Decode Like It's 1999: MPEG-1 Decoder in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://phoboslab.org/log/2017/02/decode-it-like-its-1999 <comment><USER2> Regardless of language, writing a decoder for a standard image or video format is a highly recommended exercise to develop your skills at implementating a specification (and optimisation, if you choose.) You don't have to jump into the deep end with H.264 or similar, and even MPEG-1 is beyond what I'd recommend for a beginner; something like H.261 would be good to start with, with MPEG-1 being the next step up.

The fun thing about experimenting with video codecs is that your results are _visible_ in a very real way.

<comment><USER3> Along similar lines, writing a simple emulator (e.g. Chip-8) or a 3D model loader/renderer/animator (e.g. for md2 or md3 files, which have an open spec and lots of models available) would be similarly good I think, depending on your interest. In any case, you still get the implementing a spec practice and very visible results.

<comment><USER4> Compilers or interpreters are also great. In my experience the knowledge directly translates to everyday programming tasks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "And suddenly you spent two hours of your life and downloaded several GB of tools. All to build a 20kb library, for a language that doesn't even need compiling. How do I build this library 2 years from now? 5 years?"

:D

<comment><USER6> But the alternative the author suggests is to use UglifyJS - which you also need "node, homebrew and gigabytes of tools" for.

<comment><USER7> Or just 20 seconds copypasting on one of the numerous free web services like uglifyjs.net

<comment><USER8> This is not under any realistic or sane conditions a solution.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h In particular, worrying about not being able to reproduce something and then proposing to use a web app for it seems... counterproductive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A colleague of mine "wrote" a H265 decoder in Javascript.

I put that in quotes, because it was a byproduct of a much cleverer project: [http://www.argondesign.com/products/argon-streams- hevc/](http://www.argondesign.com/products/argon-streams-hevc/) ; he wrote a parser for the "human readable" H265 specification, using the O-Meta system. This supported a number of pluggable backends, one of which emitted a javascript program, and one of which was the actual saleable product of an H265 decoder validation test suite.

<comment><USER10> I cannot find anything under "O-Meta"; can you provide a few references?

<comment><USER11> [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMeta](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/OMeta)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> > Decode Like It's 1999

Here in the future, both Firefox and Chromium are _still_ decoding MPEG _in software_ , not hardware.[1]

Chromium is actively working to fix that[2]. Mozilla, not so much.[3]

I've been hitting this lately, as webcams use MPEG at high resolutions (to fit USB 2 bandwidth). It's painful for AR.

[1] [https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hardware_video_accelera...](https://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Hardware_video_acceleration) [2] [https://chromium- review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/53...](https://chromium- review.googlesource.com/c/chromium/src/+/532294) [3] [https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=linux+h...](https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/buglist.cgi?quicksearch=linux+hardware+decoding)

</comment><comment><USER13> Good writeup.

This is probably a silly question, but: The article says he has to use _performance.now_. But isn't one of the mitigations for Spectre and/or Meltdown, to reduce the accurance and/or resolution of _performance.now_? If so, would that affect his code?

</comment><comment><USER14> I remember when this came out, because at that time we were in a desperate need to shrink the assets of a mobile slot game we were porting from flash to HTML5 for a customer - we had rougly 50MB of data(mostly animations), so the game failed to load on a 2G connection which apparently was the best thing one could get at the conference where the customer's sales rep was at that time.

We squeezed them to 10MB with minimal quality reduction, but another problem quickly arouse - this was late 2013 and the phones back then could barely handle such load and heated up tremendously.

All in all we negotiated a pretty deep cut in special effects which yielded ~25MB in reductions. A rotten compromise, but a compromise nonetheless.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h On a phone, could you even see a difference from reducing quality? I've always intentionally gotten the lower quality ex. youtube streams on mobile because on a 4-5" screen I'll never miss those pixels

<comment><USER14> Sort of. We had a separate file for each animation that contained the grayscale alpha channel and some artifacts were showing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Please be careful, this library has hidden GPL encumbrance issues. See my prior comment for details: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13556718](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13556718)

</comment><comment><USER16> Atwood's Law[1] at work again.

[1]: [https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-principle-of-least- power/](https://blog.codinghorror.com/the-principle-of-least-power/)

</comment><comment><USER17> Cool project. Now if I could just find some VCDs I would be in business.

</comment><comment><USER18> I've actually been using a web assembly port of FFMPEG ([https://github.com/Kagami/ffmpeg.js/blob/master/README.md](https://github.com/Kagami/ffmpeg.js/blob/master/README.md)) successfully for a while now in my clojure(script) WIP client-side meme editor for a while [https://www.ultime.me/edit](https://www.ultime.me/edit) For reasonably sized mp4, mov, gif it decodes and encodes at a good speed.

</comment><comment><USER19> Pretty fantastic post, thanks for sharing. I have a love/hate relationship with JS (which I think is normal?) However, this is one of the love moments. Excellent choice on the sample video too, the Director's Series DVDs have also been my test material for various encoding/decoding adventures.

</comment><comment><USER20> Oh the shade on webpack and npm. Its brutal but for a 20kb library thats actually too much time to setup. Webpack4 has improved a lot now as it supports zero config mode now. All thats needed is a src folder with an index.js in it. Much welcomed change for smaller projects!

<comment><USER21> Building an MPEG decoder, video and audio, in JavaScript, over years? _Sure!_

Using JavaScript build tools? _Lol nope!_

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> See also Route9, a VP8/WebM decoder in JavaScript - [https://people.xiph.org/~bens/route9/route9.html](https://people.xiph.org/~bens/route9/route9.html)

</comment><comment><USER23> Could anyone provide good resources to learn more about audio/video codecs? I know nothing about how they work at a technical level/how to write something like this myself.

</comment><comment><USER24> If I remember it correctly MPEG-2 patents are supposed to expire this year. So maybe it's time for JSMPEG2? (Ok just kidding, the whole MPEG-2 spec looks huge).

</comment><comment><USER21> If the Björk video, All is Full of Love, on [http://jsmpeg.com](http://jsmpeg.com) site looks sorta secondhand familiar, it was cited as a large influence on the makers of the Westworld title sequence: [http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/westworld/](http://www.artofthetitle.com/title/westworld/)

</comment><comment><USER25> MPEG-1 is more of a 1993-1995 Peak Usenet thing..

<comment><USER26> Oo-wee-oo, I look just like Buddy Holly...

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> My stupid robot site uses this! Although I have not had much time to keep any robots on line it can be found at following.

[http://robot247.io](http://robot247.io) [https://github.com/mbrumlow/webbot](https://github.com/mbrumlow/webbot)

</comment><comment><USER28> JSMpeg is a great product. I have used it for low-latency live streaming before MSE (Media Source Extensions) arrived in the major browsers. Nowadays the plugin-free alternatives for live streaming are much more efficient, push fragmented MP4s to the browsers and append to a MediaSource buffer using any modern codec supported.

</comment><comment><USER29> cool project! But one question:

> A bug that still stands in some Browsers (Chrome and Safari) prevents WebGL > from using the Uint8ClampedArray directly. Instead, for these browsers we > have to create a Uint8Array view for each array for each frame. This > operation is pretty fast since nothing needs to be copied, but I'd still > like to do without it.

Why worry about it if you're not actually copying the buffer? It's like allocating one extra tiny object per frame, right? It seems like it would be totally insignificant compared to the rest of the workload.

<comment><USER30> Compare it to a compiler that refuses to compile invocations of methods with optional parameter correctly. Sure, you can just insert the missing arguments with their default values, but you shouldn't _have_ to. It's an inconvenience and annoying, especially for something that should just work.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> When you don't captcha your comment submission system...

</comment><comment> dis-sys It remembers me this video.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4WSbjN9zng](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J4WSbjN9zng)

</comment><comment><USER32> I would think that building ffmpeg with emscripten to produce WASM would be the way to go.

If the goal is anything but learning that is.

</comment><comment><USER33> What is the resource usage of the decoder in terms of 1999 hardware versus 2018?

</comment><comment><USER34> This is great educational content. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER35> Does mencoder support encoding of MPEG-1?

<comment><USER35> Yup: [http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/menc-feat- mpeg.html](http://www.mplayerhq.hu/DOCS/HTML/en/menc-feat-mpeg.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> > Why use JSMpeg?

> WebRTC is not supported on iOS.

No longer true.</comment>


Men gather to settle scores – and reduce gun violence – by pummeling one another - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/photography/2019/09/30/these-men-gather-backyards-near-nations-capital-settle-scores-by-pummeling-each-other/ <comment><USER2> Come on guys. We were supposed to talk about this.</comment>


Turkish Journalist Sentenced to Prison Over Paradise Papers' Investigation - <AUTHOR> https://www.icij.org/investigations/paradise-papers/turkish-journalist-sentenced-to-prison-over-paradise-papers-investigation/ <comment><USER2> I was impressed by the concern Turkey had about the journalist Khashoggi. Obviously some journalists are more journalistic than others.

<comment><USER3> Don't mistake political opportunism for ethics or moral fiber. Speaking generally -- not just of this instance.

<comment><USER2> I was sarcastic.</comment></comment></comment>


Nokia Will Soon Sell Its 500 Millionth Phone, up for bidding - <AUTHOR> http://www.pluggd.in/nokia-will-sell-500-millionth-phone-in-india-297/

<comment><AUTHOR> Nokia will soon sell its 500 millionth phone in India and the C3-00 phone will be signed by Shahrukh Khan. The phone is up for bidding and the latest price is Rs. 232,000!</comment>


In App Purchase and the state of iPhone piracy - <AUTHOR> http://blog.off-by-one.mobi/2009/10/in-app-purchase-and-state-of-iphone.html

<comment><USER2> _The simplest one is to detect if the Info.plist has been modified as indicated in the previous section_

This doesn't work to detect piracy anymore. It hasn't for months.</comment>


Readable Pointers - <AUTHOR> http://bollu.github.io/readable-pointers.html <comment><AUTHOR> I want to know if there's nicer solutions to the way in which I solved the problem of pointer-reading-fatigue. I'd love to hear war stories and techniques.

<comment><USER2> Urbit's IDs are 32-bit numbers represented in a pronounceable format (search for `@p`): [https://urbit.org/docs/tutorials/hoon/hoon-school/atoms- aura...](https://urbit.org/docs/tutorials/hoon/hoon-school/atoms-auras-and- simple-cell-types/#what-auras-are-there)

Meanwhile in the real world, there's proquints: [https://arxiv.org/html/0901.4016](https://arxiv.org/html/0901.4016)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Lexical differential highlighting might help for output like this; but I don't know of any editor support. [https://wordsandbuttons.online/lexical_differential_highligh...](https://wordsandbuttons.online/lexical_differential_highlighting_instead_of_syntax_highlighting.html)

</comment><comment><USER4> This is cool, but I'm surprised by the flip in endianness. If pointers agree in their left part when printed in hex, I would also expect them to agree in their left part when printed in words, not in the right part.</comment>


Still Manufacturing Consent: An Interview with Noam Chomsky - <AUTHOR> https://fair.org/home/still-manufacturing-consent-an-interview-with-noam-chomsky/ <comment><USER4> Among people familiar with the book, "Has the propaganda model been invalidated by the social media media giants?" is a regular question. Chomsky's initial reply is most of what needs to be said. Information production is a vital part of the media industry and the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as it was back then — dominated by state institutions and corporations. It was so interesting to read that section in _Manufacturing Consent_ ; the hard numbers really helped get a proper sense of the scale imbalances in information production.

The marking out of the symbiotic relationship between reliable information producers and journalists is also vital to understanding the media system. A reliable, centralised stream of new information content is the life blood of journalism organisations, with a strong emphasis on _reliable_ and _centralised_. This particular need that journalists have sees them often becoming dependent on state institutions and corporations at the expense of minority groups and labor. An example being the journalists 'on the beat' that used to hang out around the local courthouse because that's where the 'feeding trough' is. Or the reports so nicely formatted and condensed produced by the state departments such that journos merely have to copy-paste the information straight into their papers. Easy-peasy.

Fascinating book.

<comment><USER5> > the landscape of information producers by volume is more or less the same as > it was back then

It's not quite the same. Before fact checking anything took an impossible amount of time and not a few resources - a very good library for a start. Now, or even a decade ago it suddenly became possible for everyone.

I vividly remember when the Iraq was announced, and you could see the "information producers" in full swing. I was amazed when my local radio station announcer, well known for his resistance for being bullshitted asked someone he was interviewing in a disbelieving voice if they didn't agree Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.

The point being that by then I had already done my own homework (we were going to war, my fellow citizens were going to be killed and I wanted to know why), and knew full well Iraq had no weapons of mass destruction. The reports and opinions of the UN weapons inspectors was easily available on the internet, along with numerous dumbed down pieces from the mass media. Anyone willing to waste a few hours could easily get past the propaganda smokescreen. Yet this news interviewer who up until then I assumed to be a master of his craft had been pulled in hook, line and sinker.

It changed the message in Chomsky's books from an interesting theoretical discussion to distressingly real. But it also created another puzzle: why didn't the Internet fix it? Why didn't people immediately put this bullshit filter to good use?

I still don't know the answer. There have now been numerous studies into the phenomenon of people continuing to loudly defend bullshit despite the facts being easily available in just about anywhere you look (cue: climate change). Apparently it has to do with people preferring to signal they are part of a particular tribe over acting in their best interest. Or something. I guess I'll never understand, as they aren't people like me.

<comment><USER4> Not that I disagree with what you've said, but I put "producers by volume" in there. Thus talking about fact-checking isn't really a counterpoint.

Did changes in fact-checking change the proportion of information produced by state and corporate actors?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I find it beyond fascinating that Chomsky is effectively barred from appearing on any news network. His perspective is that dangerous to the status quo and, amusingly, supports his points about media control.

<comment><USER7> Is he actually "barred"? Or he just don't go there? I remind him talking[1] about TV and radio, and how it was structurally[2] impossible to hold non- mainstream views there, so he wasn't really interested going.

[1] in _On Anarchism_.

[2] he said it was because the mandatory _conciseness_ when talking live.

<comment><USER8> He used to appear on PBS news shows in decades past. News Hour is now the epitome of "there are only two sides".

Chomsky can be seen on RT every now and then.

Of course, today's woke equate RT as only propaganda while they consume whatever media they watch without question.

[https://rtd.rt.com/shows/conversation-with/chomsky-correa- ta...](https://rtd.rt.com/shows/conversation-with/chomsky-correa-talk-us/)

<comment><USER9> He also appears on Democracy Now! occasionally. That it takes a listner/viewer funded station to get this stuff out is interesting.

RT can be propaganda in intent but I do like that they are at least showing a very different point of view to the majority of mass media. That Chris Hedge gets a weekly program would never happen on most other networks nowadays.

Watch it, take it in but don't take it too seriously. Treat it as stuff to be contemplated in its context.

<comment><USER10> The questions that RT talking heads ask are so laced with Kremlin engineered bias that it makes Fox News look borderline academic.

<comment><USER11> If you only see certain points in "western" media, then it could be easy to think that all other points are "Kremlin engineered bias". How about instead you just look at the points themselves and what the speaker says, and make your own conclusions whilst having a bit of an open mind.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Here's a nice 1h documentary on "Engineering Consent" focusing on Edward Bernays (pioneer of PR and propaganda).

[https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/071470-000-A/propaganda- engine...](https://www.arte.tv/en/videos/071470-000-A/propaganda-engineering- consent/)

<comment><USER13> "cannot be viewed from your current location" (California?)

A (related?) four-part video series on this topic is called 'Century of the Self' and might be found out there somewhere

<comment><USER14> I highly recommend this, I found it on YouTube easily last time. It seemed to be a recording of the TV screen but picture quality wasn't too important for the subject.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Of all of Chomsky's positions that I have read, the propaganda model is the hardest to doubt - it seems almost unassailable. Are there any convincing criticisms of it?

<comment><USER16> It's been about 15 years since I read Manufacturing Consent, but- the weak version of his thesis is fine, sure. An NBCUniversal media property, say, is probably not going to report critically on something that NBCUniversal has a financial stake in.

The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn't track reality.

While it's easy for me to just dismiss this obviously incorrect hypothesis as 'dumb' (which it is), I think on a deeper level Chomsky is influenced by Marx who was influenced by other 18-19th century philosophers like Hegel. Who used extremely, overly broad handwavey concepts like Elites or The Powerful as part of their totally academic, abstract, philosophical explanation for How Society Works. As someone who read a bunch of Chomsky books when I was 20 years old- part of his worldview is that nothing happens by accident, but every major moment in history is part of a Hegelian Battle Between Forces (like elites vs. the working class or something). It's still a childishly unrealistic way of looking at how society actually functions, but it comes from a super super abstract philosopher's worldview where he can handwave Big Business/the Military/the Government as one unit with identical interests. If that makes sense at all. Sort of reminds me of ancient philosophers theorizing about how physics or medicine works without conducting any empirical tests whatsoever

<comment><USER17> _The actual hypothesis Chomsky puts forward in the book is childishly simple, though. He imagines literally every for-profit corporation, the military, and the entire federal government as being one fused united party with identical interests, and so NBCUniversal would never report anything critical of the military or the US government. This, um, doesn 't track reality._

Is that really his thesis?

It seems to me that it's more about how _incentives for all these organizations are aligned_ towards those same interests. Only the very "top" of the power pyramid needs to be deliberately trying to manufacture consent; everyone else falls into line because of the incentives set up by those one level of power above.

<comment><USER16> But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support 'those at the top'. Empirical observation over abstract philosophizing, please. Society is much more complex & interesting than Chomsky imagines, with many more nuances. Even the actual federal government and military have many competing factions with different interests, different goals, etc.

It's a philosopher's 'let's model civilization as a one-page flowchart' level of analysis. I don't think it's particularly deep or interesting, and I read a great deal of Chomsky back in the day

<comment><USER18> > (there are) incentives for all these organizations are aligned towards those > same interests.

> But in practice, we don't observe that these organizations blindly support > 'those at the top'.

That isn't the same thing. I'm not sure how you connect these. This is better illustrated in specific countries, where the incentives are fierce and immediate. You still see dissent there too, but that's not relevant to the point ("I don't see it all the time so it's not true", missing the point).

<comment><USER16> The thesis of the book is that mass media acts or editorializes on behalf of the powerful in society- not just that their 'incentives are aligned'. The book is about the specific actions that media companies supposedly take. So, pointing out all of the times that mass media has acted orthogonally to powerful interests in society (publishing the Pentagon Papers, publishing the Snowden revelations, the current run of publishing ultra-critical pieces about tech companies, etc.) would be relevant counter-examples.

Zooming out slightly, handwaving everyone who's wealthy or powerful in the US into 'elites' that are sort of one fused organic unit with identical interests is just bad, sloppy thinking, sorry. Wall Street, Silicon Valley, the military, Fortune 500 corporations, Hollywood, New York/DC-media companies, Ivy League universities- they're all 'elites' and they are competing, at times hostile power centers to each other. I don't take any analysis that smushes them into 'elites' or 'the 1%' or whatever seriously. (For example, the 'mass media' that Chomsky handwaves- a more precise description would be New York/DC media moguls- is actively hostile to Silicon Valley these days. Many of these power centers actively compete. His categories are absurdly broad)

<comment><USER19> Currently the elites are fighting and not one united front against the non- elites (the rise of tech created a new elite group that wasn't dependent on the existing elites to exist), bit that doesn't mean one side won't either eventually win, or broker a truce in order to go on managing the masses for corporate gain.

<comment><USER15> But even now, how are the elites not united in most goals? Are the new tech elite pro workers rights? Are they for radical action to stop global warming? Are they anti-monopoly? Are they pro corporate taxation? Are they anti- interventionist?

There may be in-fighting between the elites, but that does not mean that these groups are not still aligned on most broad topics. Teh same has always been true for democrats VS Republicans. They do care who gets to be in power, and will fight tooth-and-nail for that, but neither will do anything that would hurt the elites in general.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Manufactured consent can be similar to fabrication. But, it cuts both ways. People think of this manufacture as big gov or big biz pushing their agenda trough their lapdog media. But the same process happens with social causes. Let's say vegetarianism or the anti-fur movement (very few people would disagree with the latter), but this took manufactured consent to achieve. The same with environmental and social causes. People don't just wake up and change their minds. These opinions are filtered down to them.

<comment><USER21> > Let's say vegetarianism or the anti-fur movement (very few people would > disagree with the latter), but this took manufactured consent to achieve.

The concept of "consent" as it's used in _Manufacturing Consent_ does not apply to those movements at all. It means more than "some people agree with _x_ because of information that was presented to them."

<comment><USER20> I think it does. These movements start out small but have vocal sympathizers who have some kind of gravitas via popularity or due to some other characteristic people grant some "authority". Then media carry water for it, etc.

The mechanism is exactly the same. If the media didn't carry the message and others wouldn't grab in to that, it wouldn't happen.

Why aren't social causes not as prevalent in China? Because the media is controlled. Lots of feminists in CN lament that they are not allowed to influence people. And it's true. The gov will not allow subversion of their power no matter how just a cause is. It will only happen on their terms.

<comment><USER22> It's a very unusual view that equates a spontaneous shift towards vegetarianism in the face of corporate lobbying and advertising on behalf of the meat industries with an institutional refusal to question Israel's nuclear arsenal.

<comment><USER20> Except that shift isn't spontaneous. Someone has to propose it, someone has to promote it, someone has to popularize it, etc.

Manufacturing consent isn't by default bad. Manufacturing convent to built pubic transit, manufacturing consent to have people vaccinated, etc., in the face of other interests is still manufacturing consent.

<comment><USER23> >Except that shift isn't spontaneous. Someone has to propose it, someone has to promote it, someone has to popularize it, etc.

The mechanism is different though. We didn't just wake up one day and start hearing multiple coherent media voices that vegetarianism is the way forward. We did have precisely that for the Iraq war.

<comment><USER20> It's just slower. But there is an interest and there is a promoter, people selling books, talking on air, in movies, talked about by teachers, elevated by kids's shows, etc. It's more diffuse and immersive, thus, it's even more effective because people rarely notice it. It has parallels to refined state propaganda.

Iraq war-like talk basically is the poorman's version of ideal propaganda.

<comment><USER23> It's not just slower and there is no "promoter" that is filtering down news in the same way with talking points dictated to media. There is a wide variety of views being spread in a far more grass roots fashion.

"Propaganda" isn't just an attempt to convince somebody of something. Writing a book advancing a viewpoint isn't automatically propaganda.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I love how people are worried about the far right in these comments but not on the impact of propaganda on themselves.

This recent Kurds vs Turkey is an example of this.

The left usually hates war. Why? If you break down to the lowest level, it looks like the current left is mainly dominated by the maternal instinct. In every issue they divide the world into child vs predator. And they always come down on the side protecting the weak child.

You can see this across a number of social, economic and geo poilitical issues.

In terms of war, they look at it as America's selfish predatory instincts preying upon innocent parties in the middle east leading to countless lives lost of the weak.

So how do you get people who think like this to support war?

Simple. Invent a weak, childlike ally in the middle of the war zone, who are being attacked by a notorious hateful predator, and we would be abandoning them if we dont put our troops in harms way.

So, you rebrand the american troop presence as honorable protection rather than predatory intervention. Thats all it takes to manufacture consent.

<comment><USER25> I'm (USA) left on just about any position you care to mention, and am worried more by the Kurd/Turkey thing's apparent ineptness and failure to fit any foreign policy plan whatsoever. Bumbling incompetence is less appealing to me than either well-executed, cold realpolitik, or failed but well-meaning attempts at actual moral leadership. It's about as bad as it gets, short of outright evil for evil's sake.

I also don't think it'd be inconsistent to oppose going into various wars in the Middle East, while also opposing recklessly withdrawing once we'd stuck our noses in already.

<comment><USER26> Yep, the lack of any plan is usually the issue. Often it's not even clear there is a goal.

The New York Times was recently criticizing Trump on the basis of him having reduced US influence due to his recent actions. I was a bit confused by that claim, as I wasn't sure what we needed the influence for. The previous stated goal was "defeating ISIS", which largely already happened. I have no real idea what the current goal was supposed to be.

<comment><USER25> Oh, yeah, to be clear I think that, given public information (you never know what secret crap's going on, same for Trump's moves, so we have to work with what we know), intervening in Syria to begin with—by which I mean encouraging and supplying the rebels, not the later anti-ISIS actions—was a massive humanitarian and geopolitical disaster, possibly a bigger blunder than (though related to) the invasion of Iraq, even, and I think that shouldn't have been too hard to predict from the start, not just an obvious-in-hindsight thing. It's a big part of why I don't hold Obama's (or Hillary's) actions on foreign policy in very high regard, to put it mildly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This article is from June. I've generally been a bit skeptical of Noam Chomsky's politics but this interaction seems prophetic given the current situation in Syria and makes me think that I should give "Manufacturing Consent" some attention:

>But as Patrick Cockburn pointed out in the Independent, what is happening in Afrin is about the same.

> AM: Happening where, sorry?

> NC: Afrin. Turkish forces and their allies are carrying out the attack in a > mostly Kurdish area. Patrick Cockburn has covered it, but almost nobody > else.

Doing some research on it, the articles I read in the Washington Post ([https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/11/who-are- kurd...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/2019/10/11/who-are-kurds-why-is- turkey-attacking-them/)) said that the Turkish offensive was "days old" while the Independent article Chomsky references ([https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-afrin-crisis- turk...](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/syria-afrin-crisis-turkish- forces-civilians-deaths-eastern-ghouta-assad-a8247206.html)) attributes a death toll of 220 to Turkey in March 2018.

</comment><comment><USER28> The 1992 documentary film based on Herman and Chomsky's Manufacturing Consent book is also worth watching [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnrBQEAM3rE)

</comment><comment><USER29> How is it that this guy still has no Nobel Prize?

<comment><USER30> Because of political bias. Just look at the introduction of the (fake) Nobel Prize for economics. It exists purely to legitimize a neoliberal economic ideology. Awarding Chomsky a Nobel Prize would undermine that goal.

<comment><USER31> The idea that awarding a prize to the most respected scientists in a particular field is solely for the purpose of advancing an ideology is in itself extremely anti-intellectual and biased. Have you even looked at the work of the scientists who received the prize?

<comment><USER32> It's hardly "anti-intellectual" to note that unlike the actual prizes funded by Nobel over a century ago, the economics "Nobel" was created by the Swedish Central Bank only 50 years ago. That's not exactly an unbiased source. If there was no chemistry prize and Dow Chemical or Bayer stepped in to create one, it wouldn't be anywhere as respected as the actual Chemistry Nobel, would it?

<comment><USER31> The anti-intellectual part was to claim that the awarding of prizes to prominent scientists only served to promote a certain ideology. It is like saying that the Nobel Prize for Medicine would exist only to promote orthodox medicine.

> If there was no chemistry prize and Dow Chemical or Bayer stepped in to > create one, it wouldn't be anywhere as respected as the actual Chemistry > Nobel, would it?

The Nobel Prize was created by the owner of a Swedish chemical and weapons company. I don't see what's so great about it.

And as for the Swedish Central Bank, I think Paul Krugman hit the nail on the head: _Oh, and cue the usual complaints that this isn't a "real" Nobel. Hey, this is just a prize given by a bunch of Swedes, as opposed to the other prizes, which are given out by, um, bunches of Swedes._

<comment><USER33> I think its still fair to say that economics is not a science the way medicine is.

<comment><USER34> >I think its still fair to say that economics is not a science the way medicine is.

Which is very unfortunate, because like medicine, the practice of economics has the power to influence decisions and affect lives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I consider myself a rather well-informed person, but this is the first time I've read about Harris Media involvement in the last German election and I'm German. All I can remember is indeed the "Russian interference" and how the AfD is supposedly financed out of Russia.

But that Bloomberg Businessweek article [0] unearths some scary details:

"We took that 300,000 (AfD likes), and Facebook created a model of them and used their lookalike audiences to find the closest 1 percent of German people to match that audience,"

That "1 percent" sounds extremely familiar, particularly in a far-right context [1] It makes me wonder who originally came up with that concept, was it Harris Media or was it the idea of their client, the AfD?

[0] [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the- germa...](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-09-29/the-german-far- right-finds-friends-through-facebook)

[1] [https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Prozent_f%C3%BCr_unser_Lan...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ein_Prozent_f%C3%BCr_unser_Land)

<comment><USER36> Why do you find this story scary? It seems like a sensible way for a political party to get votes: profile your current supporters, find other people who fit that profile, convince those people to vote for you too.

As for Russian interference, the article you linked to says this: "The Russian meddling that German state security had been anticipating apparently never materialized. Instead, the foreign influence came from America."

<comment><USER37> > It seems like a sensible way for a political party to get votes

Democracy was about educated voters, I thought. If you find this acceptable, we're on different planets. Perhaps ask a German about slippery political slopes? Or live long enough and find yourself in the middle of one.

> the article you linked to says this: "The Russian meddling that German state > security had been anticipating apparently never materialized. Instead, the > foreign influence came from America."

It also says "While the Russian episode involved ads bought under false identities by people with Kremlin ties" which you must have seen if you'd searched for 'russia'. How this statement links with the one you found, I don't know.

<comment><USER36> If you read the sentence before the one you very selectively quoted, or even just completed the very sentence you quoted, it becomes clear the sentence is talking about the US presidential election, not the German one: "That's a paltry sum for Facebook co-founder Mark Zuckerberg, who finds himself in the greatest crisis of his career over the company's role in Russia's meddling with the U.S. election. While the Russian episode involved ads bought under false identities by people with Kremlin ties, the AfD campaign was completely different—the party literally walked through Facebook's front door and introduced itself, a strategy Harris Media intends to repeat."

<comment><USER37> I messed up, thanks for catching it. My mistake. Upvoted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Noam Chomsky is 91. Holy crap.

My favourite Chomsky thing is the very short shrift he gives to conspiracy theorists.

e.g. Rethinking Camelot, his book about JFK - [https://zcomm.org/wp- content/uploads/zbooks/htdocs/chomsky/r...](https://zcomm.org/wp- content/uploads/zbooks/htdocs/chomsky/rc/rc-contents.html) \- the thesis being that JFK was really no different to any other president at that time - <USER2> idea he was radical being a kindof post-hoc reconstruction - and hence there was absolutely no reason for anyone to want to bump him off.

 _A methodological point is perhaps worth mention. Suppose that we were to concoct a theory about historical events at random, while permitting ourselves to assume arbitrary forms of deceit and falsification. Then in the vast documentary record, we are sure to find scattered hints and other debris that could be made to conform to the theory, while counter-evidence is nullified. By that method, one can "prove" virtually anything. For example, we can prove that JFK never intended to withdraw any troops, citing the elusiveness of NSAM 263 and his unwillingness to commit himself to the withdrawal recommended by his war managers. Or we can prove that the attempt to assassinate Reagan was carried out by dark forces (Alexander Haig, the CIA, etc.). After all, Reagan had backed away from using US forces directly in Central America (unlike JFK in Vietnam); he was cozying up to the Chicoms; he had already given intimations of the anti-nuclear passion that led him to offer to give away the store at Rejkjavik and to join forces with the arch-fiend Gorbachev, whose perestroika was a transparent plot to entrap us; his associates were planning off-the-shelf international operations, bypassing intelligence and the Pentagon. Obviously, he has to go. Or suppose there had been an attempt to assassinate LBJ in late 1964, when he was refusing the call of the military to stand up to the Commies in Vietnam, pursuing Great Society and civil rights programs with a zeal well beyond Kennedy, and about to defeat a real alternative, Barry Goldwater. Nothing is easier than to construct a high-level conspiracy to get rid of this "radical reformer." The task is only facilitated by a search for nuances and variations of phrasing in the mountains of documents, usually committee jobs put together hastily with many compromises.

This is not the way to learn about the world._

<comment><USER39> These days people can call you a conspiracy theorist for the very things Chomsky stands behind.

<comment><USER40> You can get easily downvoted on HN for saying the very things Chomsky stands behind. Happens me all the time.

<comment><USER41> Yep, for all the love of entrepreneurship and social justice, this site can be very conformist and pro-establishment,especially in economic/international matters.

That by the way this is my conspiracy theory, somehow in the last 20 years or so the focus of social movements changed from socio-economic and international inequalities, to gender-sexual orientation. Pretty convenient for the people in power. A me-too is 100 times easier to manage and even get advantage from compared to an occupy wall street.

You now see companies from P&G to Disney getting in the diverity wagon (purely for advertising reasons). For sure you wont see them advocating for better wages,work conditions or tax rules.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Genuine question, why does he say NYT and WaPo present "center to far right opinion"? C'mon. How NYT is far right?

<comment><USER43> Because he is a full on Communist. Its not that hard to understand.

<comment><USER44> By what measure is he, or indeed anyone really, a "full on Communist"? I have always believed there have never been any real ones.

<comment><USER45> Sure there were -- thousands died fighting Franco, in Spain. See George Orwell's _Homage to Catalonia_ , or Whitaker Chambers' _Witness_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's funny/sad that there's even a term for when reporters venture outside of the confines of their pen: investigative journalism.

<comment><USER47> The thesis of Manufacturing Consent is that even investigative journalism doesn't venture outside of certain acceptable norms.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Would be great if the video was available.

</comment><comment><USER49> I do find it interesting that while he talks about frameworks from within media conveys the story they present, a property of the government they work and live under, he seems overly concerned with large corporations having too much power of influence.

Well, sorry, but the same has been true about governments for too long. For too long they controlled the message and some of them are doing their damn best to not lose that control. Whether but authoritarian methods as used in China to coercion of public opinion in Western countries that government needs to step in and protect people from the message they don't control and therefor is not true.

This is not to say that very large organizations like Facebook or Google are not a concern but to highlight the hypocrisy that does not call out the various governments who are worse regardless of what method they use to control speech and money

<comment> streb-lo Dictatorships notwithstanding, in a real democracy, voters are the check on that power. The problem is that, in the USA, money has been allowed to become directly correlated with voter share and the tail wags the dog.

<comment><USER50> > money has been allowed to become directly correlated with voter share

This is demonstrably false, most vividly exemplified by the current president who raised far less than his competitor. In the United States, when there is a race with no incumbents, the winner is anticorrelated with the one who raised the most.

<comment> streb-lo Money buys far more than campaign and PAC ads.

Money buys newspapers, TV stations, etc. The fact that it can also buy unlimited amounts of direct advertising is just plain gross.

<comment><USER51> calling into TV news shows also gets you unlimited direct advertising, which Trump showed is highly effective

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I'd agree that Noam Chomsky's linguistic contribution is of the highest order, but I'm not so sure about his political analysis. Here are his comments in 1977 regarding the reported genocide in Cambodia [1]: "We do not pretend to know where the truth lies amidst these sharply conflicting assessments; rather, we again want to emphasize some crucial points. What filters through to the American public is a seriously distorted version of the evidence available, emphasizing alleged Khmer Rouge atrocities and downplaying or ignoring the crucial U.S. role, direct and indirect, in the torment that Cambodia has suffered. Evidence that focuses on the American role, like the Hildebrand and Porter volume, is ignored, not on the basis of truthfulness or scholarship but because the message is unpalatable."

And on the veracity of reports about horrific slaughter made by Cambodian refugees: "Refugees are frightened and defenseless, at the mercy of alien forces. They naturally tend to report what they believe their interlocuters wish to hear. While these reports must be considered seriously, care and caution are necessary. Specifically, refugees questioned by Westerners or Thais have a vested interest in reporting atrocities on the part of Cambodian revolutionaries, an obvious fact that no serious reporter will fail to take into account."

Did Chomsky show poor judgement by discounting such refugee reports? Was the evidence of genocide really so muddy in 1977 that you could not 'know where the truth lies'?

[1] [https://web.archive.org/web/20131207072650/http://www.abc.ne...](https://web.archive.org/web/20131207072650/http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2779086.html)

[2] [https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Chomsky-and- the-...](https://m.jpost.com/Opinion/Terra-Incognita-Chomsky-and-the-myth-of- instant-expertise-514661)

<comment><USER53> He says his statements made in 1977 were qualified, and the best he had with the scholarship available. Since then he's criticized the Cambodian Khmer Rouge as genocidal. It's a forgivable mistake considering his political & historical output, which is very significant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> 哈哈233333

</comment><comment><USER55> >> Note: The day after this interview took place, the Sun, Britain's largest newspaper by circulation, ran with the front-page headline, "Putin's Puppet: Corbyn Refuses to Blast Russia on Spy Attack," as the leader of the Labour Party did not unreservedly endorse sanctions on Russia.

I've noticed this sort of thing and it just doesn't make sense. The UK press (not just the tabloids) loves to present Corby as simultaneously a "Red" and a "Putin's puppet". How does that work? Putin is not a communist. He's probably as far as it's possible to be from being a communist without being a Stalinist.

Corby is clearly a leftie, so what's his affiliation to Putin supposed to be? Why is the British press _still_ associating Russia to communism? They missed the memo in 1989?

(Ask me for refs on the press calling Corby a commie if you are curious).

<comment><USER53> It's Russiaphobia gone mad. Yeah just like when Trump withdrew troops from northern Syria and gave the ok to Turkey to invade, the media in the US said it would please Syria and Russia (!)

Like, why would Syria and their ally be happy about a loss of Syrian territory?

<comment><USER56> Imagine you're a tinpot dictator. A corner of your country is home to a stubborn group of people who were there before you ever appointed yourself President for life. They feel no allegiance to you and would like to create an independent nation-state. Unfortunately for you, they're supported by the world's most powerful military.

One day the commander-in-chief of that powerful military decides to pull out his troops so that his friend — another tinpot dictator like you — can invade the land of those stubborn people. You find this development quite pleasing because the stubborn ones you've long been hoping to wipe out have lost their only ally, and you'd much rather fight your neighbor dictator than the world's most powerful military. Besides, an old friend of yours has promised to lend a hand there as soon as the powerful military is out of the picture.

<comment><USER53> Right now the Syrian army is saving the Kurds from the Turks. Syrians and Kurds have historically gotten along much better than the Turks, who have savagely attacked the Kurds in their own country and are now doing so in Syria.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> The latest CNN veritas videos are eye opening. Chomsky is still dead on as far as I can tell.

<comment><USER58> It's deeply disturbing anyone would still give credence to Veritas or O'keefe after nearly decades of selective editing and outright false allegations. How quickly we've forgotten their WaPo scandal.

<comment><USER59> It was hidden camera footage from a whistle blower who worked at CNN.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7XZmugtLv4)

<comment><USER58> Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman- approa...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/investigations/a-woman-approached- the-post-with-dramatic--and-false--tale-about-roy-moore-sje-appears-to-be- part-of-undercover-sting- operation/2017/11/27/0c2e335a-cfb6-11e7-9d3a-bcbe2af58c3a_story.html) and [https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you- dont...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/what-you-dont-see-in- okeefe-video-may-be-as-important-as-what-you- do/2017/06/28/dcb67446-5b7c-11e7-a9f6-7c3296387341_story.html)

Deep fakes are going to rock your world.

<comment><USER60> _(deleted my original comment, because I think this thread is a more suitable place to reply)_

> _Oh, it was camera footage, so we can automatically trust it despite the > fact that the project doing it is inherently untrustworthy_.

Agree.

I was interested in fringe politics as a social phenomenon and I've been following it for a year or two.

I now see CNN as a media outlet largely serving their interest groups. But see RT, Project Veritas, etc., as "second-order propaganda" serving their respective interest groups by selectively "exposing" targets for their political utility, not because they care about truth, it's half-truth, half- falsehoold. Meanwhile, the accusations of the mainstream media are made against them, not because they care about truth, but because their existence damaged the mainstream's own interest. It's all biases vs. biases all the way down.

If someone spends enough time and effort while maintaining rationality, it's possible to extract a great deal of useful information from the sum of all these propaganda. I think it's what open-source intelligence is largely about.

But I don't want to waste time doing this. Nowadays, I view many things in politics as mere talking points without make judgements, and get most of my news from Hacker News (which is, of course, heavily biased towards the Silicon Valley).

> _Deep fakes are going to rock your world._

Definitely.

I think most (internet-savvy) people will eventually learn it and ignore things like that.

In _Ghost in the Shell: S.A.C. 2nd GIG_ (second season of the TV animation), one group of politicians for their personal interests within the government, has launched a conspiracy to intensify a military conflict (against the refugee uprising) that involves nuclear weapon. The protagonists from Section 9, a national security agency that operates independent from the executive, saw the truth from the satellite footage, had the following dialogue.

> "How do we stop it? Can we post the video footage online?"

> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day."

Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes.

Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like.

<comment><USER61> >> "No. Video footage nowadays is seen as completely unreliable to this day."

>Since most video footage "exposure" themselves are propaganda or hoaxes.

>Released in 2000s, it portrayed and predicted our world remarkably well, and it'll give you a lot of inspirations of what would the future society look like.

I think the current situation is a bit more severe than what was portrayed there. It's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing. All evidence is interpreted through the eyes of tribalism first and foremost, while truth is relegated to the back, because how information is disseminated now exploits our natural behavioural patterns in a negative way. That is the core of the rot in our great age of "(dis)information".

<comment><USER60> Great comment.

> _It 's not that video footage is unreliable, but that it is unconvincing._

Why not both? It's a mixed bag.

Unreliability can be one problem. For example, "quoting one's words" is a common type of political videos on YouTube, they're mainly a few-second or few-minute of video segments that quote someone's words, and makes a point about it. Some of these videos are mostly reliable, but some other videos intentionally remove the relevant context and mislead the viewers to draw another conclusion. Because of the existence of misleading videos, my first response to any of them is distrust until it's proven reliable. The same principle applies to expressing a statement of something by a politician - <USER3> it true or is it misleading rhetoric?

This is why fact-checking becomes more and more popular. But the issue of reliability is greater than objective facts, you can fact-check data but you cannot fact-check the framing or context. As technology marches on, the issue of unreliability will become greater, e.g. DeepFake.

Unconvincing can be another issue. For example, some activists have been warned us about mass surveillance for a decade based on reliable evidence.

Both work together.

<comment><USER62> When the fact checkers have the same bias as the original authors, what point is there? Without penalty of perjury or some other penalty the loudest voices will control the "facts".

<comment><USER60> Yes. I've read your US gun range footage comment.

Perhaps a potential solution would be: full freedom of speech, but less freedom of the press, e.g. you can post whatever you want online until someone sues you, just like today, but media outlets should not be allowed to do the same without facing consequences.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


How to install Android 10 on any android device - <AUTHOR> https://www.androidpit.com/how-to-download-android-10 <comment><USER2> To save you from the OP and the article clickbait:

The installation only works on Pixel devices.

</comment><comment><USER3> headline for the article is actually "How to download and install Android 10 on your smartphone".

Offering a way of installing android 10 on _any_ device is just false.</comment>


Zencoder lowers the price for encoding to multiple output formats - <AUTHOR> http://zencoder.com/encoder-blog/2011/03/09/lower-price-for-multiple-outputs/

<comment><USER2> I'm not trolling, I have a honest question- What do I get with Zencoder, versus the free Transcoding I get through Softlayer (<http://bit.ly/hmDGtu>)

Even if I didn't already have a Softlayer server, it seems like it'd be cheaper to get one of those then hire Zencoder for many cases.

<comment><USER3> Fair question. What you get is scalability (Softlayer is explicitly for low- volume transcoding), an API (Softlayer might have one, though it's not documented at the above link), a lower error rate, higher visual quality, better compression, more options, and hands-on customer support. Not everyone needs these things, but many people do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This isn't as interesting as I hoped it would be from reading the title. It looks like the only technical aspect of this is caching the input file, which makes sense but isn't very exciting. Is there any work being done on sharing some of the encoding work between different resolutions of the same codec? I don't know a lot about video codecs but it seems like you might be able to encode the higher resolution video and save some of the intermediate data to use with the lower resolution video to at least provide hints.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is mostly about the business side of things. Many of our customers are encoding to multiple formats to deliver a better user experience and we wanted our pricing to adapt.

Technically, we encode all of the outputs for a file in parallel across multiple transcoding servers. We're looking for ways to reduce the number of steps involved in moving an input file through the system which may result in some sort of forking of the decode to multiple simultaneous encodes, but that remains to be seen.</comment></comment>


Engineering Marvel of the Winter Olympics: A Broom - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/06/sports/olympics/curling-smart-broom.html?hpw&rref=sports&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=well-region&region=bottom-well&WT.nav=bottom-well <comment><USER2> > Each SmartBroom has four sensors in the broom head that relay data to a > small display unit. Hamilton took one for a spin down the ice, and the data > was instantaneous — line graphs along with a slew of numbers that showed his > force in pounds and his stroke rate in hertz. Hamilton also pointed to a > figure that he described as his "sweeping performance index," or S.P.I., a > metric that combines power and speed in one easy-to-digest figure.

Is there an obvious true way to reach that SPI metric? Is it possible that optimizing for the broom-provided SPI gives you non-optimized performance? I would assume that you would need temperature measurements from the ground/ice since the article implies that's the function of sweeping:

> A quick primer on sweeping: It is important. The science behind it is much > more complicated than people think. The simplified version is that sweeping > slightly increases the temperature of the ice while creating micro-scratches > on the surface. The result is that players are better able to control for > distance and trajectory as the rock travels down the sheet. The sport hinges > on precision, so every brush stroke counts.

Am I missing something?

<comment><USER3> I would guess that maximizing the number would not always provide optimal results. I don't curl but if you ever watch curling you can see that they aren't always trying to provide full force all of the time. I'm sure that having a quantifiable number that gives an indication of how hard they're sweeping at any given point could be useful.

<comment><USER4> Yeah, it's all about fine tuning the speed of the rock so it lands exactly where you want it to go. Curling is basically shuffleboard but you can adjust the slipperiness of the track while the rock is in motion. If the rock is already slowing down at the right rate (or not enough!) you definitely don't want to be sweeping.

I do wonder where the sport originated. Ice shuffleboard is straightforward enough, but who was the genius that figured out you could sweep the ice to control the rock better. Why were there no killjoys yelling that it was cheating? How can this be an Olympic sport but dart throwing isn't?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I thought this would be about the ban a few years ago: Brooms with certain bristles were banned, as it made it "too easy".

From the same paper a few years back: [https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/sports/facing-control- iss...](https://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/20/sports/facing-control-issues- curling-draws-line-at-high-tech-brooms.html)

<comment><USER6> Hey, some of us are still fuming about brushes. The couple of days after a bonspiel used to _hurt_.

<comment><USER7> What did people use before brushes?

(I love that the user complaining about curling minutiae has the username "stan_rogers", by the way. Possibly the most Canadian thing ever.)

<comment><USER6> Proper brooms, as opposed to push brooms. You might occasionally see a skip using one just to call shots these days. It took a _lot_ of effort to sweep effectively with a corn broom.

(I can sing all of his stuff as a party piece, but I had the name a long time before he became famous, and Stan is a really common name in my family going back many generations. Probably related if you go all Mormon on the genealogy, but that's more effort than fun.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm interested to see how the curling federation handles this - the last I heard they banned brooms with directional bristles as they provided too much of an advantage. I can see this being an invaluable training tool, but ultimately banned in competition

<comment><USER9> > last I heard they banned brooms with directional bristles as they provided > too much of an advantage.

Odd, could they not just give everyone brooms with directional bristles? then it would no longer be an advantage.

<comment><USER10> The new brooms fundamentally changed the nature of the game, greatly diminishing the importance of the skill of the thrower and the strength and athleticism of the sweepers.

The cat is now out of the bag. The techniques learned from using directional brooms have now created a completely different style of sweeping, based mainly on manipulating scratches in the ice rather than heating it. Directional fabric broom heads are banned, but the directional sweeping technique they spawned is here to stay. Not everyone in curling is happy about that.

[http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/curling/curling-s-broom- co...](http://www.cbc.ca/sports/olympics/curling/curling-s-broom-controversy- can-t-be-swept-aside-1.3448870)

<comment><USER11> If a sport or activity can be undermined by learning more about it, maybe it's not much of a sport.

<comment><USER10> All games are played by an arbitrary set of rules designed to encourage a particular kind of competition. New equipment, new tactics or simply increasing skill levels may undermine critical aspects of the balance or challenge of those games. Practically all sports have tweaked their rules over time to ensure that the game remains fair, challenging and enjoyable to watch.

In the early 1950s, the NBA had a serious problem with boring, low-scoring games. Once teams had achieved a lead, they tended to run out the clock by passing the ball between each other and playing very defensively. In 1954, they introduced the shot clock, which effectively prohibited these stalling tactics and was widely credited with saving the game as a spectator sport.

Golf has regularly changed the rules to preserve the integrity of traditional courses. Better clubs, better balls and greater athleticism were making many holes almost trivial for professional players. Rather than destroying their heritage by abandoning iconic courses, they chose to regulate the equipment. They haven't just banned new developments - in many cases, they prohibited equipment that had been used in competition for many years.

In the case of curling, the directional brush heads revealed a new way of using old equipment. Traditional bristle brush heads were thought to be obsolete, but turn out to be extremely powerful if they are brand new, very stiff and used in a specific way. This combination of factors may be detrimental to the game as a whole. I think that it's entirely reasonable for the World Curling Federation to consider a ban on certain types of bristled brush head.

It's worth contemplating the fact that the ban on directional brush heads came entirely from the players themselves - prior to the ban, 34 elite curling teams signed an open letter saying that they would not use the new technology.

[http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/top-curling-teams- say...](http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/manitoba/top-curling-teams-say-they-won- t-use-high-tech-brooms-1.3274903)

<comment><USER12> A real nice, fictional example is the one in _Quidditch through the ages_ by Kennilw... er, JK Rowling. A whole section is devoted to _stooging_ , a tactic to overpower the goalkeeper that was eventually banned because it made the game too boring (not to mention dangerous for the goalies).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> As an Electrical Engineering student at North Dakota State University I curled. Our team won the North Dakota State Championship. One of my friends was training for the Korean Olympics. It appears that I overlooked the market for brooms...

It's great to see technology being used to make athletes better even if it means changing technique.

</comment><comment><USER14> Nice to see a small NodeMCU in the picture there - just goes to show that even hobbyist-grade hardware can be used to solve real problems, and be experimented with usefully.

<comment><USER15> The blue board on the perf board is an Arduino Nano, I don't see any NodeMCU. Although that would have been nice to be able to use bluetooth.

<comment><USER14> You're absolutely right, and it is obvious now I look again. I must have gotten forgetful between reading the article and commenting!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The Dutch short track ice skating team did something similar with Samsung: they developed a suit that measures the angle of the athlete and sends the data to the trainer.

[https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-created-a- smartsuit-t...](https://www.sammobile.com/news/samsung-created-a-smartsuit-to- help-improve-training-for-dutch-short-trackers/)

<comment><USER17> We are the only people who care so much about speed-skating - everyone in our country knows what a clap skate[0] is, I doubt that is true anywhere else.

Makes me wonder how many hyper-specialised niches of technology like this exist out there.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Cool idea and great execution. Must also be a fairly small market for such brooms, and competition.

<comment><USER19> It is like selling kit that is only used in Formula 1 and no other formulas. McLaren sell lots of telemetry kit that is mandated by the FIA, they also sell other bits and bobs where there can only be ten buyers in F1. In all fairness they do have sidelines for NASCAR and Formula E so it is not that niche.

Essentially these parts are not mass produced, they are tailor made from a pattern rather than fully bespoke. A different business model with different profit margins.

The thing is that you have to get this kit from somewhere to be in the sport, either you make it yourself or you buy the pricey semi-customer specialist kit from someone else in the game. So the teams such as Red Bull and Force India buy from McLaren, they can't run the cars without the telemetry.

With the broom it also creates this situation, you can't be in the sport without the telemetry. So the niche is a good one, like what MacLaren have, a de-facto monopoly that does not rule out rival teams cloning their own solution if they really want to. (In the automotive analogy Ferrari do not buy from McLaren as much as other teams, they roll their own.)

[https://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnologies/products/list/fo...](https://www.mclaren.com/appliedtechnologies/products/list/formula-e/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looks really cool, does anyone want to speculate on how it works? They say they have four sensors in the broom head? what do you think they are? pressure sensors maybe? do you think they have an accelerometer in addition to these sensors?

<comment><USER21> From the article:

      > Was there a way to take a pedometer (to measure
      > stroke rate) and a miniature bathroom scale (to
      > measure force) and fuse them to a curling broom?
      >
      > "So Andrew looks at me like I'm an idiot and
      > says, 'No, you'd use, like, four sensors and an
      > accelerometer,' " Hamilton recalled.

Given that he wanted to measure stroke rate and force, it stands to reason that the accelerometer handles the stroke rate and the four sensors measure the force.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> "Canadians get a discount" I wonder how much money they're passing up on for their curlingist patriotism

<comment><USER23> These kinds of things tend to be labors of love anyway.</comment></comment>


Chelsea Manning says life in the US is like being in prison - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2018/oct/01/chelsea-manning-life-us-like-prison-uk-visit <comment><USER2> Just look at many schools!

I am regularly stunned at what young people are having to put up with.

Recently, while in Missouri, I enquired about the many boxes with red and blue blinking lights. Each is a monitoring station. Police are dispatched when the watchers see a reason.

Now, she is in London speaking? First, good for her. Second, in the photo, I see a woman getting past some harsh life events. She looks better. I do not mean passing, or beauty. I do mean as a person who is comfortable with how they present. I hope that means she is growing past the trauma.

London has a ton of the same monitoring. I have a friend there who does closed circuit systems.

Anyone from the UK want to compare and contrast?

I have only made brief visits. What are the deeper similarities?</comment>


Simple - An Obtvse clone written in Python - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/orf/simple Not my project, but found this interesting... <comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to see one of these clones that more closely resembles the static site generators like Jekyll (<http://jekyllrb.com/>) or Hyde (<http://ringce.com/hyde>). Basically, the CMS would just be the interface to create new and manage existing content. It would have the standard static publish function that builds out the pages of the blog as HTML.

(NOTE: "Simple" is not my project)

<comment><USER2> Lightbulb (<https://github.com/espeed/lightbulb>) is a Git-powered, Neo4j-backed blog engine written in Python.

It allows you to create entries in ReStruturedText using a text editor. I designed it with Heroku in mind, but can be easily adapted for any Web environment that uses Git.

When you push to Heroku, the entry metadata will be automatically saved to Neo4j, and the HTML fragment generated from the ReStructuredText source file will be served off disk.

You can use the free Heroku dyno and Neo4j Add-on (<https://addons.heroku.com/neo4j>) to serve your blog for free.

<comment><USER3> What's the advantage of storing a blog in a graph database? Or is it just one of those "just because I could" things?

<comment><USER2> Hi Kamil - A database-backed blog enables you to easily integrate the content into your existing website -- for example, dynamically displaying the latest entry on the home page, and it makes it easy to style the blog with the site's existing templating system rather than maintaining a separate system.

I wanted the benefits of a dynamic app, but I wasn't willing to exchange Emacs for a Web-based editor so I created a hybrid engine.

I chose Neo4j because graphs are an elegant way of storing relational data. There are no tables to mess with and no joins (everything is explicitly joined). And if your blog's auth/commenting system uses data from the social graph, such as Facebook or Twitter, a graph database provides a clean way of storing the data.

Also, I am the author of Bulbs (<https://github.com/espeed/bulbs>), a graph- database framework written in Python, so using it was a natural choice.

<comment><USER4> > I chose Neo4j because graphs are an elegant way of storing relational data.

As opposed to, say, a _Relational_ DBMS?

What you've done might be very interesting and rewarding to you, but it feels like you wasted three paragraphs in your response with something that falls right into the "just because I could" camp.

<comment><USER5> Another way to read it: Relational databases just aren't elegant.

<comment><USER6> "Elegance" is one of those empty words that's great for polarizing a debate without really adding any meaningful information.

Neo4j is neat and underutilized. I think rglullis is just saying, if that's why espeed used it, he could have saved three paragraphs of explanation by just saying that.

<comment><USER2> Notice I didn't just say it was elegant, I said why: "There are no tables to mess with and no joins (everything is explicitly joined)."

I find elegance in simplicity. If you don't need the tabular features of a relational database, why not use a graph DB for relational data? It's like a key value store with directly connected relationships.

This is so much simpler than having to deal with creating tables, DDLs, and migrations:

      >>> g = Graph()
      >>> james = g.vertices.create(name="James")
      >>> julie = g.vertices.create(name="Julie")
      >>> g.edges.create(james, "knows", julie)

Futhermore, there's no impedance mismatch so your code is cleaner.

But regardless, this is Hacker News where people explore, build, and share new things. I hope we're not moving to a place where that gets admonished.

<comment><USER3> I've actually looked a bit at bulbflow before, being a Python programmer who has had an interest in graph databases for quite some time. That's why I asked my question originally. Can you give an example of the types of relations you're using the DB to represent in a blog?

<comment><USER2> These are the base elements:

      * Nodes/Vertices: Person, Topic, Entry
      * Relationships/Edges: Tagged, Authored

      person -- authored --> entry
      entry -- tagged --> topic

Here's the base model: [https://github.com/espeed/lightbulb/blob/master/lightbulb/mo...](https://github.com/espeed/lightbulb/blob/master/lightbulb/model.py)

The comment system is a separate, generic component.

Marko, the guy who created Gremlin (<https://github.com/tinkerpop/gremlin/wiki>), just released a Gremlin Tree step (<https://github.com/tinkerpop/gremlin/wiki/Tree-Pattern>), which makes it really easy to build a threaded comment tree in one quick shot.

If you have a large blog or content system, you can use likes and views to make content recommendations using a basic Gremlin collaborative filtering query:

      // calculate basic collaborative filtering for vertex with user_id
      def rank_items(user_id) {
          m = [:]
          g.v(user_id).out('likes').in('likes').out('likes').groupCount(m)
          m.sort{a,b -> a.value <=> b.value}
          return m.values()
      }

If you use Facebook, Twitter, or GitHub to authenticate users you can easily incorporate friends and followers into the recommendations.

<comment><USER3> Thanks for taking the time to explain, I'll definitely be doing some reading over the code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Go download Python 2.7+, Flask, Sqlalchemy and flask-sqlalchemy and you are > good to go.

OP, you should learn about requirements.txt and virtualenv/virtualenvwrapper, it will make your life easier.

<comment><USER8> He actually has a REQUIRES file that's in requirements.txt format, so it looks like he kind of does.

<comment><USER9> It's still not properly packaged up and also nowhere to be found on <http://pypi.python.org> resulting in no _pip_ and no _easy_install_ options. Pretty much every useful python package is distributed that way, see httpie for example [1].

[1] <https://github.com/jkbr/httpie>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice work with the Python style, though I believe Simple and Obtvse missed the point as with every clone of something out there that tries to replicate what they could see on the outside. Skipping over Dustin's attitude of the situation, no one really knows how Svbtle.com works on the inside do they?

From the outside look and the screenshots (because that's all Dustin showed you) it's a simple design and that's the point; it was never supposed to be a complex work of design for you to be proud that you could replicate it in 1 day in rails. Yeah, Dustin put some work into thinking what could work for the layout but once the application of the design is done, replication is beyond simple.

Clone all you want I think it's great but Dustin was really telling the story of the "network" the idea of a closely knit community of writers (pseudo- writers whichever you prefer). I look at it as similar to the Deck Ad network or Dribbble (before every desperate Designer begged for an invite). Or when an HN clone comes along, no one ever migrates across, they always come back here.

Point is, the one thing you are never going to have is the network, that human element that sets apart the clone from the real deal.

<comment><USER11> Whats funny is I agree with just about everything you've stated here, although I do believe we did get a pretty good idea of the backend with the screenshots.

But your point doesn't detract in any way from these projects. The point of Svbtle is the network. The point of Obtvse/Simple is the backend. You say "clone all you want" which is exactly what we did.. the goal was never to "beat" anyone or prove anything, it was to mimic the software, which we've already accomplished.

And IMO, that is more valuable than a network. Because now anyone can use it. And as good as Dustin's network ends up being, if it's never all-inclusive, it will always miss out on a the biggest and best talent-pool around... the internet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So much drama around what is basically a skin/cosmetic improvement...

Good luck anyway.

</comment><comment><USER13> I think these two packages could become a great learning resource for noobies. I'm a Ruby guy, but am definitely going to take a look into this version, should add usually difficult to find "context".

Nice work :)

</comment><comment><USER14> AH! I was waiting for the python version.

I also watch this python static blogging app on github here:<https://github.com/fallenhitokiri/Zenbo>

<comment><USER15> I wrote my own static generator with a command-line and web interface a while ago, add it to your watch list if interested, ill eventually clean it up into a v1.0 and release it, but it works right now and I have been using it for my own blog for a while:

<https://github.com/nikcub/floyd>

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm holding out for the Haskell version.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is getting ridiculous... nice job all the same!

</comment><comment><USER18> Nice work, thanks, though I have a feeling that it's misnamed, sPymple would've been a nice match to Obtvse :)

<comment><USER19> Acvte, surely?

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> This should probably have a license added to it somewhere. Especially with those 21 forks hanging around.

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm a Django guy. Can someone explain the appeal of Python micro-frameworks like flask? Why would you want to give up all of those open-source Django apps?

<http://djangopackages.com/>

</comment><comment><USER22> You know what? Today I was thinking of that it'd great if Obtvse was written in Python + Flask :)

</comment><comment><USER23> I'm holding out for Svmple

<comment><USER24> I'll wait for Svmpler

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This one doesn't even bother to rewrite the CSS; it just takes the cloned CSS from Obtuse. The snake eats its own tail.

<comment><USER26> Obtvse was open-sourced for a reason: so that people could take it and modify it and use it however they'd like. This is open-source working.

<comment><USER25> You keep telling yourself that.

<comment><USER26> I don't see what's so difficult, Thomas. A clever, smug person posted about a project of his and behaved poorly when people complained about not having access to it. So somebody else cloned it – not to steal the thunder, but to _let people use the program_. Now it's been cloned again and spreads a little further. I'm sure the guy that open-sourced it considers this a victory, inasmuch as the idea has spread even further.

If Dustin's stopped sulking about his little change-the-world club being subverted and opened up, he's probably happy about this too: this idea that he came up with and worked on is so popular that people are making an effort to spread it further. If his actual idea is even greater and grander, then when Svtble opens up people will flock to it and thank him for it. Everybody wins.

<comment><USER27> You have to give him some credit that he is using this opportunity to defend Curtis and build a powerful relationship when everyone else is slamming him. People don't forget it when you defend them when few others will.

<comment><USER25> I don't know Dustin Curtis or care particularly too much about Dustin Curtis. What I remember about him was that he wrote a blog post about American Airlines that got a lot of play that I found simultaneously smug and naive in that infuriating way designers sometimes have, and that he spent a lot of time making all his blog posts look different.

What I don't like is bullying. This whole site spent a week chasing a YC company around with a pitchfork and torches for stealing designs from a well- known company, but when some guy writes some promo copy that enough people here don't like, HN manages to spawn a meme that the same copying is somehow liberation for the cause of open source.

People are allowed to choose who they associate with. Dustin Curtis does not need to "open up" his little club. For crissakes, you're writing this on the message board of an exclusive club that won't have you as a member.

"Powerful relationship with Dustin Curtis". Sheesh.

<comment><USER26> Copying _is_ liberation. You're freed from relying on the original instance.

The issue I took with Dustin wasn't just the idiocy with which he decided making a pretty blog equated to somehow creating the future of journalism. It was how, when people on this site complained about his copy, his response wasn't "it was a joke" or "this is still a private beta" but "good, my marketing worked because you'll remember it".

If Dustin didn't want his private little club to go public, he could have chosen not to write about Svtble at all, and we'd have no idea of what it looked like behind the scenes. Once he went public, his ideas became a part of every "club" that cared to look at them, including ours. You are always responsible for what you do in public. Always.

It's twisted to look at the response as "bullying". Somebody copied a public idea and released it to people who didn't have access to it yet. Partly in response to Dustin's saying, "You know what, I don't care if I offend you, as long as you pay attention to me." The only way that the open-sourcing was bullying was that it turns out Dustin does care about offending people after all. Not that he seems to have learned anything from this, other than "people on that web site don't like me and that sucks."

<comment><USER28> I didn't see Dustin's supposedly arrogant comments back when this shitstorm blew in, but I still don't understand why anyone thinks this is OK. Was Dustin upset about people copying the backend? because, I don't see a problem with someone taking his "ideas instead of drafts" bit and running with it. What is completely unacceptable is the wholesale copying of his visual deign. We now have two different "open source" blogging systems that allow people to create websites that look pretty much exactly like Dustin's, without his permission. That's shitty and wrong. Dustin created a visual brand for himself, and yes, six others. No one has the right to take that and use it for themselves without his permission. There is no "liberation" in using someone else's design, there is only theft.

<comment><USER11> The design is not his design. Please compare the two before jumping to that conclusion. The copy has stripped all unique elements of Dustin's design.

<http://obtvse.herokuapp.com> <http://dcurt.is>

<comment><USER25> Uh huh. What's a well-known site elsewhere on the Internet that looks more similar to Dustin's than yours?

<comment><USER11> Already showed you one in the other thread. Done playing with the trolls..</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Choosing to Skip the Upgrade and Care for the Gadget You've Got - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/21/technology/personaltech/choosing-to-skipthe-upgrade-and-care-for-the-gadget-youve-got.html <comment><USER2> Most people I know that do this don't understand the security implications of doing such a thing. Choose old devices very carefully...</comment>


Show HN: Beautiful gradients as placeholder images - <AUTHOR> https://gradientjoy.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Just put your image size (width x height) after our URL and you'll get a colorful gradient image placeholder. Example: [https://gradientjoy.com/300x200](https://gradientjoy.com/300x200)</comment>


Genome Sequencing Highlights the Dynamic Early History of Dogs - <AUTHOR> http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004016 <comment><USER2> Interesting, but I honestly didn't read there anything different than what was published/researched in the book Dog Sense.

<comment><USER3> It's unclear which book titled "Dog Sense" you're referring to, but is it possible that the book got its information from this paper?

<comment><USER2> It's John Bradshaw's Dog Sense (published in 2012).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> 2014

</comment><comment><USER5> s

</comment><comment><USER6> I read a geneticist with 6 observations who know f#$#@ - all about the evolution of dogs</comment>