Wrong and Right Reasons To Be Upset About Oculus – with Carmack response - <AUTHOR> http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-right-reasons-to-be-upset-about-oculus <comment><USER3> > I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an > afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find > out that he bought Oculus.

He's a CTO and he finds it out like that? There's something I don't understand.

<comment><USER4> Yea, I thought that was bizarre. It makes you wonder what Carmack _actually_ thinks of Facebook buying Oculus.

<comment><USER5> He probably had a boat load of options or outright shares that just got closer to being turned into Ferraris.

<comment><USER6> Or rockets, hopefully.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armadillo_Aerospace)

<comment><USER7> [https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136](https://twitter.com/ID_AA_Carmack/status/450031715017179136)

<comment><USER8> You might've noticed, but it looks like your second post with this same exact link is dead. It seems HN has anti-duplicate code.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > John Carmark: _The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes > converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is > inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with > who._

Carmack is correct in saying the Titans will get involved, but I think many people (including the post author) are disappointed that Oculus has forgone becoming a Titan themselves. Committing to such a deep partnership at this stage feels like a big misstep. Imagine where Facebook would be if they had sold out to a company like Apple right before they allowed non-college kids to use the service.

<comment><USER10> Another point I haven't seen raised: when it comes to VR hardware and software, anyone who doesn't get in bed with a Titan will end up mired in one bullshit patent suit after another.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I feel like we've gone full retard about the potential of VR again. Facebook has bought a promising headset technology, but we're a long way off people living in a virtual world controlled by Facebook. While I fully expect Facebook to data mine any hardware they control I'm not certain how it corresponds with the nightmare vision here.

If anything Facebook buying Oculus so early is a good thing for people scared of Facebook's impact on VR. I think there is a long and involved period of VR being refined by hardcore gamers before it tentatively ventures into virtual sports and virtual meetups et al. I just don't see the big gaming companies wanting to do deals with Facebook - they hate Steam for its platform control and its communication overlays - they'll be very wary of a Facebook chat overlay finding its way into to Oculus driver v1.2. And I just don't think Oculus as funded by Facebook is going to be living or dieing with gamers feedback like they would as an independent company. I doubt they are going to sacrifice enough to meet those demands and be reshaped by them.

<comment><USER12> The problem with buying them early is that Oculus could become the Microsoft of the industry on PC. They could set precedents/biases we'll have to live with for decades to come. For example there might be other headsets that rely on Oculus API/SDK, etc. IDK we'll just have to wait and find out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Unless you've developed games for the facebook platform, it can be hard to understand why so many devs reacted so negatively to the news. I've made facebook games and decided not to spend money on the second dev kit, so maybe I can shed some light as to why.

As a gaming platform, Facebook sucks. Pure and simple. The APIs we need to use to make money change, sometimes on a daily basis. We get no notification when these changes happen. We find out because our games suddenly stop working. Facebook also has a history of trying to screw game developers over in an attempt to get a bigger chunk of cash for themselves. Case in point, they tried to mandate that everybody use Facebook Credits for in game currency. Not only did facebook take 30% off the top (effectively slashing our existing revenues by 30%), but we had to use their API to process transactions. Their buggy, buggy API. That lasted for maybe 6 months? I'm not sure, I got out of it just before the facebook credits thing went down.

Before everybody jumps on me about Facebook not necessarily locking Oculus game devs into their platform, that doesn't matter. Facebook has a history of treating game devs poorly and as a result I have absolutely no desire to deal with the company again.

</comment><comment><USER14> In a second comment, John Carmack wrote this:

> _I 'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully > support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from > many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with > you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me._

> _Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers > the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, > and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but > cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the > world will be improved with more and better data analysis._

> _I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the > recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What > terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific._

I find this slightly alarming. Apparently John Carmack was lucky enough not to have been unfairly prosecuted and doesn't have any secrets that could cost him for example his job.

But what happens if one day John Carmack's activities and opinions become illegal? This has happened many times in history and there's no reason to believe it won't happen again.

The scariest thing about data collection is not what is currently happening with it, but what oppressive regimes could do with it. Imagine what if the gestapo or the stasi had all the information at its disposal that Facebook has? Or the NSA even?

<comment><USER15> To me it just underscores that even a lot of smart people don't really think about far reaching consequences of data mining. Sure, most people don't care that [insert company here]'s algorithms are crawling your data and sending you product ads based on that, but what about the NSA and their secret courts and secret warrants forcing companies to hand over that data? Even if companies don't comply, SIGINT agencies will just hack their systems and get their hands on the data anyway.

And even if there is absolutely nothing incriminating about that data NOW, there's no evidence that will stay the case forever.

I've just lost a massive amount of respect for Carmack. I actually thought he'd have an intelligent opinion on subjects like this.

<comment><USER16> Perhaps you should offer up your intelligent opinion as a counter? There is no risk in being thrown in jail because of data mining--NSA can directly observe what you do. There is no reason to mine to deduce that you may be or become an X sympathizer (where X is dangerous to the current power structure), they can simply observe you communicating with known X's or viewing information in support of X. Your concerns about data mining are misplaced and overblown.

There is simply nothing of interest to the government that can be learned about you by mining that they can't learn through direct means already deployed.

<comment><USER15> I have already offered my opinion in the parent post but here goes again:

> There is no risk in being thrown in jail because of data mining

Not now. What about in 20 years when the concept of thoughtcrime finds its way into the legal system? Some countries already/still (whichever you like) already have that and people there routinely die because of accessing "illegal" information online.

> There is simply nothing of interest to the government that can be learned > about you by mining that they can't learn through direct means already > deployed.

False. Let's imagine someone likes to play out their wildest fantasies in a VR world using a device like Rift. For the sake of discussion, let's assume that person has fantasies about gay unicorns. It just so happens that the state has reverted to fundamentalist ways and such fantasies are now punishable by death. With all this data mining in place, what prevents law enforcement agencies from subpoenaing FB and tapping directly into that data feed and making arrests based on that? I know it's a far fetched scenario, but the principle applies to almost anything. Replace gay unicorns with whatever you like. People have murdered other people over more inane things.

Also, if you haven't heard about law enforcement agencies doing parallel construction based on tip offs from SIGINT programs, you should read up on that.

> Your concerns about data mining are misplaced and overblown.

No, my concerns are well placed. Just because there is no abuse happening now (and there likely is), doesn't mean there won't be any in the future - <USER2> the data that's being mined as we speak. Better to be safe than sorry and stop this nonsense dead in its tracks, don't you think?

And even if there was zero danger of getting harassed by the system based on the information you consume online, I don't want anyone to know what I think based purely on principle.

<comment><USER16> I don't disagree with your reasoning at all--I have made those same arguments myself at various times. Where we disagree is on the meaning of data mining. When I think of mining, I think of deducing facts that are not directly present in the data. For example, imagine the government deducing your attraction to gay unicorns by some tangentially related facts about you {likes unicorns, watches teletubbies, is a brony} -> {attraction to gay unicorns}. My argument is that such a thing is impossible. There is nothing of interest that a government could learn about you through indirect means (mining relationships out of disparate data), that they can't learn through direct observation. That is, instead of having to deduce your attraction to gay unicorns, they would simply observe it in the virtual world (leak regarding monitoring of WoW). Under this understanding of data mining, worrying about the government mining is misdirection--they will simply watch your avatar get sodomized in real time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> What's interesting to me, and we've seen this with WhatsApp only a few weeks ago, is that being acquired by Facebook seems to _destroy_ the public image of a product.

Positive public perception has value, and can (at least in theory) be measured in dollars. In accounting terminology, it's part of what's usually called a company's "goodwill".

If Facebook continues to so negatively effect the public's opinion of every company it acquires, this means that Facebook might get a lot less out of those acquisitions than they might have hoped.

<comment><USER18> Really? Is the public image of instagram 'destroyed'? You're in the tech bubble. In the consumer world _no one_ cares as long products perform well and cheaply.

<comment><USER19> This is really it. We in our techno bubble care about these things. For normal people, its basically a non-issue. Heck, I even forget that Facebook bought Instagram unless I'm reminded of it here and there. This goes to Facebook''s credit that they do seem to leave their acquisitions alone.

<comment><USER20> Instagram and Whatsapp are really different than Oculus, though.

<comment><USER21> > Instagram and Whatsapp are really different than Oculus, though.

Indeed. They're much closer to FB's core product and hence that much more tempting to meddle with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> There seems to be a disconnect between the the way those in the SV startup community see FaceBook and those outside do.

My view of Carmack is positive and I think he does want to understand the FaceBook revulsion, but to quote Sinclair

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it"

<comment><USER23> I don't think John Carmack, of all people, has to worry much about his salary.

<comment><USER24> He does. He wants to fund Armadillo. He ran out of money to sink into it.

<comment><USER25> I have a feeling working on VR outweighs Armadillo for J Carmack. One is achievable in short order and the other is more of a gamble and passion-play.

<comment><USER24> I wasn't speculating, he actually said this. Armadillo is a bigger goal for him, and it requires a lot of money.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I'd expect that Facebook will do for Oculus as much as Zenimax did for id.

The best that could happen is that the Zuckster just sends bigger checks to Oculus to expand operations, turning this purchase into more of a round of VC funding than anything else.

The worst case scenario is that it's a purchase like we see in the business world. How many products do better when the company that makes them is bought by IBM or Oracle?

<comment><USER27> Facebook isn't IBM or Oracle. Instagram is still doing fine, it's kept its own identity and I would never have known they were bought by facebook if it wasn't such huge news. To me, on the surface, it's following the exact path same as it was before the purchase, but it would be naive to think that Facebook's infrastructure and experience with scalability has nothing to do with the fact that instagram is always up and always works as its grown.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I'm not really worried about Facebook "exerting control" in one way or another, per se.

I hope Facebook doesn't kill Oculus as a product. If it goes to market, my sole criteria for purchase will be "does it require a Facebook login, or a connection to Facebook servers"?

I'm fine with hardware that also has a flagship Facebook Space, or whatever. I can choose to avoid that. That's really what I'm hoping for, as it seems like one of the most benign outcomes.

But if it's a fundamental part of the design is that Facebook has to participate in every Oculus experience, well, no sale.

</comment><comment><USER29> I feel a bit embarrassed to have to say the obvious but:

When you sell your company, you don't own it any more

[http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when- you-...](http://pando.com/2014/03/26/a-reminder-to-founders-when-you-sell- your-company-you-dont-own-it-any-more/)

</comment><comment><USER30> One almost off topic reason is that it seems like today an innovative and successful tech company will face irresistible acquisition offers from one of the "titans." When the offer make the founder a billionaire it will be rare that they are rejected. If they are, I bigger offer will soon follow. Everyone has a price and these cashed up companies have deeper pockets than any company has ever had. The near inevitability of this acquisition (hinted at by Carmack) is IMO the significant element.

In this environment, Google could have gotten near their IPO value years earlier from an acquiring company. Current crop of titans would have been owned by the previous crop and we would be poorer as a whole.

When acquisition offers outpace revenue to this degree it seems almost impossible for a company to stay independent.

</comment><comment><USER31> > "Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal > background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have > more obvious synergies."

This is the heart of the controversy. Facebook could have easily written an application / demo to integrate with Facebook, but instead they bought the whole company.

<comment><USER32> This stood out to me too. What hardware has Facebook brought to market? I don't recall anything specific.

What companies might have offered more obvious synergies? Google, Amazon, Apple who have shipped successful hardware?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Carmack had this to say earlier, in a 3-part Tweet:

 _" Everyone has had some time to digest the FB deal now. I think it is going to be positive, but clearly many disagree. Much of the ranting has been emotional or tribal, but I am interested in reading coherent viewpoints about objective outcomes. What are the hazards? What should be done to guard against them? What are the tests for failure? Blog and I'll read."_

Also, this:

 _" I would expect Facebook to not exert any overt control over Oculus unless Oculus fumbles badly a few times, at which point they SHOULD."_

<comment>~

My personal take: At the end of the day, it takes more than vision and hard work to drive a dream into existence... it takes _investment_. It takes _capital_. This is what the deal brings to the table.

Not only that, as you probably know by now, Michael Abrash has joined the team. I mean, read Michael's blog and note all of the technical challenges and issues with implementing VR. Read Carmack's technical writings on latency issues. There are a lot of problems to solve, on top of building and delivering a solid, commercial-quality hardware and software experience. For example, there is tracking head position and orientation, rendering without shearing and judder, latency issues, etc... everything must be perfect in order to deliver the perfect experience.

Facebook brings the needed investment, plus the scaling infrastructure experience to the table. John has said, _" I have a deep respect for the technical scale that FB operates at. The cyberspace we want for VR will be at this scale."_

I have a lot of confidence in Oculus VR and their extremely capable team. These good people are experienced and they know the technical and business challenges that are ahead. This is why the acquisition occurred.

The passion is still there. I mean, watch this video again [1]. John hasn't changed. After the acquisition, he said, _" For the record, I am coding right now, just like I was last week. I expect the FB deal will avoid several embarrassing scaling crisis for VR."_

And with Michael coming on board, it's a veritable VR Dream Team with the already talent-heavy team of Palmer Luckey, Tom Forsyth [2], Atman Binstock [3], et al.

As Michael said, _" That worry is now gone. Facebook's acquisition of Oculus means that VR is going to happen in all its glory."_

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYa8kirsUfg)

[2] [http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom- forsyth](http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/category/tom-forsyth)

[3] [http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief- ar...](http://www.oculusvr.com/blog/welcome-atman-binstock-chief-architect)

<comment><USER34> Its all sunshine and roses until "the meeting" in which Carmack says _" I've started this awesome feature that I feel defines the future of the product and..."_ a hand goes up and a suit says _" that really doesn't fit with 'our vision' for where we want Oculus to go"_. Game Over.

<comment><USER35> I find that very difficult to imagine. JC isn't some mid level manager with a pet project in mind. He's one of the founding technical leads in the company FB just acquired. He has high political capital as well as personal financial independence. A close minded brush off like that would be likely to get that suit fired.

<comment><USER36> It'd be easy to believe that, because it is reassuring in a way that calms anxieties about the future of Oculus.

But you only have to look back to Doom 3 to see the cracks in that idea. Many design decisions of that game were unpopular when it was released, and over the following years it came out that those decisions were driven by technical aspects of the engine. Where rather than the engine sacrificing for the design, design sacrificed for the engine.

So it'd be easy to make the less immediately appealing argument that they should push back on Carmack's vision when they think it's gone off the rails.

<comment><USER37> links? As I remember it, most of the issues were around the fixed frame rates that were an attempt to unify PC development with console development. Perhaps I am confusing Doom 3 for another game though.

<comment><USER36> The poster child is the flashlight, sounds stupid now but I remember how much shit it stirred back then. The rest I don't remember off the top of my head, and don't feel like scrubbing through days and days of Bombcast to find.

"Carmack has also admitted that the flashlight was not attached to the weapons in the original version of Doom 3 due to performance issues" ... [http://www.dsogaming.com/news/john-carmack-speaks-30fps- on-c...](http://www.dsogaming.com/news/john-carmack-speaks-30fps-on- consoles-60fps-on-the-pc-doom-3-levels-more-taxing-than-rage/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Cross posting my comment from the original article:

\----

Hi John, huge fan of all your work.

I think the biggest issue with the FB acquisition is over one variable: control. The Oculus team has, by definition, relinquished control of their platform to FB. This is not a decision to be brushed aside, as it has some very severe consequences.

Let's for example, consider Oculus' partnership with developers. Prior to the FB deal, Oculus had a direct relationship with developers and would work in tandem with them to guarantee the best user experience. Now, there is a massive Facebook middleman, with all of the decision making power, wedged between Oculus and developers. This is the real reason why Notch and many others have abandoned the platform.

Oculus can give us their word, swear an oath, and cross their hearts. But their destiny is no longer in Palmer's, your's or Michael's hands. It's in Mark Zuckerberg's. And if there is, at any point, any sort of disagreement over the smallest issue, there will be no debate because the Oculus team are now nothing more than employees, and will have to put up or shut up when it comes to crucial decisions.

Of course, as long as there are no problems, and everything is rosy then all is well. But the second rough seas are encountered and tough decisions need to be made, I fear that the Oculus team will understand that they've made a serious mistake by relinquishing control of their destiny to Facebook.

If the Oculus team was short on cash, I'm sure there would have been a great many investors willing to pour additional money into the venture at very generous valuations. This is because Oculus was a darling of the industry, with legends such as yourself on board. The developer community knew that you would not compromise on the experience, and because you answered to no one but the Oculus team and your investors, you were free to make the Oculus experience the best it could possibly be.

Personally, I have watched many interviews with yourself describing the challenges of the Oculus and how you are working on overcoming them. I was sold based on your vision, determination, and most importantly, the freedom and control to deliver the best experience possible. I cannot help but feel that the FB deal has put a sword of Damocles over your heads, as the technical leads will always be the first to have to accept defeat when faced with executive meddling on critical decisions.

I would point to Elon Musk, and how he has maintained control of Tesla and SpaceX, not because it was the correct financial decision, but because as a product company he would have been doomed if non-technical executives began vetoing his critical design decisions. Sadly, this latter scenario is the one I believe Oculus has put itself in. I truly hope you can weather these storms as they arise, but history and experience tell me it will be extremely difficult.

Forever a fan, <USER38>
<comment><USER39> I don't know John Carmack's financial background, so what I'm about to say might be totally wrong.

Your comparison to Elon Musk is kind of odd. Elon Musk's first company sold to a larger company for a giant pile of money. Actually even his second company sold for a giant pile of money. It appears (at least from my perspective) that only after he sold two companies for billions of dollars did he follow the route we see with Tesla & SpaceX of not selling.

<comment><USER38> And where are those products today? Elon Musk has openly said that PayPal has become a disappointment since he sold it.

Relinquishing control of design decisions for a product company is suicide. Product companies make things whose functions are the selling point. Tesla, SpaceX and Oculus all fall into this category.

<comment><USER39> Ah yes, sorry. I should have been a bit more verbose in my response.

I totally agree with you about the long term health of the product/company itself. I have no doubt that they could have raised capital by other means, and continued to do cool things for VR.

What I don't agree with is the comparison to Elon Musk, because Elon Musk already sold companies for billions of dollars. When someone offers billions of dollars, that changes things for a lot of people. Elon Musk did exactly what Oculus is doing right now. He sold, because that's a hell of a lot of money. In some respects, it has allowed him to do whatever the hell he damn well pleases, to great effect (launching space rockets and making incredible cars).

So I understand why the fan base of VR & Oculus is upset, but I cannot at all fault them for selling, because giant piles of money, holy crap.

<comment><USER40> From what I gather, Musk had aspirations to make advancements in renewable energy and space travel from has early as his time in college, but obviously those industries have rather large barriers to entry. So I believe Zip2 and Paypal were acting as stepping stones so he could build up capital/experience before he could move onto his true passion.

Virtual reality has a low enough barrier to entry that the kickstarter and existing investments had already solved that problem. And as far as I'm aware, VR are some of the highest aspirations held by the Oculus team, take this recent quote from Palmer Luckey for example:

> "I'm obsessed with VR. I spend every day pushing further, and every night > dreaming of where we are going. Even in my wildest dreams, I never imagined > we'd come so far so fast."

So I personally see the comparison with SpaceX/Tesla as a fairer comparison than Musk's first two businesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> I have to agree with Carmack here. Companies, governments or individuals having lots of data isn't a bad thing in its self. It's what they _do_ with that data that matters, and what they do can be positive as well as negative.

This is not to say that we should blindly trust data-holders to behave responsibly. We should watch them very closely! The recent kerfuffle about Microsoft reading a blogger's mail is a good example: MS took an action many people felt was wrong, it got widely publicized, and MS decided they weren't going to do it again, and made a policy change to codify that decision. What was a grey area became a bright line that they've vowed not to cross.

The existence of big data is new, and our civilization hasn't figured out how to deal with it yet. I'm confident that we _will_ figure it out, and the good that comes from it will be much greater than the evil.

<comment><USER20> > It's what they do with that data that matters

Not technically wrong, but it's a bad show to introduce that risk. I say this a lot, but - IT ethics is like medical ethics: you're obligated to protect your clients with expertise regarding things they don't understand. Personal information needs to have strong guarantees of segmentation and authority controls. That's not an open question; it used to be called "good system administration."

There's no middle ground on this. Either you're doing your job as an IT professional, or you're exposing users to risk from data-sale, breach exposure, or government overreach.

<comment><USER41> So it's our duty as IT professionals to prevent people from using IT?

The services that large-scale IT provides could not exist without gathering the volume of data they do. Google couldn't provide relevant search results with just an index of the web, it also relies on vast amounts of data about user behaviour. The same is true of Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn etc.

It's non-sensical to talk about risk without talking about the actual scenarios you're worried about. How bad are they? How probable are they? What can we do to reduce the harm and/or likelihood of harm? How much, if at all, will those measures reduce the benefits of the services based on big data? That's the discussion we should be having. Most of the "concern" about big data boils down to an appeal to emotion: "Just think what they could do with all that information!"

<comment><USER20> > So it's our duty as IT professionals to prevent people from using IT?

Yes, within reason. I advise people not to use Facebook, and I spend a fair amount of working hours on alternatives to Google's app infrastructure. For the grayer areas like improving search, you deal with complicated questions and push the industry to innovate on effective distributed designs. You're making a big assumption saying that collecting a centralized database on users is the only way make good search results. It's certainly one of the _easiest_ ways...

> It's non-sensical to talk about risk without talking about the actual > scenarios you're worried about. How bad are they? How probable are they?

If you don't have personal control over your information, detailed knowledge of how the information is used, or the ability to revoke access, you basically have to assume the probability is 100%. There's barely any legal framework in place on the issue, and so we're left with social pressure and business ethics.

Can you really not guess at a negative outcome for personal information collection and passive surveillance?

<comment><USER41> Can you really not specify the negative outcomes you're trying to prevent? You're accusing me (and most of the members of this forum) of a moral failing, an abrogation of our responsibility to the world. That's a serious accusation, and I'm taking it seriously.

If you're right, then I should go into the next room and tell my wife not to post any more pictures of our daughter to Facebook. I should tell my mother that she won't be seeing any more pictures of her grand-daughter, and we're going to have to stop having video chats on Skype. Of course, if I do that, they're going to want to know why. What should I tell them? It better be good, because if not, they'll think I'm just being a jerk, and they'll be right.

I agree with you that Facebook has data that could be used in undesirable ways. But it's already being used, right now, on a massive scale, in ways that are clearly and demonstrably desirable. I think the best way to live up to our responsibility is to do two things:

      • clearly enumerate the scenarios we want to avoid, the reasons why, and advocate for public and private policies that prevent them
      • be on the lookout for unintended consequences and negative effects that we didn't anticipate, so that we can prevent them from occurring on a large scale

<comment><USER20> Ok, that's fair. Here's a list of things that worry me, specifically related to Facebook, but they can apply in other cases.

\- Private messages. These can be really dangerous for personal relationships and community standing if leaked.

\- Profiling data: friendship graphs, location pings, browsing history, political alignment, sexuality, religion. Can be used to make targeted attacks on individuals by predicting their behaviors; to track an individual's influence in communities; to create credible misinformation about the target or their community; to make strategic decisions that will minimize a person's/community's influence in the outcome (for instance, politically).

\- Images. Can be used with automated systems to deanonymize crowds and thus passively surveil.

The issue isn't so much zero-sum. I'm not worried about a sudden crackdown on citizens that's orchestrated through this data, because there are other more relevant safeguards (like cultural health and the functioning political process). I'm more worried about the value of the information as intelligence in political strategy.

Anthony Weiner's embarrassing blow-up is a good extreme example - not that he was targeted (it appeared to have been self-inflicted) but it shows what embarrassing information can do to a politician. Facebook has that in spades, and I'm certain there will be politicians looking to buy.

The more subtle applications are more troubling. Applied well, the dataset could be queried for potential or active dissidents and used to discredit them. It wouldn't be hard, either. Make an anonymous tip to someone's SO that they cheated once, perhaps - if their marriage blows up publicly, that's a success. Think of a pastor or a CEO, in that case.

This sort of thing doesn't happen yet (I hope) but information "wants to be free," which is why you can't let it out once. As I suggested before, there's system breaches, unethical sale of data (perhaps even by employees) government mandates. It's not like any of it is unheard of even before the big data era. And even if most citizens are not a target, by complying with the arrangement, we endanger the people who could protect us by dissenting. The health of our cultures and our republics relies on distributed pockets of inalienable authority - in this case, over private information.

Should you stop using Facebook? I don't know, it's all about trade-offs. I do my best, but I've still got a gmail account and a linode setup, the former because I'm more worried about system breaches with my email, the latter because I can't afford dedicated hosting. I don't like either situation. You can call me a bit hypocritical for that too, but the situation is partially social, so I advocate for change as hard as I can.

Lately I've been thinking the best strategy possible would be to call for Facebook to release self-hosting software that's still compatible with their network. But there's also the possibility of somebody creating a really superior alternative, and that would be nice too. That's what I work on, but it's really hard to beat the featureset.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> A very simple reason is the difference in business model between an hardware company, and a ad-based web site. Everyone doubts a single company can sustain the two in parallel. Occulus original vision is to focus on the hardware, sell it with a margin and keep improving at it ( and the software on top). And have an ecosystem of service providers using your device. Much like Apple.

Facebook wants to create free services that gets as much information from their user as possible, and create new features ( or buy concurrents) only when they see them slip away.

It's pretty easy to predict where the two won't match.

</comment><comment><USER43> I don't use this platform. Where is the response from Carmack?

<comment><USER44> [http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and- ri...](http://peterberkman.tumblr.com/post/80827337212/wrong-and-right- reasons-to-be-upset-about-oculus#comment-1310233365)

<comment><USER45> Still not seeing a comment from Carmack. Can someone cut&paste?

<comment><USER46> _I share some of your misgivings about companies "existing and operating only to be acquired". I am a true believer in market economies, and the magic of trade being a positive sum game is most obvious with repeated transactions at a consumer level. Company acquisitions, while still (usually) being a trade between willing parties that in theory leaves both better off, have much more of an element of speculation rather than objective assessment of value, and it definitely feels different.

There is a case to be made for being like Valve, and trying to build a new VR ecosystem like Steam from the ground up. This is probably what most of the passionate fans wanted to see. The difference is that, for years, the industry thought Valve was nuts, and they had the field to themselves. Valve deserves all their success for having the vision and perseverance to see it through to the current state.

VR won't be like that. The experience is too obviously powerful, and it makes converts on contact. The fairly rapid involvement of the Titans is inevitable, and the real questions were how deeply to partner, and with who.

Honestly, I wasn't expecting Facebook (or this soon). I have zero personal background with them, and I could think of other companies that would have more obvious synergies. However, I do have reasons to believe that they get the Big Picture as I see it, and will be a powerful force towards making it happen. You don't make a commitment like they just did on a whim.

I wasn't personally involved in any of the negotiations -- I spent an afternoon talking technology with Mark Zuckerberg, and the next week I find out that he bought Oculus._

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

 _I did skip the data mining issue, mostly because I just can 't get very worked up about it.

I'm not a "privacy is gone, get over it" sort of person, and I fully support people that want remain unobserved, but that means disengaging from many opportunities. The idea that companies are supposed to interact with you and not pay attention has never seemed sane to me.

Being data driven is a GOOD thing for most companies to be. Everyone cheers the novel creative insight and bold leadership that leads to some successes, and tut tuts about companies ending up poorly by blindly following data, but cold analysis of the data is incredibly important, and I tend to think the world will be improved with more and better data analysis.

I have never felt harmed by data mining, and I rather like the recommendations that Amazon gives me on each visit. Educate me. What terrible outcome is expected from this? Be specific._

</comment><comment><USER47> My biggest worry is the destructive effect the acquisition had on the community. Many developers feel that their expectations were betrayed.

And of course, the unnoticeably slow corruption through bureaucracy and politics which inevitably seeps in as acquisitions get merged into the greater fold.

This thread prompted me to write more about this, so I wrote a letter to Carmack (no response yet, though): [https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11](https://medium.com/p/f8589a747d11)

</comment><comment><USER48> _Facebook is smarter than to include ads directly. There is more value to them in having a happy, captive audience._

Don't know about you, but that sounds sinister to me...

</comment><comment><USER49> I recently bought a mechanical keyboard (razer). It has programmable macro keys, but in order to install the driver I have to create an account on the manufacturer's site and log in before the installer will continue. It's complete crap and I will never buy anything from that manufacturer again.

Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or install the software? Probably.

<comment><USER50> > Am I going to have to log in to facebook to use the occulus headset or > install the software? Probably.

That's not true about WhatsApp or Instagram. Nothing suggest it'll be the same with Oculus.

The only company to blame for your poor experience is _Razer_.

<comment><USER49> I mentioned the story about Razer to give an example of shitty things companies do to leverage a user base.

G+ and YouTube. Microsoft and Skype. Anything Apple.

Even without a suggestion that this might happen with Facebook and Oculus, it happens all over the industry. There might not be a suggestion of it, but there is definitely a fear of it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Cross posted from the blog:

The only thing that I really don't like about the acquisition is that it is certain to delay the consumer product by some significant time. The shot that Sony fired over their bow (almost into their ship) made them fully understand that their time was up. Their planned time frame wouldn't work in competition with Sony because their pockets weren't deep enough to technologically one-up Sony. To come out with something at best on par but further down the road than Sony would sink them like a stone.

Now those pockets are deep enough and there will be substantial delay as they order the development of new tech and cost reduction engineering to create something truly competitive. This is not speculative, they have stated that they are going to do that but without mention of the time it will take.

This may be good in the long run but I think the run-up to their product has been far, far too long already. What this all means is I want one, I want it now and it just got further away, perhaps much further.

</comment><comment><USER52> Well, I guess would only use the Rift if there are open source Linux drivers in the mainline kernel. I guess such drivers would only land in mainline if they are technologically and morally ok (then the driver is really just a 3D display driver and has no usage data collection function etc.).

How likely is that to happen?

</comment><comment><USER53> > there will be a plethora of information to mine along with the ability and > intent to do it. It is infinitely easier to mine data in a completely > simulated reality - Facebook will know where you're looking, what you're > doing, and how long you do it.

Free software is the solution. I've never been that interested in Oculus so I'm not aware if the device is flashable or how much control a developer has when writing software for it.

</comment><comment><USER54> If Facebook treats it as they've treated some of their hardware work and initiatives, we may find we can live with it.

If they treat it as they've treated their "platform", we are likely to have problems.

Which way will it go? Nobody knows...

I think most of us feel that the technology itself needs to be "open" and platform agnostic. We've just observed a major change that places this in question. Concern is justified.

</comment><comment><USER55> The FB acquisition seems to imply that the deeply talented Oculus team will help pioneer VR as a new mechanism for social interactions online. Call me a simpleton, but I'm more interested in Carmack et al revolutionizing gaming. Maybe that will still happen, but this acquisition makes me less interested in VR, for the time being.

<comment><USER8> In the long run, gaming will probably be a small but awesome percentage of the total VR industry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> Hey, with the Facebook acquisition it's even more sci-fi than ever. What's more cyberpunk than amazing virtual reality technology that's owned and controlled by a corporation with more money than some countries, whose purpose is to gather information about every aspect of its users lives in order to sell them junk?

</comment><comment><USER57> We all bring our own perspectives and experience to our day to day lives and our perspectives, and so I make no bones here about the following being the fruits of my own perspective. Please keep that in mind as you read the following and judge its content.

I myself have recently undergone the acquisition of my company, a private company that was well regarded in the field it was operated, by a large multi- billion mult-national. When I read Carmack's comments I feel pulled in two different directions.

On the one hand, I am old enough to have grown up with Castle Wolfenstein and Doom being formative experiences in my life on the computer, and my life in general. I can still remember downloading to the first Quake shareware, playing the original Team Fortress, and installing Navy Seals Quake long before its creator had moved onto Counter-Strike. And so Carmack is like a hero to me, he really did make an impact on my life growing up.

On the other hand, I see in all of his comments the same sort of sentiment that I saw in all of the upper management and senior members of my firm. They all expressed the exact same sorts of sentiments, that the acquisition would allow our company to reach the next level, giving us greater capital to expand our reach. Of course, now that push has come to shove, actually getting some of that money to spend is proving to be a bit more difficult than they had initially imagined or been promised. It turns out that our parent company was perfectly happy to acquire us for the market position that we help and the money that we could bring in without a substantial capital infusion. I know that the immediate argument will be that facebook will be totally different and will no doubt fund oculus to their heart's content, but I guess it is my cynicism showing when I hear these pronouncements through the same filter I now apply to announcements from our own parent company.

Anyway, as I said, we all view our lives through our own filter, and maybe I am totally swayed in my views. But I can't help but seeing the same sort of naive optimism in Carmack that permeated our organization before it came down to dollars and cents, and cheques had to be signed. And maybe, just like some in our senior management, Carmack is now older and less idealistic, and reflects this is the same way that some in my firm did, in their ability to say one thing publicly, and know something else in their heart, as long as the zeroes added up properly. Something funny happens as you get older, I feel it happening in myself, maybe you just don't feel as ready to go out on your shield. But I got the feeling from at least a few people in our acquisition that they knew how things would go, and were happy to say differently because it would work out better for them.

I don't know where John's head is, and so I can't charitably assume negative things, but then again I don't think assuming the best is any more honest or charitable, especially where facebook is concerned. I hope for the future of VR, but when I read the hopelessly positive and/or naive visions of this acquisition I can't help but asking myself "What do they know that I don't?" How can these people be that optimistic, unless they aren't actually that positive. We'll see how it goes, but I don't begrudge anyone feeling pessimistic at this point, especially given the history of tech acquisitions. We'll see how it goes, but in my heart of hearts, I hope for another Oculus and another Palmer, maybe slightly less focused on the bottom line, bringing the promise of VR to us all.

<comment><USER58> I agree with your analysis.

In my opinion, everything that facebook says is true, today, but could be different tomorrow.

Like a marriage, when you are young and life is good is very different from when you get older, and life gets tough.

Today facebook is incredible rich because they convinced millions of people to buy shares of the company. They promised a good return from their investment.

Being rich they could buy Whassapp, Instagram and respect them like in when you are in love everything is seen with rose colored glasses.

Now, when investors get nervous because facebook profit does not grow enough, their market sinks, the Federal Reserve stops pumping the stock market, or the good people inside starts cashing out their money and leaving.... then suddenly life becomes different.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> The vision of Free Software & Hardware is now more relevant than ever.

</comment><comment><USER60> On the one hand, I don't see how Oculus could have survived competing in the consumer market against the likes of Sony and (eventually) Microsoft without large-scale financial backing. On the other hand, Facebook is not a consumer product company, and Oculus has never successfully brought a tangible consumer product to market. I'm not convinced at this point that money is enough to make them successful, but it'll be interesting.

</comment><comment><USER61> Pay back all kickstarter contributions. Let carmack build a rocket and admit beeing puny sellouts. Facebook has a record of running a php app and bad policy making. If this isn't about money then it's about carmack thinking Zuckerberg has a sweet ass. Orrrr Facebook was the only place that allowed carmack to open source all things.. Dream on.

</comment><comment><USER62> My only gripe with the sale to Facebook is that it was originally funded by contributions on Kickstarter, and those "funders" will get nothing in return. I just don't see gamers and developers supporting Facebook as much as they supported Oculus... which makes it seem like they did something sleazy by selling to FB.

<comment><USER63> I backed them on kickstarter and got my dev kit as a result. I'm really unhappy about FB being the first to bring VR to the masses, but it doesn't have anything to do with kickstarter.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> There's a right reason to be upset about something one does not control?

The buyout is not good or bad, it just is. Don't get upset people, you couldn't prevent it before and you cannot undo it now.

<comment><USER65> This is not entirely true. In a market like ours we often can vote with our wallet. There is not an obvious product here that we can or can't buy or use but I would not say that we are powerless.

<comment><USER64> Key word was "upset".

Vote with your wallet, that's fine. My point is that it's stupid to place your emotional state on something you do not control.</comment></comment></comment>


A $100M Crypto Fund Opens with the Promise of Going Long - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-06-06/a-100-million-crypto-fund-opens-with-the-promise-of-going-long <comment><USER2> The irony is crypto it really depends on a private entity or government to provide consistent electricity and internet. Gold is still good in the apocalypse, maybe not as much as seeds and tools, but your crypto wont be accessible. Invest $100M in pumpkin seeds! :D</comment>


Is Behavioral Economics the Past or the Future? - <AUTHOR> http://orderstatistic.wordpress.com/2014/02/28/is-behavioral-economics-the-past-or-the-future/

<comment><USER2> I teach a Behavioural Economics (BE) module of an Economics Bachelors degree. BE is not awfully radical: it tends to build on and refine standard theory. If BE is 'the past' I suspect it's only because its key parts have been absorbed into the mainstream — leaving us without a sub-discipline, but with a general Economics that's rather more Behavioural than before.

</comment><comment><USER3> Economist here. Not quite sure what he's talking about as there are a ton of Behavioral Economists around and growing. Since he is a Macroeconomist I imagine he is expressing "surprise" that there aren't really any Macroeconomists that are Behavioral Economists. This isn't so surprising when you realize that the insights from Behavioral Economics undermine the basic approach to Macro since the seventies. The reason there aren't any behavioral Macroeconomists is that the old guard won't let them in, because it would involve throwing all their ideas where they belong, the trash. This sort of delusional thinking is what you would expect from someone who believes you can take one highly unrealistic model of an individual, multiply it by a million and call that the "microfoundations" of an economy.

<comment><USER4> Here here. If anything, behavioral economics is becoming more legitimized with the advent of neuroeconomics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The problem with BE in the Kuhnian sense is that it's still pre-paradigmatic. BE is great at lobbing bombs at rationalist economics and pointing out all the flaws but it's yet to offer a compelling, coherent framework for which positive results can be derived.

Kuhn states in the Structure of Scientific Revolutions that paradigm shifts do not occur simply when people are aware of how broken the old system, so no amount of poking holes will cause the BE revolution. Instead, BE needs to offer an alternative paradigm which useful work can be done.

</comment><comment><USER6> I think a rigorously executed BE has merits. There needs to be a mindset shift that repeating experiments is not "lame" but rather important though (also true for psychology) and the experiments need to be set up better by and large.

The "pop-BE" books are also nicely written and fun to read (Ariely etc.) which helps the discipline from a Fleckian science theory point of view in my opinion.

Reading through some of the famous papers and most of the pop books also gave me some inspiration for A/B-tests to run and made me more aware of interesting ethical issues. The "default" label option mentioned in the post is a good example of that. Before reading up on BE I somewhat naively assumed that websites aren't optimized for things like that :)

However for the most part I agree that the most interesting ideas will be absorbed into the mainstream. For some reason the mainstream in economics is rather misunderstood by non economists. I had a pretty twisted view of what it was before I started sampling some up to date papers and getting a better idea (I'm not an economist)

</comment><comment><USER7> I think this recent thread is very relevant for any posting about Economics research: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8543865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8543865). TLDR: Overall, the credibility of the economics research literature is likely to be modest or even low.

i would think we will save huge amounts of money and world pain, by not funding this pseudo science similar to homoeopathy.

btw, Kahneman who did the foundational research in what economists hijacked as behavioral economics is not even remotely an economist.

<comment><USER7> edit: "not even remotely an economist" I mean as a compliment, I read his Prospect Theory papers and hold him in high regard. He is a great scientist and psychologist, who did not ever study what is called economic theory- so not an economist.

<comment><USER8> He won the Nobel Prize in Economics

<comment><USER7> Again just to clarify, if you read Kahneman's own words he says he is not an economist but a psychologist.

The Nobel "Memorial" prize by the bank of Sweden was awarded to him. Its what he calls himself that I am talking about, not what some Bank in Sweden is calling him.

Btw, says something about Economics as a field that it chose to name its top most award in way it will be confused with the true prizes set up by Nobel himself. Not the case, for example, with Math or others.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Cycle from 'Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance' Comes to Smithsonian - <AUTHOR> https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/cycle-zen-art-and-motorcycle-maintenance-comes-smithsonian-180973836/ <comment><USER2> I first read this book in the early 80's as a teenager - it was handed to me by a slightly older guru pal, who had indeed been retooling his Norton for a trip around the country, and with whom I had been hacking on the computers we found we both had purchased.

He gave it to me in response to one rambanctious outburst or other I'd had, over the subject of different cultures around different systems we were both hacking on. I'd said something like "man I hate those mainframe guys" or something. I'll never forget him looking at me, sagely, across the desk and saying "man, I've got a book you should read".

I guess he'd sensed some formative intolerance budding in my teenage mind, and intended to head it off.

Well, this book definitely set me on a path of peace and tranquility, and most of all, confidence in my own competence in the face of adversity, purely for the sake of adventure. I devoured the book in a weekend, and he and I became better friends and hackers for the fact that he dared to suggest I might ought to improve myself, just a little, through a bit of reading..

I've since seen this book recommended in many similar contexts over the decades. I believe its one of those books which, if you care enough about it, will give you a few tools for humility and confidence.

</comment><comment><USER3> This book seems to be like an acid trip. Some portion of people come back from it saying it changed their life by teaching them something vital, which is hard to explain. Another group says it was kind of a flowery muddle.

I'm in the muddle camp but have read a lot of these threads. Like an acid trip, I definitely don't think the book has any true, applicable insight to take from it.

<comment><USER4> Different experiences affect different people differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I took a copy with me to USAF Basic Training in 1975, where of course, I couldn't read it. Found it in the Lackland library. Kept me sane during those weeks. It still shapes my thinking today. My first bike was a 305 Scrambler, the off road version of Persig's Honda.

</comment><comment><USER6> The book "Zen and Now" by Mark Richardson retraces Pirsig's route:

[http://www.zenandnow.org/](http://www.zenandnow.org/)

Many people took Pirsig's quip in the forward about the book not being factual about motorcycles too literally:

"What follows is based on actual occurrences. Although much has been changed for rhetorical purposes, it must be regarded in its essence as fact. However, it should in no way be associated with that great body of factual information relating to orthodox Zen Buddhist practice. It's not very factual on motorcycles, either."

</comment><comment><USER7> For some reason I assumed the bike in the book was some sort of older Harley. Never figured the Honda CB77 would be suitable for 2up travel for such a long trip. I also had no idea Pirsig actually took that trip. This makes ZAMM so much more impressive.

<comment><USER8> I read it for a philosophy class in college. I still remember the moment of genuine shock when, partly though the book, I closed it and noticed "Non- Fiction" written on the spine!

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Wow, cool coincidence. I'm reading ZAMM right now. Inspired me to write a blog post about fixing my camp stove while living on the road. [https://blog.highvoltageclouds.com/index.php/2019/11/24/vans...](https://blog.highvoltageclouds.com/index.php/2019/11/24/vans- and-the-art-of-camp-stove-maintenance/)

</comment><comment><USER10> My most appreciated lasting contribution from ZAMM is the term "gumption trap". Not a month goes by without at least thinking it if not uttered aloud.

I didn't read it until my 20s after moving in with a GF and finding a paperback copy in her bookshelf having a well-worn spine. I've since decided any woman with a well-worn copy of ZAMM in her bookshelf is probably a keeper.

</comment><comment><USER11> I read that book when I was 20. Is it worth rereading in middle age? Would I get more out of it this go round or not really?

<comment><USER12> I recently re read it in middle age. I was less confused second time round. Having more experience with philosophy makes me more confident in my opinion that large chunks of it are nonsense. It does have some good bits though. Knowing people with mental health issues those parts certainty resonated more.

<comment><USER13> If you don't mind me asking, which parts feel like nonsense? I hear this from people trained in philosophy every so often, but haven't really seen anyone lay it out yet. They often just kinda say what you said.

<comment><USER12> Ok it wasn't recent enough that I remember clearly! But looking at litcharts notes I think it was this part:

Torn between whether Quality is a subjective or objective phenomenon, Phaedrus eventually comes to the epiphany that it is in fact neither. Quality precedes subjectivity and objectivity—in fact, it is what allows for the separation of the world into subjective and objective realms in the first place.

Perhaps I'm being a bit harsh in calling this nonsense but I am quite harsh on philosophy in general (though I do have time for some of it). Maybe this epiphany is true for all I know but the text didn't seem to communicate why he thought so. I remember having many objections the text didn't answer, and being frustrated at lack of properly defined terms, even making allowance for his claim that quality is undefinable.

If anyone can justify the claim quoted above I'd be interested to hear it?

<comment><USER13> I've been drinking tonight, so I apologize if I fail, but I'm going to do my best.

Is quality purely subjective? Everyone has their own version? No. There are levels of quality that we can all agree on, even if we don't always understand why. Art. Writing. Photography. You know quality when you see it, but it defies a true definition. First instinct says it's subjective, but universally pleasing forms and displays say otherwise.

They suggest there is such a thing as objective beauty (quality). Faces that are perfectly symmetrical are objectively more appealing. They are quality. They invoke a feeling of being drawn in. Accepting. Gravity.

Conversely, there are things that are objectively off-putting. Everyone hates them. They (almost) universally disgust us. Push us away. Anti-gravity.

Plenty of people will argue I'm wrong and anything Landing in either category is still subjective. There are people who enjoy having human feces in their mouth. Seems like that might be right.

Pirsig's point is that the quality judgement, the thing that makes it possible for a thing to like or dislike (going all the way to electrons, neutrons, and protons "liking" and "disliking" each other) another thing it's engaged with is what makes it possible for the thing to begin to define subjects and objects, period.

What differentiates a subject from an object, if not some deep notion of "I like this, give me more of this" and "this hurts me, get it away". That's what he calls quality, and what he posits is at the basis of all that matters.

—-alright. I've had 3 Pliny's tonight and I tried. If this is all nonsense, I'm eager to hear why so I can learn a thing or two and know more than I do now—-

<comment><USER12> Firstly, well done because (if others accept your take) you've just explained the crux of ZAMM to me better than the book did. I never got that last line of yours from the book. Have another beer :)

I still don't think it's right, though. Firstly we have a problem with defining subjective/objective. For example a decent hammer is a high quality tool for hammering in nails, but a low quality tool for screwing in screws. Does that make the quality of a hammer subjective (depending on the context in which it is used) or objective (independent of human perception provided we can accept an objective goal of joining two pieces of wood) or subjective again (because it takes a human to decide on that goal)? I find it near meaningless to begin this debate without agreeing on terms.

Second, going all the way down to electrons, protons etc - this liking and disliking seems to be confusing different types of process altogether: computing/selecting from possible alternatives vs simple electromagnetism. That's not to deny that our brains might be powered by simple electromagnetism under the hood. But if you define "liking" for an electron as "moving towards a positive charge (momentum and other forces/quantum effects permitting)" and "disliking" as "moving towards a negative charge (similarly qualified)" then the electron will _never_ experience the sensation of "dislike", while we as humans often do, so the parallel seems inappropriate.

As to whether quality is objective/subjective what's wrong with the explanation that individual tastes vary but there is usually some correlation between them due to the evolutionary forces that shape both us and our memes?

As to whether like/dislike defines subject/object what do you make of the person who dislikes their own body and would rather inhabit a different one?

As to whether quality is essential for definition of subject/object: I'm not convinced it is at all. Sure "quality" might break a crude model of subjectivity/objectivity (which can then be refined as above) but just because something broke our model doesn't make that thing essential to defining the model. I can break some form of logic (propositional? first order? I forget) by asking you to evaluate the truth of "this statement is false" but that didn't mean we needed that statement to define the logic in the first place.

And as to whether quality is undefinable: just because we repeatedly fail to define it doesn't mean it can't be.

Not wanting to be argumentative btw. I'm genuinely interested to get to the bottom of this if you have further thoughts.

<comment><USER13> No offense taken at all. You may not have gotten it, because it probably isn't explained fully (or even realized fully by him) until his second book, which I like much more. Whereas ZMM is an inquiry into values, Lila is an inquiry into morals, and is where he lays out his metaphysics of quality. Plenty of people think it's garbage, but I've yet to see someone take it apart, which is why I asked the original question of you.

You used the phrase, evolutionary forces in your explanation. To him, that's quality.

The force that compelled the amoeba to move towards nutrients and away from danger is quality.

In Lila, written for something like 15 years after ZMM was published, he posits that quality can be broken into 2 essential forms: Dynamic quality and static quality. They basically correlate to liberalism and conservatism. In his mind, both are essential for evolutionary progress and are the source of all that is.

Dynamic quality is often random, unconventional, and disruptive. It's some wild mutation that ends up being a positive, or some rogue actor who ends up birthing a movement for good. It is essential to progress beyond what is currently.

Static quality is all that is good currently. It's the breadth of learned knowledge. It's the safety of what's gotten us this far. Abandoning it entirely is a recipe for chaos and potentially great loss.

In his estimation, the combination of these 2 forms of quality is what makes evolution work, and he believes humans are not the highest expression of evolution.

He outlines levels of the world that are conquered in the name of progress and that each one supersedes the one before it.

The first level is non-living matter. It's just there, not doing much. The second is biological. It bends the non-living stuff to its will.

The next level is social. It uses the living stuff for its benefit. The good of the whole outweighs the good of the individuals. People are to the society like food is to people. They power it, create it, become it, and it carries on after they're gone.

He uses the example of New York, consuming human productivity for its own benefit. Feasting on humans to grow bigger and stronger, and shitting them out the other side.

The final level, as he sees it, is intellectual. Ideas supersede the societies. They bend them to their will. The idea that slaves should be free is strong enough to risk destruction of the society.

His ethics is based on these levels. At the biological level, sex is always quality. At the societal level, the wrong sex can threaten the community / society and becomes more nuanced, only quality sometimes. Society > biology. At the intellectual level, slavery is bad, even though it results in strong communities and cities and has many benefits.

My plane is taking off, so I finished that off poorly, but read Lila is that's at all intriguing. It's my favorite book.

<comment><USER12> (Aside: taking the split between static/dynamic as fundamental is at least as old as Hinduism and I do kinda like that perspective).

Ok, so what stands out to me is at each of those levels you can define an individual of sorts (proton, phenotype, society, meme) with goals (electromagnetic, genetic survival, ??, memetic survival). So I get what you mean that definition of goals (quality) goes hand in hand with definition of individual and therefore subject/object _in this restricted model of reality_.

But that's what this model seems to be to me, more of an ELI5 explanation than the grown up one. "the proton wants to move towards the electron, the rabbit wants to have babies, etc" is a simplified model that leverages our brain's skill at modelling motivations of other animals but falls prey to our tendency to see such motivation where it doesn't exist. Once you start testing this model by making predictions, it doesn't work because the levels work rather differently under the hood. Try using evolutionary principles at the social level to predict the growth of New York for example, and you are going to mispredict because New York isn't going to reproduce in any meaningful sense, it will either grow or die (there's a vague parallel to group selection controversies here but not that relevant). People (like the inhabitants of New York) and ideas (like ideas on how cities should be run), conversely, can be said to evolve due to mutation and reproduction and if you predict the growth of New York based on evolutionary influences from _those_ levels you are more likely to succeed (alternatively you could take some sort of network/complexity approach but whatever works it isn't going to be city level evolution * ).

But let's not get hung up on evolution, it's just an example of how the levels differ so much in their details that the only correct overarching definition of quality for each level would appear to be "the thing the thing is going to do anyway", a definition so general as to be useless * . From that light the good student essay was the thing Phaedrus wanted (the standard he was trying to achieve in his students) but if we want theories to make useful predictions we need to predict when this will and won't happen (e.g. because the alcohol molecule's notion of 'quality' interferes with the student's brain's efforts to reproduce Phaedrus' notion thereof) which is where the model breaks down. Or maybe this theory isn't supposed to help predict anything but is supposed to help grade essays? but "what I wanted to see" is not a useful definition of quality for the student either.

*edit: unless it's morphic resonance a la Rupert Sheldrake, a theory so general you can state it as "whatever happens becomes more likely to happen again". But while at first sight that notion is strongly related to quality as defined by Pirsig, I think that may be an illusion caused by them both being super-general abstractions. MR is subtly different and although not accepted by scientific consensus that difference at least allows it to make testable predictions.

Thank you for helping me think through this stuff more (as my edit history would show!)

<comment><USER13> He studied at a Hindu University, so that makes sense.

Yeah, there is a lot that you're saying that's a perfectly valid objection to my oversimplification, and maybe to his whole thing, but I'll be the first to admit that it's easy to take it apart the way I've relayed it. I put plenty of words in his mouth in my previous comment.

As mentioned, he spent 15 years writing the book because he wanted it to say it the right way.

There was a whole forum after it came out where a bunch of philosophy students would argue about his theories and what he meant and what that means and what falls into which category, and every once in a while he would pop in and say, "I see what you're thinking, but no, that's not what I meant at all, it's actually this."

I'd love to hear your thoughts on his own words though. You obviously know far more than I do about Philosophy.

Wikipedia of Metaphysics of Quality is probably a better cliff notes than me: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_Metaphysics_of_Qu...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pirsig%27s_Metaphysics_of_Quality)

<comment><USER12> You sell yourself short - I didn't see anything on the wiki page that enlightened me more than your summary did.

Maybe I should track down that forum, but I suspect the experience would be akin to more than one experience I've had chatting with philosophers (one of which I am not, though I guess I've been exposed to a bit through one channel or another) where I try to draw something useful out of the discussion only to be told this isn't what it's about. "It's brave of you to try and summarize" were the words of one colleague giving a seminar at the time! Maybe I just don't get it, or maybe it's they who don't get it, but it seems beyond me to figure out which. Maybe this is where I get a bit middle aged and intolerant and decide that further effort on that part isn't a good use of my time, and if a philosophy isn't useful for something (including the valid use of just being an aesthetically pleasing thing to consider) then I don't have a lot of time for it. In terms of aesthetics you have helped me to see some more in ZAMM than before, though.

On my first reading of ZAMM the real epiphany moment was where he described the workings of a motorcycle then said "... one thing classical types won't notice about this is that it's really, really, boring" or words to that effect. True. I identify strongly with the classical worldview but also with all the "groovy" phenomena on the other side of the divide which I think are perfectly explainable classically it's just that most people fail to do so.

If you haven't come across Sheldrake before you may enjoy The New Science of Life. I may not endorse his conclusions but can heartily recommend his exploration of ideas.

<comment><USER13> I would agree that I haven't found Pirsig's work to be the most life changing. It's much more life affirming, and 'hey, that's what I've been thinking, but not quite putting my finger on!'

The same could be said for my recent dive into David Foster Wallace. Absolutely loving reading his writing, but more affirmation of my own thoughts than expansion. I also realize this is probably because I'm reading both decades after publication, which means time has caught up to their ahead of the curve ideas.

The most I've gotten out of a book, in terms of altering the way I think about the world and life, is Simone De Beauvoir and the Ethics of Ambiguity. Man, I love me some Simone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> ITT: people who read the first chapter of the book commenting on how it s about motorcycle repair vs people who read the whole book telling them that it's not.

(It took me three tries to get past the first tangental monologue chapter, and I was deeply rewarded by doing so. It's a great book but not what you may expect based on the title or first chapters)

<comment><USER15> And then there are people like me who read it but watched about 75% of the content whoosh over our heads.

If someone offered me one million dollars to clearly explain the book to them right now, I wouldn't be able to do it.

<comment><USER16> I'm the same way, I read it and my impression was "it's about quality or something". Maybe I should read it again.

<comment><USER15> Hah, exactly what I told a friend who asked about it when he saw it in my living room when I was reading it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I know we don't love reddit here, but it's the first online source I could find for Edward Abbey's hilarious review of ZAMM:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/CalamariRaceTeam/comments/5bij42/ze...](https://www.reddit.com/r/CalamariRaceTeam/comments/5bij42/zen_and_the_art_of_motorcycle_maintenance_a_review/)

Yeah, I know, allegedly written by "Dave Harleyson". Count me among the skeptical.

<comment><USER18> Why do we dislike Reddit?

<comment> drunken-serval Because Reddit doesn't follow Hacker News guidelines: [https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

I think this one is the biggest difference:

"Be kind. Don't be snarky. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >industrialization can be off-putting to those who would pursue a life of aesthetic and artistic beauty. He advocates for balance, suggesting that one can both explore the metaphysical qualities of life and stay connected to the more grounded functions of the machines we build. The book explores the concept of "quality" as a measure of a good life.

AFAIK most people are just after money, instant gratification and egoism(1).

1 - [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happiness_economics) Most research on happiness suggests it's linked to socioeconomic status relative to your peers, not absolute socioeconomic status.

</comment><comment><USER20> This was a book that changed how I view the world on a fundamental level.

<comment><USER21> I guess those of us who didn't feel a need to finish the book already had a correct worldview?

<comment><USER20> I don't know what it is to have a correct world view. My view is that best way to think about world view is to accept that the world is complex and we can't understand it for what it really is. Only as simplified models.

The fact that you are asking the question could be interpreted as the opposite. I guess.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Sometimes I wonder... should all the AI builders of today read this book?

<comment><USER23> ZAMM makes more sense for the people on the "right to repair" train.

<comment><USER24> ZAMM has little to do with fixing motorcycles so I'm not sure it would be that relevant.

<comment><USER7> And yet it has some incredibly helpful bits on actual motorcycle repair (and putting together grills :)).

<comment><USER24> In the same way Star Wars has incredible bits about light saber battling.

<comment><USER7> Not at all. The bit about how when you strip a bolt it becomes your whole project and how you then need to pause and think through all the options before you before proceeding I am sure saved countless hours and dollars to a lot of people. The bit about really understanding how the thing works before attempting to repair it is great. And the part about the grill assembly manual makes a lot of sense and is very real world applicable. It's true that this book won't teach you how to rebuild a carburetor or adjust valve clearances, but it will give you a good outlook on performing those tasks.

<comment><USER24> > The bit about how when you strip a bolt it becomes your whole project and > how you then need to pause and think through all the options before you > before proceeding I am sure saved countless hours and dollars to a lot of > people.

The bolt here is just used as an analogy for how to address problems in life, balance importance you give to micro vs macro, the beauty and danger that scales up and down in anything, etc.

Sure, it's a smart one, actually useful if taken literally as well, because the writer is very talented.

> The bit about really understanding how the thing works before attempting to > repair it is great.

Again, another analogy. The whole book is teaching you how to think. And then go beyond thinking, as an art of living.

Every page is a personal, human lesson. You can stop at the mechanical aspect of it, but it is missing why this is a fantastic writing. It's giving profound advises using a simple, down to earth, vocabulary.

I could have done so with any other gimmick. Just like star wars could have replaced light sabers with something else. It just became an iconic symbol because it's so obviously recognizable and easy to grab.

But of course, they are also good because they chose such an symbology to make it easy to refer to.

You know where you were in class, and the teachers analyzed a book and you though in your head, BS! ZAMM is an exception to that. It is, really, a conscious and deep work of teaching that goes several levels down.

<comment><USER7> Yes they are all analogies and metaphors, I don't dispute that. My point is that even so they are very applicable to the kind of problem solving you might do when actually maintaining a motorcycle. It didn't teach me to fix stuck bolts, I learned that later. But everything I do with any kind of construction or maintenance is in fact influenced by the philosophy of this book. By contrast, I rarely think of Star Wars or Dune or Of Mice and Men when problem solving, especially problem solving that involves tools.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Kind of an interesting thing to exhibit when the book never actually mentions the type of motorcycle he is riding.

<comment><USER26> If the book was inspired by/based on an actual trip, then it doesn't need to be mentioned in the book, one can just check what motorcyle was used in the trip, no?

<comment><USER27> A picture of Persig, his son, and the motorcycle on the trip:

[http://venturearete.org/ResearchProjects/ProfessorGurr/galle...](http://venturearete.org/ResearchProjects/ProfessorGurr/gallery/albums/Pictures- Robert-Pirsigs-original-1968-trip/aam.sized.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The follow up Lila goes deeper. If you loved Zen you should give it a shot.

</comment><comment><USER29> I read it just a few weeks ago because of a recommendation.

I was surprised to read that this book became/was a bestseller in the category philosophy. I think its an interesting book, but its hard to read and i'm still curious why it resonated with so many people? Or what specifically.

One thing he mentions in the book has bee then electroshock therapy which was not as sever as he described it. He did not forgot his old him.

I also had the feeling to follow his illness with the obsession about quality. But more in a way you follow a schizophrenic. It becomes very unclear to me if he was a genius or became crazy. I had a friend with schizophrenia, he was 60% smart and knew his facts and then 40% have been just crazy like he believes in a stargate and has connections to the chines government. The problem with this person was very simple: i stoppend trusting him even if he was right to some extend.

I had the same feeling with this book. There is a high chance that his career downfall happend because he was in an illusion ale state. Especially at the end when he describes teaching in one university and taking the lecture in the other. That fued was probably very one sided and he imagined it. The others probably just saw some crazy dude.

There have been thinks which resonated with me, like this logically cutting of things. The balance between western and eastern (or was it asian?) philosophy.

I also really disliked how he handled his son. He did not sound like a good father.

Im very unsure what i took from this book.

<comment><USER30> For what it's worth, you're not the only one with that reaction. I got onto the book after it was recommended to me as a good way to get an introduction to philosophy.

Not only was it not, but the philosophical content it did have didn't seem particularly interesting — the long deliberations on quality felt like inconsequential hair-splitting that was unlikely to any revelations of value. Afterwards, I read the Wikipedia analysis on its philosophical themes [1] and felt that it's far too charitable in attributing significant insights to Pirsig compared to the literal contents of the book.

My guess is that the novel structure of weaving together a motorcycle trip with inner monologue and personal history combined with a dash of intellectualism was very compelling to a lot of people, and that's why it's taken such an outsized position in popular literature.

(I'd love to be proven wrong on this though, so by all means tell me what I missed.)

\---

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zen_and_the_Art_of_Motorcycle_Maintenance#Philosophical_content)

<comment><USER31> Having _both_ read the book _and_ been on a fair bit of a philosophy kick,[1] criticising a philosophy text for hair-splitting is a bit like criticising water for being wet.

Hair-splitting is what ... well, if not quite _all_ of it, to bifurcate yet another follicle ... _much_ philosophy is about. Not necessarily of the proverbial angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin variety, but damned close.

It's where the, erm, quality is.

(You'll know it when you see it.)

I've had my own issues with ZAMM, having more to do with some of the thinking striking me as excessively fuzzy. I suspect much of the appeal isn't so much as an authority as a bridge -- connecting people with backgrounds in the mechanical (motocycles), and possibly in computers (Pirsig's own field, other than philosophy), to philosophy proper.

And it's got some good bits and observations.

________________________________

Notes:

1\. In particular, Peter Adamson's excellent "History of Philsophy Without Any Gaps": [https://historyofphilosophy.net](https://historyofphilosophy.net)

Though also other (and direct) sources.

<comment><USER32> +1 on the "Fuzzy thinking" bit

I'd caution reading philosophy as all about hair splitting. Hairs are split because language is the tool and precision is necessary, but splitting hairs is not what it's _about_.

What is it about? That depends on the philosopher. The heavy hitters (Plato, Nietzsche, Kant) often try to answer the oracle's command to "know thyself," whim ranging over multiple branches of philosophy, while others focus on anything from language to ethics to aesthetics. (And Nietzsche, for example, does not spend time splitting many hairs at all)

<comment><USER31> Yes, _about_ hair splitting was a poor word choice, though hair-splitting remains a very frequent activity _in_ philosophy. Fine gradations in distinction and meaning using the blunt tool of language is difficult.

I've been digging into the "what is philosophy about" question on several fronts.

The Stanford Online Encyclopedia of Philosophy ([https://plato.stanford.edu](https://plato.stanford.edu)) has a pretty good outline, as does the Basics of Philosophy ( [https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html](https://www.philosophybasics.com/branch.html))

I've also been partial to digging through various library classifications and subject headings (LCC / LCSH), particularly CLASS B / Subclass BC, generally metaphysics, epistemology, ontology, cosmology, ethics, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, logic.

Another view is that philosophy consists (as a residual) of disciplines which have resisted formalisation under either mathematics (which has laid claim to much of logic), cosmology (now mostly natural sciences), moral philosophy (largely social sciences), and philosophy of mind (now largely a sub- discipline of psychology). What still survives today as philosophy is mostly the "messy bits".

And a tremendous amount of religion-adjacent concepts.

That's not knocking philosophy, which I'm finding quite useful, but it's a reality of the field.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Cycle though?

<comment><USER34> I too thought this an original application of the term but Merriam Webster and Wikipedia both list it, although neither cites reference material.

The only examples I could find in the wild were parts of legal definitions (chiefly "motor-driven cycles") and entity names ("Cycle World Magazine", "Pete's Cycles", etc). There are also a few instances of "cycle racing" refering to the human-powered version, yet I get the feeling this is a use that's most popular with journalists who are not familiar with the culture or lingo of bicycle enthusiasts. The use of noun-cycle does not seem more prevalent in other locales like GB (motor bike or moto being more prevalent across the pond).

In short I would conclude that cycle as a noun has a couple very narrow use cases in modern English, and the Smithsonian needs better editing.

<comment><USER35> According to wikiquote ([https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig](https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Robert_M._Pirsig)), the book itself uses the word "cycle" in this sense.

For example:

> _The Buddha, the Godhead, resides quite as comfortably in the circuits of a > digital computer or the gears of a cycle transmission as he does at the top > of a mountain or in the petals of a flower._

Given that, it seems like a justifiable editing choice, even though it may be a little obscure.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Zen and the Art of CSS Design is a good book.

<comment><USER36> got the title wrong. whoops. i meant this one: [https://www.amazon.com/Zen- CSS-Design-Visual-Enlightenment/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Zen-CSS-Design- Visual-Enlightenment/dp/0321303474)

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Why is this book mentioned so often here? I know nothing about it but my first thought is that motorcycles and the people who love them have zero appeal to tech / startup people.

<comment><USER38> There may not be much overlap with the tech-bro/silicon valley (the TV show) folks, but there is a huge amount of overlap when it comes to "hackers" (in the sense that "Hacker News" uses the term).

It's also a lot less about actual motorcycles than the title would imply.

<comment><USER19> Another title could be something like: "...and the art (quality and values) of human experience with technology"</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: If "it's not about the idea", why is there a stealth YC music startup? - <AUTHOR>

If it's all about execution and not the idea, why does YC have stealth-mode startups, like this music startup that's hiring?<p>http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2043422 <comment><USER2> Announcing that you've been backed by YC (or any investors) can be enough of a news story to generate some good press, which is most useful if you can control the timing to coincide with other interesting things that you've done (like big feature deployments, major partnership, traction announcement) or want to do (like raise money or get the PR ball rolling).

By naming themselves now, they'd be throwing away future exposure without receiving any immediate benefit.

I don't know what phase the mystery startup is at, but while you're very early stage it's also often desirable to enter investors' radar with a bang when you're ready to raise money, and not before, since novelty & freshness can help offset the lack of evidence young companies are defined by.

<comment><USER3> This is a good point, but the OP brings up a valid question that can be applied to businesses in general. The smallest companies stand to lose the most for exposing their idea, yet companies from 37Signals to Apple are very secretive about what they're making next. Why is that?

Your point applies to the small guys who haven't launched yet, but it's not applicable for established companies. Sure, the big guys are on everyone's radar and others _will_ copy them if they release their idea, but they're big guys for a reason. They've built a brand that some copycat doesn't have. In addition to that, they stand to benefit the most from exposing their idea because they already have an established customer base from which to gather feedback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Agreed, it's more about handling the press/investors, less about exposure to the actual idea.

</comment><comment><USER5> The "it's not about the idea" idea refers to people with no technical background who think they can get rich simply by having an idea, like say, "a site where people can upload and watch videos".</comment>


A Simple Decompiler (1988) - <AUTHOR> http://www.drdobbs.com/cpp/a-simple-decompiler/184407957 <comment> s-macke This looks like a normal postfix to infix notation converter. It transforms "abc++" to "a+b+c". You can call it a decompiler for a very simple stack machine. But it neither accounts for branches nor loops.

<comment><USER2> It appears it supports branching, however the author implemented a spreadsheet so he didn't use them. Trying to find the original article only came up with this:

[http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spe.4380070502/fu...](http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/spe.4380070502/full)</comment></comment>