Twitter Followers Vanish Amid Inquiries into Fake Accounts - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/01/31/technology/social-media-bots-investigations.html?rref=collection/sectioncollection/technology <comment><USER3> Twitter is in a dire situation. As a fun project I wrote a Lua - Torch bot to search for certain tweets and hit like on them based on sentiment analysis.

I realized that API query results were mostly news bots, retweet bots, corporate PR bots, social media aggregator platforms like Buffer, and just plain old spam bots.

How bad was it? After filtering 1,000 tweets per query, I barely found 10-20 real human users. That signal to noise ratio is dismal, and detrimental to the core product experience. Twitter must be forced to maintain this fake high activity to prop up the share price.

BONUS: Guess who else is spamming their post feed: Tumblr. Tumblr didn't allow any adult content or keyword search; since Marissa Mayer took over she seems to have loosened that policy to fluff the numbers. Tumblr today is drowning in porn.

<comment><USER4> I've yet to figure out why anyone would consume any kind of content on Twitter.

I've used it for a while, and what I got is that it's goos for (and people use it) to spam others about your projects or show off. However, if you try to use it to get news or updates on anything it is the least efficient, most stressful thing I've ever used.

I see Twitter as a good tool for outages, natural disasters, and protests. That's pretty much it.

<comment><USER5> > However, if you try to use it to get news or updates on anything it is the > least efficient, most stressful thing I've ever used.

Depends _heavily_ on the set of people you follow. I've found it to be a great source of news, and I typically see news show up there hours to days before I see it show up in places like HN.

<comment><USER6> For instance, if you follow sports, it's an extremely efficient and direct way of keeping up-to-date with teams and players.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's so obvious that social platforms with business models based on number of ads/impressions like Twitter/FB are not incentivized enough to remove fake accounts, yet there seems to be very little public discussion or outrage about it. I agree with Mark Cuban here [1], they should do more to make sure each account has a real user behind it, even if it means less revenue. It's just the right thing to do.

[1] [https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/957686987229618176](https://twitter.com/mcuban/status/957686987229618176)

<comment><USER8> Speaking as an ex-Facebook growth employee, fake accounts actually hurt growth and are actively sought out and removed by a dedicated team. Think about it-- if a user receives a bunch of fake friend requests, it's a bad experience. This is one of the (many) reasons MySpace died--because of the onslaught of porn-promoting accounts that they never cleaned up until it was too late.

<comment><USER9> Facebook certainly has been more diligent about stomping out fake accounts than most other services, with Twitter being social media's problem child.

A telling anecdote: A security researcher friend of mine found a somewhat small botnet of twitter accounts (~7000). Reported it to twitter, a few months passed and he noticed twitter hadn't done anything. So he turned it over to a journalist who eventually poked someone at twitter and... _poof_ all 7000+ accounts were gone 6 hours later.

<comment><USER10> WTF? What can account for that? I'm not cynical enough to believe that they _encourage_ botnets.

Maybe simply no dedicated people or team for the problem?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> We have to be careful about botshaming people who have too many fake followers: it's pretty easy to buy your enemy a bunch of fake followers just to discredit them.

Fun story, years ago in my office, before buying followers was well known, folks would prank each other by buying fake followers for our co-workers. They'd wake up and be so happy and surprised and then have to spend the weekend manually blocking each one.

At the time it seemed pretty harmless, but now it is definitely a threat to someone's credibility.

<comment><USER12> Also fake SEO stuff like make an illegal web farm copied from your competitor's site and use a spambot to post their URL everywhere so Google penalizes then in web rank.

I was on Uncyclopedia when someone did that to get them removed from Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13726214](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13726214)

"Link to this post in three years and ponder in its prescients... Web 3.0 will be born in the death of the heavily botted social networks."

<comment><USER14> What a profoundly insightful comment thread that is. Thanks for linking.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I have a (maybe) interesting twitter related anecdote. 5-6 weeks back I went to the twitter website and I was greeted with a login screen. I couldn't remember my password and didn't feel like finding it so I went off to look at other sites. That happened a few times, until I went back and POOF, I am automatically logged back in again. I've never seen a site un-invalidate an auth token before. Cool beans.

<comment><USER16> I had something similarly weird with amazon.

I got a new iPhone and on iOS Safari I needed to sign in to all my accounts.

Except for some reason Amazon recognised me with one-click enabled. I never used one-click to buy anything before and accidentally bought a kindle book while browsing the site.

More strangely, when I went to turn off one-click in my settings I was forced to log in.

So I could one-click buy without explicitly authenticating, but needed to authenticate to disable it. Very strange and/or shady.

Btw - is there an easy way to cancel an accidental one-click buy? In my case it was a local author I wanted to support anyway, so I'll keep the purchase. But surprised it's so easy to accidentally purchase something from the mobile site if you swipe to scroll on the wrong place.

<comment><USER17> FYI Kindle purchases can only be made via one-click. I hated when Amazon forced me to enable it to get a copy of Traction.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> In a somewhat related note. I read the original NY Times article that laid out the case for the fake followers. The combination of good writing, investigative journalism and compelling presentation actually made me feel like they are producing content worth paying for. I am now subscribing to the new york times.

<comment><USER19> Don't take anything you read in the New York Times about twitter bots too seriously. They do publish articles that look superficially well researched but which are nonsense or actually deceptive:

[https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit- ad66f...](https://blog.plan99.net/did-russian-bots-impact-brexit-ad66f08c014a)

The problem is that some phrases that appear on the surface to have one meaning have been grabbed and redefined by particular political groups, almost used as code words. "Bot" and especially "Russian Twitter Bot" for example isn't used by Twitter or others in the way you'd always expect:

[https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/11/undercover- video-t...](https://www.projectveritas.com/2018/01/11/undercover-video- twitter-engineers-to-ban-a-way-of-talking-through-shadow-banning-algorithms- to-censor-opposing-political-opinions/)

 _" Just go to a random [Trump] tweet, and just look at the followers," Singh says. "They'll be like guns, God, America, like, and with the American flag and like the cross. Who says that? Who talks like that? It's for sure a bot."_

The idea that Twitter bots can change society in fundamental ways is one that seems to obsess journalists, who all seem to spend half their day on Twitter anyway, but I've yet to see evidence that it's true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Okay, who puts time on the Y axis of a graph? Honestly.

<comment><USER21> We scroll down and that becomes a "animation while scrolling". While its an unusual orientation, it believe it is the right one. Its not a time axis - <USER2> "time since the user was created".

The graph isn't a "this is how many followers the user had at this point in time" but rather "right now, here are all the followers this user."

A point is "the Xth user following had a join date of Y" and thus the X axis is in effect a time axis (though not a linear time axis).

From an eye scanning view, the horizontal bands are easier to follow and notice than vertical ones - and that is part of the goal of the graphic (to emphasize those bands).

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm having trouble understanding the follower visualizations. Does the X axis represent her followers in the order they started following her and the Y axis is the date they (the follower) joined Twitter?

<comment><USER6> The original article suffered from the same flaw, and they never really explained it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I don't get the justification for labeling the initial block as organic growth, unless they're claiming that only the horizontal stratification is signs of bot activity. The vertical stratification should also be signs of bot activity, and as they point out, many of the supposed bots were in the vertical stratification groups.

For those not familiar with the graphs, the graph shows date followed on x and date created on y. Where there's horizontal stratification, NYT noticed it means the follower accounts that all began following the account at the same time were also created around the same time, indicating a strain of bots. However, when there's vertical stratification, there's a shift in the rate at which accounts are following the account. When the vertical stratification is followed by horizontal stratification, it's an indication that both sets are bots - for example, one scenario is that instead of providing a mix of bots created at different time, someone got lazy and just grabbed a list of bots all created at the same time. However, vertical stratification could also just indicate that the person did something good or bad to change the rate of acquiring new followers so it isn't clear cut. That being said, I'm not sure that justifies labeling the initial section which lacks horizontal stratification as organic.

</comment><comment><USER24> What I don't really understand about this is, why is anybody concerned with fake accounts and followers outside of ad companies? (Disregard now the possible public opinion influencing use of huge fake account networks, I can't even see this argument against bot accounts in this article.) As I see it, both bot account sellers/maintainers and celebrities profit from this, only the ad companies can lose when their business partners realize that they get fake visibility for their money and decide not to give money for this. Of course this would in turn eliminate the sponsorships of accounts and thus the buying of fake followers. So I guess I don't really get why this industry exists in the first place...

</comment><comment><USER25> We're probably 10-20 years away from the internet and especially instant messaging becoming a public utility. The product itself is immensely useful but so far hasn't been monetized except by lock in to a bigger platform or by turning the user into a product.

We've had AIM, ICQ, MSN, Yahoo Messenger and many others that can be seen in the list of protocols supported by pidgin.im. Now we have Facebook Messenger, Whatsapp, Skype, Hangouts and the thing from Apple.

Or at least there should be a standard everyone that wants to sell to public institutions should follow for instant messaging.

</comment><comment><USER26> I am not sure why this is a problem, but I don't really use twitter. Yes, fake accounts exist. It's only twitter's problem not sure why this something the NY times would care about?

<comment><USER27> To name but a few reasons off the bat:

1\. Twitter is selling content feeds to TV news networks. With enough bots out there your tweet may very well end up on TV.

2\. It counts for SEO. I once met a guy in 2010-ish who was into casino SEO. He was running a network of ~150k FB/Twitter accounts to promote articles that quoted the oddball news outfits that quoted his clients' press releases.

3\. Some people actually read what's going on on Twitter. In particular journalists and swaths of opinion leaders. See any late night show, really, for ample Twitter coverage.

4\. Some people with tons of followers occasionally retweet garbage memes on Twitter, including racist videos tweeted by white supremacist UK groups that turn out to be fake.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What's even worse is that advertisers end up paying a lot of money to advertise to these bots. In an early ad campaign with Twitter we quickly realized a lot of our spend on "engagements" was engagements with bots. We pulled the plug on Twitter spend really quick.

This has been a known problem for a while and Twitter has done little to fix it at scale. Given that they make their money on these paid "engagements" there are going to be a lot of people taking a real close look at this. Interesting days for Twitter ahead.

</comment><comment><USER29> I don't know if it is only me but I like when the graph changes as you scroll down to give you more insights.

</comment><comment><USER30> I tend to soft-block (block and then immediately unblock, it removes them as a follower) most new followers, because most are either brands or fake accounts.

</comment><comment><USER31> One Indian actor threatened to quit twitter, because another actor has more followers than him.

</comment><comment><USER32> I have completely ignored Twitter since some guy told me about it 10 years ago, and I have not once thought "wow, I wish I had paid more attention to that."

<comment><USER11> Just wait until you learn about Bitcoin</comment></comment>


Microsoft Issues New Windows 10 Update Warning - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/gordonkelly/2019/05/04/microsoft-windows-10-update-upgrade-problem-warning-google-chrome-microsoft-edge/#151271ca42bb <comment><USER2> After Googles 'oops's, MS gives an oops back.</comment>


Ask HN: What are your job salaries? - <AUTHOR> Just trying to get a sense of what the salary distribution is across software engineers (dev/test/ops) including the value of any stock/RSU's you're entitled to excluding any non-work related passive income (side project app etc). It would be awesome if you could provide details like:<p>End of year take home salary with a salary/stock split: (ex: $100k w/ $25k RSU's vesting per year for 4 yrs) Location: Years of experience as someone in IT: Company Size: (ex: tiny {<10}, small {<100}, medium {<1000}, large {>1000}) <comment><USER2> There have been some pools in the past around this. You should notice that this is highly subjective depending on which country you are in.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802295](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5802295)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5804134](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5804134)

<comment><USER3> And an obvious double selection bias (HackerNews itself, and people with higher salaries)

Salary doesn't fit the whole picture. There should be like some salary index that factors in salary + living expenses + housing + commute + food prices ...</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is Aadhaar safe? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> For anybody else wondering "Aadhaar (English: Foundation) is a 12 digit unique-identity number issued to all Indian residents based on their biometric and demographic data." [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aadhaar](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aadhaar)

</comment><comment><USER3> No.</comment>


Reddit censorship: 5000+ comments deleted in one post - <AUTHOR> This example shows all the deleted comments:
https://unreddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/3zxxhi/reports_of_sexual_assaults_on_women_across/
It takes half a minute to load, it's a long page. <comment><USER2> Here is an example comment on the top:

Lets recap the past few months: War in syria has millions of muslim people fleeing their war torn country These refugees then migrate to wealthy western european countries These countries, being the tolerant and loving people that they are open their gates wide for an influx of millions of muslims, mostly good people that are fleeing war and looking to build new life. most migrants are young military aged men (estimates at 80%) A sizable number of these migrants have been causing concern among the countries natives about their difficulty assimilating NYE sexual assualts are widespread across western europe, especially germany, where the largest number of migrants have landed with open arms by Merkel and co. These assaults have caused an uproar amongst the typically far left leaning, PC multiculturalists that begin to question if it was a good idea- the right is absolutely going crazy over this, i told you so! they say The negative reaction amongt the european natives spreads as they begin to persecute the migrants that are actually good people minding their own business, making these once good moderate muslims begin to despise these native western europeans as they are beginning to get mistreated The leaders begin to question if this was a good idea, begin plans to lock down borders a bit more, begin talks with adjacent countries to Syria asking for assistance in housing refugees (i.e. Turkey) ISIS bombs a crowded Turkish square in their biggest city; Furthering Turkey's reluctance to house refugees in their country, pushing more and more to western europe. Anti migrant resentment builds to an all time high in western Europe, migrants are treated terribly and the moderate migrants begin to examine more radical thinking in the face of the poor treatment by local europeans By this time, millions upon millions of migrants are living in western europe; the radical islam message has spread to those in the face of persecution that were otherwise moderate. The migrants now outnumber the host countries military numbers and police numbers. Anyone care to complete the rest of this timeline?

</comment><comment><USER3> My favorite of the deleted posts:

[-]The-War-Boyundefined points [deleted comment restored by unreddit.com]

I just started playing 2 weeks ago, about 3 hours on each my days off from shool, and I'm seeing huge improvements, but I've JUST stumbled on a problem that needs attention and hopefully you gurus can help me. How do you get blood off a fretboard? I just did a power chord slide and split my ring finger open on the string and it's left a streak on the wood. Advice?

</comment><comment><USER4> All this I hate refugees, etc, basically comes down to the fact that you hate your government for destabilizing the entire region. Sure democracy would be good, but stability is good enough even if it is a dictator running the show. Imagine how much better the world would be if America had not opened a can of whoop ass on the Middle East.

At the end of the day nothing is better. Just more chaos and confusion all over the place. All while organizations that wish to divide and conquer are basically winning. They are polarizing the world and destabilizing and making a world in which it is easier for them to achieve their objectives.

ISIS was started by Iraqi generals, it is basically Iraq's revenge for what America did to it. If not Iraq then the Baathists.</comment>


Ask HN: Scripts to record my users going through sign-up flow? - <AUTHOR>

I am building a web platform in private alpha/beta w/ 1k users who are using the service and helping me kill bugs. BUT with all the variables (OS, PC, Browser, Location, other odd shit etc.) replicating bugs can be tough. It really sucks when I get an email saying they can't register for an account.
Does anyone know of a script that records beta user behavior? Maybe something like... when user clicks the invite link, the user can agree to let a screen recording happen for testing purposes. I would pay good money to watch a recorded clip of each user going through the 10 second signup/ profile settings process so I can see what's going on.
Also, looking for more "technical" people to join closed beta. I figure having more techies could help me pinpoint odd bugs. If you care to help, email is on profile. <comment><USER2> Not exactly what you're looking for, but Mixpanel has something they call Funnel Analysis. If your registration has multiple steps, funnel analysis will tell you where you are losing customers. Mixpanel can tell you that a customer clicked the invite link and then stopped filling out the registration form half way through. It's then your job to figure out why that might happen.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've used mouseflow (www.mouseflow.com) before and it worked well. Easy to set up.

</comment><comment><USER4> Google Analytics can help you with that.

</comment><comment><USER5> Check out Firefly.</comment>


R7RS Scheme benchmarks - <AUTHOR> https://ecraven.github.io/r7rs-benchmarks/benchmark.html <comment><USER2> For context, R7RS is still in standardization [public review milestone for 2012 has not yet been met].</comment>


A New Spacecraft to Explore on Waves of Light - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/10/science/space/10solar.html?_r=1&hp=&pagewanted=all <comment><USER2> This is really fascinating technology, and it'll be awesome to see it actually take shape, but I'm not sure I agree with this:

 _"Sailing on light is the only technology that can someday take us to the stars," said Louis Friedman, director of the Planetary Society, the worldwide organization of space enthusiasts._

It may be the only available technology today, but there are many theoretical technologies that are probably more practical for interstellar journeys.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel#Proposed_me...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Interstellar_travel#Proposed_methods_of_interstellar_travel)

<comment><USER3> I am confident that within the next 40 years we will take one of these technologies beyond the theoretical -- we're going to find an exoplanet with conditions that support life and it's going to set off an extraordinary scientific mission.

<comment><USER2> Hopefully we also develop radical life extension so I can go :)

<comment><USER3> If Alpha Centauri has an earth-like planet around it, we will know about it in our lifetimes. [http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080310-centa...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/03/080310-centauri- earth.html)

This will be a very interesting universe once my other consciousnesses are floating around exploring it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "In principle, a solar sail can do anything a regular sail can do, like tacking."

No it can't. Can it?

So far as I understand, tacking requires the water of the ocean to redirect your momentum. There is nothing that would do this in space.

<comment><USER5> A wind-driven land vehicle can tack just as well as a sailboat can, and possibly better.

If memory serves me, in the fully general case, all that's required is an exploitable difference in velocity at the interface of two media (ground/air, water/air, etc.) to extract energy and move in arbitrary directions (or even do counterintuitive things, like go faster than either medium as a sailboat tacking downwind does).

In space, a solar sailcraft is embedded in a single medium. So, no, no tacking.

<comment><USER4> Why has he been downmodded?

Downmods below 0 are ONLY for spam, and "me too" like posts!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Larry Niven used a solar sail in several stories, e.g. "The Fourth Profession" and "The Mote in God's Eye".

You can leave a "laser canon" on the launch world. _That way, you can leave your rocket engine at home, where there are resources to fuel, maintain and improve it_

You can tack against the solar wind.

You can - and this is the really cool one - use magnetic flux, if present in that region, to turn (even through 90%), by giving the space craft an electric charge. I've forgotten the details of how you change the net charge of a spacecraft, but I guess you could easily jettison electrons (or protons).</comment>


Twitter just priced its IPO - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/twitter/status/398235511254298624 <comment><USER2> I guess they're going for the "all our IPO communications are tweets on Twitter" thing, but this one seems it would've been a better fit for the company blog ([https://blog.twitter.com/company](https://blog.twitter.com/company)). They could've still tweeted a link to the post. Instead they seem to have tweeted... a screenshot of the post, which doesn't exist in text form.

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't the only price that matters the total market cap? Why are people so obsessed with share price? By itself, it's meaningless.</comment>


It's Better To Animate a Film Alone, Even If It Takes Years - <AUTHOR> https://creators.vice.com/en_uk/article/animator-hand-draws-film-in-4-years-nova-seed <comment><USER2> Nick DiLiberto's work is incredibly inspiring and shows you the power of discipline and long-term planning. Years ago my university featured a talk with _solo traditional animators_. It's a grueling life. You wake up, start to draw, eat, go back to drawing, sleep. Repeat for x months/years. Indie hand- drawn shorts are a popular niche in France and, to a lesser degree, in Italy.

 _Via Curiel, 8_ (10min short) required 2 years of work and more than 4000 hand-made acrylic drawings. [https://vimeo.com/141520314](https://vimeo.com/141520314) Animation is not my field, but it's interesting nonetheless.

 _" An hour of my animation is made up of about twenty small films, twenty years of work and thirtyfive-thousand drawings"_ – Simone Massi [http://www.simonemassi.it/index.php?menuid=3](http://www.simonemassi.it/index.php?menuid=3)

<comment><USER3> _It 's a grueling life. You wake up, start to draw, eat, go back to drawing, sleep. Repeat for x months/years._

That's exactly what it is. Animation is kind of my field. My friend and colleague is just now finishing his ~12 minute short (hand-drawn with cats (quadrupeds animation ffs)) which I've helped him with on some of the shots and co-directed it. It's now in editing and scoring. It took him around three years. Day in and day out the cycle you've described. It's a tough life, mostly battling yourself.

On a semi-related note, most of the animation was drawn in Harmony on a Cintiq... yet, in final stages of animation he decided to give Krita a spin (Harmony had some issues). Looks like Krita is good enough (for him) to be used in place of Harmony for next projects. He says it's better even in most cases.

<comment><USER4> I always thought that after photoshop/illustrator a lot of work is done with computers (layers and separating parts for movement etc). For example, if someone is running through a field I presumed the grass/trees would be 10-20 frames repeated, the clouds would just be "shifted", and the sun's change in colors would be "automated" with a computer.

Do artists still have to redraw large parts of every image still?

<comment><USER5> Almost all 'traditional' animation you see is put together almost entirely using computers. Even pre-computers people would paint a background once and then paint each part that moved on transparent plastic or glass and layer it all on top of each other (sometimes each body part of each charter would be on its own layer so that you could keep the body still while just moving one arm for example).

There is however a movement that rejects all that for entirely artistic reasons, and insist on painting each frame from scratch by hand. Doing so gives the animation a really unique (and in my opinion cool) look that is hard to mimic using computers. However it is extremely labor intensive and is basically only used for short animations done entirely as labors of love.

<comment><USER5> If you want to see an amazing example of what hand painted frame-by-frame animation can really do take a look at The Old Man and the Sea from 1999 by Aleksandr Petrov [1]

Almost 30,000 frames, painted by hand on glass, producing probably some of the most visually striking animation you are likely to see.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vnZD6RBt9S0)

<comment><USER3> First thing that came to my mind. I remember, when it won an Oscar, seeing it and thinking 'no f way'.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> That's one hell of an accomplishment, to be sure. But I take great issue with the headline. What's _better_ about it? The guy was wearing basically a hand- cast to let him draw through the injury he was inflicting to himself with that workload. The animation itself doesn't seem to be that good -- I mean, your mileage may vary and different people have different sensitivities, but it looks like one of the ways you animate a film by yourself is drawing fewer frames per second than a traditional studio animation, and for me that looks below the threshold where it's comfortable to watch, and I couldn't imagine sitting through 80 minutes of it. It gives me a headache. In terms of art... man, I'd really rather sit through a Studio Ghibli movie, I well and truly would.

<comment><USER7> From a growth-oriented perspective, it's a giant investment in cultivating his talent. I'm sure after 4 years of working this hard, he can draw circles around most of his peers. He's also probably developed techniques for boosting his creativity and motivation that others might lack.

<comment><USER8> > I'm sure after 4 years of working this hard, he can draw circles around most > of his peers.

Assuming he's still capable of drawing at all. It looks like he's ruined his wrist.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Incredibly inspiring, to be sure, but I can't help but wonder: how do you iterate and learn over the course of such a long-haul project? For me, the creative process involves exploring a lot of dead ends until I find the right path or develop my skills sufficiently. If you're doing one scene a day for four years straight, how do you end up with a consistent product at the end? How do you apply what you've learned to the mountain of drawings you've already put behind you?

Also, tangentially, how do you make money when you're working 15-hour days on your passion project for 4 years straight?

Anyway, I'm really looking forward to watching this! Any Bay Area screenings in the near future?

<comment><USER10> Passion projects are rarely profitable. You make them _for_ you - because you are compelled to. By definition of the production, nobody else wants it as much as you do, so you are not going to find anyone who would value it more than your own times worth, which is usually what it takes to get salaried or hourly employment.

You can definitely kickstart something like this, though. Once you have something great out there, making a trailer and pitching it to the Internet and hoping to get enough money to live off while making it is a possibility.

It is just never a certainty. Any artistic passion project must be done for the final product, not for any hopeful long term fiscal reimbursement for it, because its success is bound to how much the people that come into contact with it agree with your valuation of your own work.

The real question is, how in the 21st century are more people not able to pursue their passions like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it fair to draw parallels to software development here? Is it better to toil in obscurity until your masterpiece is complete or is it better to involve others early? We can see examples of both. Curious what HN thinks.

<comment><USER12> With respect to software and art - it makes me think of the author(s) of Dwarf Fortress where what is accomplished probably would have been severely diluted without the singularity of vision of a single primary programmer.

Regarding more production oriented software environments - it reminds me of chapters in the Mythical Man Month discussing the considerations to team size/composition and it's tension with consistency of design and communications cost.

<comment><USER13> The Dwarf Fortress authors are lucky though, that people care enough for their niche to donate money to them. They are not under pressure to produce something finished or follow some traditional release cycle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Just a heads up for those at work - The embedded video does have some animated footage of a topless woman. (Mildly NSFW)

<comment><USER15> A topless snake demon.

<comment><USER16> If you're somewhere that you're likely to get in trouble for looking at animated breasts, I'm not sure that the distinction matters so much.

And anyhow, snake demons are people too. Don't be speciesist.

<comment><USER15> It changes the context from titillating to, well, watching an animated movie that involves a snake demon. Sure, workplaces may still frown on it, but it's still probably much more acceptable than looking at a topless human woman.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I may have missed it in the article, but what was Nick DiLiberto's source of income during the 4 years he worked on his film??

<comment><USER18> This is relevant to my interests as well, as art in the US isn't produced in a vacuum and economic conditions what they are...it's not to take away from the achievement, but rather understand the context upon which something was produced. If two people both make an identical origami swan, but one had the luxury of leisure and tutoring while the other was created between shifts working in a coal mine using self-directed creativity, well, I mean that's part of the story.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This is a discipline where machine learning could vastly accelerate productivity. Imagine having automated interpolation between frames. Hand-draw every 5 frames, render out to 60 fps.

Not to mention automated style coherence between artists.

Future artists will likely indirectly manipulate their art, influencing various forms of machine learning that will do most of the leg work. In a way, matte painting artists already work in similar fashion. Their art usually begins as pre-existing images that are manually blended into a coherent image, with original work added later.

<comment><USER20> Almost all animation is fully computer animated these days. Even Disney have given up on hand drawn animation. So when a film is hand-drawn like this it is a very deliberate choice to eschew computer animation.

<comment><USER19> What I was suggesting is that machine learning could make the hand-drawn style viable again from a productivity standpoint.

Modern digital techniques aren't without their drawbacks, hence why hand-drawn is often viewed as superior. A machine learning workflow augmenting hand-drawn might be the best of both worlds.

<comment><USER21> To play devil's advocate, I think what was suggested is that for the artists who do this kind of work, the eschewing of using a computer IS what makes this, if not superior, at least their preferred method of working. For at least some artists doing this work, the whole point is that everything you see is drawn by hand because they want to do that work, not for lack of a better tweening algorithm, machine learned or otherwise.

<comment><USER19> Fair enough, but some day interpolated renders may be completely indistinguishable. The only benefit to completely hand-drawn work by then could very well be satisfying the artist's own preference.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> The Nova Seed trailer can be found here: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADm0BSHMeA&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ADm0BSHMeA&feature=youtu.be)

</comment><comment><USER22> It's incredible he was able to accomplish an eighty minute movie himeslf. The art in the trailer for Nova Seed (not necessarily the fight scene embedded in the OP article) reminds me of Sally Cruikshank animated shorts. [1]

[1] e.g. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Z6SOlWbds](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N0Z6SOlWbds)

</comment><comment><USER23> I feel that way about making games. Imo the most efficient team size is 1. It will take longer, but it will take less man-hours and the product will be superior.

<comment><USER24> I disagree. The amount of time it takes me to produce art at the level of polish required to suit the games I develop is far longer than it takes my artist friends to create better work. Same with music and just about everything else other than the design and (arguably) the programming. If I had the budget to hire one person for each major discipline, I would.

<comment><USER25> This sounds right. Many things require different talents, and the tasks can be divided so that people with different talents can focus on what they do best. If I were involved in a video game, I could be productive in programming, but definitely not in the artwork. Lots of tasks are like this.

However, there definitely is a real truth to the saying "too many chefs in the kitchen". You don't want to waste the chef's time with table service or janitorial duties, but you can't have 20 chefs all arguing about the menu or how to prepare food. The problem with too many companies, though, is they want the product done sooner, and think that adding more people will get it done faster, just like having 9 women will cause you to bring a baby to term in 1 month....

<comment><USER24> Yes, and I have experience working on very large development teams where it is clear diminishing returns. There's probably a critical pivot around 7 people (Dunbar's Number, right?) where you begin to have significant drag caused by the overhead of managing people and their resources in addition to creating a piece of software.

<comment><USER25> Of course, but it depends on the project and all the skills it entails. If it's a big, complex software project like a AAA game, you're going to need more than 7 people just for the programming work alone, and you can't expect them to also do the artwork, music, etc.; they'll probably do a lousy job of it. You can ask me to do artwork for a game, and you're going to wind up with something like stick figures; it simply isn't a strength I have. So more people may mean more difficulty with management, but if you don't do it, you just don't have a product.

But it does seem like some places are overstaffed and do that as a way to mask terrible management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I have an acquaintance working on a similar project, a CG film titled "White Tiger Legend". He's been a VFX artist on many films you've seen (LOTR and the Hobbit movies, Avatar, the Matrix trilogy, &c), and has been plugging away at this the entire time I've known him.

It's very much a passion project for him, much like "Nova Seed" seems to be for DiLiberto. He isn't working _entirely_ alone (he's got actors — though as a Kung Fu black belt, he's doing most of the motion capture for the fight scenes himself — voice talent, a composer for the score, &c), but it's very much his vision, and his baby.

This kind of thing takes discipline and dedication of a sort most of us can't even _imagine_ , let alone execute.

<comment><USER27> Speaking as someone who did something similar a few years ago (entire significant-length CGI animated film solo-ish) - thanks. That (your last line) is really nice to read.

(And if you haven't, please do tell him what you wrote there - he's probably struggling more than he lets on to finish his work, and a bit of encouragement and praise goes a long way, particularly when you're working solo.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Venture Brothers is a good example of this. Venture Brothers is created by a very small team over a painstaking few years and that process consistently produces higher-quality content and a better story than their peers.

</comment><comment><USER29> Voices of a Distant Star comes to mind.

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

</comment><comment><USER30> For those in Vancouver, it is playing at the Rio Theatre tomorrow as part of a double-feature.

See you there!!

<comment><USER31> I'll be there! Throw up the "Y" hand sign if you're from HN, we can have a little hn meetup.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I feel his pain in the brain from coding an entire startup from scratch with ios/android apps, website, kiosks and backend using 4 different technologies because i generally dislike coding with others because they have this nasty thing called an opinion. Obviously this is a personality flaw in any case.

</comment><comment><USER33> The look seems to come from Heavy Metal, the 1981 movie.

</comment><comment><USER34> I would worry that you get a lot better as you go so that by the 3rd year, your starting work looks shoddy by comparison and you have to go back and re- do a lot.

Like code I wrote 6 months ago looks like schlock, but that's not something anybody sees.

</comment><comment><USER35> Reminds me of the Star Fox fan movie...also a stunning solo effort.

The author live-streams his animation work.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uieM18rZdHY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uieM18rZdHY)

</comment><comment><USER36> Made me think about Yuri Norshteyn's project started in 1981, animated by husband and wife team, and still not finished (36 years so far).

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Overcoat_(animated_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Overcoat_\(animated_film\))

</comment><comment><USER37> It's quite ironic that he began his career at BioWare, given the current kerfuffle over Mass Effect: Andromeda animating horridly.

</comment><comment><USER38> Did anyone else experience bizarre scrolling behavior on the desktop site?

</comment><comment><USER39> It looks like it had 0 success, maybe even less than 4 years work's worth of revenue (I couldn't find any data on it), so the conclusion should be the opposite: even if people slow other people down by getting on agreement, the final quality is usually better.

<comment><USER40> It isn't even available for sale yet is it? I didn't get any impression about 0 success.

Amazon is saying 2017 (unavailable)

<comment><USER39> Actually you're right. Still, I don't see any data proving the headline in the title by any metric. The whole article is just an advertisement.

<comment><USER41> I wouldn't be surprised if anyone who takes four years to animate a film alone doesn't measure success solely in financial terms.

<comment><USER39> Probably not, it was just my expectation to see some beautiful animation that a team wouldn't be able to do after the headline. I still remember when I watched Lion King in the theatre when I was about 10 years old, and I was very sad when Disney shut down the hand-made animation studio. I would love to see something similar, but in my eyes this comes nothing close to those movies.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


FCC Accuses Stealthy Startup of Launching Rogue Satellites - <AUTHOR> https://spectrum.ieee.org/tech-talk/aerospace/satellites/fcc-accuses-stealthy-startup-of-launching-rogue-satellites <comment><USER2> Wow, I love this story. It raises so many intriguing issues in one small space.

First, while the FCC clearly has US authority over spectrum, how is it that its charter includes satellite launches? Or conversely, if they SpaceBees never turn on did they violate the license? And on what basis does the FCC get to evaluate the risk of other things in orbit, isn't that NORAD's job? And what if this had been a startup in Bangalore or Mumbai, would they be getting crap from the FCC for launching the very same satellites?

Now I understand the leverage the FCC can use with US based launch services, sort "Follow our rules and do what we say or we will have the FAA pull your launch permit." but that leverage doesn't really exist for foreign launch services. Heck the Russians might launch stuff like this just to irritate the FCC and tweak our noses.

And it raises a whole different set of questions about cubesats. How closely are they inspected at Integration time? Is is possible to create a cubesat that looks and smells like it is doing one mission but is actually doing a different mission? What happens when someone launches an orbital spy satellite network? Not the one you would expect taking pictures of people's back yards, but a collection of satellites with large lenses that are looking _up_ and _over_ at the things coming up from the ground. Imagine an ion engine powered small sat that works its way up to GEO and snaps pictures of all the satellites it can find and beams those images down to earth.

Let's say their quad systems stays under the weight of the typical cubesat limit of 1.33kg. That means they could launch 100,000+ satellites on a single F9 load. And while that would be silly (They would all be in a very similar orbit) it suggests how easily someone could (in theory) just "throw up" a covert microwave based communication network on a very small number of launches.

These are definitely 21st century sorts of problems :-).

<comment><USER3> It also raises a bunch of issues around:

\- Kessler Syndrome, a la "Is the plotline of _Gravity_ inevitable with increasing commercialization of space?"

\- Weaponization of space. If you could get 4 unauthorized satellites up on a launch that was forbidden because "they're a danger to other satellites", could you do the same with satellites that are intentionally a danger to other satellites? Could a private company knock out the U.S's spy satellites at just the moment they are most needed? Could it set up its own spy network?

\- How about ABM defense? Could a private company create a network of smart space junk with the purpose of stopping a potential nuclear war before it starts? (Incidentally, such an organization could end up in the position of both saving humanity and opposing U.S. national interests, given that the U.S. has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth, which should make Americans wonder if U.S. national interests are aligned with humanity. Crimson Tide was a great movie.)

\- More generally: nation states have traditionally had a monopoly around certain technologies. Spaceflight, weaponry, cryptography, communication networks. That monopoly is fraying, or in some cases, has already frayed beyond repair. What does that mean for the power balance on earth, and for social organization on the planet? There are some private organizations that are arguably more powerful than full nation-states nowadays.

21st century sorts of problems indeed. At least the 21st century looks like it'll be exciting, if somewhat scary.

<comment><USER4> > Given that the U.S. has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth

[1] Russia has the largest stockpile of nuclear weapons on Earth.

[1] [https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world- nuclear-...](https://fas.org/issues/nuclear-weapons/status-world-nuclear- forces/)

<comment><USER5> Largest stockpile of weapons that work?

<comment><USER6> Maybe? Only one way to find out really.

<comment><USER7> Decommission them all; then you will know for sure.

<comment><USER8> The only winning move is not to play.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> A lot of people are wondering why the FCC has jurisdiction over this. The reason is that Swarm is operating an unauthorized experimental radio station on American soil. [0] That's always been illegal, as it should be.

That shouldn't be the end of the discussion, though. Why didn't the FCC grant Swarm a license in the first place? Basically, the FCC claims the right to take action to minimize the danger of orbital debris created by US-operated satellites. [1] According to the FCC, this jurisdiction is granted by the Communications Act of 1934. [2] But that requires a _very_ broad interpretation of the law. If promoting "the larger and more effective use of radio in the public interest" lets the FCC make regulations about orbital debris, then surely it also applies to just about anything that has a radio.

I don't like what Swarm did here -- I think they are legitimately endangering other satellites -- but I don't like the precedent the FCC is setting either. This seems like a classic case of bureaucratic overreach to me.

Primary sources:

[0] Swarm's license application: [https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=cu...](https://apps.fcc.gov/oetcf/els/reports/442_Print.cfm?mode=current&application_seq=77426&license_seq=78134)

[1] FCC experimental license rules, section 5.64: [http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205...](http://www.fr.com/files/Uploads/attachments/fcc/FCC_Part%205-Experimental- License-Rules.pdf)

[2] "Mitigation of Orbital Debris", section (III)(A): [https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.p...](https://apps.fcc.gov/edocs_public/attachmatch/FCC-04-130A1.pdf)

<comment><USER10> There has been an ongoing struggle inside the industry to determine which US agency gets to be the "debris" authority when it comes to licensing. From what I understand, NORAD doesn't want be in licensing. The FCC is a poor fit and is over-reaching. Plus the international community doesn't necessarily want America being the authority on what you can and can't launch.

The real answer here, which the FCC just shoved right to the forefront, is that there should be a single international independent body to sign off on a debris analysis on all items placed in space. But then again, no country wants that because they either want the control for themselves or thrive on the gray area.

For the commercial launch industry, they don't want that either because most of them leave their spent rocket bodies up there (which are basically big rusting tanks with unspent fuel vapors). For the big old space, they don't want it either because they would be forced to admit that they have a fiscal responsibility to operate their satellites until they die and that their active-deorbit plans are bullshit.

What shocks me is that neither Spaceflight nor ISRO checked on the license. This is why you have mass dummies (big hunks of metal that approximate the satellite that can be launched in their place).

On top of that, shame on the CEO of Swarm. You could make the argument that she set trust in the industry back by years. She should pack it up. You don't get to ask for forgiveness instead of permission when you're playing in space. It belongs it everyone.

<comment><USER11> Until there is such a body, every country is responsible for the objects its citizens put into space according to the Outer Space Treaty. The interesting legal question to me is why it's on the US (where the satellites were built and from which they're being operated) over India (where the satellites were launched from).

(Which question, btw, shows the need for an international regulatory agency like you're describing.)

<comment><USER12> Because Article VI of the Outer Space Treaty says that the US, not India, is responsible for the activities of a US company launching from India.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The linked FCC letter ([https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.](https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=.)) actually explained their rationale well (satellite too small to track with monitoring equipment so there was no way to warn other operators their satellite was about to be pummeled) and their idea to broadcast its location with GPS was not considered reliable enough.

Still seems weird the FCC and not NASA or the Air Force makes this call. Isn't the FCC busy diving into rooms full of gold coins from Verizon?

<comment><USER14> How does "global positioning system" work in space anyway? Was "GPS" an analogy? Is it actually using signals from GPS satellite network to determine position?

<comment><USER15> It would work the same way it does on earth. Spacebee satellites are at 500km and GPS satellites are at 20,000km, so it shouldn't be a problem getting a signal. You can even pick up GPS at higher orbits than 20000km, but it is more difficult:

[https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in- space/](https://www.technologyreview.com/s/401315/gps-in-space/)

<comment><USER16> I was under the impression that all non-military GPS devices did not work after certain thresholds such as speed were exceeded to prevent them from being used in missiles.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Mul...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinating_Committee_for_Multilateral_Export_Controls#Legacy)

<comment><USER17> Have to wonder if any manufacturers in non-COCOM countries are able to supply such units.

<comment><USER18> Or how long before you can get around this with an SDR.

Edit: looks like you already can: [http://gnss-sdr.org/](http://gnss-sdr.org/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How does the FCC have jurisdiction? Maybe the radio broadcast in US territory. However, it was not even an American rocket?

I am sorry, but not sure how the FCC has any jurisdiction here. However, I can see the issue with them being small and hard to and track, but still not sure how FCC is even the right entity to handle this.

However, the US is also is weird for instance taxes are based of citizenship not were you live geographically. For instance if you have lived in Japan for 10 years you still would have to pay taxed back to the US.

<comment><USER20> >The FCC is responsible for regulating commercial satellites, including minimizing the chance of accidents in space.

Perhaps also important is that Swarm is an American company.

<comment><USER21> And the FCC is a group chartered with regulating interstate communications, not with being orbital traffic cops.

<comment><USER22> The FCC is charged with regulating communications of all distances, not just those crossing state lines. One of their primary missions is ensuring fair access to the wireless spectrum and keeping someone from jamming it and preventing others from communicating legally. Satellites must communicate to be effective, and satellites form a significant portion of our communications backbone. A rogue satellite operating over spectrum it isn't licensed for prevents other from using that spectrum, and a rogue satellite colliding with another satellite could cause debris and disable a bunch of other communications platforms.

The FCC isn't being orbital traffic cops, it is doing its job. While the FCC has done a bunch of distasteful stuff regarding net neutrality recently, the folks taking actin agains Swarm are clearly in the right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Everyone's talking about the FCC and whether the launch should have been allowed; what I'm curious about is how the Swarm people thought they could get away with this. They obviously know that the satellites will be tracked; did they really think the FCC would just say, "Oh, well, since you already did it, I guess it's ok..." It doesn't make any sense.

<comment><USER22> It's possible that they have nobody on their team with any government experience nor space experience. This is a fairly common way that startups fail, they think they have a great idea but are unfamiliar with the regulatory environment they must operate in (banking and medical startups are particularly vulnerable). Consider that a cubesat launch costs about $40k, add in $10k for the satellite cost, you're looking at just $200k to launch these satellites. Add in a spare system or three, multiply by a generous margin of error, and you're still under half a million bucks. That's basically the same as hiring a couple employees. To further realize that they could be doing this on the cheap, these are apparently 0.25U sized cubesats, which are even cheaper to launch than the "standard" 1U size: [http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm](http://space.skyrocket.de/doc_sdat/spacebee.htm)

They don't necessarily need to be a huge team with a bunch of experienced industry insiders to pull this off. They could just as easily be a couple of recent grads with some of Grandma's inheritance from selling her house in Palo Alto.

<comment><USER23> But it sounds like the co-founders both _do_ have significant space industry experience. Maybe not directly with the regulatory aspects, but a little bit of common sense...

<comment><USER22> I would argue that their actions indicate they don't have the experience they would like people to believe- not that I blame them for that part, every founder should try to make themselves look better to investors. They could be padding their resume or even outright lying, but anyone who says "it's no big deal if our license got denied, we'll launch without addressing _any_ of the issues and try to work it out later" is not an industry veteran. Trying to keep to a timeline by going around the established process isn't what professionals do. Even Elon Musk plays ball with government regulators while pushing his ideas.

Edit: the article describes them as an engineer that developed a satellite _concept_ for Google and the other sold his previous company to Apple. Neither of them have experience in this regulatory environment. Neither Google nor Apple are space companies. These founders are going in on the tech aspect of distributed computing in space, I doubt either has launched a satellite before.

<comment><USER24> > "it's no big deal if our license got denied, we'll launch without addressing > any of the issues and try to work it out later" is not an industry veteran.

Uber did that, in a different industry, and has had success. I'm appalled by the behavior, but perhaps others are following their model.

<comment><USER25> What's the worst case scenario for Uber? Economic destruction of taxi medallions, company gets shut down. What's the worst case scenario for Swarm? It takes out a satellite, causes economic destruction, and gets the military- industrial complex all mad at you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> The rate of satellite launches seems to be increasing at an ever-greater rate. With the advent of SpaceX, ISRO, and many new actors in the launch business space has never been so cheaply accessible. A runaway Kessler Effect ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kessler_syndrome)), making space access for everyone problematic, seems now a real possibility, especially if a few bad actors launch junk into space with disregard for the safety of others.

I'm not sure who should be responsible, but some coordination at the international level seems necessary to make sure this does not happen.

<comment><USER27> ISRO has been around since the 70s

<comment><USER26> Yes, but I was under the impression that they have ramped up their commercial launches substantially in the last few years, and that they are sending more small satellites clusters recently. Maybe I'm wrong about their launch history, but my main point still stands.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Satellite industry perspective here. I read the PDF copy of the FCC letter. It appears the FCC wants to ban them because the dimensions of each satellite are too small to accurately determine the TLEs of (two line elements) using the USAF/NORAD spacecraft tracking systems.

There is nothing _RF_ regulatory mentioned in the FCC's letter.

Does this mean the FCC has stated a position that it has a problem with all cubesats of similar sized launched by all other nations?

It is kind of weird that the FCC is in charge of orbital debris mitigation and avoidance. If the US feds intend to regulate satellite dimensions and orbits it needs to be done by some sort of aerospace experts.

<comment><USER29> For what is worth, it appears that the TLEs _are_ known and they have NORAD IDs: [https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results](https://www.n2yo.com/database/?name=spacebee#results)

<comment><USER28> the interesting question will be, if the satellite bus size is below the reliable detection threshold for space monitoring radar, if the TLEs will remain valid after they have experienced 6 months of atmospheric drag and expansion/contraction of the atmosphere with solar cycles.

[https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-eart...](https://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/12/081216-earth- breathes.html)

[https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes- atmosp...](https://www.sciencenews.org/article/solar-wind-pushes-atmospheric- breathing)

for example the GOCE satellite lasted longer than expected because its end-of- life period happened to coincide with a lower than usual amount of solar wind activity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> There seems to be lot of questions about exactly why is this in FCC's jurisdiction. In fact the authority for authorizing commercial satellites and allocating their orbital positions is ITU, but you don't deal with ITU directly but through it's national member organisation, which in US in this case is FCC (for some other things you might want from ITU you would have to go through NIST or maybe even GSA).

</comment><comment><USER31> " _The U.S. Army, U.S. Air Force, and U.S. Special Operations Command has also expressed interest in using Swarm's network for "tracking and geo-locating a large number of items on the ground and at sea."_ "

Hypothetically, could the DoD have given them the go-ahead without informing the FCC?

</comment><comment><USER32> Isn't there a ton of space debris, ranging in size from mm to meters? A 1U cubesat is 10x10x11cm, and these satellites are listed as 10x10x2.8cm. What are the size bounds of the "danger zone" of items that are too small to spot reliably but still large enough to damage satellites? Would a 1cm³ / ~10 gram steel bolt be a problem? What about all of the chunks of debris created by previous space collisions and anti-satellite weapons?

Also, it seems like either (A) the satellites are big enough to track using the space surveillance network, negating the FCC's complaint, or (B) the satellites are too small to see reliably, meaning that it would be hard to pin any collision on these satellites. Perhaps there is a gray area where we can observe it, but not reliably.

I wonder how the FCC makes these decisions. The article mentioned that Swarm included passive radar reflectors, but that those will only help boost the radar cross-section for a small band of frequencies that are only used by a small fraction of the SSN. Ideally, our detection capability will improve over time and this will cease to be an issue. It would be a shame if no US company could ever launch a sub-1U satellite.

<comment><USER28> Considering the limits of battery storage (in terms of Wh per kg, and Wh per cubic cm) and triple-junction GaAs PV cells. I question how useful a 1/4U cubesat can really be, if it needs to have both TT&C/bus management computer, some sort of Rx/TX radio to serve a purpose, possibly a single orientation gyro, some form of cold gas thruster for maneuvering, etc.

Even with a 6U size cubesat you are very limited in terms of data rate throughput (in Mbps) you can achieve in bands above VHF/UHF. Simply due to the size limits of antenna you can fold down and the Shannon-Hartley limit.

<comment><USER23> I don't think they're too concerned with throughput. The idea was just some level of connectivity to retrieve basic information from areas that currently have none. The communication would literally be limited to what the satellite could store in onboard memory.

<comment><USER33> Sounds like what you can already bounce off amateur space APRS repeaters already for free. Just would be nice to have a few more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Organizations that willfully violate the law, especially in ways that pose threats to the lives and property of others, should be terminated.

The US government granted them incorporation (or some similar status) and all the privileges that came with that. I wish the government would raise the cost of non-compliance by exercising it's right to revoke those privileges.

<comment><USER35> Couldn't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing what they are doing without any need for US approval?

<comment><USER36> > _Couldn 't this company just incorporate in Taiwan or India and keep doing > what they are doing_

No. They would have to move operations abroad and convince a foreign country they're worth the risk. (American operations of foreign companies are still subject to U.S. law.)

<comment><USER37> Considering they launched the satellites in India's rocket, I think India would be fine with them.

<comment><USER38> Not exactly. It's unclear how they were able to launch successfully, but I doubt whatever mistake that occurred is indicative of the Indian government agreeing with the project. It's more likely they used social engineering of some sort to get their satellites on the rocket.

<comment><USER31> They apparently used a third-party to fit in with the other secondary passengers:

" _Paperwork filed with the FCC by Swarm Technologies shows that it was planning to use Spaceflight, a Seattle-based launch services company, to get its satellites on board the PSLV. Spaceflight's website shows that it did in fact supply 19 of the 31 satellites for January's PSLV launch, including some with the SpaceBees unique 0.25U dimensions._

" _Last year, Spaceflight senior mission manager Adam Hadaller told Spectrum that it checked all its customers' safety regulations and communication licenses before launch. However, in response to questions this week, Spaceflight would only say: "Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses."_

" _Neither Spaceflight nor ISRO could immediately confirm whether they routinely check launch customers' FCC licenses. If they do not, there would seem to be little to stop satellite makers from deploying any device they choose into orbit._ "

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> It seems crazy to me that people with any kind of background or knowledge of satellites and aerospace would knowingly do this.

<comment><USER40> People with background and knowledge gave us "too big to fail" systems that are overpriced by 10x.

<comment><USER41> That's a hilarious comment. The New Space industry doesn't want orbital debris, either.

<comment><USER40> My point is that the line between disruptive innovation and reckless crackpottery isn't always clear, and the solution to one reckless startup isn't to give up on innovation.

<comment><USER42> Trying to make it in the space industry of all places with the government as an adversary is suicidal. In many commercial space ventures, the government (through its many arms) is often one of your largest customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I'm not sure how to feel about this. I know on the one hand that I feel communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and consumers. However, I'm not versed in whether satellite collision is a credible threat or merely an administrative hurdle to keep competition away from power-players.

I also assume pretty much everybody else who is so upset on this thread is also unaware of how satellites and debris are tracked nationally/internationally, so I'm confused why opinions are so black-and- white.

<comment><USER40> _communications in the US are an oligopopaly that hurts innovation and consumers_

That has nothing to do with it, since the FCC has issued plenty of licenses to companies that follow the rules.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> How much does it cost to launch 4 of these 1/4 u satellites? Wikipedia says $100k per cubesat, other sources say a little less. Just think, that's within the reach of thousands of us software engineers - at least a few launches. It's like one year's mortgage payment in the bay area (I kid a little). But regardless, that's incredible! it could be your retirement hobby - you pay someone for a 'standard' cubestate, you program it, you put some cameras and other sensors on it, you will pass over anything in the world, your own photos of area 51 or whatever. Actually, would it be legal to take your own photos from space? Maybe to work around this issue you'd have to set up an llc in mexico or the bahamas. Still, I have to keep reminding myself, someone who was a young teenage when cosmos came out, I am living in the world of tomorrow!

<comment><USER45> I can't wait for CubeSat-as-a-Service startups.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Swarm tried to get FCC approval and failed [1]. It then decided to go ahead its plans anyway.

[1] [https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=](https://apps.fcc.gov/els/GetAtt.html?id=203152&x=).

<comment><USER37> It decided to go ahead with it's plans anyway _in a different country_. India doesn't need the FCC's approval. The fact that they are an American company doesn't matter. They did not violate any FCC regulations.

<comment><USER36> > _The fact that they are an American company doesn 't matter_

You are wrong. American companies are subject to American law, domestically and overseas. Moreover, there are international rules governing satellite orbits and communications. These rely on countries overseeing their satellites. That entire regulatory regime was circumvented by Swarm taking advantage of the FCC's light-tough regulatory approach (with respect to satellites) and the Indian government'a similar trust in Swarm having gotten its paperwork in order before shipping its bird for deployment.

<comment><USER37> > American companies are subject to American law, domestically and overseas

Absolutely not true. American companies don't pay foreign employees American minimum wage, for example.

<comment><USER46> US minimum wage laws are not written to apply globally, but if they were US companies _would_ have to follow those laws.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Welcome to the cyberpunk future where companies shoot illegal satellites into space

\m/

</comment><comment><USER48> does the FCC actually have authority to govern space?

because, you know, it's space...

like what are they gonna do about it if the startup relocated to another country?

<comment><USER49> Exactly. It's mentioned twice in the article that the FCC regulates this area, but these were launched from India. What jurisdiction does the US FCC have over a device launched into space from a foreign country?

<comment><USER50> Launched from India, but made and owned by an American company. The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction over the satellites' owner.

<comment><USER36> > _The FCC has jurisdiction over the satellites because it has jurisdiction > over the satellites ' owner_

Moreover, if those satellites smash into another country's bird, the U.S. taxpayer is ultimately liable.

<comment><USER51> There's another step further there.

Damage US military satellites - perhaps something necessary when it comes to national security - and the US Government can destroy you no matter who or where you are, short of being under the express protection of Beijing or Moscow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> What companies or institutions are working on space debris analysis, location, tracking, and clean-up orchestration?

<comment><USER53> The US DoD maintains a very accurate account of objects above about a softball size. As for cleanup there's no one with a working system out there yet, I've seen quite a few different universities with early projects and some other ideas like ground based lasers but nothing is running that I've heard of.

[http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet- View/Arti...](http://www.stratcom.mil/Media/Factsheets/Factsheet- View/Article/976414/usstratcom-space-control-and-space-surveillance/)

<comment><USER52> Thanks. I recall a presentation by researchers from MIT's Lincoln Lab discussion space object tracking as an area of research.

> [https://www.ll.mit.edu/](https://www.ll.mit.edu/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> The Internet of Space Shit is coming and it's going to ruin your children's chances of space travel.

</comment><comment><USER55> This could be a milestone which accelerated the process for updating space laws to govern commercial launches to space without compromising the right to do so and without jeopardizing the safety. It must be the role of consulting company in US to ensure that the satellites which were on-boarded adhered to the FCC protocols, as for Antrix Ltd (commerical arm of ISRO) which likely communicated with the consulting company; it didn't have the need to do so. In-fact that particular launch PSLV-C40 included defence payload (Carbonite-2) from RAF as well, so unless the international space laws dictate specific terms to launching agencies like United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) for our oceans; these are bound to happen.

</comment><comment><USER56> "Spaceflight has never knowingly launched a customer who has been denied an FCC license. It is the responsibility of our customers to secure all FCC licenses."

Best way to avoid saying you've launched illegal satellites.

<comment><USER57> Yeah that looked like a bit ol' admission of "We didn't check the licenses"

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> I'm kind of curious how the KickSat project achieved regulatory approval back in (2014?) for their Sprites. IIRC there were 100 sprite PCB's released from a Cubesat with a UHF radio and chip solar panels on each sprite. [https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat- you...](https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/zacinaction/kicksat-your- personal-spacecraft-in-space/updates)

</comment><comment><USER59> While I'm not advocating space trash, I'm having a hard time imaging a collision being even remotely possible given how tiny these things are and how massive space is.

<comment><USER60> This is just a variation on big sky theory. Collision is unlikely, but not impossible. And if it happens, the cascading effect is a really disproportionate consequence.

Also, you make a common mistake by emphasizing size while ignoring momentum. A quarter going 18000 mph hitting anything else in space is a problem, perhaps in particular the inability to predict the consequence when big sky theory doesn't come to the rescue.

<comment><USER59> I understand that, but my point was the small size also decreases the odds of a collision happening in the first place.

<comment><USER61> Does it? If the orbits intersect, a large object is almost as likely to be hit by a flake of paint as a cubesat; and by a cubesat vs something twice as big. The difference is that a flake of paint will likely be just a dent, and a cubesat will destroy whatever it hits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> What will happen when more and more private organizations gain the ability to launch things into orbit? It's pretty damn intriguing but also a can of worms.

<comment><USER41> They're required to get a license from their nation, even if they're private. So "what will happen" is what's currently happening: you have to get a license.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Is this relevant to Chinese Tiangong-1 space station that is going to crash on Earth [https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-s...](https://www.theguardian.com/science/2018/mar/09/tiangong-1-scientists- unsure-where-chinese-space-station-will-crash-to-earth)

</comment><comment><USER64> I'm most worried about F=MA. Micro satellites that are almost all fuel attaching to large pieces of space debris for extra mass and tug boating them into a collision course with military satellites.

Large satellites are the new air craft carrier sized targets. Small satellites that can reboot after an EMP unharmed are the only option.

</comment><comment><USER65> Space is not really a great place to "be naughty." High-velocity trash can ruin a lot of expensive equipment, and the US has been able to nuke space for 50 years:

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime

Please, folks, just follow the rules.

</comment><comment><USER66> Does this imply that ISRO launched satellites which is debris risk without due diligence. I always had a feeling that their launches with huge number of small satellites were largely a publicity gimmick, sort of cover for their troubles with developing realiable heavy lift vehicles.

</comment><comment><USER67> Aside from all of the interesting jurisdictional points ITT, this piece reads like a media hit. If that's right, it might imply the founders are either confident they're in the clear legally, or looking to establish a precedent that they hope to use to defeat regulation.

</comment><comment><USER68> The FCC is renowned for going _balls to the wall_ with enforcement. This is going to be really interesting to watch unfold! I am guessing that the FCC will use whatever means at its disposal to get what it wants here.

</comment><comment><USER69> Phase 1: Move operations to China

Phase 2: let world use network and China can monitor traffic.

Phase 3: profit

</comment><comment><USER70> I wonder, why did FCC revoke the approval for the larger satellites? Seems really weird to punish that way. If their decisions have legal power, they should sue the company, but they must not revoke approval from a valid request. All that seems like a knee-jerk reaction.

</comment><comment><USER71> If they emit RF can't they be tracked by RDF?

</comment><comment><USER72> Using "outline.com" bypasses the article block.

</comment><comment><USER73> Great, litter space more with IOT satellites..

</comment><comment><USER74> What a time to be alive, seriously.

</comment><comment><USER75> Wow. That's craziness.

</comment><comment><USER76> "What are you in here for?"

I launched some illegal satellites

</comment><comment><USER77> So the fcc can't mandate title II because it lacks specific authority, but space debris is totally reasonable? Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER78> The FAA has jurisdiction over launches through US-controlled airspace. The FCC has jurisdiction over radio signals originating within the US.

It is debatable whether a satellite in polar LEO is "within the US" for the purposes of jurisdiction, but even assuming that it is, the FCC can only theoretically control the use of its radios _while over US territory_.

It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can _be there_ in orbit.

Judge David Sentelle [to FCC]: "You can't regulate washing machines. You can't rule the world."

So, not the first time the FCC has acted bigger than its britches.

It seems likely there should be a UN mission for avoiding Kessler Syndrome and perhaps further regulating the tracking and traffic control of human-launched objects.

<comment><USER42> > It has nothing to say whatsoever about whether the satellite can be there in > orbit.

I'm not an expert in space law, but I did work in the space industry for a while. A few things:

The US government in general does have a say in whether certain technology can be in orbit. If you are making an Earth observing satellite, for instance, you need to get a permit. If my memory serves me right, I think it is the Department of Commerce. If you want to point above a certain accuracy, image above a certain resolution, etc. you are controlled by ITAR. Export that to India or discuss the technology with a non-US person? You are personally liable and can go to jail. That gets nailed in your head during ITAR training.

There's nothing new about the FCC asking for orbital debris mitigation reports. It has been this way for at least a decade.

And the ITU has regulated geo for a long time. I believe they defer to national agencies, which in this case is the FCC.

</comment></comment><comment><USER79> Headlines from the future: FCC Sues Moon for Unauthorized Transmissions of Visible Light

<comment><USER80> With the minor caveat that these are peices of metal being flung with reckless abandon at 17,000 miles per hour, in with the potential to cause a few hundred million dollars or a few billion dollars in damage if they hit the wrong thing, that the US government would hold some responsibility for.

<comment><USER37> I can't imagine the US government would hold responsibility for satellites deployed by India.

<comment><USER80> By an American company on an Indian rocket. Imagine if it hit a Chinese military satellite.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Music Execs Want to Know How a 13-Year-Old Brought Down Bieber on YouTube - <AUTHOR> http://adage.com/article/mediaworks/brought-bieber/229560/

<comment><USER2> Really, they have nobody to blame but themselves. Music execs, in the form of the RIAA and MPAA, mistakenly believing that "infringement" can be determined automatically, have forced a more-or-less automated request-and-takedown system on Youtube. That this automated system can be used against their own product should come as no surprise to anyone who has thought about it for 10 minutes or so.

</comment><comment><USER3> Meanwhile, 13-year-old users want to know how music execs brought down YouTube videos they made.</comment>


Twitter CEO: "We're a remarkably successful business" - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/06/01/twitter-dick-costolo-successful-business

<comment><AUTHOR> As the other guy said: "Show me the money!"</comment>


YC finally bested by Y-Permutator - <AUTHOR> http://onstartups.com/tabid/3339/bid/12235/Y-Combinator-Finally-Gets-Some-Kick-Butt-Competition-With-Y-Permutator.aspx

<comment><USER2> _If you're a startup junkie, you can follow me on twitter @dharmesh. Also, if you found this useful, please share it._

One thing that mainstream media has over blogs is that actual journalists tend not to inject this crap into their posts.

<comment><USER3> I'd argue the exact opposite. The fact that that what you write on your blog affects your reputation is what makes blogs so much better than MSM.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> <http://news.ypermutator.com/>

Come on, at least fill in your WP template!

</comment><comment><USER5> Did anyone else notice just now that when you turn the Y Combinator logo upside-down it looks suspiciously like a lambda?

</comment><comment><USER6> "# We have a simple formula for the amount invested: $4 million + $1 per line of code written."

haha that is great.

</comment><comment><USER7> the images are a stream of hilarity

</comment><comment><USER8> ha ha april fools</comment>


Show HN: Highly Composite – Test data management through the web - <AUTHOR> https://highlycomposite.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hello HN! I made this tool after all the frustration I saw from people trying to manage their own test data. The core idea is that when you write tests with code, you have all these amazing powers. You can mock things, generate data, reset stuff, and even freeze time. But if you can't code, you can't do all that cool stuff.

I want to bring all of those abilities out to the people who aren't writing code. There are a lot of companies working on making testing way easier (I worked at one: Rainforest QA) but not many who are bringing out all that "extra stuff". The ones that do exist (Synth YC S20 launched today) focus on bringing data in from production. I think there's value in building data from scratch, just like you do when you write tests as code. I've added some features to help out with seeding, loading and resetting data and will keep adding more in the future.

I'd be very interested to hear any feedback, or your own experiences with this problem. Thanks!</comment>


Performance boost in Clojure 1.3 (alpha4) - <AUTHOR> http://www.skuro.tk/2011/01/24/performance-boost-in-clojure-1-3/

<comment><USER2> While I don't doubt Clojure 1.3 can get similar performance to Java, that's not what this benchmark shows. The Java and Clojure functions he's comparing don't even take and return the same argument types. He's comparing boxed Integers to primitive longs.

In the comments he says he saw no difference between Integer and ints. When I ran Tak.java with longs like the Clojure code my time went from 13s to 8s.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're definitely right. I don't know why I received the very same results after having switched from Integer to int, I must have messed it up. Now it behaves with the same timings you describe. I'll rerun the tests and update the post accordingly.

Thanks!

<comment><AUTHOR> Post updated, sorry it took so long but RL claimed most of my time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Clojure is a language that has been teaching me a lot about different avenues of programming I hadn't previously encountered. I know many of them aren't new, but they are new to me and yet still approachable.

I really like the type-hinting approach; more detail and performance if you want or need, but otherwise don't bother. I guess it still doesn't have the type-safety of a static language, but now it has the performance.

<comment><USER4> I bet that something similar to the [http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/hipe/papers/succ_types.pd...](http://www.it.uu.se/research/group/hipe/papers/succ_types.pdf) success typing used in erlang's dialyzer could be used to provide some level of type checking. Type hinting would only make this simpler (and with a strong contract).

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Im really happy about what new clojure versions bring! Rich sayd this primitiv stuff in 1.3 is the second step to what the want to end up with.

Look at: <http://www.infoq.com/interviews/hickey-clojure-protocols>

<comment><USER6> Is the video not working for anyone else?

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would like a way to de-italicise all the text on a page because I find it much harder to read.

This is the second HN link so afflicted today. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2132591>

<comment><USER8> Weird, I didn't see much italicized text in either page; but this should resolve your issues:

<http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/></comment></comment>