it's a struggle with, but I don't think they're as bad as what's being represented, nor do I think a nicely centered window makes any sense. I think the people should decide that.

<comment><USER24> Ideally, the best way to balance online rhetoric is for left of center creators to generate more frequent and more compelling content (without admins needing to finesse algorithms or censor/shadow ban content in pursuit of a digital Fairness Doctrine).

By sheer quantity mainstream media leans center left and online indie media leans center right. You could say that taking the whole landscape into account that constitutes some kind of tenuous balance overall - but it would be nice if both mediums were more balanced.

Interesting aside: conservative talk radio has always been more popular than liberal talk radio - is this just the online expression of the same phenomenon? People on one side of the aisle tending to enjoy listening to and watching political content at greater length than their counterparts?

<comment><USER25> I think left-wing creators are getting better at making compelling content on YouTube and having it as part of a discussion. Hbomberguy, Shaun, PhilosophyTube, and ContraPoints come to mind.

<comment><USER23> They are. Well spotted.

The important thing for Lefty's, who are interested in resolving this problem, is to realize they need to support those voices. And we need to do it rather directly, because of the big systems, and the large money, really won't do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> "There's more work to be done" is the understatement of the year.

</comment><comment><USER27> Just out of curiosity - we have people on this thread and on other parts of the internet, claiming they'll watch one "extremist", typically right wing video, and then have their recommendations blitzed with even more extreme/right wing content. This is the "rabbit hole" effect that's being referred to in the article.

Can anyone say that they have distinctly _not_ encountered this effect? I can recall having watched maybe a couple of Joe Rogan clips, a Jordan Peterson interview, and even some stuff I would label alt-right content. I'm personally fairly left-ish/liberal, so I find these videos boring/offensive and eventually will go back to my normal youtube consumption - music, sports, some tech videos.

My recommendations are all of the latter categories, not of extreme/political right wing category. I guess due to selection bias, most people who don't have a problem with their recommendations won't report anything, while most people who do will leave comments that they too experienced the rabbit hole effect. I'm wondering if that leads to the problem described being overstated. Or am I really the only person who's managed to watch some fairly extreme right wing content, and had my recommended videos stay intact?

</comment><comment><USER5> The big question in my life is whether an app can succeeed in 2019 without manipulating user psychology like this.

I built Pony [0], an email platform that delivers once a day, to see if this is possible. In the UI I eschewed every traditional user manipulation technique I could think of: there are no notifications, there are no unread message counts. There even isn't read/unread message state.

I truly wonder whether people can adapt to a totally unstructured online platform, an unguided, unprompted experience that they create for themselves. My bet is they can.

[0]: [https://www.pony.gg](https://www.pony.gg)

<comment><USER28> > Pony is the world's first non-instant messaging platform

The postal service would like a word with you.

<comment><USER5> Neither snow nor rain nor heat nor gloom of night stays these couriers from the swift completion of their appointed rounds.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> If only someone took the rss feeds from youtube channels and made your own front end. Ditch their portal.

Turn youtube into a type of podcast db, its just a media storage site. Then you could create your own portal, parse the views/ratings and provide real statistics.

I don't watch youtube for youtube, I watch youtube for user-created content. And some of that content has already moved off onto 3rd party sites. Floatplane anyone? Patreon anyone? list goes on.

I just wish finding video content was as easy as searching for podcasts. Youtube provides RSS links, I use them to add to my podcast player.

</comment><comment><USER30> I've noticed an interesting thing in terms of "youtube rabbit holes" towards extreme content. I'm what American society would generally consider "liberal", and I watch a lot of videos about fixing climate change, medicare for all, etc. Interestingly, I don't usually get "liberal" recommendations on my home page.

However, if I watch a video from a conservative angle, even just one or two videos, I almost immediately get extreme right wing content in my recommendations. Stuff like PragerU, ReasonTV, NRATV, etc. Even watching videos that I wouldn't consider right wing, just critical of certain left wing sects, like h3h3 for example, tend to almost immediately lead me into videos like "DUMB FEMINISTS GET OWNED - COMPILATION".

It's strange the rabbit holes almost always take me deep into right wing territory, but never really into left wing territory.

<comment><USER31> If you think PragerU or ReasonTV are "extreme right wing" content, respectfully I think you might be lacking perspective. I would describe PragerU as mainstream within the conservative sphere. Their presentation is almost always high-quality in terms of production, respectful in its delivery, and even-keeled. You might disagree with the content (or their values), or find factual errors, but it is easy to find flaws with a wide range of content producers on the left as well. ReasonTV is even closer to center, and is near- right libertarian, and definitely not extreme right.

As for your experience with recommendations - I am not sure why you would not see recommendations similar to the videos you like. I see videos from multiple ideologies regularly and get content recommended from all of them. I haven't had my feed dominated by one side. What I think is happening is that people _notice_ videos that incense them, and incorrectly perceive it as being dominant when it truly isn't.

<comment><USER32> > high-quality in terms of production, respectful in its delivery, and even- > keeled

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7BgrddY18](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EM7BgrddY18)

"Why you should love fossil fuels", "It is easy for feminists to forget that men gave women the right to vote, gave up their monopoly on power, and invented birth control." \-- even-keeled?

> it is easy to find flaws with a wide range of content producers on the left > as well.

More importantly irrevelant, since the criticism isn't that imperfect right wing videos are presented instead of perfect left wing ones.

> I haven't had my feed dominated by one side.

So? It's perfectly possible for you to be in a different testing bucket. Don't assume what you see is what everybody sees, and that they are just interpreting it differently than you do. I might as well say "nah, you only _think_ you see videos from multiple ideologies".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Thank $deity for [https://youtube-dl.org](https://youtube-dl.org). I can't be bothered to deal with Google's "up next" algorithm.

</comment><comment><USER34> If you call Jordan Peterson videos or Joe Rogan clips extremist videos, then I think this is clearly a step in the wrong direction. Their videos thrive on YouTube not because they hold extreme views, it's because their videos are very engaging, fun and you learn something from it.

If this is a ploy to push more mainstream narratives through YouTube that is akin to watching CNN/CBS or ABC, then I'll be looking for other platforms.

<comment><USER35> [https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1110301264657551360](https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1110301264657551360)

>Joe Rogan went on Infowars today, the same day a man who lost his child in the Sandy Hook shooting committed suicide. The grieving father was among the plaintiffs suing Alex Jones for defamation after smearing the murdered children and their parents as part of a hoax.

>In the same Infowars episode that Joe Rogan appeared on, Alex Jones pushed a conspiracy theory that the father of a child killed at Sandy Hook didn't kill himself, but may have been murdered to silence Jones and end the first amendment.

<comment><USER36> > > [https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1110301264657551360](https://twitter.com/VicBergerIV/status/1110301264657551360)

That Twitter thread is interesting, because it contains a link to a 'This American Life' program that gives a platform to Alex Jones to explain himself. I doubt anyone would call 'This American Life' a platform for spreading conspiracy theories or hate.

In this light, is Joe Rogan, who also allows people like Jones to explain themselves, a moderate or an extremist?

<comment><USER35> You have to look at what both Joe Rogan and This American Life do in a larger context, which should clarify the differences. I do think that TAL should not have given airtime to Alex Jones because it really is that dangerous to give him (and people like him) a platform.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> >Yeah, so I've heard this before, and I think that there are some myths that go into that description that I think it would be useful for me to debunk.

This is no myth bro, go to youtube pick a political video leave on autoplay, watch it go to shit.

</comment><comment><USER38> It's almost like the YouTube guy is taking his talking points directly from Zuckerberg's script.

\</comment><comment>-----

1\. "of course we take this seriously"

\- Mohan: "Having said that, we do take this notion of dissemination of harmful misinformation, hate-filled content, content that in some cases is inciting violence, extremely seriously."

\- Zuckerberg 2016: "we take misinformation seriously. We've been working on this problem for a long time and we take this responsibility seriously."

2\. "we're simply trying to help people get accurate information"

\- Mohan: "when users are looking for information, YouTube is putting its best foot forward in terms of serving that information to them."

\- Zuckerberg 2016: "Our goal is to connect people with the stories they find most meaningful, and we know people want accurate information."

3\. "fear not, it's our users who are in power/in control"

\- Mohan: "But YouTube is also still keeping users in power, in terms of their intent and the information that they're looking for."

\- Zuckerberg 2004: "People have very good control over who can see their information."

\- Zuckerberg 2017: "Our full mission statement is: give people the power to build community and bring the world closer together. That reflects that we can't do this ourselves, but only by empowering people to build communities and bring people together."

And last but definitely not least,

4\. "we're proud of our progress, but there's more work to do"

\- Mohan: "It's an ongoing effort. I think we've made great strides here. But clearly there's more work to be done."

\- Zuckerberg 2016: "We've made significant progress, but there is more work to be done."

\- Zuckerberg 2018: "I've learned a lot from focusing on these issues and we still have a lot of work ahead…I'm proud of the progress we've made in 2018… I'm committed to continuing to make progress on these important issues as we enter the new year."

Why anyone would copy Zuckerberg's script at this point is beyond me.

\</comment><comment>-----

Sources:

\- Zuck 2004: [https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds- registe...](https://www.thecrimson.com/article/2004/2/9/hundreds-register-for- new-facebook-website/?page=single)

\- Zuck 2016: [https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061](https://www.facebook.com/zuck/posts/10103269806149061)

\- Zuck 2017: [https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/bringing- the-...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/mark-zuckerberg/bringing-the-world- closer-together/10154944663901634/)

\- Zuck 2018: [https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10105865715850211/](https://www.facebook.com/4/posts/10105865715850211/)

<comment><USER39> It's because they are both spouting standard PR cliches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I work at Google but not on anything related to YouTube. This opinion is my own: that was very disappointing to read.

I _use_ YouTube, I don't browse it. I search for what I want, and then I watch it. Yet YouTube seems absolutely determined to send me down rabbit holes for some reason. For instance my friend sent me a video by some cable news neo- philosopher (a Jordan Peterson type) and since then I can't get rid of low- quality vids in my recommendations that are trying to make me angry. "{Person} totally EVISCERATES {other person}" being the calmest of them.

The recommendation algorithm is also just not even good at its job. I am Jewish and the number of videos I have seen recommended to me that are thinly- veiled anti-semitism is pathetic. Do they really think I am going to watch those?

The one thing from the article I do believe is that these extremist videos (mostly) don't monetize. So why do they dominate? Honestly I think we just suck at building recommendation systems.

I am not a big fan of Facebook, but I applaud their recent ban of white supremacist content. Freedom of speech is one thing, freedom to use someone else's site to speak to millions is another thing. YouTube should just take a harder stance on all of this dangerous crap. The Sandy Hook deniers and the Antivaxxers will have a hard time finding a new home.

</rant>

<comment><USER41> From the outside it seems like they don't actually design YouTube with features their users would like.

I pay for YouTube to avoid ads and wish I didn't have to use their home view which shows me a lot of content I don't care about. I want my homescreen to be my subscriptions (instead I have to manually switch to this every time).

I would entirely turn off recommended content if I could, in favor of channels suggesting other channels or something more human curated (like Spotify discovery which in part uses other user's playlists).

People are vulnerable to bad information delivered in a manipulative way - especially when this is reinforced by a bunch of recommended videos.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> This is nothing more than a very long-winded PR denial.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is what google okay is for. Trust me.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm so tired of people calling the regulation of hate speech and violent speech on private platforms "censorship." These people are more than free to express themselves in any public platform or their own platform. They are not censored in any way. They are being removed from a private platform for not complying with the rules of the platform.

You wouldn't say that a drunk who walked into a nice restaurant yelling hateful things was being censored when they are asked to leave. Neither would you say that a man trying to convince kids to get into his van outside of McDonalds was being censored for being kicked out of the McDonalds. Both of those are private businesses regulating the behavior of their customers, and not in any way censorship.

> Randomly clicking on videos

The entire point is that people don't click on random videos, they click on videos they think are interesting. Call it "rage clicks", curiosity, or some people are just bad people and want to see bad things, just don't call it random, because thats obviously wrong.

<comment><USER45> I'm at the point where dishonest discussions about "free speech" online are a non-starter (Having had an illuminating exchange on this very site two days ago). It's not as though these anonymous chats matter in the slightest, they're had in bad faith and most of all are intellectually stultifying. The only winning move is not to play. You won't convince anyone of your position who has made the conscious choice to adopt a dynamic series of positions to support their unstated agenda. It's like arguing with creationists, the best you can hope for is changing their declared position of the day. Meanwhile they win just by having an audience and the semblance of legitimacy, not to mention dominating and railroading ever comment section they can to quash reasonable debate.

This is setting aside issues with bots, trolls, and brigades. In real life with people you know and can talk to there _can_ be value in these discussions, but never anonymously and never online. It's pseudointellectual wank dressed up as reasonable talk. There is nothing wrong with simply saying, "I'm not interested in having this conversation with you, sorry." and moving on.

<comment><USER46> Do you really not accept that some people (many) may just actually believe in free speech and not be arguing in bad faith, be a bot, brigade...?

That was a pretty normal position to hold on the US until about 5 years ago and I'd say it still is.

<comment><USER47> The two posters before this are exactly why people are so riled up about censorship (calling it what it is. Just cuz someone dislikes the speech doesn't warrant removal of the right to speak.)

Basically you have people that demand others be censored. That they don't deserve to speak freely. And they'll come up with all these mental gymnastics as to why other people's speech isn't acceptable. And for most of us we understand that the first amendment is the most important and that's not acceptable.

Just look thru the last 2 years of left leaning websites. Anyone who claimed trump was innocent (clearly...) was a "bot, troll or brigader" and ought to be censored because it was "hate speech".

A world where we censor is a dark world. There's a reason free speech was right number one in this country.

<comment><USER48> The infringement of speech is only prevented for the federal government. The internet doesn't count. The internet is not beholden to physical barriers and there is more than enough room to start your own website. You have a right to speech, you don't have a right to a privately owned platform that isn't yours..

Furthermore, deplatforming has always been a thing. It basically happened to the dixie chicks after they spoke out against the Iraq war and GWB in England way back in the early 2000's. I don't think they have ever been on fox or a sinclair broadcasting station ever again.

No one is saying proclaiming trumps innocence is hate speech, that is an absurd claim, where are you getting that nonsense?

<comment><USER49> Nobody is talking about free speech as a matter of constitutional law in these instances (although even that applies to more than the federal government, i.e. state and local governments.) People are making a normative claim that it's better for institutions like YouTube to have liberal speech policies than restrictive ones. If you want an example with opposite political valence think of NFL players kneeling during the national anthem. The NFL can legally punish players for exercising their constitutionally guaranteed rights, but it nevertheless has a chilling effect.

<comment><USER50> I would submit that there is a difference between hosting speech, and amplifying it with your recommendation engine. If your recommendation engine does not promote something, I don't think that is the same as censorship.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Giving people more of what they want is the optimal user experience.

People are ultimately choosing what to watch.

It's a clear conflict of interest for traditional media to blame their younger competitors for all the world's problems.

<comment><USER52> I want more free crack please, it's the ultimate user experience!

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> the stupid idea that it is the algorithm driving people to extreme content. It is not. people are driven by that. our whole societies are driven by violence, fear, disruptive stuff</comment>


A flag no more: Microsoft unveils new Windows logo - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/microsoft/news/2012/02/a-flag-no-more-microsoft-unveils-new-windows-logo.ars <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3604177>

</comment><comment><USER3> I honestly wonder how are going to received this new brand logo in some Muslim countries.

I'm talking about those who change the Red Cross for the Red Crescent or buy Barcelona soccer team t-shirts with the Sant Jordi (St George's)Cross deleted in their logos.

Even more, that article points out "Though Microsoft is showing off the logo in blue, in Windows 8 it will change color to match the user's preference." so a user can end with a flag with an Scandinavian cross or a St George's one.

<comment><USER4> It looks a bit like the negative space of a Google + too. Troubled times ahead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Reminds me of Greece's "State flag on land, 1822–1969 and 1975–78" [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Greece#Adoption_of_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flag_of_Greece#Adoption_of_the_flag)</comment>


Trapped in mail hell (e-mail client roundup for OS X) - <AUTHOR> http://byteproject.tumblr.com/post/65604678006/trapped-in-mail-hell

<comment><USER2> Interesting roundup however I disagree with the premise that OS X Mail is deficient. I'm glad the author wants his social networking integrated with mail but I for sure DON'T (and I bet plenty of other folks don't either).

I want my mail client to handle my mail. OS X Mail does just that in a very efficient and simple way. I have no trouble handling multiple Gmail and IMAP services. The automated rules are robust enough to handle most needs and smart folders break our messages in whatever arrangement I need.

I fail to see what else you'd want a mail app to do.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sparrow still comes on top as the best email client for me. Its UI/performance is still superior compare to other client IMO.</comment>


Amazon Is Poised to Revamp Price, Selection and Convenience in the Grocery Aisle - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/barbarathau/2017/06/20/amazon-is-poised-to-revamp-price-selection-and-convenience-in-the-grocery-aisle/#335801bc6e9b <comment><USER2> 1\. when you have to send employees to shelves you can't dynamically reprice. Also, I would get kinda pissed if my price was different than the guy next to me at the store.

1a. 1992 Wal-Mart deploys the Retail Link system to strengthen supplier partnerships. The system provides vendors information on sale trends and inventory levels.

[http://www.cio.com/article/2437873/infrastructure/45-years-o...](http://www.cio.com/article/2437873/infrastructure/45-years- of-wal-mart-history--a-technology-time-line.html)

2\. Can Amazon Solve The Bricks And Clicks Grocery Problem? No because it's a massive overhead problem. If they build automated stores possibly. They still don't own the land though.</comment>


German Regulators Just Outlawed Facebook's Whole Ad Business - <AUTHOR> https://www.wired.com/story/germany-facebook-antitrust-ruling/ <comment><USER2> Recent discussions:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19104098](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19104098)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19105272](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19105272)

</comment><comment><USER3> > _Authorities haven't done a good job of articulating why privacy is an > antitrust issue. Here, the German regulator makes it clear. 'The FCO's > theory is that Facebook's dominance is what allows it to impose on users > contractual terms that require them to allow Facebook to track them all > over,' Khan says. 'When there is a lack of competition, users accepting > terms of service are often not truly consenting. The consent is a fiction.'_

Huh, a legal theory linking Facebook's market position to consumer harm.

</comment><comment><USER4> > According to the FCO, Facebook had 32 million monthly active users in > Germany at the end of last year, amounting to a market share of more than 80 > percent.

I am not sure I understand: that's Facebook penetration Facebook accounts/adult digital population), not their market share - which would be Facebook accounts/(sum of accounts of all social media, including Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Snapchat, ...Spotify)

> The regulator argues this dominance gives it jurisdiction to oversee the > company's data collection practices.

...and why only the data collection practices? Why would the other parts of the T&C of Facebook be not subject to it? Why should consumers not be forced to accept just the data collection practices of the T&C? Shouldn't the German antitrust then, logically, prevent Facebook from enforcing their entire T&C? So, large companies now cannot have T&C enforced even when they do not cause economic damage to the market? Is there an economic gain for a person to join Facebook? My friend does not have a Facebook account, I don't think she is poorer because of it. ...because if there is no economic harm, I don't see why the antitrust office would have jurisdiction. Maybe the gain/harm is not economic, maybe the gain from a Facebook account is not economic, it's "social". Well isn't then the "social" gain greater when Facebook offers a unified experience (across Facebook, Instagram and WhatsUp)? How does the antitrust office action make any sense? What am I missing?

<comment><USER5> "...and why only the data collection practices? "

Doesn't it make sense to look at only the specific bits that are causing harm, rather than stepping in to completely rewrite a contract. Governments on both sides of the Atlantic rule certain contract terms illegal (eg no competes), the presence of those terms doesn't invalidate the whole contract generally though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Even if FB stops tracking Germans so much (and hopefully all the other EU countries) they'll still be able to sell ads. FB is where people go and where ads are more likely to be seen.

FB might discover that it makes the same amount of money at a lower cost.

</comment><comment><USER7> UE is going too far away, first the cookie popup show, now this shit. I may be wrong, but they have no big internet companies, don't they?

<comment><USER8> Perhaps 'big internet companies' are not a good thing to have.</comment></comment>


Harvard professor building an army of super-humanitarians - <AUTHOR> http://www.bostonmagazine.com/scripts/print/article.php?asset_idx=331784

<comment><USER2> sounds very lofty and academic. let's focus on simple tools that help relief workers do their jobs better. my little plug: <http://www.frontlinesms.com/>.</comment>


Walmart filed patent for "Digital Currency via Blockchain" - <AUTHOR> https://cointelegraph.com/news/walmart-is-trying-to-patent-its-own-libra-like-digital-currency <comment><USER2> So this is what the new scrip for the company store looks like? Facebook is having a hard time getting Libra started, but it will be trivial for Walmart. All they have to do is give employees a bonus to get paid in Walbucks over USD/Euro/Other, and maybe a slight discount when using it. Walmart already employs thousands or even millions that are economically vulnerable, in part because Walmart destroyed their local retail economy. This would only lock those people in further.

How long before Amazon announces their coin? Free Prime delivery if using A-Coin!

<comment><USER3> IIRC Amazon has a perks program for their high performing employees called Swag bucks which can be used to purchase prime and shop at Amazon :).

<comment><USER4> >which can be used to purchase prime and shop at Amazon :).

I wish.

At least at the Amazon FC where I work, they can purchase cheap branded stuff like water bottles, lanyards and t-shirts, gift cards and coupons for the commissary, but not Prime or general purchases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> I think a lot of technologists and cryptocurrency advocates conflate a few different concepts - A "digital currency", a "decentralized ledger" (blockchain), and "trustless consensus". Technologies like Bitcoin combine all 3, but you don't necessarily need to combine them.

I see WalmartCoin and Libra as "digital corporate currencies" which will compete with digital FIAT currencies. This already exists to an extent, for example people spend and trade Amazon gift cards because they are fungible and redeemable anywhere. Or people buying Steam wallet funds with their USD. Or people buying pre-loaded Amex gift cards?

Can we just think about Libra et al. as alternatives to fiat currencies? Or as a "digital wallet" / "gift card" you can spend anywhere?

What is the difference between me having a Libra wallet with $100 that I can spend at participating merchants, vs. me having a $100 prepaid Amex giftcard that I can spend at participating merchants? The only real difference is now I can actually transfer "my" money to others.

<comment><USER5> Nothing they are al just trying to become the next MasterCard or visa to reap the benefits of being the clearing house and make some sweet $$

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> At what point should the federal government make a serious attempt at becoming a digital processor for USD transactions. If a payment mechanism existed for free transactions of any amount, paid for by normal American taxes, that would revolutionize digital payments. Let the banks compete on fees for managing accounts and support and fraud, and the government can handle the processing infrastructure and uptime guarantees.

<comment><USER7> So the same organization that runs the DMV should become the worlds largest payment processor? I will stick with a bank and Bitcoin.

edit: I know the DMV is not the federal government I was just making a exaggerated point

<comment><USER8> The federal government does not operate "the DMV". Each state does.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Maybe the fact that these companies are coming up with their own currency shows that they are just too big.

<comment><USER10> In this case I think it's more simple than that: someone I know has done design consultancy work with Walmart, and told me that every new product they've pursued was something that had been in the news a few days before they brought it up.

<comment><USER11> Walmart used to be the innovator / leader. Now it just seems they are chasing trends. There doesn't seem to be a coherent digital / tech strategy (at least on the consumer facing side).

Walmarts core is poor, rural/suburban America. How can wal-mart use tech to make their lives better? Same day home delivery is an obvious one, say every $X you spend in store you get a free same day home delivery credit. That would be nice / appreciated by folks struggling to get by.

Target, at least, seems to be doing its own thing vs constantly copying amazon/tech X, and I respect them for that.

<comment><USER12> >> Walmarts core is poor, rural/suburban America.

Maybe in 'Merica but not in Canada. It's the go-to for the huge array of products between Costco & the grocery store for a wide set socioeconomic segments. If it's a supercentre they get lots of the grocery dollars too.

They give you free shipping on everything, including big, bulky items like diapers. I think this is more important for lower income folks than same day delivery.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Quick question for other people on HN: What is the difference between a USD backed "digital currency" and a bank account?

As far as I can tell they are one and the same. In both cases you have an account balance that can be digitally transferred and the value of that balance completely depends on a trusted entity (a bank or the entity "backing" the digital currency).

<comment><USER14> Well if it's on a publicly available blockchain, the difference is that the information on how much money is in circulation, how much is being created, is all open to the public and verifiable. The information on how much banks are holding onto in fractional reserves should therefore be available and make cooking the books more difficult and allowing audits to be more accurate and hopefully regulations could exist to keep banks better in check.

<comment><USER15> Why is it so hard to audit those bitcoin exchanges then?

<comment><USER16> A public blockchain is straightforward to audit. It is the documentation internal to an exchange which can be opaque.

If trading is done off-chain, or transactions are made _between_ currencies, those are not a part of the blockchain. For bitcoin-only transactions between wallets, no exchange is required.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a pretty straightforward antitrust case, right? They're leveraging their position as one of the largest employers in the US to gain a unfair competitive advantage for their digital currency if they pay their employees with it.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is just going to lead to company scrip. Once again history will repeat itself.

</comment><comment><USER19> I'm not sure we want Facebook to have access to large amounts of verified consumer purchasing information.

</comment><comment><USER20> No body wants shop tokens. It's like all these guys have discovered arcade tokens.

<comment> jon-wood I'm pretty sure there's plenty of people who'll happily take ship tokens if they give a 10-20% discount on purchases.

<comment><USER21> So, Walmart would pay 10-20% to people to use its shit tokens, but what would it gain?

<comment><USER18> Revenue.

<comment><USER22> Selling a dollar for 80 cents, i'll have unlimited revenue this year :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> So this is just a play to avoid the Credit Card processing fees right?

</comment><comment><USER24> >patent

Not convinced they quite grasp the point of a digital currency...

<comment><AUTHOR> I think JP Morgan and Bank of America both tried to patent a bunch of blockchain tech.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> So is this the 2019 version of the store credit card?

</comment><comment><USER26> These cryptos are becoming the new company binded cc.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your famous sentient robots from scifi? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> Eva from Ex-Machina.</comment>