My experiences with Hacker News. - <AUTHOR> http://blog.arsalanbashir.com/2013/01/20/HNB.html <comment><USER2> This place turned more pedantic than I remembered 5 years ago. The benefit is that sometimes the tangential discussions bring about something interesting but most times the pedantry is a negative as it just gets people riled up and nitpicking to death.

It's also more hostile than I remembered, but oddly people use politeness as some weird passive-aggressive pulpit to combat each other. Replies and comments get seen as personal attacks and others quickly get dismissed as trolls. And when the simplest solution to dealing with anonymous people on the internet vying for fake internet points is just to leave well alone, some -- especially nicks I've seen around from five years ago -- have decided the best way to react is to respond. And poorly at that.

It's very much the same catty atmosphere I've encountered when hanging out with my art school friends and their cliques that they endure for their art.

But then again, it's the same eternal september problem that was discussed back then, regurgitated every year, and now we're here.

That said, there are good signals here and I keep seeing the same advice that people give: ignore the noise. But the challenge is two folds: what is noise and should you really be ignoring it?

The first is relative, you decide you own level of involvement but I do have opinions on the second question. I don't think it's right to ignore the negative comments. You can't improve your craft living on good vibes and hugs. So understanding that this place, relative to the rest of the world, is different place, it's both a sanctuary and a padded room. So take the inputs, review them, filter them, and prioritize them. Never internalize the hate but at the same time don't be naive.

PS: 17 is young but it's not that young. When I was in the Marine Corps we gave 17 year olds guns and entrusted them to be men and women that can get a job done when need be.

<comment><USER3> Why do you think the pedantic comments have become so common? There was one post recently about a breakthrough in cancer research. There was an oncologist in the thread who gave more detail and talked about how exciting the research was, but no one was paying attention to him. All anyone could talk about was whether the headline was or was not misleading.

I found myself nodding in agreement at the author's lines:

"...most of them just criticized for the sake of criticizing."

"They simply hold on to one point and stretch it out, overlooking the fact that the point that they want to make is tangential to the discussion at hand."

I couldn't agree more. I have never seen a community where this is so true, nor have I ever understood why.

<comment><USER4> The comments on HN are still better than most on Reddit. There have been discussion over discussions how to prevent the quality decay with a larger number of users (I remember the time before I had an account here when people were saying (paraphrased) "Don't link to HN, the riff raff will come"). As far as I know no one found a solution yet.

<comment><USER5> One option would be non-alias usernames. Youtube seems to think this is the answer to poor-quality comments there, although I can see benefit for some HN posts being anonymous.

The world is a tough place and life is too short to get worn down by a few jerks on the internet hiding behind their keyboards. It can be tough to take criticism on work you spend hours writing, and someone writes a nasty comment having spent only minutes or seconds reading it. And even with dozens of good comments, one bad one can make you feel crumby. It is a shame because it discourages people from submitting good content, but I think its best to just ignore bad comments.

<comment><USER4> While it would probably help on Reddit (though it'd be impossible to implement there), I think it mostly helps against pure trolls and hateful comments. I don't think that's a major problem on HN. The bad comments here (I'd say) are mostly people who are simply not that friendly in their personality and very direct in what they say.

Now on HN most readers can't downvote but personally I prefer some bad comments being higher than they should to Reddits mainstream-opinions only approach.

edit: Just realized that my HN account is from a time I used this pseudonym, pretty much everywhere else I'm found under my real name;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > I am never going to play the "I'm-a-kid" card, because in my opinion my work > (not just articles from my blog, I also develop software that I like to show > around on HN) are a result of my hardwork, and I think they deserve > competing with set standards, and it'd be belittling to have them receive > positive feedback just because they were submitted by a "kid"

Brilliant. I've just come from the linkbait thread where a 14 year old who's never been part of the HN community and is still only posting in that thread is playing the just a kid card pretty hard.

<comment><AUTHOR> So I'm guessing it's the one about an iPhone app?

<comment><USER6> Yeah, but if you look at his submissions, comments and account lifespan you can see he has no interest in taking part in the community, only pimping his app.

<comment><USER7> He could have been reading HN without necessarily having the confidence to post something until he had something he felt he could contribute (i.e. an app he built). Obviously we can't read his mind, but I wouldn't mind giving him the benefit of my doubt.

<comment><USER6> So in other words you're saying that he might have no interest in participating in the community, only pimping his app?

<comment><USER8> The "community" at HN is made up of those create thing, those who read articles and those who write comments. In fact it's a mix of the three.

Clearly he knows about HN. Possibly he was lurking. Maybe he's not sure or is not confident enough to comment often. What he has done is created an app and a few interesting blog posts. As far as I'm concerned, that _is_ what HN is all about!

<comment><USER9> I would say that an even larger part of the HN community is lurkers. Those that read the articles, comments and upvote, but don't actively participate in discussions.

I've been lurking on HN for 4+ years, and I rarely ever contributed comments, mostly just read articles and read the comments to see others opinions.

Don't think this is true? Take a look at how many comments are left on articles on the front page, then if you were lucky enough to reach the front page of HN, take a look at your analytics software. You'll see something like 20k visits in a short period of time, there's no where near that number of comments. Most people passively participate in this community.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> HN is a smorgasbord of "strong opinions held loosely". The best advice is not to take _anything_ that goes on here in the echo chamber personally. Relax, sit back, and enjoy your accidental tour of the human zoo.

<comment><USER11> Agreed. HN seems uniquely engineered to prevent the formation of echo- chambers. You /will/ come into contact with the completely opposite viewpoint; that's the point. Enjoy it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The best discussions and comments on HN are the ones based off technical and constructive submissions. The discussions and comments based off any submission that is someones opinion or is politically/culturally charged will be far less insightful and more about 'winning'.

As can be seen, most of the comments on this submission are now about discussing the age of the poster and how 17 is or is not a kid. Real enlightening stuff.

</comment><comment><USER13> A couple of observations, for what they're worth.

"Tell them you're only 17!"

If you do, you'll only self-identify as one of them. Average age is high teens to low 20s, if I remember correctly.

"People seemed to have a problem with everything."

To me this is the result of a large number of people participating. It makes the commenting system rather challenging. Basically anything that _can_ be misinterpreted _will_ be misinterpreted. Sometimes it's so bad I wonder if people aren't being purposefully idiotic, just to score some karma.

From reading your article, I imagine you found the attention worthwhile, though frustrating. Welcome to the club. In a strange way it's very seductive to have 10K fellow hackers come by and look at your work, even if they do miss the point, wander off on tangents, and generally posture for each other. Just be careful you're not subtly sucked into writing just for the HN crowd, unless you have an idea you want to sell to a lot of nerds.

<comment><USER14> I'd be genuinely curious where the average age numbers come from?

From a point of zero objective information I'd have guess the average age to be mid to late twenties...

<comment><USER13> We've polled this at least twice that I remember. In addition, I did a poll on caffeine and age among HNers a year or two ago (dig, dig) Here it is: [http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/09/hackers- and-c...](http://www.whattofix.com/blog/archives/2009/09/hackers-and-caf.php)

My poll showed mid-20s, but that was 3.5 years ago. If I remember correctly, polls show the age continuing to drop as more folks join.

This isn't much of an argument, but if you think about it, people most likely to be on HN are people who are not doing anything useful besides consuming stuff. That group should trend heavily towards the younger and unemployed. As total numbers rise, total number of young people who are actively consuming HN at any one time should rise disproportionately, no?

<comment><USER14> Makes sense the most active users would be the one's with the most free time (the younger and unemployed). Unless of course there are many people - such as myself - who consider Hacker News a fairly useful learning resource and so contribute (albeit not very often) despite having a lot of other things to do?

I'd be very interested to see how the average age of the submitters of "useful" content - e.g. posts which rate highly (ok a very tenuous definition of useful) and content heavy comments - compares to the overall average.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I liked how you put your perception about HN and in particular this part of your post -

        In my opinion, it's not the fact that people here are
        skilled enough to comment on the various topics that
        makes it special. That people here have the ability to
        think in more creative and vivid ways and have diverse
        opinions (some not always correct, as seen in the case of
        'misfits') makes Hacker News an interesting place.

I also think you are quite mature to play "I'm a Kid" card (take this as a compliment). Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER16> To be blunt - this is an attention whoring flirty meta. Please keep this sort of thing off the front page.

<comment><USER17> Isn't this the kind of comment discussed directly in the post? Perhaps I'm feed the trolls, but honestly, knock it off unless you have something useful to add.

<comment><USER8> I have to agree. Flag the article, but don't moan if it gets on the font page. It'll go soon enough.

<comment><USER16> They took away my Flag option when Steve Jobs died, after I flagged all but one Jobs-related posts on the front page.

I really don't like navel gazing posts. "How much traffic I got from HN", "What I learned from being on the front page", "How I was brewing my coffee when I hit the front page", etc. This is self-centric bullshit that _may_ with some effort be turned into an interesting discussion, but it is _not_ inherently interesting, leave alone being notable. It's neither N nor is it H.

<comment><USER18> There are some articles which you don't find interesting. One option is to flag those articles. You've lost your ability to flag.

Why do you think that commenting on these articles, especially with strongly negative content free sentences, is the right thing to do?

> _I really don't like navel gazing posts. "How much traffic I got from HN", > "What I learned from being on the front page", "How I was brewing my coffee > when I hit the front page", etc. This is self-centric bullshit that may with > some effort be turned into an interesting discussion, but it is not > inherently interesting, leave alone being notable. It's neither N nor is it > H._

The fact that those posts are so common, and voted up, seem to imply that for many people they are inherently interesting.

But let's assume that you're correct. Your options are to flag, to ignore, to add to the signal, or to add to the noise. You chose to add to the noise! That feels really sub-optimal to me.

<comment><USER16> > _Why do you think that commenting on these articles, especially with > strongly negative content free sentences, is the right thing to do?_

I posted what I did to dissuade the OP from submitting similar junk to HN in the future. Flagging and ignoring doesn't have quite the same effect as it aims at the effect, not the cause.

<comment><USER8> Except that at the time, all the articles on HN news about Steve Jobs _were_ intensely interesting to a large number of HN participants. Trying to flag them all was pointless, and as Wikipedia contributors would call it, POINTY (disruptive to try to make a point).

Clearly the moderators frowned on this sort of behaviour, so you lost your ability to flag articles. Like I say, don't do that.

<comment><USER16> Yes, _sir_.

<comment><USER8> Correction, not don't do that: you _can't_ do that any more. Is that helpful?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I'm never going to play the "I'm a kid" card, he says - 10 paragraphs after playing it. ("My 17-year-old-brain thought...")

</comment><comment><USER20> I know you explicitly don't want to play the "I'm a kid" card, but you're _kind of_ doing that just by mentioning it in this follow-up post. I think 17 is probably the age when you just don't have that card to play anymore.

I released my first OSS project (here) at 17, and mentioning my age didn't even cross my mind. You just take the feedback and criticism and reiterate like everyone else, because you won't have an excuse forever.

<comment><USER21> Oh, relax. I'm over twice his age at this point (and still younger than many here). If you work at it, then your judgement improves Zenoically each year. At 17, you can have reasonably adult-like judgement about most things, but still get other things wrong by lack of experience.

So, sure, he's still got that card to play. Not that he needs it; choosing to sit back and wait things out and not get dragged in to the HN morass was pretty level-headed thinking. I certainly would've screwed that up at 17.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> My biggest complaint about HN is the users with enough karma to down-vote that do so just because they disagree with you.

I've had legit discussions here about real tech topics (for example web apps vs standard EXE apps), and the guy who continually disagreed with me clearly down-voted every comment I made, and replied with out-dated counterarguments. I wound up losing almost all my karma from one discussion, all while remaining civil.

It's very discouraging to be new here, and try to openly express an opinion. It should take more than one to down-vote a comment successfully.

</comment><comment><USER23> You're sad because people disagreed with you? Have fun in the OSS world.

Your original post is a bit ridiculous too. OSS isn't for the commonfolk? I guess android isn't the most popular smartphone OS and ubuntu isn't grabbing huge market share.

<comment><USER24> This sort of response is precisely what the OP was alluding to. Try and read his post with a degree of rationality and a modicum of humility and _then_ respond. You'll be amazed at how much better you and your point comes across.

<comment><USER23> I disagree completely. His signoff line about a green on black terminal- _must be a hacker_ just struck me as arrogant and dated.

Programmers aren't some mythical beast people hear about but don't see. Open source software is usable by your grandmother.

Obviously there are exceptions to both sides, but I found it very conflicting reading his article with so many things that (to my interpretation, at least) read as though he was trying to put himself on a badass pedestal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> You might be "only" 17 years old, but with emotional intelligence higher than some 40 years old I've known (and much more than I had when I was 17). p.s. thanks for introducing rhok.org via your post, sounds like a great initiative.

p.s. I have read your original post's comments (<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5016620>) and I completely agree the comments were nastier than they should have been to make the same point.

</comment><comment><USER9> If you don't want to play the "I'm only 17 years old" card, how come your main blog landing page says so very clearly =), just kidding, I oddly agree with your point. You can get some good feedback by posting on HN, but there will be the occasional troll that might ruin your day. Give it some time and you'll build up a thicker skin and learn to let them go.

</comment><comment><USER26> The "problem with open source" article doesn't have _that_ many comments... 15, of which 5 are the poster's own.

</comment><comment><USER27> wow, a blog post ranting about a blog post where HN users don't have the same opinion as you...really ?

</comment><comment><USER28> HN is the herd mind. There are outliers but there are more who mindlessly vote up the karma leaders just because they are karma leaders - and there is nothing you can do to stop them.

It's why I read comments from the bottom, up.

Learn to have a healthy disdain for HN, I do, but every now and then a thoughtful comment or submission will sparkle like a gem in this muddy noise and being here may even seem worth it.

<comment><USER29> > It's why I read comments from the bottom, up.

Great idea, I'll be trying this. Edit: Actually in this particular thread it's the opposite..

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Suggestion: Put comments on your blog. You might get better feedback that way. There are many people who have given up on hacker news but still use it to find links. (I mean how many times do you want to put up some cogent information only to have it mindlessly attacked by idiots? Either its the fashion of the time, or hacker news is overrun with narrow minded anti- intellectuals.)</comment>


5 Months Ago Today the Galaxy Nexus was Released, It Hasn't Been Updated Since - <AUTHOR> http://www.droid-life.com/2012/05/15/five-months-ago-today-the-galaxy-nexus-was-released-on-verizon-it-hasnt-been-updated-since/

<comment><USER2> I think the missing "on Verizon" in the Hacker News link is a critical oversight (or intentional flamebait) - it's worth noting that the Galaxy Nexus on every other carrier has received updates.

<comment><USER3> It's not even true on Verizon. They pushed an OTA to 4.0.2 soon after launch. Verizon did indeed decide to skip 4.0.3, for unstated reasons. Last I heard 4.0.4 (a month and a half old) was in the pipe, but who knows.

The broader point is valid, though. Google needs to make this happen, no one in the rest of the bucket brigade (not the handset vendors, and _certainly_ not the carriers who bear the costs) cares about updates -- only Google and the users do. Or at the very least make it clear why, when AOSP "releases" a version, certain developer phones won't be getting it.

<comment><USER2> I absolutely agree with the broader point, and even the somewhat-shoddily- supported Verizon Galaxy Nexus is a shining example of up-to-date software in comparison to most released Android devices.

I think Google are going to be addressing this in a big way in the US with their recent move to sell unlocked devices directly to consumers. [0]

I am quite interested to see how CDMA (Verizon, Sprint) factors in to Google's latest device play (since CDMA devices, even "unlocked" ones, need to be approved by the carrier to be activated).

0: [http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405270230437150457740...](http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304371504577406511931421118.html)

<comment><USER4> Their move to sell unlocked devices is not new- they did it with the Nexus One and it was a failure. They're trying it again now, but I don't expect much to be different.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This seems to be a trend. I have a Nexus S 4G that went months between the announcement of ICS and actually receiving it, while other phones were launched with it.

To me, Nexus means first in line, leading edge, and that expectation was not met. My trust in Google Android is shaken, and those "features" will no longer factor in to my decision when purchasing a new phone until Google proves themselves.

<comment><USER6> The T-Mobile Nexus S you're referring to had its 4.0.3 OTA pulled within the same month it was released due to mass complaints with Android OS wakelocks/battery drain, instability and other misc things.

For 3 months after that, even their current flagship the yakju Galaxy Nexus was stuck on an "old" version of Android 4.0.2 whilst they worked on a fixed version of 4.0.3 which they eventually shipped in March as 4.0.4.

While I'm not saying you should be pleased at the complete lack of communication/respect given to you, I think their decision to stick with an older, stable version of the OS on the Nexus S 4G as opposed to pushing an update they _knew_ was broken was the correct one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Purely the carrier's fault, which is hard to see from the article. In Australia (I'm on Telstra) my GNex was supplied with 4.0.2, and a couple of weeks later was bumped to 4.0.4.

<comment><USER8> Yup, the fault lies entirely with the carriers. Also in Australia, bought my GNex from Optus in December, shipped with 4.0.1, bumped to 4.0.2 a month or two later, nothing since.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Regardless of which step in the pipeline is the problem, Google needs to figure this out. It shouldn't be the case that Nexus phones are special either, in that they stay up to date (normally) while everyone else languishes. I don't know what the solution should be (improved portability to ease updates, contractual obligations, etc), but I do know that this leaves a bad taste in people's mouths. It's not enough for Google to say "we released the code" if no one can actually run it on their phones.

It's not terribly exciting to be running 2.3 on my Galaxy S Vibrant, for which I'm still under the 2 year contract period... (And that's with me flashing CM7 to get 2.3, otherwise I'd still be on 2.2.) Meanwhile, Apple phones update smoothly and regularly.

</comment><comment><USER10> "On Verizon" This is an issue with the carriers. Buy this one if you want instant updates: [https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=galaxy_nexu...](https://play.google.com/store/devices/details?id=galaxy_nexus_hspa)

</comment><comment><USER11> Respectfully, I got a Galaxy note for the full sticker price and am "stuck in 1997" using Gingerbread.

The phone screams for ICS, and it's nowhere in sight for the newest LTE phones.

The form factor and phone itself is fantastic. I don't like that I miss iOS 3 because it did more.

What I've learnt is:

1) After Android releases a new version,

2) Samsung has to release version with their stamp

3) then it gets passed to your carrier to release a new one.

The Carriers are the bottleneck for the most part given the amount of Samsung ROMs floating around. They may or may not update it, or release anything.

Many of us have been spoiled with direct updates from Apple.

When I first got the iPhone a few years ago I wondered why Apple was so gung ho about controlling and directly updating my phones.

In hindsight, it was most welcome.

<comment><USER12> Well same applies to Microsoft and their phones have been much better at getting updates.

<comment><USER4> Actually not the case- the Samsung Focus S has been waiting for an update for months. AT&T said they weren't going to release it at all until public opinion managed to force their hand.

I suspect Nokia is very different. In fact, I think if the schedules had been different, Nokia would have been the sole hardware provider for WP.

<comment><USER13> I've got a Dell WP7 phone. Microsoft has a long B2B relationship with them.

I doubt they would jeopardize that for a Nokia exclusive. It's not really in Microsoft's DNA.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps not, but it seems that Dell isn't really interested in making any more anyway:

[http://www.wpcentral.com/no-new-dell-windows- phone-75-device...](http://www.wpcentral.com/no-new-dell-windows- phone-75-devices-they-take-hiatus)

MS may have had to persuade Dell to make a phone, not the other way around.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Probably because the software is perfect.

</comment><comment><USER12> My Samsung Focus was released about 18 months ago and I am hoping it to get updated when the next version of windows phone software comes out. Just saying :)

<comment><USER4> You're hoping, but no-one has confirmed that old devices are going to get WP8.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: How likely is it that Sandy will affect AWS us-east? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> I wonder if many data centers will pre-emptively disconnect from the power grid and switch over to backup generators? I used to work in the same building as a data center and we had enough diesel fuel to keep running for a week without refueling (and we did, once).

This does make me wonder, the data centers that Google and Amazon are building, how will they fare in a hurricane? Did they skimp on strength to build them cheaper?

</comment><comment><USER3> Many data centers are hardened. For example, the Mahwah data center that houses NYSE and the Carteret data center that houses NASDAQ can sustain hurricane weather (although they are closed today/tomorrow)

<comment><USER4> How impervious are they to flooding?</comment></comment>


BrowserHub enables multiple "default browsers" on OS X - <AUTHOR> https://getbrowserhub.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> I'm looking for beta testers for BrowserHub. If you're interested, sign up on the website.

With BrowserHub, you create rules based on the URL to define which browser should be used depending on the link you clicked. For instance, you can set Safari as your default browser but create a rule to always open YouTube links in Google Chrome. Maybe you want to always open video URLs in VLC, you can create a rule for that too. The possibilities are endless.

BrowserHub is going to be available on the Mac App Store and on getbrowserhub.com soon.</comment>


Ask HN: Why can't Android updates work like GNU/Linux updates? - kuba-orlik I want to understand why Android handles updates so poorly. I remember in Heartbleed times many Android users were left with faulty OpenSSL versions, because the manufacturers didn't release an update for their device.<p>Why can't Android just update the OpenSSL library in such a scenario, just like GNU/Linux does, for example? <comment><AUTHOR> I really wish someone had an answer for this. But I'm not sure there is one.</comment>


How Bloggers Comment System Lead to Being Mistaken For a Groupon Shill - <AUTHOR> http://rachelbaker.me/2011/bloggers-comment-system-being-mistaken-groupon-shill-hacker-news/

<comment><USER2> Hmm... The problem is, that first bit DOES sound like she whole-heartedly supports Groupon by calling it 'guaranteed'. Even after reading the entire thing (not the shortened one) a few times, I wasn't sure what her stance was.

<comment><AUTHOR> Groupon is guaranteed marketing in the sense that people will purchase the Groupon offer. Is Groupon the best and most effective marketing tool...that will reach your target audience? No.

<comment><USER2> It's the vagueness of the original statement that is the problem. If you had said 'Groupon is guaranteed to get customers to enter your building', then that would be one thing. But you just said it was 'guaranteed marketing', which probably means something different than you intended. It sounds like you support them.

Personally, I think they have a good service, provided you know what you're doing, know how you're going to keep these new customers, etc etc. If you don't, it's a disaster waiting to happen.</comment></comment></comment>


Building GeoLocation aware apps based on W3C Geo API (GeoMereLaal)  - <AUTHOR> http://groups.google.com/group/bangalorerug/browse_thread/thread/88f9cbd8da2e3012

<comment><AUTHOR> Any takers for this plugin ?</comment>


Silicon Valley's Favorite Philanthropic Loophole - <AUTHOR> https://www.vox.com/recode/2019/7/2/18691693/silicon-valley-donor-advised-funds-fidelity-charitable-lawsuit <comment><USER2> There may be a good case against Donor Advised Funds, but this article doesn't really make it.

It argues that DAFs may be "crowding out" contributions to charities, citing the fact that Fidelity Charitable raised more money than the United Way in 2015. But that is not evidence of anything. To a large extent Fidelity Charitable is basically an aggregator of charitable donations; comparing the total amount aggregated to the amount received by a specific charity is not illuminating.

There is a complaint that a DAF may allow investors to park money forever (although these articles never identify why it would be in their interests to do so). But the big bad guy, Fidelity Charitable, imposes similar "minimum grant activity" requirements on their DAFs that private foundations have by law. And they disclose that across all accounts, 28 percent is disbursed per year, far more than the requirement for private foundations.

An consultant to non-profits says "I have seen so many of my clients, the nonprofits, be hurt by it" but the article does not specify what the harm is or its mechanism.

If so many people are complaining about them I feel like there must be something wrong with Donor-Advised Funds but for the life of me I can't figure out what it is from these articles that keep coming up.

<comment><USER2> To answer my own question: I googled that consultant and found a series of articles on his personal blog with meaningful criticisms of DAFs from the perspective of "real" charities (the ones that provide services or advocacy), including:

* They prevent charities from attracting donors with benefits in exchange for donations.[0]

* DAF donations can't be used to satisfy a legally binding personal pledge.[0]

* A DAF can be used to "launder" contributions in a way that hides their original sources and enables fraud.[1]

* A private foundation can meet its 5%-per-year disbursement requirement by donating the money to a DAF, including one controlled by the foundation, violating the spirit of charity laws.[2]

[0] [https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2015/06/not-so- simple/](https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2015/06/not-so-simple/)

[1] [https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2019/02/phony-and- corru...](https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2019/02/phony-and-corrupt/)

[2] [https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2017/10/a-tale-of- two-l...](https://www.alancantorconsulting.com/2017/10/a-tale-of-two-letters- and-two-sectors/)</comment></comment>


Google relaunches Glass for businesses - <AUTHOR> https://blog.x.company/a-new-chapter-for-glass-c7875d40bf24?e=f <comment><USER2> This is so !@%!@ cool.

Check out the A/B test of a technician with / without the software referenced in the article:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gXuZp25f0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E5gXuZp25f0)

Then here's a video that gives a sense of the software's interface:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5HOHNECW20](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5HOHNECW20)

Very workflow oriented with nice communication and lookup features.

This is the kind of small optimization stuff that is going to be revolutionary to driving macro productivity.

Amazing!

<comment><USER3> Wait, isn't that the same person in both videos? In that case, this is just a marketing spot demonstrating how it "could" work, not an "A/B test".

<comment><USER4> Looks like it could be the same person, but wouldn't that make more sense? If it's different people then you're not just changing one aspect, the glasses in this case.

The worker presumably has to do the same work many times. So he isn't doing the work in the video for the first time regardless. It's something he does regularly. They could do the work with glasses a couple of times and compare it with non-glass work times. I think this is (as in the video) is the best A/B test way.

<comment><USER5> If the worker did the Glass test _after_ he did the non-Glass test, his productivity/efficiency increase could be attributed to memory and not just Glass.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. Hopefully they would do it multiple times. To not have memory be much of a factor.

<comment><USER6> This is aviation work, you always always always check the work you are doing with the manual. One mistake could be someone's life. The entire aviation industry is checklist and procedure driven.

<comment><USER7> They even have a specialized English dialect called simplified technical English to help eliminate confusion.

<comment><USER8> Have they done any studies on the benefits of using the simplified language vs the time investment it takes to produce the manuals to spec?

I'd imagine most of the gain comes from companies with a high number of ESL workers - but it sounds like it may be a tool that a bureaucratic, control obsessed, management culture likes but is largely just busy work parading as productivity gains.

It could also make the technical manual writers lazy or use less editing because they lean on the language instead of investing real thought into making their communication effective and easy to understand.

As machine translation of english continues to improve, I'm curious how useful it will be. And the feature of "Reducing ambiguity" (according to Wikipedia) is something that can be solved in many different ways without having to invent a whole new simplified language subset for _all_ communication.

Either way that's an interesting example of how serious they take this stuff.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure.

I don't work in aviation, but you can produce much better documentation by following at least the spirit of this vs. the specific grammars and vocabulary.

Engineers and IT people are often not very strong in writing ability, and there are many non-native speakers in technology. I've seen situations where "Cute" documentation with TV references (infrastructure placement was captured by types of disney vs. looney tunes characters) and lots of implied context. Having a style guide that forces simplicity can be a high value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's easy to armchair quarterback this stuff after the fact, but this is where Glass should have started. The price point, social stigma/issues, and use cases all screamed "business applications!".

Consumer tech may be where the glamour and scale are, but it's not always the best market entry point.

<comment><USER10> Ha! I interviewed at google and told them glass was a horrible consumer product and that they should have started with a market that wouldn't mind looking stupid (or skiers who already wore goggles so they wouldn't look stupid at all). The point I made to them was that they engineered an incredible device but hadn't validated the market. I suggested it would have been better to start with something like skiers because they already wore goggles and helmets. So, you wouldn't need to get the product so small to see how people reacted to it.

Needless to say, I didn't get the job. It was really funny to watch Glass (which is a cool technology) totally fail because it's a stupid consumer product. And, I'm no Steve Jobs. It was absolutely predictable that Glass would never work as a consumer product.

And, if you want to make it work for manufacturing, I think you'll need to scale up the form factor. Why wouldn't you make it a safety goggle too? Think about all of the engineering effort that went into shrinking this into a small, completely impractical, package.

Anyway, I think that this was not only predictable but it also shows a company culture where people can't tell the emperor that he's naked. It's not like I was the only person that took one look at glass and knew you couldn't leave the house wearing one. But, that message was pretty actively suppressed at Google.

<comment><USER11> I can't say whether you failed the interview because of that but Google is a company that believes that their superior technology validates itself.

Sometimes it's the pressure "if you can't sell them in millions, we don't want to do it at Google". This means Google is a great company to make acquisitions that they can scale e.g docs, maps, YouTube, Android.

Google has so much money than they know what to do with it. They can't experiment like a startup because failed products hurt their brand.

Their best bet is to invest in startups that use their stack and if successful, acquire and scale the shit out of them.

<comment><USER10> > Google is a company that believes that their superior technology validates > itself.

This is a good point. I bet the team that made glass looks at what a technical achievement Glass is and rate the project as a complete success. I don't know how many millions they spent to get the form factor so small but I really would be surprised if anyone caught any flack for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've never understood why they insist on having the device be visually asymmetric. Just put a piece of plastic on the other side that is non- functional, and the "cyborg effect" basically goes away. The human brain hates asymmetric faces. Such a stupid oversight, may have been enough to save the consumer effort if they did this from the get-go.

<comment><USER13> Leave that 'piece o'plastic' stuff, the extra room can be utilized as extra battery.

<comment><USER14> that'll increase the weight though.

<comment><USER15> I think it's better to have balanced weight, even if it means more. While it might be annoying to have more weight on the bridge of your nose and over your ears, it's even more annoying to have an off-center moment of force.

It's like carrying one 12-pack of beer rather than two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >>Glass is also helping healthcare professionals. Doctors at Dignity Health have been using Glass with an application our partner Augmedix calls "a remote scribe".

My primary care doctor has a human scribe. The scribe is a recent graduate (BS), planning on going to med school next year. Being physically in the room, watching the doctor work is a great benefit to her. I'm not sure she'd benefit as much from watching a live stream.

Additionally, as a patient I wouldn't be comfortable being recorded.

<comment><USER17> I would be totally cool with being recorded. I think its beyond time we get past the ridiculous false modesty that seems to be considered a virtue, but with no real benefit.

<comment><USER18> The desire for privacy is not "false modesty"; given the sentence you just uttered, I'm not convinced you even know what false modesty even means. People have a hard enough time even talking to doctors about embarrassing or sensitive issues, put a camera in the room and they simply won't, privacy is a need for most human beings, it's not false, it's not fake or done out of a desire to appear a particular way, it's a psychological need. Most people are not exhibitionists, they do not like being watched, they do not like being recorded, and it's not remotely something they do for appearances, a.k.a. false modesty.

<comment><USER19> Right, and it also prevents positive outcomes. People chronically lie to their doctors about their actual lifestyle behavior and then are surprised that the Dr. didn't catch all the warning signs for some disease.

More data = better outcomes.

<comment><USER18> Cameras won't add more data as they'll simply discourage people from admitting anything or even going to a doctor. I would not allow my doctor to film me, nor would I imagine most sensible and normal people who have an ordinary sense of privacy. Your doctor works for you, not the other way around, you decide what is acceptable behavior, not them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> > The mechanics moved carefully, putting down tools and climbing up and down > ladders to consult paper instructions in between steps... Fast forward to > today, and GE's mechanics now use Glass running software from our partner > Upskill, which shows them instructions with videos, animations and images > right in their line of sight so they don't have to stop work to check their > binders or computer to know what to do next.

The article makes it sound like Google glass is the first to do anything like this, and it was all paper manuals before that. In fact, aircraft manufacturers have been using smart glasses for years to augment workers.

[http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/1...](http://www.engineering.com/AdvancedManufacturing/ArticleID/14634/Airbus- Uses-Smart-Glasses-to-Improve-Manufacturing-Efficiency.aspx)

Maybe Glass is a significant improvement, but it's not unprecedented.

<comment><USER21> Smart glasses in aviation manufacturing was actually a key plot point in Michael Chrichton's 1997 novel Airframe. [1]

[1]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe_(novel)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airframe_\(novel\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'd be really interested in hearing from someone who uses this on the floor. Is it really all they say it is? The marketing and PR looks good, but do mechanics really love it?

<comment><USER23> >"It took a little getting used to. But once I got used to it, it's just been awesome," Erickson says.

From a pretty good NPR article from a while back.

[http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/03/18/514...](http://www.npr.org/sections/alltechconsidered/2017/03/18/514299682/google- glass-didnt-disappear-you-can-find-it-on-the-factory-floor)

<comment><USER4> I was wondering the same thing as the person you answered to. Thanks for the article + audio snippet. I know the tech isn't as new anymore, but still exciting the more it gets used. Can't wait to see what comes about in a couple years for broader usages (i.e. how someone like me could utilize glasses to work better)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> This feels like it's getting us one step closer to the vision of the early stage control by AI that is described in Manna: [http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm](http://marshallbrain.com/manna1.htm)

Obviously the AI part isn't there but we now have a fabulous interface to have complex tasked aided/guided by AI. This in combination with what's already going on in Amazon warehouses and we are pretty close to the description of how fast food restaurants are run in the story.

</comment><comment><USER25> Some of this stuff is so obviously cool but remember the cost of efficiency. 30% time saved means one person does more in their day. This has a personal toll because working less intensively gave you time to think and physically rest. You're at it non-stop now.

And that also means you need 30% fewer employees to manage the same workload. That's going to be the trade-off here. How many people will have to go _just_ to offset the hardware and software costs?

I don't know what I'm arguing here... I'm finding it hard to avoid quoting Ian Malcolm in the context but I think we have to remember there are definite downsides to treating people like underutilised machinery.

<comment><USER26> > working less intensively gave you time to think and physically rest

I don't buy this argument, honestly. By extension, you're saying we should go back to manual book-keeping instead of computers to do accounting, because it would employ more accountants, and let them work at a more relaxed pace.

Looking up documentation, for example, is not an intellectually demanding task. Instead of going back and forth between printed reference, being distracted, forgetting what you read and having to re-check it, this helps reduce the feedback loop and that makes work more intellectually engaging and interesting because the worker can focus on things that actually require thought, rather than menial tasks.

People will still take breaks and slack off, it's human nature, and they should be able to, if you demand continued unbroken attention, you will end up with people who make a lot more mistakes, I expect (citation needed).

I am much more worried about automated performance metrics and gamification of work, those do offer levers for the employers to push the employees beyond sane limits.

<comment><USER25> No, I think automation helps humanity a lot in certain places. But my (tangential) experience and main concern really applies to healthcare. Especially in the UK. I should have added this before but couldn't find the words to explain it without going off on one.

To put it briefly, the utopian "we get to go home and see our kids on time" world Augmedix is selling is just the sort of stuff that gets bought by the NHS to make GPs handle double their workload.

There supposedly are protections in place (contracted _and_ EUWTD) to stop doctors and nurses working without protected breaks, but you find me a single competent (eg) med-reg who manages to regularly take theirs.

There _is_ a ton of quite low-hanging fruit... But half of it is a poison in some professions and most of that relies on the reason it was bought.

Really, chasing this thought process can get pretty philosophical, especially when you consider the widespread skills we have already lost because we outsource and automate. They are things to consider too but immediately I'd worry about the people being told their workload is doubling because they've got a fancy gadget now.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This is cool and all, and I'm glad the concept didn't totally die, but will consumers ever see this type of wearable tech again? Some people shelled out over $1k when Google initially offered glass prototypes, only to be left with unmaintained devices.

I honestly though Glass would have done better if it had no recording capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness factor.

It's sad that no one has come in and tried to tackle the heads-up wearable market. Sony has some glasses that looked terrible, and I guess the battery life issues are still too big for many manufacturers to overcome?

<comment><USER28> > I honestly though(t) Glass would have done better if it had no recording > capabilities built-in. It would have substantially reduced the creepiness > factor.

Outside of the tech community this is a distinction I imagine few would make - most people upon seeing a camera are going to not unreasonably assume it can record. I still see large numbers of people taping over their laptop webcams even when they are turned off.

I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings for many people.

<comment><USER29> > I think the simpler explanation is that strapping a camera to your face is > simply inappropriate or off-putting in some social settings, at least with > today's typical social norms.

Didn't help that the only people who did/could/would buy the first glass prototypes were nerds who apparently started using them in bars and clubs. That solidified its image as "creepy".

Contrast it with Spectacles, a product _designed_ to record as much as possible. But since it was marketed/targeted towards "cool" people, it never got the creepy trait.

<comment><USER28> The typical use case for Spectacles, at least as I see it, is a little different though. Spectacles is much more like a Go Pro, in that I will be out doing some kind of activity I want to share with friends. People also typically don't wear sunglasses indoors, my expectation of privacy is very different outdoors vs indoors.

The approach with Google Glass was very different, where Google were arguably prototyping a device intended to be worn all the time, including indoors and in scenarios were people typically would not normally expect to be photographed or filmed.

<comment><USER30> Such as "in the bathroom", which was the experience at Google I/O a few years ago when a quarter of the people there had Google Glass.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is precisely the application I first imagined when I saw it. Being able to pull up exploded views of an assembly, having reference information for something you've got both hands inside, etc. is invaluable.

I can't count the number of times I've had to extract both my arms from inside a machine (in doing so losing the information of where precisely i'm holding stuff and the bearings that provides you), wipe off all the grease, dust, grime, etc., thumb through a pile of papers that still get dirty and then mentally translate a 2D drawing to what I'm working on, only to then lose my place and have to work it all out again. Having something voice controlled and _right there_ in front of my eyes would be invaluable.

Industry really is the perfect environment for this. Safety issues notwithstanding (which you can work through), it's really the best application of this technology and you can quickly quantify a RoI from its implementation.

</comment><comment><USER32> Sounds like they've found a great enterprise usecase, and I hope they can keep improving the device to bring it to consumers once again.

I was able to snag a Glass for a good price when they killed support (before selling it off again after a couple months). I enjoyed using it, and being on a college campus at the time reduced some of the social awkwardness. I could push notifications to my face with IFTTT and the voice recognition worked reasonably well. Ironically, I found the most useful feature to be the camera. It's liberating to be able to wink and get a snapshot of whatever is in your field of view, whether it's some info you want to remember or a small moment you want to share. I'm on vacation now and find myself fumbling with my phone to take snaps of interesting things I want to share way too often.

<comment><USER33> > I'm on vacation now and find myself fumbling with my phone to take snaps of > interesting things I want to share way too often.

I just got back from vacation, and I agree. The whole process of taking pictures with my phone feels so cumbersome and annoying, especially for short lived scenes. It's locked and in my pocket for security and safety because I don't like to walk around holding my phone when I'm trying to enjoy the moment. It feels like I could either have the phone be an appendage and then have fairly easy picture capability, or actually be present in the moment but then it's substandard for taking impromptu pictures.

I wouldn't have as much of a problem with a dedicated device, as I wouldn't necessarily be as worried about breaking or giving someone access to the device that contains details about every aspect of my life.

Alternately, something designed to be an appendage but in an unobtrusive way (to the user, at least) might be just as good or better, as you suggest.

<comment><USER34> I believe the device you seek is called...a camera

<comment><USER33> Yes, but I was being generic to be inclusive of both a camera and Glass. Not to mention, camera has became almost as fuzzy a definition as phone, considering all the features they pack into some of them these days...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> I'd be more exited if it looked like Google had addressed some of Steve Mann's critiques from the initial announcement, but as far as I can tell, the critique is still not addressed:

[http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/steve-mann-my- au...](http://spectrum.ieee.org/geek-life/profiles/steve-mann-my-augmediated- life) (For discussion on Glass design, look for the paragraph starting: "I have mixed feelings")

FWIW it appears Mann is working with a company on a different system for mediated reality:

[https://www.metavision.com/](https://www.metavision.com/)

<comment><USER36> Those appear to critique glass as an AR system, which it doesn't appear to be marketed as.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> I was an early member of Pristine (the Google Glass company that Upskill recently acquired) where I began as a developer, and then landed our first paid deal at the end of 2014.

We used to buy the glasses for $1500 a piece and had a probably 50 pairs of them lying around by early 2015.

The engineering team was great - while I was there it felt like we were flying blind wrt Google's official support. From a business perspective, I'm not sure product market fit was really ever achieved, though after I left the company expanded its horizons beyond healthcare / telemedicine.

Good luck to Upskill :)

</comment><comment><USER38> That makes me want a pair that's installed with an app that shows relevant stackoverflow answers as I code.

<comment><USER35> But why would you want to wear something like this, for that? I can see how an editor/IDE plugin might be useful (a la racer for rust etc) - that would update a section of the screen with tips - but I don't think I'd like to have this on a completely different device.

Now, with a full vr headset, it might make sense to be able to place such things outside of the normal field of vision (where your text/code editing resides) - but so far I don' think working full time in VR with text is a great idea, with the current generation of headsets.

<comment><USER39> > But why would you want to wear something like this, for that?

can't have other folks knowing you're looking things up on SO. it'd ruin your mystique.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Has anyone here worked on a Glass app? How is the UI programmed? Does it require a special programming paradigm like VR, or are these instruction manual HUDs basically just PDF viewers?

<comment><USER41> Initially you could just write Android apps. Every OS release broke the standard features more and more, however, and you were pretty much forced into their special programming paradigms, yes. For example, originally swiping emulated the d-pad buttons, but that was removed. For a long time you could pair Bluetooth keyboards, mice, and trackpads, but then they broke that for a long time. It may have been added back recently.

Modern era there is a "Mirror API" that's a very limited web based API for serving "cards" to the device and there's a a native SDK with a few hooks for registering for pre-selected voice commands and showing activities with various amounts of liveliness or graphics capability vs. static cards.

So if you are just publishing cards with standard menu actions you can write server side only in Python and several other languages and just communicate with Google's servers. If you want a more native experience you write in Java using an SDK originally based on Android.

<comment><USER42> Someone else posted this somewhere in here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608894](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14608894)

Basically they pushed an update out a couple weeks ago (after almost 3 years of nothing) which added Bluetooth device support.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> It seems disingenuous to pitch it as an improvement over a ring binder of documents. The question is whether it's an improvement over an iPad on a stand beside your work.

</comment><comment><USER44> No info on the HW, that's the interesting part. How did they solve battery life issues etc

<comment><USER16> In an industrial setting they don't really need to solve that problem. Battery low? Swap out the glasses for another pair.

<comment><USER45> I'm not sure that's true. One of the examples has a tech working at the top of a wind turbine. Maybe he's supposed to bring up a backup battery pack?

<comment><USER46> Just plug it to the wind turbine's output for a couple seconds :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> For the manufacturing example, why is this better than having a simple 7-10 inch tablet? For the doctor example, why is this better than a simple body cam, or even a camera that is wall or desk mounted?

<comment><USER48> > _For the manufacturing example, why is this better than having a simple 7-10 > inch tablet?_

Hands-free operation.

Honestly, I'd love to use it all the time, instead of my smartphone. There are so many cases in which you want to have the screen in your FOV, but your hands free, not just at work...

> _For the doctor example, why is this better than a simple body cam, or even > a camera that is wall or desk mounted?_

It probably isn't, unless the doctor can also utilize a display for something. Otherwise it's just an expensive (and quite likely crappy, compared to other available options) camera.

<comment><USER49> It's nice to have a camera that follows your perspective, because you might need two hands to be able to see what you want. For example, if you're parting someone's hair or looking into their mouth with a tongue depressor.

<comment><USER50> hard to overstate the importance of POV for some applications (including remote medicine).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> A few questions:

\- Can only businesses buy Glass?

\- What is the pricing model? Is this sold as a product, or is it paid for as a subscription service?

\- Will there be a "play store" equivalent for software for Glass?

<comment><USER50> it will be through VARs (there is no play store).

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Nice. This is what the original launch should have been like. Help doctors use this to provide better care and no one is going to be calling anyone a "glasshole"

<comment><USER53> Exactly what I thought

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I have always thought that the perfect application for wearable head mounted displays would be mechanical repair. I would love to be able to pull up the maintenance manual for my vehicle and have the glasses overlay part names, fastener sizes, and torque settings for whatever part I was looking at. This is a step in that direction.

</comment><comment><USER55> I'd love to have something like this to show me step by step how to do repairs on my car or an appliance. Recently I was fixing the turn signal lever in my car by referring to youtube videos. It would be awesome if I could just download to the device a file for whatever thing I need to fix and it just walks me through the steps.

</comment><comment><USER56> It's probably not related to this article per se, but isn't it weird that "x.com" is owned by Elon Musk while the actual company - which is a branch of Alphabet - has to use "x.company"?

</comment><comment><USER57> I actually am really sad Glass didn't take off. When it was available, I was unemployed. I'd love to get my hands on a new version of it, if google were ever to release a new version for the public.

</comment><comment><USER58> This seems to me the obvious use-case for AR technology, but Hololens looks further along than Glass; I'd be interested to see where they have got with any comparable Hololens projects.

<comment><USER59> Hololens, in its current state, is much bulkier and more expensive to deploy...

It's probably also way more expensive to design & build the experience and content for Hololens' interface..

Glass just needs video, text and a 2D navigation interface (I'm being reductive here but you get my point)..

You could of course do that kind of interface for Hololens too, but then why not just use Glass?

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Super excited, that top image is literally me in the garage sometimes, albeit with safety goggles.

Can these provide eye protection from bits of flying metal while one is drilling?

Will keep digging through the page.

</comment><comment><USER61> Kudos to Google for continuing to invest into this product, it really has long-term potential and we need all the big players in this space to drive competition forward.

</comment><comment><USER62> I'm sure standard software TOS apply. I.e. Software vendor is not responsible for any errors omissions or mistakes it presents to the mechanic.

</comment><comment><USER63> This was completely predictable, and what everyone suggested as Glass failed for consumers; the fact that they're doing this now doesn't necessarily represent any success or particular efficaciousness discovered during the pilot programs. The fact that it took this long to roll out and announce publicly is a bad sign, though. They may have just run out of time, and were forced from above to make their best try at it.

</comment><comment><USER64> SAD, its black and white! I recall Mondo2000 challenging every color scheme ever created. Lime greens and oranges!

</comment><comment><USER65> I don't know what it is about it, but the design is so cringey. Even on a professional, it just looks... bad.

<comment><USER66> In a world where people are forced to wear hi-vis and safety goggles, I don't think people on a shop floor are going to particularly care about looking good if it makes their job easier.

<comment><USER67> Don't forget those formal white (OK, heavy canvas or leather) gloves to complete your outfit, nor the essential steel-toe boots! They're at the peak of high-fashion footwear. You can look even better if you're only on the shop floor part-time and get to don colorful Oshatoes _over_ your dress shoes: [https://www.oshatoes.com/collections/toe- protection/products...](https://www.oshatoes.com/collections/toe- protection/products/visitor-steel-toe-classic-pvc)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I know Glass, or something like it, will be great. But I don't know which combination of features + killer app will unlock the thing.

HN has probably mentioned this before but is there a reason Google makes announcements on Medium and not on Blogger?

I would do the same thing if I had a choice, but Google could just make the formatting on Blogger better.

<comment><USER69> For me it would be facial recognition crossed with something like linkedin. I really struggle with recognising people and it has a large impact on how well I can network at informal events such as tech meetups. Others will recognise each other from similar events and sometimes might recognise me "Oh weren't you at <X>?". At which point I look very rude when I have no idea whatsoever who they are.

So some tech to aid recognition and the ability to add a few notes such as their line of business would be something I'd happily spend a lot of money on.

But early on glass said "no access to facial recognition APIs" which killed my interest in it's first incarnation.

<comment><USER48> The problem is - most of the cool and useful personal applications of glass fly in the face of various social expectations. The very idea you could be recording someone caused a backlash the last time, and that's nowhere near doing facial recognition...

<comment><USER69> Is facial recognition creepier than recording?

If it's done in real-time, i.e. the scanned images aren't saved then surely a "This is person <X> you've met and tagged as X" is less creepy than actually videoing someone? You wouldn't get any information you haven't yourself added to the device (although it would probably need to lean on external data-sets for the training).

I wouldn't suggest facial recognition should recognise anyone you haven't met yet, I think that would be a bit weird (although I think it is the future anyway), but a way to effectively add a tag on someone you know would be great. Most people can do this without the technology to varying levels of accuracy and and breadth of their acquaintances.

<comment><USER48> I think it is creepier by definition, through the very fact that the other person can't verify you aren't recording. A camera is a camera. Even if the product officially doesn't record anything, who's to say I didn't mod my glasses' firmware to dump the video buffer? Not to mention that once video stream goes into cloud, you lose control over what happens to it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> Headline is neither source headline not technically accurate; while X started life as Google X before the Alphabet reorg, it's a separate subsidiary of Alphabet from Google.

This story is about X, not Google.

</comment><comment><USER71> x.company interesting domain name! one letter 'domain' six letter TLD

<comment><USER72> interestingly x.com is owned by Elon Musk. He tweeted about it four days ago.. [https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/885776126148083712](https://twitter.com/elonmusk/status/885776126148083712)

</comment></comment><comment><USER73> very cool!

</comment><comment><USER74> I hated it when they abandoned it, because I was so excited about the tech for so long. I think maybe the public just wasn't ready for it then. They probably still aren't now, but this could be an excellent way for them to get more comfortable with it.

</comment><comment><USER75> This is such bullshit. I applied for their private beta and never got a response.

</comment><comment><USER76> Aw...how cute they look like little borg lite.

</comment><comment><USER77> Looks like they are using the strategy of Microsoft HoloLens here which I think makes sense. There isn't enough wide-spread value add in these augmented reality headsets for general consumer use yet, but businesses will help drive innovation until that time comes.

</comment><comment><USER78> A lot of fluff here, but not much substance. I see how having large manuals or paper lists in your field of view could be very useful.

Does it work well for employees with classes?

I assume they've updated the chip inside to something less power-hungry. Does it get reasonable battery life now?

Why do doctors need Glass to record notes in the background? Couldn't _any_ computer run that software?

<comment><USER27> > Why do doctors need Glass to record notes in the background? Couldn't any > computer run that software?

I'm guessing this might have to do with voice recognition tech and the doctor being able to see the notes visually. If it picks up something incorrectly, maybe the doc just turns to the computer and corrects it?

<comment><USER79> Still sounds as though a laptop would be better. Perhaps it's now improved, but the Glass screen wasn't nearly as clear to read from as a MacBook Pro screen.</comment></comment></comment>


QAnon subreddit has been banned - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/BrandyZadrozny/status/1039952600924340224 <comment><USER2> As cheerleading censorship seems to be in vogue (eg that image macro of the top response), let me put forth a suggestion to ban anybody who wasn't on the Internet by say 2005. I think it would be extremely effective at solving most of the problems we're facing today.

<comment><USER3> Reddit is not the government.

Kicking someone off Reddit isn't censorship: it's exercising a property right and also, by negation, the right to free speech.

<comment><USER2> It isn't _government censorship_ , but it most certainly is censorship. Go look it up.

(I'm not saying he's the only source of the confusion, but XKCD really did a grave disservice with that particular post.)

<comment><USER3> > _Go look it up._

I did. I found definitions that agree and disagree with both readings.

So let me put it another way. People use "censorship" because they see a subversion of a moral duty by someone to tolerate speech they would rather not tolerate.

But when you do that, you infringe their rights to not listen and to reject speech by negating it. I don't have to tolerate someone in my home saying words I disagree with. I have a right to eject them. Is that censorship? And if, _by_ ejecting them, I have stated a political opinion, isn't preventing _my_ expression _also_ censorship?

The counterargument is: oh, but reddit is somehow a public thing, they have some sort of social obligation. Your private home is different.

Why? According to whom? Under what legal, constitutional or moral authority? In many countries the government is constrained or prevented from regulating some or all speech because, in the final analysis, there is nowhere else a citizen can go.

But private speech is about private property. If reddit exercise their right to eject people they don't want on their property, the ejected folks are within their rights to do anything they want with _their_ property.

<comment><USER2> It's fallacious to equate an individual making a personal judgment with a company imposing a decision on a large scale. While this fallacy runs deep in US culture (cf Steinbeck's quote about "temporarily embarrassed millionaires"), it is still a grave mistake.

In general, it's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that can be unquestioningly layered upon. For example, if we assert that the owner of private property has an unrestrained right to force someone residing on that property to enter into a contract (or GTFO), then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear Leader holds title to all real estate. Clearly, the overarching qualitative situation is what's important.

A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same.

But really, the problem is that an environment of censorship will just not end well. Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe you should try _talking to them_. I guarantee that kicking them out won't change their mind. Wonder why we're seeing such extreme polarization these days? It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for having views we disagree with.

<comment><USER3> > _In general, it 's nonsensical to treat rights as axiomatic primitives that > can be unquestioningly layered upon._

It's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn.

> _then we can describe even North Korea as a perfect libertopia where Dear > Leader holds title to all real estate._

Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited totalitarian state?

> _A mechanical conduit bears very little burden for tolerating speech. Which > is why we expect ISPs to pass packets without policing their content. Reddit > set itself up as a similar general conduit (with subreddit administrators > controlling communities), and so yes we should expect the same._

Websites can and do evict people. Newspapers can and do fire journalists and columnists. Universities can and do decline to offer tenure. People can and do walk out of theatres. Reddit can and has refused to spend their money, their time and their sense of right and wrong on something they reject.

There's also the small matter that the terms of service say clearly that reddit can do this. Just because folks wish those weren't the terms, doesn't unmake them.

> _Back to your example - rather than kicking someone out of your home, maybe > you should try talking to them. I guarantee that kicking them out won 't > change their mind._

I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser.

> _It starts with this idea of giving people the social death penalty for > having views we disagree with._

I think there is room for sensible debate, but it is not license to demand unlimited permissiveness and resources from others. It just isn't.

Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole.

<comment><USER2> > _It 's as nonsensical to refuse to say where the line is drawn._

The rest of my comment is arguing for where I think the qualitative line is...

> _Are we actually comparing private property and free speech to an unlimited > totalitarian state?_

Yes. Kim Jong-un himself has some of the best-maintained private property and free speech rights. The field of CS is very comfortable with logical reductions - don't play coy.

> _I have no obligation to change their mind. I have no obligation to listen > to them. An unwelcome visitor is, in law and right, a trespasser._

Ostensibly you've invited this person into your home for _some reason_. But if they express a disagreeable view, and they're not already beating their feet, then they're a _trespasser_? Do you really not see how ridiculously binary and supremely divisive this is?

If you argue and they're invited back, maybe they'll attempt to square their views with civility/commonsense/reality before speaking them again. If you banish them from your life, then you're all but guaranteeing their only friends will be their echo chamber.

> _Calling it an "environment of censorship" is hyperbole._

It's accurate - scroll down the responses on the OP and most everybody is cheering it on. We used to make fun of stupid ideas (including general censorship itself). Now we celebrate the pruning of a community because doing so undermines the opposing political ignorance team.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> m-p-3 I'm out of the loop here, what's the news?

<comment><USER4> Multiple conspiracy theories subreddits have been suspended for "inciting violence, harassment, and the dissemination of personal information".

<comment><USER5> It was a concerted effort initiated by r/Banout2018, via mods who infiltrated said groups</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How does the average user browse? - <AUTHOR>

I've been wondering - how do people browse the internet in terms of the websites they visit as well as the amount of websites they visit each day. I very well can't extrapolate from myself because I'm not the average user (300+ daily RSS feeds, introduced to various new sites on HN, Quora, RRW etc.) so I have a high churn rate for websites.<p>The average Joe, IIRC, has 4-7 core websites that they will visit with each browsing session, and because they don't go through as much online estate as someone like me or you, they're more likely to discard or be ADD-like to pointless, entertaining start-up sites. Do you think this assumption has any substance? <comment><USER2> Here are some statistics about this September 2009: [http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s- we...](http://blog.nielsen.com/nielsenwire/online_mobile/top-u-s-web-brands- and-parent-companies-for-september-2009/)</comment>


A Remote Code Execution Vulnerability in the Steam Client - <AUTHOR> https://www.contextis.com/blog/frag-grenade-a-remote-code-execution-vulnerability-in-the-steam-client <comment><USER2> Steam Client is so incredibly bloated - I wish they released a Lite version without Steam Link, Achievements, Trading cards/Inventory, Browser, Community, Workshop, Hub, ... It could also update less frequently if it had fewer features and updates would be faster.

Just the list of games I have and the DRM required to play them.

<comment><USER3> > Achievements, Trading cards/Inventory, Browser, Community, Workshop

Doesn't all of that work through embedded web-browser?

<comment> maze-le I think the embedded browser is where the most bloat is located. Although this particular vulnerability is not tied to it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I just realized I only think about security vulnerabilities for code I deploy, not software I use. So what are some examples of RCE vulnerabilities that were actively exploited in consumer software in the past?

Just curious how it would've played out if a blackhat had discovered this instead.

<comment><USER5> I think your browser, the various MS office applications, and Acrobat reader are some of the big ones that spring to mind, but there have quite a few!

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Why do people write their own memory allocators and put them in production software for modern desktop applications? It's not like you can eek that much more performance out, and the steam client is already fairly buggy. Switching the views is slow, and doesn't always work.

<comment><USER7> Valve is a games company. They probably already had a stable of allocators and were used to that kind of programming. Also the Windows malloc was much slower in 2003 IIRC.

<comment><USER8> I'm guessing it's more this. I can't imagine the Steam app demands that high performance.

<comment><USER9> Well, since steam is in the background during all the games launched from it, often allows a special video overlay to browse community features while the game is running, supports chat, has an embedded browser, and can be used as an operating system overlay so you don't even have to use the OS for most things (big picture mode, for dedicated use and control with a game controller), I can imagine they probably want to make sure whatever allocator and reclamation scheme they are using has very low and predictable latency.

The last thing they want to have to deal with is people reporting how running the game through steam costs a non-negligible amount of performance, or causes weird occasional lags/stalls while playing. In that respect, it's an extremely high performance application, in that it needs to be nigh unnoticeable to the type of people that overclock systems, push their graphics cards to their limits, and play games with FPS counters always showing in the corner.

In that respect, it may be a textbook case of an application where you want a very specific memory allocation scheme that falls within very strict performance guidelines.

<comment><USER6> It already has a large number of performance issues. The store is slow to open, and it's slow to switch to my library. Even slower to view my inventory.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They also* change the ACLs on their executable directory to world writeable, despite having a system service.

I say despite because: a. With a system service you wouldn't need to change the ACLs b. now anyone everyone has a system service, yay!

* well, I haven't checked this week

</comment><comment><USER11> I remember reading that Valve is all self-organized and perf/bonuses are based on shipping. In that environment, is there any incentive for an IC to own something like software assurance / quality / fuzzing?

</comment><comment><USER12> "The video below demonstrates an attacker remotely launching the Windows calculator app on a fully patched version of Windows 10." So devious!

<comment><USER13> Launching the calculator is basically a "hello world" of exploitation. It proves there's an issue in an obvious way and became a bit of a meme in security.</comment></comment>


Firefox Premium for Enterprises is now available - <AUTHOR> https://www.ghacks.net/2019/09/12/firefox-premium-for-enterprises-is-now-available/ <comment><AUTHOR> Charing for a browser brings back memories: "For now, though, note this fact: Microsoft is giving away Internet Explorer, while Netscape's retail price for Navigator is $49.Oct 31, 1996" [https://www.fastcompany.com/27743/nothing- netscape](https://www.fastcompany.com/27743/nothing-netscape)</comment>