My two-week review of Google Glass: it all depends on the price - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/+Scobleizer/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS <comment><USER3> Interesting he feels so strongly about that... but then again, he always kinda does. Not sure what to make of it. I used to follow Scoble's blog back when he was evangelizing for Microsoft, but he's abandoned his mediums so often and so vociferously that I sort of lost track. Is Google Plus his latest platform now?

Personally, I'm consciously trying _not_ to get stuck with a single company's ecosystem, so a lot of the advantages Scoble mentions simply don't relate to me. But then again, I never really ventured past search and Gmail... is the rest of Google's services really that good to justify buying into?

<comment><USER4> As far as G+ is concerned, I find Facebook much more useful than G+ for all intents and purposes (photos, groups, messaging, news, everything I find is either better or more useful on Facebook; more useful in the sense that my friends actually use it heh).

YouTube has great content but the design has changed for the worse in my humble opinion.

Maps is top notch. Really a modern day beauty.

Calendar is pretty useful, but nothing you can't get from some other provider.

I prefer Dropbox to Google Drive. It performs better, has a better UI, is more intuitive, and I admire the company itself as well as Drew (founder), so I stick with Dropbox (oh and the 50gb free that I've amassed helps too!).

<comment><USER5> Remember Drive = Docs + Online storage so you're essentially only comparing Dropbox to the latter. You're probably aware of this but with the rebranding of Docs to Drive I thought it was worth making this explicit.

<comment><USER6> With Dropbox, you are free to pick the editor. Not so with Drive. The 'Docs +' in fact adds a constraint.

<comment><USER5> I'm not clear how to get a Google Drive workflow using Dropbox and an app.

i.e:

1\. A single canonical version of each document with a change history. 2\. Simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution.

Dropbox has pretty limited locking and conflict resolution even if you don't factor in live editing.

<comment><USER7> Well, you don't get simultaneous real-time editing by multiple users with conflict resolution - but that's not why I use Dropbox for. In the last year, I had two documents where I needed to do that, and I used Google docs for that; but it's a very rare edge case for me. Frankly, in many real cases, I'd trust Word's track-changes+email workflow better despite its horrible usability - as when editing an agreement or technical spec, you don't really want to share everything with the "other side", so you need keep the comments and not-really-decided edits hidden; and you also want to review all their recent changes explicitly every time.

Most documents I work with need no conflict resolution as creator and viewer is strictly separated; but where proper collaboration is required, Google Drive won't cut it, I would want to have a proper version control system like git or similar.

There won't be Google Drive support for native-level editing of, say, Photoshop files, folders of code, audio data, or any data files edited by in- house built tools; but you can have a decent workflow where Dropbox syncs these editables between all your computers, and also allows others to read their latest version from a shared folder.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Link to the desktop version of this post: [https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS)

<comment><USER9> Thank you.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some observations:

From what he wrote it seems to me like he only gauged the reactions of technically-oriented people. Of course tech people are going to be pretty excited about this, more-so than the average Joe.

He also seems to feel very very strongly about this. I don't think many people feel the same strength of opinion towards Glass.

He's right about the price. If they could cut it down to subsidized-smartphone levels, people will be more open to trying it.

It's certainly cool and most people will probably think so (hence everyone wanting to check it out), but thinking it's cool and actually incorporating it in daily life is very different. Of course Robert is an early adopter so he was more open to the notion of having something like that on his face at all times, but I don't think many people will be as open to it.

He notes that its a more social device because you don't have to look away to use it. Well, I've also tried Glass and you do have to look up and to the right to use the device. The actual display is in your peripherals so if someone is talking to you and you wanted to use Glass, they would most certainly notice because your eyes would drift to your peripherals. I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.

<comment><USER10>
       I don't think it'll be too different from pulling out your phone from a politeness standpoint.

This is the point a lot of Glass proponents don't seem to get. They assume that not paying attention to you whilst looking at your face is somehow more polite than looking at your phone. It's not.

I suspect that over time Glass will become like Bluetooth earpieces. Perfect for use alone but a faux pas around other people.

<comment><USER11> A couple of differences.

First, vision is much higher bandwidth. You can glance at a notification and immediately know that you have a message, who sent the message, and how you received it. Takes half a second. Bluetooth earpieces are only suitable for sustained conversation. They are social faux pas because you are having a _sustained conversation_ with someone else. This is not the case with HMDs - someone using a tool like Glass is actually _more_ focused on their task and _less distracted overall_ because they spend less time switching contexts. Citation: <http://dmrussell.net/CHI2010/docs/p1695.pdf>

Second, glancing at an HMD is fundamentally different from pulling out a cell phone because you're not looking away from the other person. It is difficult to emphasize how important this is to people who have not done work in this field. It is _looking away_ that breaks conversations, not _doing something else_. Conversation continues to work as long as the other person thinks you're looking at them. And having an HMD on is close enough that people don't react to you jumping away into glass-land to look something up or jot down a note. This one doesn't have a citation, but I _have_ spent several years taking classes from the guy who now runs the Google Glass project, and I can tell you this from direct experience.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: please, please try these things before you dismiss them. Social interaction is sufficiently complicated that experimentation is the only way to predict how people will react to something. And the experiments show that Glass works.

<comment><USER10>
       It is looking away that breaks conversations, not doing something else.

You ARE looking away. And depending on how many messages you receive it could be just as irritating to the person(s) you're with as constantly checking your phone. Least of all the constant doubt about whether your conversation is being recorded or not.

I am not disputing their unquestionable usefulness I just have doubts they will be acceptable in most social situations.

<comment><USER4> From having tried Glass, I can affirm that you do indeed look away.

If any of you are wearing glasses, try looking at the top corner of your frame; that's the same motion needed to engage with Glass.

You'd effectively completely break eye contact with the person you're talking to and motion as if you're looking at something completely different. It's the equivalent of getting distracted by a cool car while your friend talks to you and you have to say "sorry, I saw a cool car, go on".

<comment><USER12> This interesting. Owning Glass, I can assure you that of is possible to maintain eye contact while viewing content. Depending on the amount of cognition needed to process the content, this perceived conversation might be broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I appreciate this review, and I agree with him 100% on the price point. Had I been in the audience I wouldn't raise my hand till $200-300 either ($1500 is almost comically absurd). But at the same time, I'm gonna wait no matter what till it does more. A head mounted camera (which seems to make up the bulk of the advertising use-cases for it) just isn't important to me...at all.

I think the head mounted navigation stuff could be very useful, but I can barely get my Android phone to understand spoken address searches right now, and I don't mind having it shout out directions to me. I'm not sure I need to pay a few hundred bucks to get the directions up on my face.

The one thing that I hope somebody creates an app for is a quick barcode/item scanner and price lookup app. Just tell me what the best price is for an item I'm looking at and where I can get it. I've tried a few phone apps for this, but the experience is atrocious.

But is it worth $200-300 for those limited use cases? I dunno. I really am going to wait and see.

<comment><USER14> IMO, at that price point, the real question is "is it worth it to wear them and look like one of _those guys_ that walks around with a Bluetooth earpiece in at all times"?

<comment><USER15> On the one hand, we're entering a world where Neal Stephenson's "gargoyles" actually exist. On the other hand, the equipment they'll be carrying around is way, way, way smaller than he envisioned.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How can you possibly say that you aren't willing to spend more than $200 dollars, but would wear it on your face every single day? People pay more than that for sunglasses which provide no functional utility above the $5 sunglasses.

<comment><USER17> Sunglasses protect your eyes. This product probably ruins them.

<comment><USER18> [citation needed]

<comment><USER17> <http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0079367/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hrm. I find that wearing things that aren't strictly necessary irritates me. I don't even like watches, let alone some thing attached to my face. When I raced bikes, I ended up dumping the annoying heart rate monitor too as I did not like having this _thing_ strapped to me. Phones work pretty well as they're just along for the ride, like a wallet or keys, and don't constrain me.

<comment><USER20> I wear glasses and despise contacts. I guess I could get laser surgery, but I'm used enough to glasses that I would never bother with the cost or risk.

I don't see how this is very different from wearing glasses.

<comment><USER21> But when you wear glasses you get to choose the design and look that fits your personality. It's also a fashion accessory.

I love my glasses, but part of the reason I love them is because I have not (yet) met a single person with the same glasses as mine, and I've had them for 3 years now.

I wouldn't feel so happy wearing something every other person wears.

<comment><USER22> If Glass is successful, what makes you think the technology won't one day be available as an add-on to just about any pair of glasses?

<comment><USER21> good point, or customizable like mobile phone covers (like the good ol' nokia days)

<comment><USER23> Google already promised that Glass will work with your prescription glasses as a screwable addon: [http://9to5google.com/2013/03/12/google-confirms- prescriptio...](http://9to5google.com/2013/03/12/google-confirms-prescription- frames-lenses-in-the-works-for-google-glass-shows-off-prototype/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Couple of questions for those with Glass:

Do they work with eyes older than 40 - those that can't focus within 18 inches without multi-diopter help? These folks still have money to burn.

How about astigmatism? Makes for interesting curves rotating my progressives. Dptical artifacts on two axes!

Will they be snatched off your face like apple gear has been grabbed at times. High value, small package. Easy to fence if google doesn't have or use a kill switch.

Price will be an issue. My glasses already cost 400-700 usd depending on where I get them. This assumes I can get prescription Glass...

<comment><USER25> Yep they do. My dad is 61 and had surgery on his right eye a few years back (so it's even weaker than normal) and he said he was able to read the screen. He did say he would have preferred a left eye version however.

Can't say about astigmatism.

I guess they could be, you can remote wipe them though.

Agreed on price, luckily I didn't even have to pay the $1500. And there was a Googler wearing a prototype prescription version at the pickup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I don't see why people think google are going to struggle to get this out for $200.

It is essentially galaxy nexus hardware without cell phone modem, a much smaller battery, and a small LCOS display instead of the large 720p AMOLED one. Yes, there will be higher non-recurring engineering costs with glass- fitting it into such a small space- but if they plan to go fairly mainstream these costs shouldn't cause too much of an impact on the unit device cost. Once you get into mass manufacturing, the marginal cost of making another one should be quite a bit lower than a current smartphone; as they are eliminating or massively reducing the cost of many of the major components.

If we look at google's track record, they haven't shown much desire to become a hardware company (that is, make the bulk of profits from selling hardware). Taking into account what google have been willing to price the nexus 4 at, with better hardware all round, I believe google are definitely capable of doing $200 unsubsidised if they want to. I can see $99 possible in the future.

<comment><USER27> I agree, I don't think it's crazy to think of them selling this at a $200 price point. They've shown time and again that hardware is just a way for them to spread their software, and this is just an extension of that philosophy.

As for the author's point about google moving away from advertising, he's nuts. I think google realized that advertising in this setting would be way too intrusive at the get go, but I'm sure they'll work it in over time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I just read this and this (1) and together they paint an interesting picture, though I'm with the TC author on this one. I hope they're very akward to use and very much like the Segway in popularity. If they're worn in public and are recording, I want a large, unmistakable red light to come on. Even so, I'm pretty sure people who record without permission will get roughed up on more than one occassion, if not just pushed.

On the flip side, recording activity or family-based events (ie, going down a mountain at Tahoe, or your kid taking his/her first steps) and having hands- free internet is pretty cool.

1 - [http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right- using...](http://techcrunch.com/2013/04/26/eric-schmidt-is-right-using-google- glasses-is-weird-heres-my-experience/)

<comment><USER29> I don't see that being much of an issue. When you're out in public, most expectations of privacy are gone anyways.

<comment><USER30> Yes, but you don't want every Tom, Dick and Harry to start photographing you either do you?

How would you feel if where ever you went someone followed you with a camera pointed at you?

<comment><USER31> I don't really get this argument. Putting aside that if someone wants to follow you and take pictures they can do that already, and that glass itself doesn't cause you to become that person, the worst you can experience will be in the background of someone's picture or video.

Miniature cameras have been available for years, strapping one to your head doesn't make you a stalker.

<comment><USER32> If someone wants to follow me and take pictures they have to pay the price of making it obvious that they are doing so.

Using little spy cameras is already thoroughly antisocial, glass seeks to change that and normalize public recording

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> _The success of this totally depends on price. Each audience I asked at the end of my presentations "who would buy this?" As the price got down to $200 literally every hand went up. At $500 a few hands went up. This was consistent, whether talking with students, or more mainstream, older audiences._

$500 standalone and $200 with some kind of carrier contract? (or is glass meant to be an accessory to a phone? maybe the battery would be inadequate to take on many of the phone features?)

<comment><USER34> It's an accessory to a phone.

It uses bluetooth primarily, but additionally can use WiFi for network communication.

It does not have 3g/4g nor require a SIM or contract.

Think of it is a bluetooth headset that happens to have a camera and display, and additionally WiFi (for helping to upload those larger files).

<comment><USER35> Nobody in their right mind would hold a cell phone for most of the waking hours continously at their head.

I wonder how problematic Bluetooth and WiFi are for your health.

<comment><USER36> Without discussing if Bluetooth and WiFi are bad for your health, it would be way better to keep those transmitters and receivers close to your head than for instance your upper body. Your skull is quite dense and blocks radiation way more than the soft material that protects your heart and lungs.

<comment><USER37> Rather irrelevant in the GHz range, where density is much less significant than the chemical bonds and conductivity of the material. In fact the soft tissue would likely be a better absorber due to a higher concentration of water.

<comment><USER38> Isn't the fact that water absorbs waves and heats the main hypothetical danger for the brain?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Wasn't Robert Scoble The Great Antihyper? Everything he hypes will eventually fail?

<comment><USER40> I don't follow him too closely, but it seems that Scoble likes everything new. Some will be flops, others (eg, Instagram) will be hits.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> It's funny, the whole post is about how nice those glasses are and how amazing. But I cannot really see _why_ they are useful. If I understand the OP correctly, it features the same functions as a cell phone but without ads and being more social. I think he misses the point, staring at a cell-phone every 10 seconds is not non-social because of the looking away but because of the permanent distraction. It's a sign of politeness to be 100% focussed when talking to someone else.

I think I'll buy them if they are below $200 but I won't use them much. Watching Terminator is much cooler anyway ;)

</comment><comment><USER42> I've had the chance to try them a few months ago, and my only concern with them (while cool), was that they would suffer the same fate as either: bluetooth hands-free kits (aka douchebagy), or segway (aka dorky).

The only killer app I think is driving directions, that was nice.

</comment><comment><USER43> I find it interesting that social cues like flipping the glasses up while in the bathroom are becoming normal.

<comment><USER22> It seems like the perfect opportunity for theft.

<comment><USER44> People already keep their smartphones on table in busy bars, and maybe their wallet in a back pocket. This isn't any easier to steal than that, and has way less impact than having to freeze your credit cards for instance.

Much will depend on the price of the final Glass, but if it is down to around the price of designer sunglasses, I don't see a big threat.

<comment><USER43> My thoughts exactly. Theft is bound to happen, but I don't think it will be any different than any other gadget.

Maybe we will see some sort of remove viewing apps that will allow us to view what the thief is looking at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> > 1\. I will never live a day of my life from now on without it (or a > competitor).

This seems like a massive statement.

<comment><USER46> Well it is Robert Scoble. The guy is more easily excited than a puppy on adderall.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> > I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a > commerce based company.

What planet is this guy on? Google's product has always been eyeballs. This is just the most direct manifestation of it.

<comment><USER48> So you think Google's ultimate goal here is shoving ads in front of people's eyes? I somehow doubt that.

Why wouldn't they just want another leg to stand on, besides ads? Doesn't that make sense? You can make tons of money selling hardware. Apple demonstrated that.

<comment><USER47> No, I think Google's ultimate goal is making money. They only know how to make money by selling ads. They have made squat by selling hardware.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> I hope Google improves the camera by the time they release the consumer version. I saw the demo from Engadget editor, and the video seemed a little too shaky for my taste. It needs OIS, or something to make the video recording much more stable. This is even more important than in a smartphone, because you're moving your head a lot more. So Google should really prioritize this. I would also make it a lot better in low-light, and maybe even give it a flash for night shots and so on.

Voice will need to be flawless, so if voice recognition depends on how fast the processor is, then they need to put the fastest one in there (maybe a quad core Cortex A57 at 20nm, for efficiency, too).

They also need to keep working on the design, and make future generations as minimal as possible, and as "cool" looking as possible. They need to keep improving on this.

<comment><USER8> My guess is that voice recognition happens mostly server-side, similarly to voice search and voice typing in Android.

<comment><USER50> Jelly bean with google now added offline voice recognition. My downloaded English dictionary is 22mb.

[http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows- thir...](http://m.androidcentral.com/google-search-update-allows-third-party- developers-use-offline-speech-recognition)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is hard to read. And when I switch to the desktop version, Google wants me to log in. WTF?

</comment><comment><USER51> "Also, Google is forbidding advertising in apps. This is a HUGE shift for Google's business model. I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company."

Does anybody think this is their permanent stance? I certainly don't.

<comment><USER52> I will _not_ buy Glass if there are ads. Period. I think most people are with me and Google knows this.

This probably won't extend to Android or any other Google service, but I can see why they would choose to forgo ads in Glass.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Why is the picture quality so bad?

<comment><USER54> Guess it's because the camera has to be super-tiny.

<comment><USER53> Wasn't the camera one of the biggest selling points Google tried to make? Looking at picture quality in the blog post and the Glass demo at Google I/O 2012, there is a clear disconnect, in my opinion.

<comment><USER55> Yes, but I don't think they've ever claimed that the picture quality of the camera was great. They emphasized on the camera a lot because taking pictures with the Glass is way more personal than taking a picture with a traditional camera. After some time, when you go back to look at the pictures you'd taken, you live those moments again the same way you remember them, from your point of view. This was my take anyway.

<comment><USER53> Yeah I understand that but whats the point if the quality is not good. Good Idea. Poor execution.

<comment><USER56> The images on the article, like [1] have been downscaled to 480×354 px for the mobile site, then upscaled by your browser.

The original can be accessed via the regular google plus interface [2] and downloaded as 2560x1888 px [3]

The quality is in line with a phone camera.

[1] [https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5...](https://plus.google.com/app/basic/photos/+Scobleizer/album/5871408320945406321/5871408318710743810?cbp=19od81n563a9o&sview=20) [2] [https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9Gdmk...](https://plus.google.com/111091089527727420853/posts/ZLV9GdmkRzS) [3] <http://imgur.com/RHmdbi7>

<comment><USER53> Thank you for clearing that up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm actually pretty curious how this will fit for people who already wear glasses or some kind of eyewear. Will there be prescription Google Glass(es)? That could shoot the price way up, especially if Google is the only merchant for them. Who will make the lenses for me? Could I get my favorite glasses merchant to make my glasses, or will I be forced to get a $700 special prescription pair from Google? Maybe people with poor eyesight could never wear them at all?

I am completely on board with the product and hope for its success--but I am convinced that the entire product is merely the first iteration that will eventually make way for contact lenses, which will be the true long-term viable version of this product. Right now, Google Glass will be good for gathering information not only about the world around us as we already do with smartphones, but for understanding how customers and developers would begin to use such a product--and then applying that information towards improvement in what will ultimately be lenses.

<comment><USER58> Eventually, if the market will be very wide, I guess there will be Google Prescription Glasses (you decide the name). For the moment Glass can be detached and put on top of the frame of your current glasses (bonus: hipsters with big frames, won't even notice it!).

I Totally agree with the first iteration concept.

<comment><USER7> Not 'eventually', it's already confirmed, manufactured and used - some of the demoed Glass units have a slightly different front frame where prescription lenses can be attached in the same way as for "normal" glass frames.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER59> I think part of Scoble's enthusiasm must derive from the fact that he is an always connected person who travels, networks,communicates as his job. Nothing he describes sounded that great, but if you are online all the time while moving then I can see it. I'd like to be online less, and try to experience the world unmediated.

</comment><comment><USER60> I would be hesitant to talk to anyone wearing the google glass about any controversial subject matter. Big brother really is watching you... As for price, if google thinks it can make money off of it, the price will indeed be $200 or so.

<comment><USER61> This is important and greatly overlooked IMO.

By Law, Google (along with other Internet companies) have been required to be 'tap friendly', so that the government can read everyone's data (like email).

So when more and more people starts using Glass, the government _will_ also want to tap into that. I am sure some will say that such ability will only be used to prevent crime, but we already know how well the government abuses power to their own enjoyment like it happened with the porn-scanners which pictures could never-never-never be saved...

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> I wonder what will happen when Google Glass goes consumer for Explorer upgrades. When Google released the Nexus One, I hopped on board and was satisfied until I went through two recovery requests on the power button. Google Glass is quite a chunk of change. I understand the value in their utility and scarcity, but come time when Google releases the Glasses at a consumer prices, I hope not to be disappointed by the same feeling of getting left behind.

Does anybody know if and what upgrade options will be available for Google Explorers when they release the consumer version?

<comment><USER12> There isn't an option. We will just purchase the new device. I have a hunch that if you do cool stuff with Glass using the explorer edition, Google will have problem shipping you the final release gratis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I don't think that Google has done a good job of explaining what it does. As of right now, it just seems like a second screen for my phone. My reaction to it reminds me of the reaction to the iPad, but in reverse -- the tech-minded folk were confused while the average joe was excited.

I do think it is cool tech and probably the next logical step in personal computing, I'm just at the wait-and-see stage. Mainly waiting to see if there will be competition and what everyone will do with it.

</comment><comment><USER64> What review? I read this and other than saying he won't live without it he doesn't say what makes it amazing. The price point discussion is nice but I don't understand why I would want one. I can see for vacation to take videos to share with my family bu I don't get why it's amazing. Am I going to read my Facebook feed on it? What am I going to do with it other than pictures? Give me details!!

</comment><comment><USER65> Isn't it clear that, as with any electronics product, price will go down over time? So even if they launch at $500, in a few years there will be a version for $200. So the question might be more how strongly they want to boost adoption at launch. And this could be a product that actually needs a slower adoption, to get people used to it.

<comment><USER66> Yes, and even if they had resources and interest to distribute it rapidly, I'd venture to guess that $200 would be underpricing it.

People might say they're prepared to pay less for it now than when it's reached some adoption and they start feeling the social pressure of "everybody has it; I must get one." For now it's probably more of a futuristic toy to them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> I was surprised at how low quality the photos taken by Glass are. Is that the planned camera for rollout?

<comment><USER68> It's for some reason the poster linked to the G+ mobile version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER69> Are there any Glass users around here? I have a basic question. Can the wearer see a video? I ask because I've seen captured video, still images of ... still images, etc. ;-) Conceptually, video is similar but I want to verify that video playback is in there.

<comment><USER12> You can review the video you've taken. I'm not sure if the timeline cards support the video HTML tag. The hardware can handle it, so this is just a software limitation,

</comment></comment><comment><USER68> I just hope the voice commands are going to be _significantly_ better than on Android now. Whilst they are much better than anything else, I still don't find them actually usable, and I'm a Brit with an average voice.

</comment><comment><USER70> <http://www.google.com/glass/start/what-it-does/>

The next step is a brain computer interface so you don't even have to say commands out loud.

</comment><comment><USER71> Dying to read a whole bunch of reviews from non-techie people. For the time being I can't help but feel like this thing demos well to many geeks.

</comment><comment><USER72> I love apple products but at 200$ willing to buy one for my whole family.

I would like map app prebuilt on it

</comment><comment><USER73> Unrelated sidenote: Posted the exact same thing about half an hour earlier (<https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5617110>) but didnt get an upvote. Not that i care since i rarely submit new stuff, but HN is strange sometimes ;)

</comment><comment><USER55> "I believe Larry Page is moving Google from an advertising-based company to a commerce based company."

Maybe I'm not reading this sentence right, but isn't it quite obvious that Page is doing the quite opposite?

</comment><comment><USER74> interested in working on a Google Glass product/app....ping me if anyone's working on anything or has any ideas?

firstname.lastname@example.com

</comment><comment><USER75> To be honest his first observation felt absurd, so much that I dared not read further of the post.

Sometime ago I chanced upon one of his posts and it had the same mood - <USER2> attempt be voracious and fanatic about sth even though he would be actually sounding extortionately absurd.

</comment><comment><USER76> I have no doubt Microsoft are working on their own glasses, so maybe I'll hold out for that.

I jumped from Google's ecosystem to Microsoft and I'm totally happy with the Outlook.com/Skydrive/Office trifecta. The Windows Phone 8 is awesome and integrates nicely with Windows 8 OS. Even Bing has strengths that Google search can't touch.

Internet Explorer 10 is almost tolerable.

So yeah, lets see what Microsoft brings to the party.</comment>


Equifax Says Cyberattack May Have Affected 143M Customers - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2017/09/07/business/equifax-cyberattack.html <comment><USER2> Main discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15195510](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=15195510)

<comment><USER3> Thanks, we've moved the comments there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are 126 million households in the US,[1] so basically we're talking about "everyone with a credit card" in the country.

[1] [https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of- househo...](https://www.statista.com/statistics/183635/number-of-households- in-the-us/)</comment>


How Did Notre Dame Come to Be So Neglected? - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-16/how-did-paris-notre-dame-fall-into-such-disrepair <comment><USER2> Maybe they should have rigged temporary sprinklers for the restoration works and had plenty of firewardens. Would cost more, but better than it going up in flames.</comment>


Software compartmentalization vs. physical separation [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.invisiblethingslab.com/resources/2014/Software_compartmentalization_vs_physical_separation.pdf

<comment><USER2> So lots of tiny isolated security domains are more secure than a few larger isolated security domains. As long as you trust the isolation. And as long as you don't deliberately evade it (because it gets in the way).</comment>


UK Election Tech Handbook - <AUTHOR> https://electiontechhandbook.uk/projects <comment><USER3> My only concern is that the people who run the tools etc. have their political view. For example "[https://tacticalvote.co.uk"](https://tacticalvote.co.uk") is clearly against the Conservative party. So that tool is straight away biased.

<comment><USER4> > UNITE AGAINST THE TORIES

Every one has a bias at least they own it. As long as they are not pretending to be unbiased I'm fine with it.

<comment><USER5> If promoting voting or identifying the disinformation campaigns of nation states is considered bias, than consider me happily labeled. However, I think there's something categorically different about such tools as they are not so much promoting a specific outcome as allowing for a more representative outcome, aka a functioning democracy where people are exchanging ideas not click rates.

<comment><USER4> Our representative democracy is setup as a two party system (first past the post elections) if we want a more representative outcome we should switch to a direct democracy or implement the alternative vote.

Free exchange of ideas is my ultimate goal but the average voter doesn't share this goal, they get their information from "authoritative" sources such as "their" party or the mass media.

We did have a vote to bring in the alternate vote but every major party (left and right) and media outlet (left and right) slammed it as anti-democratic.

We can't depend on the average voter to get informed and vote representatively because the system intentionally prevents this.

<comment><USER6> _" alternative vote"_

If you mean switch from FPTP to some form of RCV for executive positions or proportional representation (PR) for assemblies, then I agree.

For RCV, I strongly prefer Approval Voting, which best balances fairness and simplicity.

But we'll get the most benefits from PR.

<comment><USER7> "alternative vote" is the term the UK ended up using for instant-runoff voting when it had a referendum a few years back.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vot...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_Alternative_Vote_referendum,_2011)

<comment><USER8> Not quite. I think the proposals only affected the top two ranked candidates in the first round, i.e. arguably no better than First Past the Post.

Approval Voting would be simple, easy to understand and a vast improvemnet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whotargetsme is a good start, but I think this election is one where fighting algorithmically targeted disinformation is going to be absolutely critical.

</comment><comment><USER10> A lot of these tools have very little money or support. Some of them have had 1m+ views last election.

If something interests you, you could offer to help the developers involved.

(disclosure: I am involved in the project)

</comment><comment><USER11> Has anyone in the UK volunteered their skills for any projects like those listed before? Would love to hear about your experience.

<comment><USER12> I'm working on [https://tacticalvote.co.uk](https://tacticalvote.co.uk) and volunteered during the 2017 snap General Election too.

# Tech

Our site handled a lot of traffic at the last snap election. 2.6m unique visitors in the 5 weeks before the vote, a crazy number during the last 48 hours.

To accommodate this we have a static site builder, with our data in Google Sheets. We monitor github for changes, Sheets for changes, and auto-generate the site. The site builder translates the Google Sheet into JSON.

This then pushes a Cache Purge instruction to Cloudflare. Cloudflare is configured to cache everything at the edge for hours, but in the browser for minutes... meaning we serve virtually nothing from the origin server, and over 99% of reqs from Cloudflare caches.

Doing this meant we had to design everything to just be static HTML and JS. It works well.

We communicate in Slack, use MailChimp for email mailouts, and have a GSuite account with some alias emails.

# What is the org like?

No-one is working on this full-time, but we have a team of ~5 people who all do just a little. It's no burden for this to exist, and the costs are virtually $0 outside of the election period.

The only cost we have is MailChimp during the election period, so we will be crowdfunding to allow us to keep people informed about changes, etc.

We are very much a small group of individuals from wildly different backgrounds and political beliefs who happen to have a common goal but for different reasons. We aren't trying to convince each other about "why" to do this work, only that the goal makes it worth it even though different individuals have different goals.

# Why am I involved?

It is not as if I necessarily believe that the Tories are vile, Labour is better, etc. (Though some in the team do express this.)

What I personally believe is that we should have proportional representation, and that mass tactical voting is an important step towards progressive candidates and progressive parties before we can reach a full PR system. Mass tactical voting applies pressure and encourages progressive behaviour.

My contribution then, is towards fairer election systems.

<comment><USER3> As soon as I saw "UNITE AGAINST THE TORIES" I left the page, regardless of who I vote for this tool is clearly biased.

<comment><USER13> Counterpoint: the Tories are the largest benefactors of an unfair fptp-based gerrymandered voting system. In 2017 they received 5% more votes than Labour but 20% more MPs. They're the most obvious target for someone interested in tactical voting, regardless of their political persuasion (they're very unlikely to be a Tory voter).

<comment><USER14> This is simply not true.

FFTP is biased in favour of the party with the largest share of the vote, or perhaps another way of putting is that the relationship between vote share and number of MPs is not linear.

And beyond this, the British electoral system has consistently favoured Labour for decades (as Boundary Commission changes fall behind demographic change and population movement)

[https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boundaries-review- bias-...](https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/boundaries-review-bias- constituencies-voting-system-labour-theresa-may-dup-a8538971.html)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the link. I've read the Independent article, clicked through and read the author's Facebook "footnote", and also read the paper referenced in that.

I can't see anything that disputes the claim "The Tories are the clearest benefactors" of the UK's electoral system.

The author makes a repeated assertion that boundaries are currently biased "15 seats" against the Tories, but I cannot tell where this number is coming from.

The fact remains that the Tories have won the last few elections by receiving a disproportionate number of MPs relative to their vote share. Moreover, polling suggests that they will continue to have the highest vote share.

<comment><USER14> it is utterly bizarre that you're treating the fact that the party that got the most votes won the most seats as evidence that the electoral system is biased towards them.

Have you considered adding elections when the Conservatives didn't win the most votes to your data set?

<comment><USER13> That's a disappointing misrepresentation of my premise, which is that the system is biased so that high vote shares confer _disproportionately_ many seats.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15>
      Some tools might be unavailable due to heavy traffic in this file. [Try again] [Dismiss]

I love the way I'm seeing load warnings from Google on this document, as though it's overwhelmed by being listed on Hacker News :-)

</comment><comment><USER16> This looks like an interesting initiative and I wish you the best with it, however I think you should reconsider placing a WhatsApp group link on a publicly crawlable webpage.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a good addition for the Filterbubble breakers section..

[https://www.talkingeurope.eu/](https://www.talkingeurope.eu/)

 _" Talking Europe connects citizens having an opposing political view - <USER2> living in a different country!_

 _Our mission is to create a European public sphere. We want to foster democracy and cohesion in Europe. "_

<comment><USER10> Please add it in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Does anyone know of a similar resource for the next US presidential election?

<comment><USER18> I'm only hooked in to the Democratic technology side, but there is [https://thedemlabs.org/](https://thedemlabs.org/) that collates (and creates) a bunch of technological solutions for campaigns problems.

I'm also personally affiliated with [https://ragtag.org/](https://ragtag.org/) which is a bunch of volunteers trying to make said resources and tools.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> > Join the WhatsApp group to be kept up to date with major updates & news: > WhatsApp Group

Yeah, sure, hand over all your political planning to Facebook.

<comment><USER20> Do your planning wherever you like, but join the whatsapp group to share general updates.

<comment><USER21> The main problem is that the WhatsApp group is nearly at its limit and you can see everyone's phone number. This is one of the ways Telegram excels.</comment></comment></comment>


Google, Ford and Uber start coalition for self driving cars - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-selfdriving-idUSKCN0XN1F1 <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting that Tesla isn't on this coalition since they are the closest to having real consumers having self-driving cars.</comment>


Court orders UK ISPs to block more piracy sites - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21601609 <comment><USER2> The movie/music/tv industries need to learn from Steam.

I used to steal games all the time. New game came out? Steal it. Open up BitTorrent or an FTP client and start downloading, immediately. But then Steam came along. __Now I buy all my games __. I don't just buy games I want, I buy games I have stolen in the past. I buy new games. I buy games on sale. But the most important part? __A new game comes out, and I think about buying it on Steam before I think about stealing it. __Stealing doesn't cross my mind, because being a legitimate customer (which is what I want to be...) is just so easy.

Music is getting easier with products like Spotify, but what about quality freaks? Lots of people want FLAC, but don't buy CDs. When a real solution for this problem comes out, I'm sure people will flock too it.

TV? How does someone in Lithuania legitimately pay for HD American TV shows? He or she can't, but they can certainly steal it without any problems. It's not even hard. My grandma could do it. It's a similar problem with movies. Ridiculous release times (US only for two months, etc), difficult to get a 1080p mkv legitimately - but that's what people want.

Netflicks is certainly helping to solve this problem, but their catalogue is not extensive. It is not always up to date.

 __The only way to compete with piracy is to offer a better alternative. __

<comment><USER3> Agree with you, except on the use of "steal".

You steal when the owner lose the original. What happens in BitTorrent/FTP is copy.

More about in copy is not theft video: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IeTybKL1pM4>

<comment><USER4> There are really 2 types of piracy. Non-destructive and destructive. I believe the majority is non-destructive. People download things which they either do not have access to or do not value enough to pay for. If the option wasn't there to download it they wouldn't pay for it anyway.

Downloading content which you would otherwise pay for is destructive. It is like what the OP describes above. He was downloading things he would otherwise have paid for. Money wasn't going to game makers. He was effectively stealing and its damaging to people making the games.

Film / Music industry people think the majority of piracy is destructive. I think they are wrong. I have spent thousands of pounds on things I discovered through piracy. However, if you are downloading things you know you would otherwise buy then really it is difficult to deny you are not stealing or at least conning content owners out of money they are owed.

<comment><USER5> >People download things which they either do not have access to or do not value enough to pay for

Yes, THIS!

I think this is the crux of the entire argument that is completely ignored by nearly every content producer. People value things differently for a huge number of reasons. With things with a personal appeal like music, or maybe TV/Film but I imagine less so, some people will pay more for their favourite band, others won't. That means the band is undervaluing their product to their greatest fans (good for the fans) and over valuing for their lesser fans.

Normally, when I download things, it's because I don't value the product at the price it's being sold, but I do still value it! Film is a great example of this. I'll happily pay $5 to rent a great film like Django unchained, or Avatar, etc. But am I going to pay the same amount for the (boringly bad) Bourne Legacy? No. But I would still pay something to see it.. perhaps $1, maybe $2. But I can't because there is no option to do this. So instead, I would consider downloading it.

So what have the film company lost when I chose to pirate instead of purchase? Not $5 because I wouldn't have paid this in the first place. So they've lost $2. And what have I lost? I've had to spend some of my time hunting down and waiting for the film to download (A minor inconvenience) but that's it. So seems like the only loser is the film company.

For evidence, look at the most highly downloaded film of 2012 'Project X'. IMDB gives it a 6.6 rating and it sounds a bit lame but fun. Exactly the sort of film that isn't worth full price rental.

Or perhaps that's just how I see things..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I was speaking to a friends dad at his last Christmas party. He was talking about downloading movies. I asked if he used a proxy. He said. "Of course I do. I use blah." He then told me how he checked to make sure it was working.. I was genuinely surprised that a casual internet user knew about proxies.

As always such domain bans are ridiculous and do not solve the issue of why people choose to pirate stuff. I now use Spotify. I used to pirate music, downloading thousands of albums. Most were deleted after one play. I brought albums, merchandise and saw live bands that I liked. Bands I would never have discovered without "pirating" the music to begin with.

The article talk's about how piracy is dropping and Spotify use is raising. This isn't to do with TPB being blocked. This is to do with people realizing that music discovery is easier with Spotify than it is via piracy. This is the way it should be.

I am sure less TV shows are being pirated due to the rise of catch up and streaming services. I only download TV shows and the only reason for this is the delay in availability in my country. I don't download movies any more because there is already an abundance of stuff to watch - be it new or old - on streaming services like Netflix. I recently discovered the TV show Jericho. Check it out. It was brilliant.

If anything these ban's are endangering users making them more vulnerable to viruses, keyloggers and becoming a part of a bot net. If someone wants something THEY WILL DOWNLOAD IT. Sites like TPB have great community moderation. Dodgy downloads are flagged. Good ones are up voted. I don't remember the last time I got a bad download.

Compare this to the less known sites which people are being pushed towards. More bad links, less community moderation, bad site owners pushing dodgy downloads. A lot of people who are not expert computer users are becoming more vulnerable.

All this is because the music / film lobbies have convinced the UK Government that Piracy is destroying their revenues. Its not. The Internet combined with the glacial speed in which these industries are moving is. Better content, easier access and fair pricing will crush piracy. Blocking domains moves piracy to another source.

Music streaming services have done more to stop piracy than anything else. If music / film industry spent less on lobbyists and court actions and more on innovating access to their products they would see a far bigger turnaround in profits.

When TPB was banned I said it would kick a ball rolling that wouldn't stop. Here we go. I wonder what is next.

<comment><USER6> >If anything these ban's are endangering users making them more vulnerable to viruses, keyloggers and becoming a part of a bot net.

And hence reluctant to pirate if a legitimate option is available.

<comment><USER4> The reason a lot of people pirate stuff is because they lack a legitimate option?

Take Game of Thrones. You cannot afford or justify the cost of the TV package. You enjoy the show. Your friends always talk about it the day after it is aired in your country... There is a pressure to watch it and no easy way to do so. Hence piracy.

My cousin was desperate to watch a football match. She went into the darkest parts of the Internet and the end result was taking her computer to a repair shop because the things she had installed basically rendered her computer inoperable. Will she stop pirating? Probably not. She can probably better identify files likely to damage her computer.

The worrying thing is a lot of spyware and keyloggers etc are transparent. Even malware. You notice a toolbar appears but a lot of people do not care and continue to use their computer..

Someone may become reluctant if they become aware that their computer has been successfully infected by a virus. A lot of things now are far more sinister though. They do not want to be noticed or discovered so there is no lesson to learn until someone empties your bank account. Even when this happens it isn't obvious your computer was the source of the breach. It could have been phishing etc.

Piracy is widespread and the police do not even treat it as a misdemeanor. Socially, piracy is completely acceptable. Smoking has become more socially unacceptable... and yet these court judgements make the public more at risk from identity theft, fraud etc etc.. without making piracy any less rife.

<comment><USER6> >The reason a lot of people pirate stuff is because they lack a legitimate option?

Yes. If your time has little value, i.e. you live with your parents and are unemployed, then sure it makes sense to monkey around. The rest of your argument makes me not want to deal with piracy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The slippery slope has started.

This is why it's so important to fight with everything you have over the tiny scraps of civil liberties you enjoy. Once a bite is taken, the whole cake inevitably follows.

<comment><USER8> The slippery slope started when they installed these blocks "for child porn only!" way back when. They even said, specifically, that no other content would ever be blocked.

Since then they added "violent [adult] porn," "illegal 'terrorist' sites," and now they've started doing pirate-related content.

So the slippery slope started a long time ago. We are half way down it and it is only getting steeper.

<comment><USER9> Aren't these blocks very different to the blocks of sites dealing in images of child sexual abuse?

This was a private case between industry and a few ISPs. The IWF blocklist is strictly about images of child sexual abuse (hosted world-wide), images of criminally obscene content (hosted in UK) and non-photographic images of child sexual abuse. The block is a temporary block until illegal content is removed.

(<http://www.iwf.org.uk/>)

<comment><USER10> The blocking technology (cleanfeed) was installed by most ISPs for the IWF blocking, once it was installed the industry took the ISPs to court to use it for blocking other things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Everyone in the UK already knows how to use the thousands of proxies out there to access TPB. This will simply force the operators of the current proxy aggregators eg. <http://ukbay.org/> to start aggregating proxies for these other sites as well. This will actually make finding pirated content easier.

But as we all know, the purpose of these laws isn't to stop piracy.

<comment><USER12> > _the purpose of these laws isn't to stop piracy_ //

Assuming you mean the purpose is not to stop copyright infringement, then what do you consider the purpose to be?

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> >However, a recent report from market research firm NPD suggested that there had been a large reduction in the number of users illegally downloading music, with fans instead favouring legal options like streaming site Spotify.

The implication that this block is what is resulting in an uptake in services like spotify is so disingenuous it's not even funny.

<comment><USER14> Makes total sense; Spotify launches in 2006 and has had increasing revenue and user base year over year since, UK Courts block TPB in 2012. Clear cause and effect, plus time travel.

<comment><USER2> Exactly what happened in Denmark is about to happen here.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Time to move to Andrews and Arnold if you are in the UK:

<http://aaisp.com/>

They have an explicit no censorship policy:

<http://aaisp.com/news-censorship.html>

Not only that, they offer IPv6 and their connection isn't a total piece of shit! Rather glad I moved from O2 (Telefonica) who apply the censorship and horrible traffic shaping even though they say they didn't on my contract.

<comment><USER16> It sounds like this is all happening in response to a High Court order.

An ISP that doesn't obey High Court orders isn't going to be an ISP for very long, so while switching like this might seem attractive, it's probably more about staying with the little guy under the radar than any real guarantee of anything.

<comment><USER15> Its a high court order for a bunch of specific very popular ISPs. By nature, a court order can only be applied to corporate entities (people, companies). They would have to enumerate every possible computer connectivity provider to be effective or introduce a law to stop it. Andrews and Arnold are very small and of no interest (for now).

This is basically the legal system sucking off a corporation and shutting down a common body of offenders.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's really sad to see phonographic industry fighting piracy that way. There is a million of proxy sites which make Pirate Bay available in UK anyway...

The only way to deal with piracy is enable users to have access to they content they want in any possible way at affordable prices!

I used to download a lot of music, but since spotify offered Premium service for just 4 pounds a month in Poland I bought it instantly (I have Polish CC).

If Netflix had good XBMC app I would gladly pay for that as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> The only thing this article did was let me know the names of some torrent sites I didn't know about yet. Thanks for sharing the love, BBC.

</comment><comment><USER19> If you'd like to support the fight against this kind of stupidity, please consider supporting the Open Rights Group. It's the UK equivalent of the EFF and they do great work.

<http://www.openrightsgroup.org/>

</comment><comment><USER19> Correction - UK _Court_ requires ISPs to block more filesharing website. This is about the UK courts, not the ISPs.

<comment><USER20> Actually, as this was an English court, I wonder if this has any effect in Scotland and Northern Ireland?

<comment><USER21> I don't believe there's any legally Scottish or Welsh ISPs that are large enough to fall into the ban's scope (over 500k residential customers?).

The six ISPs that are currently forced to block these sites are BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE and TalkTalk.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The torrent user experience is poor. You interact with tacky, ad-rich sites to download files that you have to open up in often buggy desktop client software before receiving a product of highly variable quality.

Contrast this with private trackers, which often offer:

        1) Extremely high quality files.
        2) Extremely well curated.

Having used Spotify for the last year, I find the experience vastly inferior to when I used private torrent sites. Of course, I get to massage my conscience with the knowledge that I am paying real money. More and more though, I'm sceptical of how much of my money content producers ever see. I'm starting to feel the same distaste for Spotify as I do the traditional media distribution companies. More, I've lost that sense of building my own library of music.

Can it be so hard?

        1) Low cost. Low middleman fees.
        2) High quality product.
        3) Absolute ownership of what I buy.
        4) Good UX.

Once this is done, there'll be no need to lobby for breaking the internet.

</comment><comment><USER23> Good. Let's see what new technology this creates.

<comment><USER24> It goes without saying, but: we can't wait and hope. Open your editor and start predicting the future by inventing it...

Some ideas: work on retroshare, or cjdns, or yacy, or a bittorrent-like rootfs for linux to pivot to after pxe-booting like a network virus, or anything else that will help seal the doors of history and shut out this dark age of artificial-scarcity digital-protectionism and the information-luddites bent on making copying _harder_ (zomfg!).

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Ok. I really didn't care that the piratebay got blocked except for the legal precedent that created but as expected here comes the banning of every site remotely considered as "bad" by any corporate party. We will all be old and gray talking about this magical thing called the internet where everybody was free to do whatever they wanted but young children would be looking at us like we're crazy because the never experienced it. It's all down hill from here folks.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm curious about which ISPs they're targeting, and whether that'll mean more business for the other ISPs.

A small number of file-sharing users can take a lot of bandwidth which wouldn't be a problem if the plans were priced realistically, but plans are priced for lowest-common-denominator use while being described and sold as premium product.

<comment><USER26> Sky, BT, Everything Everywhere, TalkTalk, O2 and Virgin Media.

Source: [http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/28/online-piracy- is...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/feb/28/online-piracy-isps-block- access)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> There are already proxies for these sites, as many Italians would tell you...</comment>


Stop Taking Yourself So Seriously - <AUTHOR> http://danshipper.com/stop-taking-yourself-so-seriously <comment><USER2> I would add:

-Stop over-analyzing things. Stop thinking things through and just jump into it. -Focus on making a habit out of exercising/coding/whatever. Once the habit is done, you will do it without much trouble. -Don't tell people what you are going to do, and just do it. Talking about your plans is the worst thing you can do. -Do the smaller things first. Small goals are easy and allow you to gain a bit of momentum. Think of big goals like ladders, and each small goal is one of the steps. -Get some momentum going. The snowball effect just works. Every time you might want to quit you will look behind you and see this huge snowball of acocmplishements following you. This helps a lot.

<comment><USER3> Could you edit this comment and double-line it so it's readable? Thanks!

<comment><USER4> \- Stop over-analyzing things. Stop thinking things through and just jump into it

\- Focus on making a habit out of exercising/coding/whatever. Once the habit is done, you will do it without much trouble

\- Don't tell people what you are going to do, and just do it. Talking about your plans is the worst thing you can do

\- Do the smaller things first. Small goals are easy and allow you to gain a bit of momentum. Think of big goals like ladders, and each small goal is one of the steps

\- Get some momentum going. The snowball effect just works. Every time you might want to quit you will look behind you and see this huge snowball of accomplishments following you

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "I become a workout-planning god. I research routines, buy supplements, construct a schedule and pick a start date. Then I go to the gym every day.

By the end of week two I invariably give up."

Does this remind anyone else of developers who constantly start too many projects?

"I became a software-planning god. I research scalable server stacks, buy a subscription to Mixergy, construct a release plan and pick a launch date. Then I code every day.

By the end of week two I invariably give up."

Incidentally creatine (which is mentioned in Shipper's post) is a great mental performance enhancer[1]. It gives endurance to muscles but also has a similar effect on mental endurance. Especially helpful for the problem of having no energy to do any work after your day job.

[1] [http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0168010202...](http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S016801020200007X)

<comment><USER6> I'm a procrastinator, yet I get a lot of stuff done. So much stuff, that people ask me how I get so much stuff done. Remember, I'm a procrastinator.

How? I take on too many things. Invariably, I procrastinate doing whatever by doing something else. As long as I constantly have a revolving list of "something elses" that need done, stuff keeps getting done. Sure, some things will never get done, but I find that when I have a big list, I am able to prioritize the level of procrastination I apply to each item. Thus, the things that never get done are things that I don't really need to do anyways. I try to force myself to work on those things... then I start procrastinating and I get all sorts of other stuff on the list done.

Maybe this doesn't work for everyone. That's fine. But not having enough projects is a terrible fate for me... because then nothing gets done.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Best fitness advice I ever got:

1\. Find a sport you like and enjoy

2\. Have fun [often]

<comment><USER8> I've considered this for the summer. I'm still deciding between swimming, climbing or thaiboxing. Do you know any other fun ones that might make you grow muscle?

<comment><USER9> Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu is really interesting. Started a training course two weeks ago. It's quite the full-body workout - sore muscles after every session. Core muscles, arms, legs, back. Sparring really makes primal instincts kick in, so there's never a motivation problem. Everyone's exhausted after an hour session, and it's the good kind of exhaustion. Very intense and varied experience. BJJ was explicitly designed to minimize the advantage of larger and heavier opponents, so it revolves around technique to a significant degree. Therefore, sparring with someone way bigger than you is completely different from sparring with someone much lighter; Both are incredibly entertaining. Best session I had was against a female partner, probably 15cm and 15kg lighter. She had a very keen sparring instinct and easily outmanouvered me. Felt the quick intellect behind every move. Amazing experience. Something in it that's missing from the average modern life ...

Climbing is the One True Sport for me though. Do try it! The climber's physique is quite attractive and confidence-inspiring. There is a minimum of technique that I hope people will be aware of. I don't want to make it seem complicated though, it isn't.

In the climbing process itself, the minimum technique is this: Become efficient. Get a feel for your balance on the wall, make stable triangles on the holds to free the fourth limb to go to the next handhold/foothold, and use larger joints/muscle groups rather than smaller; Most people's instinct tells them to to pull the body up with upper-arm strength, but generally one can keep the arms straight and use legs, waist, torso, or shoulder muscles to gain elevation.

And climbing is not a trivial load on the body. One can climb injury-free, but this does require a minimum technique or form. Always warm up, always perform the proper stretches (about 8 main forms of stretches, takes 10 mins or so after practice and really kickstarts the post-exercise well-being). Listen to pain: Usually, pain comes from imbalance in the muscles, or tendons or cartilage not being ready yet. Back slightly off and learn the quite simple exercise designed to put that joint and that muscle group back into balance. Climbing stresses tendons and cartilage, which by nature strengthen and heal slower than muscle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I agree with the general principle. Interestingly though, for fitness, the opposite worked for me. I threw myself into P90X, which is on 7 days a week, sometimes even two workouts a day. I've been exercising with similar or higher intensity ever since. The integrity of the program and the trust you can have knowing you will get better if you stick to it makes it hard to quit. If you start slow, you'll just lose time.

And there is nothing like seeing and feeling results three weeks in to take one through and beyond.

<comment><USER10> I've got a couple friends doing p90x as well, and i'm concerned that it'll simply make them look like endurance runners, eg skinny as rakes, unless you're on steroids. What's your thoughts on that?

I'm personally trying the reg park system (pre steroids style powerlifting, through stronglifts.com) because i'm aiming for a bit of bulk (i have no illusions of becoming mahoosive).

<comment><AUTHOR> I've always been quite skinny and my metabolism drives it very well, I sweat fast, etc. And I'm tall too, which means more muscle mass to get the same size. I also did the P90X doubles version, which starts at month 2 and adds 3 more endurance workouts weekly. All that taken into account, I still managed to get good functional muscle growth.

It is very easy to modify the program to suit your needs. If your friends do not care that much about endurance, I would suggest not doing the doubles version, keeping rep counts low (eight or less) and trying to increase the weight from week to week. They should also take in enough protein, perhaps through whey protein supplements, but definitely no steroids.

What's more important than anything of the above is how much effort you put into every workout. If they push themselves hard enough during the resistance training parts, there will be nothing to worry about and there's plenty of massive after-pictures from P90X online to prove this.

P90X will give you massive performance improvements for almost every physical activity. If you just want to bulk up, look up hypertrophy training. That will be much easier mentally if you don't necessarily care about fitness.

<comment><USER11> I've seen a few hundred P90X before/after shots from real people and didn't see much size growth. Skinny people got cut, which makes them look bigger and fitter. Doesn't mean they are heavier when they weigh in. Maybe added 5-10 lbs of muscle in a year. Full people got cut, also looks bigger and fitter in most cases. When you work out the whole body your bodyshape changes, shoulders get bigger so the perception is that you are bigger

A lot of hollywood actor training uses these principles. Actors need to get in shape quickly for various roles and trainers focus on getting the ripped P90X look instead of forcing real growth in such short timeframes. Ripped will look better naked than adding 10 lbs of non-ripped muscle. For example Bradd Pitt was maybe 160 lbs in Fight Club but looked much bigger because of muscle definition and upper body shape.

But if you really want to go from skinny to big/normal, not just ripped, heavy weights are the long term solution. 30 lbs of new muscle will look better than ripped. I don't know the details of P90X but recommended equipment is 50-90lb dumbells and a pullup bar. Most people use 50 lbs max and that's not going to cut it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's probably true. As a rower, I didn't need to be much heavier, just stronger. I put on about 4kg (almost 10 lbs) during those 3 months not even counting the fat I burned. And I didn't have the option to increase weights much, didn't eat that much either.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> For me the key to not quitting was going there with a friend - peer pressure if you will, but it helps finding the motivation to go to the gym on those lazy days.

My advise for anyone considering amateur body building and workouts (I'm not pro, take it with a grain of salt and see what works best for you):

* find a training partner, you need someone to spot bench presses anyway

* find a 4 day workout program, going to the gym everyday is damaging as your muscles need time to recover. 3 day weekly workout should be a bare minimum if you want results.

* stay there for an hour on average, including your warmup. I recommend 10-15 mins of steady pace on treadmill for your warmup, some stretching afterwards. Running will control your fat growth and cardio in general will increase your stamina and overall good feel. 30-50s breaks between repetitions - stay in the zone, don't let the muscles to cool down and don't waste time chatting with training buddies.

* Start with small weights, lots of newbies feel ashamed to put too little weight but nobody really cares. Too much weight will damage you at worst, slow your progress at best.

* The only supplements you should buy are whey protein, creatine and vitamins - that's all you need and that's all that worked for me or my friends, everything else is money wasting.

Keep on doing that and you will see results after 2-3 months, then results itself will be enough to motivate you not to quit.

<comment><USER13> I think you're excited to share your experiences and want to encourage others in the hopes they will enjoy similar benefits, but I think you've gone into too much detail in what's a complicated area. You've told people to take your advice with a grain of salt but you haven't identified the qualifiers which unfortunately makes your post bad advice. For instance:

* 4 days vs 3 days: for hard gainers, this can be very bad advice. 3 days is the limit for me or I lose weight.

* 10-15min warmup: again for hard gainers, you don't want to do too much cardio and you're better off splitting your training into muscle gain months and fat loss months because trying to do both at the same time is nearly impossible.

* 30-50s breaks between reps: all depends on your rep scheme; if you're doing 8-6-4-2 you need much longer rests (I've tried 90s vs 180s and my level of performance is radically different); if you're doing 10x10 to break through a plateau then a short rest makes sense

* weights: it's not random, you shouldn't even need to _think_ about this: you simply need to pick the weight that matches your rep scheme... if you're doing 8-6-4-2 you need weights YOU can ONLY lift 7-8 times, 5-6 times, etc.; it amazes me how many guys wander around gym randomly picking stuff up

Point is most of this depends on the body type of the individual AND their goals. I'm naturally skinny and struggle to eat a lot. So I found a guy like me (literally, physically) who achieved the goals _I_ want and worked through his book and so far that works _for me_.

There's nothing wrong with finding a role model you just need to be clear on the variables; Arnold may be a good role model if you want to become a pro bodybuilder and you have a similar body type, he's not if that's not your goal or your starting point.

<comment><USER12> Thanks, you're definitely right on the points you make and surely this area is too complicated to provide "works for everyone" advise though I've tried to slap a disclaimer for it.

Bulking vs cutting is too much for someone amateur/starting out, I just moderate my fat with cardio and proceed with normal workouts. There are guys doing it for 4 years in my gym, if someone asked if they weight lift or are just fat I'd have a 50% chance to pick the right answer - I think most guys just bulk all the time ignoring cardio whatsoever, minority (pro/competition ready) do it right with cut/bulk phases, but I choose this middle ground for now.

I'll refrain from giving fitness advise in the future as there are indeed too many unknowns for someone reading it at the other end of the cable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Showing up every day is very interesting because it's the least visible indicator of success. No successful person tallies how much they show up every day. Well except maybe this guy."

I really expected this link to point to Jerry Seinfeld's productivity secret. The story has made the rounds at this point, but in case anyone missed it:

[http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds-productivity- se...](http://lifehacker.com/281626/jerry-seinfelds-productivity-secret)

</comment><comment><USER15> "The big ideas you have leave you feeling so small" (Henry Rollins).

"Imposition of Order = Escalation of Chaos!" (Principia Discordia).

</comment><comment><USER16> I like the sentiment in this article but I don't think that the NDA analogy is particularly strong.

The concept I believe that is being addressed is that of Cargo Cults[1] and I would say that a much more typical example of how this plays out in the entrepreneurial space is with people obsessing over company culture, hip technology choices and other instances of premature optimisation.

In fact, I'd go so far as to say that purchasing Creatine before you really need to repair your muscle proteins any faster is a perfect example of premature optimisation!

[1]<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult>

</comment><comment><USER17> Starting out in a new field (gym in this case) with unrealistic expectations (unrealistic training plan) and trying to meet these unrealistic expectations can quickly deject ones efforts. The issue is with setting unrealistic goals, and NOT asking for advice / direction from experts (gym trainers in this case) early on. It's the same problem faced the world round for anyone starting out in a new field with unrealistic expectations and lacking patients.

Yes, going to the gym with no set plan and allowing this plan to evolve will encourage you to go more often if you are the type of person who sets unrealistic goals and gets dejected by not meeting them. But this, _I_ think is NOT the best way to go about achieving your goals, it's a slower path, asking advice from experts will shorten your path.

And taking Arnold Schwarzenegger as a role model is not a fair motivator for ones efforts. Trying to emulate the efforts of someone who's already long into their career without knowing all the "tricks of the trade" namely anabolic steroids is unfair to you. For _me_ a better role model would be someone who's just a bit ahead of me who's already taken on advice from experts!

</comment><comment><USER18> i agree that you dont want to jump in and do too much from the start and get burned out, but by not planning and hoping to just naturally develop the drive to want to work out more, you arent taking yourself seriously enough. it comes down to discipline and motivation; if working out is something you want to do, then do the research, develop a plan and follow it. spending a few weeks getting acclimated to the gym and routine is ok, but you arent accomplishing much during that time and you are essentially telling yourself that you arent able to commit to anything without mental tricks.

figure out what your goals are, what you truly want. if you want it enough, you will do what it takes to get there. if you have to trick yourself to develop the motivation, then your priorities arent in the right place and you should re-evaluate your goals.

</comment><comment><USER19> I suggest checking out the 4-Hour Body by Timothy Ferriss: [http://www.amazon.com/The-4-Hour-Body-Incredible- Superhuman/...](http://www.amazon.com/The-4-Hour-Body-Incredible- Superhuman/dp/030746363X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1338126947&sr=8-1)

The book describes efficient, sustainable ways achieve changes in your body, the premise being to make changes with the smallest amount of work possible. I put on 10 lbs of muscle in 2 months following its weight gain advice. My girlfriend tried the slow-carb diet and saw no effect, but I have heard that working for a few people. It's an interesting read nonetheless and will change your perspective on diet and exercise.

<comment><USER20> Agreed 1000x. There are some completely questionable pieces of advice in the book and Tim Ferris is kinda sketchy, but the major message is not "here's a diet you should do" it's "you should experiment, here are a few of the vectors and here's what I did - try it, and then try some other things." The strategies are suspect, but he does a great job laying out the moving parts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> The NDA example isn't so good. The problem wasn't that he went and bought creatine. The problem was that he was working out with the intent to be the next Arnold. This is like the many entrepreneurs that fantasize about being the net Zuck or Jobs instead of starting with something small and practical that they know. So entrepreneurs try to establish structure, culture, vision, valuation, work flow - before they even build a basic product. Instead of building the next facebook, build that snake game or group album sharing. Get hungry, keep shipping.

</comment><comment><USER22> Regarding body workout:

No no no no no. If you are bodybuilding newbie, DO NOT start bodybuilding by reading articles from the web. Create your workout plan with your instructor, your gym should have one. Stay healthy.

<comment><USER23> There are plenty of set plans that will work for anyone starting out. Starting Strength, Strong Lifts, New Rules of Lifting etc.

Personally I tell people to steer clear of personal trainers. If only I could recount the amount of crazy (and sometimes dangerous) things I've seen them get their clients to do, all in the name of "getting fit". Stick to big compound movements like squat, bench and deadlift and that'll be more than enough past just the starting out stages.

<comment><USER20> Yep, I agree (and wondering if you are a fellow fittitor). Unfortunately the fitness industry is filled with jackasses. It's an evolutionary problem: considering that most people don't actually need long term fitness advice, great trainers would quickly make themselves obsolete.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> The secret is to make your own way there. It's good to be inspired by others, but trying to imitate them generally leads to disappointment.

</comment><comment><USER25> One of the best reads ever. I've faced this issue so many times. Even the gym example has happened to me and i've failed for over 2 years. Slowly I learned it on my own as I was learning programming and understanding that I am over optimizing at start. And this post hits the nail for me. Awesome. Thanks for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think this can be applied to students as well(or at least I've applied similar principles to my academic success.)

<comment><USER27> I would go further and say this can be applied for just about anything.

The availability of information via the Internet is a huge enabler of the "I take myself too seriously" condition. In the old days, you'd have to spend a lot of money and time on books and magazines to get the types of information to get the types of minutiae knowledge to get obsessive about golf, photography, coding, whatever.

I see a lot of means-end inversion going on with people who take themselves too seriously. For example, I'm a photography hobbyist, and in a lot of camera forums, you find plenty of photography buffs who have essentially become camera buffs who seem to spend more time on camera specifications more than the act of photography itself. Quite often, you'll see hobbyists who have more stringent camera requirements than actual working pros. Mind boggling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I think anyone can fall into the habit of taking themselves too seriously unless they develop a certain mindset. Of course individuals who enjoy what they do, no matter how challenging, wouldn't really need to notice if they're taking themselves too seriously or not since enjoyment mellows people out.

</comment><comment><USER29> doing ineffective things is not the same as not taking yourself seriously.

in general, what sort of physical activity is good for you, how to get started, how to progress, and so on are all pretty well understood. not only that, it is all pretty straight forward.

whether at working out or anything else (e.g. learning to program or learning the banjo) you should worry about doing it effectively. get the brush strokes of that right -- it is much easier to stick to something you see yourself improving on.

taking yourself seriously are things like thinking that if you miss a workout day your regime is ruined, obsessively counting your calories, etc. avoid that.

</comment><comment><USER30> Or, you could get a workout buddy.

</comment><comment><USER31> He's got a good idea but has summed it up not only incorrectly but in exact contradiction to the actual truth.

Taking himself seriously is precisely what he IS doing, by recognizing that in order to actually succeed at becoming more fit he must take into account certain facts about his own nature.

It is the person who tries to (say) mindlessly copy Arnold S. who is not taking _himself_ seriously, because by mindlessly copying Arnold's methods he is not taking into account what methods are appropriate to himself; instead, he's only taking into account what methods were appropriate to _Arnold_. I.e., he'd not be taking himself seriously.

</comment><comment><USER32> I believe programmers et al. should attempt to play more futball. Just play through the pain of it. You will quickly develop a grammar (like in vim!) which helps with establishing Flow.

Do not work out for your "health" or by dietary theories (which are largely based on Western dietary habits anyway). Work out to understand how Flow can be expressed beyond typing at a keyboard. (Consider that in most contexts where we talk about "Flow," studies involve sedentary activities: playing video games, typing/programming, flying a simulator or an actual air-vehicle, driving, etc.) What is with the given assumption that Flow involves Hands/Brain? Why not Feet/Brain? Imagine being able to establish Flow immediately while engaged in a physically exhausting activity. How far will you go? For how long will you play?

In short time, your body will naturally develop into the kind of fitness appropriate to the limits of your mental limitations. Moreover, you may develop a grammar for your feet which is analogous to the grammar of your hands (in the context of a keyboard -- consider that we all type relatively uniquely to ourselves, a typolect, if you will, despite "Standardized" keyboard formats; in the context of vim -- verbs, nouns, modifiers, sentences, paragraphs, etc.): Foot Grammar (might allow for "propositions" of the foot which demand a fitness level (performance criterion) to express them.

You type through the pain of the monitor against your eyes. You type and think through fluorescent lighting. Carpal Tunnel. Etc. This is why we suggest getting up and stretching, walking about, to combat these minor physical impairments which involve attrition over time. So many physical analogues exist which naturally make playing futball a sensible, and moreover social (!), activity for programmars.

I type through wrist pain and learn a new framework. I kick through foot pain and learn a new tactile passing system.</comment>


Tutoring meets the 21st century - <AUTHOR>

Most tutoring services ask you to "request information" and don't disclose prices. They also don't let you know what the process is like whatsoever (until you pay).
We created Sultan Tutoring to create the tutoring service we wished existed. Students can schedule themselves in directly, see pricing upfront and find out what the process is like BEFORE paying.
For now, our focus is on the new MCAT. However, we also offer tutoring in Chemistry, Physics and Genetics and best of all:
We have created a platform that YOU can use to offer your own services while being protected by the corporate veil. If you're interested in joining the Sultan Tutoring Society, reach out to us at email@example.com
Would love your feedback on our website! www.sultantutoring.com <comment><USER2> The site design is very good. It is light and gets to the point, namely, the pricing: [http://www.sultantutoring.com/pricing.html](http://www.sultantutoring.com/pricing.html) That seems crazy expensive. Who's is the intended audience for this? I certainly don't have 2.5 grand to drop on tutoring... I don't even know what the MCAT is!

The main question visitor have when they land on any site is "Is it relevant for me?" See if you can't put that info above the fold on the landing page. Otherwise, I'm left with the question "Who is Sultan?" and "Is this a Turkish site?"

Apart from that you should think about showing more of the product, e.g. a sample lesson plan, or a screenshot of a tutorial session to help visitors understand what is on offer.

<comment><USER3> Your comment is spot on for a lot of things but arguing you don't know what the MCAT is isn't one of them. It's a niche audience and those who want tutoring for the MCAT would know. Those who don't aren't going to have a need for it.</comment></comment>