Drones visit California wildfire, angering firefighters - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2015/07/18/us/california-freeway-fire/index.html <comment><USER3> Sooner or later there will be laws against anything but the most basic drone flying because of jerks like this. Lately i have been reading an article about the Dutch government thinking about quite expensives licences for commercial drone flyers and height and distance restrictions for private flights (which are already in place in many places). In germany you are generally limited to 50 meters of height in most places for example.

<comment><USER4> A reason why many regulations exist even though they do not seem optimal for this day and age. Those who blindly cry that "regulations are bad" do not realize that in many cases a very small group of people will ensure the necessity of the regulations even though it may result in the overall population being worse off due to the existence of the regulations.

<comment><USER5> > Those who blindly cry that "regulations are bad" do not realize that in many > cases a very small group of people will ensure the necessity of the > regulations even though it may result in the overall population being worse > off due to the existence of the regulations.

Then one should think really deeply how to create regulations that only avoid the problems with the small group, but not make the overall population worse off.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Selfish %#$&%s. I would fully support the firefighters takings them out of the sky with any means necessary. Jam their communications, throw nets, have an 'attack' drone, anything. Surely there are some laws about obstructing firefighters or other emergency services?

<comment><USER7> Yea, my first thought was "Just shoot them down".. Then I realized that's probably harder than it sounds ;) Plus the risk of stray bullets etc etc.. Still, there's likely something that can be done besides wandering the area and kindly asking the people with drone control's in their hands to stop.

<comment><USER8> I don't see why a shotgun wouldn't be a reasonably safe way to deal with these things.

<comment><USER9> The shot can travel a significant distance and still be deadly when they come back down to Earth.

<comment><USER8> Gonna hafta call [Citation Needed] on anyone killed by ballistic birdshot.

<comment><USER10> Seriously. Dick Cheney blasted a colleague right in the face and the guy was able to apologize for getting shot the next day. (I wish I were making this up)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> According to a reddit post the sighting might actually have been due to a fully legal RC field in the area.

[https://pay.reddit.com/r/Multicopter/comments/3dqoyh/multico...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/Multicopter/comments/3dqoyh/multicopters_blamed_for_grounding_of_fire/ct7usnq)

<comment><USER12> That seems unlikely to me. The RC field is over 12 miles from the nearest fire location, and 8 miles outside the boundary of the TFR.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> The FAA sets altitude zones to separate drones from helicopters, but these helicopters have exemptions that allow them to fly low. I have seen someone fly a drone around a low flying helicopter before. Both the drone operator and the helicopter pilot noticed each other from a long ways away. The drone pilot adjusted his altitude to stay about 100ft below the helicopter, navigated out of its flight path, and both were able to navigate the same airspace safely for 20 minutes.

These operators would likely do the same if a helicopter was present. You may need to fly to 500ft so that the operators know there is an aircraft that needs the airspace. An ambulance doesn't wait at the hospital until the roads are clear, it turns on its lights and sirens to notify surrounding vehicles to get out of the way.

</comment><comment><USER14> They're everywhere, and a few people are probably going to ruin a lot of the current Lack of legislation around them by doing things like this. At the July 4th fireworks show we went to there were at least four buzzing around the entire time, and this was just a small one in northern Idaho.

</comment><comment><USER15> Seems like either the FAA needs to start broadcasting their flight restriction advisories a bit more broadly (now that they need to be heeded by more and more people), or people who fly multirotors need a basic "here's how you follow the rules of the sky" course when they buy one.

<comment><USER16> Based on some some Reddit comments [1], it does indeed seem like this was a lack of information, not a malicious action (or even ignorance).

[1] [https://pay.reddit.com/r/Multicopter/comments/3dqoyh/multico...](https://pay.reddit.com/r/Multicopter/comments/3dqoyh/multicopters_blamed_for_grounding_of_fire/ct7wv7g)

<comment><USER15> I saw that, but the point that even if flight was normally allowed at that location, it was cancelled by the FAA advisories, which the multi rotor operators were not aware of.

If they (well, we, since I'm one of them) want to operate in controlled airspace, we need to be aware of the restrictions put in place by the managers of said airspace.

I appreciate that they were willing to shut down so quickly, however. That shows good will and an interest to do the right thing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It seems like the firefighters should have a device to disrupt the radio frequencies of the drones in these cases. Whoever is operating them near a disaster such as this one is being an inconsiderate, thoughtless jerk.

<comment><USER18> there are plenty of autonomous systems that require no tx/rx link. They are usually for photography on fixed courses, after which they return to a home.

Destroy them mechanically if you want them out of the sky.

<comment> iso-8859-1 Would it be possible to hit them with flak cannons, or are they too low?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> How about very focused and fast (high energy) water cannons, from the ground and from helicopters, as one among many anti-drone weapons?

EDIT: A drone-clearing drone, carrying the water cannon. It would be sent into an airspace where a problem drone has been reported, and either water down the offending drones, or report that they're gone. After clearing the airspace, firefighting aircraft are allowed in.

</comment><comment><USER20> XKCD already has the solution [https://xkcd.com/1523/](https://xkcd.com/1523/)

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't really understand how a small drone can represent a problem for a helicopter, particularly if the helicopter comes from above. Really. Can someone explain?

Despite this, however, I of course agree on the fact that irresponsible behavior is to be condemned.

<comment><USER22> If the helicopter strikes the drone, or vice versa, it could cause the helicopter to crash. Think of it like a bird strike, which are also a problem for aircraft.

<comment><USER23> How many helicopters crash because of birds, and how many more birds are there than drones?

<comment><USER22> Where risk to human life is concerned, each individual's perception of the risk-reward trade-off involved in regulation will vary. Evidence of this can be found at every airport in the country. So I can see where you're coming from here.

However, the position you're taking puts you on the side of: people should be allowed to fly drones in an area where aircraft are responding to an emergency (a wildfire) that puts other lives at risk. Any drone not flying in coordinated effort to actually put out the fire is of a priority that is very, very distant to that of the firefighting aircraft. At least by my measure, and I'm in the camp that believes the TSA should be abolished.

Any statistical analysis of helicopter bird strikes won't negate the fact that having drones in the area of operation increases the chance that a pilot may lose their life to a collision with a drone that serves no purpose than to populate YouTube with riveting footage of a disaster. Is an increase of even 1 in a million worth that? Not by my account it isn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Would it be ok for someone to fly their private Cessna over the fire? EDIT: Nope. Learned about Temporary Flight Restrictions from a comment here. So, we just need to be enforcing these for ALL aircraft.

</comment><comment><USER25> This thread currently has the lame self rightness on par with reddit. Evil humans are stopping firefighters cause they are evil.

Where's the science. Can a drone actually hurt a helicopter. And did the drone controllers know they were causing an issue, I doubt it.

<comment><USER26> Agreed, are they stopping helicopters for large birds too, or is this just an excuse?

<comment><USER7> Large birds fear for their safety and avoid the helicopter, I'm guessing at least some drone pilots - especially those willing to fly their drone over something like this - have less fear for their drones "safety". Hell - <USER2> may even be trying to get "the action shot" by trailing the helicopter etc etc.

<comment><USER27> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bird_strike)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Would it be possible to develop a drone that avoids airplanes, people, etc? Not that the operators should rely on it of course, but more as a fail safe. No one worries about birds flying into aircraft because they are usually scared of them. Perhaps we could make drones afraid of them as well.

<comment><USER29> Why don't we just develop people with better morals.

<comment><USER19> ... still waiting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> This is a non-issue - the probability of someone dying because they crash into a tiny drone is miniscule. They are just being hyper-cautious and raising a stink about it. They should get on with their lives and drop the water on the fire.

</comment><comment><USER31> Probably the same people who slow down or stop driving safely to look at whatever is going on in a single lane or the side of the road (accident or some other distraction).

<comment><USER32> what's the problem with slowing down to inspect the accident scene and figure out if they need help or something, I think this behavior is much better then that of those who just ignore accidents and drive away without checking if accident passengers need help.

<comment><USER31> So if there's a tow truck and emergency vehicles already working the scene, you still should observe and make sure they're okay?

I understand people want to help but in some situations it's better to just keep going.

<comment><USER32> Original comment I replied to was referring to accident, there was nothing about emergency vehicles already working the scene...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> In light of this situation, I'm betting California will pass a law this year to deal with this. The penalties will be severe (Felony).

</comment><comment><USER34> Im getting tired reading all this drone whining. Drones are small and light, there is almost zero chance of a drone doing any harm to an aircraft, drone on the other hand will get obliterated. You dont see Firefighters complaining about big birds.

<comment><USER35> I can appreciate you getting tired of the whining when you're completely misinformed.

1\. There are many drones that are anything but small and light.

2\. We are talking about helicopters here. One drone flying into the tail or even overhoard rotors could easily take it down.

3\. Birds are a natural occurrence and do not view large helicopters as a threat i.e. they aren't going to consistently and repeatedly fly towards it. The issue with these drones is that are constantly hovering and constantly attacking the helicopters.

<comment><USER34> >The issue with these drones is that are constantly hovering and constantly attacking the helicopters

in the same way people are constantly reaching for a gun when Police kills someone.</comment></comment></comment>


Google Adwords personalized 10 year anniversary video - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/adwords10?x=2c1156482bd041d9a53018918a2d0682

<comment><AUTHOR> The name of my ad (the one they picked for the video) is j2eekonsulent.dk. See if you can spot it :)</comment>


Mike Bloomberg is plowing millions of dollars into a secretive tech firm - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/23/mike-bloomberg-campaign-uses-tech-firm-he-founded-earlier-this-year.html <comment><USER2> An elaborate propaganda machine privately funded by, and for the sole benefit of, a billionaire. I'm sure the Republicans have their own, so let's not be partisan here but merely call it for what it is.

I did get a chuckle from the blurb in a job posting promoted below by one of the propagandists working on the machine though:

>You are: A dynamic, seasoned software engineer who can bring your in-depth expertise and computer science experience to save our democracy.

War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Come help us weaponize data against the citizenry for our billionaire candidate, it will save democracy.

What an absolute circus US politics has descended into.

<comment><USER3> Trump won in part because his Internet ground game was better. Look for the Dems and everyone else to not only copy but improve on that, fake news and trolling included.

Prepare to be force fed propaganda like a fois gras goose every election year. Welcome to the future.

<comment><USER4> This is a weird future though. Its not about the issues, its about who has better targeting. That's it.

And if both sides have equally good targeting, the result is an even split of the populations attention. No one wins.

So how does this cycle break. Where is Daenerys?

<comment><USER5> Another interpretation of this is that it is even more about issues, though. At the end of the day, you're targeting people based on their interest in / feelings on particular issues. Everyone wants to be so alarmist about all of this, but the reality is that this is democracy functioning as intended. Candidates are trying to fit even more tightly to what the voters want.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately that's not true. If you look at the thorough reporting of Cambridge Analytica's operations for example, it shows that their targeting was not based on issues but on psychological profile, which they determined with personality tests. Specifically they focused their attention on people exhibiting signs of neurosis and anxiety, and then experimented with various content designed to amplify their fears. Once they got the right level of "engagement", they hammered crucial electoral districts in swing states with a deluge of weaponized propaganda. In that election the issue ("payload" would be a better term) boiled down to "Hillary Clinton is corrupt and belongs in jail". The point is not to convince millions of people to change their minds, but to manipulate a few tens of thousands of crucial undecided voters into distrusting one candidate without really knowing why, just enough to change their vote (or perhaps just stay home - Cambridge Analytica had conducted vote suppression campaigns in other countries as well).

This is essentially large scale human experimentation. We have to accept the fact that it works, and is not at all politics as usual. To expect to be targeted with "issues" is to expect to be treated like a human being. But to be targeted in this way is to be treated like a lab rat.

<comment><USER5> > Unfortunately that's not true. If you look at the thorough reporting of > Cambridge Analytica's operations for example, it shows that their targeting > was not based on issues but on psychological profile, which they determined > with personality tests. Specifically they focused their attention on people > exhibiting signs of neurosis and anxiety, and then experimented with various > content designed to amplify their fears.

Sure, that was their marketing pitch. But we have no evidence that anything like that actually worked, or was meaningfully implemented at scale. Secondly, what does it mean to "target people with anxiety or neurosis"? Were they _shifting_ their opinions? Or were they just saying, "Hey, are you afraid of stuff? Well, we've got the candidate for you". My guess is it's the latter, and if it's the latter, that's just another way of communicating issue alignment of their candidate.

I don't think there is any substantial evidence at all that CA or anyone like them was actually _shaping_ opinion. As far as I know, all the evidence indicates that they were finding the issues people cared about, and explaining why and how Donald Trump aligned with them on those issues.

The underlying fact that nobody seems to want to face is that large numbers of people aligned with him on many important issues. Not because they were tricked, but because that's what they truly wanted.

<comment><USER7> Overall I agree. The left was ecstatic about Obama's ground breaking use of social media and analytics in his first presidential campaign, but now are crying foul because the right has caught up and even pulled ahead. I'm not entirely happy about the tactics due to the privacy implications, but that's a separate issue.

What does worry me is that the messaging being targeted in this way is often disingenuous. Parties will target one message at one demographic and a contradictory message at another demographic. So if a consistent message is simply being targeted effectively that's fine, but deceptively tailoring the message to the target is a legitimate concern.

<comment><USER6> You're making a false equivalence. The Obama campaign hired savvy analysts and marketers to run a modern web and email campaign. A lot of what they did was pioneer what is now standard in almost every campaign: heavy use of email follow-ups to keep supporters engaged; recruiting and coordinating canvassing teams nationwide; using social media as a primary channel of communication rather than a gadget.

What the Trump campaign did was go to Paul Manafort, the guy who fixed Ukrainian campaign using black ops disinformation campaigns on behalf of Putin, and hire him to run his campaign!

The only thing those campaigns had in common is that they used the Internet efficiently. But they used them very differently to achieve different goals. To compare them as equivalent is irresponsible.

<comment><USER5> You keep implying differences, while not actually stating them. Who was hired is not a salient difference, in this context. The tactics employed by each are essentially the same: Heavy internet advertising with effective, outcome-based targeting. For all of Cambridge Analytica's marketing puff pieces, I see no evidence they were doing anything fundamentally different.

<comment><USER6> Just to be clear, you are willing to say on the record that the Obama campaign and Manaford, a convicted criminal who is known to have worked for a mass murdering autocratic regime as their expert electoral fixer, are "essentially the same" in their use of the Internet?

If so, you'll have to find someone else to engage in debate with you. If you are capable of believing such a thing, we simply don't have enough moral common ground to have a productive conversation.

I will say for the benefit of others who might read this, that how successful Cambridge Analytica actually was in manipulating US voters in 2016 is irrelevant to whether or not A) mass disinformation is a real threat to elections everywhere (it is) and B) the Trump campaign employed Cambridge Analytica to manipulate US voters using mass disinformation (they did).

<comment><USER5> > Just to be clear, you are willing to say on the record that the Obama > campaign and Manaford, a convicted criminal who is known to have worked for > a mass murdering autocratic regime as their expert electoral fixer, are > "essentially the same" in their use of the Internet?

In their use of the internet in relation to their respective presidential campaigns, yes. Do you have specific evidence to the contrary?

> If so, you'll have to find someone else to engage in debate with you. If you > are capable of believing such a thing, we simply don't have enough moral > common ground to have a productive conversation.

So, just to be clear, at the first sight of a challenge and request for literally any supporting evidence at all, you're backing away, while pretending to do so out of contempt?

It's become quite clear that you don't actually have any evidence to back up your claims here. Though feel free to prove me wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Well the part about a counterweight being needed does ring true.

Though that still seems like to evils counter-balancing each other. There is a real need to legislate against this on an overall level.

The average guy on the street just isn't equipped to survive this highly sophisticated data driven type of attack. Hell I'm not confident I am.

<comment><USER9> >There is a real need to legislate against this on an overall level.

I could not disagree more strongly. Legislation is simply the people already in position pulling the ladder up behind them. The people with money and lawyers will insert and then exploit loopholes.

Instead, disrupt it at its source. Flood the data collectors with adversarial noise, learn to remove your personal information from the web, and so on. Personal privacy is becoming a duty not just to ourselves but to our democracy.

<comment><USER8> >Instead, disrupt it at its source.

As grand as that sounds it's not viable. People aren't even coping with tech basics let alone large scale evasion of the sophisticated tracking being deployed.

Sure you can maybe get the top 10% most tech savy to do something like removing their personal info, but that's not enough to move the needle.

Legislation might though. See GDPR forcing companies to stop logging IPs. That's way more tangible. Of course there will be loopholes - legislation is imperfect - but we need something that has _any_ kind of effect asap.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well, with the citizens united decision, The country decided that buying a power is acceptable. Choosing whether this Bloomberg company upsets you or makes you happy is still just haggling over the price.

</comment><comment><USER11> Interviewed there last week for a software engineering position after some people in my network went over there. Didn't get the gig but I came away impressed with the team and the mission. It's a unique opportunity to build a state-of-the-art data system with unlimited resources. I've heard that the comp is very, very good but can't confirm that from my own experiences. If you think you can survive the sprint, I think it's a great opportunity.

Jeff, if you're still lurking in the thread -- we've chatted at the Kairos & the Arena summits. I've got the political and tech background to make an impact. If you're willing to take a flier on me, I'm all-in. Email is in my profile.

<comment><USER12> 'Unlimited resources' are exactly the thing we don't need shaping a democratic election. Shame on you and anyone else seeking to work for such a firm. Ill take my downvotes, this is bedrock ethics.

<comment><USER11> Unfortunately, this is our reality. I'd highly recommend Dark Money by Jane Mayer if you haven't read it already. Of course, this same machinery has already been built time and time again in the Valley.

<comment><USER13> > Unfortunately, this is our reality.

It's not. Sanders is going to stomp Bloomberg in the primary, with a tiny fraction of the resources behind him that Bloomberg has and a magnitude more of the public support.

Trump won while spending a lot less money than what Clinton vaporized in her election campaign. He decimated the formidable Bush money machine right out of the gate, humiliating Jeb Bush as a weak candidate before the first inning was over.

This is increasingly the era of populism. It's raging all over the planet right now (Trump in the US, Brexit in UK, SD in Sweden, riots in Iran and everywhere else, and so on). The establishment candidates, such as Bloomberg, can't win under any scenario no matter how much money they burn.

Sanders and Warren are the only real competing candiates to Trump, as they're both populists. If the Democrats make the mistake of running Biden, he'll be embarrassed in the general election. Spending $500m vs $1 billion versus $2 billion will not matter in the least in 2020.

<comment><USER11> You're missing the big picture if you're just focusing on the Presidential election. Jane Mayer does a great job of showing how money pervades politics at all levels, down to the most local judicial races. I've also seen it firsthand. It's also important to remember that Hawkfish =/= Bloomberg 2020 and their output will be available to Democratic candidates up and down the ballot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The possibilities of Bloomberg money & commitment to invest in digital/experiment are huge. My political digital wet-dream: an org with enough $$$ to get access to bid-stream + processing/compute/intelligence + large audience graph tied to voter data = biggest coup in voter profiling and targeting ever.

Modeled issue/turnout scores updated in near real time using a large % of every individual's entire web surfing/app usage history. Even a user graph graphed to 20% of voter file + bidstream data would be an unimaginably ginormous amount of data.

Like imagine receiving a field call & digital ads after reading an oped on universal healthcare by Bloomberg in nytimes, receiving call about that issue that night and a series of healthcare digital ads following you everywhere after reading.

it would be 'fb is listening to my phone' level of effectiveness - and as I'm sure nearly everyone here would say creepy/horrible.

i think a lot of DSP/players are now afraid of working in politics, but perhaps someone like beeswax or hell directly from IPONWEB would do it for the right money with the right protections built in. i bet bloomberg could also call up Oracle who has sucked up all the data companies recently.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm not a supporter of Bloomberg's candidacy, but we need to thank him and other tech leaders who are contributing to Democratic politics, especially the political infrastructure we so desperately need.

Critics are right to be skeptical about rich people spending a lot of money in politics, but that doesn't automatically mean every big money tech political initiative is in the wrong.

In the eyes of tech critics, tech is either not engaged enough in politics, or we're donating too much to political organizations, or we're turned away from directly giving money to Warren and other progressives.

Can someone tell me what critics really want the tech community to do aside from cease to exist?

</comment><comment><USER16> This just sounds a lot like The Groundwork, which was the Eric Schmidt-funded company that did all of Hillary Clinton's campaign technology work. During the 2016 campaign, The Groundwork's site consisted solely of an Illuminati-esque logo, but today has a more informative/generic site offering their services to people that are not Hillary Clinton.

[https://thegroundwork.com/](https://thegroundwork.com/)

Presumably it's cool to start a company in this space solely to elect one person, because if you can say you got a President elected, it's going to be good business after that?

<comment><USER17> Except the groundwork has effectively gone out of business and no longer has anyone working there.

They made a good faith effort to find non HRC campaign and non profit customers after the election but never found meaningful market fit. It was an odd assortment of tech that felt like what it was: an attempt to productize an enormous consulting engagement to build whatever the campaign wanted.

It's all an interesting campaign finance loophole though. You can fund money loosing tech companies to work with candidates and as long as they charge the campaign something, it's an interesting way to spend huge amounts of dark money on elections.

<comment><USER16> Whoa, the front of the site would give you no idea of that!

Though the blog is an intriguing hint that something's amiss: [https://thegroundwork.com/blog/](https://thegroundwork.com/blog/)

It's all SEO spam.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Part of the problem that Cambridge Analytica ran in to was that it was a "foreign agent". A lot of what it did would be legal under an American entity, and I think many in politics know this.

<comment><USER19> AFAICT, the foreign agent stuff happened in the 2014 mid-terms and was only exposed when they came under fire for the data breach. I think why CA went down is not because the core of what they were doing was illegal, but because after their data scandal no campaign would have wanted to associate with them.

Ironically, there are so many snake oil peddlers in the data brokerage business that my hunch is that they probably didn't actually derive much value from the data they got in trouble for having.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Money in politics <-> Data in politics

Sounds like a new conversation to be had

<comment><USER21> This is another data race.

Campaigns are highly regulated for a reason and I hope some movement to protect voters against data attacks and manipulation will go above and beyond what your average adword target would be protected for.

<comment><USER22> Maybe data as a property right? [https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data- property-right/](https://www.yang2020.com/policies/data-property-right/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> "In God we trust. Everyone else bring data."

So, it's a data analytics company ?

<comment><USER24> Yes, to address as part of Hawkfish, it's a data and tech platform for progressive candidates and causes, including voter segmentation and digital activation and engagement. Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust which has been funded for a decade by right-wing special interests, and the goal of Hawkfish is to level the playing field, for democratic candidates up and down the ballot, and advocacy groups for climate, women's rights, education, gun safety common sense, and more.

For folks interested in jobs from the data science and full-stack Eng side, job postings are here:

[https://boards.greenhouse.io/hawkfish/](https://boards.greenhouse.io/hawkfish/)

Jeff Glueck

<comment><USER25> > Really Dems have been quite behind the Republican data trust

Do you have any actual evidence for that? Because mainstream media have been saying the opposite since Obama.

What you said is exactly what a company looking for dem dollars would say. Which is pretty much what Cambridge Analytic said to the gop candidates.

<comment><USER26> You're thinking of Project Narwhal: [https://slate.com/news-and- politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-...](https://slate.com/news-and- politics/2012/02/project-narwhal-how-a-top-secret-obama-campaign-program- could-change-the-2012-race.html)

I think the distinction here may be "the Obama campaign" vs "the DNC" but yes, the media lauded expansive data collection, microtargeting, and get out to vote (gotv) efforts in the ancient days of 2012-2015.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Well couldn't the signs be any clearer?

$100M + Mr Bloomberg + "secretive tech firm" \+ "Your Data" * 1 billion = Palantir 9.0

</comment><comment><USER28> It's not going to be "good", whatever it is.

</comment><comment><USER29> I hate everything about this.

</comment><comment><USER30> > "It's clear to me and other tech leaders that Trump and the GOP are better > at creating and sharing engaging online content than anyone on the > Democratic side," Conway said in explaining his conversation with Bloomberg.

No no no. I don't want bipartisan "engaging" content, I want data analytics use for hyper-targeted political advertising pulled from the list of allowable political tactics.

</comment><comment><USER31> I find this encouraging. If Bloomberg can convince Sanders or Warren to be his VP candidate, together they could give Trump a run for his money.</comment>


Home-made robot doing a perfect quadruple backflip [video] - <AUTHOR> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4M0jhAuAuJI <comment><USER2> This robot is made by Japanese amateur roboticist Hinamitetu.

There are lots more acrobatic feats on his YouTube page:

[https://www.youtube.com/user/hinamitetu?feature=watch](https://www.youtube.com/user/hinamitetu?feature=watch)

<comment><USER3> Google translate of his about page on youtube:

I used a 2-axis acceleration sensor. Is located in the head it. It then measures the gravity mainly. The measured value, by the angle of rotation will change me. --- I will zero gravity measurement value measurements of the axis when the axis of the sensor was leveled to the ground ---. Position in the rotation I was divided into four regions. To detect the falling signal rising and in (up, down, left, right) the boundary position. (With a threshold detection value zero gravity fall detection circuit and rising that). I was triggered by a combination of (H, L signal using the threshold as zero gravity detection value) of H and the raw signal, L signal. Based on these signals, and to determine when to stretch or bend the leg.

<comment><USER4> Am I the only one who read that like a poem?

<comment><USER5> No. It's beautiful.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Looks like this is the link to the original video at the creators account. [http://youtu.be/4M0jhAuAuJI](http://youtu.be/4M0jhAuAuJI)

<comment><USER7> Here's one by the same guy that is even more impressive. Several robots do double flips and then _grab the bar again!_

[http://youtu.be/ckbC0PTfCRE](http://youtu.be/ckbC0PTfCRE)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> It'd be really nice if a mod could edit the URL to the actual content creator, so that s/he gets some YouTube likes and subscribes.

<comment><USER9> Agreed, can a mod pretty please edit the URL so the actual creator gets credit?

<comment><USER10> Success!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well that was cool. But the page doesn't exactly have much in the way of words. Despite the spammy nature of the newslamp.com domain --and despite the spammy nature of the youtube video being in response to Katy Perry's Part of Me music video-- any idea what microcontroller is being used?

EDIT: And now this video is rocketing to the top of reddit, number two at the moment. Video is on liveleak.com. Way to give the actual producer credit, internet.

<comment><USER12> To be fair, there have been far more interesting posts on HN that were ignored because it was only a YouTube video. Would you be commenting if it wasn't linked to a different site (however spammy looking the domain)?

<comment><USER11> Of course! I wanted to know the micro-controller used :)

Looks like gilgoomesh has a direct link to the creator's actual youtube account as well, not the embedded rip-off from youtube user chrill22, which looks like a typical view farmer. It looks like chrill22 took hinamitetu's "Quadruple Backflip(NO.16)" video, trimmed out the part where hinamitetu was setting the robot up, and then re-upped it. Absolutely infuriating.

And judging by bradleyjoyce, it looks like there's more technical info to be found, albeit in a language I don't understand.

<comment><USER12> That, I'm not too sure of, but it's more than likely a PIC-16 or 18 series.

There's a nice write-up from last year on using a PIC16F628A and four servos to build a walking robot. [http://www.academia.edu/1767517/Walking_Robot_with_Four_Serv...](http://www.academia.edu/1767517/Walking_Robot_with_Four_Servomotors)

If you're the tinkering type, it's quite an interesting read. Of course, that's a long way away from a robot that does backflips ;)

<comment><USER13> One video shows it having PIC16F873:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UijyM-2S2f4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UijyM-2S2f4)

Another video has some sort of details in the description, although they are bit mysterious:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEua6kL00M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SyEua6kL00M)

"AD conversion is not performed." meaning that the main feedback is analogue? That'd be interesting indeed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice submission history, evab. Newslamp, newslamp, newslamp, newslamp. Post the original content.

<comment><USER8> Just for fun, here's some graphs. ([http://imgur.com/a/dlhna](http://imgur.com/a/dlhna))

PS: Thanks mods, for editing the URL!

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> And it even _stuck_ the landing. Very cool.

<comment><USER15> Literally, a different robot but it looks like he puts adhesive gel on the feet to help the landing: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mF9_2...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=mF9_25hOBdo)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Love the trashy surroundings with all that junk on the left hand side, little curtains and whatnot. Reminds me of Sci-Fi movies from the 80s :)

</comment><comment><USER17> A little more background on this would be interesting.

<comment><USER18> this has a little more info: [http://www.gizmag.com/home-made-gymnast- robot/24961/](http://www.gizmag.com/home-made-gymnast-robot/24961/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> that is sweet. when do the robot Olympics start?

</comment><comment><USER20> Cool, but not as cool as this, which was done in the early 90's: [http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/robots/3D_biped/3D_bip...](http://www.ai.mit.edu/projects/leglab/robots/3D_biped/3D_biped_flip.mpeg)

<comment><USER21> OP's robot was made by a guy at his house. That's the difference. Imagine where we'll be in 20 years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I would have marked him down for his build up but the execution and landing get top marks. Amazing.

</comment><comment><USER23> I like this video called "Bloopers" featuring some of the successful bot's older family members. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eUvuruw7E](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F7eUvuruw7E)

</comment><comment><USER24> The sound when it goes slow-mo is my new favorite ambient/drone track.

</comment><comment><USER25> Really impressive. How many backflips a human can do?</comment>


Is the incompleteness of your application hiding behind the term 'Simple'? - <AUTHOR> http://aymeric.gaurat.net/index.php/2010/is-the-incompleteness-of-your-application-hiding-behind-the-term-simple/ <comment><USER2> I think that Joel Spolsky did put it into better words, and covered the topic more in depth:

<http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000020.html>

'It seems to make a lot of sense: 80% of the people use 20% of the features. So you convince yourself that you only need to implement 20% of the features, and you can still sell 80% as many copies. [...] Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%. Everybody uses a different set of features. [...] When you start marketing your "lite" product, and you tell people, "hey, it's lite, only 1MB," they tend to be very happy, then they ask you if it has _their_ crucial feature, and it doesn't, so they don't buy your product.'</comment>


Apple Has Probably Killed the 'Air' Brand - <AUTHOR> http://jackgmarch.com/2016/04/11/the-end-of-apple-macbook-ipad-air-brand/ <comment><USER2> The author does say the article is about _branding_ rather than hardware. That said, I'd fully expect the current Air devices (even if renamed) to remain in the lineup for quite some time yet.

Although the iPad Air and the 10" iPad Pro are now equivalent size and weight, the Pro gets the fancy new touchscreen that works with Apple's Pencil (how 53 is handling this product name, I don't know; but I digress) while Air just sits there all non-friendly to the Wonderful New Stylus, but at a lower price point.

As for the laptops, I don't personally know anyone who's actually bought the new Macbook. It's certainly attractive looking, but its specs aren't as attractive as a Macbook Air. I've preferred the Air over the Pro for years now, mainly because the Pro is so bulky and heavy. Air compiles apps Just Fine, Thanks.

If the thesis is "they're not going to make anything newly designed and call it 'Air'" then OK. That kind of pontification isn't my thing. If the thesis is "they're dropping the 'Air' brand and giving it a new name" then fine. However, if Apple would really consider dropping the Air product lines in the near future, it'll just add to the already-irritated masses (you know, those of us who've been detesting 'change for the sake of change' and regression in various software products ...)

<comment><USER3> >I don't personally know anyone who's actually bought the new Macbook

I'm not sure which of us is living in a bubble, but it's probably the most common computer i see in coffee shops and shared workspaces. Granted, i live in a fairly wealthy resort town, but they're definitely selling.

<comment><USER4> Odd, I haven't seen more than a couple and I live and work in SF/SF Bay Area as well as still go to college, where most students who have Macs have Macbook Airs. I don't think I've ever seen the Macbook (12 inch with retina) at school actually.

<comment><USER5> The Pro has gotten a _lot_ thinner lately. I've got a 2015 MBP (Retina 13") and it's only about 2/3 the thickness of my wife's 2013 MBP, and about half of my old 2009 MBP. I can comfortably hold it in one hand, which is one of the main reasons folks would buy the Macbook Air.

I've got an old laptop backpack that I used to use for a ThinkPad, and then for a System76 Pangolin. One of my first-world problems is that the MBP is too thin to fit snuggly in the laptop pocket; I usually throw a book or a folder in with it so it doesn't flop around. Compared to either the Pangolin or ThinkPad, the MBP is less than half the thickness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There's clearly a pretty severely diminished return in chasing further thinness for laptops. At this point, the controlling factor for their portability is neither weight nor thickness, it's the other two dimensions (which, obviously, carry much harsher tradeoffs to minimizing than do weight and thickness).

That wasn't true five years ago, but it absolutely is today.

<comment><USER7> > There's clearly a pretty severely diminished return in chasing further > thinness for laptops.

Also, weight is approaching the totally diminished return. As long as I can hold an extended laptop between thumb and forefinger, weight no longer matters. I reached that point several years ago.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I still don't get what we're supposed to call the new 9.7" iPad Pro. That's a mouthful. The little one? Or is that the Mini? The mid-sized iPad? The smaller iPad Pro?

<comment><USER9> Why not round up and call it the 10" iPad Pro vs the 13" iPad Pro, just as we call them 12", 13" and 15" notebooks, even if we're off by a bit?

<comment><USER10> [http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/01/subway-sued- ove...](http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/business/2013/01/subway-sued-over- footlongs-that-came-up-short/)

<comment><USER2> Well, that's if Apple does the rounding. It'd be us, the plebeians, doing the rounding. No lawsuits over that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Why does the Air brand still exist? The author notes that he fully expects Apple to give the MacBook Air a processor upgrade, but not a re-design. Who is still buying the Air over the MacBook?

<comment><USER12> I have a 2012 Air and it's the best computer I've ever owned.

Coding, testing, Lightroom, Photoshop and some FCP, with >10 hours battery light and extremely light for carrying around every day.

<comment><USER13> Ditto

I had hoped they would have released a 16gb RAM version sometime over the last 4 years, but alas no, here we are debating if it has been abandoned or not.

There are no compromises with this machine. Even the integrated graphics chip has seen improvements in both drivers and how newer frameworks use it. Its a beast. More RAM would future proof it for another four years.

<comment><USER14> >There are no compromises with this machine.

Once you get used to Retina, that is unfortunately not true anymore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is "Air" a brand? I would think of "Air" in the context of Apple as a "product line" and product lines come and go.

When the Air was first launched it made sense to differentiate it from the other Apple products by giving it a specific name and maybe today that's no longer required.

</comment><comment><USER16> _> I think it's pretty obvious at this point that Apple will never release a new [1] product with the 'Air' branding again..._

 _> [1] "New" meaning redesigned, I expect Apple to continue selling the MacBook Air and wouldn't bet against a CPU upgrades._

</comment><comment><USER17> Ah, branding.

Passe: "Turbo", "Mega", "Fire", "Cool", "Air", "Sky".

So 15 minutes ago: "Artisanal", "Free range", "Organic".

<comment><USER18> don't forget "handcrafted code". :shudders:

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I never understood what was(is) the point of going so thin for our laptops and phones. There are so many compromises to make in order to get there. I am almost sure it's done to satisfy tech reviewers that set trends for consumers rather than a consumer's need (need/choice/wish/desire/etc.).

<comment><USER20> I've got a 2011 Air and it's the best machine I've ever owned. I'm not saying making it thinner would make it better, but I DEFINITELY get a huge amount of enjoyment from having a machine that thin vs, say, a 13" or 15" MBP.

I often travel with both the Air and the 15" MBP Retina, and despite the 15" being much faster in every way, and having a vastly better screen, I never use the MBP unless I have to for work. The Air is just so much more convenient to deal with. The size and weight make a HUGE difference.

<comment><USER21> The fact that I can easily move my MBA around with one hand is the most life changing part of it for me.

I can easily put it on my nightstand, corner table, etc...</comment></comment></comment>


The Kansas Experiment (2014) [audio] - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2017/01/11/509378842/episode-577-the-kansas-experiment <comment><USER2> More context on Kansas economic policy:

"Kansas has made national news with its fiscal policy in 2013–14. The state's tax cuts were large, but we show that their projected outcome brings Kansas's state-level tax burden only slightly below the national average (5.0 percent of income), while its local tax burden (4.1 percent of income) is a little above the national average. Kansans have little choice among local governments: only one jurisdiction for every 200 square miles across the state. The state spends much less than average on business subsidies, but government employment is much higher than average (15.0 percent of private employment). Government debt peaked at 24 percent of income in 2008 and is now down to about 21 percent."

[https://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall/kansas](https://www.freedominthe50states.org/overall/kansas)

<comment><USER3> That link is from the Cato institute.

<comment><USER4> Reason why this is important is the Cato institute is funded by the Koch brothers and they were the ones that push for those Tax reforms in Kansas.

Their headquarters is in Kansas.

So it's may just be suspect and an alternative source would be better.

<comment><USER5> I would think that the Cato Institute indicating that the tax reforms had little effect would make the argument _more_ credible. Their bias is to be in favor of tax cuts.

<comment><USER6> Parse it more closely; they're not arguing that the tax reforms had little effect on the state, they're arguing that they had little effect on the tax burden at the state level. Their only metric for measuring success is whether or not taxes are lower -- which is fine since they're a partisan advocacy group, but real humans live there too and they have to live with all of the impacts that Cato doesn't concern themselves with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I'm a big Planet Money fan, and remember this episode. As I listened, it occurred to me that I really wished we had a non-partisan, uniform way to measure "experiments" like this over time. Agree on measures of success (GDP, per capita income post-tax, employment, education stats, etc.), visualize them over time, and run 50 parallel experiments. [http://usafacts.org/](http://usafacts.org/) comes close, though it doesn't show state-level details. Also, one could argue it's not non-partisan behind the scenes (or that non-partisan is impossible).

I understand that might be a bit naive, but in general we could be doing much better at gathering and visualizing the data that are used to make policy decisions. Give me cold, hard numbers and pretty graphs instead of our current system of hotheads yelling that I'm a socialist if I believe in government spending or hate poor people if I believe in tax cuts.

<comment><USER8> We _might_ be slowly starting to creak in that direction. The AEI recently announced that they would start preregistering studies on the link between the minimum wage and unemployment and fix the "success criteria" ahead of time.

The AEI is hardly my favorite institution, so it's actually especially encouraging to see them "go first". Hopefully others will follow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> There was nytimes article some time back comparing how CA and KS did after former increased state taxes and the latter decreased. I am sure there are other factors but the gist of it was cutting taxes does not necessarily result in economic expansion. GDP of Kansas decreased over the period whereas CA's increased.

<comment><USER10> I've seen this but I don't think it is fair. Look at the amount of VC $$ going into CA vs. KS. Easy to create economic expansion when money is invested in your state.

<comment><USER11> Since part of the premise of the KS tax cuts and others like them is that they will attract business investment, the fact that the imbalance you point to continues to exist is not an excuse for the failure of KS tax cuts to produce positive economic results, since that's exactly what they were sold as changing.

<comment><USER10> Valid point. They should of went with tax free until disbursement like Estonia. Would of kept the money in the business and given them more of an incentive to reinvest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The pass-through exemption is a big part of what is wrong with Kansas' tax reform and why it hasn't work. Here is testimony to the Kansas House from one of my coworkers about it: [https://taxfoundation.org/kansas-pass-through- carve-out-nati...](https://taxfoundation.org/kansas-pass-through-carve-out- national-perspective/)

From his testimony:

> It's important to note here that while decreasing taxes is generally > associated with greater economic growth, the pass-through carve out is > primarily incentivizing tax avoidance, not job creation.

> If they passed a provision like this in Washington, D.C., where I live and > work, I would go to my employer the next day and ask them to start paying me > as an independent contractor. I would still be doing the same job and > contributing the same value to the economy, I just wouldn't be paying any > income taxes.

> The individual income tax is one of the largest instruments in the Kansas > revenue toolkit. Exempting pass-through income substantially narrowed the > tax base of that instrument, and in a haphazard and unpredictable way.

</comment><comment><USER13> I've never much considered accelerationism to be a practical concern but Kansas makes me wonder if perhaps it's the way forward. So many tax cuts and now people are voting out extreme Republicans for more moderates and voting for more taxes. Brownback still has the veto which is holding things back a bit but the state has moved left.

<comment><USER14> The constant threat of veto due to this has repeatedly shut down legislation on this a number of times now. It's was overruled and vetoed once already.

Our main problem is that Brownback, refuses to budge on it. There are also quite a few of our state legislators that own fill as Schedule S corps and therefore pay no state income tax, they have no reason to even try and repeal it.

Many of the staunch far right were ousted, but we have a long way to go. We currently have 1 month to find $800m and Brownback refuses to even put the tax exemption on the table, which would raise about half of our shortfall.

Most likely, we'll have higher regressive taxes (again) next year. For example lookup Kansas' food tax rate, it's one of the highest in the nation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245384](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14245384)

</comment><comment><USER16> The way she talks is interesting</comment>


EU removes duties on IT equipment (no more 30-minute video limit?) - <AUTHOR> http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1522 <comment><AUTHOR> I could not find any source confirming this, but item 080 on the list is "Television cameras, digital cameras and video camera recorders".

If this indeed became effective July 1, 2016, wouldn't it mean that the 30-minute video recording limitation which is in place on some consumer devices to avoid a small duty (around 5%) can now be lifted?

The WTO document:

[http://www.heise.de/downloads/18/1/8/4/2/5/4/3/25.pdf](http://www.heise.de/downloads/18/1/8/4/2/5/4/3/25.pdf)

<comment><AUTHOR> It looks like these devices are indeed affected by a change which came into effect on July 1, 2016. However, this is going to be a stepwise reduction of 0.8% points rather than a complete elimination. So this month the duty changed from 4.9% to 4.1%.

Source: German customs, cited by [http://www.heise.de/foto/meldung/Zollsatz- Senkung-bei-Kamera...](http://www.heise.de/foto/meldung/Zollsatz-Senkung-bei- Kameras-haelt-sich-in-sehr-engen-Grenzen-3257815.html)</comment></comment>


Engineers say Boeing pushed to limit safety testing in race to certify planes - <AUTHOR> https://www.seattletimes.com/business/boeing-aerospace/engineers-say-boeing-pushed-to-limit-safety-testing-in-race-to-certify-planes-including-737-max/ <comment><USER2> The thing I don't understand is that if Boeing has been this bad for this long, as many reports indicate, how has nobody come forward to talk about it until these crashes? Zero whistleblowers? Zero people worried about safety enough to call a journalist? How?

The MCAS system design is just so obviously flawed I can't understand how nobody stuck their feet in sand and started saying no, under any circumstances, this is not happening.

I guess you could apply the same question to the people at the FAA, but even after reading the article I still don't understand how the FAA is involved in oversight at all. It kind of seems like they are just checking boxes, but I'll admit that as an outsider the whole FAA/regulatory system is not really something I think I can wrap my head around.

<comment><USER3> People saw what happened to Assange, locked up in an embassy, to Snowden, having to hide in Russia, to Manning, rotting in a cell again, and to countless other whistleblowers worldwide.

The chilling effect is real.

What has likely also played a part: at-will employment and blacklisting.

<comment><USER4> I could see a scenario where an engineer would have gone to the press and the result would have been him getting sued for damages because of the accusations, of breaking NDAs if he signed ones, for stealing documents if he presented any evidence etc.

We also seen how the public was trying so hard to blame the pilots so I could see how most of the public would defend Boeing and FAA since they had a very good reputation and they would ask for some unreasonable proof(one airplane crash was not enough so it is clear the proof would have to be extreme for something to happen).

<comment><USER5> _We also seen how the public was trying so hard to blame the pilots so I could see how most of the public would defend Boeing and FAA since they had a very good reputation and they would ask for some unreasonable proof_

To me it seems Boeing is still fully at it. They never changed their narative from (I'm paraphrasing here)

"There was a slight technical problem, which may have been a tiny link in the chain, which would have been no problem at all if those planes would have been flown by competent Murrican pilots and not badly trained third world dolts."

I see this argument pushed forward on discussion boards and social media (including HN) and can't rid myself of the impression that Boeing employs sock puppets to push such bullshit.

The arrogance of this company, which literally kills people, to me is beyond comprehension.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> It's crazy that the certification engineers literally work for, collect a pay check from, and report to management at the company they are supposed to be overseeing. Clearly a system designed with the manufacturer's interest in mind -- It'd be impossible for this not to be abused by someone at some point with the way its structured, and obviously it has.

Also, 10,000 engineers required to move certification in-house? Can someone explain why it'd be so high?

</comment><comment><USER4> This puts doubt in all the tests procedure that were done by Boeing after this institutional changes, so even more then the mentioned systems may be not compliant but only some engineers protested.

IMO the plane needs a complete re-certification, all the systems with no relaxed tests or special exceptions.

</comment><comment><USER7> Maybe the title should read "Engineers say Boeing pushed safety testing to limit in race to certify planes".

The current formulation is really strange.

<comment><USER8> In the title, "limit" is used as a verb, not a noun. In other words, Boeing pushed to reduce the required amount of safety testing, in order to certify their planes faster.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Whole mcas thing feels like my experience building model airplane. I built this really unstable plane when i do the the throttle so i put a flight controller similar to one in quadcopter and now i had a very stable plane until gyroscope fails.

<comment><USER4> MCAS issue is just a symptom, the cause is explained well in the article and many other subsystems are problematic, tests had to be adjusted and an experienced engineer had to be transferred to allow for the fire suppression system to get approved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would love to have the travel data of boeing management- i would like to see wether they still wanted to fly with there own planes.

</comment><comment><USER11> To say this, it means there is literally people to hold accountable.

</comment><comment><USER12> from the article:

> But his insistence on a higher level of safety scrutiny cost Boeing time and > money.

i would say that is the crux of it if there was one

</comment><comment><USER13> So Boeing is the FB/Equifax/Exxon of Airlines?

Move fast break lives?</comment>


Hulu Plus now works with Chromecast - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.co.uk/2013/10/hulu-plus-now-works-with-chromecast.html

<comment><USER2> It still has the ridiculous limitation that some shows can only be watched on a computer and not on a mobile/dedicated device, right? I never understood that reasoning, why there are some shows that I have to pull out my laptop to view rather than using my Roku.

<comment><USER3> Rights holders maintain control over where their content can be played. Hulu has to get permission for where a show can be played. There was a great post on Google+ a while back by someone well known... can't remember who that said exactly this: DRM is about control over hardware makers.

EDIT: Ah, found it, Ian Hickson: [https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBY...](https://plus.google.com/107429617152575897589/posts/iPmatxBYuj2)

<comment><USER4> Isn't that true of Netflix as well? Why is Netflix seemingly able to negotiate so much better than Hulu?

<comment><USER5> Aside from their own projects, I don't think Netflix gets episodes from the current seasons of popular TV shows the way Hulu does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is excellent news for Chromecast owners. We've been hearing about pending support for Chromecast since it was first released but basically nothing had come of it. Give me a few more digital sources (I'm looking at you Amazon Prime) and I'll be one step closer to completely dumping cable tv.

Anyone want to bet on the over/under for when HBO Go/Showtime Go will appear? I imagine it will be a bit of a shot across the bow to the traditional cable providers.

<comment><USER7> I too am awaiting Amazon Prime to support Chromecast. Hopefully we'll see it sooner thanks to Hulu+ throwing it's hat into the ring.

<comment><USER8> I expect Amazon Prime to take longer due to it's existing Silverlight usage.

It's so great that this little dongle can almost replace and in some cases exceed (youtube, et al.) my Roku.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I mean...okay. Casting a tab already sorta covered hulu on chromecast anyway.

What really needs to happen is the final SDK needs to be released so the hundreds of apps that want to Chromecast can finally come out.

</comment><comment><USER10> Is there any way to run a different Linux distro on the Chromecast? Mine collects dust for the most part. At least it really is a great way to watch Youtube...

</comment><comment><USER11> What about google tv? That's why I had to sell mine, no hulu support.

<comment><USER12> Public statements from the Google TV team have strongly implied that a subsequent GTV update will add support Chromecast's protocol, which, combined with this announcement, would get you Hulu Plus even though don't release a GTV-specific app.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Has anyone heard any news on a UK release for the Chromecast?</comment>


Put your Electron app on a diet with Electrino - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@pauli/put-your-electron-app-on-a-diet-with-electrino-c7ffdf1d6297 <comment><AUTHOR> I built Electrino as a proof-of-concept following a discussion here on HN a few days ago.

The "Show HN" for this project is here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14260755](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14260755)</comment>


Steve Jobs and Jeff Bezos meet "Ginger" (2003) - <AUTHOR> http://hbswk.hbs.edu/archive/3533.html <comment><USER2> >"I think the emphasis of this conversation is wrong," said Bezos. "You have a product so revolutionary, you'll have no problem selling it. The question is, are people going to be allowed to use it?"

Bezos and Jobs were right. Bicycles have been around since the 19th century and yet city planners are still struggling against mainstream political opinion to be able to set aside dedicated space for their use. If most cities currently only barely tolerate bicycles, the Segway was certainly dead on arrival.

I think Jobs' idea for starting small at universities was a bit better of an idea than Bezos' idea of starting in a small country. Davis California for example is the most bike friendly city in America (20% mode share). That would have been the perfect place to start.

<comment><USER3> _Bicycles have been around since the 19th century and yet city planners are still struggling against mainstream political opinion to be able to set aside dedicated space for their use._

To be fair, in the U.S., bicycle use has increased dramatically in the last decade or two, before the recent trend of adding bike lanes. Increased traffic congestion, including from cutbacks in public transit and city planning that emphasizes safety over car speed, have made cars less practical and increased biking a lot.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A (feeble) plug for my hometown, Manchester NH (where Dean Kamen is currently located): I just visited the Millyards and they have apartments there that would cost $3500/month in Boston (more in SF) for $1400/month, Dean just pledged $300 million to biotech startups right there. Not much nightlife but not many distractions either, and they've put these beautiful restaurants in the old mills. It's about the same distance to Boston as Palo Alto is to SF. So if you want to drop off the grid for a while to focus on developing a product it's a great place to get started. Yeah.

<comment><USER5> _So if you want to drop off the grid for a while_

Is this just trash talking a hometown you were glad to leave for the glamor of a big city, or do people actually think like this?

I've lived in big cites, and rural Maine, so I understand the fear of missing out that comes with it. But it's possible to have a social life anywhere, and we work online. Is there some startup culture thing that I'm not exposed to where zero commute and physically rubbing elbows is paradoxically more important than in fields less conductive to remote work?

<comment><USER4> I think that's just me projecting my worries about what people think about where I'm from. There is evidence that people do think that way. See the responder who said he would not want to live there because there are too many white people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Segway and Google Glass went through similar product image trajectories: immense pre-launch hype, then turned into a dorky status symbol perceived as being for tech-obsessed rich buffoons only, and riddled by regulatory problems concerning its public use.

Yet Snap seems to be doing quite well with its Spectacles resurrection of the Google Glass concept. Maybe Segway will also come back once someone cracks the design and youth-friendly branding?

<comment><USER7> it already happened for Segway, here is a documentary of the design process from the future/past: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkyLnWm1iCs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TkyLnWm1iCs)

and here are the products: [https://www.walmart.com/tp/hoverboard](https://www.walmart.com/tp/hoverboard)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "Its shape is not innovative, it's not elegant, it doesn't feel > anthropomorphic," said Jobs, ticking off three of his design mantras.

I was wondering what exactly did Jobs mean when he said that the design was not "anthropomorphic". I mean, the shape of an iPhone does look very different from that of a human figure.

EDIT: perhaps he meant that it wasn't ergonomic?

<comment><USER9> I think he used the word more abstractly, like in terms of having a direct human interface to it, like using your finger on the iPhone's touchscreen almost like turning the page of a book, etc. I don't know how that would translate to a Segway, though - maybe something that made motion feel more immediate than just leaning.

<comment><USER10> > I don't know how that would translate to a Segway, though - maybe something > that made motion feel more immediate than just leaning.

 _South Park_ had a design idea for revolutionary transportation that had a more "direct human interface"[1].

1\. The IT Bike. NSFW: [http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/IT](http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/IT)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Using a Segway on a college campus would be great.. Wish they had convinced campuses to buy them for students.

The unveiling was so lame.. People wearing khakis and super lame helmets and going over little bumps and looking so non-cool.. I watched way back when and was like... Uh... No.. First should not have helmets on.. Should have been very attractive people and should have showed how quickly they could get from point A to point B in style and comfort and convenience..

<comment><USER12> Some companies in the Bay had them for getting around campus and eventually got rid of them because of too many incidents, so the helmet and small bumps thing was probably for the best. I rode one and it seriously goes faster than I'd be comfortable ditching it. It's also very possible to fling yourself off, tip over, etc. I'm not generally comfortable with a transportation device until I find the limits (so I know where they are), but it was scarier than it should have been. You have to basically trust it not to slam your head into the pavement, but I guess I've just been around dodgy electronics long enough to not be so naive.

Then again, now we have electric longboards, which are like an order of magnitude more dangerous. At least with the longboard, you still have 4 wheels if all the electronics give out. Then again, some of the DIY stuff out there...I would not trust my life to a rPi descending a hill in SF with traffic. The foot brake always works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would say that ultimately the Segway was a failure, but that perception is partially affected by the hyperbolic hype that preceded it. I wonder what its own inventors think.

How popular did they expect it to get? How did they expect people to use it? How did they not foresee the backlash to its incredible dorkiness? Would a smaller, handle-less form factor (like the Chinese clones now known as "hoverboards") have been possible with the battery technology of the time?

<comment><USER14> Riding a Segway telegraphs either "I am fit enough to balance standing on a moving platform, yet rich enough to drop several grand on a vehicle whose only benefit over a bicycle is not having to move my legs," or "I have respiratory issues." At least today's so-called "hoverboards" and electric skateboards are an order of magnitude more affordable (and transportable).

I wonder if an inexpensive automated rental model (à la HubWay or other bicycle sharing systems) could have been successful in negating the "rich douche" image by eliminating the price barrier. As it was, the multi-grand price tag and overall impracticality screamed "entitled".

<comment><USER12> Mall cops and airport security also have them now, so that ship has more or less sailed. They still do Segway tours across the country in tourist trap areas. They're a novelty with some limited niche commercial uses.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This makes me miss Steve Jobs, a lot. So much of what he says seemed dead on about the struggles Segway faced. For all his faults, I think he had a great sense about what consumers wanted and loved about a product, as well as what would frustrate them or turn them off, and I think it's been one of Apple's struggles since he passed.

</comment><comment><USER16> "suspected, as did Dean, that Doerr was setting them up for an ambush on his home turf"

Why the ambush? Was John Doerr previously trying to deliver the same message (that the product wasn't ready), but needed Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs' firepower to finally convince Dean Kamen? The article only hints at it, but this sounds like there's a bit more drama in the Doerr/Kamen relationship.

</comment><comment><USER17> It's hard to believe that if it was really going to take over the world, it would have mattered at all how it was launched, what the initial design of it looked like, who got a meeting the "king of Singapore", etc. Those sound like elements of a fad, not a lasting and significant part of technology.

</comment><comment><USER18> A really good book about this is "Code Name Ginger" which is not the blind glorification that such books can be.

[https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Ginger-Behind- Segway/dp/157...](https://www.amazon.com/Code-Name-Ginger-Behind- Segway/dp/1578516730/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1484699980&sr=8-1&keywords=code+name+ginger)

</comment><comment><USER19> "Screw the lead times. You don't have a great product yet!" \- Steve Jobs

Advice every struggling startup needs to hear. Great products are rare and the best way to succeed is not to settle on product quality.

<comment><USER20> But how do you know you have a great product before you ship? Until you have paying customers, you don't have a real feedback loop.

<comment><USER21> _But how do you know you have a great product before you ship? Until you have paying customers, you don 't have a real feedback loop._

If you need customer feedback in order for you to know what to build, what business do you have building _anything_? How could you ever hope to innovate?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I think seeing pictures of Woz on his Segway put me off the idea. He seemed to balloon since getting one.</comment>