Great Adventure-Game Puzzles - <AUTHOR> https://www.filfre.net/2018/11/ten-great-adventure-game-puzzles/ <comment><USER2> In one text adventure whose name I forget, you're stuck in a maze, and

[spoilers]

as you wander around helplessly at some point you start getting hot. If you take off your shirt to cool off, the game responds something like: "ah, much better. you stretch out your wings.". And with that info, the maze is solved by simply "fly".

I liked how it made me aware of my preconceptions, that the protagonist I was playing was just like me.

<comment><USER3> 9:05 is my favorite introduction to IF: [http://adamcadre.ac/if/905.html](http://adamcadre.ac/if/905.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I like a text adventure game but sometimes the puzzles seem were so obtuse. They seen to gave gotten better lately (being able to look up stuff on the internet helps..)

I always think of old man murrays rant on a "gabriel knight" puzzle, and wonder who has the patience to figure these things out: (the puzzle involves spraying a cat with water and using tape to collect fur and maple syrup as an adhesive..)

" Gabriel Knight must disguise himself as a man called Mosley in order to fool a French moped rental clerk into renting him the shop's only motorcycle.

In order to construct the costume, Gabriel Knight must manufacture a fake moustache. ... Knight must do this even though Moseley does not have a moustache.

"

[http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/78.html](http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/78.html)

[http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/79.html](http://www.oldmanmurray.com/features/79.html)

</comment><comment><USER3> "Counterfeit Monkey" by Emily Short expands the T-remover puzzle into a full game full of wordplay. For example, you turn a fossil into foil and then oil to fix a car.

Retrospective: [https://emshort.blog/2013/01/24/making-of-counterfeit- monkey...](https://emshort.blog/2013/01/24/making-of-counterfeit-monkey- puzzles-and-toys/)

<comment><USER5> I'm a big fan of lots of her work. Beautifully written, fun, engrossing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> There was a text adventure for the BBC Model B called Philosopher's Quest (Acornsoft 1983). The back of the box mentioned, among other things 'Nothing in the game is a red herring so read all the text carefully for clues to other puzzles.'

At one point in the game you see the word 'Blanche' written on a wall. If you type the word, distant bells ring, but nothing else seems to happen.

Right at the end of the game, you need one more point to win. If you say Blanche at the very end, then you get the final points; no red herrings.

</comment><comment><USER7> I know it's mentioned briefly in the article, but I always loved the insult sword fighting from Monkey Island. Very funny and young me really had to think about the chosen response.

<comment><USER8> Ooh. In the language puzzles subgenre, I'd add the stranger encounter from "The Edifice," by Lucian Paul Smith (1997). One of the most memorable.

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

<comment><USER9> That's great. And all of "The Gostak".

I think I like these so much because they make me feel like I'm being clever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you like text adventure games, check out Jason Scott's documentary _GET LAMP_ about the history of text adventure games, including interviews with some Infocom developers:

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

[http://www.getlamp.com/](http://www.getlamp.com/)

</comment><comment><USER11> Random fact about that puzzle in Monkey Island: it's the only way I know in which you can _actually_ lose the game.

M.I. prided itself in having no dead ends, but if you throw the leaflet into a fire then you cannot leave the island. I thought I was being smart throwing items in the fire (the game stops you from throwing _other_ useful items, and I wanted a smaller inventory), but in the end finishing the game took a couple years and the internet.

<comment><USER12> You can also drown when underwater, Guybrush can _only_ hold his breath for ten minutes!

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Radio4 published Hitchhiker's Guide online for an anniversary: [http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml](http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/hitchhikers/game.shtml)

The article boasts that the fish puzzle isn't even that hard for the game. Curious which ones they found the hardest or most random...

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder what percentage of users got past these in the days before looking up answers online. Some of these I know I wouldn't have solved, or would have taken an enormous amount of time like the Plundered Hearts example.

I recall people examining the raw data of some of these games to find text strings that could explain how to solve them.

<comment><USER15> _I recall people examining the raw data of some of these games to find text strings that could explain how to solve them._

I tried that, but I wasn't sufficiently '1337 to crack the text compression scheme used by Infocom, despite several attempts at disassembling their (Apple II) parser back in the day.

Amusingly, though, because their game engine stored next to nothing in RAM and relied heavily on demand-paging the compressed text from disk, I was able to get some intriguing clues about locations, objects, and events I hadn't yet encountered by swapping one game disk for another in the middle of a session and typing LOOK. Most of the resulting output was garbage, and crashes were pretty common, but when the (radix-40, IIRC) bitstream lined up just right, the game would sometimes spew out a significant amount of decoded plaintext.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> One of the first games I played as a kid was the DOS port of infocoms Deadline (1982) — a police/detective mystery. Easily one of my favorite adventure games of all time. It had a branching story line, multiple endings, a real-time-ish clock. Combine that with the "feelies" that infocom was known for in the early 80s and it was a unique experience that I'm not sure anyone will be able to reproduce.

</comment><comment><USER17> As much as I loved these games growing up, it pains me to admit that the puzzle designs found in most make them objectively not good games.

Dark Seed, for example, has puzzles that must be solved at a certain time on a certain day, and if you miss your chance the game becomes unwinnable without any indication of that fact. Yay.</comment>


Alphabet in bid to buy Fitbit - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-fitbit-m-a-alphabet-exclusive/exclusive-google-owner-alphabet-in-bid-to-buy-fitbit-sources-idUSKBN1X71NY <comment><USER2> > Fitbits' stock shot up almost 30 percent after the first rumors surfaced. In > recent months, the company's stock often traded below $3, down from close to > $48 shortly after its IPO in 2015. Today, after the announcement, it went up > to around $5.20.

Good lord, must the acquisition offer feel like a relief? Surely, Fitbit wouldn't do a Groupon now.

The article fails to mention Fossil, but Google recently did acquire their wearables research division for $40M [0]. It looks like Google is gearing up to launch multiple wearables. Xiaomi, Huawei, and Huami have really taken the wearables market by storm [1]. If anything, price differentiation seems to be the key. I hope the rumoured Pixel Wearable isn't comically expensive like its Phone counterparts.

[0] [https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/17/18187026/google-fossil- gr...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/1/17/18187026/google-fossil-group- smartwatch-sale-40-million-wear-os-android)

[1] [https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191017005172/en/Hua...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191017005172/en/Huami- Launches-GTR-Bold-New-Fashion-Orientated-Amazfit)

<comment><USER3> > Xiaomi, Huawei, and Huami have really taken the wearables market by storm

You link to a press release. Are there actual sales numbers to back that claim up? Because all I see out in the real world are Apple watches and Fit Bits.

> I hope the rumoured Pixel Wearable isn't comically expensive like its Phone > counterparts.

The Apple Watch Series 3 is available on apple.com for $199.

<comment><USER4> > Because all I see out in the real world are Apple watches and Fit Bits.

Which world? USA? Apple Watch doesn't work outside the Apple ecosystem, and Apple doesn't own the majority of the smartphone market.

Stats for Europe, 2019 [https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/10/21/smart-wearables- market...](https://www.gizmochina.com/2019/10/21/smart-wearables-market-in- europe-grew-2-5x-times-in-q2-of-2019-compared-to-last-year/)

Apple was pretty stable, Fitbit lost half its market share (to Garmin, looks like), the rest was more or less stable.

<comment><USER5> I think they mean in the US (which obviously is not the whole world) Here in the US the iPhone is more than 50% market share (likely much higher, if you were to count hours of use rather than just raw devices. Many mid-range android users own one simply because it's what the company told them to buy and they "just wanted a phone" while low end android devices lack battery life.) In the wearables market in the US, Garmin exclusively sells to hardcore fitness fans. They really are a niche company, (a very profitable niche, with high selling prices). In that context, yep, all you see are Fitbits and Apple watches. Fitbit is seen as the "android" of the smart watch world, which is quite funny as wearOS has become DOA.

<comment><USER6> In the US, iPhone market share is 41%.

Garmin sells a wide range of fitness trackers, only some of which are targeted to hardcore athletes. They have other models for casual users or those who care more about style.

<comment><USER7> But 83% among teens (still ticking up) as of October 2019

[https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191008005671/en/Pip...](https://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20191008005671/en/Piper- Jaffray-Completes-38th-Semi-Annual-Generation-Survey)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Every person I've talked to over at Fitbit (pre-this news) has been down on the company. Sounds like they've had trouble effectively scaling software/new hardware to the level of success that the initial device had.

While this could easily be another money sink for Google as they attempt to figure out some sort of Android wearable, it also has the potential to be an Instagram level-acquisition. Non-Apple wearables seem to be ripe for the picking

<comment><USER9> Something definitely has been off at Fitbit - I had their first device and then after swearing off smartwatches got a new Fitbit for Christmas. 10 months later I'm on my 3rd watch from them - the first one stopped taking a charge after a few months, the second one the screen went out in a week or two. I'm hoping the third time is the charm

<comment><USER10> Meanwhile try one, then try an older Apple watch, the Fitbit is straight up trash (with nicer battery life.) Fitbit UX is bad, and requires tons of interaction between the phone and watch and is remarkably hard to use, even switching watch faces requires digging multiple screens into the fitbit app and a 30+ second sync period, on the Apple watch this is known as 'swiping right' or at worst, holding down and tapping 'add new'.

The Pebble was worlds better at this, when I used the Versa I was surprised by it. It sells tons even though Wear OS is way ahead.

<comment><USER11> > with nicer battery life

Don't discount this feature on a fitness tracker. The most recent Apple Watches are better in this respect compared to the first one, but the battery life is still measured in hours, rather than days.

The UX for a Fitbit as a smartwatch is honestly horrible. The Pebble acquihire prioritized watch apps, in (what I see as) a belief that watch apps are necessary to compete with Apple. Resources would be far better spend improving the first-party UX and apps first, before opening up the ecosystem to outside developers. The iPhone dev kit trailed _far_ behind the initial iPhone launch.

<comment><USER12> A watch that needs to be charged once in a few days is actually worse than one that could use a charge every night.

Charge at night is a habit that can easily be adjusted to our daily schedule. btw Apple watch does last a full day (I meant 16+ hrs) with decent use, unless you are playing music out of it all the time or obsessively checking time/calendar.

Only advantage of fitbit is that some models are easier to wear to sleep, particularly if you don't need to charge at night. However, even here, apple one is way ahead - the theater mode will make sure the super bright led at the bottom won't wake you up.

<comment><USER13> No, charge every night would be way worse. My wife uses her Fitbit to track her sleep, and it does this very well (much better than her previous smartwatch). She also tracks how much she walks during the day. A smartwatch that has to be charged every day would be useless to her.

I have no idea about the UI that some people complain about, but my wife seems to have managed to get access quite a bit of functionality in her Fitbit, so I'd say it's good enough for its purpose.

<comment><USER14> FWIW my Apple Watch S4 can go a whole weekend on a single charge. I don't use mine extensively, though I do use Apple Pay for every transaction that I can. You can def go 2-2.5 days on a single charge.

<comment><USER15> For comparison, a casio watch goes 3 years on a single charge.

I guess apple pay on a watch is marginally more convenient than taking out your phone, but $400 and having to charge it seems not really worth it?

<comment><USER14> That's right, a watch that does literally nothing but tell the time lasts a long time on a single battery charge. If having to charge your watch is not worth the benefits/luxuries provided by an expensive smartwatch, a smartwatch might not be for you.

<comment><USER15> > I don't use mine extensively, though I do use Apple Pay for every > transaction that I can.

That is why I was asking. The only "benefit/luxury" you mention is apple pay and you say that you are not using it much.

<comment><USER14> To give a quick summary: I look at the upcoming weather, see the times of upcoming meetings, see messages people have sent me, pause/resume/skip tracks on currently-playing music, track hikes or walks, record audio, check my heart rate, check the current time/date, and pay for stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This wouldn't surprise me, Fitbit has been getting more and more "Googlish" in its slurping of data. My current irritation is that it refuses to 'sync' your device unless you have location services enabled for the app.

I get that some folks like a "track" they can refer to, for others it puts their life at risk[1], and for me its not something I care about. Steps and heart rate are enough for it to compute calories (when you've added in lean body mass and sex). There are no features "missing" when I only sync it to an old Motorola X phone (no sim) which is sitting at my desk. I noticed that Apple and Fitbit have also fought over this, where on iDevices enabling location was optional (it would still sync), then an update and the location was no longer optional (unhelpful "no device found" message, but turn on location and amazingly there is your device right there, turn it off and poof your device is no where to be seen), then with the iOS 13 update it was optional again. But on Android it has never been optional.

I interpreted that behavior as "profitability through data sales" strategy and they needed more data cows to get more money.

<comment><USER17> The location services is likely due to both Android and iOS requiring location enabled for Bluetooth, as BLE Beacons can be used for location tracking.

[https://developer.android.com/about/versions/marshmallow/and...](https://developer.android.com/about/versions/marshmallow/android-6.0-changes.html#behavior- hardware-id)

<comment><USER18> this seems to have been an intentional change, to group bluetooth scanning under locations -- which would mean most people leave location feature always enabled, and all the apps that access location (especially play services) gains consent to transmit your location information to Google.

<comment><USER19> Not really because bluetooth and wifi scanning can give you location, so it makes sense programmatically to put it under the "location" banner.

<comment><USER20> Exactly. If you have Bluetooth and wifi turned on, you're sharing your location. So the OS makers decided to make that obvious by requiring you to have location turned on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Still bitter that Fitbit bought Pebble and did apparently nothing worthwhile with the tech or the team they acquired.

I loved my Pebble OG and kept searching for a nice secondhand Pebble Time Steel to upgrade to -- until the Fitbit acquisition where we learned the Pebble ecosystem was unfortunately doomed.

I've since "upgraded" to an Apple Watch S4, but to be honest it's really just a "side-grade" as there are major downsides compared to the Pebble OG, like battery life, lack of always-on display, and the lack of useful tactile buttons.

Being able to switch the currently-playing music track _without having to look at it_ is one thing the Apple Watch can never provide for me. I have to look, see where the UI button is, and tap on exactly the right spot on the screen. It frequently doesn't recognize that I tapped on the fwd/next track button either (presumably because I didn't tap perfectly within the hitbox). This hugely defeats the purpose of a subtle wearable that can stay "out of the way" and not steal your attention.

<comment><USER21> Being mad at Fitbit because Pebble was a poorly run business is misguided. Pebble was out of cash and going to shut down. Fitbit paid to keep the Pebble servers running and paid people to gracefully wind it down so the devices didn't brick.

The team that built Pebble built the FitbitOS ecosystem. They have done incredible work and did it even better the second time around.

Disclosure: I am a former Fitbit employee.

<comment><USER14> I guess to clarify, I'm bitter that a new Fitbit smartwatch didn't come out that met or exceeded what I got out of the Pebble OG, to put it simply. The form factor and overall ecosystem didn't compare, from my subjective viewpoint. I imagine it has hopefully improved over time, but the last one I saw that a colleague had purchased (Versa or Versa 2, I forget which) I wasn't really impressed. :\

Oh, regardless, thanks for giving your $0.02, cool to hear from someone who worked there! :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> My Fitbit Versa is my favorite smartwatch (and I have two Android Wear watches in a drawer that couldn't get one full WORK day of battery)

I'd love to see the Pebble hardware running Android Wear (maybe fixed by Fitbit to last longer) with Pixel branding. I'm hopeful.

<comment><USER23> Pebble hardware could never run Android Wear. It has 256 kilobytes of RAM! Android Wear requires two thousand times more RAM than that.

That's the really impressive achievement of Pebble. They built a smartwatch software platform that was orders of magnitude more efficient than Apple or Google, but still a joy to use. That efficiency gave them the flexibility to make hardware design choices (e.g. 7 day battery or 7.5mm thickness or $99 price) that Google or Apple could never make.

<comment><USER24> The Pebble ran on a Cortex M3. These days the new Mi Bands offer somewhat equivalent specs for $40 with 15 day battery life on color displays with heart rate monitors.

I'd be really excited to see something similar in a more traditional watch form factor.

<comment><USER25> There is some talk of the recently announced PineTime ([https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PineTime](https://wiki.pine64.org/index.php/PineTime)) running RebbleOS. Should be cheaper than the Mi Bands with a more traditional watch form factor and decent battery life!

<comment><USER26> If it behaves even remotely like a pebble and runs on Rebble then I'm sold, my current pebble has a dying battery and there isn't much replacement on the market...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Very bad news for anyone who has a Fitbit device. Google tends to destroy any "smart" devices they acquire; first they tie it more closely to their ecosystem, too much for comfort, then they remove features, then they get bored and neglect it, then you have a brick.

<comment><USER28> If you own a Fitbit (I do), it's great news. Fitbit have done an unmatched job of destroying the device already. I was honestly considering buying a different device already.

They don't support Spotify, or really any music app except the one (which I don't remember). Their subscription service provides no real value at all. Their devices track heart rate and nothing else. They simply don't innovate at all.

<comment><USER29> I haven't used Fitbit since the first iteration of the product, but why would you want Spotify on a device that tracks your fitness level?

<comment><USER30> I do not own a Fitbit, but on my older Pebble, the music integration feature allows me to play/pause the music, switch tracks (to skip that one song in the playlist I should really remember to remove), and adjust the volume.

When I'm working out or doing yardwork, it's handy to have access to these things on my wristwatch rather than trying to fiddle with the phone in my pocket. It's sounds like the most minor convenience, but I use it _all the time._ If that were to be limited to only a tiny number of apps (and not the Android bluetooth thing, which picks up whatever happens to be playing; usually VLC in my case, sometimes Spotify) it would be a lot less useful.

<comment><USER31> I used to have a Pebble and being able to do music control with _hardware buttons_ was great.

I could push those buttons through my coat sleeve while wearing gloves.

<comment><USER32> I still use a pebble 2 se, and notably the pairing of music controls and shortcuts is amazing. Without having to look at the screen, sleeves still covering the device, you can:

\- Hit the back button a couple times to make sure I'm back on the watchface/home screen

\- Hold down a button to shortcut into an app (e.g. music controls, music boss)

\- Play/pause, control volume, go forwards/backwards (or 30sec skip in some podcast apps).

Hoping I can continue to use the device. Have any competitors come close in matching pebble's button UX?

<comment><USER31> Yeah I had press and hold on the lower button to launch music app, then IIRC the same button was skip track (or hold to fast forward).

I like my Apple Watch too, but I miss the hardware buttons and being able to do stuff without looking at it.

Apple's take is that I should talk to Siri instead of using buttons, but the 8 year wait for them to support 3rd party audio apps kept me from building any habits with that. I'll probably get used to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Ok, are there any wearables left that can be trusted with personal data? I want to use it to track my own activity/heartrate, not to be used and tracked by somebody else for their shady purposes.

<comment><USER14> Is there a personal data vulnerability/risk with Apple Watch? I don't know of any "tracking" or other shenanigans around the personal health data gathered from it.

<comment><USER34> You can turn off iCloud sync for your Health data, but even if you keep it on, it's encrypted end-to-end across all your devices, which is nice.[1] (Some caveats apply.)

1: [https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT202303)

<comment><USER14> Ah yeah, I have iCloud sync off for everything except the one free iCloud email account. :)

<comment><USER34> Ironically, the only iCloud service that is not encrypted at rest. :P

[https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT202303](https://support.apple.com/en- us/HT202303)

<comment><USER14> Ah yeah I don't care, I don't actually use it! There are probably 1-5 total emails in the account :'D

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Anybody know a good way to get your data out of fitbit? I've got a year's worth of decent data and it's obviously at risk if google shutter it. Also I don't want them to have it - so I guess I'm in the market for something independent.

<comment><USER36> Fitbit is pretty good about this. I've noticed that some derived values such as resting heart rate are not available for export, but the important stuff all seems to be there.

[https://www.fitbit.com/settings/data/export](https://www.fitbit.com/settings/data/export)

<comment><USER37> And account deletion is somewhat hidden, it's under settings -> personal info -> delete account (at the bottom).

When logging in I noticed there's a consent form the I was auto redirected from. Presumably this is for EU customers only and fitbit don't want to give the rest of the world privacy options.

I do feel silly giving them this data in the first place though, it's not enough to trust a company, you have to trust who they will be sold too as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Hmm, I don't suppose they will revive pebble.

[https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14703108/fitbit-bought- pe...](https://www.theverge.com/2017/2/22/14703108/fitbit-bought-pebble- for-23-millionw)

<comment><USER39> One can only dream. It was so far ahead of its time, and I still consider it superior to any smartwatch out on the market. I have mine from 5 years ago that still works great. We need more products like this.

<comment><USER40> Apple watch is better for most people IMO. The health features, notifications, apps and other integration at least. Max battery life isn't as great but charging once a day isn't so bad for the much better data.

<comment><USER41> Pebble didn't really get a chance to do health properly. They were making massive leaps in progress with each release and had all of these features before anyone else did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fitbit bought and killed cool wearables like Pebble and Vector. If this deal goes through they will probably kill WearOS as well.

Fitbit: the grim reaper of wearables.

<comment><USER43> Eh, the market is the reaper of wearables. There doesn't appear to be much of a market for non-Apple wearables (at least after the initial novelty wore off - tons of people bought fitbits and wore them for a couple weeks a few years ago). These companies are only being acquired because they failed to build a profitable market niche.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> It will be interesting to see how Google uses the fitbit data. I could see them synchronizing a user's searches with their heartbeat information to try to gauge emotional response to topics.

<comment><USER45> As someone who's taken the internal trainings a few times by now: NOPE. Health data is scary-scary and no team wants to taint itself with it, unless it's the core of the product.

<comment><USER46> It seems if they buy fitbit is because they are no longer really "scared" of it, they aren't going to buy it just to keep fitbit a completely separate product.

<comment><USER47> It's not like they don't already have health data. Google Fit exists and plenty of people use it - Any android wear devices, but also plenty of third- party devices feed into Google Fit. Any data they'll be able to get from Fitbit they can already get from Google Fit - acquiring Fitbit will just mean they'll have that same data for a whole bunch more people.

What they currently do with the fitness data they collect is probably a pretty good guidepost for what they'll continue to do with fitness data they collect.

<comment><USER48> > acquiring Fitbit will just mean they'll have that same data for a whole > bunch more people

And this is why you have to carefully read privacy policies. Pebble had a clause in theirs saying they could sell any personal data about you to anyone, either as part of a company acquisition or for any other reason. Pebble got bought out by Fitbit. If that data is part of Fitbit's sale then Google will now have all data Pebble ever collected on anyone (which was, at least potentially, a _lot_ ).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I'd definitely welcome this - it seems like Google has been way behind Apple with a solid watch competitors and given they've got the rest of the ecosystem with the Pixels, Chromebooks, and headphones, bulking up their capabilities there alongside the HTC team acquisition seems logical

<comment><USER49> Ugh... I get how Google's acquisition would make sense, but why does every company have to do everything? I know it's because of walled gardens and "integration" but it really sucks if you really like Fitbit because of some niche feature you're compelled to buy into the whole ecosystem.

After watching what happened to Nest I don't see how any current owner would be excited. I saw a newer, lower priced version released and being forced over to Google services. They used the brand and likely the team to develop more products, but none of them seem very compelling. They're all fairly identical to products other companies make.

<comment><USER50> Well in this case, Google kind of has to do something with wearables. Apple Watch is pulling people over.

Unless you were suggesting in your comment that Apple should release the AW from the walled garden and allow it to work on Android? In that case, I agree!

<comment><USER49> > Apple should release the AW from the walled garden and allow it to work on > Android

Basically. Sure, I'm generally biased towards Apple products, but it just seems like wasted effort they all develop their own phone, smart speaker, virtual assistant, watch, etc. I don't feel like its doing the traditional "competition making everyone better." Instead it feels more like a checklist of portfolio items.

I do see the value in integrating with your own stuff, but I just don't see these product categories improving that much. When any big company buys one of these smaller companies I feel like the wish is that they stay the same and ignore them. I can't really think of any of these cases where I've been happier at the result.

The best bet is probably something like Withings. It was acquired by Nokia in 2016 and sold back to the founder in 2018. My pre-2016 scale still works and connects great. Sure, we might not have these companies at all if they weren't acquired, but they also wouldn't have been built up the same way if their goal wasn't a big buyout.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> I would think that Google's first choice was Garmin. In my personal opinion, they have better watch products.

It was reported last month that Fitbit engaged Qatalyst for a sale. I wonder who leaked the news to Reuters, which did not mention a price: was it Qatalyst, hoping to start a bidding war?

<comment><USER52> Probably, but it's unlikely that Garmin would sell to Google.

<comment><USER53> For runners Garmin is far more reliable and superior in every way. Fitbit is cheap. I think google wants data from more people, and Fitbit is a distressed asset, so good opportunity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> Ok, who wants to put bets on when they will kill it after they acquire it?

<comment><USER55> 2 years max is my guess.

<comment><USER56> I'll take the under on that

<comment><USER57> Under.

They're obviously buying it just to harvest the biometric data to build a more accurate synthetic human, which can then click on ads to generate more revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Ah nooo please. Anyone but google. I love my Fitbit charge 3 and was thinking about replacing my Fitbit scale because my original model just died after 6 years. If google is going to buy Fitbit then I'm out.

<comment><USER59> I've found that Garmin has higher quality hardware than Fitbit anyway. Every Fitbit I ever had ended up being replaced multiple times under warranty because the hardware was very low quality (or badly designed) and broke.

<comment><USER60> I wore my Charge 2 scrambling and rock climbing, scratched the shit out of the screen, dropped it, wore it to Tough Mudder, and somehow after 3 years of that it still just works.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> Was annoying Fitbit started charging for more information on sleep. Paying for details that was included, now they want you to pay a monthly fee. If it was additional details maybe, but to cripple the reports just for profit, is shady as fuck.

<comment><USER62> Yes, I don't see why I should have to pay for my data, I already paid for the FitBit once.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Great now google can track my biometrics

<comment><USER64> That's the whole point, isn't it? And then sell it to healthcare providers, so you can receive timely advice! :-D

<comment><USER65> And let's be clear that by "healthcare providers," we mean insurance companies.

And by "timely advice," we mean notifications that you need to shop for new insurance, because they've detected that you have become a riskier bet and are dropping your coverage.

<comment><USER66> And higher premiums because they can detect some anomaly in your heart rhythm. Oh sorry we can't insure you because Google sold us your fitbit info and you have a preexisting condition you aren't aware of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER67> If Google could tap into fitbit's data, they could implement some headline features to rival Apple watch's fall detection.

Sleep tracking is another area in which fitbit is one of the best, if not the best among peers.

</comment><comment><USER68> Yay, can't wait for my FitBit to be EOL'd randomly.

<comment><USER69> I can't wait for my already EOL'd Pebble that was acquired by FitBit to be resurrected as a surveillance/adtech nightmare by Google.

<comment><USER70> I can't wait for my Pebble 2 I paid for via crowdfunding (shhh I know I got refunded) to get manufactured and shipped before the company decided to go out of business, not delivering the product they hyped, and sell themselves to FitBit.

<comment><USER69> Me too. I was all hyped up for my new Pebble 2 up until the money came back :/. I guess, at least they did refund us.

<comment><USER70> Yeah I was really excited. I left Apple's ecosystem when I switched to Project Fi and really did find my Gen1 Apple Watch useful, the Pebble 2 looked like it was going to handle the stuff I used the most on the Apple Watch and after having already been disappointed by an Android watch (ZenWatch 2) I was really looking forward to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER71> Is anyone aware of body-metric-tracking devices that natively allow you to collect your own data directly from the device? (i.e. no clouds, subscriptions, or preferably smartphone apps)

<comment><USER45> I'm happy with my Pebble Time, gathering data via Gadgetbridge. Well, that technically is a smartphone app, but an open source one that I don't mind.

</comment></comment><comment><USER72> I do not understand why somebody would buy a Fitbit... I would never buy one. All the ones I owned were gifts. All the ones I owned broke in a way that showed a flawed process and engineering.

Their Bluetooth stack is sooo broken. The devices cannot sync if there are other Bluetooth devices around or only some very specific phones are supported.

Their forums are FULL of complains for the hardware breaking (ex: [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Fitbit-charge- battery...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Fitbit-charge-battery- problems/td-p/1322842) \- [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Charge-band- falling-a...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Charge-band-falling- apart-Requesting-replacement/td-p/1673536) \- [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Button-fell-off-my- ch...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Charge/Button-fell-off-my- charge/td-p/1169524) ) and updates that brick the devices (one of the recent examples: [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Fitbit- OS-4-0-2-Firmwa...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Fitbit- OS-4-0-2-Firmware-Release-27-68-9-15/td-p/3823022) )... nevertheless people still buy them.

I think the only good things Fitbit has may be the community and that it is not easier to replicate.

I guess Google can buy the company at a bargain price. They could fix up the technical/process problems, create good devices and use the FitBit brand to sell to their user base.

<comment><USER41> > nevertheless people still buy them.

Because most people do not research a product before buying it. They just go to the store and pick the one with the nicest box and price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> I can't wait to see how Google will manage to strip down all of the best parts of Fitbit and not use them to make a decent product of their own.

</comment><comment><USER74> Hah! That's the benefit of integrating with Google Fit, a major feature request they have been ignoring for a long time before solving it: [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Blaze/syncing-FitBit-with- go...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Blaze/syncing-FitBit-with-google- Fit/td-p/2051863)

</comment><comment><USER53> Fitbit is damaged goods. Just read [https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Would-you-buy- Fitbit-I...](https://community.fitbit.com/t5/Ionic/Would-you-buy-Fitbit-Ionic- again/td-p/2293464) \- I own one of these along with many unsatisfied customers. Google is buying technical debt.

<comment><USER75> I love my Fitbit Versa, every product has unsatisfied customers.

Anyhow, I was actually hoping Microsoft would buy them, and make an assistant agnostic device that could run Google, Alexa or Cortana.

<comment><USER76> Not enough people wanted Microsoft's in-house product when it existed, and it was even back then better than the competition in many ways.

I'm guessing they've learned their lesson after buying nokia...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> My concern would stem from them attempting to replace the firmware with Android Wear. Because Android Wear is licenced they may feel pressure to use the same os so as not to upset licensees such that any improvements to AW on Fitbit gets shared. Or they may go the Nest route with custom firmware based on Fitbit. It will be interesting

</comment><comment><USER78> Anybody know how to delete your data from fitbit? Looks like I have a crappy watch now, instead of a smart device.

<comment><USER79> If you go to [https://www.fitbit.com/settings/profile](https://www.fitbit.com/settings/profile) and click Delete Account, the data seems to be deleted after 7 days.

"By requesting your account to be deleted, you will no longer be able to login. Your data will be permanently deleted after a 7 day grace period. Coach Premium plans will also get deleted."

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Oh no. First they f*cked up nest and now fitbit?

<comment><USER81> Nest seems to have only improved under Google? They were floundering before the purchase.

That said, they ought to do Google auth integration as it's really annoying to maintain a separate Nest account for those products.

<comment><USER82> >> Nest seems to have only improved under Google? They were floundering before the purchase

I think OP is referencing that Google itself is the lack of improvement. Who cares how the company is doing if buying its products are out of the question due to privacy concerns.

I'm in the majority here who would never use or buy a product attached to Google.

<comment><USER83> Nest may not have gone the direction some people wanted, but it's a healthy ecosystem (within the brand) and line of business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> I deleted everything Google and switched to iOS a few years ago so Google would have less of my data. Now they are going to get detailed location, activity, and sleep history for all of those years anyway. You really can't win can you.

I bet there is no option to download my data and nuke what they have before this happens either.

<comment><USER85> The only winning move anymore is to not play. Don't sign up for any service that collects and stores detailed information like that. If that's even possible these days. Unfortunately the "people who actually care about their data" market is too small to justify making something like a privacy-oriented Fitbit.

<comment><USER86> You don't play this game. We are all pawns, you can't choose to play or not.

You are the product and almost every organization you interact with is trying to get a piece of the action. Some of the worst offenders selling you out are your state and local governments.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> Fitbit has a privacy policy that says they won't sell or transfer your data IIRC, but that does not prevent them from doing so in the case of a sale or merger. I hate those clauses: the hypothetical argument is always 'what if some data miner buys them' ?

This is health data we're talking about

<comment><USER88> Ironically, the security of the data is probably higher when controlled and operated by Google. That protection is at the cost of linkage with the other data which Google has.

<comment><USER89> If it gets linked to your other data, it's already breached.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Good. Let them see if the quantum AI powerbots of Google can fix the sync issues.

<comment><USER55> Maybe now they'll fix a 3-year old Android bug that prevents simple BLE scanning from working after several weeks.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> I don't really get what Fitbit offers to Google...seems like they could easily build from scratch what Fitbit currently offers. And the Fitbit brand doesn't seem particularly strong right now...

<comment><USER92> Google gets fitness data attached to your profile for incredible insight into ad targeting and profiling. Seems incredibly valuable to me. The actual products themselves are a bit ancillary for google their real value is realized behind the scenes.

<comment><USER93> You can export all your data and delete your Fitbit account at any time.

<comment><USER94> """delete"""

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER95> I somehow don't see the fit. Pardon the pun.

Their watches though popular are completely self sustained, as in not connected devices. No link to the phone, cannot install Android on them most likely. So they are buying it purely for their experience making watches and not for their products.

Also, I wonder how much Google will want to invest in devices that are not connected to their ecosystem and might neglect existing products which will simply dilute the brand. Could be a good thing for Fit though, as I don't see that as a growing business over time.

<comment><USER47> >No link to the phone

wut? being linked to your phone is literally the whole point of a fitbit. it syncs your recorded fitness data back to the phone, and displays notifications from the phone on your wrist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> I was not happy to find the Fitbit only works by syncing through their service - eg they get all of your data, and vigorously opposed requests to just link to HealthKit and not upload data.

Now it seems they were deliberately making sure they had your data so they could (in effect) sell it.

I've held off on an Apple Watch for the longest time due to battery life and size, but it seems like that is now the only option. You can't trust any company to have access to your data.

</comment><comment><USER97> I love Fitbit. I dont want another brand to be destroyed.

</comment><comment><USER98> I bought a fitbit (the $200 one) to replace my microsoft band when it broke.

The heart rate monitor was so bad I returned it to the store in less than 24 hours.

</comment><comment><USER99> I've been wanting to get some kind of fitness tracker to go with my Pixel 3XL, but it seems like nothing can touch the Apple Watch at this point. So I keep my iPhone around.

If Apple would play nice with PCs and let you type texts from Windows I'd ditch the Android.

</comment><comment> at-fates-hands So glad I got my GF to get rid of her Fitbit. She had the first two models and both were a nightmare in terms of issues. I got her a Polar Vantage and she just loves the thing. Never had any issues with it and the data you can get out of their apps are incredible.

</comment><comment><USER100> This makes sense. Wear OS has utterly failed, but FitBit (and the Pebble assets), offer a great experience. Plus, it's cross-platform (important differentiator). I just hope Google doesn't try to kill it/ruin it, the way they have in the past.

</comment><comment><USER101> I guess I'm not going to buy a new Fitbit device ever again. I own two Fitbit watches (Charge HR 1st and 2nd generation) and the 2nd gen is still ticking along just fine and I use it daily.

I refuse to give Google any money.

</comment><comment><USER26> I fear that if Alphabet buys Fitbit, then Alphabet will kill of the efforts to keep the Pebble Watches alive, since they then own the various sites and domains necessary. I hope Fitbit stays independent.

</comment><comment><USER102> I didnt see anyone mention Verily, the company Google already bought to try and make a wearable device.

Did that whole company just flop so they decided to go out and buy FitBit?

</comment><comment><USER103> Fitbit's market cap is ~$1.5B on $1.5B/year revenue. Garmin's market cap is $16B on $3.5B/year.

Garmin's products are much better, but they have a big range outside the wearables market.

</comment><comment><USER104> I don't care much about FitBit but sure wish I could get Pepple back.

</comment><comment><USER11> Given Android, I'm not. hopeful that my Fitbit will continue to work with my iPhone, long term.

Edit: I guess Android Wear does work with iOS, so maybe I'm being overly concerned about this aspect.

</comment><comment><USER105> Might not be a bad time to request to have all your account data deleted from their servers before Google forces a ToS change and sells advertiser access to users' biometrics.

</comment><comment><USER106> > Google's parent company, Alphabet, made a bid to acquire Fitbit, a source > familiar with the matter tells CNBC.

More like: the source "leaked" to create negotiation pressures...

</comment><comment><USER13> Nooo! My wife has a Fitbit and she's really happy with it. I don't want Google to kill it the way they killed Nest.

That's honestly my first thought reading this. I lost my faith in Google about these sort of things.

<comment><USER107> What did Google do to Nest? I have a Nest cam and haven't noticed any difference in service.

<comment><USER108> All the works-with-nest integrations got killed recently. Infuriated me as that was a major selling point of the platform. I used to have my lights rotate evenings when I wasn't home. Also had my outside lights activate based on nest cam motion detection. All that is gone now and they haven't improved the base services for ages. It's too bad since the hardware is all really top notch.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER109> I can't wait to see how Google will manage to strip down all of the best parts of Fitbit and not use them to make a decent product of their own.

</comment><comment><USER110> I wear a fitbit primarily for the sleep tracker.

Is there a comparable non-google device that does sleep tracking? My garmin watch is not a great replacement in that regard.

<comment><USER111> My Garmin Forerunner 35 does a good job of sleep tracking. And it lasts around 10 days on a charge. (without using the GPS.) What model do you have?

<comment><USER110> I had the 235 in the past and now have the 245 music. I haven't tried it in a while but it was really poor in comparison to my fitbit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER112> Anyone have a recommended cloudless alternative?

<comment><USER113> Sorry to post the same link twice here but since you asked... Look at Gadgetbridge and supported devices. I just also posted a link to the new relase... please see here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21381818](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21381818)

</comment></comment><comment><USER114> At what point are regulators going to start denying these bids on anti-trust grounds? I suppose there might be enough players in the "wearables" space but I'd imagine this purchase could potentially be denied because of the risk to personal data being further consolidated? I have no idea if the laws on this actually reflect the problems in the market at this point.

</comment><comment><USER115> No good options. Based on media coverage about the company, it's either this or Fitbit dies

</comment><comment><USER116> It's probably a good exit strategy for Fitbit as they might not have a sustainable business.

</comment><comment><USER117> Buying a worthless app. Maybe it's because is better than Google fit

</comment><comment><USER118> Location tracking for better ad targeting if anyone is curious why they want fitbit

<comment><USER94> They already have that from your phone.

If you have an android device, no explanation needed. If you use an iPhone, unless you abstain from Google products completely, they have it from maps, wifi AP MACs, etc.

<comment><USER119> Phones don't have GPS running most of the time, to conserve battery. GPS is turned on only while you use navigation apps or while tracking workouts.

So even if Google tracks you all day, they mostly have coarse data.

Fitbits main purpose is workout tracking, so they have a lot of precise GPS tracks. I suppose those have some value for Google.

<comment><USER94> Well, a Fitbit operates the same way your phone does. GPS not on all the time. The battery is much smaller than it is on your phone.

However, Google doesn't need your precise location 24/7\. Polling GPS once every 5-10 minutes is more than enough to advertise things in your area or know every place you go throughout your day.

<comment><USER119> Google isn't just trying to track you for advertising. They also put a lot of effort into creating their maps, and GPS tracks are very useful for that.

A lot of people use Fitbits for workout tracking, so they must have a lot of GPS tracks that could be useful for mapping areas that are currently not so detailed on Google Maps (eg. many hiking trails are missing on Google Maps in my area)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER120> Wow. I was going to buy a Fitbit recently, really glad I didn't.

</comment><comment><USER121>
      > Alphabet in bid to shut down Fitbit in two years

FTFY

</comment><comment><USER122> Fitbit is a fad of a brand. Why would google buy them?

</comment><comment><USER123> Do it, the Versa 2 should have google not alex.

</comment><comment><USER124> The Fitbit brand-name has become a generic term like Aspirin, Kleenex or Google. That must be a big part of it's appeal for Alphabet.

When you own Fitbit, you own the category.

</comment><comment><USER125> I still appreciate my Pebble watch

</comment><comment><USER126> I look forward to reading the "What an adventure" blog post when Fitbit shuts down in like two years.

</comment><comment><USER127> Let them bring back Pebble.

</comment><comment><USER128> They should change their dumbass unreliable piece-of-crap custom charging port.

</comment><comment><USER129> Alphabit!

</comment><comment><USER130> Oh i see what's happening...this is Google' play to place microphones onto the wrists of those who don't use android phones - via fitbits - in order to capture ever more info for ads!

Ah-ha google, you didn't think i saw where you were heading did you, eh!?! /s

</comment><comment><USER131> Damn. I like my Fitbit. I wouldn't be looking forward to having it stop working with no notice because Google decided to just shut down the servers on a random Tuesday and shutter the product line...

<comment><USER132> Does it really require access to a server, if you're just synching it to one phone?

<comment><USER133> Yes, as it works right now. You can't sync it to your phone. (through your phone). You sync it to their server and your phone also connects to the server.

There's presumably some caching on your phone, but the server is the source of truth, and I don't think you can get updated info on your phone without it round-tripping to their server first.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> I keep seeing new Apple Watches being released, and I keep seeing them add new features I haven't seen people asking for instead of focusing on the obvious issue - the atrocious battery life.

Putting a 3G modem in my watch is the antithesis to what I see most people asking for - a watch that can actually last more than 24 hours without having to charge it.

When my phone lasts longer than my watch, there is something fundamentally wrong.

Hopefully this purchase will result in some half-decent Android smart watches - that I'll never purchase anyways because Google - but for those willing to sell their data out at least they will have the option to do so on decent hardware and hopefully software.

<comment><USER134> If you are outside running or even in a gym, having a cellular Apple Watch + Bluetooth speakers is a godsend. You don't have to lug your phone around. Many women have clothes without pockets or a convenient place to hold a phone.

<comment><USER82> I'm a woman XD

<comment><USER134> Well, I guess I got caught mansplaining.....

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER132> Like the Palm Pilot, Fitbit was a great idea in its time, but there are many competitors today that are better built and better supported. For example, Samsung makes a fitness bracelet that Consumer Reports rates as the best of breed, though it's expensive.

After an unsuccessful foray into Android watches a few years ago, I finally broke down and got a $15 remaindered Fitbit Flex on Ebay. It was advertised as "new/other", but the battery is obviously shot and doesn't hold a charge longer than a day or two, so they refunded my money.

But I still wear it occasionally, to understand the user experience, despite the inconvenience of needing to charge it every day. It's a clever design and does one thing pretty well -- recording your motion and sync'ing to your phone when in Bluetooth range.

For a while I toyed with investing more in a new Fitbit that would capture heart rate, but given how much better Apple watches are both in build quality and likelihood of remaining in business, I think I'll just hold out for one of those, for when I switch from Android to an iPhone 11 or 12 next autumn.

Though, Google might reinvigorate Fitbit, who knows. But Google also shelves products with distressing frequency so it might be a meaningless acquisition. Fitness trackers have become a commodity, with a few high end quality offerings from Samsung and others, Fitbit struggling to retain its market leader status, and dozens of Chinese knock-offs in the $8-$20 range that are mediocre but the price is right.

</comment><comment><USER135> I'd still love to hear a convincing argument from someone as to the benefits of counting steps and measuring heart rate with a wrist band- Are people feeling like they are more fit because they walked to lunch "the long way" so they can reach the 10000 step goal that Fred from accounting has set for them? Do they feel healthier because they were regularly watching their heart rate reading during their hour in the gym to make sure it is in the correct target window, instead of just focusing on working their asses off for the whole hour without looking at metrics?

Convince me this isn't just a distraction and fad with little benefit, besides being an advertising device on your wrist to inform others that you value fitness.

EDIT: OK, looks like everyone here is convinced of the benefits- I'm pretty much on my own in my skepticism, I guess.

<comment><USER136> In addition to working in tech, I'm also a certified personal trainer (I got it to volunteer train youth at a YMCA, and have kept at it because I work with a small number of people who are trying to enact transformation in various parts of their health & wellness).

I got an Amazfit Bip (super cheap, with GPS and HRM). I lift (heavy, 5/3/1 style) and trail run.

In short: steps are usually an indication of the aggregate of other things in your life. I leave my goal setting at 8K steps/day. On a 3-4 mile run day, I get it out of the way first thing. Some gym days are good for about 2000 steps.

On other days, I find that I am near the end of the day and I've literally managed all of 500 steps (working at the desk).

I do have more awareness of my distribution of steps/activity throughout the day. If I hit my 8K steps by 7am and have 9K steps at dinner, I know I was pretty sedentary all day.

I like to see 4000 steps at lunch, and 4000 steps at dinner, etc. Getting steps also gets me off the couch if I'm having a lazy day, gets the dog longer dog walks because I see an indicator of what I could give to her, etc etc.

With a busy schedule, hitting 8K steps EVERY SINGLE DAY takes work at least a few days each week. Sometimes my girlfriend needs another 2000 steps for her day, so I go with her too. It's a plus and we get that extra intentional time together. I personally welcome the quantified nudge, and it keeps me and my family out of the ditches of laziness and that lead to more gym, runs, hikes, etc.

<comment><USER113> Same here. Not only pure number but distribution is what I watch.

Having another family member to pull you out for a walk has been beneficial.

After some time, we have raised the goal to 10000. Now keeping 13k monthly average is not unusual now

I have a feeling that most people use these bands primarily for notifications and I started the same way but then it helped me to become more active.</comment></comment></comment>


UK Snoopers' Charter gagging order drafted for LINX directors - <AUTHOR> https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/02/17/linx_snoopers_charger_gagging_order/ <comment><USER2> This is pretty icky but not terribly surprising given most countries positions about internet surveillance. More reasons to want crypto.</comment>


My Blog proudly hosted on my RaspberryPi Cluster - <AUTHOR> http://rbkr.ddns.net/my-blog-proudly-hosted-on-my-raspberrypi-cluster/ <comment><USER2> Looks like you've got port 22 open to the world on that domain. Assuming you've got some good security options on that ssh service.</comment>


My Old Version. Sometimes your old PC seems to run better with an older version - <AUTHOR> https://www.my-old-version.com/ <comment><USER2> This really rubs me the wrong way.

Please don't do this. There are entire classes of vulnerabilities that have come out and matured in the time since half of these were originally published by their authors.

Yes, I know you can find them if you do a little bit of digging, but curating a list and passing them off as 'safe' is disingenuous at best.</comment>


Amazon AI - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/amazon-ai/ <comment><USER3> Discussed at time of launch 7 weeks ago:

Lex: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072813](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072813)

Polly: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072944](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072944)

Rekognition: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072956](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072956)

</comment><comment><USER4> I hope that we will soon see open-source versions of these functionalities, because I don't like the idea of using an external service for reasons including privacy, reliability and latency.

<comment><USER5> The problem with machine learning software often isn't a lack of openly available algorithms. Those are well-researched and well-documented.

The problem in most cases is a lack of openly available training data. No open source library helps you with that. It's the data itself that needs to be open-sourced. Companies like Google and Amazon naturally have a huge amount of relevant data but they aren't exactly eager to share that data with the world (which by the way would have huge privacy implications as well).

<comment><USER6> My area of expertise isn't AI, so correct me if this is wrong, but isn't the important part the model? Would it be possible to open-source the model without revealing the data which it was trained on?

(For applications where the problem you're trying to solve is relatively similar to the ones Apple/Google/Amazon are trying to solve - <USER2> AI)

<comment><USER7> [AI/ML researcher/engineer here]

At best you can partly do this, and even that is debatable.

Here's a simple example: say Google builds a linear regression for the incremental likelihood to click a social post based on the distance of poster from you in a social network. By merely revealing the (single) coefficient in this model, they've revealed something about the underlying data set that they may not have intended.

It gets exponentially (I use this term deliberately) more difficult with multivariate nonlinear models. I have no doubt that substantial information about a data set could be reverse engineered from complex ML models, _even if we don 't yet know how_. But even in the case of basic multivariate regression, the model directly encodes both the mean values and the covariances of all the variables. So that's a fair amount of disclosure already.

In some sense all models are (usually lossy) data compression, and it's just a matter of understanding the compression logic to go backwards from facts about the model to facts about the source data.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone find the "Amazon Machine Learning" product actually useful? Scalable linear/logistic regressions seems like a pretty niche product.

<comment><USER9> A great many practical ML systems actually delivering business value are just scaled linear and logistic regressions (if not custom coded rules!)

<comment><USER10> That's the big secret of AI. 95% of the AI in companies like Google and Facebook are rules, programmed by humans, sequenced by humans, curated by humans. A relatively close open source example would be spamassassin.

Now these do use advanced AI algorithms, Bayesian, ... etc. But it's one factor out of hundreds, and they are nowhere near the top.

Now at Google and Facebook, the rules are like the rules of a firewall. Some new type of spam comes out, it gets past the filters, they look at it, they write a new rule. After 10 years of this with 50 people doing that fulltime you have thousands of rules and it doesn't look like a set of rules anymore. This is why those companies don't get blown out of the water every time a PhD realizes how to make the basic algorithm perform 5% better.

They don't really use the newest algorithms at all. With gmail it's obvious since some of the tricks it knows are things a machine learning algorithm could never ever figure out, for instance how to look up flight times, or package status. No amount of training on mails will ever yield that. Furthermore, they have custom "cards" and other small custom UIs that get triggered by their "AI" classification.

Of the remaining 5%, 4.95% is still the same principle, but basic algorithms can adapt it a bit : human designed rules, but a linear or logistic regression over the data of the past 5 (minutes, hours, days, weeks, months) can make the rule 10% stricter or looser.

The only real "advanced" AI is speech-to-text and in Google's case image search.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Since tools like Siri grow more useful as the crowd feeds the cloud and Siri learns from the masses, I wonder if that too will happen with Amazon. Will its speech recognition service evolve to reflect what the service itself has learned from its many clients? Will the service indeed have the same capabilities of Alexa or will Amazon reserve the best part of the technology for itself?

</comment><comment><USER12> Are there white papers on some of the algorithms they're using? For example, they mention getting a face similarity score, but there are quite a few ways that could be done.

The idea of lowering the bar for rolling out these kinds of tasks seems great, but I'd miss being able to think about the underlying models.

<comment><USER13> Look for papers on SGD optimizations and on loss functions for classifications.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> No standalone ASR? I am looking for an ASR as a Service for audio/video files where I can use my data to train my own models. AFAIK nobody's offering that yet.

<comment><USER15> ASP is Automatic Speech Recognition, yes?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Positioning is very much like IBM's Watson brand.

</comment><comment><USER17> Give me all your data ~ resistance is futile

</comment><comment><USER18> Not being nitpicky but it was announced months ago.

<comment><USER19> The first snapshot on Archive.org was about 6 weeks ago on Dec 6th. So, less than 2 months.

And as far as my searches can dig up, it hasn't been discussed on HN yet.

<comment><USER20> I remember the individual products like Lex, Polly, and Rekognition being discussed on HN after they were announced. However, these were individual threads, not about this page.

There are a number of duplicates as well.

Lex: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072813](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072813)

Polly: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072944](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072944)

Rekognition: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072956](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13072956)</comment></comment></comment>


AMC Previews PC Industry Drama 'Halt and Catch Fire' on Yahoo's Tumblr - <AUTHOR> http://variety.com/2014/digital/news/amc-previews-halt-and-catch-fire-tv-series-on-yahoos-tumblr-1201186021/

<comment><USER2> What you really want to watch is this documentary: THE COMPAQ STORY - 1984 to 1988

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3qI5kAjh4M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t3qI5kAjh4M)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLSXaU1Isls](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pLSXaU1Isls)

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw2rEYdI2To](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Iw2rEYdI2To)

</comment><comment><USER3> Just watched it. It trys. But, for the record, IBM published the BIOS source for the PC. Along with schematics.

Reverse engineering by reading out 65536 16 bit words?

I guess, if you wanted to capture Microsoft ROM BASIC.

Um.. HCF was always a mythical instruction. Try [http://www.physics.ohio- state.edu/~bcd/humor/instruction.set...](http://www.physics.ohio- state.edu/~bcd/humor/instruction.set.html) for bunch more.

<comment><USER4> > HCF was always a mythical instruction. Try [http://www.physics.ohio- > state.edu/~bcd/humor/instruction.set...](http://www.physics.ohio- > state.edu/~bcd/humor/instruction.set..). for bunch more.

The 65c02 had, in fact, a BRA instruction. It was equivalent to BNR and was called "BRanch Always".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> So, er, is it a good drama? All the feedback so far has been nit-picking the tech, which I don't really care about.

<comment><USER6> The first episode was very entertaining and whetted my appetite for the rest of the season. Also, despite the issues raised here, it achieved a reasonably high degree of verisimilitude.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Did any Intel processors have HCF? I thought that was a Motorola thing.</comment>


Cartilage is grown in the arthritic joints of mice - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/22/health/arthritis-cartilage.html <comment><USER2> Some percentage of red blood cells injected under the kneecap will revert to stem cells and grow new cartilage. An acquaintance had it done to one of his knees decades ago and recently told me he needs it redone.

The doctor punched holes in his kneecap and injected red blood cells into the space where new cartilage was needed. He he rested the knee for six weeks after which he slowly increased use to normal.

According to my neighbor, the process was developed decades ago by veterinarians for horses and was then adopted by doctors of professional athletes. He personally knew a pro football player who'd had it done. It apparently cost "an arm and a leg", but his family could afford to pay for it.

Animal medicine and medicine for professional athletes proceeds faster than the medicine the rest of us have access to. "Follow the money" I guess.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> >Articular cartilage regeneration by activated skeletal stem cells

[https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1013-2?proof=t](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41591-020-1013-2?proof=t)</comment>


Java Now Running on Apple IIc - <AUTHOR> http://www.desnoix.com/apple2/

<comment><USER2> This is just so wrong. Go play Karateka instead!

<comment><USER3> Check the date.</comment></comment>