Google Chrome to stop autoplaying content with sound - <AUTHOR> https://venturebeat.com/2017/09/14/chrome-will-no-longer-autoplay-content-with-sound-in-january-2018/ <comment><USER2> Auto-playing crap bugs the hell out of me. Some news sites do it as well even when you go and Pause the player, it will go on and play ahead after a few seconds.

Started using "Disable HTML5 Autoplay"[1] extension in Chrome and works great. I wish every browser would stop sound and video by default until i hit Play or have a setting for that.

[1] [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disable- html5-auto...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/disable- html5-autoplay/efdhoaajjjgckpbkoglidkeendpkolai?hl=en)

<comment><USER3> The latest craziness is "news" websites that have an autoplay video + an autoplay ad, and their actual content is just another video, because apparently reading 10 lines of text is harder than sitting through a two minute slideshow with the same ten lines of text and some pretty pictures. It's getting ridiculous.

<comment><USER4> I don't think it's a simple problem though. I want my videos on Youtube, Twitch and other similar sites to auto play, without having to click it manually every single time. We get into a whitelist/blacklist situation. The best way is to stick to one way, and allow users to fully unblock a site. Right now, it auto plays but you can fully blacklist a whole domain. I could also see it as everything is blocked and you whitelist Youtube. Maybe even automatically does it if you click play on a few videos.

<comment><USER5> > everything is blocked and you whitelist Youtube. Maybe even automatically > does it if you click play on a few videos

That's basically what they're doing: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJ...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJLg14Ogf- ekAFNymAJoU/edit)

<comment><USER6> Is there anyway to wipe the whitelist?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The content is muted, or does not include any audio (video only)

Sigh. So no surprise audio but nothing to stop the trend of silent video ads or (even worse) muted live TV?

How about NO auto playing live video or files over 250k? Don't waste my bandwidth streaming stuff I'm not trying to watch.

<comment><USER8> This would break using mp4s as "gifs" which is a pretty common practice these days. Taking away these features might cause people to go back to actual gifs which would be terrible... so I can understand why they want to leave this loophole open.

I would like the idea of having a user configured limit for autoplaying gifs though...

<comment><USER7> That's why I put the 250kb number in. Maybe it should be higher. Maybe limit the dimensions.

But for the love of god don't waste my bandwidth on streaming video.

<comment><USER9> If you set any arbitrary number, the ad networks will simply report that number as the size, or chunk the video into that size and make the page keep requesting small video after small video.

<comment><USER10> The browser could just cut off the network for the site until you click "approve".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm probably missing something here, but the document says that media autoplay is allowed if visitors keep visiting the site and interacting with the video player:

> The MEI score will be computed as is: > If number_of_visits < 5: > Return 0 > > Else > Return number_significant_playback / number_of_visits

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJ...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJLg14Ogf- ekAFNymAJoU/edit#heading=h.7efd85kwebui)

Doesn't that mean some of the worst sites affected by this might still manage to get videos and sound files autoplaying?

Because if you go to a news site, it's quite likely you may end up watching a video about the story.

But at the same time... you don't want the background ads to automatically play, nor do you want said video playing by default on return visits.

Yet this system seems like it may allow the latter two things to happen.

<comment><USER12> Yea, it seems like site-specific permission settings are the way on this. The "Do you want to share your location with this website?" check seems to work fairly well. I think "Do you want to allow videos with sound to autoplay?" would too.

<comment><USER13> You have to be very careful with that though.

Already it seems that 75%+ of news sites ask me to show notifications, and the alerts alone asking for it are getting annoying.

I'd be even more upset if every site now had to ask for permission to do all kinds of things (Do you want to allow sound? Do you want to allow cookies? Do you want to allow video?)

I don't know the answer on how to deal with this stuff, but I don't think putting everything behind requests to the user is a good option (and clearly just allowing everything is a bad idea as well).

<comment><USER12> I agree. One way to ameliorate this problem is to only allow sites to even _ask_ for permission to autoplay content with sound if the user has manually played a video a few times in the past.

More generally, you can set permission settings to be very conservative by default and not allow sites to bother the user with permissions until the user has interacted positively with the site several times in the past. Here, "positively" could be a fairly fuzzy rule of thumb depending on the global trustworthiness of the site and the sensitivity of the permissions requested.

<comment><USER13> That is a bad idea from my point of view.

Whatever the solution is, it should be consistent and easily knowable by the average user.

How would a website tell a user to enable auto-playing video for a website that they want it for (for example, how would youtube tell users to enable that)? How would the user even understand that this website won't work correctly for them but it works fine for their friends/family/other-browsers?

I've made a web-app that uses camera access, and the web audio API. Without either of them, the app is 100% useless, so locking those behind a permission that won't even show up until the user has been there for a while completely kills that app.

While I understand you are only talking about auto-playing video, the point still stands IMO. Trying to "guess" what the user wants is wrong when it comes to enabling/disabling features.

<comment><USER12> Your concerns are definitely valid, but note that every time the Chrome team chooses a browser default, or doesn't include a permission setting for every possible ability, they are guessing what the user wants. And these guesses will not be the same made by other browsers, so the user may still be confused why something works for their friends but not them. "Smart permissions" seem strictly better to me than allowing autoplay ads or no autoplay youtube, and reducing user frustration may just require ad-hoc tricks, e.g., filling the bank spot of a non-auto-played video with a permission dialog box. Likewise, using global trustworthiness information about a website could greatly improve guesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Autoplay seems to be something universally reviled and yet the trend seemed to be that enough people tolerated it to make advertisers and sites double down on it: [https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/facebook-...](https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2017/jul/19/facebook- users-complain-autoplaying-videos-sound-how-to-turn-it-off)

> _During Facebook's announcement of the feature in February, product manager > Dana Sittler and engineering manager Alex Li said: "As people watch more > video on phones, they've come to expect sound when the volume on their > device is turned on."_

> *"After testing sound on in News Feed and hearing positive feedback, we're > slowly bringing it to more people."

Likely Chrome's feature won't affect FB given how much FB is on mobile but I'm interested in how media sites, such as CNN, will be impacted. Seems like they've become dependent on throwing up an annoying newscast video (with post- roll ads) for every article. Many times unrelated.

<comment><USER15> I've pretty much stopped going to CNN because of this. I have managed to block a lot of this video by using privacy badger and blocking the underlying CDNs where it is played from. However, I've never been able to block CNN effectively, so I've just given up on them.

<comment><USER16> Newsweek's autoplay is literally cancer. I've got the disable HTML5 autoplay, but the newsweek site is so aggressive about autoplaying that it bugs out the browser.

<comment><USER15> The "just read" chrome extension seems to work pretty well at stopping media playback for Newsweek.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's a start. Allowing users to disable autoplay altogether would be better, but shutting down the audio is better than nothing.

It's a shame that browsers increasingly have to actively defend against website behavior, instead of just being tools for displaying those websites; but, well, here we are.

<comment><USER18> Autoplay music was in for a while, went out, then came back in, from what I recall: Back in the 1990s, it was MIDI files on the stereotypical Geocities page, or completely hand-made pages, and that went out in a massive design backlash against those kinds of sites.

Now, it's coming back in the form of autoplay video on news sites, for example, which would have been impossible in the dial-up era.

So this isn't a new thing, it's an old one that's come back. Annoying people have always been annoying.

<comment><USER19> >Annoying people have always been annoying.

But it increases engagement!!!

I'm happy to see these changes coming.

<comment><USER18> Ad tech is indistinguishable from toddlers who haven't learned the difference between good attention and bad attention.

<comment><USER19> Is not that they haven't learned, it's that even if you're pissed at an advertisement or whatever other annoying thing they did, at least you're looking at it. And will probably remember it. That's what's important!

<comment><USER14> I agree that it's possible that annoying ads do work for advertisers. Just like super-expensive Super Bowl ads bring in a good return on investment even if I think I already like Coca-Cola enough to not need to see another commercial. But the ads could be both beneficial for one party (the advertiser, and/or the brand) while being hugely terrible for the host. I'm a news junkie but I actively do not go to CNN.com. Not just I don't visit its front page, but will just ignore any content that's being shared from that domain because I know the ad/video-junk consistently ruins my ability to consume (and enjoy) the content, no matter how great or important it might be.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Look at this headline, "Chrome Will Soon Block Autoplay Videos With Sound—Here's Why You Should Be Worried" [1] What a brazen attempt at fear- mongering so they can protect their ability to be more ad-intrusive than porn websites.

[1] [http://gizmodo.com/chrome-will-soon-block-autoplay-videos- wi...](http://gizmodo.com/chrome-will-soon-block-autoplay-videos-with-sound- heres-1814207806)

<comment><USER21> Meanwhile the autoplaying video ad with sound on that page has no pause/stop/mute controls. Exactly why "Pushing advertisers to create a better browsing experience seems like it's good for everyone" will never work unless browsers draw some lines

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm not sure why all these websites decided that auto-playing video is a good thing. It's annoying as hell. I click on an article for reading, I'm not clicking on a youtube playlist.

The latest craze among web designers being videos that follow the reader even when they are scrolling down the page! Enough!

Can we have a designer here explaining why they do this? If it's about engagement, i'm not going back to your website if you do that to me once.

<comment><USER23> If the video follows you down the page in a paused state, with thumbnail and "play" icon, would this be okay?

The video that follows you down the page is trying to help you, not annoy you. It gives you the chance to read the article while having the vision there too. It's only a problem if the video autoplays, which unfortunately is all of the time on all sites that do this.

<comment><USER24> > If the video follows you down the page in a paused state, with thumbnail and > "play" icon, would this be okay?

Absolutely not. If the video is useful content, put it front and center, and let the user hit "play" on it; if they scroll it away, accept that they don't want it. If it's unrelated content (as with the thousands of "news" sites that want to autoplay an unrelated "hey look at this completely unrelated garbage" video), put it under a "related stories" column or similar, and stop making it jump around the page to draw attention. The user is already on the page they wanted, their attention is exactly where they want it to be, and your job is to serve them what they want, not what _you_ want.

"Engagement" might be easy to measure (hey look, if we pester the hell out of users we get a few more users who accidentally watched the video), but the much better metric for long-term sustainability is "how many users love your site and think 'this is awesome'".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Devil's advocate / counterpoint:

[https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/908675882587484160](https://twitter.com/mcclure111/status/908675882587484160)

 _My complaint here is that Google is making things worse for media /game pages by making life good for people reading web content proper_

<comment><USER26> And this one: "What's interesting here is how what this really demonstrates is that Flash really was exactly what we wanted".

With HTML5, who didn't see annoying JavaScript popups and autoplay videos coming? Seriously.

If you think about the web, think about 2 things: 1\. Text content 2\. Multimedia content

People complaining about Flash always used arguments for nr 1.

For me, I want my text content to be really static text content, and my multimedia content to be boxed-in multimedia. HTML4 and Flash were good at that. Now you have a mix of both: 1\. Text content with annoying interactions 2\. Crippled multimedia content (think about the terrible way iOS handles audio for HTML5 games. Expect this in all browsers soon).

<comment><USER27> Annoying stuff is always annoying, but the major complaints about flash were centered on security holes and excessive CPU utilization.

<comment><USER26> Sure, I'm willing to accept that, including that Flash is not a web standard.

But another solution might have been to make a Flash web standard, with open implementations, instead of HTML5.

This is really an architectural choice that was made, not so much the blocking of a plugin.

They chose to integrate all in 1 big pile, instead of keeping web content and multimedia separate. And now you end up with a washed out version of both.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This will be in Safari 11 too: [https://webkit.org/blog/7734/auto-play-policy- changes-for-ma...](https://webkit.org/blog/7734/auto-play-policy-changes-for- macos/)

<comment><USER29> In Safari it auto-blocks ALL video, not just with sound.

<comment> amiga-workbench Isn't that only on mobile? I've had to push back on looping video backgrounds from designers far too many times to count.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> It's a war for attention, and ultimately, money. If sites can't autoplay video with sound, they'll switch to more of the junk videos that make it onto Facebook (muted by default, I believe), which include giant captions or other distracting elements.

</comment><comment><USER31> As much as I like this idea, I'm sure that this will also cause problems in certain cases.

Therefore, I'd like to see per-website "capability settings", just like you can allow smartphone-apps to access your microphone, camera, et cetera. And an API for websites to determine which capabilities they have, and an API to request the browser to ask the user to add a capability.

<comment><USER32> With an always veto by default option, similar to the way pop up windows are blocked / handled. I much prefer seeing the little red x over a window icon in the location bar that I can click on in my own time than the modal drop down "this site wants to send you notifications" thing that I have to deal with right away, especially since I am always going to say 'no thanks' to the notifications and almost certainly autoplay as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Technical details: [https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/audio- video/auto...](https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/audio- video/autoplay)

</comment><comment><USER33> What about YouTube? I'm sure they'll add an exception for it, but it technically does classify as automatically playing a video when you click on a link.

<comment><USER23> Just allow it for youtube, while keeping everything else blocked. Whitelisting is the best option because there aren't that many websites primarily about playing video. Nobody goes to Youtube for other activities. Clicking a video link means you intend watching.

News websites are the worst. Clicking a news article means I want to read the article, not watch a video. If I want to watch the video on a news website (rare) I will press play. If they autoplay videos, I send them nasty angry feedback and don't return if I can help it.

<comment><USER34> Whitelisting is about the worst thing you could do. It makes any kind of competition and therefore inovation on the web impossible and under the vendor's control. Simply ask the user to allow autoplay, same as you would with mic or camera permissions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This must be fixed long-term by segregating browser capabilities into tiers that are clearly visible to the user, and _severely_ limiting defaults on data size, compute time, etc. especially when your site claims to belong in the "simple web site" tier. In other words, unless _the user_ thinks it makes sense for you to download lots of data and do complex things, _you can 't_.

</comment><comment><USER36> Yay! Thank goodness. I've got 3 different extensions trying to achieve that to some extent (Stop HTML5 Autoplay, Flashcontrol and uBlock for some elements the others miss). They still miss some bad stuff and block some good. I just wish they'd make it easy to block all video apart from things where you actually click the play button.

</comment><comment><USER37> Chrome's "own ad blocker" mentioned in the article sounds good in theory, but seems like a slippery slope to eventually making it simply show only Google's own ads.

<comment><USER34> Exactly! This isn't something that could happen, this is something that absolutely WILL happen. And when it does, Google will have won yet another battle against the decentralized web.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I think this is a good thing but I'm curious why the same reasoning isn't used towards preventing ads and trackers. They're both unwanted unless the user expresses an interest and as a bonus they also degrade performance or consume power and data on mobile devices.

I want something like uBlock running in Chrome on Android. I can do it in CopperheadOS or with Firefox, but it blows my mind that Google recognizes these types of issues but won't deal with perhaps the most egregious one.

</comment><comment><USER39> All the stipulations here basically just mean it's a decision with no legs. If you don't want autoplaying audio, just install one of the many browser extensions that prevent this, e.g. "Disable HTML5 Autoplay". Alternatively, uBlock Origin and uBlock Origin Extra go a _very_ long way to cleaning up my experience just by blocking any ads. It really only seems Bloomberg has gone out of their way to worsen the experience for UBO users, but that's not news you can't get somewhere else. The IBTimes is another with autoplay audio/video which is hard to completely kill, even with the extension armed. But again, that's not news you can't get somewhere else usually.

</comment><comment><USER40> >Chrome will only autoplay a given piece of content when the media won't play sound or the user has indicated an interest in the media.

I wonder if a certain "Tube" site will have "indicated interest" on by default, hmm...

<comment><USER41> Probably. I can't imagine the point of going to a youtube page that is solely dedicated to a video and having no intention of watching or listening to it.

I wouldn't be opposed to being required to click play though.

<comment><USER42> _> I can't imagine the point of going to a youtube page that is solely dedicated to a video and having no intention of watching or listening to it._

When you click a notification of a comment reply, it takes you to the video page, jumps down to the comment, _and then starts playing the video._ This means you have to scroll up, pause the video, then scroll back down to read the comment in peace.

<comment><USER41> Good enough reason for me to keep it muted and / or paused.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Safari has had this for a while in the public beta of High Sierra and also has turned off plugins by default for eons... now how about following its lead on that cookie thing advertisers love to do to track... oh wait.

</comment><comment><USER44> How does this relate to media sites? eg. Netflix, HBOGo, the rest of the cable channel web apps? If a user clicks on a thumbnail preview and is taken to a separate page with a video, will they now need to click on it to begin playback? Or is clicking on the thumbnail an "expression of interest" that can somehow be tracked across pages? For Netflix, how does this impact autoplaying the next episode of a show?

If the above UX issues can't be solved for, this is a hammer which is going to have an adverse impact on a growing part of the web.

<comment><USER44> Looks like this is taken into account by the MEI doc: [https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJ...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJLg14Ogf- ekAFNymAJoU/mobilebasic)

as well as "The user tapped or clicked somewhere on the site during the browsing session" (from [https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/audio- video/auto...](https://sites.google.com/a/chromium.org/dev/audio- video/autoplay)) which should make it a non-issue for SPAs focused on video playback.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> If they'd also block mouseover autoplay, my world would be complete.

</comment><comment><USER46> So here's the antitrust angle: what do you want to bet it'll have a default exception for YouTube but not other video sites?

</comment><comment><USER47> This is bad news for my personal homepage, the autoplay music is an important part of the experience.

<comment> amiga-workbench I have to agree, nice website!

<comment><USER48> I think an early frontrunner for the next President of the Internet nomination has just emerged.

[http://i.imgur.com/lhz0PYt.gif](http://i.imgur.com/lhz0PYt.gif)

As the internet expands into other areas of life, we've seen the rise of special-interest groups such as the Weeaboo League, and issues such as Bringing Anime To Life are expected to play a critical role in shaping the outcome of this election. Would you care to comment on this issue? #AllWaifusMatter

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> There are a lot of legitimate uses for autoplay that users are expecting. This is going to degrade the user experience for these legitimate uses, such as games. It is frustrating that some bad actors are able to cause everyone else to take a step back.

</comment><comment><USER50> Does this mean that YouTube won't play automatically after clicking on a video?

</comment><comment><USER51> Doesn't YouTube technically autoplay videos? Is this going to disable that?

<comment><USER14> The design document talks about applying a heuristic to determine which sites are expected by users to play video:

[https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJ...](https://docs.google.com/document/d/1_278v_plodvgtXSgnEJ0yjZJLg14Ogf- ekAFNymAJoU/mobilebasic)

> _The Media Engagement Index (MEI) aims to provide a metric reflecting the > engagement of a given user with regards to media playback on a given origin. > The intent of this metric is to allow websites scoring high enough to be > able to bypass the new unified autoplay policy, thus reducing the cost on > the ecosystem._

<comment><USER52> Ugh, that sounds dreadful. Doesn't this prevent anyone besides YouTube and a handful of other sites from establishing themselves as video hosting sites? Besides that, adding another hard-to-predict layer to the web is just... bleh. We shouldn't need heuristics to make the web a nice place to be.

Boycotts on website should start becoming a regular thing. I simply don't return to websites that pull shenanigans like autoplaying videos on scroll. If I must, I use archive.is so that crap gets stripped out and I don't give them a genuine hit.

<comment><USER53> It kicks in once the user visits a site 5 times. Nothing that really favors big sites.

I have no idea what to do about the hundreds of gotchas around html/css/javascript.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> Would it not make more sense to do something similar to what Firefox does for pup-ups? The first time a site wants to autoplay, ask the user for permission and allow them to "always allow on this site".

</comment><comment><USER54> I think, as a consumer, that is great. But, isn't a little worrying how Google is starting having so much power in induce how we can experience the Internet?

<comment><USER29> You're not wrong. Because of their browser share, Google on the desktop and Apple on mobile basically can control how people experience the internet, and they're now choosing to exert that power. It's something to keep an eye on. People might like what they're doing right now, but what if they don't like something they do two steps down the road?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Best would be stopping huge video downloads and auto plays. Sound is distracting but not that important as users have various levels of mute capabilities.

</comment><comment><USER16> kill it all, please. let me enable it for the few sites that i actually want to watch videos on.

</comment><comment><USER56> Finally, we are past the 90's fad of auto-playing crap on page load... thanks, Chrome.

</comment><comment><USER57> I started feel bad for facebook, as it auto plays its ad while scroll. Thanks Google.

</comment><comment><USER58> Nice to see such ads penalized on the search side, and prevented on the browser side.

</comment><comment><USER59> There are two sites, and two sites only that I like autoplay on: YouTube and Twitch.

</comment><comment><USER60> Does "stop autoplaying" also include not downloading the big media file?

</comment><comment><USER61> Ironically I'm seeing several auto-playing ads (with sound) on this article.

</comment><comment><USER62> Chrome should be abandoned. This corporation controls way too much.

</comment><comment><USER63> Autoplay videos are popup windows of 2010s

</comment><comment><USER64> As usual it shouldn't be one way or the other for everyone. THIS SHOULD BE A SETTING!

Some people like sound at home and some at work don't.

</comment><comment><USER65> A step in the right direction.

</comment><comment><USER66> Thank You Google!

</comment><comment><USER67> Gizmodo is running an article about how THIS is the dangerous thing Google that will destroy the web.

[http://gizmodo.com/chrome-will-soon-block-autoplay-videos- wi...](http://gizmodo.com/chrome-will-soon-block-autoplay-videos-with-sound- heres-1814207806)

I can't stop laughing.

</comment><comment><USER68> Safari does this on High Sierra.

</comment><comment><USER69> 2017 and this is a brand new feature. Think about it...2017.</comment>


Show HN: YouTube GIF Maker with Full Search and No Watermark - <AUTHOR> https://gifrun.com <comment><USER2> Cool project. Tested it and it seems to work as expected.

My only suggestion would be to have a better UX for when users are creating the clip. I wasn't for sure how long a certain section of the video would last, so I had to watch the video until the section ended, and note the end time. I then subtracted the end time from begin time to determine how long the clip should be. Not sure having every frame displayed would be best, but being able to indicate start/stop thresholds visually, might help. Bookmarked!

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm currently compiling a list of features to be added and will add your suggestion. I appreciate your feedback!</comment></comment>


'You prepare for war': how one U.S. firm tried escaping China tariffs - <AUTHOR> https://www.reuters.com/article/us-asia-supplychains-insight/you-prepare-for-war-how-one-u-s-firm-tried-escaping-trumps-china-tariffs-idUSKCN1VA2E7 <comment><USER2> Reuters tries to spin this as the tariffs forcing this company to do what they were planning to do anyways.</comment>


'Happy Birthday' Hits Sour Notes When It Comes to Song's Free Use - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/2015/07/12/422327673/happy-birthday-hits-sour-notes-when-it-comes-to-songs-free-use?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150712 <comment><USER3> It's a bit aggravating when articles give dates for when something will "eventually go into the public domain" without a caveat that copyright terms in the US have been repeatedly and consistently lengthened retroactively.

Going off the view that copyright extensions center around attempts to keep Mickey Mouse cartoons under copyright (1928 onward), a copyright date of 1935 means it is unlikely that Happy Birthday will _ever_ go into the public domain if political views do not change.

<comment><USER4> At least Disney are actively and heavily working the Mickey Mouse IP. Everyone and their dog knows that Mickey Mouse is a Disney icon, and people give money explicitly to go and see Mickey Mouse at a Disney theme park. The same is very much not true of the Happy Birthday song.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The history of " _Happy Birthday to You_ " is what first made me absolutely furious about US copyright law.

The enabling clause reads as follows: " _To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries._ "

The melody was written in 1892. The altered lyrics were first (verifiably) published in 1912. And it looks very suspiciously like someone pulled a fast one in the 1930s to steal the copyrights.

What is clear to me is that it is very difficult to reconcile "limited Times" with a span of 103 years, the rights are not currently vested in the [deceased] authors, nor were they fairly paid for exclusive license of those rights, and progress of the useful arts is not being promoted here.

And that is just _one_ case, which has been heavily researched. I can only imagine the godawful clusterfuck that must exist for those works whose pedigrees are less clear.

<comment><USER6> Well, for that song, that does not matter, it is hugely successful so it made it into our culture despite everything.

The problem is all the moderately successful art. They matter to a generation, but they get forgotten because the legal framework is just a bit too much for the fan to keep them relevant or even to simply preserve them.

I am thinking about a few authors that my grand-father loved. It was stories about life of teens during the second world war in my country. Plenty of more successful authors have been preserved so nothing important has been lost, but that series of book just died. You can´t find it online, can´t find it in the library. It is probably somewhere, but the point is, I can only look for it, I can´t actively do something with the books. I can´t publish them, I can´t put them online. I could maybe publish a sequel, but why would I risk it[0] ?

[0] talking hypothetically here. I´m not an author.

<comment><USER5> You could certainly publish a sequel. You could also re-tell the same story in your own words using the same characters.

The elements bearing proper names in a book may be protected by trademark, but if a book is out of print and nearly impossible to find, the requirement that a trademark be continuously defended by its owner is almost certainly not being met. Plots, book titles, characterizations, settings, these elements are not protected by book copyrights. Only the sequence of words on the page is protected.

I could tell a story about a half-height man who carries a dangerous magical artifact across the continent, into the very heart of an aggressive and evil power, for the purposes of destroying it forever. I could tell a story about a plucky young heroine forced to compete in gladiatorial games by an oppressive centralized government. I could tell a story about a boy wizard who attends a boarding school for magical youth, grows in maturity and ability, then defeats a ruthless older wizard bent upon world domination.

But you can be certain that an army of lawyers would be combing through those to find out if I ever sequenced three of the wrong words together in the wrong order. If I instead ripped the story arc from a "lost" out-of-print book, there is a low probability anyone would notice, there is a lower probability that a person who noticed could locate and inform the rights-holder, and there is a miniscule probability that the rights-holder could prove infringement.

But then again, Thicke and Williams still had to pay the Gaye estate for " _Blurred Lines_ " being too similar to " _Got to Give it Up_ ". And that raises some questions. How much of an old work can be copied before it constitutes infringement? There must be hundreds of pop songs based on Pachelbel's Canon in D. Are they necessarily derivative works, or are they written that way because that is a chord structure that humans instinctively find to be pleasing? A finite number of notes has a finite number of possible note combinations, and only a subset is aesthetically "good". If you replace two quarter notes with a triplet, is it still essentially the same song? If you transpose to a minor key, is it new? Would you have to pay a royalty every time you play the "classic blues riff"? Who would you pay it to?

This is why the public domain is important. It allows younger artists to work freely, without toiling under the heavy yoke of the old bastards that already made it and don't want to share the collective patronage of the middle-classed public with the young and hungry talents who just might try to eat their lunch.

Overly extended terms represent the political domination of old over young, and even the dead or never-alive over the living. When I can see that _nothing_ that has been created during my lifetime will become free (speech) until long after I am dead, that makes nearly my entire culture pay-per-view, it pisses me off. It makes me want to pirate certain works that don't meet my personal standard for reasonable copyright terms, for no other reason than for political protest.

So if you find those old books, maybe do the right thing for the culture, which is not the right thing according to the law. Scan them, turn them into e-books, and seed a torrent. Then, if your grandfather or any of his friends are still alive, teach them how to download via torrent, and how to read the downloaded e-book.

It is the responsibility of the older generation to build cultural bridges with the younger. If you try to erect tollbooths and paywalls all over those bridges, no one on the other side will want to cross, and the younger generation will just create their own new, alien, bizarro culture (perhaps one where trilbys are fedoras!) without any bits of your culture in it. You will become increasingly disconnected and isolated from society as you age. Then, when you die, everything that you loved will vanish from history, just because your generation as a whole was too jealous and avaricious to give anything away.

That's the legacy of 120-year copyrights. You, in a nursing home, alone, because none of your grandkids can relate to anything you say. They don't know who Tom Mix or Gene Autry or Hopalong Cassidy are, and you don't know about Corridor Digital or Nacho Punch or UCB or College Humor. They never watched Laverne and Shirley or Happy Days or Gilligan's Island; you never played Elder Scrolls or Final Fantasy or Grand Theft Auto. You still read real newspapers; they visit aggregators, follow feeds, and read The Onion. When you stick your culture in a vault and charge admission, it immediately starts to rot, and you just might rot with it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would use this case as a good measure of some of the problems with management of intellectual property laws. I mean, it's pretty obvious to anybody that the song has been appropriated by the culture at large, and that attributing legal power to any specific entity comes off as completely clueless.

It's an analogue to political revolution: If people rise up and overthrow their government, it's probably illegal. But that doesn't mean it's _wrong_. And it doesn't mean those people should agree to give the government back because it was illegal.

Happy Birthday was stolen by society. Maybe that was illegal. But too bad. It's too late to protect it.

<comment><USER8> The thing is, while it's obvious that this is the case for Happy Birthday, it's less obviously the case for almost everything else. We incorporate works of art, and especially music, into our lives and our social interactions. What kinds of music we like become part of our identity. And the current state of copyright law doesn't allow for this. We should have copyright exemptions for non-commercial performances and derivative works.

As just an example of this, when my father died, I put together a slideshow of photos of him throughout the years. I used four of his favorite songs as the music, since it connected with memories that I and others have of him. We played it at his memorial and many people found it quite moving and asked me to upload it to Youtube. But because it had the music in it, I couldn't. Luckily Dropbox doesn't have anything like ContentID yet, but it still seemed wrong that copyright law would prevent me from sharing this piece of my dad with everyone that knew and loved him. There was no profit to be made from the sharing and what I wanted to share wouldn't cause any financial harm to the artists or labels who own the copyrights...if anything it would convince many people to buy those songs in a format that would work on music players.

It's frustrating that our current laws don't take into account that the creations that they make become part of our lives. The laws need to strike a better balance between compensating the creator and realizing that, once creations are released, they take on a life of their own and become meaningful to others. Humans seem programmed to share music...it's almost a tribal/instinctual thing. And no law that tries to controvert basic human instincts will ever be successful.

<comment><USER7> That's true. I wasn't meaning to argue that this would apply anywhere else, but Happy Birthday is a place where it clearly applies. It would only be a problem if some court ruled that the song wasn't public domain or available for fair use, since it is clear that it should be.

This is somewhat related to something else about business that people often seem to forget: Many people talk about businesses as though they are machines for converting employees time to products that they can sell for profit. But companies _also_ produce culture, and that culture will be exported whether it's paid for or not. And they have a responsibility to produce good culture.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I recommend singing The Barbarian Birthday Dirge "[http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~lwittie/sca/song/filk/barbarian_...](http://www.eg.bucknell.edu/~lwittie/sca/song/filk/barbarian_birthday_dirge.html") aka Viking Birthday Song [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H8e-2TLgpA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H8e-2TLgpA)

<comment><USER10> We sing the Hispanic Happy Birthday song in my house.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhthj2ztSMY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nhthj2ztSMY)

<comment><USER11> That one is just a translation, I bet it's still subject to the same copyright. If you already speak Spanish, why bother with it, sing "Las mañanitas" instead [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kZ9AjXYzs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8kZ9AjXYzs)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> My favorite podcast "Judge John Hodgman" has the honorable judge singing Happy Birthday more than once to the tune of the Alphabet Song.

Happy birthday to you! hap- / -py birthday to you! Happy / birthday to you! Happy birth- / -day to you! Happy birthday / to you! Happy birthday to / you! Happy birthday to you!

</comment><comment><USER13> What amuses me is that it's generally agreed to be an un-interesting song! But it's "stuck" to all of us, like a bubble-gum stain on our cultural pavement.

I wonder what (and how long) it will take for a new song to unseat it.

<comment><USER14> > What amuses me is that it's generally agreed to be an un-interesting song!

How do you mean? It's not a Bach fugue, but I wouldn't really call it uninteresting. It's a more complex melody than the vast majority of songs you'll hear on the radio.

<comment><USER15> Keep in mind that it is intended for kids. It is interesting to them.

<comment><USER14> I don't think the intended audience is relevant. I still don't see what about it is particularly uninteresting. It's all diatonic, sure, but if that's the criterion then a huge amount of music is uninteresting. The melody has a variety of intervals (including an octave), and suspensions on nearly every chord.

<comment><USER15> I took the comment to mean that _Happy Birthday to You_ is not interesting compared to, say, Locatelli's Sonata in G Major. The second is simply a more ambitious work, is all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> A year or so ago the Free Music Archive ran a competition "The New Happy Birthday Song Contest" to create a CCA licensed alternative. The winner is here:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-pLlK_H-w](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A8-pLlK_H-w)

<comment><USER17> It sounds downright depressing. Don't get me wrong, it's quite well done - <USER2> that won for a song to _celebrate_ birthdays?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18>
        What day is today
        It's X's birthday
        What a day for a birthday
        Let's all have some cake.

Probably has just as many copyright problems.

<comment><USER19> That meter is suspiciously familiar, be careful where you sing that!

In all seriousness, I wonder how far removed from the original you'd have to go to be recognizable as "that birthday song" and still avoid a copyright claim? Obviously your words are different, but the subject is the same, the meter is the same, and if you stayed in the same key, all you've really done is some word play.

Maybe draw out your "day", "X's", "day", and "all" for each line into a half or dotted half note, and reverse last two notes of each line so they ascend instead of descend. That way most of the meter is preserved and it still feels familiar, but hopefully no longer infringes.

<comment><USER16> Futurama created these lyrics with the same tune to avoid the copyright. I believe they avoided any trouble. Anyone know if they had legal issues?

[http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Futurama_Birthday_song](http://futurama.wikia.com/wiki/Futurama_Birthday_song)

<comment><USER20> Speaking of Futurama and Copyright violations ...

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOqfWj0HqNE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AOqfWj0HqNE)

<comment><USER21> Cristopher Tyng clearly stated that Futurama Theme Song was an homage to Pierre Henry's "Psyché Rock".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Shouldn't copyright have the same system as trademarks, where once it enters public vernacular (or in copyright's case hitting a certain level of mass culture) it's no longer valid?

<comment><USER23> Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought it was not just enough to have a phrase enter the public vernacular, but that it would have to be in the vernacular in such a way that its no longer directly associated with the product that was trademarked.

I like the general idea though. It seems that if the general public no longer associate a work of art with the artist or company that holds the IP, it should go into public domain.

In this case, Happy Birthday probably never would have been popular in the first place had the copyright been aggressively enforced in the 1920's. In my opinion, the lack of defense of broad copyright infringement from 1920-1980 should be grounds for copyright invalidation.

Generally copyright has lost its original intent of providing value and protection to the original creator, while encouraging people to create something that will eventually become part of the public domain.

<comment><USER24> >In my opinion, the lack of defense of broad copyright infringement from 1920-1980 should be grounds for copyright invalidation.

This is one of the strongest arguments against automatic copyright renewals. If a copyright holder wants the full term offered to them under the law, they should have to affirmatively exercise that right (preferably at some non- trivial cost).

<comment><USER25> Affirmative registration would solve a lot of problems with copyright.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Clearly Warner/Chappell needs to be introduced to YouTube's content ID system. They only make $2 million a year on "Happy Birthday"?!?! Crazy. They need to start monetizing birthday part videos to get that income up.

I suspect that there are hoards of infringers uploading Warner/Chappell IP on a daily basis. These people hate us for our freedom, and must be stopped.

</comment><comment><USER27> What's the best way to follow a lawsuit? I'd be curious what happens to this one: [http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/happy-birthday-a- ca...](http://www.courthousenews.com/2015/03/23/happy-birthday-a-cash-cow-for- warner-chappell.htm)

<comment><USER28> You can go on the court's website or use an open-access tracker like this one: [http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california- central...](http://www.plainsite.org/dockets/u2yv5yz8/california-central- district-court/rupa-marya-v-warner-chappell-music-inc/)

But this one doesn't have all the documents. There's a free system called PACER which allows you to download the filings for any federal court case, but it costs about 10c/page (although you can get a certain # free every quarter). As you can see form the link above, litigation generates a _lot_ of paperwork so if you're interested in a case you can easily run up a large bill on PACER. Usually people who are interested in litigation share key documents from a case because court filings are by definition in the public domain. But this is slow and unreliable and if you're a law nerd the minor procedural filings are often as interesting as the important documents like the complaint or key motions.

The reason for the 10c/page PACER fee is to support the digital infrastructure required to provide it; Congress controls the budget for the federal courts an is notoriously stingy - perhaps because many members of Congress are unenthusiastic about funding another branch of government that has the power to strike down legislation - see for an overview of the funding picture [http://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative...](http://www.americanbar.org/advocacy/governmental_legislative_work/priorities_policy/independence_of_the_judiciary/federal- court-funding.html)

State courts are a whole different ball of wax. Some have everything online, others don't.

One other thing to be aware of is that if you're interested in a particular case and you want to know what happened at trial - with all the exciting (?) cross-examination and 'Objection! overruled,' moments the court transcript is _not_ an official court document. The court reporters who produce them are hired by the attorneys and they charge a small fortune for copies. Now, because the trial is public domain the transcripts are almost certainly in the public domain too (this is law in the 10th circuit and I don't think it has been contested elsewhere). So if you can find a copy of the transcript on PACER* or one of the parties' websites, you're likely free to use it. The court doesn't hire reporters because they charge a lot - it's a very skilled job that's not so easy to automate as you might think - and the transcript only has legal value in the event of an appeal, whose benefit would accrue to one or other of the parties rather than the court itself.

Some courts have audio recordings of the trial available for free or relatively cheap, and many appeals courts, including the US Supreme Court, have recordings of oral arguments that are available for free. As data storage becomes increasingly cheap then full audio copies of trial proceedings will probably become the norm, but if you are listening to one then you'll quickly realize why court reporters charge so much.

* You probably won't find it on PACER because appellate courts generally don't want or need to see the entire trial record, but sometimes you can. Be careful if you do, transcripts often run for hundreds of pages and you'll be billed accordingly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> If the lawsuit does succeed in getting the song declared public domain, I wonder how strong a case any past licensees have to recover the fees they paid for what turns out to be nothing?

<comment><USER30> I doubt it. The courts generally aren't kind to people making these sort of ex post facto claims.

I wish there was a punishment for companies that steal from the public domain. I would also apply this punishment to congressmen that continue to extend copyright durations well past the point of sanity.

<comment> dev-da0 This would require applying a patchset to the political-moral operating system. Bernie Sanders 2016. ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> The happy birthday song (or at least it's melody with some localized words) is very popular even in non English countries and the fact that everybody knows it makes it super easy to get people join in singing. But, it's been a mixed blessing. We have been trying to change this and it really makes an extra effort to introduce and get established nice local celebration song in our mother tongue.

</comment><comment><USER32> How does copyright law work internationally? Could the song be in the public domain in other countries, or does the fact that it originated in the US mean that US copyright law applies internationally?

<comment><USER33> I don't think the law follows the work. Rather the law follows the jurisdiction, if that's the term.

There are international agreements of how such laws should work, but Not all countries has a concept of public domain, or fair use for that matter.

In Sweden copyright is split in two parts, such that the economic right (the right to produce copies or publically perform the work) is transferable and lasts for limited amounts of time (life plus 70-years for the work as such, or 50-years for a given rendering, an album f.ex.).

The moral rights isn't transferable and never expires. These include the authors right to be credited for the work, and also include the states right to interfere if the cultural interest of the work is threatened (no idea what this would entail, or if this has ever been invoked).

</comment></comment><comment> dev-da0 This implies that any public performance on a stage of Happy Birthday to You recorded or not, is subject to licensing fees or fines. This is bloody nuts. Enough is enough!</comment>


Slot-based UI development in Swift - <AUTHOR> https://www.swiftbysundell.com/posts/slot-based-ui-development-in-swift <comment><USER2> Auto-layout really does introduce nightmarish levels of verbosity when you try to do layout in code.

I hope that Apple one day takes inspiration from Sundell's "Autolayout DSL" and comes up with a more lightweight syntax!

<comment><USER3> Comparing:

        label.topAnchor.constraint(equalTo: button.bottomAnchor, constant: 20),

and:

        $0.top == button.bottomAnchor + 20

(Sundell's first example), I'm not seeing a 'nightmare'. It's twice as long but it still fits on one line (the way I format it), and it's only a linear problem (2N vs N), and it only occurs for a few lines of one method of some classes. For people who care, it's possible to write extensions (as Sundell does) to solve it.

There's definitely abstractions that are nightmarish to try to build in Swift and AppKit/UIKit, but I don't think this is one of them.

<comment><USER4> > abstractions ... nightmarish ... Swift and AppKit/UIKit

What would those be? Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER5> Core Data comes to mind, especially when dealing with multi-threading scenarios. For new projects, I switched to a thin wrapper around SQLite (SQLite.swift) and never looked back.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: How common is co-founder break-up at pre-launch startup? - <AUTHOR> Working on an early stage start-up now and everything that can go wrong, seem to go wrong. One co-founder recently bailed, another (part-time) co-founder isn't willing to go all-in. I've been blaming myself for this, particularly my judgment of who to work with.<p>How common is this? Would love to hear some thoughts and hopefully, encouragement! <comment><USER2> I can't find the exact source, but I recall YC/Paul Graham saying that co- founders are the hardest part. Break ups early on are likely. It's so hard that it's probably the biggest factor an investor looks for; it's like how real estate investors look for location. You can change the type of building, but not the location. And you can pivot a startup, but not the founders. Hiring employees is hard, finding co-founders is harder.

My first business was done with a former best friend, the type I'd trust with my life. But these things happen. People have different values or priorities. And some don't commit fully. We had different values - he wanted a Ferrari and I wanted to create high quality jobs. He wanted something to boast about to friends, and I wanted something that wouldn't be a part of my identity.

Eventually met a great co-founder - he was a stranger I bought a book from via Facebook. When I asked him to be my co-founder, that was the second time I met him in person.

It's a lot like dating and marriage. Every mentor I met put it that way. It's a mix of luck and hard work that puts you in a position to be lucky. Some people get lucky early, some never, most never really figure it out. Eventually you just settle for someone who isn't perfect, and a big part of it working is to put in the effort to make it work.

It also only works if you're a giver and find someone who is similar. If you're the type who takes as much as you can (most people in business and elite jobs are), it's going to be really tough. There's just too much gray area, too many prisoner's dilemmas.

</comment><comment><USER3> Very common, especially with friends. Everyone goes through these pains. It's easier to talk than to walk. Don't be so hard on yourself about it, just adapt and move on :)</comment>


How to make a friend fast - <AUTHOR> https://happyturtlethings.net/how-to-make-a-friend-fast/ <comment><USER3> Maybe it's because I find this research area intriguing, but I did not think that this summary adequately captured the efforts of the original paper [0].

I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal "was to develop a temporary feeling of closeness, not an actual ongoing relationship".

Additionally, like many social psychology studies the nuances of the design and methodology are extremely valuable, yet this piece deems them as "dry" and mostly "devoid of enthusiasm". Anyone who has contributed to the design of substantial social psychology studies can tell you just how carefully each of these details is considered in design, implementation, and analysis. The original article [0] is full of detail, context, and discussion, and is definitely worth a read.

[0] [https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/fall...](https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/falling_in_love- aron.pdf)

<comment><USER4> >I think it was unfortunate that this piece did not begin by conveying that the original study's authors specifically state their goal

Except that they began the piece by conveying exactly that:

>But it's a far stretch to say that such an accomplishment truly creates reliably long-lasting relationships, regardless of the immense immediate effect.

<comment><USER5> What seems to be missing is actually mentioning that it was the opinion of the original authors, as well.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Makes enough sense to me...

If you don't know anything about anybody... like the homeless man rummaging through my recycling bin right now looking for bottles... It's easy to look down on them or just write them off.

But if a neighbour told me anything about that same man... perhaps that he lost his job last year and thus just tries to supplement his income by picking up bottles in his spare time... I would feel immense sorrow even just looking at that man (who is still a stranger to me). Enough so that I would probably offer him some extra cash and a bite to eat if I had it.

I witnessed a man break into my neighbor's house the other day... which enraged me at first (what if it were my house?!) but when I saw the man who did it... I immediately felt sorry for him.

This was a desperate, dirty, homeless man with a smile on his face as the police dragged him away. He was probably just looking for some shelter to sleep that night.

The house that he "broke into" did admittedly look abandoned. And I found myself trying to justify the reasons that he might have tried to break into the house, rather than hating him silently.

All because I got a look at him.

<comment><USER7> Lack of resources can make the kindest, most altruistic person behave in extremely ugly, selfish ways.

You don't know who someone is until you see them go through poverty. Also, you don't know who you are yourself until you experience that terrible feeling of scarcity.

For me, greed is the worst human attribute. When I see rich people being greedy, I find it hard to imagine how much worse they would be as human beings if they were poor.

<comment><USER8> > _You don 't know who someone is until you see them go through poverty._

The inverse is also true: you don't know who someone is until a) they get rich and/or powerful (and change), b) you go to poverty (and e.g. they prove to be only "fair weather friends").

And I would just more harshly someone who reveals themselves to do bad things or be a bad friend when they get rich or when you get poor, than someone doing bad stuff when THEY get poor.

Because desperation can force one to do things they don't want or like (like borrow money and not give it back or even steal), but the others don't have that excuse.

<comment><USER9> I think we vastly underestimate how much of an affect our environment-the circumstances we find ourselves in—has on us.

Different aspects of our personality are revealed, or developed(?), in different settings. Temperature, time of day, how tense our muscles / tendons feel, how well we sleep, I think we underestimate how much all of these contribute to what we call 'personality'.

<comment><USER8> > _I think we underestimate how much all of these contribute to what we call > 'personality'._

I agree.

But there are still people who are not changed much in important qualities despite big changes in their circumstances (e.g. from poor to rich, or from obscurity to fame or power, or vise versa) and others who change behavior totally with the subtlest of life changes.

(E.g. now got a more high paying job, let me dump my lower earning friends for people more to my class).

<comment><USER10> Just watch out that they dropped their poor friends for the reason everyone expects.

I don't give a fuck if someone is rich or not, and I have a number of poor friends[1], but I made the conscious decision to cut out friends that I wouldn't befriend if I met them today. Many of the people I cut were poor, but it's not why I cut them. I cut them because they stopped growing after or during highschool. When I talk about politics or society I don't want to feel constrained. I don't want to have to explain things like the catch up effect. I don't want come over with an expensive scotch and have people mix it with Coca Cola.

I understand that labour mobility and the internet have lead to a fracturing of society into different enclaves of intellectual and (usually) fiscal subgroups, but I don't want the only reason I'm hanging out with former highschool friends to be that I read Coming Apart and I'm worried about social cohesion. It's too high of a price.

[1] Most of them are either PhD candidates or in a profession that they love that just generally doesn't pay well, like Singer Songwriter. To me and I feel to most people that cut their social group sometime in their 20s or early 30s class or culture is the critical distinction, not wealth.

<comment><USER8> > _I don 't want come over with an expensive scotch and have people mix it > with Coca Cola._

Well, on the other hand, I don't want to be "friends" with people who judge me by my knowledge of drinking etiquette.

Who gives a duck for how one drinks an "expensive scotch" (sic) compared to friendship?

I'm not sure what bond was broken when someone upgraded friends based on how they treated an expensive scotch, but it was no real friendship from that person's end.

While above says "I don't give a fuck if someone is rich or not", the whole criteria seems to be "they're out of my new social class and don't share its interests and pastimes" \-- in fact, you openly admit class plays a big role. So it's not about "being rich", but about having brought up and/or behaving as a rich person -- same difference.

>* It's too high of a price.*

The price of keeping a friend like a real friend would do, despite their lack of sophistication?

<comment><USER10> You're focusing too much on one small demonstrative aspect that I shouldn't have even bothered to include because it misses the point.

I have friends with unsophisticated tastes, but they have other aspects that are laudable and interesting. For example I have a friend that works as a stage actor in Toronto. He doesn't have sophisticated tastes, but he's passionate about art and we can discuss aspects of each others work and get mutual enjoyment.

Something I didn't mention in my original comment is that I grew up in a strange part of Canada: Georgetown, Ontario. Georgetown had the last KKK march in Canadian history, it still to this day has not implemented public transit because of fears of enabling people of Pakistani origin, it is the headquarters for Jehovah Witness for Canada, etc.

Why should I continue to befriend people that are mildly to moderately racist. That send me Mary Kay emails. That organize bachelor party cottage weekends knowing full well that I personally find prostitution and stripping disgusting (though I think it should be legal) and purposely hide the fact that they used some of my funds to hire escorts for the weekend. Funds they said would be used for beers and spirits that we recommended on the Facebook event only to buy bud light and Canada Club. "Friends" that waste my time by calling me and asking me if PayPal is a good way of taking money online (I say "no, use Stripe) only to find out that they're involved in some sort of $20 contest on the side of a cereal box and they don't really respect my opinion anyway, they just want to hear that what they want to be true. "Friends" that bitch about high taxes, immigrants, and haven't even done the basic work of thinking through how they would be without public healthcare or how they wouldn't be in the country if their parents didn't come here from Holland in the 50s. But that's ok right, because Dutch people are white. "Friends" that are against same-sex marriage. "Friends" I've never talked to about being Bi and what their supposedly Christian viewpoint would mean for me if I ever wanted to marry a man.

I have nothing in common with these people anymore.

You're right though, it is about class and I'm not so deluded or dishonest to say otherwise. But class isn't wealth, even if it is correlated with it. I demand more out of myself and others and I shouldn't be friends with people just out of loyalty. I should be friends with people because I love them and because I respect them. And history counts for something, but it isn't everything.

<comment><USER11> > I personally find prostitution and stripping disgusting (though I think it > should be legal)

seems like they are one "kind of person" and you are a another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> After a two year period of watching my boss interact with people, I can confirm that this method works extremely well.

He is a "natural", in the sense that he can form close bonds with people incredibly quickly. At first I thought he was using some sort of secret strategy, but after a while I noticed that he was simply sharing personal details about himself (which the article refers to as "self-disclosure") without being prompted, which encourages, and in fact compels, the other side to reciprocate.

Here is an example conference call conversation from two weeks ago, in fact, in which we were chatting with a potential client to schedule a meeting. Bob is my boss:

\--

 _Bob: Okay. Let 's have an in-person meeting next week. What day works best for you?

Client: How about Thursday at 2?

Bob: Sounds great. You know, I'm glad you didn't say Wednesday because I have to be with my two little girls that day, and I definitely could not miss that. They mean the world to me.

Client: Oh yeah, I understand. In fact I can relate... I have a daughter myself!_

\--

And then when we actually met in person this past Thursday, the topic of their daughters was a natural conversation point.

In contrast, I tend to be fairly reserved when it comes to sharing personal info. I like to stay on topic and dislike what I perceive as derails. The above conversation for me would have gone like this:

\--

 _Me: Okay. Let 's have an in-person meeting next week. What day works best for you?

Client: How about Thursday?

Me: Sounds great. See you on Thursday at 2 PM._

\--

Similar, but also very different.

<comment><USER13> Good luck doing that in Germany without being seeing as a weird egomaniac

<comment><USER14> Yeah I'm not German (except by ancestry) and I get really uncomfortable when conversations go like that. Why is this guy trying to convince me he's such a great dad? What's his angle with that? I would definitely not take something like that as a sincere "personal disclosure" from someone I'd never met. I'd take it as more like a greasy salesman tactic.

<comment><USER15> I don't know if you're familiar with the title (it's a classic on the subject), but my understanding is that, in China, Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is sold under the title: "The Weaknesses of Human Nature."

One more anecdote about that book. In his Playboy interview, Marlon Brando referred to it as "a book on hustling."

I bring this up because for some crazy reason, in the United States, this kind of "interpersonal communications" stuff is promoted as a great thing. And yet, like you say, it boils down to a person having an angle. I read that book when I was a freshman in college and thought it was fantastic. A little while later though I read the Marlon Brando interview, and after my initial shock I realized that he was basically right.

For every individual who develops a "genuine interest in other people" (as the book implores its readers to do), there have to be five or ten others who read that book and think only how it will help them make a buck.

At least the Chinese are unsentimental about it.

<comment><USER16> However Carnegie doesn't advocate self-disclosure. Quite the opposite - <USER2> advises shutting up about yourself (and your organization, product, etc.) and listening to the other person.

<comment><USER17> That's the way I understood his writings as well. The older I get the more I disagree on that. It is just as important to share and position one's own identity and actively communicate it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality ( [http://www.hpmor.com](http://www.hpmor.com) ), Chapter 7:

""" _Draco giggled. "Yeah, right. Anyway... to answer what you asked..." Draco took a deep breath, and his face turned serious. "Father once missed a Wizengamot vote for me. I was on a broom and I fell off and broke a lot of ribs. It really hurt. I'd never hurt that much before and I thought I was going to die. So Father missed this really important vote, because he was there by my bed at St. Mungo's, holding my hands and promising me that I was going to be okay."_

 _Harry glanced away uncomfortably, then, with an effort, forced himself to look back at Draco. "Why are you telling me that? It seems sort of... private..."_

 _Draco gave Harry a serious look. "One of my tutors once said that people form close friendships by knowing private things about each other, and the reason most people don't make close friends is because they're too embarrassed to share anything really important about themselves." Draco turned his palms out invitingly. "Your turn?""""_

<comment><USER19> First thing that came to my head! Got linked this fanfic on hackaday ~5 days ago and could not stop reading despite not being a Potter fan.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Word of warning: This is a social psychology study from 1997. There's been a lot of evidence lately that social psychology the way it's been done in the past is a huge mess and calling it pseudoscience isn't that far off. The field is only at the beginning of cleaning up that mess.

Any study that old that hasn't been replicated with rigorous scientific standards is about as valuable as a magazine horoscope.

<comment><USER21> Hi, can you point us to some up to date research ?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> _Does that mean that some close, naturally-forming relationships don 't get nurtured as lovingly as was achieved in a 45-minute conversation?_

As one more random data point: I am a chatty extravert. Sometimes people imagine they are close to me when they are not.

<comment><USER23> > Sometimes people imagine they are close to me when they are not.

Ah yes, my greatest fear interacting with people confirmed.

<comment><USER24> That's one of the attachment types referenced in the original article. "I am uncomfortable being without close relationships, but I sometimes worry that others don't value me as much as I value them."

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Anxious.E...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Attachment_in_adults#Anxious.E2.80.93preoccupied)

<comment><USER25> Are these types widely acknowledged? To me it looks like the Barnum-effect is at work.

<comment><USER26> Attachment theory has a sound experimental basis, and is the dominant model used in the study of child behaviour. Its use with adults is less dominant, but is still very much mainstream psychological practice.

<comment><USER25> Thanks for the clarification. I might should look into some issues then ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Interesting how this psychology paper showed up in the context of "making a friend." I had only known of this study as a way of creating romantic relationship, through a NYT Modern Love piece "To Fall in Love With Anyone, Do this."

The method is hardly fast though - it requires two people to set aside a good chunk of time in a quiet setting to fully experience the gradual escalation of self-disclosure. When trying out this method in real life, what about the fact that you chose that one person to try this with? The reasons behind that choice would contribute much a successful result of this method but still left unexplained.

<comment><USER28> I went through all the questions with 3 other people in the same room all at once about 5-6 years ago. I did not know any of them well. We all became friends and are still friends to this day. It was like magic.

<comment><USER29> How did it come to pass?

<comment><USER28> One of the other three suggested it, not sure why, and then we did it.

For each question we would take turns answering it. We were allowed to say, "Pass," if the question made us too uncomfortable or, if we couldn't think of a good answer fast enough, we could pass and come back to it after everyone else had answered.

We were already at the level of acquaintances, close enough to be at the same location, hanging out, but I didn't trust any of them yet, and they barely knew me.

<comment><USER30> Did you hang out with other groups of people who you're no longer friends with?

I wonder also if it might be commitment to the experience as much as the experience itself that affirms the bond and establishes a platform for ongoing friendship.

<comment><USER28> _Did you hang out with other groups of people who you 're no longer friends with?_

Yes? One person in particular, I became friends with them extremely quickly about 2 years ago. There was no contrived questionnaire involved, we just clicked, but after one falling out, the bridge was completely burned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I can't help but note that A. Aron was the lead writer. You done messed up!

<comment><USER32> Good one. Not many people are going to get this joke, Key and Peele fan. :)

<comment><USER33> All of us named Aaron will, though.

For those who aren't, or are and somehow haven't yet had this pointed out: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dd7FixvoKBw)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> You can see this played out every day in designated smoking areas. I've observed smokers tend to become friends quickly. As smoking is increasingly frowned upon, everybody who shows up in the smoking area is sort of opening up and sharing a weakness with the other smokers just by being there.

<comment><USER35> It existed before the non-smokers called it a weakness. It's called assuming you have something in common with your fellow man, and being willing to make small talk under only that pretense.

Source: two weeks into quitting.

<comment><USER36> I'm 78 days and 3 hours into it. There's not a day where I don't miss it, but there are no more cravings at this point. Just the good memories :P

Stay strong!

<comment><USER37> Almost 7 years. You won't think about it unless you smell it... then you miss it a bit, but just a bit.

You might put on a few pounds too as you start to actually taste food.

<comment><USER38> >You might put on a few pounds too as you start to actually taste food.

TL;DR How to Make a Friend Fast -- (1) smoke with them, so when they quit and need to drop a few pounds (2) they'll start fasting.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I think I might have permanently damaged my vision with that #FFF on #000 color scheme. I still see text floating in the air.

<comment><USER40> What, really? I'm relieved it's not the #EEE on #FFF combo that seems so popular these days.

<comment><USER39> Give me #CCC on #222 any day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "Low ego-identity makes same-sex pairs closer, high ego-identity makes cross- sex pairs closer"

Perhaps this statement is true, but is the end goal for both parties the same?

For some reason, I find myself befriending mainly females (I am male). Yes, I have a high ego. However, I can never tell if the other person is interested in a friendship or something more. I always want to put them in the friend zone, but I have awkward situations in the recent past where these friends have either made subtle and not-so subtle advances. I am not interested in anything more than friendship. I do not want to lead anyone on. So yes, perhaps that pairing works well, but is friendship the goal?

In addition, males tend to bond during "experiences", so what I have been seeking as of late is more male friendships. Other males are more inclined to go on multi-day backpacking adventures. According to this study, males with low-ego are likely to become friends, but I seek high ego/high energy friends.

<comment><USER42> Don't bother. You aren't going to enjoy yourself as much long term by surrounding yourself with high-ego people; there'll be too much needless conflict and it won't be worth the emotional effort after the fact.

Instead, go for high energy but less ego. At the start deflate your own for their benefit, let your guard down; essentially "putting yourself out". Come down to their level for the first few outings.

Once you have their trust you can back off (slowly) so you don't seem fake or patronizing; if they say something or notice a change in their behavior be honest with them: explain how it's been difficult to make friends with shared interests. Hopefully they will trust you enough to look past any perceived slight and continue the friendship.

You may still need to be conscious of your ego or energy level if there's a big group disparity, you don't want to be singled out because they perceive you as difficult and them have the rest bond over that.

<comment><USER43> > being difficult and have the group bond over that.

or, the sociopath way, which is even faster: identify the group difficult subject and join the pileup on it without adding new opinions but just reflecting and circulating those of others in the group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> This is fascinating. I have for a long time been the introverted socially incompetent and weird (partially) one.

A lot of that has changed for me recently. Going to Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu for a year now and doing more yoga has really helped me to figure out a lot of traumatic issues from the past, especially with racism during childhood.

It's really reduced my fear of socializing with people. I'm now somewhere in between extrovert and introvert and I've noticed that self-disclosure happens a lot more and interactions have improved with strangers. Even small talk happens now and then. I've always hated small talk.

I don't like the extrovert/introvert/attachment type labelling though. Reading on them or discussing them with others has some kind of effect of boxing you in to self-limiting thought patterns. It can be a good starting point to figure things out, but I implore people to not think you're stuck in your ways.

<comment><USER45> i just want to point out the danger of associating introversion with social incompetence because the association is a poorly realized stereotype. it is entirely possible and not uncommon for an introvert to be highly socially competent.

introversion and extroversion are more descriptors of how one handles mental energy than ratings of social competence and degrees of shyness.

for example, i can be very social and outgoing at parties, but they completely exhaust me, and i don't like them. i am introverted because i prefer to direct my mental energy in a more inward, reflective way, and any process that impedes that (e.g., a party) can be very exhausting. it has little to do with how well i can handle myself socially.

<comment><USER46> A good example is Audrey Hepburn. Movie star, UNICEF Ambassador, yet she said,

 _"I have to be alone very often. I 'd be quite happy if I spent from Saturday night until Monday morning alone in my apartment. That's how I refuel."_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> Not sure I agree that "agreement on important issues" should be on the "things that don't matter" section.

I know that stuff in particular matters big time to me, even just for friends. My closest friends tend to see the world very similarly to me than people I am much less close with. In fact, more often than not I end up pruning out the people that think drastically differently than I do. Most of the time this just happens naturally because I tend to be more wary about what I say and talk about once I know someone is extremely different than me. My spidey sense puts me on high alert and I basically enter a super-PC, "what every word that comes out of your mouth" mode. Occasionally, I deliberately reduce interactions and they go from being a close friend to being just a casual friend or acquaintance.

<comment><USER48> It seems you didn't wait social networks to live in a bubble ;)

<comment><USER49> Or living a life with interpersonal conflicts over topics is not something that they enjoy?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Does anyone know what is meant by "high ego identities" and "low ego identities?"

<comment><USER51> I was wondering this too. I'm pretty sure I have both.

For instance, I fundamentally think I'm pretty great when compared to any "average person." And even most "high-functioning" people. However, I realize that talent is essentially meaningless in the grand scheme of things without tons of social proof you're always perceived as a nobody, so I still work my ass off and try not to let my own aptitude go to my head.

Is that high-ego or low-ego?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Here's the paper cited in the lower left corner of the graphic (and in the text above, I now see):

[https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/fall...](https://psychodramaaustralia.edu.au/sites/default/files/falling_in_love- aron.pdf)

which only caught my eye because of the "A. Aron" author. I'm almost certain this is the husband of Elaine Aron, who launched the identification, qualifier, and description of the "Highly Sensitive Person" (HSP).

[http://hsperson.com/](http://hsperson.com/)

Arthur's paper is dated 1997, while Elaine's first book on the HSP type was published in 1996. Which I find to be an interesting correlation in time.

More recently, Elaine has (in my limited knowledge) been focusing on the concept of "ranking and [or, versus] linking".

[https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attending-the- undervalu...](https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/attending-the-undervalued- self/201001/ranking-and-linking-better-and-worse)

The OP topic here reminds me somewhat of her perspective on linking.

<comment><USER53> > [http://hsperson.com/](http://hsperson.com/)

So I went there, and read the 8 bullet points under "Is this you?" and then I thought, well yeah, that applies to everyone!

Here's one: "Do you get rattled when you have a lot to do in a short amount of time?"

That's a "Barnum Statement" [1]

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#.22Barnum_statem...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnum_effect#.22Barnum_statements.22)

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> "Low ego-identity makes same-sex pairs closer, high ego-identity makes cross- sex pairs closer"

Can confirm. Over the years I minimised the amount of same sex friends in my life dramatically.

</comment><comment><USER55> Oh come on. It's not like anyone needs a lesson in these kinds of things.

<bookmarks page>

</comment><comment><USER56> What were the gradually escalating intimate questions asked?

</comment><comment><USER57> Personally, I find the recipe of kindness, honesty, laughter, generosity, loyalty, plus a bit of magic to be both practically effective and somewhat philosophically profound.

</comment><comment><USER58> I read this as how to convince a friend to start intermittent fasting.

</comment><comment><USER59> I clicked thinking this was about making a friend go without eating

<comment><USER60> same!

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Are there really 'high-ego'/'low-ego' individuals? Is it not a spectrum over time? Is it not controllable to some degree?

How is this different than toning down the ego a notch when trying to make platonic friends, while trying to be confident when looking to make romantic partners?

<comment><USER8> > _Are there really 'high-ego'/'low-ego' individuals? Is it not a spectrum > over time? Is it not controllable to some degree?_

Obviously it's a kind of a spectrum, but at the same time, there definitely also are low ego and high ego individuals, whose ego, even if their fluctuates, it remains high or low relative to the average person.

</comment></comment><comment><USER62> That reads like the instructions on pick-up artist forums.

<comment><USER63> Really? Does it? "Find a person, learn about each other's personal lives, gradually escalate," sounds like some 'the red-pill' nonsense to you?

<comment><USER64> That phrase is easily modified to take on a darker tone: "find a person, learn about each other's personal lives, gradually escalate to sleeping with them" makes me cautious. The very notion that it's possible for one person to engineer closeness has echoes within the pickup artist community, so it's worth unpacking the differences.

If one person has zero interest in the other person past as a means to a very specific end (sex), and is wholly untruthful about that, then it veers away from scientific study of friendship and closeness.

Taking it a step further: "find a person, learn about their personal life, exploit their weaknesses, escalate to sleeping with them" is definitely red- pill territory, and while it might be unfair to judge the original phrase after being modified, the only difference is the knowledge and intentions of one party within an unchanged process.

"Learning about each other's personal lives" has a strong assumption that the stories themselves are truthful and without pretense past a socially- acceptable normal level as human beings.

<comment><USER65> Interest depends on context. Just because someone isn't interested in someone at first, doesn't mean they won't be after meeting them again.

Would you say the same thing about introducing people to food? I have a friend that hates steak because every time he had it, it was cooked well done.

It wasn't until I took to to a good steak place that he completely changed his mind. Did I manipulate him? Or just show him another way?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> White letters on black background... my eyes are still seeing those letters. Is it just me?

</comment><comment><USER67> the author fails to mention that certain many things need to be in place first before you even have the first interaction that leads to potential close friendship...first impression elements such as streotype, prejudice, culture, assumptions, expectations, attraction, etc are all split second decisions we make that can affect how the interaction will go or if there is ever going to be interaction to begin with...the article completely ignores these aspects which are important specially in diverse multi cultural envrionments

</comment><comment><USER68> That would be absolutely unreadable if not for firefox "Reader View" feature. Picture is still unreadable, of course.

</comment><comment><USER69> " _These manipulative geniuses chose a handful of university-level psychology classes early in the semester, divided the student volunteers (who didn 't know each other) in pairs, and asked them to engage in an exercise designed to increase their closeness._"

Psychology is the study of the psychology of psychology undergraduates.

" _Those with dismissive-avoidant personalities didn 't get as close_

" _The dismissive-avoidant is one of the attachment types in the study of social attachment in adults. It pertains to people who feel more comfortable without close social relationships, highly value their independence, they suppress and hide their feelings, and deal with rejection by distancing themselves from its source. The other personality types in adult attachments include secure, and two other insecure types: anxious-preoccupied and fearful- avoidant. These three personality types all reported on a higher (and similar) level of closeness achieved than the dismissive-avoidants._ "

Well, that lets me out, then.

<comment><USER70> > The dismissive-avoidant is one of the attachment types in the study of > social attachment in adults.

I've always wondered whether attachment style is not so much a function of the individual, but a function of the interaction between two individuals, where each party plays a role. I can think of many people that I am "secure" with, and others who I am "avoidant" with.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> Let me hazard a guess, study done mostly with American subjects and majority of them being white.

I would love to see a qualifier like "How to make a friend fast in America?"

<comment><USER72> Go get butt hurt somewhere else. You have no idea whether that is true so why can't you leave your mouth shut and enjoy the potential implications of the study.

<comment><USER71> The implications of the study are useful only in certain contexts, it is not universal. You can't talk about your intimate feelings to a stranger of the opposite sex in Saudi Arabia, for example.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I have seen so much information on the benefits of intermittent fasting lately, I interpreted this headline as "How to stop a friend from eating" =)

</comment><comment><USER73> The flowchart in the beginning is very heteronormative. :(

<comment><USER74> Yeah I'm not sure that's the best way to go about it. Gender plays little-to- no role in being friends with someone. I'm too old to let sexual whatever get in the way (and too committed to the one person that seems to love me just as I am).

<comment><USER30> Sex [noun] absolutely plays a role in friendship. The intimacy of sexual relationship is a pertinent difference to a relationship the possibility of which changes the way people interact across the sexes. It may not be (as) pertinent to those who're bisexual/asexual/whatever.

You appear to intimate that if you were younger and unattached sex would pay a role, but that at odds with your 2nd sentence. Perhaps you could expand on your reasoning?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> I'd add one more question under Closeness-Generating Procedure: "What important truth do very few people agree with you on?"

</comment><comment><USER76> Does this person write their n's and m's upside down? I can barely read their handwriting, it's really odd...

Does it say freud? I assume it's meant to say friend...

Does it say watters? I'm assuming it's trying to say matters?

It took me about a minute or two to deduce these meanings though...

</comment><comment><USER77> lock them up and dont give them any food

</comment><comment><USER78> What software was used to make this nice diagram?

</comment><comment><USER79> Steal his lunch?

<comment><USER30> I know you're being humorous but it might work - creates a situation in which you can console them, then offer help. Maybe from the CIA playbook of "creating a quick connection"?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> This reminds me of that scene in Silicon Valley where Bertram tells Dinesh he can make a friend just as good as his friend. Someone told me a while ago if you want to have a personal connection you have to be personable yourself and tell someone something honest and truthful. I've had much better luck since then. The middle box on this diagram is good advice.

</comment><comment><USER81> Added to my daily flash cards

<comment><USER82> Interesting. How are you using flash cards in this sense, can you provide some more details please?

<comment><USER81> The main point is to not let myself be basically formed by (just) whatever I see on internet / tv / reddit / hackernews / etc. but also what I personally find valuable to increase / decrease myself on that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER83> Things like this are why people laugh at Silicon Valley, this is a very aspie/robotic approach to this topic.

<comment><USER84> What's interesting to note is that no matter how you dress it up, human beings are indeed biological machines and respond in surprisingly predictable ways. The companies which specialize in data gathering and analysis are increasingly able to corroborate this observation with concrete examples and algorithms. It's of course a tautology, but "normal" social interactions are just that: a set of arbitrary norms. Normal people are just as robotic as aspies in the sense that they mechanically respond to stimulus, except that we've collectively agreed on a delineation between what is considered robotic and what isn't.

It sounds abstract but you can immediately understand the idea simply by describing human behavior in literal terms and focus on the feeling of unease you experience from doing so.

Besides, if people manage to build strong connections with the scientific method, is that really so bad?

<comment><USER85> > What's interesting to note is that no matter how you dress it up, human > beings are indeed biological machines and respond in surprisingly > predictable ways.

Is that why people that use a process to try and explain what people will do are nearly always wrong? Economics, politics, etc. People do respond to basic triggers of biology, but we have very little understanding of these trigger and where they originate from.

<comment><USER84> It will certainly be interesting to see if data analysis can garner a greater understanding of these triggers over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Hmm, I guess 'extrovert' is an acceptable spelling nowadays, even though it's the wrong Latin root.

<comment><USER87> Both "extrovert" and "extravert" are correct. Contemporary language use does not always care about latin, however sorry I am for that.

But the author of this post goes even further, and uses both spellings in the same sentence!

 _In extravert-introvert pairs, extroverts report on greater closeness than introverts_

That can't be right...

<comment><USER88> Is intravert correct? I have to know if it's that symmetrical.

<comment><USER86> No, 'intravert' is not correct AFAIK</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Launch HN: Warp 10 – The Most Advanced Time Series Platform - <AUTHOR> Hi HN community,
Warp 10 is an open-source platform designed to collect, store, and analyze sensor and Time Series data. It is both a Time Series Database and an associated analytics environment.
Warp 10 goes beyond simple Time Series by supporting Geo Time Series which results from the fusion of a Time Series of sensor readings with the location of the sensor at each measurement.
The analytics environment offered by Warp 10 is based on a data flow programming language called WarpScript. With a number of available functions approaching 1000, WarpScript makes Warp 10, The Most Advanced Time Series Platform.
==> Warp 10 Storage Engine The Time Series Database provided by Warp 10 is called the Warp 10 Storage Engine. Here are some of its features: - Support for the Geo Time Series data model support - Built for performance and scalability - Secure by design, strong authentication/authorization - Use of standard protocols and formats for ease of use - Different versions for different scales - Distributed
==> Warp 10 Analytics Environment The analytics environment offers a data flow programming language called WarpScript with over 1000 functions tailor made for time series data.
The analytics environment smoothly integrates with existing tools and ecosystems with strong compatibility with everything Hadoop.
Through extension mechanisms, the WarpScript language can be used on time series data hosted in any storage layer, from SQL databases to object stores, including any time series database.
If you want to take a look at the sources: https://github.com/senx/warp10-p...
View Warp 10 on ProductHunt: https://www.producthunt.com/posts/warp-10
==> Check it out and let us know what you think about it! <comment><USER2> [https://github.com/senx/warp10-platform](https://github.com/senx/warp10-platform)</comment>


Clipboard API for browsers is inconsistent - <AUTHOR> https://rushter.com/blog/clipboard-api/ <comment><USER2> This is somewhat of an internet axiom. All browser APIs are inconsistent. That's why web devs hate their lifes. Nowadays, it's smooth sailing, as you have about 3 browser engines to deal with. Around a decade ago, it was double that, and a load of bugs.</comment>