Facebook scraped call, text message data for years from Android phones - node-bayarea https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/facebook-scraped-call-text-message-data-for-years-from-android-phones <comment><AUTHOR> Android's permissions system for stuff like that is indefensible. Anything with severe privacy implications like "years of text message history" should explicitly opt-in with a permission request popup at runtime like iOS has done for features like camera since launch.

Of all the things to not copy from iOS, of course privacy is the one that they decide to skimp out on. I'm glad they've started to catch up, but they have a ways to go yet.

<comment><USER2> I hate that I can't send a photo to a friend without giving facebook access to _all_ of my photos. Where's the "just this one" option?

<comment><USER3> This is already possible, some apps launch a file picker app (what you're supposed to do).

Instead, apps that want to steal your pictures request access to all of them.

<comment><USER4> Android has a lot of nasty corners around stuff like this, which can prevent being both streamlined (accessing all photos _does_ let you optimize for your app, some people want that) and privacy-friendly (for people who don't want that). My personal favorite:

If you don't request camera permission, you can still open the camera with an intent. This is great!

If you _do_ request camera permission, and you are denied, _you can 't use that intent either_. [https://blog.egorand.me/taking-photos-not-so-simply-how- i-go...](https://blog.egorand.me/taking-photos-not-so-simply-how-i-got-bitten- by-action_image_capture/)

I honestly can't tell if it's this way to be intentionally hostile to users, or by accident, or if they honestly think this is a positive quality.

<comment><USER5> I dont understand your frustration, user clearly doesnt want to give you camera access, leave him alone.

<comment><USER4> "Give app X direct access to the camera, microphone, and all my photos literally any time it pleases" and "use this camera app I trust instead" are very, _very_ different desires.

Usually I hate the in-app cameras, because they're not optimized for my device. They're usually slower, have no flash control, no zoom, no manual exposure options, etc. I'd _almost always_ prefer to use a dedicated camera app instead.

Because of this permissions decision, if an app wants to bake in a camera thing (nearly every app that might ever touch the camera does, even if e.g. only for a QR code reader or something), I can no longer choose. The app _can 't_ open my camera app when it makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I removed my phone number from Facebook profile months ago. Now and then, Facebook still asks me if "XXXXXX" is my number? Once I unintentionally linked my Facebook account with my insta account. And then I started getting follow suggestions from people in my Facebook friend list. I tried many thing to de- link the accounts. Ultimately, I created a fake Facebook account and linked it to my insta.

Once you give something to Facebook; it's never truly erased.

<comment><USER7> Good story. And I bet you there are lawyers in Europe sharpening their teeth right now waiting for GDPR to kick in to send Facebook discovery letters just a minute after April 1st pass. Need popcorn and comfortable chair, as the stock is down 10%, and we've just started!!

Edit: May 25, of course.

<comment><USER8> I understand the blow-back against their privacy abuses, it's well deserved (as it was in the past). However, this kind of response is just funny.

The stock is back to where it was in July. Up 100% in less than three years.

$464 billion market cap.

Things are really dire. They'll only earn $20 billion this year, growth will only be 30%+.

They only have ~$43 billion in cash right now with zero debt. That's barely enough to keep the lights on. They should shut down the business right now before they run out of money.

The speeding tickets they might one day get from the EU, could cost them hundreds of millions of dollars. But just imagine, what if it's $3 billion. I mean, it's not like Facebook can reluctantly change several of its policies while maintaining its massive 2+ billion userbase and keep right on printing money at their 50% operating income margins. Yeah, but just imagine if their operating income margins decline to only 40% because it crimps their business model by reducing the value of their ad targeting. And what if it cuts their growth rate in half? Under that scenario they might only earn $30 billion in net income in 2021. It's a rough road ahead.

The other fun part? They'll still net add global users in 2018. None of this is going to matter for the survival of their business, although it might improve user privacy around the globe and that'll be a big win.

<comment><USER7> Unless another social network comes along and FB will die out loud like Friendster and MySpace did.

If you think solid $ numbers are everything to keep "printing money" then see what happened to Kodak or Sony.

<comment><USER9> Many have tried to take a slice of FB's pie - almost all failed to make a serious dent, and the main social media alternatives are also generally struggling (or have serious fundamental issues of their own).

At this point, I'm very skeptical another company will unseat FB's dominance for quite a while, if ever.

<comment><USER10> And FB buys the competition or throws money at disarming it by buying its competition and putting it on steroids.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I realize that it's too late to cry over spilled milk, but that was one of the reasons for which Firefox OS was developed. We wanted to push a different permission model in which permissions were much more fine-grained and could be audited and revoked easily. Sadly, one of the reactions of the development community (including HN commenters) at the time was along the lines of "Android is just fine".

I understand that recent versions of Android have moved towards adopting a permission model closer to that of Firefox OS, though, and I suspect that the example given by Firefox OS at least showed that it was possible.

P.S.: Yes, Firefox OS had other problems. Let's not try and idealize the past :)

<comment><USER12> > and revoked easily .

I don't see how revoking permissions solve that problem. Once an app has scraped your info, you can revoke it's permissions all you want, it is not going to delete your data from its server.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> What's the supposed justification for scraping text message data? I mean the contact list could be justified as a means of cross referencing friends. I'm having a hard time coming up with a _legitimate_ use for text message data. Best I've got is " _who do you contact regularly?_ " which is still insanely creepy.

<comment><USER14> I think it's "This helps us orient both ad- and non-ad- content on Facebook to fit you optimally and keep you on Facebook and also figure out why people keep texting instead of using FB Messenger."

<comment><USER15> That's not a justification that helps the user much though.

<comment><USER16> Who cares about the user?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Funny how this is popping up now (presumably because some guy noticed his call logs were in his facebook data download and tweeted about it), even though the permissions in question (described in no unecrtain terms) were in the app for years, and there was an explicit setting in the app to turn this on/off [http://i.imgur.com/NRarWdh.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/NRarWdh.jpg).

<comment><USER18> The problem is that apps need certain permissions to perform their function. Such as a music app that needs access to the phone module, so it can pause the music when a phone call arrives. This has the effect of users not paying attention the the specific permissions, since in many cases the need for them isn't obvious.

<comment><USER19> Why? Why doesn't the operating system do that for them? Why is it up to individual applications to decide whether or not they want to pause music with a phone call starts?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I'm ex-FB and have it on good authority that this is indeed used to improve the relevance of friend suggestions (i.e. distinguish between your best friends and the plumber in your contacts). I'm also told it's opt-in, and the app dialog (not just the system dialog) does say call logs will be scraped.

But still, IMO it's an incredibly invasive, incredibly dumb thing to be doing in the current context for the small benefit it brings. I hope they wake the f __* up to just how bad it makes FB look like to the outside world, and kill this feature with fire.

</comment><comment><USER21> The mile-long list of app permissions requested by Facebook's app should have been a red flag for most.

There are alternatives, such as using the mobile web interface, or any of the various apps that wrap the site, such as [https://f-droid.org/en/packages/it.rignanese.leo.slimfaceboo...](https://f-droid.org/en/packages/it.rignanese.leo.slimfacebook/)

<comment><USER22> The app permissions should have been a red flag, except some users probably never even saw them since Facebook was pre-installed on their phones.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> When you allow an app to access your contacts, they grab all of them and upload them to their servers. It's less severe in iOS because they can't access SMS and call logs.

</comment><comment><USER24> I hope it is getting to the point that having Facebook on your resume should be considered a huge red flag

</comment><comment><USER25> This is one of the things that led me to stop using Facebook last year. In order to use the app you have to give it all manner of permissions. And of course, if Facebook can access your data they're going to suck in as much as they can. They don't respect you, they want to use you.

So put me in the "not surprised" category, but I'm really glad there's more discussion of this.

</comment><comment><USER26> Yawn! We knew this was happening for years. FB scraped data for one purpose only: To figure out who your close friends were offline. And they wanted all sorts of information that could indicate closeness. From location data that would show how often you meet up together and how long you hang out. To phone call and sms data.

Now a lot of that data is dead data. Like it has no use after a couple of years. But just like Google cookie having an expiration date of 20 years, FB just does not know when that data becomes irrelevant.

FB and zuck have this manifest dream of figuring out connections and then figuring out the strength of those connections. Then they want to figure out social relevance. Then they want to use that info to bind people together on their platform. It is not a bad idea overall, until you add in government and corporate entities.

And by that time you know how evil of a thing you signed up for.

</comment><comment><USER27> MySpace allowed viruses on their platform; Facebook IS the virus.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'll throw in another place where permissions aren't nearly granular enough - online file storage (Dropbox, Onedrive, Box.com, etc.). Perhaps I'd like to allow an app to save information for cross-platform use or just because I want it on my own personal cloud storage - 1Password's older versions are a great example of this. I haven't looked at it recently, but I'm not aware of any changes that add that level of granularity to the APIs.

What throws me is that I'd expect security conscious developers to be clamoring for this. If I'm writing an app that should store data for users on the user's own accounts, it's not "I do not want to have access to everything" it's "I do want to NOT have access to everything."

</comment><comment><USER29> People had been running untrusted apps in the browser and collaborating over the internet for more than two decades now. Mobile OSes threw out all the safety lessons codified into web browsers and built an entirely new permissions model. A decade later, here we are - there are hundreds of companies holding varying levels of access to your entire contacts list, text messages, GPS data, photos and other media. And all of them will hold on to it for eternity.

I for one, am glad web apps are making a comeback. Now I use web apps wherever possible, fully aware that I can't do anything about what's already been shared.

</comment><comment><USER30> From my insider source, I'm told that permissions will change significantly in the near future.

Just FYI: a lot of other apps also utilize the same permission. Just an aside but Google also has the authority to whitelist certain applications for these permissions - meaning they can enable certain invasive permissions without asking the users.

We shouldn't just vilify Facebook. It was how the privacy framework was designed for Android that's the issue. This will change in the next upcoming versions.

</comment><comment><USER31> Their permission requests are outrageous. That's why I refuse to install any apps from Facebook on my phone, and pollute my Facebook account with false personal data.

Fake news for fake data:)

<comment><USER32> Has anyone seen the permissions being asked for recently, games want access to contacts and to make calls. wtf?

<comment><USER18> Isn't that so they can pause / save the game when you get an incoming phone call? I recall reading that on an app once.

<comment><USER15> What platform? Surely android as you can do that in iOS without those permissions and I would have thought you'd get rejected if you tried that on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Users need to be able to mislead the apps.

Right now, an app can force a choice: enable all the permissions, or you don't get to use the app. Users need to be able to feed fake data into the app. For example, maybe Facebook should think I am spending my time with Bill Gates in Bhutan. Users should be able to install dishonesty plugins to generate this data.

</comment><comment><USER34> I already suspected this due to getting more posts from my friends based on who I texted, and they were Android users. It's fucking annoying. Also, using the same wifi network leads to getting friend suggestions

</comment><comment><USER35> I really don't get why people use the fb app. It drains your battery and privacy, not to mention the notifications. I use web app only.

</comment><comment><USER36> Is this possible with IOS? Or for people who have never shared their contacts with Facebook?

</comment><comment><USER37> What has changed at facebook to create all this negative feedback?

<comment><USER38> The richness of the irony in your question makes me wonder about your level of sarcasm.

On one hand, its pretty reasonable to say that absolutely nothing changed at facebook. We are all witnessing the effects of latency.

On the other hand, the change(s) that has ushered in this uptick in negative opinions in regards to Facebook will likely be the source of vigorous debate for some time.

For one, this is just the latest example of habitual behavior on Facebooks part, selling third parties more access to personal data than the persons referenced are comfortable with. The response every single time has been for Facebook to say roughly "We agree in principle that we slightly messed up, and as our more than adequate self imposed penance, we will solve this problem in secrecy with the completely untested technology that we've been working super hard on ever since we discovered this problem 2 years ago, but only acknowledged publicly as a strategic move when no better alternative existed to preserve our viability as a corporation".

Additionally, the data subjects do not generally understand the power imbued to the purchaser of that data at the point they give away that data. Further, they possibly are giving up the legal right to any privacy stemming from what that data may tell third parties.

In the context of all of these generally nebulous problems, is the growing news story involving Cambridge Analytica's alleged use of Facebook's data, the Presidents use of both of those, and the extent to which it can be argued that voter outreach crosses a line in to deceptive psychological manipulation.

Its what folks in scientific fields refer to as evidence that supports, as opposed to weakens, a falsifiable hypothesis.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Google is as much to blame here as Facebook is. It shouldn't have allowed apps with "contacts" permission to scrape sms & call logs. I hope both of them are held accountable

<comment><USER40> If I run a program, I don't expect it to scrape my home folder just because technically my OS granted it permission to do so. And I don't think that is a distinction the law makes, either. Intent and explicit consent matter.

<comment><USER17> Not a fair comparison because there's no sandbox for desktop apps.

<comment><USER41> The app store is front and center on Mac. All apps are sandboxed by default. Steam is another sandbox. A browser is a sandbox.

The problem is that it's hard to write an _interesting_ Mac desktop application that runs in a sandbox. The kind of complexities that require a full blown desktop application just don't fit in a sandbox. (As opposed to a game, mobile, or web app.) Whatever runs in a sandbox turns out to be just a prettier version of a web app, or a self-contained game.

<comment><USER42> Nitpick, but I'm pretty sure Steam doesn't actually sandbox the games you download through it.

<comment><USER43> Nope, not at all. In fact many games on Steam come with their own _additional_ invasive DRM schemes that do all kinds of things you wouldn't expect.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is completely unsurprising. The question is whether they should be allowed to keep that data.

<comment><USER45> Why the hell should they be allowed to keep that data?

<comment><USER46> Because you gave it to them. The alternative goes right to rules that prevent everyone (not just FB) from remembering things, and ultimately more censorship.

Is it just me or has a whole generation lost the concept of personal responsibility? I don't use FB because it's been obvious for a long time this was happening, and it's an awful platform, designed to socially engineer their flock of product people.

Use products that you control. LineageOS + FDriod is a great start.

<comment><USER47> This libertarian utopia obviously breaks down any time you're presented with a 200-page Terms of Service. _Nobody_ has the time and/or skills to read and understand the content at the level required for "informed consent".

Which is why societies have come up with a far better method: collectively decide (or collectively choose people to decide) on reasonable limits for certain types of transactions.

My German law professor used to say that she never read ToS. Because under the country's law, they are either reasonable or unenforceable.

Such laws have nothing to with censorship. If you really need your users private messages, you just have to more explicitly present them with the choice, and respect their decision to say no without unreasonably denying them service.

The US has far more lenient standards for such one-sided contracts, but the basic principle is obviously the same: If Facebook were to add a paragraph giving them ownership of your house somewhere deep in the ToS, they wouldn't stand a chance in a court of law.

<comment><USER48> I'm always amazed by the ability of libertarians to believe that in the jungle, they'd be tigers rather than tiger shit. More often it turns out they just have a grossly inflated opinion of themselves, as in this case. We're all human, all weak, and we all need to depend on each other a lot, it's just the way it is.

<comment><USER38> I think that people who go out of their way to present what they believe are alpha male characteristics are essentially hanging a neon sign above themselves. That sign is begging for someone with those characteristics to come along and fix the worlds problems in the way that the stereotypical Clint Eastwood or Arnold Schwarzenegger character solved his problems. In other words, an alpha male exerting his will, delivering satisfying one liners, and saving the world.

Why else would nearly every single popular conservative media "character" be so uncannily similar? Why did nearly all of those characters triple down on this machismo roughly 18 months ago? Could it be that they got back the results of their latest A/B test?

I think this all drives at the most interesting, world changing possibility that could come out of this reckoning with Facebook. What will happen when it becomes conventional wisdom that the true power of collecting all of this data is not the ability to predict what you will do, but the ability to direct what you will do? What will happen when it truly registers with people that this necessarily removes their agency? What will prevent that critical mass from making the trivial jump in logic that advertisers and public relations firms have been progressively improving on these same skills to the same general ends for a century?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tailrec.js -- Dead simple auto-trampolining for Javascript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/natefaubion/tailrec.js

<comment><USER2> Cool stuff! Don't see myself needing this in Javascript though.

</comment><comment><USER3> Typo on your github page description.

</comment><comment><USER4> very cool.</comment>


Bill Gates was like Michael Jordan while running Microsoft - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/09/10/how-bill-gates-was-like-michael-jordan-while-running-microsoft.html <comment><USER2> When I worked there as a developer (early 1990s), it was definitely a very aggressive and focused culture. You had big targets and would get reamed out if you didn't meet them.

But the following day you'd be praised for what you did get done to make sure you knew how much you have achieved - and that often pushed you to meet your targets the following day or so.

I liken it today to a perpetual game jam or hackathon. Four months at Microsoft felt like 10 years anywhere else, but no other environment built my skillset as fast, and I have many fond memories of that time and culture.

</comment><comment><USER3> Michael Jordan was an unprosecuted monopoly abuser who got away with presenting fraudulent evidence under oath, and set back computer technology by decades, getting people used to crashing systems without demanding their money back?

Who knew?

</comment><comment><USER4> Bill Gates and Steve Jobs would never have gotten away with what they did now due to the internet. I know many former Microsoft employees, Bill was famous for grilling people. "That was the stupidest idea in the history of Microsoft" was a common phrase.

Watching Gates' building his legacy has been interesting, I always wondered what happened to the "real Bill" I heard about from my network who worked for him directly. I think it is an interesting move for him to be honest about it due to this book.

I suspect that Gates has been able to run interference on accounts of what he used to be like: Mean.

Despite that, he has made a lot of his employees very rich. If you were anywhere near Gates during this period you would have counted yourself lucky to be getting reamed and counting your stock options over multiple stock splits. I would take the 1985 - 1998 Microsoft stock options please.

I think the changing realities of the internet and laws protecting diverse workforce's from harassment might be a genuine future risk to his legacy. I have been surprised at how little coverage there has been.

If Gates and Jobs engaged in their former behavior in a modern work environment they would definitely get sued. Not "possibly" or "potentially" -> it would be a successful lawsuit, maybe a class action and they would lose.

If they did what they did anywhere near women or minorities it would stand a good chance of getting labeled some form of illegal harassment or discrimination under current law.

I am not saying they necessarily are racist or sexist, but any type of behavior like this towards women or minorities in general would be an extremely high risk activity.

</comment><comment><USER5> It was interesting to see both at the White House to receive the presidential medal of freedom. Both are maniacally competitive and dominated their field for a decade unlike anyone before or since.

</comment><comment><USER6> Michael Jordan, as in the CEO of PepsiCo, Westinghouse, CBS, and EDS?</comment>


Former Dollar Shave Club Exec Gets Ready to Shake Up the Estate Sale Industry - <AUTHOR> https://www.inc.com/jeremy-goldman/this-former-dollar-shave-club-exec-gets-ready-to-shake-up-estate-sale-industry.html <comment><USER2> Blergh, just a PR puff piece. Sorry I clicked.</comment>


We're headed for a future where only the wealthy can enjoy nature - <AUTHOR> http://thehill.com/opinion/energy-environment/399340-were-headed-for-a-future-where-only-the-wealthy-can-enjoy-nature <comment><USER2> Made me think of this:

At any rate, spring is here, even in London N1, and they can't stop you enjoying it. This is a satisfying reflection. How many a time have I stood watching the toads mating, or a pair of hares having a boxing match in the young corn, and thought of all the important persons who would stop me enjoying this if they could. But luckily they can't. So long as you are not actually ill, hungry, frightened or immured in a prison or a holiday camp, spring is still spring. The atom bombs are piling up in the factories, the police are prowling through the cities, the lies are streaming from the loudspeakers, but the earth is still going round the sun, and neither the dictators nor the bureaucrats, deeply as they disapprove of the process, are able to prevent it.

—from 'Some Thoughts on the Common Toad' by George Orwell. Highly recommend.

</comment><comment><USER3> Let's build a VC backed AI enabled blockchain VR version of nature for the poor. problem solved

<comment><USER4> It's better than nature because you can have pokemon there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Anyone who's worried only the wealthy will be able to enjoy nature hasn't been to West Virginia.

<comment><USER6> I think "nature" in this article refers to actual natural treasures (Grand Staircase, Yosemite, etc.), not just some random forest on some rolling hills.

<comment><USER7> I don't think the Blue Ridge Mountains count as rolling hills, and I would count them among our national treasures.

That being said, the fact is that WV's natural resources have been subjected to some of the most profound (and least regulated) economic exploitation in the country. So I don't think the GP's point is correct.

<comment><USER8> It reads like "the Poors can live Outdoors!"* but I'm going to assume I'm mistaken or that that couldn't possibly be a popular opinion on hn.

*this is a joke and if you want to argue that i'm implying that everyone in West Virginia is homeless, bless your heart

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Aren't the areas Mike Lee is looking to sell already off limits to the public? They're not national parks, so I don't really know how usage works

</comment><comment><USER10> If the values are wrong, this follows.

</comment><comment><USER8> Hahaha comments agreeing with this sentiment are getting downvoted, and the thread itself has been flagged.

<comment><USER11> We've banned this account for trolling. Please don't create accounts to break the site guidelines with.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)

<comment><AUTHOR> was the article flagged because of comments or because of content? op, don't want to step on toes.

<comment><USER11> Users flagged it, presumably because they didn't think it followed the site guidelines. Hard to say if they were reacting to the article or the thread. Divisive topics like this pretty much always turn into flamewars unless they include significant new information for the mind to chew on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> And health care. And get elected in govt.

</comment><comment><USER13> These are long overdue reforms. The states east of the mississippi did not have the lionshare of their land retained by the federal government when they became states. West of the river is a different story. With the federal government owning 2/3rds of the land in the west, things are way out of whack.

<comment><USER14> Are they? A huge portion of my state is federal or state park land, and people flock to these places to get away from the cities and the suburbs. If Lee had his way, the federal government could start selling lands in places like Mount Rainier National Park or the Mount Baker-Snoqualmie National Forest. These areas host numerous trailheads, picnic areas, campgrounds, and the like.

I can't help but agree with the author of the article, that Lee just wants to sell these lands off to rich people who will deny access. We have a long history in Washington of exploring the Cascades and the Olympics and I want that to continue for the foreseeable future. These lands are the birthright of our children and we should steward them as such.

<comment><USER15> Having moved from the seattle area to the state of maryland, the lack of parks and public land feels very depressing. You drive by giant majestic horse pastures, but the parks are so small that you can still hear cars driving by.</comment></comment></comment>


Docomo unveils instant translator glasses in Japan - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/docomo-unveils-instant-translator-glasses-in-japan-7000021376/

<comment><USER2> Wasn't there an app that could do this on an iPhone a while back?

<comment><USER3> Yep, Word Lens [http://readwrite.com/2010/12/16/amazing_instant_translation_...](http://readwrite.com/2010/12/16/amazing_instant_translation_app_looks_great_in_vid)

<comment><USER4> Word Lens is one of those apps I show people to blow their mind at where technology is up to these days.

It's a serious "we're in the future" moment every time I use it.</comment></comment></comment>


Whale 'swallows' sea lion: 'It was a once-in-a-lifetime event' - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-49161923 <comment><USER2> > "The whale never actually closed its jaws around the sea lion, so it > shouldn't have been harmed. Very scared, I'm sure, but not harmed."

According to the photographer the sea lion most likely just swam away as the whale didn't even close its mouth, which makes this an annoyingly click-baity title ("swallows").

<comment><USER3> Mind the sarcastic quotes in the title.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> In most instances, being eaten alive is a "once-in-a-lifetime event"...

</comment><comment><USER5> Typical. The sea lion was just asking a few questions and trying to have a polite discussion.

</comment><comment><USER6> Yeah this is cool but more like "Whale accidentally surfaces with mouth open where sea lion happens to be"

Humpback whale throats are about the size of a grapefruit and they eat mostly krill.

</comment><comment><USER7> This is a perfect candidate for editing the title for accuracy on HN. I was absolutely shocked until I read past the clickbait headline.

</comment><comment><USER8> so, I've been near sea lions on the Oregon coast - the males can be large and many 100s of pounds (bigger than actual Lions!) and rather intimidating. This picture of the whale's mouth with a sea lion in it really puts into perspective how big the whale is.</comment>


Show HN: Pose, a simple web app for character posing - <AUTHOR> https://galshir.com/pose <comment><USER2> First off, the tool is beautiful, and so is the website. I thought I understood what it does, but turns out, I was a little bit wrong.

I initially thought this was a tool for someone like me, no drawing abilities, but wanting to add some characters in different poses to my webpage without hiring an illustrator.

Then I watched the demo video, and I see it is only for creating a character outline, and then an artist needs to still draw the character. This is just a guideline for them.

My question then becomes. If I'm an animator, aren't I already an expert at this? Do I need this tool in order to give me a guideline with which to draw my character?

With the current state of CV, I'd like to be able to see this sort of tool allow me to re-position a character I can import into the tool, or potentially even a photo.

I understand that is much more work than the author has envisioned with this app, but as it stands, I'm not completely convinced it is valuable enough to the target audience, and I think it could have more value to a larger audience.

Keen to hear if this is a tool that animators actually need.

<comment><USER3> I think this would be great training wheels if I (not an artist) needed to crank out some drawings.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Interesting idea. It's clear what the product does. What's the use case for it?

</comment><comment><USER5> Neat. I think the page would be better if the sample art was better looking.

</comment><comment><USER6> I mean, in today's ecosystem the idea of paying for this sort of app before being able to test it at all seems a bit unrealistic.</comment>


Powerpoint has been banned from Embedded conference. - <AUTHOR> http://www.embedded.com/columns/esdeuropeeic/224000026?pgno=1

<comment><USER2> It's not PowerPoint, it's all computer-based presentations.

Personally, I would not speak at this conference. I like my Takahashi slides, and I do like to reuse them when overlap is unlikely (a talk in Minneapolis, and then one in Oslo). Reuse means I get to make it iteratively better each time; I usually "test" my slides in front of a small group before I present in front of a big group. Someone has to deal with Rev. A, but not everyone.

With the method this conference requires, it's always revision A... so I hope you practice a lot before your talk, and I hope your dog gives you good feedback. I have given some good impromptu talks, but those tend to be entertaining rather than technical. If someone is paying to go to a conference, breadth of subject matter is probably better than watching me make fun of my hair.

IMHO.

<comment><USER3> >With the method this conference requires, it's always revision A

While I was about to type "bullshit", think that's a little strong.

Slides were long _ridiculed_ as an ineffective form of presentation before they were accepted across corporate America.

As someone who's presented in academic situations before with nothing more than a white board or chalkboard, you can use the same presentation again without slides. You can refine jokes, explanations, etc, and give "the same talk", and never involve a slide. Many lawyers actually are famous for doing that sort of thing in legal circles.

Sure, you can't put as much information on the screen, but in general, powerpoint presentations have way too much.

One of the _strengths_ though of not allowing prepared slides: It's damn hard to do a presentation if you don't know the materials. So even if they want to send the marketing guy, he's gotta know his stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I really like the concept. I've been frustrated by slideware nearly everywhere I've encountered it, be it academic or industry events. Sure, it makes it pretty hard to demonstrate software and such things, but hey, how about build an embedded device to show the things you want it to show? Or even draw on the flipboard for you. This conference is all about intelligent objects.

On a more serious note, this should make it easier to adapt the presentation to the audience. You no longer have the option to hide behind your slides or to fear that you won't get to the last slide in time. It will scare off a number of decent presenters (as jrockway said here) but it will also scare all but the very hardcore marketing types. Would probably give startups an edge though (used to pitching without materials).

</comment><comment><USER5> I think banning powerpoints is going a bit too far. Not everyone is natural born presenter and many can be struggling. Presenting without slides is going to be a major hurdle for these people.

What I would propose is that people are not allowed to have any text (besides the title and presenter) on the slides at all. Or maybe a dozen words throughout the presentation. I think it is incredibly insulting to the audience to make slides and then read them literally to the audience (bonus points for title-casing all your bulletpoints and cramming so much text into a slide that it's barely legible).

<comment> loup-vaillant If you need slides to follow through your presentation, you could use personal notes instead. That means slides are useless as reminders.

I agree with your other point (banning or restricting text on slides), but it is hardly enforceable in a fair manner. No slides at all is simpler.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> link would be even better without clickthru front page...</comment>


Ask HN: Bored of enterprise CRUD – should I do a masters? - <AUTHOR> I've worked as a web developer for about five years, coming from a background in UX design, and feel I lack intellectual stimulation. My degree is completely non-technical (English lit, Cambridge). Would a masters in  computer science unlock more interesting work?
I am specifically interested in the MSc in Computing Science offered by Imperial College London. It's open to non-tech graduates and looks like it offers a lot more than your usual conversion course -with modules in ML, AI, CV and graphics programming.
But would it be a good investment? I want to do something more technical than shuffle strings about web interfaces. I feel like I've learned all I can in that domain: I've done high performance distributed systems, I've done web graphics (inc WebGL), I must have written twenty JS/TS Single Page Apps, including Angular and Redux and vanilla stacks and all the rest.
I'm bored. And I feel jealous of my colleagues in data science and computer vision. I feel jealous of the C++ embedded systems contractor we brought in a little while ago. I'm jealous because I want to do something hard, and because I don't like working on commodity software, where you're addressing straightforward technical problems in a micromanaged environment. What's my best way out of that? <comment><USER2> Unless you're interested in academia, research, or a big-corp position that filters by education, I don't believe MSc will unlock anything for you. Your experience should be good enough on its own after 5+ years.

If you want to learn any specific tech, you can read papers and play with the code on your own. If you want something more structured, you can pick up the course resources. I understand this may not apply to you because of learning style preferences, but I wouldn't recommend doing an MSc if you're interested in just the tech skills. (I've got a masters deg.)

Escaping the micromanagement he'll send a bit orthogonal to technologies. You could look for smaller, or more reasonable places to do that. You don't need to change your skillset.

</comment><comment><USER3> Having a masters will definitely unlock more opportunities for you (both academia and industry) but there are other ways of achieving it. You can take courses online and see how you like the courses (don't have to go full throttle just check if you find it interesting enough). If you find it right fit you can go for full-fledged masters program. You can also earn certificates and try for a position in a startup which is willing to bet on you solving hard problems for them.

I have a masters degree and while I enjoyed my masters work I learnt a lot more in same period (~1.5 yrs) in industry. YMMV as I have always learnt more outside classroom by self-learning/hands-on. Btw I have seen a lot of higher degree holders also work on CRUD apps at BigCos. Those jobs will always outnumber niche jobs.

</comment><comment><USER4> I don't recommend a Master's degree unless you'd like one to pursue a research position in academia or an industry lab (Microsoft Research, IBM Research, Google Brain, FAIR, etc). Master's degrees come in two varieties: research degrees (Master's degrees with fewer courses and a thesis) and professional degrees (Master's degrees which are just coursework). Professional Master's degrees are not _categorically_ different from Bachelor's degrees. You'll learn material you don't know that's more advanced than undergraduate material, but it won't really be anything you couldn't have learned on your own.

On the other hand, a research Master's degree provides you with meaningful experience in how to do scholarly work. This is categorically different from what you're already used to. There is also advanced coursework involved, but the salient achievement of the degree is a thesis. This process will thoroughly acquaint you with the research frontier of various topics and the way you can independently conduct your own research. In computer science it's not uncommon to accomplish a novel research contribution through a Master's thesis.

Research is extraordinarily difficult to teach yourself (it's usually a major red flag for someone in isolation to attempt research that's disconnected from the rest of the field). However, you're already an autodidact given your undergraduate concentration. You have the requisite educational maturity to teach yourself more advanced subject matter if you can find the right material and impose the structure on yourself. For this reason, a purely coursework- based Master's degree would not provide you with anything you cannot fundamentally do yourself for free and while still working full time.

Examine your goals closely before you formulate a path forward and decide on it. Do you want to do research? Do you want jobs which mostly look for MSc or PhD candidates? What does the work of those jobs look like - do they emphasize the research component of past experience, or are they just looking for someone with advanced knowledge in a domain? How much free time do you have to devote to this, and are you willing to take a (potentially significant) cut in your salary to do it?

The other thing you should be aware of is that Master's degrees are very expensive despite the fact that they're only one - two years consisting of six - eight courses. If you are willing to engage in research, you could try to be admitted to a PhD program instead. You would most likely earn an MSc on the way to the PhD without having to pay for it, because PhD programs are (almost always) fully funded. This also leaves your future options more open, regardless of whether or not you ultimately finish the full PhD.

<comment><USER5> >I don't recommend a Master's degree unless you'd like one to pursue a research position in academia or an industry lab

Even if their Bachelor's degree is unrelated to the one they want to get, like the OP? I'm on a similar boat, unrelated degree, but doing programming work and don't want to be stuck doing the mundane forever.

People keep telling me conflicting advice. Get a MS if you have a bachelor's already. Get a BS in CS, your degree is unrelated. Or DON'T get another degree, and learn what you need online. For me I have an end goal in wanting to partake in space exploration because I really like the mission of some companies and agencies to put people on Mars and possibly beyond.

That's not a hop, skip and jump away but I want to know if it's really worth for more than a research. Especially if you consider there are career-oriented MS degrees, like the programs at DePaul for example. What is your opinion on career-focused MS degrees like that one?

<comment><USER4> First and foremost, I don't think a second Bachelor's degree is rational in any scenario. If you are going to spend the money to augment your education with another degree, make it a Master's degree.

I think there's an argument for doing a professional Master's degree if your undergraduate degree is in an unrelated discipline. I still believe a research Master's degree is a more valuable use of time, but a one-year professional Master's degree could also be valuable in that scenario.

However, the caveat is that since you won't be learning anything you can't learn on your own, you should probably go into this for the signaling effect. Large tech companies don't require undergraduate degrees in a specific discipline (or any undergraduate degree at all for that matter), which means the university name is the thing you're paying for that you can't do on your own. In consideration of this I wouldn't do a Master's degree unless it was from a top 20 or so school.</comment></comment></comment>


Why We Post Nothing About Our Daughter Online - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/data_mine_1/2013/09/facebook_privacy_and_kids_don_t_post_photos_of_your_kids_online.html

<comment><USER2> I think this is a commendable way of forward thinking, but I help but to laugh a little a bit when I read this:

"When we think she's mature enough [...], we'll hand her an envelope with her master password inside."

Which probably means about 1-2 years after she has already created her own accounts on whatever social network/apps _she_ wants to join (and on her own terms) ;)

</comment><comment><USER3> All credit due the author here for foresight and restraint on her kids behalf.

This framing of the privacy discussion puts it in biblical terms; most of society is trading away their privacy birthright without thinking in a way they might regret.</comment>


Tell HN: Anyone need an inexpensive Rails dev for quick work? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a college student looking to earn a bit of extra cash. Cost of living where I live is relatively low, so I'm pretty affordable for small projects.
Lately I've done:
http://codr.cc http://365.io (not my design) http://jrn.al (not my design, work in progress) http://wrttn.in
I could definitely help you with your MVP or early prototypes, but cannot take in heavy load/heavily complex work since I still have to prioritize school.
You can e-mail me at firstname.lastname@example.com if you're interested and we can work something out! <comment><USER2> I've sent you an email.</comment>


Falling in Love with a Hard Drive: How to Name Your Computer and Other Machines - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/message/falling-in-love-with-a-hard-drive-b49ddd6ce488 <comment><USER2> I name all my Hard Drives after Battlestar Galactica Ships - I have:

1TB 27" iMac - Galactica/ 4TB NAS - Pegasus/ 500GB MacBook - Colonial One/ 500GB External - Majahual/ 250GB External - Cloud 9/ 16GB USB - Demetrius/

</comment><comment><USER3> All ancient greek or latin words/concepts for me. I'm typing this from my workstation, 'magus'. Home machine is 'logos'. Laptop is 'thymos'.

</comment><comment><USER4> Schemes I've used over the years:

* Bodies of the Solar system - moon./mars./mercury./&etc.

* Shakespeares' characters - titus, achilles, adam, agrippa, &etc.

* proquint ( _) of the address - 10.0.0.53 = bomab-babuj, etc. (_ \- [http://arxiv.org/html/0901.4016](http://arxiv.org/html/0901.4016))

</comment><comment><USER5> My main Thinkpad is Magenta, the little laptop is Columbia, and I've misplaced my netbook Janet....

When I worked at SCO (well before the Caldera and Linux lawsuit crap), server names had "sco" in them, hence Scotty (a big old 68000 box), Crisco, Ionesco....</comment>


1800 MongoDB hacked - <AUTHOR> https://yro.slashdot.org/story/17/01/22/2140209/database-attacks-spread-to-couchdb-hadoop-and-elasticsearch-servers <comment><USER2> I don't understand why people keep calling this a hack. The systems were accessed by normal means as allowed and configured by their systems administrators.

Data hijack, data destruction, or some other term indicating there was vandalization through allowed access means would serve the tech community better.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree with you. I actually misread first before sharing the article and then read "these databases are MongoDB instances that feature no administrator password and are exposed to external connections from the internet" If you configure a DB with admin access to the internet and no password, you are basically asking people to vandalise/temper with your DB.</comment></comment>


Understand your Cloud - <AUTHOR> http://nestedcallbacks.tumblr.com/post/106265185469/understanding-your-cloud

<comment><USER2> This headline is much funnier with the extension that changes the word "cloud" to the word "butt"</comment>


When Pepsi Had a Navy - <AUTHOR> https://lflank.wordpress.com/2019/06/25/when-pepsi-had-a-navy/ <comment><USER2> This is just a rewritten version of the AtlasObscura story from Jan 2018

[https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soviet-union-pepsi- shi...](https://www.atlasobscura.com/articles/soviet-union-pepsi-ships)

It's rewritten paragraph-by-paragraph, probably automatically using "rewriting tools" that blog spammers use to plagiarize articles. You can tell because the story follows the same threads from paragraph to paragraph.

<comment><USER3> good catch, though probably not rewritten automatically. There's too much "context awareness" going on. If it was auto-written, it was then heavily edited by a native english speaker.

also after skimming the atlas obscura article, I have to say I wish I read that instead. Better prose and a lot more images than the plagiarized version.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> And then, of course, there's the time when Pepsi almost had an air force, albeit briefly: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc).

<comment><USER5> I'm still bothered by this case. While I don't think that PepsiCo should've been forced to buy and then sell (for points) a Harrier jet, the fact that there were no consequences for the ad just kind of baffles me. If you look at any ad targeting youth markets from the time period, they had the same nonchalance; sure, they're not pitching a jet, but that just seems like a terrible argument.

<comment><USER6> > the fact that there were no consequences for the ad

It was obviously a joke. No reasonable person would not see that.

<comment><USER7> In 2005 Pepsi had a campaign where you would get a Sony laptop priced at 2000 EUR by buying some 850 EUR net worth of soda.

When people started sending in their bottle labels en masse, it turned out that the company never expected anyone to actually aim for the prize. Pepsi representation tried to weasel out by changing the rules thrice. In the end, they had to bow down to the consumer protection officials and sent out a newer generation Vaio as they could not source enough of the model they advertised.

<comment><USER8> That puts me in mind of Hoover's infamous 1990s UK flight promotion. It started off OK, buy £100 of Hoover products, get a free flight to Europe. Not many redeemed the offer. Then they added global destinations. Loads redeemed the offer. People were buying a Hoover and giving or throwing it away, or leaving it in the shop to get (much more expensive) flights to the US.

Hoover made £30m in extra sales, and had to spend £50m on flights, and unknown compensation. TV programmes were made, court cases filed, board execs were fired and Hoover UK sold to the Italians.

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

<comment><USER9> > Hoover made £30m in extra sales, and had to spend £50m on flights, and > unknown compensation.

This is impressive, but it seems to understate Hoover's problems pretty dramatically. The Wikipedia article says this:

> at this point the consumer response increased enormously, as Hoover was > offering around £600 of airline tickets for an outlay of just £100. > Customers opted to purchase the cheapest product that was enough to satisfy > the £100 requirement, with some not even bothering to pick up the product > they had purchased. The Hoover factory had to switch to seven-day working > and hire additional employees to meet the demand for the cheapest qualifying > vacuum cleaner.

This sounds like a lot of additional expense in labor and materials, all of which was basically wasted.

<comment><USER6> > This sounds like a lot of additional expense in labor and materials, all of > which was basically wasted.

Yes I think that's the point of the story.

<comment><USER9> I thought the point of the story was the front-and-center statistics, 30 million pounds in additional sales outweighed by 50 million pounds in expenditures on airline tickets.

But that sounds like a 20 million pound loss most of which was wealth transfer (from Hoover to you!) rather than wealth destruction. In fact, because of the sideshow in ordering unwanted vacuum cleaners, the loss was apparently much larger and mostly wealth destruction rather than wealth transfer.

<comment><USER10> Thank you for bringing in the greater picture of wealth destruction vs wealth transfer instead of just the consumer and the producer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting story although:

> Pepsi a fleet of 17 obsolete Soviet Navy diesel attack submarines along with > a decommissioned cruiser, destroyer and frigate, as well as a number of new > civilian oil tankers. At a stroke, PepsiCo had become the sixth most > powerful navy in the world.

Not sure a bunch of questionable quality / condition ships and some oil tankers would really be the "sixth most powerful."

<comment><USER12> What are the more powerful ones? US, UK, France, Korea?, who else? Japan's SDF was still pretty neutered at the time, China didn't have a navy to speak of, I'm not sure how many other countries would have beaten them at the time. Maybe Egypt?

<comment><USER13> Here's what I got searching country names searching the pennant list from "Janes Fighting Ships 1988-89". It's limited to "major surface ships", and notably doesn't include the USSR due to their policy of regularly changing pennant numbers. I think it's OK for ballpark purposes.

1\. USA 425

2\. UK 95

3\. Japan 81

4\. France 65

5\. Taiwan 60

6\. China 52

7\. Indonesia 36

8\. India 35

9\. Italy 34

10\. Germany, Federal 30

[https://www.dropbox.com/s/a74zpbb556lv4mn/ships.pdf?dl=0](https://www.dropbox.com/s/a74zpbb556lv4mn/ships.pdf?dl=0)

<comment><USER12> Interesting. I wonder what qualifies as a "major surface ship"? Presumably not 50 foot coast guard cutters?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Can't believe they didn't mention the cherry (pepperoni?) on top: PepsiCo also got Gorbachev to huck some Pizza Hut for them: [https://youtu.be/fgm14D1jHUw](https://youtu.be/fgm14D1jHUw)

<comment><USER15> Olive surely?

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> >The Soviet ruble was still worthless on the international market

Who controls the currency controls the country. A government forced to barter its warships so a multinational company would continue delivering its soft- drink to its citizens. I wonder if the deliberate sabotage of the Ruble helped usher in collapse.

<comment><USER17> Actually the Soviet Union was indirectly brought down by the humble FAX machine.

The AFL-CIO from Detroit got friendly with the Polish Solidarity union. During protests the government would shut down communications.

They told the AFL-CIO what they really could use were FAX machines. AFL people and priests smuggled in the FAX machines in their suitcases and with it an alternative communications network was established. During protests they could quickly send information country wide and they hoped the government wouldn't catch on and it worked.

Without the absolute control over information one country after another fell.

[http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,159069,...](http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,159069,00.html)

<comment><USER18> Not sure about communist Poland, but fax machine had little to do with fall of USSR.

<comment><USER17> Poland was the domino and after it got its freedom one after another the rest of the countries in Eastern Europe gained their independence.

This put immense pressure on the Soviet Union after people in some of its republics like Georgia and the Ukraine decided that they wanted their freedom too.

The military panicked and staged a coup against Gorbachev. It then dawned on the Russians that they could have their freedom as well.

<comment><USER19> Ehm. I think you should refresh your knowledge about the fall of the USSR. The Orange revolution in Ukraine and the Rose revolution in Georgia heppened years after USSR felt apart. In reality the Baltic states were the first to declare independance from the Soviet Union. And it had little to do with Poland.

Source: citizen of Lithuania, the first one to break away.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> As I recall, during the 80s, Pepsi typically cost more than vodka.

<comment><USER15> Is that in the soviet union?

<comment><USER20> Yeah. Vodka was typically served in a simple ~100 ml glass (maybe 3-4 shots). Pepsi came with a fancy goblet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I remember this! I was 12 when this happened, and I remember talking about it in history class, including all the stuff about Nixon and Krushchev.

</comment><comment><USER22> I dont get it. They traded Pepsi for scrap metal? Could not they have traded it for wood, or ore, or gold? Like raw materials?

<comment><USER23> It was a command economy, and the entire export surplus of those other items was probably committed to other trade purposes.

We're used to total fungible value of everything, but in the Soviet Union bartering with what you had to hand was far more necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Interesting case there, but nowadays big conglomerates like Pepsi and Coke surely have thousands of security contractors on retainer? Then again, they can't exactly order an airstrike against Coke...

</comment><comment><USER25> Super grimy site, picked up that I'm on at&t and redirected me to some scummy "take our survey and win some shit" site with a fake message dialog.

</comment><comment><USER26> East India Co</comment>