Korean Fan Death - <AUTHOR> http://istommydrunk.svbtle.com/sudden-fan-death <comment> andrey-p Ah, good old ingrained gut knowledge. I know a bit about that.

I'm an ex-pat from an Eastern European country, currently living in the UK. Where I come from, there is a subcurrent of racism that pretty much everyone has. I've heard all the standard ones: "[ethnic group]? You _know_ what they're like" and "[religious group] are all [stereotype]. Oh, [a good acquaintance who is the only member of said religious group this person knows]? He's all right, yeah, but he's an exception."[1]

These come in the form of gut feelings that you somehow know are true, and when you're presented with evidence to the contrary you just assume it's an exception to the rule. Even if you _objectively_ know these gut feelings are incorrect, they're still hard to dispel because they're so deeply ingrained. It's stuff that's taken me a while to shake off.

What I'm trying to say is: challenge your gut responses to stuff. It'll make you a better person.

[1]: These are almost verbatim quotes from people who are otherwise fairly open-minded and progressive.

<comment><USER2> It's funny that you're assuming that these people's statements are the exception to the rule and they're otherwise fairly open-minded and progressive. It seems like you're being presented with evidence to the contrary.

<comment><USER3> Presumably the word "otherwise" means if you disregard those closed-minded and non-progressive facets.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Every fan in South Korea has an automatic shut-off feature - you can't even > buy a fan that will run all night. Impossible to purchase.

This statement is simply not true. I live in South Korea and I always run it all night in summer.

<comment><USER5> Hey serialx, I live in SK too, if you ever wanna grab a beer or coffee, shoot me an email: firstname.lastname@example.com

On Fan Death, the media bought it all up and publicized it on TV, naturally most South Koreans believe it. They are super conscious about anything related to health (even though smoking and binge drinking is quite common here).

If I have a cold, my wife (Korean) will tell me to go to the hospital. I grew up with not taking medicine unless it's absolutely necessary.

Back on topic, It's more of a culturally thing. I wouldn't bother trying to explain to people that it's not real, focus on feeling amused about the cultural difference.

Likwise, I'm from Australia, in my hometown (small beach town), I could walk to the local convenience store wearing no footware, no tshirt - just boxer shorts. To Korean people, they'd think I'm insane..... Just trying to highlight the differences in culture; seeing the humorous side of things is often better than trying to persuade someone they're wrong.

<comment><USER6> Wait, boxer shorts?

I used to see "No Shirts, No Shoes, No Service" on American stores. But as far as I know, few Americans walk around the streets in what is actually underwear.

<comment><USER5> Mind you, I did this when I was a teenager, I'd be shy to do it now. Appearances didn't really matter where I was from. Mostly Rugby guys, surfing ppl and tradesmen from my small town. Nobody judged you by appearance. I've never seen so much designer ware until I lived in Korea. But, fan death does have a cultural stigma here, and appearances matter. It's really hard to change someone's belief on fan death. So, it's better just to feel amused by the difference in culture.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've heard fan death is cited in cases where suicide or overdose is the true cause, and families don't want to admit it to themselves or others.

<comment><USER8> I had thought the same. And if true the author is mistaken; believing in it (or rather propagating it) _does_ offer something in return.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> > I know fan death isn't real, it's ridiculous of course…… but you know it > does happen sometimes right?

> cultural mythos is so powerful that it can make people believe things they > know to be untrue without even offering them anything in return.

The situation is even worse, unfortunately. This is called fetishistic disavowal: "I know very well, but...". Not only does it take the form of protecting obviously false beliefs (as with fan death), but it can also function as a way of disavowing what we know to be true.

Many of us know the world is facing a set of worsening crises (environmental/social/economic) but continue to live our lives as if this is not the case. I don't mean those who, for example, dispute the truth of global warming, I am speaking of those who know very well it is true but do not do anything.

The philosopher Slavoj Zizek often repeats a story about the astrophysicist Niels Bohr. While a friend was visiting Bohr's country home, they asked why a horseshoe was placed above a doorway, a common good-luck superstition practiced in Europe and elsewhere. Bohr's reply: "of course I don't believe it works, but I was told that it works even if you don't believe in it." Many beliefs in modern times work in this way.

<comment><USER10> [http://komplexify.com/math/humor_pure/UrbanLegends.html](http://komplexify.com/math/humor_pure/UrbanLegends.html)

> [Paul Adrien Maurice] Dirac had a horse shoe over his desk. One day a > student asked if he really believed that a horse shoe brought luck. > Professor Dirac replied, "I understand that it brings you luck if you > believe in it or not."

further reading: [http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/09/horseshoe- luck/](http://quoteinvestigator.com/2013/10/09/horseshoe-luck/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> "fan death" is certainly a possible phenomenon. it works similar to a convection oven. The US EPA even warns against fan death, though not calling it that.

[http://askakorean.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/fan-death-is- real.h...](http://askakorean.blogspot.co.uk/2009/01/fan-death-is-real.html)

and

[http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf](http://www.epa.gov/hiri/about/pdf/EHEguide_final.pdf) pg43 and appendix B

this comment totally misses the point of the article. but I was sufficiently amused to learn about "real" fan death that I thought it was worth sharing.

<comment><USER12> >The TWG also strongly recommends that, as part of a public education program, cities emphasize that portable electric fans are not the simple cooling solution they appear to be. Because of the limits of conduction and convection, using a portable electric fan alone when heat index temperatures exceed 99°f actually increases the heat stress the body must respond to by blowing air that is warmer than the ideal body temperature over the skin surface (American Medical Association Council on Scientific Affairs, 1997; CDC, 2004c). In these conditions, portable electric fans provide a cooling effect by evaporating sweat. The increased circulation of hot air and increased sweat evaporation can, however, speed the onset of heat-attributable conditions (e.g., heat exhaustion).

Appendix B also warns you about the extreme dangers of a fan.

<comment><USER13> So, "fans kill" when the temperature can do that all by itself...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There is a pretty popular expression in Galicia (Spain)that sums up this perfectly:

"Eu non creo nas meigas, mais habelas, hainas"

Which roughly translates to: _I don 't believe in witches, but they are out there_

</comment><comment><USER15> _This is one of my favorite phenomena because it underscores a basic human emotion: being 100% confident that something is not true, yet simultaneously unable to escape the feeling that is can't be completely untrue._

This sounds a lot like my OCD. I'm an atheist, I don't believe in a "higher power." And yet, I feel compelled to do certain things a certain number of times all because well, "it can't hurt, and just in case." I wish I could explain it better but that article is exactly how I feel about my OCD.

</comment><comment><USER16> Holy sheep shit batman. This story freaks me out. I did not know this was a wide spread thing in Korea.

I had an argument with my wife about this subject years ago. She is from S. Korea and I am from the US. She had yelled at me because I left a fan on and fell asleep. When she got home from work and realized what happened she freaked out and told me I could die that way. At the time I remember thinking that she was absolutely crazy to believe this was possible. We argued for a long time about it and at the time I remember questioning her sanity, repeatedly. Eventually she dropped it and admitted it probably was wrong of her.

Every once in a while this strange superstitious stuff pops up with her. I love her deeply but it is not easy being married to a South Korean. :-)

<comment><USER17> I feel for you. As a Mormon who has been on missions to Korea, I can without a doubt say they are the most gullible people on the planet. They believe in some crazy stuff.

<comment><USER18> This questions is probably going to come off as sounding kind of tongue-in- cheek, but I gotta ask: does that make your job easier? Does their 'gullibility' mean that they're more open to new ideas (which would presumably make things easier for you), or just that their _current_ set of beliefs seems crazy to you?

<comment><USER17> It did make my job easier. But so did the overall politeness in the culture. That's part of being gullible. It's that a large part of it is associated with politeness and willing to hear someone out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Superstitions about drafts are bizarrely common. Bosnians, for example, tend to be terrified of "propuh", or cross drafts. If you leave windows open on either side of a building, you risk any malady up to and including paralysis.

I find it hard to understand how such beliefs get started, or manage to remain so prevalent.

<comment><USER20> In The Netherlands (not sure if that's specified to my country or to people in general) I often hear people saying that you shouldn't go outside without a jacket when it's cold, because it will make you sick...

<comment><USER21> That one's actually probably correct. [http://www.nature.com/news/cold- viruses-thrive-in-frosty-con...](http://www.nature.com/news/cold-viruses- thrive-in-frosty-conditions-1.13025)

> A team from Yale University in New Haven, Connecticut, found that low > temperatures dampen natural defences against rhinoviruses, the leading > causes of seasonal colds, in mice and in human airway cells.

<comment><USER22> Is that the air temperature or body temperature? Your body thermoregulates and won't change temperature based on what you're wearing until you're experiencing hyper/hypothermia

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I always thought it was to leave their society a way to honorably explain suicides?

<comment><USER24> I thought that, too. But how can it be honorable to fall asleep with the fan still running? If that's a deadly thing to do, then it seems like that would be the same as idling your car in a closed garage: still suicide.

<comment><USER18> I thought that the belief was that running a fan all night was dangerous, not guaranteed to kill. So in that sense, it would be more like getting drunk and being hit by a train - not exactly a smart move, but possibly a better alternative than suicide.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Most younger generation Koreans probably don't believe in it any more. I've seen the myth discussed several times (including at least one newspaper article).

Korea is a very well connected country: some of us do read the English wikipedia.

Also, I kinda like timers in electric fans (though it's been years since I used one): there's no need to blow wind when you're asleep. Sure you wouldn't die, but you might catch cold or find yourself awake at 4 am because your limbs are uncomfortably cold.

(My parents probably still believe in fan death, though.)

Finally, as someone below said, "you can't even buy a fan that will run all night." is patently false. Every fan I can remember has a "run indefinitely" position.

<comment><USER26> > you might catch cold

No more than leaving rags laying around will give you an infestation of mice.

> there's no need to blow wind when you're asleep

Except to keep the room at a comfortable temperature.

<comment><USER25> Well, I hope you know that a fan cannot lower room temperature...

<comment><USER26> Stationary air is not comfortable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does anyone else find it strange that the author uses an article that uncritically repeats the Rolling Stone UVA rape hoax as an example of dispelling myths? Doublethink indeed.

</comment><comment><USER28> There is obviously no such thing is ghosts. But I challenge you to go into a spooky old house at night with no lights and not be scared of ghosts.

<comment><USER29> It's odd how being scared of something makes you believe that _everyone_ is scared of it.

There's a significant amount of people who _don 't_ actually get scared of "spooky old houses". Just like there's some people who don't get nervous when a giant spider is on their hand. Or when they're talking to a crowd. Or when they're on top of a cliff.

I'd certainly be nervous in a "spooky old house" but certainly not for its ghosts. I do despise spiders for one thing.

<comment><USER17> you make a good point. And I also certainly would not be afraid of ghosts in an old house. I would be afraid of the unknown and unfamiliar places.

but at the same time, what is interesting to me, is that most of us can get scared by horror films or movies about ghosts. so if you get scared by a ghost in a movie, could that mean you believe, at least for a moment, in ghosts? or would it simply mean that IF ghosts existed, you would be afraid of them.

<comment><USER29> I'm no psychologist but if I were to take a stab (pun intended) at a theory about horror movies, it would more likely to be about empathy with the main characters and not wanting them to die, coupled with the suspension of disbelief that comes with watching the movie.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> > Even believing in ghosts or vampires offers the chance to escape into a > reality where anything is possible, even if that reality is terrifying. Fan > Death, however, doesn't offer anything.

Doesn't it have more to do with better safe than sorry human mentality? You barely think about something positive when staring at a completely dark hallway and your brain starts to draw you scary pictures.

</comment><comment><USER31> I know Korean guy who has a PhD in Biology and believes in fan death. The minds ability to delude itself is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER32> >However, buying into a myth created by the culture to which you belong apparently doesn't require extra incentive.

The extra incentive is that you don't die. You don't have to believe the myth to do a cost analysis in your head. Many people who don't believe in god will turn to god in dire situations.

</comment><comment><USER33> Ask a Korean wrote a few articles on this, the most authoritative on the Internet. (Don't be put off by the URL) [http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/01/fan-death-is- real.htm...](http://askakorean.blogspot.com/2009/01/fan-death-is-real.html)

<comment><USER34> It's not as though the URL inaccurately describes his position. After a lot of talk about pseudo-science, that's his position.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I feel like there's a small misunderstanding here: I'm not criticizing Koreans here. I'm sure their understanding of this is more nuanced than I'm describing from second hand accounts. I just think it makes an interesting parallel.

<comment><USER17> Well if, like you say, all koreans believe that a fan "chops up" air molecules (maybe they all believe the blades of fans chop up CO2 into CO) then they really need to be criticized. I agree with you that its an absolute shock that they believe this. It is definitely one of the crazier beliefs a modernized population can have, and I admit that I believe a staff can be turned into a snake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Curiosities of human/social behavior such as this amaze me until I think about all the people across multiple cultures who feel compelled to respond in some manner when someone sneezes.

</comment><comment><USER36> Due to cultural shame of suicide they choose to blame fans as a cause rather than autoerotic asphyxiation.

</comment><comment><USER37> Has any actual research been done on this? I don't see why people think it's obviously false.

<comment><USER38> Quoth Wikipedia: "There are no verified cases of the alleged phenomenon"

There's also the fact that this phenomenon has never been observed outside of South Korea. People around the world sleep indoors with fans on every day.

<comment><USER37> > There are no verified cases of the alleged phenomenon

You could say the same thing for SIDS, but most people in the west accept that it exists.

> People around the world sleep indoors with fans on every day.

Then surely some of them must die in their sleep, so it shouldn't be that difficult to do a study.

It's one thing to say that no research has been done to study whether people who sleep under fans are more likely to die in their sleep, or to say that the South Korean belief is unjustified given the lack of evidence, but to say that it's 'obviously false' strikes me as being a little bit racially tinged.

<comment><USER39> So we ought to do a study on all cultural superstitions just so we don't seem racist? Why don't you conduct the study on fan death, and I'll take care of the study to see whether Bloody Mary is real?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Fan death is not really belief but more healthy respect for the Unknown and avoiding unnecessary risk.

<comment><USER41> I was thinking similar thoughts about this when reading the article!

Or, part of me thinks that while you know it doesn't make sense, you don't lose anything by being careful about the fan. I think the people in Korea mentioned here are playing Pascal's Wager but with household electronics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Fan death is one of the funniest case studies of companies creating hysteria in order to sell more units.

Once everyone has a fan, how do you get people to buy more fans? Make them think their current fans will kill them, and sell more expensive fans with improved 'safety' features.

Well played Korea, well played.

<comment><USER29> You got any actual sources to back up this conspiracy theory?

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> 'what else have we been convinced to give up without getting anything in return?' My time to read this article for one.

</comment><comment><USER44> I am from South Korea, and I know this fan death thing could seem superstitious, but as another comment pointed out, it is a cautious approach toward unknowns, in addition to mass version of confirmation bias. (News reports a death with a fan on -- oh, that scary scythe of the fan..)

But who knows? There could have been a death that could have been prevented by turning off a fan, and nobody can verify its nonexistence. My attitude toward this is like my agnostic attitude toward God: I just can't know its existence or nonexistence. And I think what the people in the article are expressing can be understood in a similar line (though 100% is an overstatement.)

Still I sometimes argue with Koreans with relatively less background in scientific thinking about scientific things like if fan deaths are possible, or using metal spoons for yogurts kill more microbes than plastic spoons, etc, but many times, my conclusion is that I just can't have any conviction about either ways.</comment>


Ask HN: Web+Mobile vs. Desktop+Mobile - <AUTHOR> For a productivity application, is providing desktop (Mac/Windows/Linux) applications(plus mobile) instead of a web client, an attractive alternative?<p>In other words, is no web version (with desktop apps instead) likely to turn away the majority of prospective users? <comment><USER2> Do web + mobile. Web gives you wide compatibility while still giving you the option to wrap it in electron for a desktop feel.

Mobile is obviously important, make sure it's native so that it's good. There's nothing worse than a half assed React Native app - especially for something productivity oriented.</comment>


Idaho Wants to Establish America's First 'Dark Sky Preserve' - <AUTHOR> http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/business/article173461901.html <comment><USER2> I'm not sure what the difference is between a dark sky park and a dark sky preserve, but there are plenty of the former. As the article notes, there are already many International Dark Sky Parks, with nearly 40 in the U.S. Here's a list: [http://www.darksky.org/idsp/parks/](http://www.darksky.org/idsp/parks/)

I've been to the Headlands park in Michigan; it's a _beautiful_ location on the north-west corner of the lower peninsula, right on the lakeshore. The guest house is actually shockingly cheap ($300) for a beach-front rental space; you'd be hard-pressed to find an AirBNB with similar features for less - it would make a great company retreat for 10-20 people.

<comment><USER3> is there a map for all of these?

<comment><USER4> [http://www.darksky.org/idsp/finder/](http://www.darksky.org/idsp/finder/)

<comment><USER5> In case anybody else is wondering, here's the key for the letters on the map:

C = Communities

P = Parks

R = Reserves

S = Sanctuaries

D = Developments of Distinction

\-----

 __International Dark Sky Communities __Communities are legally organized cities and towns that adopt quality outdoor lighting ordinances and undertake efforts to educate residents about the importance of dark skies.

 __International Dark Sky Parks __Parks are publicly- or privately-owned spaces protected for natural conservation that implement good outdoor lighting and provide dark sky programs for visitors.

 __International Dark Sky Reserves __Reserves consist of a dark "core" zone surrounded by a populated periphery where policy controls are enacted to protect the darkness of the core.

 __International Dark Sky Sanctuaries __Sanctuaries are the most remote (and often darkest) places in the world whose conservation state is most fragile.

 __Dark Sky Developments of Distinction __Developments of Distinction recognize subdivisions, master planned communities, and unincorporated neighborhoods and townships whose planning actively promotes a more natural night sky but does not qualify them for the International Dark Sky Community designation.

Source: [http://www.darksky.org/idsp/](http://www.darksky.org/idsp/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Growing up in rural Australia, I know about this all to well.

We would often host Japanese exchange students and communities elders. I have the distinct memory of one of the ~60 year old Japanese men spending night after night outside, staring at the sky.

Later it was explained - he had never seen stars in his life.

</comment><comment><USER7> Question: I live in San Francisco and I have recently become pretty obsessed with going to a place like this. I want to go somewhere extremely dark where I can see the sky in a form that's similar to what someone might have seen before the invention of electric lights.

Does anyone know a good place in America like that? Ideally it would have other good natural features to entertain me during the day.

I just can't help but thinking that looking up at the sky a thousand years ago must have been absolutely awe inspiring. A civilization without artificial light would look up and see a dazzling display of starlight. it's no wonder they all believed there was a supreme power above them.

<comment><USER8> This map provides a pretty good guide, and I've found it to be fairly accurate as to orders of magnitude even if its data is dated: [http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html](http://darksitefinder.com/maps/world.html)

To get truly dark skies you'll have to drive 5-6+ hours from SF. Much of the Sierras don't cut it anymore, and Mendocino NF gets lots of light pollution from the central valley, or too far north can have too much water vapor in the air.

Places I've been to within a 7-8 hour drive of SF with super-dark skies:

Central Nevada in the Humboldt-Toiyabe NF units (e.g., North Toiyabe Crest or Table Mountain), or pretty much any place in central Nevada. Northern parts of Death Valley. Warner Mountain range in Modoc County, CA.

Further afield:

Great Basin NP in Nevada. Jarbidge Wilderness in Nevada. South-central Utah (e.g., Capitol Reef NP). Gila NF in SW New Mexico.

<comment><USER8> If you were to pick only one and don't mind a flight and a (super long) drive from Phoenix, Albuquerque or El Paso, Gila NF in New Mexico is the place to go. As I recall, driving along the northern fringe on route 59 I experienced probably the biggest lightless vista view I've seen in the lower 48 states, even compared to many wilderness areas in, say, Kings Canyon NP or elsewhere.

This is on the other side of Gila as well:

[https://sites.google.com/site/cosmiccampgroundinformation/](https://sites.google.com/site/cosmiccampgroundinformation/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Awesome. It's hard to imagine that only a couple years ago we had dark skies everywhere. As an off and on hobby astronomer I'm very happy to see this trend of dark sky consciousness and preservation.

<comment><USER10> What's crazy to me is how few people have actually seen a proper dark sky.

I tell people about being able to see the milky way streak across the sky in the summer and they're shocked that I didn't need some sort of long exposure camera.

<comment><USER11> I went rock climbing in red river gorge a few years ago and was able to sleep outside and see the Milky Way. Definitely one of the most memorable experiences of my adult life. Then you drive back to civilization and realize how bad the light pollution is.

<comment><USER12> I want to second the RRG, KY as a great place to go see the stars. I would recommend you go to the lookout "cloud splitter" great views in all directions. There is also a back entrance to a "secret cave" you can climb through and explore. The cave ends at a big opening in the middle of the cliff and makes for a cool photo (You can see the cave opening at the 1:05 mark in the video). Only about 1.5-2 miles from trail head. Of yeah, and for the love of God please don't carve your name in the rocks! Just because countless assholes have been doing it for years does not make it ok.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Born and raised in Idaho, and took the Milky Way and constellations for granted. When I was a kid, my dad and I used to pick out all 7 stars in the Pleiades (7 sisters).

Then I went to college in Illinois at UIUC from 95-99. On the best nights in the midwest, I could barely make out Jupiter, due to both smog and light pollution.

So I just want to throw in my vote that I hope this happens.

Also on a national level, I'd like to see a movement towards shrouded street lighting, since everything is being retrofitted for high efficiency and getting brighter. Like maybe we could have a process to report bright street lamps and prioritize them to get shrouded.

<comment><USER14> i wish cities would also issue black out dates to give residents a day of the year to see the sky. I live in south philadelphia, and the light pollution is so bad I can walk out unto my deck at midnight and read a book.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> If you don't restrict "America" to the USA, this would probably count as an earlier initiative for creating a true reserve. [http://ricemm.org/en/](http://ricemm.org/en/)

<comment><USER16> I was about to say exactly the same. America (North and South) is a continent. USA is the country. There are preserves like these in America, for example, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasslands_National_Park](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grasslands_National_Park). Not that far from the US border.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This already exists in Michigan: [http://www.midarkskypark.org/](http://www.midarkskypark.org/)

<comment><USER18> I think there's a distinction between a park and a preserve.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Flagstaff and Sedona are both dark sky communities, in AZ. Lowell built his telescope in Flagstaff because of the visibility.

<comment><USER20> There are numerous telescopes and observatories in the general area for this reason; besides the more publicly known Clark Telescope as the main Lowell tourist site, there is an active research Lowell further out of town, as well as a major US Naval Observatory and the Discovery Channel Telescope. The local University there has one as well.

<comment><USER19> Ah, thanks for adding these details. I learned something.</comment></comment></comment>


Why Don't Teens Tweet? We Asked 10,000+ of Them. - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/08/30/why-dont-teens-tweet-we-asked-over-10000-of-them/

<comment><USER2> FWIW, the "researcher" runs an also-ran social network and paints itself as a twitter-competitor.

Twitter, Myspace, MyYearBook and Facebook: those are the four "social networks" he compares. One of them, you probably have never heard of (and by "coincidence", its name is a portmanteau of the names of two other networks.)

<comment><USER3> Yes, and notice the first chart in his article. It has bars for Twitter, facebook, myspace and myyearbook, and surprise surprise his unknown company sports the highest bar.

Good job myyearbook! Way to get that 25% share of teenagers. So let me guess you have 4 members and one of them is a teenager. Your younger brother perhaps?

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The first four reasons why they don't use twitter give some insight:

1) It's lame 2) My friends don't use it 3) I don't understand it 4) It doesn't help me do anything

The rest of the reasons are less than 15%.

<comment><USER5> Pretty sensible reasons there.

I can't see much point in a teenager using twitter. Teenagers spend every weekday at the same school as most of their friends anyway, and at any given time their friends are doing pretty much the same thing they are. "Sitting in class. Bored."

It's only when you get older and your friends get a bit more diverse and spread out and more likely to be engaging in interesting activities that twitter becomes less dull.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> My brain hurts after seeing those piecharts, "Yes" in red and "No" in Blue. I had to check the legend twice to make sense of them (and still seems counter- intuitive)

</comment><comment><USER3> OMG, Twitter has to have the best fricking marketing people in the universe. Just look at the title. It's like it is expected or assumed that everyone has to be on Twitter and the fact that teenagers are not on it is some troubling problem or some curious aberation. It sounds like "why don't teens exercise."

I don't know, maybe teens don't tweet for the same reason I do not tweet. Maybe they have never actually felt the need to tweet.

<comment><USER7> I don't know anyone with a twitter account. When I was a teenager (2 years ago heh) all I used was msn/irc. Facebook/gmail chat seems to be a bit more popular among the kiddes these days though.

<comment><USER8> Geography plays a strong role as well. In the US AIM is super popular (until it was supplanted by gchat in my clique). European friends used to use ICQ (long ago), and I think MSN has been generally popular in Asia forever.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Feel free to downmod, but

      (TC + Twitter) = (Don't Care)

I would rather have Arrington to own shares of some Erlang product company. At the very least this wave of forced publicity would've been more relevant to HN.

<comment><USER10> HN member complaining about how they don't care about TechCrunch and/or Twitter = don't care.

Seriously, every submission about Twitter has a comment like this. Move on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm so glad somebody actually did some research into this. The original "study" of one 15 year old Morgan Stanley intern (writing about his circle of friends) should never have been taken as seriously as it was.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure this should be taken much more seriously. This is a survey of MyYearbook.com users which right there makes it more biased towards those who would use a service like Twitter. Beyond that we have no real idea of how the numbers break down.

They give some statistics on their user demographics at the end of the post but they seem irrelevant to me. Since they're a service geared exclusively to teens with 3.2 million or so uniques per month (according to compete) yet the survey only got 20,000 results. How do we know all those results weren't from the midwest (for example)?

IMHO, a survey of 20,000 unknown quantities isn't any more helpful than a survey of one 15 year old and his circle of friends.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Finally someone did a little research on this topic. I don't know why this topic is that big of a deal anyway. I know that when I was between the ages of 12 and 17, my attention would be all over the place. If Twitter existed back then, I probably would've used it a week, then went on to something else the rest of the cool kids were using.

The pie charts are somewhat confusing, though. Sometimes blue meant 'No', and other times it meant 'Yes'. Some consistency would've gone a long way.

<comment><USER14> It blew up because so many people use twitter as a way to "market their personal brand" and other such delusions so when they heard that maybe their vast amounts of time spent on twitter weren't as "valuable" as they thought they freaked out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The survey seems to make sense. Twitter is a business (market communication) and media tool. Celbs use it for MarCom, most individuals do. With most local tv, radio and network news shows having accounts, if I was a kid why would I Think I need this? The answer is they don't unless they want to play along with "#itaintcheatingif" kind of crap that is always top on the trends.

I am not sure why there is so much interest in this topic. Twitter doesn't make money the people that use Twitter really don't make money; having more people follow Miley Cyrus isn't going to change that.

</comment><comment><USER16> Pretty sure that if teens didn't tweet, Jonas brothers wouldn't be trending multiple times a day.</comment>


Banned from Google Ads for Using Apple Card - <AUTHOR> https://smartprivacy.io/learn/i-got-banned-from-google-ads-for-using-apple-card <comment><USER2> Google's classic canned response of "We've confirmed we're right, we will not tell you why and this is the last reply you'll receive" is one of the most infuriating things I can imagine. I make my income primarily through AdSense and live in fear of that email one day.

In this scenario it seems pretty obvious that their automated fraud AI messed up, but the customer service person is probably also automated. They have so many people working on insane moonshots, but don't spend money for customer service for their core products (in this case people literally trying to give you money!). Just bizarre.

<comment><USER3> This whole practice reeks of being downright fraudulent. Especially with a new technology like Apple Card, which folks will understandably not have a strong familiarity with. I get that Google needs to combat fraud and all that, but they should at _least_ inform the customer of why such a drastic action (a permanent ban! !!) was taken with almost no warning.

Really, any respectable company in this situation would simply flag the account for a billing problem, deny the card, and let the customer try again. At which point, any legitimate customer will go, "Oh, guess they don't take Apple Card" and use something else. It's the same effect (account can't be used, "fraud" with the Apple Card if it exists is dodged) but is not nearly so user hostile as this... mess.

Google's opacity here seems like it could only really have one benefit to the company: They can shut down _any_ account they don't like, and since they're always vague with the reasoning, they don't necessarily have to _have_ a valid reason. Their whole "you know what you did" approach is just uncertain enough to cause the victim to doubt themselves and be unlikely to mount a defense. I don't know what their actual motivations are (I know it's popular to hate on Google, but I have a hard time believing they're pulling stunts like this on purpose) but it _looks_ bad no matter how you slice it.

<comment><USER4> I think an application of Hanlon's Razor ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor)) is applicable here. Google is in an oligopolistic position (along with Facebook) in the online ads space. Therefore, they face zero consequence for having extraordinarily poor customer service. As a result, they optimize their customer "service" to minimize work for themselves.

I ran into a very similar situation with my gas company. I'd fat-fingered my bank account number in their online form, so they weren't able to debit my account. Instead of notifying me of this problem, they simply locked my account and threatened to cut me off for non-payment. Even after I'd called the company and appealed, they still prevented me from paying with my bank account for 12 months and forced me to pay with a credit card (which incurred an additional $3.75 "convenience fee").

<comment><USER5> I don't think Hanlon's Razor applies to large companies. Individual humans tend to have reasonably powerful moral compass's, but make a lot of mistakes due to lack of information, focus, and error checking. For humans, it makes sense to assume "stupidity" rather than malice. On the other hand, companies like Google have tons of the smartest people in the world making decisions, but they tend to put profit over morality whenever possible. In a sense, they have to, or else they'll be out-competed by someone who does.

For large companies, I would almost go so far as to propose that one should "never attribute to stupidity what can adequately be explained by malice."

I have no opinion about this particular instance. I just find that HN tends to bring up Hanlon's Razor a lot in defense of corporations.

<comment><USER6> Agreed, but I don't think this sentence is true: "In a sense, they have to, or else they'll be out-competed by someone who does."

No they don't. It would be fine for everyone if instead one of being one of the richest companies in existence they would only make the top 10.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Beyond the fact that I don't understand why a virtual card should be a problem, I think that this era of "we can deny you a service and tell you nothing" should stop. It's one of the biggest issues of the modern internet.

I understand that laws are different around the world. In Italy, whatever is defined as a "public exercise" \- anything offering its services to the anybody, be it a shop, a store, a cafè, a restaurant, MUST offer those services to anybody who a) can pay and b) satisfies any global and well- expressed condition (e.g. more than 18 years old, properly dressed, etc). You cannot just deny service to a random customer without a VERY GOOD reason. If you want to serve members only, you can build your private club. Then you're able to do almost whatever you like, but you cannot advertise or promote your activities to non-members.

I suppose US law is different, although I think to remember that there're some rules against discrimination. Either the service is available to anyone, or to noone. If some infringement happens, it must be explicit and there must be the chance to appeal to a judge. Otherwise, how can this be non-discriminatory?

<comment><USER8> There's rules about discrimination for specific reasons: you can't discriminate based on age, race, gender, etc. "Which credit card" you use isn't one of those categories, so it's legal to discriminate based on it. (And is often done, though not to this extent; many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover.)

<comment><USER9> >so it's legal to discriminate based on it. (And is often done, though not to this extent; many places, for example, will accept Visa and Mastercard but not Discover.)

Sure, but one thing is:

"Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, do you happen to have another means of payment?"

and another one is:

"Sorry, I cannot accept Discover, and since you presented one of those cards to me once, then you are prevented for the rest of your life to enter these premises again".

<comment><USER10> From Google's point of view it's more like:

"Sorry, I cannot accept this bill, and since you presented counterfeit money to me once, then you are prevented for the rest of your life to enter these premises again".

I'm not saying this is right, but I think it's the more apt analogy.

<comment><USER11> Except it's in no sense of the word "counterfeit", right? So the analogy falls apart pretty hard for me. It's more like that old Taco Bell $2 bill story.

<comment><USER12> It may not be counterfeit but if Google has a wealth of data indicating that this usage pattern results in fraud then it might as well be the digital form of counterfeit.

<comment><USER13> Not really. They might refuse to accept it for policy reasons but that doesn't mean that attempting to pay with it is a bad-faith act akin to paying with a counterfeit bill.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > If you're planning on using the Apple Card for anything important, think > again.

That was the final line in the article, but from reading the rest of the article, it seems like the overarching problem was not the Apple Card, or the idea of virtual CC numbers... but more that time and time again, Google will shut down your [YouTube|Gmail|Ads|Cloud|anything] account with little or no notice, and arbitrary, non-contestable rulings, and there is absolutely nothing you can do about it after the fact.

I was nervous about staking anything financially important in the Google ecosystem, but after seeing this kind of post every week, there's no way I would tie any important business venture into Google's ecosystem.

<comment><USER15> Companies producing Android apps have no choice.

<comment><USER16> F-Droid is one alternative to the Play Store.

<comment><USER17> Or even just distribute it via their website like Fortnite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The stories like this can be heard every now and then and I think we all agree that Google's customer support could be vastly improved. But taking a step back, I am finding this particular story slightly suspicious as the site seems a little bit weird to me. The domain is only 4-months old and the entire site is almost empty, it consists of just a couple "reviews" of mostly VPNs and password managers and the author himself admits to participating in referral schemes. And despite advocating privacy he uses google analytics and one more tracking system on his site. The story he published is the only post that is not a review. If I had so much experience as he claims I would have better places to post my rant rather than at a newly created website. I can imagine a scheme where one posts a sensational story just to drive the traffic to their affiliate links-based business.

Now, having said all of this - I do NOT accuse author of anything, their story may be true, it actually sounds plausible. I'd just like to remind you of another google ban story [1] that made headlines some time ago and was later debunked by Google.

[1] [https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_gettin...](https://www.reddit.com/r/tifu/comments/8kvias/tifu_by_getting_google_to_ban_our_entire_company/)

<comment><USER19> When these things happen, the pattern is always 1) shit happens, 2) company is unhelpful in resolving 3) victim writes it up and it ends up getting some publicity (e.g. front page of HN) 4) company says they're sorry and fixes the problem.

As I read OP, I wondered what I'd do. I guess I'd have to write it up on my mostly empty, pretty much dead blog. It would look weird and out of place on my mostly empty blog.

Then I look to the comments and see you calling them out for doing what I was just thinking I'd have to do.

<comment><USER20> That's not the pattern 'always'. There are lots of such cases where the writer's account turns out to be inaccurate in key details. Sometimes inadvertently, sometimes less so. And companies don't always swoop in to apologize and resolve the issue.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wait, so Google once again proves how much they suck at customer service, and the conclusion is to be wary of Apple Card? That seems like a stretch.

<comment><USER22> Seriously, the problem is not with Apple and virtual card numbers (which is awesome) but Google and their piss-poor customer service and lack of support for even paying users. Can't wait until the justice department drops the hammer on Google.

<comment><USER22> Looks like my prediction coming true [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20920731](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20920731).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Another day, another horror story and with that a further confirmation of how profoundly broken Google's support is. I shall think twice before buying into any Google products and so should you. Imagine having you entire company cloud account suspended with no one to talk to... Or getting blocked from your domain/Gmail and unable to communicate... Or getting kicked out of the Play store when this is your only means of earning a living. These are not hypothetical, these are stories from HN front page just this year. Frightening and infuriating at the same time.

</comment><comment><USER24> The author offers it as a warning against using Apple Card.

I read it as confirmation that Google would do well to focus on customer service for once.

<comment><USER25> What's easier? Not getting an Apple card or changing Google.

<comment><USER26> Why would not getting an Apple card keep Google from banning you?

<comment><USER25> It would only keep them from banning you for the use of a virtual card...unless you used a virtual card of some other kind.

<comment><USER26> Do you work for Google? How do you know that using an Apple card would result in you getting banned for the use of a virtual card?

E: Yes, I read the article.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Google's actual policies state that it accepts virtual cards.[https://support.google.com/google- ads/answer/2375433?hl=en](https://support.google.com/google- ads/answer/2375433?hl=en)

<comment><USER28> Relevant section:

In addition to regular credit cards, you can also use a one-time use credit card (also known as virtual credit card). It's commonly used as an alternative to physical credit cards when making online payments. Google Ads accepts these credit cards as long as they have a Visa or MasterCard logo. If you don't have a physical credit card, contact your bank to see if they offer them.

Steps to use a one-time use credit card:

Sign in to your Google Ads account at [https://ads.google.com](https://ads.google.com). Click the tool icon and choose Billing & payments. Go there now Click the Make a payment button. Click the "Pay with" drop-down and choose Add new payment method, then enter your one-time use credit card information. Enter the amount you'd like to make a payment for, then click the Make a payment button to review and finish your payment. Be sure to include $1 more than your payment amount for card verification.

<comment><USER25> > Be sure to include $1 more than your payment amount for card verification.

That seems like something that could be easily missed

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Why the war on virtual cards?

My bank lets me create infinite "throwaway" credit cards that work for a single payment or up to a certain expiry date. They're great for never having to expose your real card number and keeping track of maximum spend. Are these classified as virtual cards? I use them all the time for Facebook ads and was planning to set up a AdWords campaign too, but now I'm worried

<comment><USER30> Which bank if I may ask?

<comment> X-Istence Bank of America allows me to do this for my credit card with them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > Since this decision is final, the account will not be reinstated.

> I offered [to] set my primary payment method back to the previous card.

This is, to me, the most infuriating part: account is blackholed at the first misstep, that you cannot even guess, with no possible redemption, and with damages far beyond the initial misstep scope: if you use the same account, payment issue on google ads, your photos are inaccessible. How does that even make sense?

<comment><USER32> It doesn't. In my opinion this is no longer a frustrating experience, it's a consumer protection problem.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> This has nothing to do with the Apple Card. Google loves suspending Ads accounts for doing any changes to their profiles. I've had to go through this BS at least 5 times.

Odds are this guy would've been banned no matter which card he switched to.

Given that smartprivacy pushes VPN stuff I wouldn't be surprised if this guy had been using a VPN to log into his Ads account, which would be a sure way to get your account fucked.

</comment><comment><USER33> >Companies like Google have waged war on virtual cards

First, this seems a bit histrionic. That's a wide claim to make with a sample size of _one_.

Second, the entire idea that the author was banned for using a virtual card comes from a friend who spoke to another friend who allegedly works as an "account manager" (presumably at Google?), who _themselves admit_ they can't even see into the process.

<comment><USER34> Agreed - especially as another post pointed out that Google's official policy states they _do_ accept virtual cards: [https://support.google.com/google- ads/answer/2375433?hl=en](https://support.google.com/google- ads/answer/2375433?hl=en)

<comment><USER35> That doesn't mean it doesn't increase the fraud score assigned to you/your transaction. e.g. the same behavior could trigger a ban with a virtual credit card but not with a physical one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I use and love privacy.com - and the fastest way for me to not sign up for your service is when you tell me I can't use one of the card numbers. It happens occasionally, but no way in hell am I giving out my real CC

</comment><comment> zupa-hu You should contact Apple. I'm sure they 1) have the power to get through 2) they are motivated to make the Apple Card work and instill trust in people.

</comment><comment><USER37> Yet another example of how Google "support" seems modeled on the senseless, frustrating, and destructive systems warned of in Kafka. Opaque rules and literally inhuman inflexibility. The problems is Google can suffer any number of these small scale gaffs without consequence, while any truly large account would probably be given the courtesy of outreach before a blind suspension, and real live support afterwards if it went that far. So for now they can do this with impunity. However with the Spectre of Amazon ads on the horizon true competition may arise, and Amazon has decent support. As things stand now, anyone starting out would be well advised to steer clear of relying on any part of Google services for critical needs.

</comment><comment><USER38> I learned the hard way to always have at least two ways people can buy things from you. Never bet your business on another business that uses algorithms to arbitrarily disconnect yours and algorithms to respond to customer service inquiries.

<comment><USER39> You cut yourself from a lot of opportunities that way.

<comment><USER38> Don't say you weren't warned :-)

<comment><USER39> This is how modern life works: almost everybody's life circumstances are dependent on large institutions, which can screw you any given moment, except if you chose to live in jungles. Doing business is taking risks, and one has to be ready to lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Has nothing to do with the payment platform you chose is my best guess. Has to do with what you were paying to send ad traffic to, and possible misrepresentation of facts on that page. Were you testing landing pages for concepts where you didn't include terms of use, privacy policies or misrepresented the state of your product?

That would be my best guess.

</comment><comment><USER41> > And if you're planning on using Apple Card^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Google > services for anything important, think again.

Fixed that for you.

</comment><comment><USER42> > I'm not some huckster with a spam website.

Ironically, you could make the case that Google itself fits this description.

</comment><comment><USER43> This is what I find so interesting about Amazon going into the ads business.

(Bias note: I am employed by Amazon, but not involved in ads.)

Google make a lot of their money from online advertising. But they have a reputation of not giving a shit about their customers, giving canned responses, etc. Amazon, criticize it as you will, has a reputation for _good_ customer service (I literally give "Customer Obsession" training to new hires). What happens if enough Google ads customers get fed up and try out the competitor?

20 years ago, Google found a hose that money pours out of called "online advertising". All they do now is improve that hose and desperately search for another one. If someone comes along and siphons out a fraction, it could actually hit them hard.

"If", of course. We'll see.

</comment><comment><USER44> _I 'm writing this to warn anyone else that intended to use the card online that you may experience... difficulties. And if you're planning on using the Apple Card for anything important, think again._

Isn't the better conclusion after almost a decade of people dealing with Google's customer "service" and reading about how non responsive they are is not to base your livelihood on anything Google related?

If your business plan is at all depending on Google, it's probably a bad one.

</comment><comment><USER45> Tangentially related... in one of my last convos with an American Express business rep, they noted I set my cashback preference to advertising purchases. I was informed by them that Google Adwords has a history of 'blackflagging' accounts. He said they could generate up to 100 cards with unique numbers for free to my account and that it was fairly common for agencies to have big split-ring binders full of cards tied to each client.

</comment><comment><USER46> Bad PR and popularity backlash is what corporations fear the most. We should wait for such things to happen (and then be quickly fixed because of the name) to some really popular figure who will make it public, then grab popcorn and watch Google, or any other corporation that screws "normal" customers, produce spectacular stunts to escape the unavoidable negative press.

<comment><USER37> The thing is a popular figure, especially if they do semi-large numbers with Google, probably wouldn't get banned before outreach and if they did would be able to get decent support.

<comment><USER46> That would be the point. I want to read some day "Hi, I'm (insert popular name here). How come that I get immediate answers plus support while other users with the same problem either have to wait or are being banned?". That would hardly happen, but hope is free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> > All I can say is that it's likely that he was either using a virtual card or > his identity was tied to a previously suspended account.

> After doing a bit of research, I discovered that the number that is > generated in the wallet app (the only way you can get your card number for > the Apple Card) is, infact, a virtual card.

This seems like the likely cause.

<comment><USER48> Why does Google hate virtual cards though? It's an anti-fraud mechanism. Google's declaring that using an anti-fraud mechanism is in fact an indication of fraud?

<comment><USER49> Probably because you can hide the same underlying account number, so you can burn virtual cards on new fraud accounts without the additional cost of setting up new underlying accounts.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Reminds me of when I was permanently suspended from PayPal "for reasons" after 20+ years of constant patronage and good standing. Same black box mentality, no human being made the decision and no human being would look at the situation and fix it.

There really should be a catchy term for this sort of algorithmically generated deplatforming.

Google ganking?

</comment><comment><USER51> Can Google even really know if a presented card number is a "virtual" credit card or not? Could this be a case of a generated virtual card number matching a card number that was previously used with an account that was shut down for fraud and that's why Google immediately banned this unrelated account?

</comment><comment><USER52> The thing with monopolies is that they tend to abuse the privilege of being one.

You are a consumer, buying their wares, and they could care less because you really only have one option. They made sure of it by buying most of the significant competition years ago.

Welcome to the modern era of internet monopolies.

</comment><comment><USER53> > After doing a bit of research, I discovered that the number that is > generated in the wallet app (the only way you can get your card number for > the Apple Card) is, infact, a virtual card.

> And if you're planning on using the Apple Card for anything important, think > again.

Using virtual cards is a perfectly legitimate activity. I'm a client of a top- tier bank in Europe and they always recommend to use a virtual card (they would ask if you'd like them to issue) for everything online. This doesn't seem like an Apple's fault (although it would be nice of Apple to clearly inform you the card is virtual). Google should be sued for this.

</comment><comment><USER54> "Don't be evil."

</comment><comment><USER55> If indeed they're banning accounts for using virtual cards, I see a parallel with the early days of Gmail. You couldn't use a Gmail account to sign up for a lot of sites because short-sighted admins categorically prohibited all free webmail accounts. In their minds, the only "real" email addresses were at AOL, Earthlink, employers, universities, etc. Never mind that Gmail was invite-only and probably a much stronger indicator of a legitimate person at the time. The victim grows up to become the bully.

</comment><comment><USER37> Everyone reading this that ever has a problem like this with Google support should write it up and submit it to HN. Then we as a community should come together and upvote the hell out of it. The more these things get publicized in the industry the harder it will become for Google to do this without repurcussions.

</comment><comment><USER56> Can there not be a law that states that Google can't just say "Your account is suspended, and the decision is final, and we won't tell you why." This sounds like the type of monopolistic action that we need to break by petitioning our politicians.

Google, Facebook, etc need to be regulated.

</comment><comment><USER57> HAHAHAHAHAHAHA! You fell for the classic google trap:

They only pick up the phone if you are a paying customer. If your payment isn't working you can go fuck yourself.

I know, a common mistake.

Seriously though, this is also the case with using their phone service, or any other account. If your payment ever bounces, you lose EVERYTHING.

</comment><comment><USER58> I have no idea whether this is relevant.

I noticed that the site has reviews of anti-tracking products like Ghostery and Privacy Badger. (The reviews are a bit thin in my opinion.) Google may view those as existential threats and work to remove that material from the web.

</comment><comment><USER59> Google must be stopped from muscling its way into 'real' goods and services. Can you imagine getting locked out of your [insert] with an automated response and without recourse?

</comment><comment><USER60> and yet you're still lining up to use Google? I dropped out of the Google ad system many tears ago when I realized the game was rigged (in their favor) and the only way to "win' was not to play. So when I read stories like yours which pop up frequently for Google - I cant help but think you're probably an intelligent person so "what's your point?"

</comment><comment><USER61> Google bans app xyz, Google bans AdSense account. Everyday a new Google horror story here. Does nobody from Google reads HN??

<comment><USER32> The Google employees who are paying attention likely don't have the power to address the problem, and the Google employees who have the power to address the problem either aren't paying attention or actively decided not to address the problem.

</comment></comment><comment> awinter-py traditional credit card companies waged contractual war with merchants for decades to ban cash discounts

new payment tech will have a similar uphill battle to get people to treat them equally

</comment><comment><USER62> SmartPrivacy.io uses Google ads?</comment>


U.S. requires new cars to have backup cameras - <AUTHOR> http://money.cnn.com/2014/03/31/autos/rear-facing-cameras/index.html?hpt=hp_t2 <comment><USER2> I was taught to never back a vehicle up without physically turning around to look out the back window, as rear and side-view mirrors don't give a 100% view of what's behind you. When I see someone using just mirrors to back up, I perceive it as lazy or irresponsible driving behavior.

Driving a box truck with no rear visibility makes me uncomfortable and I'll use a spotter to reverse. If you can't (or won't) look and see behind you, you should NOT be driving in that direction. Will cameras fix this problem?

The article states that "There are nearly 210 backover deaths each year." I wonder how the overall safety of a vehicle and its driver will be impacted by the addition of a possibly distracting LCD in the front seat. Maybe fewer collisions while reversing, but how many additional distracted driving cases while driving forward and playing with the car computer?

<comment><USER3> Looking out the window also doesn't give you a 100% view. There's a massive blind spot below your eye level behind the car.

<comment><USER4> Let's not forget these systems typically have a distance sensor setup with audible tone. Having some more accurate gauge of obstacles and their relative distances and the improved visibility is a no brainer. When I read this headline the first thing I thought was "good, finally."

<comment><USER5> So why weren't those sensors and alarms mandated, as opposed to a redundant and distracting in-car CCTV system?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm glad. My automotive industry friends, especially those that are parents have really really wanted this.

I don't understand the response "to make sure people are responsibly operating their vehicle." Have you met people?

Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements. The columns supporting the roof are bigger, limiting visibility.

Maybe we should make sure that people are responsibly operating their vehicle and not flip over their cars. Except that the whole point of safety is to prepare for the unexpected, to engineer to make sure people can walk away from a crash. Just last week someone rolled over right in front of me, it wasn't her fault, someone turned in front of her and hit the front of her car funny and she swerved flipping over.

She got out of the car scared, but not hurt. Because of those pillars. Those pillars make it harder to see kids running around behind your car. The camera addresses that issue, which wasn't as much of a problem in the past when that woman would likely be a pancake because her car rolled.

People are crazy, especially the guy turning out into oncoming traffic and you can't fix that as easily as you can installing a camera into a car.

<comment><USER7> >Newer cars are kind of a pain in the butt to see out of the back. Why? Because of the roof strength requirements.

Partly, but mainly because of what the designers like to call 'high waistline' which gives the shape 'energy and aggression'. There is no reason a Ford Focus should have a tiny rear window mounted high at 40 degrees inclination other than style.

Plus adhesive attachment of windows cuts a further ~10% of the glass area.

I saw a 1990s Volvo 740 yesterday: absolutely enormous slab windows gasket- mounted into the frame.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Ignoring the regulation for a moment, current camera systems are a bit lacking. Those of us who had good driver training will _always_ look over our shoulder when reversing, occasionally checking the near-side mirror if needed. Facing forward to use a screen feels weird. And it's worse than that:

Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center console, which is bad for three reasons:

1\. It's low down, so you lose part of your peripheral vision which ends up just picking up the car's interior.

2\. When you're reversing on a road, but facing forwards to look at the screen, you can't see out the side windows to check for approaching cars heading towards your rear.

3\. Your peripheral vision is further affected by your focus on a narrow, highly detailed area - that 9" screen showing a wide-angle view. Your brain concentrates just on that 'important' area. It's entirely different to looking out the back window when everything is at the same scale, peripheral and central. You end up being forced to trust the screen completely, which just isn't sensible.

Having tried a few on rental cars, I'm very uncomfortable with the constant attention swapping you end up doing between the screen and the rear window.

These cameras can only be beneficial to people backing out of driveways (which is the point of the law), but they're not a panacea and I'm not convinced they're a substitute for an alert driver using mirrors and windows. A useful additional tool, for sure, but will they be used that way? An audible proximity alarm feels like a more reasonable thing to mandate to me.

<comment><USER9> > Reversing cameras always send their output to the big screen on the center > console

The newer Acura MDXs have a dedicated screen built into the rear-view mirror hanging from the windshield. It looks like a normal mirror until you put it in reverse, and then you can see the output from the backup camera in the left side of the mirror. It's better than most, but still doesn't solve #2 and #3 from your points.

Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as _a_ tool and not _the_ tool.

<comment><USER8> > Basically, be smart and only use it if/when necessary. Use it only as a tool > and not the tool.

Absolutely. I was trying to get that across. I worry a bit that the regulation will make people think of cameras as all they need to look at.

<comment><USER9> I hope not. I think it will be like rear/side mirrors. You _can_ use only mirrors to back up, but eventually, they will not be enough, and you will impact something. I think that the same people that don't look now are the same people that won't look then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> In general I'm not in the "government is too invasive" camp but this one did have me scratching my head. Isn't the market working just fine? Backup cameras first appear on top of the line models. Slowly make their way into mid priced cars and now some of the "low end" new cars have them. I'm sure by 2018 they'll be in 90% of new cars so why add a regulation? Oh well.

<comment><USER11> I assume for the same reason they require brakes, seat belts, mirrors and airbags. Guaranteed minimum spec.

<comment><USER10> Fair point. Hadn't realized it was for airbags.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is somewhat alarming. What about just making sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle? For me I feel comfortable using mirrors to back up, I've never felt like a camera was necessary. I've driven cars with backup cameras before but typically just use the rear view mirror or turn my head.

Maybe others don't feel this way, thoughts?

<comment><USER13> How do you "make sure people are able to responsibly operate their vehicle?"

<comment><USER14> Drivers Education and driving tests are two ideas that come to mind.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> >Several safety advocacy groups sued the government and asked a federal judge to require backup rules be adopted.

I would be interested to know if these advocacy groups received donations from any camera manufacturers.

</comment><comment><USER16> My car has one; useless. Its covered by road grime or slush or a raindrop all the time. I can see out of it for 10 minutes after leaving the car wash and that's it.

<comment><USER17> Really?

Mine (A MB GLK) works very well. It's never been too dirty to see, and it has a great overlay showing range to objects and current trajectory.

<comment><USER16> My car is cheap; a Subaru Forester. Tiny plastic bubble lens. Live on a gravel road; drive in all weather in town.

Maybe this summer it will be better, but its been crap all fall, winter and now spring (in Iowa).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> A lot of cars with cameras don't seem to have rear object detection systems (that beep inside the car when something is behind you and you are in reverse). I doubt most people use a reversing camera to get out of there drive way, so this move wouldn't seem likely to stop people running over kids - beepers that go off when something is behind you would seem much more effective (certainly in my experience).

I don't know about the US, but here in New Zealand these deaths are more prevalent in lower socio-economic areas, that presumably don't buy as many new cars - these changes will takes years to filter through to the people that they might benefit most.

<comment><USER19> At least in a Prius, the backup camera goes on automatically when you reverse.

<comment><USER20> Does the Prius automatically focus your eyes on the screen too?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm happy to see that the article (briefly) mentions the current regulations requiring side mirrors instead of side cameras. Side mirrors are the bane of aesthetic and aerodynamic design. They even cause excess cabin noise, especially in electric cars. But current NHSTA regulations require side mirrors, and don't accept side cameras as a substitute.

For example, the Nissan Leaf (like many other cars) has funny-shaped headlights to prevent excess cabin noise and drag from the side mirrors: [http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle- images/2013...](http://www.nissanusa.com/buildyournissan/vehicle- images/2013/LEF/XGC30NIC161C0/a30ad739fefc5519680bfee9fd1e8323/LEAF/SL/Aerodynamic- LED-headlights/Exterior)

Tesla's early promotional materials for the Model X show side cameras instead of mirrors ([http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx](http://www.teslamotors.com/modelx) ). But apparently they have given up on the regulations changing, because their newer design prototypes have side mirrors ([http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes- aut...](http://green.autoblog.com/2013/01/14/tesla-model-x-makes-auto-show- debut-in-detroit/) )

<comment><USER22> Side mirrors are required and will be required for a long time because when side cameras fails its all or nothing. A physical mirror can be partially damaged and still be used.

Almost every car I have owned some electrical device was broken or failed. The time to get it fixed and the cost usually meant I didn't bother. Same would happen with the side cameras and many people would just live without it even though it may be illegal.

A physically broken mirror can be seen and the Police can write you a safety violation so you have to get it fixed.

I don't think mirros are such a bane on aerodynamics, even F1 cars still use fairly large mirrors. [http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72607000/jpg/_72607984...](http://news.bbcimg.co.uk/media/images/72607000/jpg/_72607984_mclaren2_getty.jpg)

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> So each year ~5M new cars hit the streets, at an extra $140 each, so the cost is ~$700M/yr.

There are 210 deaths/yr by backing over, assume these prevent all 210 (they won't, certainly not until most of the old cars are off the road), this means each life is worth $3.3M, minimum.

Cool.

But is there a way to invest $700M/yr that will save more than 210 lives/year?

</comment><comment><USER24> This lowers the barrier to entry for front-seat display entertainment in the car -- what could go wrong?

</comment><comment><USER25> Back-up deaths constitute 210 deaths per year, of 34k auto deaths anually (2012)?

And this technology is only estimated to prevent 33% of them (60-70)?

I guess every little 0.2% safety improvement is good if it's free... but I'm not sure this is the most cost effective way to increase car safety.

(Roll cages; higher standards for airbags and various types of collision for occupants; crumple zones for pedestrians; self-driving cars (if you're going to go full-sensor anyway, why involve a human at all).)

</comment><comment><USER26> Mandatory backup cameras, presidential kill lists, uncontrolled spying, & mandatory corporate welfare. Glad we have our priorities straight America.

</comment><comment><USER27> So, all new cars will be potential surveillance points. Gotcha.

Thanks, soccer moms.

<comment><USER28> Easy to just put black tape over it. Or smash the lens...

<comment><USER29> If you were to get in an accident while driving in reverse after 2018 this would significantly increase your odds of being found at fault... I'd imagine.</comment></comment></comment>


Regis McKenna's 1976 Notebook and the Invention of Apple Computer, Inc - <AUTHOR> http://www.fastcompany.com/3058227/regis-mckennas-1976-notebook-and-the-invention-of-apple-computer-inc <comment><USER2> Fascinating 'paperwork'. The notes, the 70s ads.

<comment><USER3> It's interesting to compare the sophistication of Apple's marketing with the ads made by typical S100 computer companies of the day.

There were a lot of the latter, and some of them survived for a while. They all had ads similar to the original Apple ad - a so-so logo, mostly a list of specs in a small box, perhaps with a photo or line drawing of a board or a monitor, no colour anywhere.

The ones that understood a little about marketing usually had a man in a suit using a computer next to a pot plant.

None of them had anything even remotely close to the slick and polished presentation put out by RMI. That Intel ad is incredible for 1973.

<comment><USER4> The Intel ad could be just as suitable for a manufacturer of embedded micro- controllers today - that market has only changed a little.

<comment><USER2> There are many invariants in ads. Olivetti 60s ads aren't far from Apple's 2Ks ones. It's all geometry glamour in the promise of making life|work better. In retrospect Olivetti ads are borderline ridiculous, they made very nice typewriters and even calculators (HP took 'too' many hints even). But lots of it revolved around optimized furniture, swappable parts, customizable. 'Now you can have your favorite picture in your new olivetti desk' ..</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Crypto Pioneer David Chaum Says He's Built a Better Bitcoin - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/crypto-pioneer-david-chaum-says-hes-built-a-better-bitcoin-1537405201 <comment><USER2> Just an article blowing smoke up XRP ripple's skirt.</comment>


More Git and GitHub Secrets - <AUTHOR> http://zachholman.com/talk/more-git-and-github-secrets/ <comment><USER2> Every git talk everywhere, everytime, should include "git rerere". [http://git-scm.com/blog/2010/03/08/rerere.html](http://git- scm.com/blog/2010/03/08/rerere.html)

Best time saver ever.

<comment><USER3> I dislike rerere because it's very difficult to get it to stop remembering your mistakes. I've always found it causes more hassle than it solves.

<comment><USER4> Nod. I use it and appreciate it, but I'm not entirely satisfied with it either for just this reason. It certainly isn't the last word in its space.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "GitHub stores all pull requests in your repository […] even if the fork is deleted"

That's great to know! I have a few forks that are there only because I wanted to offer a tiny change to the doc or the website, etc. but I thought I'd have to keep them around until it was merged. (I can certainly leave them there, but it leaves a big mess of mostly untouched forks)

edit: my git tip will be "git stash --keep-index". This stashes only the stuff that you haven't staged. I've been using it when I want to keep unrelated changes out of the build process before committing. Or you can run that, and then "git stash" to have two (or more) separate stashes from your current state.

</comment><comment><USER6> Great article full of awesome tips/tricks!

I didn't realize you could do check-box style to-do markers inside of messages for issues and pulls ( _\- [ ] Task 1_ ). I'm not sure how long this has been a feature, but this is fantastic to finally know about for sub-tasks inside of issues. I always had a painful time trying to break those up, and keep them grouped somehow via milestones, labels, etc.

<comment><USER7> We released task lists earlier this year: [https://github.com/blog/1375-task- lists-in-gfm-issues-pulls-...](https://github.com/blog/1375-task-lists-in-gfm- issues-pulls-comments)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Quick recap of the git commands shown in the presentation:

git merge master -s <strategy> git merge master -s recursive -Xpatience git merge master -s octopus git merge master -s ours git diff stash{0} git --no- pager diff git stripspace < file git diff --check git diff --cached git merge --abort git merge -m "message" git merge --no-commit git status --ignored git update-index --assume-unchanged path_to_file git update-index --no-assume- unchanged path_to_file

Also, keep the commit message summary to 50 characters or less and wrap the long description at 72 characters.

<comment><USER9> Fixed indentation:

        git merge master -s <strategy>

        git merge master -s recursive -Xpatience

        git merge master -s octopus

        git merge master -s ours

        git diff stash{0}

        git --no-pager diff

        git stripspace < file

        git diff --check

        git diff --cached

        git merge --abort

        git merge -m "message"

        git merge --no-commit

        git status --ignored

        git update-index --assume-unchanged path_to_file

        git update-index --no-assume-unchanged path_to_file

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Zach's talks are always so enjoyable and well put together. I wonder what he uses to build his slide decks -- he's certainly developed a very strong and unique visual style for himself.

<comment><USER11> It says Keynote at the bottom of his blog post.

<comment><USER10> Hah, thanks for pointing that out!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A load of nice tricks, thanks.

I'm a bit concerned about the public keys public url. Ok, it's just public keys, so it must be safe, but I wonder : is it safe like it's "safe" publishing a login without a password ? In other word, doesn't knowing public key make easier to break private one ?

<comment><USER13> No, that's the whole point of public key cryptography; that the private key cannot feasibly be used to derive the public key, but the other way around is trivial.

<comment><USER14> Usually, the keys are entirely symmetrical. You just name one public and the other private. It's difficult to generate one from the other. The easy task is generating both at the same time.

<comment><USER15> Can't you generate a public key from a private one easily?

<comment><USER16> Yes:

      ssh-keygen -y -f private_key.pem > public_key.pub

<comment><USER17> Yes and no. It extracts the public key from the private key file. The "private" key file includes both keys.

The public key file doesn't.

<comment><USER18> > The "private" key file includes both keys.

It wouldn't need to, though. Given the private key (n,d), the public key is probably (n,65537).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I will love for this to get featured again on the main page when the video is available

</comment><comment><USER20> git stripspace is neat. I'll have to add that as a hook.

<comment><USER21> git stripspace is a plus but if you are already considering to add a pre- commit hook, you could directly use 'indent'. It trims those pesky whitespaces and indent your code automatically the way you see fit. (e.g: [https://gist.github.com/eroullit/1250603](https://gist.github.com/eroullit/1250603))

<comment><USER20> If you use C-family languages?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> git diff --cached is one I need to remember.

<comment><USER23> `git diff --staged` is the same thing. Git did a very halfhearted move to the `stage` verb and then stalled.</comment></comment>


Blogger starts a crowdfunding campaign to keep its servers running - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/techbiz/media/news/2001/01/40979

<comment><USER2> After reading the headline, I thought it was strange that a Google company would need money for a new server. After clicking on the link, I see that the article is from 2001

<comment><USER3> At least they have the date on the article. Tangential rant: It's ridiculous how many sites don't include a date at all, or hide it at the bottom, or give month & day while leaving off the year. Seriously, the date is at least as important as the headline.</comment></comment>


Nowmov (YC W10) is seeking Rails engineers - <AUTHOR> http://thestartupdigest.com/classifieds/awesome-rails-engineers-at-nowmov-y-combinator-graudate/

<comment><USER2> All founders are on HN. Feel free to ping us if you want to know more about our product and the interesting work you would get to work on! We are also looking for awesome frontend contractor (CSS, HTML5, Javascript)

<comment><AUTHOR> More about what Nowmov is doing here: [http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/07/yc- funded-nowmov-sit-back-r...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/05/07/yc-funded- nowmov-sit-back-relax-and-watch-an-endless-stream-of-youtube-videos/)

<comment><USER3> Keep up the good work guys! Damn, I didn't know you guys had Kelso (to non- That-70s-Show-watchers, Ashton Kutcher plays Kelso and he is an investor in this company) on your side :-)

P.S: I came across a boxee app here - <http://forums.boxee.tv/showthread.php?s=c2d89f5d68631a41671e...>, any chance it's one of you guys? I really hope you guys are working on a Boxee app!

<comment><USER2> Thx! Yeah. It's really funny. I didn't realize it till I watched a 70's show re run. Boxee app link got cut off. U mind emailing me? tpun at nowmov.com

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> You overuse the word "awesome."

</comment><comment><USER2> And a break from the @oldspice. The New Spice! <http://nowmov.com/s/jv>

</comment><comment><USER5> Nowmov's video player could use a slider with which you could use to fast forward in the video clip.

</comment><comment><USER6> Title: Ten foot grad.

FTA: Y Combinator Graudate.

:(

<comment><AUTHOR> Whoops, need more sleep :)

Just corrected.

<comment><USER6> :)</comment></comment></comment>


The post about entrepreneurs that was never supposed to be published - <AUTHOR> http://duskic.com/the-post-about-entrepreneurs-that-was-never-supposed-to-be-published/

<comment><USER2> Hey, it's frustrating isn't it? I remember my first year with my first business. I remember feeling so alone, so unappreciated, and so completely overwhelmed by the stakes of the game.

I remember that they were the best years of my life.

10 years later, after reaching the success i craved, the validation, and the confidence of knowing I could do it again, I sold everything and started from scratch.

I haven't had an income for 2 years, I've never been in more debt, and I've heard 'no' from hundreds, 'get more customers' from thousands, and been ignored by millions.

Also, I've never felt more successful.

Entrepreneurship is hard, but that's why I love it. Everyone expects you to fail, the incumbents build walled gardens, customers want you to work for free, and your friends don't believe you're smart enough, focused enough, or have what it takes.

It's our job to stand alone against a crowd, and when the wave of dissent and disbelief has crashed over us, stand steadfast.

Our refusal to accept the status quo is an insult to those who have built a life around it, and while they never accept us as one of them, they eventually respect us for refusing to buckle, and join the herd.

You said you might take some flack for this article, but you shouldn't. You described the feelings we all have quite succinctly. I just hope I can remind you of the other feelings that might keep you focused, and forging ahead.

Best of luck.</comment>


The regular expression required to validate an email address - <AUTHOR> http://thefrozenfire.com/data/emailregex.txt

<comment><USER2> But validating the semantics of an email address doesn't catch a lot of error cases, e.g. "firstname.lastname@example.com" instead of "firstname.lastname@example.com" Question: why don't email validation routines ever try to find out if the domain in question is actually running something on port 25 and if it is, try to find out if that's a valid account on that server? (I've never done that in an email validation routine either but I have been thinking about it and wondering if it would be a good idea.)

<comment><USER3> because email servers have stopped validating addresses on demand a long time ago. That was the easiest way to get a list of valid emails for spam. It used to be that you could even ask for a list of valid emails for a server.

You want to validate an email address, send an actual email to it and see if anyone who cares answers it. Don't even expect much of an error if you try to send an email to a bad address, a lot of servers will just send them in /dev/null directly.

<comment><USER2> Validating the account on the server is a problem but that doesn't affect the usefulness of validating the hostname itself as something which can accept mail. E.g.: I just queried a database of about 40k email addresses in a production system for "hotmal.com" and found two. "Hotmal.com" isn't running anything on port 25 so it's likely that these people meant to enter "hotmail.com." I'm sure if we filtered this entire pool of addresses for misspellings we'd find a lot more. We could get something approaching 100% accuracy if we required users to receive an email and click on a link to verify; perhaps that's not a bad idea, but that often takes the user off of the page where he or she entered the address and breaks the process and we'd probably lose a few people. We're not going to get massive improvements in the process because it's already pretty good but even a small improvement is worth something.

Also I realize that if an email account is running on a server in someone's kitchen it may be down at one moment but still able to receive emails so I'm thinking more of an ajax call from the entry page to a validation routine which would check for obvious things - the hostname doesn't exist, isn't running, isn't running a mail server, is similar to known misspellings... and then alerts the user inline that there MAY be a problem... but still allows the user to proceed with the address entered.

<comment><USER4> Just connecting to port 25 isn't enough to verify this, however. The various email RFCs allow for temporary failure and retries of most operations, including connection. Additionally, you'd have to walk down every host listed in MX for the given domain (since it's not actually the machine "hotmail.com" that you connect to), which for hotmail.com look something like "mail1.msft.net".

Really, the only way to verify an email address is to send mail to it.

<comment><USER5> The only _foolproof_ way is to email it. Why not have a nice ajax widget which calls to the server, and checks if anything is open on the port. Then displays a message saying "there doesn't appear to be an email server at <server>, please verify there aren't any typos".

<comment><USER2> Thanks - yes, that's just what I was thinking. I've never seen anyone do that and I wonder why. Any kind of input verification, regular expressions or whatever is only going to catch some of the error cases but the goal of the game is to catch as many as possible. The regular expression at the top of this thread is interesting but I don't think I'd use it - instead use a simpler regex to catch most obvious errors (and disallow root@localhost, as someone pointed out) and couple it with an ajax check-the-mail-server thing. I think I'll try this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is interesting argument in discussion about readability, usability and so on of regular expressions, but not something you want to use directly.

Almost nobody wants to validate email address according to SMTP-specified format, because almost anything is valid SMTP address and most of the formats supported by protocol specification are not usable in real world (because they does not work or does something completely unexpected...)

Moreover to use this monstrosity zou need to perform some preprocessing on the addres, because some aspects of SMTP address cannot be meaningfully expressed by regular expression. IIRC, you have to strip comments and normalize whitespace before you use this. It is probably good idea to allow comments and real names in addresses posted to some website (for example because if you paste address from some MUA, you will often get it with real name and comments), but this will not help you with that.

</comment><comment><USER7> Note: Run in production IFF you want a DOS opportunity on your hands :)

This is a perfect example of why not to use regular expressions to validate email addresses. It likely (1) still misses some edge cases, (2) is nearly impossible to verify, and (3) is exponentially expensive (see 2).

</comment><comment><USER8> Probably not (though I get the point of the regex, and it's well taken). Here's a very readable reference:

<http://cr.yp.to/immhf/addrlist.html>

He also has a "mess822" C library (you could cons up bindings pretty quickly to your language du jour); knowing the source, it's likely to be most bulletproof validator on the net.

</comment><comment><USER9> This helpfully validates some valid emails you might not want, e.g. root@localhost hardly helpful for a web site.</comment>


Libcpu - <AUTHOR> http://www.libcpu.org/wiki/index.php/Main_Page <comment><USER2> This could be a neat way to bootstrap a MAME/MESS competitor project.

</comment><comment><USER3> Doesn't QEMU do the same?

<comment><USER4> Yes but QEMU also does much much more. This is more specific.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> no x86 front-end!

<comment><USER4> Would you have tackled it first while trying to build such a library? I'd have started with 6502 or m68k as well. x86 is pretty huge, take a look at the x86 ISA docs sometime.

(We're talking 3-5 PDFs at 500+ pages each iirc, but that includes x86-64. Even if you go back and look at say the Pentium 3 manuals they are still quite large.)</comment></comment>


Whalesong: a Racket to JavaScript compiler - <AUTHOR> http://www.hashcollision.org/whalesong/ <comment><USER2> The active fork: [https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong](https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong) contains the disclaimer

 _Whalesong needs Racket 5.2. As is Whalesong doesn 't work on version 5.3 or greater._

The current version of Racket is 6.6. I suspect that much of the potential momentum for Whalesong was consumed by ClojureScript.

<comment><USER3> I wonder if the versions there are a typo. In the linked issue it says "in the mean time we are stuck with Racket 6.2" Still not the most current version but much closer.

[https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong/issues/48](https://github.com/soegaard/whalesong/issues/48)</comment></comment>