Kickstarter Is Totally Disrupting Consumer Electronics, Probably By Mistake - <AUTHOR> http://amandapeyton.com/blog/2012/04/kickstarter-totally-disrupted-consumer-electronics-probably-by-mistake/

<comment><USER2> Seems like Kickstarter is also disrupting the game development process, allowing game studios to produce games without being beholden to publishers.

Examples:

* Double Fine Adventure - [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adv...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/66710809/double-fine-adventure)

* The Banner Saga - <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/stoic/the-banner-saga>

* Wasteland 2 - <http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/inxile/wasteland-2>

* Shadowrun Returns - [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-ret...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1613260297/shadowrun-returns)

Even smaller games are getting funding this way:

* Valdis Story - [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/460275866/valdis-story-a...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/460275866/valdis-story-abyssal-city)

* Echoes of Eternia - [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1465600975/echoes-of-ete...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1465600975/echoes-of-eternia-a-modern-take-on-a-classic-desig)

<comment><USER3> Don't forget Leisure Suit Larry! (hope this one meets its fundraising goal)

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/leisuresuitlarry/make- le...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/leisuresuitlarry/make-leisure-suit- larry-come-again)

And not just electronic games, but pen and paper RPGs too:

[http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer- conqu...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/autarch/adventurer-conqueror- king)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For me it was surprising at first that Kickstarter even worked. It pulled out a better part of people that I really didn't hope that it exists on such a level. People are basically paying for stuff without the 100% guarantee that they'll get it, without previous reviews and opinions about those products, and while knowingly being the first batch of users which will collide head- first with all first bugs and issues.

And most importantly, people are doing this all with an open heart, actually being happy to encourage and assist innovation and creation of new products. I would say that kickstarter is one of the coolest and world-changing website (more than a website.. product, idea) of this decade.

Consumer electronics is just one of the areas KS is disrupting. Software and games are another one. But there are basically no limits! I wholeheartedly believe that once KS is popular enough if someone came with a project to send a video camera to the moon (on which you can buy video time to simply rotate it and look around) it would get funded right away.

<comment><USER5> I have the feeling that a significant number of the payers are not aware of the fact that there is a decent chance of the hypothetical product never seeing the daylight. If not, it will almost certainly be delayed.

When one or two of highly publicized projects fold, I expect a good amount of Kickstarter complaints.

<comment><USER6> I don't know... I funded a video game (No Time To Explain) whose frankly was garbage. I didn't think at the time that kickstarter was responsible. I made a bet, and I lose. I still put money on projects I find awesome. I am not everyone, but I have the feeling that consumers are more relaxed when they put money on a kickstarter project.

<comment><USER7> that is exactly right. kickstarter is not a store. there will be bad products and probably some outright fraud. it is a marketplace like ebay. backer beware.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wondered the other day if Kickstarter might be the next big Internet company (following Google, Facebook and Twitter). The business model has so much disruptive potential, and they've already overcome the chicken and egg problem. I wish it were possible to invest in them. :-)

<comment><USER9> That is highly unlikely. Kickstarter is essentially a marketplace for entrepreneurs. People don't go to Amazon or ebay in the same sense as Google or Facebook. Sure they have one hell of a business, but only a certain kind of person is attracted to it. Everyone uses Google (or some search engine) and Facebook's attraction is undeniable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I wonder if KickStarter and similar projects could disrupt YC and TechStars.

For example, I could see DropBox raising a sizable seed round on KickStarter if it was an option when they launched. (Free 250gb plan for a year with a donation of $50.)

<comment><USER11> Definitely! Why can't I buy $100 worth of stock in a startup along with 1000's of other people?

Some SEC rules or something?

EDIT: Then imagine how motivated those 1000's of others would be to promote a startup they owned a stake in.

<comment><USER12> Not sure if that's tongue in cheek or not...

But that was part of the recent JOBS act. You'll be able to do that soon for good or ill.

<comment><USER8> Given that law, I wonder if there's going to be a land grab to become the kickstarter of startups. Should be fun to watch.

<comment><USER13> If this becomes legal, wouldn't kickstarter instantly be the kickstarter of startups?

<comment><USER14> They've said they're not interested in doing it, which is kind of surprising.

<comment><USER15> There will be substantial regulatory issues to deal with, so it's not too surprising they don't want to drag themselves into that. Better to maintain their focus.

<comment><USER16> Well, that opens up the spot for a new startup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Where disrupting means tiny, tiny, tiny niche with a disproportionate amount of hype.

Games are another example eridius pointed out, showing 6 successful projects out of the 10000s of games that will be produced outside of Kickstarter this year! What's happening is in some cases awesome but it's not disruption.

<comment><USER18> The timeline is never:

       Day 1: Disruptive company is formed.
       Day 2: Disrupted industry in flames, disruptive company wins!

It's a cowpath today, but I think there's every reason to believe this one can and will be paved.

<comment><USER19> This Red Hat video (Truth Happens) is very appropriate: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RXDsRoc6MGo>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > _Consumer electronics are among the most well-funded projects on > Kickstarter, (...) which (...) means that consumer electronics as a market > has been ripe for disruption all along_

So true. Kickstarter is Wordpress for gadgets; anyone with an idea and some talent and experience can make something without first needing to get pre- approved by some self-appointed authority.

I think anywhere where someone says "you can't do that" is ripe for this kind of disruption. So what's next?

</comment><comment><USER21> Is there a place that lists the projects that ended up being a failure? I'm curious what the failure rate of Kickstarter is, and if fraud artists are attempting to rip people off via it. Also, if the failure rate starts increasing, would that jeopardize the entire business model, if people lose confidence that the projects will see the light of day?

<comment><USER22> Maybe the Diaspora project qualifies as a failure or, at least, as a disappointment.

<comment><USER23> I'm not following it, but doesn't it work as advertised? what's the disappointment then?

<comment><USER24> I guess the disappointment is that people don't use it much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> FWIW, I use Kickstarter solely as a way to fund art projects, a sort of modern art patronage system if you will.

I've never even considered that the consumer electronics projects are art in their own right.

<comment><USER26> Is only funding art intentional or haven't you seen anything in different categories that you wanted (and were willing to spend $X for)?

I've only funded a CD for my friends' band, but if I wasn't a student (aka, had disposable income), there are quite a few things in the consumer electronics space that I would have loved to pick up.

<comment><USER25> I guess I never really thought about it. I've never gone looking for things to fund -- I've only funded stuff my friends are doing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I diagree with the thesis.

An art project like the one mentioned is relatively small. CE projects, which want to ship millions of units is an entirely different affair, usually costing millions of dollars and large teams composed of many different specialities.

Even if you did raise $5 million USD you still need a design team and manufacturing. And there's no guarantee of success either. I just don't see Kickstarter helping much.

<comment><USER28> Perhaps we merely need to _modify_ the thesis: Kickstarter is the _user interface_ by which independent designers connect a thoroughly mature, ever- improving ecosystem of OEMs and prototyping shops to consumers, thereby potentially disrupting consumer electronics.

The real force here is small-batch manufacturing, which has been a long time in coming. Laser cutters, water-jet cutters, 3D printers, and - perhaps more importantly - the technology to enter a credit card number, press a button, and ship your CAD drawings around the world to a shop in some Chinese city where a team of machinists can whip up a thousand units for small amounts of money.

But the way this technology _manifests_ to US consumers is via Kickstarter campaigns.

And, sure, if you want to scale any of these Kickstarters up to millions of units you'll need a real manufacturing team and capital. But, as with software startups, it's easier to raise capital once you've found product/market fit. And here we have the other advantage of Kickstarter: It makes it easier than ever to find and energize a collection of early customers.

<comment><USER27> Don't think for a minute I'm satisfied with the status quo. I'd love it if all these rapid prototyping tools got cheap enough for mass production. But that's not how it is now or for the near term.

Actually, there is one area where rapid proto has helped, and that is with PCB manufacturing. It is relatively easy to get boards done quickly. The board outlines are done with CNC, and the holes are often laser drilled.

But your job is definitely not over when you email the design file, in many ways it is just beginning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Uh... crowdfunding sounds like the PERFECT model for consumer electronics!

It's a business that requires high startup capital, and where uncertainty comes with much greater costs than software. You're going to be making thousands of units of whatever it is you're making if you want it to be even remotely cost effective.

So, a method of funding where customers vote with their wallets before you face the biggest headache in consumer electronics--turning a design/prototype into something mass produced--sounds like a great fit.

</comment><comment><USER30> I'd like to see a graphical Dwarf Fortress funded through Kickstarter.

<comment><USER31> I don't know how it compares to the depth of Dwarf Fortress at the moment, but there is Towns:

        http://townsgame.com/

I've been watching a Let's Play of it on YouTube recently:

        http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL13C2217355664856&feature=plcp

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Funny; I only discovered that there are non-tech projects there quite recently. I found out about Kickstarter via HN, so most of the projects I saw were hardware and software ones, and guess what... I think it's what was needed.

There's lot of creativity to be unleashed in building new technology, tools and practical gadgets (as opposed to what typical commercial gadget is). And Kickstarter tech projects are definitely awesome-first, money-next type of projects - maybe because people involved are often building them for themselves? I hope to see more such projects, I will be happy to back them.

</comment><comment><USER33> The big consumer electronics companies should be really scared right now. Hardware startups are coming. Wouldn't be surprised if some hardware incubators start popping up too

<comment><USER34> There are several that exist already. Here is one in located in San Francisco.

<http://www.lemnoslabs.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> " Consumer electronics are among the most well-funded projects on Kickstarter despite the fact that it's dubious whether they should even be included in the scope of fundable projects. "

Why would it be dubious to have them be included as a fundable project? Am I missing something?

<comment><USER36> Kickstarter has a sort of vaguely worded scope that indicates they're interested in funding art and other "creative" projects, but not normal products. Some tech clearly falls into the creative/artsy category, but some of the tech projects on Kickstarter are veering closer towards "just" funding a consumer electronics product.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I would disagree with the post. Kickstarter doesnt change the field of consumer electronics at all. The products created would usually not have been made but for the pre-sale funding available.

I would also disagree that these items can even be considered consumer electronics, they are widgets at best and really destined for a large consumer market.

Kickstarter is a great platform but like the instagram sale recieves too much hype whenever something big goes up.

</comment><comment><USER38> Kickstarter ay have started as a growd funding plattform for art projects. But by doing that, they lay ground to a new way of funding, well, virtually everything. And since funding can be a major pain in the ass, Kickstarter has a opened up opportunities nobody would have ever dreamed of.

When they now get a banking license or an other type of SEC "enter random monetary regulating body" blessing, the finacial industry should worry! ;-O)

</comment><comment><USER39> Does anyone know how to do a consumer electronics startup? Can you contract out the design to someone knowledgeable? How do you find such a person? How do you get it manufactured?

Are there a lot of regulations to be aware of?

</comment><comment><USER40> Where do people selling consumer electronics on Kickstarter find manufacturers and supplies? (My first guess would have been Alibaba, but is that feasible for someone really starting from zero?)

</comment><comment><USER41> I think, instead, that this is teaching us something about the distinction between consumer electronics and other goods requiring some creative genesis.

</comment><comment><USER42> Is anyone else bothered by the use of the word "mistake"? It seems "unintentional" is a more descriptive term.</comment>


Detailed 3D map of Milky Way shows 'warped' shape - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/science/2019/aug/01/most-detailed-ever-3d-map-of-milky-way-shows-warped-shape-cepheid <comment><USER2> When I started grad school, one of the things my thesis adviser suggested I do was to spend a few hours looking at the Palomar Sky Survey plates (this was in 1980). I spent many pleasant hours doing that, and what was striking was how few perfectly symmetric spiral galaxies there are, in relative terms. You see beautiful symmetric galaxies pictured in your Astronomy text books, but in truth most spirals are warped, or show distortion from a nearby companion, or obviously are merging with another galaxy, etc. Most spiral galaxies are deformed.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've developed a fascination with astrophotography, one day hope to have a camera that can manage more than pinpoints/streaks/black noise, and while I always liked to go look at the stars on clear nights the technical aspects of it have reawakened the interest in space. Seeing the Milky Way across the sky at night with the naked eye is amazing and makes it hard to forget your smallness. You can get lost thinking stars are just pinpoints of light because they all generally look the same, but larger masses of them and seeing galaxies, clusters etc in binoculars etc just juices me up. Imaging that I can SEE Jupiter but the light is taking 45min to reach me is mind-blowing. Forget the larger distances to stars...it's inconceivable at times. Sometimes I have gotten vertigo seeing how our Solar system is tilted and imagining us swirling through the arm.

One thing that seems to have changed is visible satellites. Or maybe I am just missing them. I recall as a child watching the sky with my grandfather and you'd regularly see a "star" moving across the sky and he'd excitedly point it out as a satellite.

<comment><USER4> >one day hope to have a camera that can manage more than pinpoints/streaks/black noise

You can build an arduino-powered "barn-door tracker" for ~$40 that will significantly help with this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hqXqqTtWzU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5hqXqqTtWzU)

If you're hoping to hook up a DSLR to a telescope this won't help though, not big enough. Plus, this style of tracker only tracks through one axis, limiting exposure time to ~10seconds before stuff gets blurry & drift destroys the image... but that's still better than the ~2seconds or so that you get without it.

<comment><USER3> That's very cool thank you. I seem to recall an astronaut on the ISS making something kind of related with parts on hand...Don Pettit I think?

*Found it: [https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/2...](https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2003/24mar_noseprints/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The sky from the planets at the outer regions far from the plane must be astonishing.

<comment><USER6> For an astronomer that lives there, yes. For naked eye would be mostly black sky, just like ours on edges. That's why I love our place, it shows our galaxy beautifully stretching across.

<comment><USER5> Do we have software to easily simulate that?

<comment><USER7> Celestia[0][1] can just about do it. In principle, it can show you what you'd see from any point in space. In practice, it's limited by the data it has (for stars, it uses the Hipparcos Catalogue, which only contains ~ 100,000 stars of the ~ 250 billion that are in the Milky Way) and displays the Milky Way, outside our "immediate" neighbourhood (i.e. several hundred light years), as just a set of amorphous blobs. Hence you can visualise the Milky Way as seen from the edge of the galaxy, but it'll be rather blurry. (It also obviously doesn't include the newly discovered warped shape.)

Edit: For this purpose, I think that this "Chrome Experiment"[2], might be better.

Also see "Gaia Sky"[3] which I haven't tried, but which looks really interesting and may well do what you want.

[0] [https://celestia.space/](https://celestia.space/)

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

[2] [https://experiments.withgoogle.com/100000-stars](https://experiments.withgoogle.com/100000-stars)

[3] [http://sci.esa.int/gaia/60036-gaia-data-release-2-virtual- re...](http://sci.esa.int/gaia/60036-gaia-data-release-2-virtual-reality- resources/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > As with the previous work, the new study shows the Cepheids > disproportionately lie on one side of the warped galaxy, forming an arc- > shaped spread.

> The Polish team also found younger Cepheids lie nearer the centre of the > Milky Way, while older Cepheids are further out. A computer simulation > revealed there would need to have been star-forming events 64m, 113m and > 175m years ago to produce the distribution of Cepheids seen today.

I don't get why the Cepheids are bunched. Even with the modeling video. It shows them forming in bursts, yes. And with differential rotation, they bunch on one side. But still, it shows the formation bursts mainly on one side.

So why?

<comment><USER9> I'm not an astronomer. But I _think_ that stars in galaxies are supposed to orbit with approximately the same period, independent of distance from the center, due to dark matter distributions.

<comment><USER10> Almost - stars orbit with approximately the same velocity, not period.

<comment><USER11> You beat me to it while I was looking for references. =)

"The stars and gas in the Milky Way rotate about its center differentially, meaning that the rotation period varies with location. As is typical for spiral galaxies, the orbital speed of most stars in the Milky Way does not depend strongly on their distance from the center. Away from the central bulge or outer rim, the typical stellar orbital speed is between 210 ± 10 km/s (470,000 ± 22,000 mph). Hence the orbital period of the typical star is directly proportional only to the length of the path traveled."

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Galactic_rotation](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milky_Way#Galactic_rotation)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> How far from the galactic plane is our Solar System?

<comment><USER13> Something in the neighborhood of 20 parsecs, according to: [https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/822/how-far- is...](https://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/822/how-far-is-the-earth- sun-above-below-the-galactic-plane-and-is-it-heading-towar#8336)

<comment><USER14> However this is unusual for us. We spend most of our time farther from the plane, and just happen to be passing through at the moment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Watching that video makes me wonder why so many Cepheids spawned in the sun's wake ~120 million years ago.

</comment><comment><USER16> Fascinator hat!?!?

<comment><USER17> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinator](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascinator)

<comment><USER8> I don't get why they say "fascinator". To me, it's like my favorite old floppy hat.

Edit: [https://m.media- amazon.com/images/I/61IdlF0D2eL._AC_UL320_.j...](https://m.media- amazon.com/images/I/61IdlF0D2eL._AC_UL320_.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Like when you see a pizza dough being spun...</comment>


Custom deep learning loss functions with Keras for R - <AUTHOR> https://towardsdatascience.com/custom-loss-functions-for-deep-learning-predicting-home-values-with-keras-for-r-532c9e098d1f <comment><USER2> Custom loss functions are under appreciated by a lot of people new to the field. Good to see a writeup on it, especially one with nice charts and an example on real data.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback. As someone just getting started in this area, I was having trouble finding clear examples. Using the R interface probably isn't the best way to get started with custom loss functions, because the error messages you get from nested python calls are usually not too descriptive.</comment></comment>


AMD officially announces Fusion APUs - <AUTHOR> http://www.geek.com/articles/chips/amd-fusion-apu-2011014/

<comment><USER2> More information (from 6 months ago):

[http://www.anandtech.com/show/3899/amd-reveals-first- fusion-...](http://www.anandtech.com/show/3899/amd-reveals-first-fusion-apu- tdps-9w-for-netbooks-18w-for-notebooks)

Interesting to note that the performance part has the same 18W TDP as the ULV core i3, but the intel part's cpu probably turns in twice the performance. AMD's GPU will perform better, but probably not better than the sandy bridge gpu.

<comment><USER3> On the other hand AMD's chips will be much, much cheaper to produce between using less transistors and working on an older process.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Would you be able to run an AMD(ATI) graphics card in hybrid crossfire with the APU's graphics core?

Looking at the general description, APUs are meant for low performance or mobile platforms (equivalent to the NVidia Ion).

<comment><USER5> Nvidia's Tegra is closer to what you're thinking. Tegra has cpu and gpu on one chip.

<comment><USER2> Tegra is ARM based, and with the low end part using 300%-400% more than the tegra 2 they are clearly for different devices.

Atom is more or less the comparable part. If you're wanting to compare to an atom based SOC that's Sodaville or the CE4100 which is the chip they switched to for the boxee box.</comment></comment></comment>


New York Times: Xobni launches public beta - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/05/technology/05xobni.html?ref=business

<comment><USER2> Congrats, guys.

Matt, classy getting this to the NYT. Definitely a step up from Techcrunch.

</comment><comment><USER3> Funny how the biggest startup (by far) of all YC-funded actually IS NOT a CRUD-powered website but a classic algorithmic software that solves your problem.

Congrats guys.

<comment><USER4> Loopt. The market for what they are doing is going to emerge suddenly in 3 years or so and they will be well positioned to conquer.

<comment><USER5> Have to say, I heard that 3 years ago. And 6 years ago... Mobile is going to be big!!!

<comment><USER4> It's already society-changing big, but it hasn't quite converged with the internet and when it does Loopt will be there.

<comment><USER5> Or, the next gen iPhone could just have gprs and expose that to javascript. In which case webapps could have all sorts of functionality included.

<comment><USER4> I hope the carriers eventually allow full IP access without extra extra charges, but I don't think they're ever going to give up the text messaging revenue stream. It's a tough problem, because they don't want to have to compete with VoIP providers on their own cellular networks.

And eventually we'll have the new network on the old TV frequencies that's open.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> that's just great. I don't make it into the picture, but bonforte's dog does. :<

<comment><AUTHOR> That is no ordinary dog. That is Zoe our CGCIO - Chief Garbage Can Inspecting Officer

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> YC companies consistently score impressive PR hits. Would love to know how this one came about.

<comment><USER8> I agree - would love to see how they scored a NYT article?! Impressive.

<comment><USER9> Wrong question. Maybe it's something to do with the billy G. demo ~ <http://www.google.com/search?q=xobni+bill+gates>

How did they get billy G. interested? Making something MS wants?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Congratulations, great to see the NYT coverage!

I'm surprised they didn't mention Xobni for Yahoo! Mail: "And Web e-mail services like Gmail and Hotmail are growing much more rapidly than the desktop-based Outlook, where Xobni is planting its flag, for now"

<comment><USER2> Gotta hold something back for the next press release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Congrats, guys. I had to uninstall you last night, though, because it did slow my Outlook to a crawl. I may not be the best test case, though, since I have gigs of archived messages.</comment>


Jay Leno Hosts NextEngine's 3D Scanner in his Garage - <AUTHOR> http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/video/video_player.shtml?vid=944641

<comment><USER2> This is pretty cool. About 6 years or so ago there was a company called Dimensional Photonics that pioneered some of this technology. I worked with them a little bit when they were running out cash, as I was looking to lease some office space at the time and introduced them to a potential VC in the area. In the end, I believe their IP ended up getting sold and the company itself folded. But it was cool to see how they could do a complex scan of something like a car door in about 1 minutes and have super-precise measurements.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> A surprisingly interesting site: <http://www.jaylenosgarage.com/garage/index.shtml></comment>


The Feynman Lectures on Physics (all 3 volumes) - <AUTHOR> http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu

<comment><USER2> Very nicely done. It relies on MathJax, which makes the equations look great. A joy to behold.

Not to be a spoilsport, but where's the PDF version? I know this isn't likely, given that they're offering a downloadable version for a fee, but it would be nice.</comment>


Show HN: FeedBaxley – Website feedback widget so you can learn from your users - <AUTHOR> https://feedbaxley.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We're launching our MVP today. Happy to hear any and all feedback!</comment>


Periscope by Twitter - <AUTHOR> https://itunes.apple.com/gb/app/id972909677 <comment><USER3> I really like Periscope. It's clean, fun, and there is a lot of potential, especially with their Twitter distribution. Tried it out this morning and it was really smooth.

Meerkat is great too, but clearly has an uphill battle for the next few months after the initial hype. They certainly have passionate initial fans though.

I'd be curious to see with Facebook's dedication to video, especially highlighted at F8, if they would consider swooping up Meerkat right now and offer distribution through their ecosystems. This might just be me, but I have Twitter streaming all day, while I check Facebook maybe 2-3 times sporadically, so it might be a bit tougher to capture attention. But who knows, it will be really fascinating to watch.

I'm assuming Grelock, their recent series B lead, would not be interested in selling so soon after their investment for anything less than 2x. Post- valuation was $52M, probably a few buyers out there at that price but who knows(Full details on their Series B: [http://i.imgur.com/9zOonad.png](http://i.imgur.com/9zOonad.png))

<comment><USER4> _> Meerkat is great too, but clearly has an uphill battle for the next few months after the initial hype._

I wonder about nuances of engagement on Periscope vs. Meerkat.

Periscope's saved video is touted as a feature, but I've noticed that _because_ Meerkat does _not_ give me this option, when I get a notification for a stream I want to watch, I _hustle_ to engage because it's live and I don't want to miss it.

I have not used Periscope yet and will be checking it out, but I can absolutely envision a scenario where I get a Pscope notification and ignore it because there really is no urgency as it will be there later. And then those streams end up like just another article in my "read-it-later" apps. Saved and then forgotten because I've moved on, and the promise of what could be in that stream just isn't compelling enough to chase it down later. Saved video is what we already have everywhere all of the time.

My guess is that Meerkat's inability to save the stream _could_ be the killer feature.

<comment><USER5> That's not a feature, that's a limitation that forces you to change your behaviour. It's forcing user engagement. And when I see a Meerkat feed I missed I'm just annoyed (especially as I expect it to be live when I tap the tweet) - I'm much happier being able to see a replay on periscope.

<comment><USER6> > That's not a feature, that's a limitation that forces you to change your > behaviour.

... Like, say, limiting tweets to 140 chars?

<comment><USER5> IIRC the original reason for that was because of the length of a text message, so it was a technical restriction more than anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like the message Twitter sends with the semi-walled garden. Maybe I'm completely wrong here, but this to me says "develop on our platform and if you come up with a good idea and we like what you do we'll just do it ourselves"

<comment><USER8> Not saying that's never true, but in this specific case there's just no way Twitter went from zero to release with this app since meerkat launched. A company the size of Twitter doesn't do weekend hackathons for important launches like this. Not that I know of, at least.

Add to that the obviousness of this app, and bayesian chances are pretty high they just came up with it concurrently but were later with the release.

EDIT: It also explains why Twitter went so draconian on Meerkat.

EDIT2: But I'd have to add: yeah, Twitter's behavior is chilling. The way they cracked down on Meerkat, and now just try to play this launch off as if nothing happened, it's disingenuous. Just come out and say it, Twitter: you used your technically justified power over Meerkat to gain competitive advantage.

EDIT3: A friend tells me they didn't develop this app, they just bought it. Makes even more sense.

<comment><USER9> > _Not saying that 's never true, but in this specific case there's just no > way Twitter went from zero to release with this app since meerkat launched. > A company the size of Twitter doesn't do weekend hackathons for important > launches like this. Not that I know of, at least._

Periscope had been in a closed beta for _months_ before they were purchased. I'm surprised no media has ever tried the angle of Meerkat being a Periscope clone.

[http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/26/abre-los- ojos/](http://techcrunch.com/2015/03/26/abre-los-ojos/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> In my opinion what Meerkat did wrong was not making relationship with Twitter. The reason why they got blocked are simple:

\- v1 of Meerkat was posting on user's behalf without permission, auto-follow @Meerkat on sign-up, sending Twitter notifications without permission.

\- user's social graph cannot be ported to the 3rd party apps

\- recreating commenting network using Twitter's API

This is why I am not surprised Twitter blocked them. They say: "you don't shit, where you eat".

<comment><USER10> If Twitter already bought a competitor, why would they make a relationship with Meerkat?

<comment><USER9> Twitter bought Periscope _after_ Meerkat got press, although it may not have been a cause-and-effect relationship. (M&As take time.)

EDIT: See joeblau's comment below.

<comment><USER11> I think Twitter bought Periscope (In January Sometime) before Meerkat launched (Early March), but Twitter didn't disclose the acquisition until after Meerkat launched (Mid March).

[http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/09/twitter-reportedly-buys- st...](http://venturebeat.com/2015/03/09/twitter-reportedly-buys-streaming- video-app-periscope/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Love the screenshot. "Crazy sunset"

Like there's this great sunset, and you can't enjoy it because you're busy tweeting it. And there are a handful of others who can't see the sunset because their looking down at their phones, receiving the tweet.

<comment><USER13> For better or worse, sunsets are just a social bridge. The value is, apparently, in sharing a moment with others. Both are ephemeral.

<comment><USER12> Sounds like you need to look at more sunsets.

<comment><USER14> This is a pretty useless and unnecessary attack. Sunsets make up a very large percentage of Instagram, Snapchat, and FB photos shared at my university, which shows apparent social value.

Sure you may appreciate the experience of watching a sunset live, but clearly the social sharing aspect may be more important to others.

<comment><USER12> Are you really gonna argue that sunsets aren't beautiful, and merely a form of social currency?

<comment><USER14> What? I never said sunsets weren't beautiful. That's why people share them. I don't think of them as _just_ a social bridge as the previous poster, but I was merely stating that sharing them can be the biggest value seen by others.

<comment><USER13> My original remark was a bit tongue in cheek - here we really can define every life experience in terms of engagement metrics.

Aside from sharing, we like to photograph things as some sort of time-space marker for ourselves, even if we never do anything with it. "This is memorable, so I should take a photo to affirm that." That's why everyone takes a goddamn photo of the Eiffel Tower.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's weird how these app fads go. I used to work for a company in Charleston, SC that has been doing live streaming for almost a year now ([http://stre.am/](http://stre.am/)). They got some press out of SXSW, but without a voice in the Si Valley echo chamber, I suspect they're going to get crowded out.

<comment><USER16> I think live video streaming for mobile is going to be far more than a fad. I believe we're very close to a tipping point, where all will take is a single high profile case (imagine someone live streaming an instance of police brutality for example) for the technology to reach a mass audience.

<comment><USER5> _imagine someone live streaming an instance of police brutality for example)_

What's the case for the "live" part, though? If you imagined everyone at a Ferguson protest live streaming their experience it would be utterly overwhelming. Much better instead for people to edit the sections that are actually interesting and post them to YouTube/LiveLeak/whatever. I don't see how livestreaming adds much.

<comment><USER17> The generalization of this point is "what's the case for live anything" which can be answered simply with "presence" or more broadly, shared experience.

Sport is only the most obvious example. Why doesn't everyone just record and watch the game at their leisure? Or just get the highlights? Sure, those are options, but the enduring appeal of live sport points to there being more to it than just consumption of information.

<comment><USER5> But the generalization of the point removes the point I was referring to. I'm not going to argue that live sports are popular for a reason, just that live watching a large number of people attending protests is less so.

<comment><USER18> it doesn't have to be protests.

Periscope for ESPN and watch the hosts betweeen quarters of some football game.

Periscope for famous people and watch them go on stage or whatever.

Periscope for you and let your family and friends meet your newborn asap.

<comment><USER19> Periscope for ESPN would be interesting. do the leageues allow that since you are essentially broadcasting the match/event?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Looks like a lovely app, but I wonder why did they attempt to pollute the identity space with yet another username?!

Let me give you an example of how this can work against them, which is applicable to other startups.

Let's say, you're an early adopter and you got a nice Twitter username. Unfortunately, you're in the Android camp (me!). So, a new service comes up and some guy gets lucky enough to "steal" your username. You will then feel alienated from that service, because it doesn't solidify your identity. Same happened with Vine in the past.

What's weird as these come out of a company that has invested so much into building a new identity as @username and now they are undermining their investment!

Same happened with Facebook. They launched Slingshot, which invented yet another identity nomenclature. Not that I care about Slingshot, but if I did, it would unconsciously boycott it.

I'm not talking about me personally (yeah, right!), but I'm just trying to think about possible scenarios.

A smart and not so hard to accomplish thing even for the mobile first crowd would be to at least allow account creation on the web. How hard could that be? This way early adopters will blame themselves, not the service, for not being so "early" in the game.

These are just some psychological aspects I wanted to share.

</comment><comment><USER21> Compared to Meercat, there's a better UI, more ways to explore users to find new content and not as much of a blank slate for new users. After using each less than 5 times, I sort of prefer periscope.

<comment><USER22> most of the users I know who tried both apps agree that Periscope has far better UI. Meerkat has been crashing on my iPhone so I've given up on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Think about why, in a world with LiveStream, UStream, & YouTube Live Events, people see Meerkat as revolutionary. Also apply that question to Spotify vs Rhapsody.

<comment><USER24> Perhaps initial traction/buzz just nets bigger with the "right" initial users. There's also execution details as well in the product itself.

But great q... maybe they just had the timing wrong?

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> This is a good time for Facebook/Instagram to step up and buy Meerkat.

This is also a great time for Meerkat to sell. To anyone who's willing to go above $50M.

<comment><USER3> I agree but there is just no way their recent series B investors (Greylock) let them sell at a valuation of 50M - their post-val on that round was $52M ([http://i.imgur.com/9zOonad.png](http://i.imgur.com/9zOonad.png)), would be tough to sell on a "cut your losses" basis this early. But I do think Facebook could see the value being well above that, so who knows!

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> No android version? At what market share does android have to be until companies do android first?

<comment><USER27> Some [1] report that Apple pressures app developers into doing iOS-first releases.

[1] [http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/3/24/fear-of- apple](http://www.elischiff.com/blog/2015/3/24/fear-of-apple) (search for "Pocket Casts" in the article to find the relevant paragraph.)

<comment><USER28> For every complaint of that which you can document, I could provide 100,000 developers who hunger for a closer relationship with Apple. It's a non- starter. Developer relations contact? Yes please.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> The only real, but extremely useful, use case I see for this is for uploading video while it's being shot, because someone might take your phone away. For example, when filming the police, or filming any other disruptive / conflict type of event.

What other reliable apps are there that can do this?

<comment><USER30> Google Hangout, or face time. : )

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> I've been seeing ads for an analytics app called periscope: [https://www.periscope.io](https://www.periscope.io). For a second, I thought it was them before clicking through. Poor periscope.io.

<comment><USER32> If you don't want this to happen to your startup, register for a trademark. Since both the twitter program and this analytics ones are apps in the same app stores, I imagine that trademark protection would be broad enough. Twitter's lawyers would have done a trademark search before going live with the app, so the problem would have likely been avoided entirely.

Here is Twitter's registration from two weeks ago: [http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:2i5...](http://tmsearch.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=4803:2i5g3o.3.1)

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Just streamed what I'm currently working on... felt odd, like letting 14 people into my office, one guy even asked a question "what are you coding?", it didn't have a way to reply by text... which makes sense as you can be either streaming correctly or typing correctly, which is why once that happened the stream got extremely shaky, [sorry for that other viewers]

I think this has potential and it might take a unexpected turn once Carlos Danger gets the news

<comment><USER34> Why would you type when you can just talk? Does it not do audio?

<comment><USER33> Lol, I know, felt stupid after I got to that realization

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I run an Internet TV Station for Latin Indie Music Fans here in Austin (estereobit.tv), and one of the core services is live broadcasting, so these sort of apps interest me a lot.

I tried Meerkat during SXSW, but yeah, I'm switching to Periscope. I had users complaining about broken streams, and how they couldn't get the video on time. This could have been due to internet traffic because it's off the charts during SXSW; I'm not sure how it does on smaller events.

Reach worries me for sure. I don't know the details of how that is going down with Twitter though. Another thing that worries me is that I can't save videos. A good show can keep accumulating views forever so having that footage available is important.

Quality is also a big problem. In low-light settings and with loud music, it's hard to get a good show with just the iPhone. I was thinking of investing in a good camera but I don't know how that would work with these apps. Does anyone have any ideas on how could I get through this hurdle?

</comment><comment><USER14> There was a Forbes article on HN about Chris Sacca yesterday, and he's talking about it now - [https://www.periscope.tv/w/VvV_yzk2fDY0OTI3wusAmiDk5lk8euhHx...](https://www.periscope.tv/w/VvV_yzk2fDY0OTI3wusAmiDk5lk8euhHxEvW1u1g7B3nhEOp4PpP9xhgHf8=). I think it's pretty interesting, like a live AMA.

EDIT: It's over now. It's certainly an interesting platform, and I do think it will catch on if celebrities start doing these types of AMA talks. Personally, I would love to watch someone like Sam, PG, or Fred Wilson do one.

</comment><comment><USER36> This is great. I really like the design and screenshot ability. Even though Meerkat seemed like the first mover in this space, looks like they might be beaten by periscope with a better execution

<comment><USER37> I'd probably rethink the "heart" thing. Watching hearts flutter over a flaming collapsed building doesn't give me the warm and fuzzies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> Disclaimer: I work for upclose.me

I think Periscope is great. Other than the nice logo, Meerkat was always very rough around the edges, Periscope actually looks very nice in comparison.

It also has less latency.

We are obviously looking at the competition very seriously, here at upclose. For now, we have confidence in our ability to compete. Though we haven't managed to ride the hype wave like Meerkat and Periscope, we have steady growth.

We are also the only platform that also exists on web and Android, and with virtually no latency.

I would love to hear your thoughts on upclose

<comment><USER39> There's a typo in your URL.

I think, it's pretty tough to compete with Twitter. Why? Because people see Twitter already as a micro-journalism platform and live-streaming is more or less live-journalism. Or at least, this is one way to use it and this helps to gain a lot of traction fast.

I never tried any live streaming. If I were to start today, I'd use the platform with the most users and least effort to get into. Which is probably going to be Periscope.

<comment><USER40> I tried periscope and just now upclose.me. I like that you can I think stream to the web whereas periscope seems app only. Though upclose is not working for me after a minute or so - I'm on a slow connection in Vietnam though.

<comment><USER38> Hi Tim, video streaming usually needs a good internet connection. But with upclose, you should still be able to stream reliably to people near you, as we use a peer-to-peer streaming solution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> So I'm guessing Periscope must use HTTP Live Streaming for video? [https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/Networ...](https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/NetworkingInternet/Conceptual/StreamingMediaGuide/Introduction/Introduction.html) : _Important: iPhone and iPad apps that send large amounts of audio or video data over cellular networks are required to use HTTP Live Streaming._

</comment><comment><USER42> Didn't they just shut down a service that did the same by blocking their twitter api access or am I mixing stuff up ?

<comment><USER43> Yea, Meerkat was shut down for spammy practices apparently:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207271](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9207271)

<comment><USER9> The app wasn't shut down, but one feature (auto-follow) was cut off. Periscope does not use this feature either.

All the _other_ spammy app practices remain.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Are there any privacy issues using this app? Streams won't load for me unless I disable VPN. I'm not sure if that's an issue with my VPN or simply this app (Twitter) blocking / throttling VPN in general. Anyone else notice this issue?

</comment><comment><USER41> Oh wow, went to Appstore to look for it and it's Editor's Choice. Bam.

</comment><comment><USER45> The killer feature of Periscope is real time communication and its massive distribution channel, which Meerkat lacks. If broadcasters don't see more than a few viewers, they lose interest immediately.

</comment><comment><USER46> I hope this can help Twitter. It at least feels like one of those things that seems to be much more compatible with the immediacy of the Twitter culture than the Facebook one.

</comment><comment><USER47> Insight by Wired: [http://www.wired.com/2015/03/periscope/](http://www.wired.com/2015/03/periscope/)

</comment><comment><USER41> Oh, I smell a lawsuit! [http://periscopewebvideo.com/](http://periscopewebvideo.com/)

</comment><comment><USER48> Streaming mobile videos ? Great, because the world needed another level of narcissistic obsessive behaviour in the society.

</comment><comment><USER49> This would be a killer app on Google Glass.

<comment><USER48> This is actually only a stepping stone to prepare people for possible 24/7 Glass surveillance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Anyone able to switch to front camera? Meekrat - you can. I prefer that so I can sign to camera while others watch.

<comment><USER51> Double-tap the video to flip to the other camera.

<comment><USER50> Ah after you start broadcasting - me duh. But not very intuitive at first.

Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> Remember even if you mute your microphone, it's still possible to extract audio from the video you are streaming: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FKXOucXB4a8)

<comment> rkuykendall-com > it's still possible to extract audio from the video you are streaming, if > you are perfectly still, streaming high resolution, lossless, 60FPS video of > a single object very sensitive to vibrations in the air.

You would have to be trying extremely hard to get a periscope video which could have audio extracted, if it's possible at all with all the compression involved.

<comment><USER52> I didn't took that into account, thanks! Still much more is nowadays possible then people realise. And it scares me how little some users care about privacy issues when uploading photo's/video's.

Of course it doesn't means someone somewhere is going to try to harm you, but it's possible. It seems like the days where your username was anonymous and it was hard to track it back to you are over. Not sure if that's a good thing :(

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Saw this on Product Hunt too. They're getting everywhere huh?

</comment><comment><USER54> Strange that the "Start Broadcasting" button is "hang up" red.

<comment><USER55> Well, "record" buttons also tend to be red.

<comment><USER56> Yep!

Check out the "Record" button in the iOS Camera app, when you switch to video it changes the circle from white to red.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> White Bear

</comment><comment><USER58> I have this strange sense of aversion to Periscope, even though I know it's not logical.

It feels to me like Meerkat was a cool thing built by a bunch of my friends that took off, and then the big blood-sucking corporation (Twitter) tried to rip it off and make some money (even though that's not accurate).

That probably stems from this conversation between Ben (the co-founder of Meerkat), and someone who was building something similar: [http://austenallred.com/assets/ph-ben.png](http://austenallred.com/assets/ph- ben.png)

> Pete: "I was working on the exact same app... kind of depressed right now. > :("

> Ben: "PETE! What makes you think you're not capable of doing something > better/different? It would be a very sad world if people just gave up on > ideas. I can tell you that the live video space is still broken in terms of > the distribution mechanism, and that obviously Meerkat is not perfect. > There's a very good chance that anyone in the world could come up with a > better product/perspective. Please, go back to code. That's how we'll all > build things better together, even though we'll all work separately - <USER2> > learn from each other."

How can you not fall in love with that product/company?

<comment><USER9> > _How can you not fall in love with that product /company?_

For several reasons, mostly for _destroying my Twitter feed_ in the name of "growth hacking."

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208429](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9208429)

<comment><USER59> Can you blame them? One way or the other, it was probably one of the only strategies available and ended up being successful.

Unlike larger companies, they had to solve the chicken-and-egg problem to distribute the product.

<comment><USER60> I'm of a mixed mind on this, but I will add clarity here: you are definitely condoning spam in the name of 'doing whatever it takes'.

<comment><USER59> Not really. There's a clear difference between Meerkat and Viagra spam: it had a lot of unproven value. Once people starts to use it, it's usually not a waste of time.

<comment><USER61> That's true, Viagra is actually proven to work, whereas Meerkat isn't.

There isn't a difference. Spam is spam.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Do Ex-Vegans' Stories Make the Case Against Vegan Diets? - <AUTHOR> http://www.theveganrd.com/2010/11/do-ex-vegans%E2%80%99-stories-make-the-case-against-vegan-diets.html

<comment><USER2> Great article. It's an intelligent conversation over different kind of arguments made by carnivorous and vegan people.

Overall, an enlightening read. Thank you for sharing.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm pleased by the attitude/tone of this author; this doesn't read like a polemic or even opinion piece, but rather a well thought out and well reasoned argument.</comment>


American justice system ignores science in the pursuit of convictions - <AUTHOR> https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/we-are-going-backward-how-justice-system-ignores-science-pursuit-n961256 <comment><USER2> In jury trials, prosecutors have not only a huge advantage, but also a perverse incentive to lie and cheat. They know that the jurors are not going to be experienced enough in criminal law to sniff out procedural bullshit or "expert witness" gambits or bullshit science, much like a novice is unlikely to win at poker against a professional player.

And therein lies the problem. In every trial, you have professionals (lawyers) playing against novices (jurors), and since the prosecution automatically gains special believability status in the eyes of jurors, they hold the upper hand. To make matters worse, prosecutors have the automatic full cooperation of police, whereas the defense has no such guarantees. And since prosecutors are gauged by their wins, and high ranking prosecutors are the most likely to be voted/appointed into coveted judge seats, there is a perverse incentive to prosecute the innocent.

But since the system operates on the fiction that all members are equal (much like all sides are equal in a game of poker), it's easy to brush aside the reality that they are most certainly not equal, and that the more experienced has such a huge advantage that it's laughable to even call it fair.

In a system with professional judges, that wouldn't fly, as the trained judge would see through their shenanigans and rebuke them.

<comment><USER3> _" In jury trials, prosecutors have not only a huge advantage, but also a perverse incentive to lie and cheat."_

The prosecutorial advantage is even bigger in grand juries (ie. the juries that decide whether the suspect will be charged or "indicted" with a crime), where only the prosecution's side is heard and the standard used to indict is much lower than the _" beyond a reasonable doubt"_ standard used in a real trial. The running joke being that a good prosecutor could indict a ham sandwich.

It's after indictment but before trial that the prosecution pressures the defendant to take a plea deal (ie. plead guilty to reduced charges) to avoid risking going to jail for a much longer time and bearing the insane expenses of a trial.

To my memory, in the US only something like 6% of indictments actually go to trial, where (as you point out) the prosecutors have a huge advantage. 94% of the time inicted defendants plead guilty and never actually get a trial. In some cases, like with Aaron Swartz, they commit suicide.

So for the overwhelming majority of cases, it's not what happens at trial that matters (as they never get a trial), but rather what happens in the even more skewed for prosecutorial advantage grand jury that matters -- a grand jury where defendants and defense attorneys are not even present and where their side is not heard.

<comment><USER4> Former public defender here.

>90% percent of defendants plead guilty before trial because 90%+ of defendants are actually guilty of the crimes they've been charged with. In most cases, the defendants accept their guilt and are simply trying to get the best deal (i.e., least prison/jail time) as they can.

<comment><USER5> >>90% percent of defendants plead guilty before trial because 90%+ of defendants are actually guilty of the crimes they've been charged with. In most cases, the defendants accept their guilt and are simply trying to get the best deal (i.e., least prison/jail time) as they can.

Except that a disproportionate percentage of poor defendants (who can't afford expensive lawyers) plead guilty before trial because their overworked and underpaid public defenders advise them to.

Logic is that pleading guilty before trial gets you a shorter sentence than going to trial. The alternative is going to trial and being incorrectly found guilty and getting a larger sentence for a crime you didn't commit (your public defender has limited time/resources to make a great case for you).

The American Justice system is particularly unjust to the poor.

Edited for clarity

<comment><USER4> _Except that a disproportionate percentage of poor defendants (who can 't afford expensive lawyers) plead guilty before trial because their overworked and underpaid public defenders advise them to._

No, a disproportionate percentage of poor defendants plead guilty because they're actually guilty and their underpaid public defenders have advised them its not worth the effort to fight the charges--for the PD or the defendant.

Especially since, as you helpfully pointed out, the DA is less willing to give shorter sentences to guilty defendants who demand a trial. In this context, "shorter" meaning shorter than the likely sentence imposed by the judge after trial, usually even shorter than the statutory range imposed if the defendant is found guilty at trial. This is why defendants plead before trial--in many jurisdictions its the only way you can get a sentence less than the range unless you have a fantastically expensive lawyer (like the lawyer for Brock Turner, the Stanford Student Rapist).

 _The alternative is going to trial and being incorrectly found guilty and getting a larger sentence for a crime you didn 't commit (your public defender has limited time/resources to make a great case for you)._

You appear to have a Law & Order understanding of how criminal defense works. In the real world, even private attorneys spend most of a case attacking the DA's case, not building their own case. The Defendant doesn't need to prove anything.

<comment><USER6> Comes to the same thing. You get all the 'advocacy' you can afford, and the poor cannot afford any. So they give up early.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> One I'm running into right now is the science of IP addresses.

Unfortunately, 99% of criminal cases are where IP address "science" (if you can call it that) typically follows the formulaic story where somebody starts downloading certain graphical images, agents working the pipe or the other end log the IP, the ISP identifies the IP account's subscriber (after the law enforcement agency compensates them for their time), and then a search of the corresponding premises is authorized. Luckily I'm not dealing with that.

But in that case, the IP address forms the Court's idea of probable cause. If the IP address is a single family home with a single computer and no wi-fi, seems pretty open-and-shut. If it's a Starbucks or a workplace, and that actually results in a team of agents descending on it and searching and seizing the occupants' computers, then I think most would agree it's an abuse of power.

The challenge the Courts have is that middle category. What if I told you with a straight face that I believe you did something illegal, I have an IP address that used to be yours connected with that act, though no proof it was yours at the time, no proof you were using that location's internet at that time or even there to use it, and no idea how many other people were using the wifi there?

That's good enough to convict until US courts rule otherwise.

<comment><USER8> > If the IP address is a single family home with a single computer and no wi- > fi, seems pretty open-and-shut

So say you do have WiFi but you leave it wide open to the public, does that mean you have plausible deniability in IP-address related cases?

"could have been my neighbor, could have been a guy walking down the street using my wifi, could have been anyone"

<comment><USER7> As things stand now, obviously not.

Law enforcement doesn't have to prove you did it before the search and seizure, merely establish "probable cause". Was it probable it was your computer doing the downloading?

At trial (in the unlikely event it goes to trial instead of a plea deal), then it's supposed to be "beyond a reasonable doubt", but by then everybody (except in the number of cases involving _Brady_ violations) sees everybody's cards.

Except the Court believes the law enforcement officials as to what those cards say, even when it's not what they say. And that's the trouble: not in evidence gathering but in convictions.

Network routers and modems are really bad at logging who accessed what from what MAC address. Mandating that routers start logging would in practice probably aid civil liberties more than harm them, simply because of the presumptions out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Field tests for Marijuana also seem to regularly be baseless.

A couple had their house raided partially because some loose leaf tea in their rubbish bin field-tested positive as marijuana:

[https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2017/12/19/...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the- watch/wp/2017/12/19/jury-rules-against-family-subjected-to-swat-raid-over- loose-leaf-tea/)

Police using unproven "drug recognition expert" training to "detect" marijuana use via body language:

[https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the- drug...](https://www.11alive.com/article/news/investigations/the-drug- whisperer-drivers-arrested-while-stone-cold-sober/85-437061710)

More on faulty drug testing:

[https://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_ma...](https://www.cacj.org/documents/sf_crime_lab/studies__misc_materials/falsepositives.pdf)

<comment><USER9> In Kansas now this is not even relevant. Police just have to claim to 'smell marijuana' and they can search a home without a warrant. The 4th amendment is being whittled down to nothing.

[https://www.countable.us/articles/17230-kansas-supreme- court...](https://www.countable.us/articles/17230-kansas-supreme-court-rules- smell-pot-justify-police-searching-home)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Great and infuriating article. There's also issues with eyewitnesses testimony and lineups that have been well documented, meaning the rate of wrongful conviction may be quite high.

"The National Registry of Exonerations has documented 553 cases since 1989 in which someone was convicted on false or misleading forensic evidence and later cleared. The growing list of exonerations includes a Texas man whose 1987 murder conviction, based on bite-mark evidence, was thrown out in December, and an Illinois man declared innocent in January in the retrial of a murder case that hinged on dubious ballistics evidence.

But the exonerations likely represent only a fraction of the cases in which faulty forensics sent innocent people to prison, researchers say."

Is there any research estimating how many wrongly convicted people may be incarcerated? How could that even be estimated?

<comment><USER11> can we filter by cases with large part of the case resting on forensics? Then foreach such case see if we can double check the forensics evidence

<comment><USER12> Not without enough people willing to enter the related forensic science labor pools, to make a point.

Even after you've filtered for all the cases you could want, you're probably going to end up with a large number. Rechecking all of the evidence in each case to either reaffirm or exonerate the people in prison because of that evidence is a labor intensive task.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> To be fair, the American justice system is not the only one:

> Clark's first son died suddenly in December 1996 within a few weeks of his > birth, and in January 1998 her second died in a similar manner. A month > later, she was arrested and tried for both of the deaths. The prosecution > case relied on significantly flawed statistical evidence presented by > paediatrician Professor Sir Roy Meadow, who testified that the chance of two > children from an affluent family suffering sudden infant death syndrome was > 1 in 73 million. He had arrived at this figure erroneously by squaring 1 in > 8500, as being the likelihood of a cot death in similar circumstances. The > Royal Statistical Society later issued a statement arguing that there was > "no statistical basis" for Meadow's claim, and expressing its concern at the > "misuse of statistics in the courts".

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

<comment><USER14> _who testified that the chance of two children from an affluent family suffering sudden infant death syndrome was 1 in 73 million._

Even if he's wrong, using just the wrong stats says, well, in a country of >300 million (such as the U. S.) that's going to happen once in a while. Even a smaller country like the U. K., my response would be, "so it _could_ happen, and it wouldn't be all that outlandish for a case to crop over the course of, say, decades?"

OTOH, I don't care if the odds are 1 in 73 gazillionbillion, it could happen and the prosecution still needs to prove otherwise. We're not playing craps here.

<comment><USER15> Not to mention there's usually hidden patterns we just haven't uncovered. Some gene or household chemical or simple behavior that skews the odds. Thus at a population level the aggregate risk might be 1 in 73 million, but for _this_ individual it's 1 in a billion and for _that_ one it's 1 in 10 thousand. We just don't know it, because we don't know all the risk factors.

It's like insurance. You might be a really safe cautious driver, and your friend a nutcase. But your insurance doesn't really know who is a nutjob predisposed to accidents ahead of time.

<comment><USER16> Exactly, SIDS isn't purely random. There are variables nobody knew about (and many we still don't know about). Babies were suffocating on blankets, mattress padding, dolls, etc. There was probably something dangerous about the baby's crib that was undetectable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Over the holidays with the in-laws, we watched one of those Cops type shows and I was a little incredulous about the use of the drug sniffing dog.

It occurred to me that they could just have the dogs alert basically whenever they wanted them to.

In practice, they seemed to bring the dogs out when the driver of a vehicle was very obviously high, so it seems like they may have had probable cause anyway, but it still seemed alarming that a dog that can so easily be manipulated is an appropriate way to get into someone's car.

<comment><USER18> > In practice, they seemed to bring the dogs out when the driver of a vehicle > was very obviously high

In practice, they bring out the dog whenever they don't get consent to search.

This is how street policing works:

1) Have a feeling about a car.

2) Tailgate that car.

3a) If there is an obvious visual justification for a stop, like a broken taillight, unlit license plate, temporary tags in the window, or tinted windows, attempt to pull that car over.

3b) If there isn't an obvious visual justification for a stop, follow very closely for an extended period time until a minor traffic law is broken, or you get a call over the radio to go somewhere else (in which case, end.) When someone "rolls past a stop" or forgets to use their turn signal when switching lanes, speeds by a few mph, or stops short causing you to brake (because you are half a car-length behind them), pull them over.

3c) If they do nothing, pull them over once you get bored with following them and say they were driving erratically.

4) Mention to the driver your pretense for pulling them over while looking them over. If they look poor, give you attitude, or you just don't like them, ask them for consent to search.

5a) If they give you consent, search.

5b) If they don't give you consent, tell them that you have a reasonable suspicion because you smell something, and that if they don't give you consent, they will have to wait at the side of the road for 10-30 minutes for the dog to come. To avoid that wait, they can just give you consent now.

5b1) If they give you consent, search.

5b2) If they don't, wait for the dog (unless you get bored or get a call), when the dog comes, tell them the dog alerted. Search.

6a) If you find something, act accordingly.

6b) If you don't find anything, say you're going to let them off with a warning for the excuse you used to pull them over, get back into car and drive until you have a feeling about another car.

The pretty sad thing is that this process is pretty obvious on the cinema verité cop shows, it's such a standard practice that they don't mind doing it when you're looking. The shameful thing about it is that these shows edit out the 99% of the time that the person has nothing, and that the dog "alerts" and they don't find anything. A pretty cool thing with the new "Live PD" show is that you get to see the dog alerting every single time, and listen to the cop accusations that "you must have smoked earlier, or you must be letting someone drive your car, or else my dog that has never not alerted wouldn't have alerted."

<comment><USER3> They could also just plant something in the car when they do search.

<comment><USER19> Here is one incident where police accidentally ran into a parked car with a man in the passenger seat. They then arrested him for hitting and damaging their car. He was later exonerated by video from a security camera.

I've heard stories like this going back to the '60s. I suspect there are an order more incidents like this that never make a major news outlet, and probably an order beyond that which end up being citizens word against the cop's because there is no video to back it up.

[https://nypost.com/2014/02/21/cops-hit-my-car-then- arrested-...](https://nypost.com/2014/02/21/cops-hit-my-car-then-arrested-me- to-cover-it-up-suit/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In America for the most part if the police and / or prosecution want you to be convicted you are probably going to be. For police there are almost no consequences for lying or falsifying data except a law suit that they are not responsible for paying. Police have almost carte-blanche to do as they will including resorting to intimidation. The only good defense against being convicted in a court of law is large amounts of disposable wealth.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm surprised the article gave this a pass:

> Investigators also found a witness who, after being hypnotized, a technique > sometimes used by law enforcement to enhance memories, said he remembered > seeing Johnston force the couple into a car.

Hypnosis is not a valid technique to "enhance memories." It is, however, a way to change memories and create false memories.

</comment><comment><USER21> If you select the right jury it doesn't matter whether you have solid evidence anyway. For some cases you might want to remove black jurors, or maybe get rid of any women. If you get the right mix you get a conviction regardless of the facts of the case. Outcomes are determined by looks as much, perhaps more than actual evidence. And we know that and proceed just the same.

<comment><USER22> It boggles the mind that members of the jury can be selected by the prosecution or defence in this way (or at all, really).

I understand the need to disqualify people if they have severe learning difficulties, have special knowledge that would disrupt the process, or if they are incapable of finding one of the possible verdicts, but otherwise the selection should be a random cross-section of society.

<comment><USER23> Why should a juror be excluded for possessing special knowledge? Wouldn't that be an advantage when it comes to finding facts?

<comment><USER24> Because neither side really has an interest in you as a juror determining things yourself, they want jurors who can be accepting of their narrative, be they prosecution or defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I'm glad this is getting more attention.

If you're interested in learning more, the book The Cadaver King and the Country Dentist[1] is a great in-depth dive into a couple specific cases where testimony from "experts" resulted in the conviction of innocent people. It also does a good job explaining the incentives and institutions that make it hard to stop this.

[1] [https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver- kin...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/33296669-the-cadaver-king-and-the- country-dentist)

</comment><comment><USER26> It is not a "justice" system, it is a legal system.

</comment><comment><USER27> What I always say to people caught up in the justice system is cop a no-record plea deal, and if that fails, use dirty tricks to get the people prosecuting you.

Put a private detective on the prosecutor and their helpers, get some dirt on them. Catch a police officer or an agent of the court threatening you on a recording. Etc, etc.

Your lawyer won't like it, but they use the same tricks on you. Fuck 'em. Threaten to release the dirt (through your lawyer, in a legally vague way) and watch the charges go away.</comment>


Ubuntu Karmic Koala 9.10 server edition improves cloud functionality - <AUTHOR> http://searchenterpriselinux.techtarget.com/news/article/0,289142,sid39_gci1371418,00.html <comment><USER2> Trying to setup a private cloud in China because of GFW. UEC with Eucalyptus is nice for leveraging AWS API ecosystem. Hope to make infrastructure in US (AWS) and China as similar as possible.

Anyone has idea how to make it more portable between AMI and UEC KVM image (or UEC Xen image at least)? vmbuilder doesn't seem to solve the problem.</comment>


Many medical devices on the market have undergone no clinical testing - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/opinion/sunday/can-your-hip-replacement-kill-you.html <comment><USER2> Yes, but resolving this might be a case where the cure is worse than the disease. Take Colchicine for example, which is one of the first medicines _ever_. It was cheap and plentiful, and thousands of people used it daily to help control gout.

However, nobody ever actually did modern science on it. We all just assumed it was safe and effective, because it had been so for thousands of years.

So, in 2006 the US FDA started the Unapproved Drugs Initiative. The US government said they would give an exclusive right to the drug to anyone who did the science. So, URL Pharma did a tiny bit of research to prove what generations of physicians already knew, and the US Government let them have the exclusive right to sell Colchicine. The price immediately went from pennies a pill to $3 and up.

While I applaud the goal, it is far too easy to turn these well-meaning initiatives into cynical IP land-grabs that are distinctly anti-consumer.

[https://www.jwatch.org/jw201006100000001/2010/06/10/spotligh...](https://www.jwatch.org/jw201006100000001/2010/06/10/spotlight- colchicine-colcrys-controversy)

<comment><USER3> The problem is that in medicine, it's rarely the engineering that's valuable, it's knowing if it's safe and effective. I can see why that would rub people the wrong way, but it's also worrying that people were prescribing medicine based on tradition rather than science. Pennies to dollars for a period of time is better than pulling the drug off the market entirely until it was proven safe (which no one would have done).

<comment><USER4> Rather than issue an artificial monopoly, what if a "reward" to the company that "did the science" was capped at 2x their costs or X years, whichever comes first. Then it's public domain.

Wouldn't that get SOMEBODY to take the nigh guaranteed investment? I think what rubs people the wrong way is the limitless profits that are guaranteed by government sanctioned monopoly for things that save people's lives. It's a strange perversion of the free market that benefits the wrong people disproportionately.

<comment><USER5> Between failure, placebo effect, and the possibility of being less effective than other treatments... that isn't guaranteed. Studying these drugs may just prove they aren't worth using.

If it's so straight forward to prove, the government should just fund the studies itself. There's no reason to grant any private company anything in that case.

<comment><USER6> The NIH currently spends $33B a year on research. Not all of that is drug related

The top ~15 pharma companies spend over $70B a year on r&d, and VC funds $15B in the US alone

Even assuming government operates as efficiently as private industry, we are talking almost triple the NIH budget to accomplish that

<comment><USER7> > Even assuming government operates as efficiently as private industry, we are > talking almost triple the NIH budget to accomplish that

So increase the budget? If we assume the government would operate as efficiently as private industry, then it would be cheaper overall. The other option is for private industry to recoup the costs plus profits from society at large.

Obviously increasing the budget is politically difficult, but let's not pretend the current method makes any real economic sense.

<comment><USER6> The NIH budget has declined 20% in the last 15 years. Not only is there a strong downward trend, but the movements in funding levels are gradual. I'd say that tripling the NIH budget is not just politically difficult, but politically impossible

<comment><USER7> Then just leave the drugs grandfathered. If we view something as a problem (i.e. the lack of formal drug approval processes on old drugs), but we are not willing to solve the problem right (i.e. providing funding to government agencies to do the research), then we shouldn't do anything at all. Continuing the status quo is also a reasonable action.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is a silly piece and it misrepresents the space.

For starters, the 510(k) pathway only applies to moderate risk class 2 devices. It's not like every device on the market prior to 1976 was automatically granted 510(k) status which is what this piece implies.

Second, holding medical devices to the same safety standards as drugs is unnecessary. The reason drugs are held to a higher standard is because they present a high risk of acute injury and they are more novel. Most medical devices won't kill you suddenly if they are faulty, and the ones that can are class 3 devices which require a clinical trial component.

Third, the 510(k) pathway exists because the safety risks for device classes are relatively similar whereas for drugs there can be high variability depending on structures. If you design a dental implant that is made of the same material, has a similar design, and has a similar purpose as a pre- existing device which has been shown to be safe, it will generally be safe to assume the new device will also be safe. Most new devices that cannot be shown to be similar to something already on the market are automatically deemed to be high risk and require a trial.

Finally, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Want devices to be as safe as drugs? Apply the same safety standards and watch device costs skyrocket. Then nyt will be back to incorrectly blaming product manufacturers for sky high healthcare costs. The FDA is already in a position where they do not have the funding or manpower to even review all the 510(k)s they get every year. If you make every device submission a premarket approval (highest level of scrutiny + a clinical trial) then devices will never get approved in a timely fashion.

<comment><USER9> What happened in-regards to the device in the article? What class is it?

<comment><USER8> It was one of 19 devices that were class 3 (high risk) but granted 510(k) exemptions due to precedent. Ultimately all of these devices were intended to be transitioned to the higher standard pma approval process normally associated with class 3 devices, but were allowed to leverage moderate risk 510(k) pathways typically granted to class 2 devices until pma processes were developed for them. FDA was slow in orchestrating the change, and so this was allowed to continue until these safety concerns manifested, forcing FDA's hand.

I was actually not aware that this had happened as by the time I entered this space almost all of the class 3 devices in question had transitioned to pma. To my knowledge there are very few devices left where this is still the case.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This isn't really news for people familiar with medical device regulation. Depending on exactly what the new technology is, you can get approval based on a predicate device.

Otherwise, your most basic medical devices (bladder catheters) would be crazy expensive as the manufacturer would need to run a clinic trial to test a piece of tubing.

<comment><USER11> It seems pretty crazy that new alloys and materials for long term implants wouldn't have to do any bio-compatibility testing.

I also wonder what the culture is like for orthopedic surgeons. What risks and benefits did the doctor-patient in the article perceive came with the particular implant?

<comment><USER12> They would have to do biocomp testing. Every 510(k) requires an analysis of device compliance to ISO 10993, regardless of whether or not its predicate is preamendment. The premise of the article is alarmist and acts as if FDA requires _no_ testing whatsoever, when the list of standards is as long as my arm: [https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/cla...](https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cdrh/cfdocs/cfpcd/classification.cfm?ID=4508)

Now one could argue that biocomp testing, which is done on animal models for the most part, is insufficient for any implanted device. That's a fair argument and one worth having. But the linked op-ed is a polemic.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. This article is pretty alarmist. I would ask the author to actually go through the process and report back. It's not for the weak of pocketbook or compliance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There was an episode of Reveal awhile back about Essure, a permanent, implantable female contraceptive that, due to unforeseen nickel leakage, caused severe long-term reactions (and in some cases, even pregnancy) in a significant subset of its patients. Essure underwent clinical trials prior to FDA approval, but there was no control group, and its ~400 women studied for one year were compared against a long-term study of 10,000 tubal ligation patients.

Reveal episode: [https://soundcloud.com/thisisreveal/her-own-devices-is-a- con...](https://soundcloud.com/thisisreveal/her-own-devices-is-a- contraceptive-implant-making-us-sick)

There's also a good Washington Post long-form on the subject: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2017/07/26/essure/](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/style/2017/07/26/essure/)

</comment><comment><USER15> My father's last position before retirement was as a civil servant responsible for approving equipment for medical use.

One of his last cases concerned a businessman who insisted, that a vacuum cleaner produced by his company should be certified as a medical device - ostensibly its use was to deliver drugs(via reverse action and inhalation).

My father rejected this notion on the grounds that, among other things, it was impossible to control the dosage. Unfortunately once my father retired that man eventually found somebody who would give in to pressure.

What I'm trying to say is that there's a decent amount of "medical" devices on the market that serve no such purpose so, a non-conformant artificial hip joint is only the tip of the iceberg.

</comment><comment><USER16> It costs $5 Billion Dollars now to bring a new drug to market. Can anyone blame companies for trying to find loopholes to that staggering fee?

[https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how- th...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/matthewherper/2013/08/11/how-the- staggering-cost-of-inventing-new-drugs-is-shaping-the-future-of-medicine/)

We should be finding better ways to do clinical trials to help companies lower the cost.

I'm glad there was a blockchain event in Miami recently about this. It's one of the most under discussed issues in tech/healthcare today.

<comment><USER17> Maybe we should just give up on privacy for medical records and require that all prescriptions, tests, symptoms, etc. are thrown into a large database where they can be analyzed.

Then approval is given for X number of patients, when hypothesis is defined. And further approval follows automatically as long as on-the-fly analysis of all health records supports the hypothesis.

Okay, I'm naive, and we integrating all health records is certainly non- trivial. My point is every prescription is an experiment that could be used as further evidence.

<comment><USER18> Any time you care about the results of a set of actions, you should measure those results. If we care about the results of medical care, we should measure those results.

It's irresponsible not to. I would venture to guess that millions of people are dying early because we don't have this as a mandatory, built in part of the process.

But let's put this in terms of not just science but economics. A working market depends on having information about the normalized value of a particular proposition. To understand that value, you need to know the proposition's cost and its benefit. Insurance and other systems remove us from information about cost. Throwing away results data obscures the benefit. Is it any shock then that prices spiral out of control?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> [http://archive.is/O6M10](http://archive.is/O6M10)

</comment><comment><USER20> Personally I would consider being even more strict on medical device testing. My mother who had a stroke about a decade ago was using a device designed to test the PT/INR levels of her blood. The stroke had made her body less capable of properly balancing her blood, so she has to constantly test her levels to ensure she doesn't suffer from either fatal bleeding or internal clotting.

The device she was using had to be recalled after years of use because it could report a low value, causing her to over-balance her medication into dangerous levels. Not only that, but they chose not to inform my mother after the recall and made no efforts to fix the issue.

Needless to say I was not pleased.

</comment><comment><USER21> It's even worse if software is involved. Radio controlled heart implants that rely on security through obscurity is tragedy waiting to happen. I recommend Karen Sandler's talk about her own experiences with that kind of device.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1h1s_ojpM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qW1h1s_ojpM)

"Freedom in My Heart - Lessons from a Cyborg Lawyer"

</comment><comment><USER22> This sounds like individuals or groups of individuals covering their own rears instead of facing the problem for themselves.

It's very difficult to see product defects from behind a desk. And it's impossible to recognize the personal complications and difficulties that arise for people on the receiving end while looking at statistics and financial reports.

</comment><comment><USER23> A recent episode[1] of Fresh Air (NPR) discussed medical implants. Pretty eye opening.

[1] [https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578562873/are-implanted- medic...](https://www.npr.org/2018/01/17/578562873/are-implanted-medical- devices-creating-a-danger-within-us)

</comment><comment><USER24> What is a medical device? Are we talking about things like thermometers, wheelchairs, and surgical knives. Is this saying you need a double-blind study for every new design of wheelchair?

<comment><USER25> Sometimes. No. Yes. No.

[https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidan...](https://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/DeviceRegulationandGuidance/Overview/ClassifyYourDevice/ucm051512.htm)

Sometimes the medical device is software. In fact, there are many software products on the markets whose makers don't even realize are unapproved medical devices. However, the FDA just doesn't have the manpower to investigate that on a wide scale.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> I hear that that's true of other things in medical practice as well. For eg: are surgical procedures validated by any kind of controlled clinical trails?</comment>


Treehouse (YC S08) has the simple sharing mechanic that Facebook needs - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/31/treehouse-facebook/

<comment><USER2> Looks very polished, nicely done. The real problem with new social apps (for me at least) is that I can never get my friends to join anything. Take Rdio for example, another nicely designed app -- I just can't get my friends to use it with me.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very similar to an idea I had recently for photo sharing. It's both cool and sad to see that someone's doing it.

Edit: I've done a bit more reading on this. Is this Fliggo's (YC08) second iteration? Going to their old site redirects me to Treehouse.

<comment><USER4> Third, if you include Vidly/Tweetvid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm sure it does, what with that upcoming partnership.</comment>