Gun laws where guns take the most lives - <AUTHOR> https://latinamericareports.com/gun-laws-where-guns-take-the-most-lives <comment><USER2> The debate here has focused on guns as the problem. Guns are not the problem, they are an expression of the problem. To quote the article: "The Economist stated that rapid urbanisation and inequalities in wealth distribution were some of the largest factors in violent crime, and as one of the most unequal countries on the planet, Brazil backs up this claim." I think this statement applies to Mexico and other Latin American countries, to varying extents.

Removing guns from the streets may reduce gun deaths, but the violence will probably remain as long as the underlying social injustices are not addressed.

<comment><USER3> Guns are like a megaphone for violence. Violent people will still exist but their reach is far less with a knife

<comment><USER4> You are a bit quieter with a knife though. A gun gives you away immedietly to all around you unless you have a silencer but those arent so easy to get in the USA (class 3 if I remember correctly).

In England people get knifed and who can know?

And if its not a knife it will be a car, power tools, planes, boats, pushing someone off of a building. I rather retain my right to protect myself from crazies and die trying than be disadvantaged compared to criminals who wont follow the law...

Having gone to the range here in the US I gotta say its not as easy as most think. You have rules amongst people who handle fire arms you must follow or get banned from a range. I am convinced after my experience that a bad actor is already mentally unstable and will kill someone they intend to regardless of guns or not. How many US serial murderers didnt we have that didnt use guns anyway?

A gun is a tool. Anybody can use a tool correctly and anybody can use a tool incorrectly. Any tool can be bought legally and illegally. People who do not follow laws will have an advantage against those who do in terms of available tools.

As others in the thread have said people dont think of getting a gun to murder they think of murder and then consider their options.

Worse yet: Oppresive governments usually take away the rights of citizens to defend themselves before they begin total oppression of the people. Just ask Venezuelans who has guns there...

<comment><USER5> _A gun is a tool. Anybody can use a tool correctly and anybody can use a tool incorrectly. Any tool can be bought legally and illegally. People who do not follow laws will have an advantage against those who do in terms of available tools._

A gun is a tool, but it is a tool with one use; wounding and killing organisms. A gun when used correctly, as designed and intended, is a ranged lethal weapon. A knife or a hammer, a car, or even a flamethrower have uses which don't involve hurting or killing anything, and your point stands for them. If you're killing someone with a car, you've misused your tool, but if you kill with a gun you've used it correctly.

<comment><USER6> > A gun is a tool, but it is a tool with one use; wounding and killing > organisms.

This is kind of true, it depends on the ammo used of course.

However I think they have multiple uses, and from what I have seen they are mostly used as a deterrent and sometimes as a compliance tool.

If it's a pistol on the hip of an armored car runner or security guard, it's existence is a deterrent - and there is a definite difference when people see an armed guard and a 'rent-a-cop / mall security with a whistle' -

Cops often use guns to threaten in order to get compliance in their orders. I suppose it's the same at military bases and prisons - they are used everyday to deter people not used everyday to kill people.

Of course this tool can be used to deter good things and to force compliance for nefarious things like armed robbery so it's not a tool that is always used for good or in good ways.

I would guess if stats could really be made - they are mostly used for target practice at paper and cans as such when being used, unless you consider them being on display at various places like courthouses as being in use.

So it's a tool with more than one use imho. Not the best tool for the job they are often used in sadly.

<comment><USER5> Police and for that matter anyone in law enforcement are trained to draw and aim only when they intent to use the gun. Using a gun for anything other than shooting is how you either escalate a situation or how people are (too often) shot with their own guns. It is also a felony to use a gun as a threat or coercive tool, and it's called 'Brandishing'. Police don't threaten with a gun outside of Hollywood. They offer a verbal warning, and if you don't comply (and sometimes if you do) they will fire.

You never draw your gun unless you intend to use it.

You never point your gun at anything you don't intend to destroy.

Treat all guns as loaded.

Anyone who hasn't had that drilled into them has no business owning a firearm of any kind. Such a person is most likely to hurt themselves or someone else, or have their gun taken from them and used against them.

<comment><USER6> Oh how I wish you were right on all this.

> Police and for that matter anyone in law enforcement are trained to draw and > aim only when they intent to use the gun.

Which police are you describing? I would not mind this being true, but from my experiences on the east coast I don't think this is true of most law enforcement, unless you mean to say that drawing it to use as a coercive tool is the "intent to use" -

It may be a felony to stick a gun to someone's head and threaten them with violence if they do not comply with what you say - however I think that is not applied often. Most cops are not charged with that if they do it, and most criminals at that level are not ratted out either.

> Police don't threaten with a gun outside of Hollywood.

I have seen just that, many times.

Again I wish you were right, but it's not true, and I'm sorry you believe that. Maybe things are different in your hometown and you don't worry about traveling.

I agree with not drawing unless you are prepared to use, and do not point at things that you would not be okay with destroying, and all guns are loaded. Those parts of your comment I believe are true.

However I still believe that people having a firearm without shooting it is still a use. Yes sometimes the appearance of one may be escalating, but often times one being visible (eg a soldier holding an m16 pointed at the ground, a bank guard with firearm in holster) does deter other violence from occurring.

edit for formatting - had to hit enter after quote.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > Small Arms Survey reported that in 2017, Mexico had 12.9 guns per 100 > civilians, although of the 16,809,000 guns estimated in circulation in that > year, only 3,118,592 were legally registered.

>This high level of unregistered firearms has been attributed to Mexico's proximity with the United States, as thousands of gun retailers sit just over the border. A report on gun trafficking between the US and Mexico revealed that almost 90% of the guns recovered and identified from Mexican crime scenes can be traced back to firearm dealers in the neighbouring country.

<comment><USER8> Mexico has a firearm homicide rate of ~6.3 murders / 100k people / yr. The United States has a lower rate, 4.62 murders / 100k people /yr [0].

If American guns are the problem, why aren't the gun homicide rates higher in the United States than Mexico?

But at the very least, it sounds like Mexico could benefit from stronger border security, too many guns are flowing across its porous border with the US. How many Mexican lives would a wall save from gun violence?

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm-r...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_firearm- related_death_rate)

<comment><USER9> > If American guns are the problem, why aren't the gun homicide rates higher > in the United States than Mexico?

One of the answers is money. USA has more of it - for policing, for prisons, for making sure corruption and taking bribes from crime is less of an attractive choice. More poverty and profits of drug trafficking push the homicide numbers up in Mexico.

Of course American guns are not the whole problem but they are the problem alright. Here in Canada from 50 to 75% of illegal guns come from south of border.

<comment><USER8> >One of the answers is money.

It would be convenient if it were true, but I don't think money is a great explanation. I come from a rural area in the Midwest, the people are very poor (even poorer than the urban poor) but have a lot of guns. Despite being poor and armed, the gun homicide rates are very low (the suicide rates are unfortunately not that low).

Can you help me understand why poor farmers in the midwest don't commit as many murders as similarly poor and armed Mexicans?

<comment><USER10> The answer to your question was in the comment:

> for policing, for prisons, for making sure corruption and taking bribes from > crime is less of an attractive choice

Does this rural Midwest area have an active police presence? How well policed do you think a rural area in Mexico is?

<comment><USER8> >Does this rural Midwest area have an active police presence?

Not anything like you'd see in a more developed area. We had a county sheriff - I recall going months without seeing a law enforcement officer, I think we had a police to citizen ratio about 1/4th that of the nearest major city. Over the holidays, even getting emergency services can be really dicey. One time my neighbors were screaming and yelling at each other, we called the police and the dispatch told us that unless we heard it get physical, they wouldn't be able to send an officer out until the next day or the day after.

>How well policed do you think a rural area in Mexico is?

Probably equally as well, but the police in rural mexico are much more likely to be an extension of the cartels than police in the rural Midwest. If those cases, increasing patrols would actually increase cartel power. Until Mexico figures out their corruption issues, it's not clear how things can get better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This article mixes and matches statistical types and conclusions in a confusing manner.

For example, if most United States firearm deaths are suicides, it is misleading to then follow with a quote saying "where there are more guns there is more homicide."

<comment><USER12> Yet the US has the highest numbers of mass shootings.

<comment><USER13> That's not an undisputed fact. [https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us- leads-the-worl...](https://fee.org/articles/the-myth-that-the-us-leads-the- world-in-mass-shootings/)

<comment><USER12> From wikipedia:

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

> The United States has had more mass shootings than any other country.

<comment><USER14> Wikipedia as primary source?

If you'll check the references for that statement, they're all news articles based on a single study.

A study that the link above already discussed. A study that "excluded gang- related shootings, drive-by shootings, hostage-taking incidents, robberies and acts of genocide or terrorism."[1]

In other words, it's a custom-designed, cherry-picked statistic designed to make the US look worse than it is.

1: [https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does- us-l...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2018/09/05/does-us-lead- world-mass-shootings/?utm_term=.3df69caec353)

<comment><USER15> It's not cherry picked, it focuses on the phenomenon of mass shootings specifically. Gang wars and genocide are certainly tragic, but they are a very different type of gun violence than what people mean by mass shootings. The study is asking why in America people are shot by the tens or hundreds at ordinary, law-abiding venues such as schools or concerts, which is relevant in its own right.

<comment><USER14> Actually the study defines "mass" as four or more victims, not tens or hundreds.

And I've never understood who decides whether a mass killing is an "act of terrorism" or not.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> >This high level of unregistered firearms has been attributed to Mexico's proximity with the United States, as thousands of gun retailers sit just over the border. A report on gun trafficking between the US and Mexico revealed that almost 90% of the guns recovered and identified from Mexican crime scenes can be traced back to firearm dealers in the neighbouring country.

Obama's ATF forced dealers to sell guns to straw purchasers who took them to Mexico.

</comment><comment><USER17> >However, there is a loophole. In a country of nearly 132 million people, there is only one shop that sells firearms, which is located in Mexico City. ... This high level of unregistered firearms has been attributed to Mexico's proximity with the United States, as thousands of gun retailers sit just over the border.

It sounds like it's the Mexicans that need a wall to protect themselves from U.S. firearms!

<comment><USER18> Drugs and illegal aliens go north - cash and guns/ammunition go south

<comment><USER19> And the former funds the latter. If we legalize popular drugs and make legal immigration easier, we end much of the flow of guns, as well as the reasons to use them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Reported murders. We mostly do not know what happens in Africa

</comment><comment><USER21> Nobody seems to point out the obvious fallacy of the "right to protect yourself". If having that right actually results in being more likely to be harmed, or harm someone else, having that right is an unacceptable public safety risk.

A common argument against gun control ("should we ban hammers next?") is obviously fallacious when you compare it to an even more extreme comparison ("should we ban private ownership of nuclear weapons?"). It's obvious that some "weapons" are ok because they aren't a big public safety risk, whereas other "weapons" are a gigantic public safety risk. Guns are quite obviously a significant risk to public safety, as the murder statistics demonstrate.

<comment><USER22> What you're basically saying is there's a spectrum, but people just disagree over how to demarcate the spectrum. I agree, and so does the US government. Right now, automatic rifles and anything more powerful than them are illegal to privately own. That's just where a large part of the US draws the line right now: semi-automatic and below are okay, anything above is not okay. Maybe that line will move in the future, but people are already thinking in this way, they just disagree with you over what things are on which part of the spectrum.

<comment><USER23> FYI, fully automatic firearms are not actually illegal to privately own in the US. They are just heavily regulated. Guns that weren't registered by a 1986 cut off date are banned for private ownership, but even that is reasonably easy to work around with the appropriate Federal Firearms License. Although I don't own any fully auto guns myself, I know plenty of people who do legally own them.

<comment><USER24> I wouldn't argue it's very easy to get a SOT. It's not the most difficult thing in the world, but it's definitely non-trivial.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> There's a YouTube channel called Active Self Protection where the subscribers have this running joke almost about the next video being from Brazil. Even the commentator says stuff like "...you guessed it, from Brazil", because there's just so much content coming out of these Latin American countries for his show's focus which is analysis and review of crimes captured from surveillance camera footage, badge cams, and bystander journalism and what not.

It's interesting the ubiquity of these video feeds that we can get a glimpse into another part of the world and see the problems people have to deal with. The commentator for the channel often informs his audience about how certain things pose entirely different risks in other parts of the world. This includes things like not boxing yourself in with your car in Latin America where car jackings often play out where you gave yourself no exit by stopping so close to the car in front, or being oblivious to two men on a motorcycle, the so called "motochorros", etc.

</comment><comment><USER26> The submitted title broke the site guidelines by editorializing. Please don't! The relevant guideline says "Please use the original title, unless it is misleading or linkbait; don't editorialize."

(Submitted title was "Latin America has 8% of world's population and 38% of murders".)

</comment><comment><USER27> > Topped by Brazil with 42,000 deaths, the macabre list is followed by the > United States, Mexico, Colombia, Venezuela and Guatemala.

All the countries mentioned aside from United States seem to suffer from gang warfare, or even civil war. That it is so high for Latin America is perhaps not surprising. Unfortunately, the US doesn't seem to have that excuse.

Also, are we undercounting murders by other countries by differentiating between civilian vs non-civilian? That could be affecting the statistics.

<comment><USER28> The gun homicides in the USA are from smaller-scale gang war fare as well

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> That is what happens when a global superpower starts funneling guns and money to rebel groups to overthrown democratic governments and replace them with easily bribed authoritarians. This is what happens when you bomb a peaceful civilian populous so they give into a foreign fruit companies exploitative demands.

Things would be a lot better if we didn't spend the last 60+ years doing everything possible to destabilize established and successful political institutions in the name of corporate profits.

</comment><comment><USER30> Please stop talking about Brazil as a single reality. Murder rate is completely different across state lines. And guns play zero role into the causes, as others have already pointed out.

Any serious analysis on USA is done in a per-state basis, and the same applies to Brazil.

</comment><comment><USER31> "We look at them individually to see if there is a correlation between loose gun laws "

Laws are irrelevant if they are not consistently enforced.

</comment><comment><USER32> I never understood how anyone can take another life. To take away the memories, the experiences, the future potential of another spirit - all for the sake of what? Hate? Money? Power? How can anything be worth more than the only thing that allows one to experience this world? Sad.

<comment><USER29> Starvation, poverty, vengeance. Would you willingly let yourself starve to death? Would you willingly watch your kids starve to death? Most crime is done out of desperation, and if you and enough other people around you are desperate enough it becomes normalized behavior in order to survive. You get robbed, so instead of dieing a hobo, you rob somebody else, the problem perpetuates itself because there are so few alternatives available.

<comment><USER31> "Most crime is done out of desperation"

This is just wrong.

The vast majority of Mexicans don't commit murder, and they are definitely not starving.

Greed, egoism, pettiness, rage, psychopathy, nihilism are more likely reasons.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Yeah central american in general is a shithole. In Bolivia we are having trouble with colombians bringing in a ton of violence to the streets. To the point where hitmen tried to gun down people leaving their apartment complexes and being killed themselves, left on the sidewalk for everyone to see.

Evo certainly didn't help with narcos coming up big league since his illegitimate presidency.

These degenerates come to Bolivia and cause mayhem on a scale the people of my country and the police are not used to. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFQQzV24CE](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iSFQQzV24CE)

<comment><USER34> I spent three months traveling through Central America and it's beautiful and the people are mostly lovely.

The violence is concentrated in a few parts of the country. It's not like you walk out of your house and get shot at every day.

<comment><USER35> That is pretty much the case everywhere. We better focus our attention on those parts of our countries and see what is wrong with them, rather than generalizing over the whole country.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Anyone want to work on this project with me? (imgfave.com) - <AUTHOR>

http://imgfave.com
I launched this image bookmarking/sharing website about 6 months ago (hacked it together using laconi.ca), but recently rebuilt the whole site on the CakePHP framework and added a bunch of new stuff (details: http://imgfave.tumblr.com/post/82384047/new-features-widgets-collections-and-more).
I'm looking for a fellow hacker who would be interested in joining me on the project and helping to build out some new features.
The site hasn't exactly taken off, gets around 400 uniques a day, but it has a solid community of people who love it. A lot of images are posted every day and the quality of submissions are great (even though there is no filtering of the front page). It's been a really fun project to work on and some features we could build out include: user karma system, image recommendation engine (half built), embeddable image galleries, more fb connect features, twitter integration, etc..
I no longer feel like devoting my full (after work/weekend) resources to this project, so I'm basically looking for someone who wants to pick up development of the site and have part ownership. I'm totally open to open sourcing it or turning it into a more ning like service, where anyone can get their own image sharing community running. Definitely some cool stuff we could do.
If your interested feel free to ask some questions here or email me at email@example.com <comment><USER2> It's a cool concept and I like your implementation, but it's very similar to <http://ffffound.com/> no?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, and I think the similarity to ffffound really helped in the beginning, as many hailed it as a great ffffound alternative for those that couldn't get an invite. Now I'd like to work on making it a much more unique service. I have so many ideas, so little time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Kool! your site makes me happy ;)</comment>


Fastest Growing Chicago Area Seed Startups - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/ChicagoVentures/status/458355966506188800 <comment><USER2> I have used optyn very good product great to find it here</comment>


New CSS Features in Firefox 68 - <AUTHOR> https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/07/new-css-features-in-firefox-68/ <comment><USER2> I viewed the code pen example on my phone, and the bottom of the sections are cut off in each of the snapped positions. So, even the canonical example is making a ton of content inaccessible to people with minor motor control (that allow them to swipe and tap, but not keep their finger in a one pixel radius for extended periods of time).

Such issues tend to crop up later in life, precisely when you need to start cranking the font size up (and therefore get outside of the configurations checked during usability testing), so this is not only hitting a big percentage of the population, it will eventually hit a sizable fraction of the currently-healthy people reading this comment.

Which circle of Dante's guide to web development in the inferno are we in again? I'm having trouble keeping track.

<comment><USER3> The important line here is this:

> _The update in Firefox 68 brings the Firefox implementation in line with > Scroll Snap as implemented in Chrome and Safari_

While " _and Safari_ " is a less-relevant detail here, the general point is: where there is a monopoly, minority browsers will often need to implement user-hostile features in order to remain relevant/up-to-date/compatible.

Web devs today don't test in Firefox, they test in Chrome. They might have a webdriver/saucelabs/etc. setup with Firefox/IE/Edge thrown in but in terms of day-to-day these are afterthoughts.

<comment><USER4> I only test in Firefox, because FF is my browser of choice. Everyone else in the office only tests on Chrome because that is their browser of choice. We all know it is wrong, but cross browser compatibility makes it so much easier to forget that there are subtle differences.

Fun fact, we recently found a performance issue on one of our products which I was completely unaware of because it didn't affect. Even now, we cannot get Chrome to match FF's performance especially (of all things) for Google maps. Just goes to show that basic assumptions that Chrome is faster than Firefox are not 100% accurate. Like most things, it depends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I want to use Firefox on my phone, but it's UI is just so confusing - specifically the tab switching flow. When you try to switch tabs, the whole screen is replaced, the typically white background is replaced with a dark background, and the tabs are shown as tiny rectangles. And a very fast animation which makes my head spin. Why don't they just copy the tab switching from mobile Chrome?

They also have a new version of mobile Firefox, which will replace the current one at some point in the future. It's called Firefox Preview. I tried it, tab switching is acceptable, but now they moved the URL bar to the bottom of the screen. Why????? So I've uninstalled it and I'm back to Chrome.

Nobody is going to switch from Chrome to Firefox if the UI is radically different.

<comment><USER6> _Nobody is going to switch from Chrome to Firefox if the UI is radically different._

You could easily make the argument that no one is going to switch from Chrome if Firefox is very similar too because there'd be no good reason to.

Guessing what users will do is a waste of time. You have to do experiments and actually measure it.

<comment><USER7> Anecdata:

I switched back almost 10 years ago (because Google creeps me out), and the UI differences made it much harder.

I ended up tweaking firefox with extensions to make it look and behave like Chrome as much as possible, then gradually turned it back to the default UI. It made the switch far more pleasant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> OMG, why so long for ::marker ? Finally! :)

<comment><USER9> Seriously. This seems underrated. Very excited!

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Pretty useless features. Don't you think that HTML is getting too complicated? This often happens with open source projects, when everyone starts adding features for themselves and the program ends up as a monster that nobody can maintain (see: openvpn, x11vnc and so on).

But on the scale of uselessness this cannot be even compared with dark mode support. Never needed it.

<comment><USER11> Scroll snap is a useful feature. The way you can tell that it's useful is because a ton of sites are already doing it, but in a manual, hacky way with JavaScript. This works better and uses less code and CPU. A win all round.

<comment><USER12> > Scroll snap is a useful feature. The way you can tell that it's useful is > because a ton of sites are already doing it, but in a manual, hacky way with > JavaScript. This works better and uses less code and CPU. A win all round.

Useful in the same way that popup windows are. Developers certainly liked those - they were such a useful tool to annoy users with! And now "real" popup windows are blocked and developers create them the hacky way with JavaScript. The circle of life.

<comment><USER11> What a silly comparison. Are you suggesting users find swipeable photo galleries as irritating as popup windows? Because they really don't. If they did then the photos app in both major mobile OSes would be _infuriating_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm excited that scroll snapping has been implemented in Chrome, Safari, and now Firefox.

<comment><USER14> If the browser is going to allow scrolljacking, then I understand the case for it being implemented in the browser's CSS engine. But on so many sites it's a usability issue because space, pgup/pgdn, arrow keys (not to mention Vimium navigation) do not behave predictably.

<comment><USER15> Thankfully CSS rules can be overridden by the user. :)

Takes a bit of hoop jumping though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How about a simple, single, CSS property that can simply say:

"horizontally center this text inside its rectangular element"

And another one for:

"vertically center this text inside its rectangular element"

The issue of centering wrapped multiline text has been solved in many UI libraries.

<comment><USER17> display: flex; justify-content: center; align-items: center;

<comment><USER18> Those will clip child content when they overflow. There is a fix, but only supported by Firefox currently:

justify-content: safe center; align-items: safe center;

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The css debugging sounds great. I've never understood why there isn't a console for css debugging in dev tools.</comment>


Ask HN: Is this a new spam on Google Analytics? - <AUTHOR> Hi,
I am seeing this a lot today and yesterday:
links coming from yourserverisdown.com (do not click) IS this a new spam? How can I remove this??
Thanks!! <comment><USER2> Just a kind of referrer spam like many other spammers did. You may check this site for instruction to remove those spam.

How to Fix Ghost Traffic [http://blog.analytics-toolkit.com/2015/howto-fix- ghost-traff...](http://blog.analytics-toolkit.com/2015/howto-fix-ghost- traffic-spam-rubbish-google-analytics)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> This link propose a solution: [http://botcrawl.com/yourserverisdown-com- referral-spam-in-go...](http://botcrawl.com/yourserverisdown-com-referral- spam-in-google-analytics/)</comment>


"Let me know how I can help" – a proposal to HN - <AUTHOR> http://tomcritchlow.com/post/82380207991/let-me-know-how-i-can-help <comment><USER2> Just to clarify:

a) You're suggesting that we start an HMO meme on Hacker News which clearly means "I'm looking for help, this is what I'm looking for help with"

b) This post is the first one and it's your list of things?

If so: Cool :) I can't help with any, but I thought that this clarification may help others.

I was also wondering to myself: would this be a good idea for a monthly thread a la Jobs/Freelancers/Open Source? I decided that it probably _wouldn 't_ be, because you'd end up with a difficult-to-read list of things that people may or may not need help with.

Articles like Tom's which include specific requests are probably the best format for such things. We don't want any information overload, right?

<comment><USER3> > Articles like Tom's which include specific requests are probably the best > format for such things. We don't want any information overload, right?

But most people's articles will never make the homepage. By having one posts (like the jobs threads), you keep all the information in one place and it gets better visibility. It's the opposite of overload; it's consolidation.

Also, those posts request a specific format (eg, starting with "LOOKING FOR WORK / Location") which helps others easily scan through the list and find what's relevant to them. The same can be done with HMO lists.

<comment><AUTHOR> I agree - I'm very lucky to be on the homepage but a monthly HMO post would be a great idea.

<comment><USER2> Well, I thought it'd be more appropriate for you to do it, but someone got there first: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7573172](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7573172)

<comment><AUTHOR> Sorry dan, I stepped away from my computer for a few mins (crucial mistake!) glad there's another thread going on. I'll up-bump!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd actually like to see a monthly post along these lines, in the same was as the "Who's hiring" or "Freelancers required/available" posts. I don't think it works as well on a post by post basis but as a collection it'd make for good scanning.

<comment><USER5> [http://www.weekendhacker.net](http://www.weekendhacker.net) is solving exactly that problem (by trading skills)

We have a little under 10K subscribers and although we haven't been as active recently we are ramping up with some new features too.

Disclaimer: I am the creator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> We have build [http://DoerHub.com](http://DoerHub.com) to tackle this head on. You post whatever projects you are working on (hackers, researchers, scientists, are are 50%+ of the community, but there are also marketers, subject matter experts, designers, etc). Examples:

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/doerhub](http://www.doerhub.com/for/doerhub) (dogfooding)

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/robopaint](http://www.doerhub.com/for/robopaint)

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/surgery-boards- app](http://www.doerhub.com/for/surgery-boards-app)

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/coincashcard](http://www.doerhub.com/for/coincashcard)

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/synaptor](http://www.doerhub.com/for/synaptor)

[http://www.doerhub.com/for/securityfirst](http://www.doerhub.com/for/securityfirst)

Whoever sees your project can help in little or big ways, from joining the team to becoming an advisor or a beta user. Teams are soon getting public/private collaboration tools inside projects as well.

At the same time your profile shows what areas you are great at or looking for help in/learning in, example: [http://doerhubassets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/badge-67f14a8ee...](http://doerhubassets.s3.amazonaws.com/assets/badge-67f14a8ee1fbf57976ffd7472fdc857a.png)

So you can really easily see people you have a lot in common with and share complementary skills with. An app with real-time chat and serendipity matching is in the works as well. It is entirely free, we haven't made a cent with it but some amazing projects are now in beta because of our work and people who would have never ever met otherwise (a hacker and a surgeon for example) are now doing projects together. There are growing past 600+ doers already and 80+ projects as of yesterday. You are welcome to join.

We don't spread it randomly. Instead we mention it only to communities of doers we respect and would want to work with and I hope you will do the same if you join in.

<comment><USER7> Totally random, unsolicited, off-topic feedback: this project seems cool and I suspect I might well be interested in using it, and I just bounced because I couldn't figure out how to explore it a bit without signing up. Basically exactly the same thing as [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7489870](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=7489870)

This is probably a weird irrational hangup, but I tend to assign a fair amount of weight to account creation, and am in general extremely unlikely to register for anything before I am certain that I actually want it. I lurked HN and reddit for, like, a year each before I finally was compelled to create accounts due to people being wrong on the internet. I am unlikely to join your community if I can't lurk anonymously for a while first.

I have no idea whether this makes me strange, of if there is a substantial chunk of the population who acts similarly.

<comment><USER8> I also was interested to see what's going on; it sounded intriguing to me. "I want to see what some of the projects are. Maybe I can find a side project to work on!"

Then when I saw that I wasn't going to get squat without giving first via signing up, closed it. I only wanted to take a minute or two here in between tasks, and signing up is a commitment to me.

Sounds irrational, arguably, but here's my rationale: My email box is currently flooded by dozens of emails from countless little things I've signed up for at some time in the past under similar situations. Periodically, I go clear them all out and try to unsubscribe, but it's like pulling weeds-- a project that never ends.

Mentally I was prepared to give the site a minute or two, but the requirement to sign up before I can even see what's up is a deal breaker to me-- I wasn't planning to spend that kind of time.

Then I make a liar out of myself by coming here and typing for several minutes. In any case, I love the idea, and I bet a lot of other people are, like myself, looking to connect with other people that want to give and take on various kinds of projects.

<comment><USER9> This is going to be even more true for me in the future, and I was already pretty intolerant in this respect. I just used LastPass to get a list of all the passwords I should change after Heartbleed, and the list is _terrifying_ \- I can't believe how many things I've had to sign up for. My bar for getting any sort of credentials from me has just gone way up.

<comment><USER6> Does the GitHub connect help? We're thinking of adding Linkedin and Facebook as an option. Would those help?

<comment><USER10> I think that's trying to solve the wrong problem. The problem is that the closed, unbrowsable site makes it impossible for us visitors to tell whether it has any relevance to us at all, so we bounce right away. The front page has only very vague, general information and an unreadably small screenshot, instead of the actual projects and people which would solve the problem completely.

I think what the front page needs instead of what it has (or as well but right up the top) is a list of active, interesting projects like you posted here, and a link to browse all public projects.

<comment><USER6> You guys have sold me. Will put that up asap and update everyone.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When you say "local" I assume you mean local to Brooklyn, NY. Might have been wise to mention that.

Framing does seem to be a dark art in the creative world. Framing local to where I am in the UK is expensive and there isn't anything [anymore] between the expensive, custom, wait-a-few-days, framing and IKEA.

Perhaps I should try and make a robot-controlled cross-cutting mitre saw and start a new business.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ha, yes indeed I wasn't quite expecting an international audience from HN to swing by when I wrote it! Local is indeed Brooklyn, NY.

Actually, a 3D fabricating shop that did custom framing is not at all a bad idea. It costs a lot of money to frame things well and if you can do custom dimensions using robots you might be on to a winner!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> I'm still regularly amazed at the diversity of people who read and post on HN. There are artists, doctors, triathletes, cartoonists, real estate agents, veterans, vagabonds, marketers, ... And you may never know they're reading unless there's some catalyst to make the connection.

A monthly HMO post can be that catalyst.

And this can be the first. Just don't use this opportunity to purely pitch your product.

<comment><USER12> > _There are artists, doctors, triathletes, cartoonists, real estate agents, > veterans, vagabonds, marketers..._

There's even computer programmers on here too.

<comment><USER3> Yes, most of us share a common area of interest (hacking, programming, and often startups). I meant to say there are _programmers_ here who are _also_ artists, doctors, ...

<comment><USER13> There are also people who browse HN who are not programmers, like myself (a mechanical engineer). I may not read all of the same posts as programmers, but the "intellectually stimulating" guideline for news posts & the overall level of discussion here seem to make it worth my while

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've actually been working on an app to help create these serendipitous situations for a month. Exactly the same concept, but perhaps developed further.

And for the record:

I can help with JavaScript things and with honing your ideas. And I need help with JavaScripty things and honing my ideas.

London-based if anybody wants to get in touch and discuss changing the world or just creating something awesome!

<comment><USER2> Still in-the-works, or do you want to share it with HN?

Perhaps we can help you hone this idea!

<comment><USER14> Still in the works! Hope to have a prototype in a week or two, though.

I'm working at the moment, but I'm putting in 5 hours on most nights trying to get it done. Would love to meet people in a weeks time when the first prototype is done and I can get feedback though. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've been working on a website for almost 2 years (on&off). I'm right there at the final push to get it live, but I think I'm just a little burnt out from it. One of the things I'm struggling with is the pricing model I want to use. I'm trying to find that balance of a simple pricing scheme that scales well.

My site was made to run leagues & tourneys, and I'm a single founder. If anyone would like to talk with me on my business model ideas, my email is in my profile.

</comment><comment><USER16> I've been working on some web programming with a coworking space in Nashville, TN that has a focus on artists and creatives. I think they would be interested in your service.

I can't provide feedback on their behalf, really, but I'd be happy to introduce you to them.

Also, I really love the idea of the HMO meme. The rate problems can be solved when pushed to a distributed, diverse audience such as HN is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER17> Here's hoping "who's hiring"-type of recurring threads get popular, they bring a new sense of community and value to HN IMO.

They could all be organised on the same day, saving lots of time for those who don't want to be on HN too often!

<comment><USER18> Trying (and failing) to think of a snappy pun, like "Who's Hiring Whosdays", but there are no H-sounding days... Job Jobsdays!

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow thiat turned out to to be something different from what I was expecting. I cringe every time I hear (or read) the words "Let me know how I can help" because that was the SIGNATURE phrase of one of the most useless, incompetent people I've ever worked with in my life. Nearly every email and converstation with this guy ended with that phrase. I now view it as a throwaway line of someone who doesn't have anything really helpful to offer.

</comment><comment><USER20> Like the who is hiring threads, may be we could post 'Help HN' thread once a month, at the beginning of the month

</comment><comment><USER21> What a nice idea! Inspired me to quickly create a very simple and basic tool. If there is sufficient interest, I will add additional features like categories, leaderboards, profiles, social login, ratings etc. If anyone wants to help me out, email me. :)

[http://www.helphero.co/](http://www.helphero.co/)

</comment><comment><USER22> Cool idea!

As for me, I've been working on a career finding tool to help people find good career fits. It's almost done, and I'm excited about launching it. But I'm not sure how to get the word out about it.

If you have any ideas, or would like to try it!, my email is dgurevich5 [at] gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER23> Sorry I can't really provide an intro but I'm sure these guys could answer some of your questions. (they seem like good people) [http://www.artsicle.com/](http://www.artsicle.com/)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks dude! I'll reach out to them. Not sure if they'd look at us as competitors but I'll try and make an intro

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is great. For a community that so often looks to speak with target customers / audiences, we can really help each out either whether it's sharing our own experience or connecting people.

Here's to HMO :)

</comment><comment><USER25> I always have people asking me if I can do X or Y, and I have to say no, and that I also don't know anyone who can do those things. This could be a good place to connect those dots.

</comment><comment><USER26> Need:

\- Some experience working with customer service. I will

\- Any type of remote, non-technical (think business) work. I like finance and Analytics.

Offering:

\- Analytics help (setup and mostly data interpretation, telling the story of your traffic)

</comment><comment><USER27> You should talk to my friend who's doing Wallrent here in Toronto: [http://wallrent.com](http://wallrent.com)

his email: richardsondx [at] gmail.com

</comment><comment><USER28> HMO HN: security for node based website.

How about this format?

<comment><USER29> I think a monthly or weekly thread would make more sense (same as the "who's hiring" posts).

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> > bearded, plaid-shirt-wearing startup guy

You just described every coder in Portland. I can send you a few truckloads if you need them.

</comment><comment><USER31> I really like it. People want to help. Give them a way to help!

</comment><comment><USER32> Need:

Help configuring IPV6 public address pool to Ubuntu hosted lXC containers</comment>


Man Supposedly Flies With Custom-Built Bird Wings - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2012/03/human-bird-wings/ <comment><USER2> Things that make this video implausible:

1) You have the engineering fortitude to come up with something that has never been done before, and you choose to attach it to your body with a consumer grade backback? And not even a full hiking one with multiple points of attachment? No rock-climbing harness?

2) Fabric is waaay too loose on the wings to be effective in any kind of aerodynamic sense. At best this is a kite

3) He would "only be able to come up with 5% of the power needed", so he used a bunch of Turnigy motors and some magical super-compact power supply to provide the necessary lift? Not to mention, motors aren't exactly built for rapid oscillation back and forth, and I see no complex mechanisms to turn rotations into a very strong/rapid oscillating force

4) There are ZERO control surfaces on those wings to be able to pull up for a landing like he does. No, that pillow case between his legs doesn't count.

5) An Android operated system, that dynamically reads two separate wii remotes, and converts that accelerometer input into wing movements would not be that responsive.

6) No continuous shot from take-off to landing

7) No shot of the gear used to accomplish this, whether it be the motors/batteries/wiring/pulleys

<comment><USER3> The disregard for the physics of the situation is actually quite insulting. The "demonstration" is so far from realistic its not even worth a debunking.

Here is an example of what this man is claiming to have done, actually being done, by a team of engineers working for years:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ>

<comment><USER2> Great video. Notice the difference in the motion of the wings? So much more fluid and natural than the flat and rigid motion of the video from the Wired article.

<comment><USER4> It's an entirely different mechanism, hence the difference in movement. Note also that the wings are powered by peddling, whereas the birdman has accelerometer-controlled wings (individually controlled, rather).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Watch a bird take off. Start with some pigeons, then some sea gulls. If you can, watch an albatross - on YouTube if nothing else. As you get larger, you get heavier; as you get heavier you need more lifting force (ie, bigger wings, moving faster). Recall that weight is a function of volume and increases with the cube of your dimensions, while lifting force is a function of surface area and only increases with the square of your dimensions. Very _very_ roughly if you're twice as big, you get four times the surface area but eight times the weight, meaning that as you get larger flying goes from being "difficult" to impossible. And a man is large, and the batteries and motors he was allegedly using just add weight.

All of which is a long way of saying that he runs very slowly, his wings are very small, and they flap very slowly. The first couple seconds of him after take off our patently absurd; you need to be applying - somehow - hundreds of pounds of force to the air to push you off the ground. Yes, fine, he has a wonderful wing design and some amazing motors and (apparently) zero weight batteries. Fantastic! But none of the components in that video are producing hundreds of pounds of force. (A commenter at Wired estimates that the servo motors are theoretically applying enough force to pick up a two ton load, in fraction of a second. If we had this tech, we could fly, although _that_ wing design probably couldn't. We could also make Iron Man-style powered armour. Unfortunately, we don't have this tech.) The whole thing is multiple orders of magnitude off from the realm of "remotely possible".

There are just so _many_ red flags. The bizarre edits, the poor filming, the ridiculous design of the wing, the secrecy, the way nobody in the video acts right, the way the wing magically changes designs in different shots, the fact that the wing is clearly not fully loaded, the weird clothing and gear choices, etc., etc., etc. Wired has been hoaxed _hard_.

<comment><USER4> For the record, he's budgeting around 17 m^2 surface area for wing and 100 kg for pilot (<http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/working-on-the-wings/>). That's about 5 kg/m^2 wing loading, well within range of something for a microlight([http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1416&pagetype=90...](http://www.caa.co.uk/default.aspx?catid=1416&pagetype=90&pageid=8379)) if a bit heavy for an unpowered glider.

EDIT: The wing surface (that kite he mentions sacrificing) is from one of these ( <http://ride.slingshotsports.com/2012-Fuel#> ) which is intended for exactly this sort of thing--supporting a human in flight.

Note that in the design blog the motors are being run through a 25:1 planetary gear. The family of motors in question can put out in excess of 2kw ( [http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__17986__Turnigy_Ro...](http://www.hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/__17986__Turnigy_RotoMax_1_60_Brushless_Outrunner_Motor.html) or [http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProdu...](http://hobbyking.com/hobbyking/store/uh_viewItem.asp?idProduct=14427) ). So, no, the power plant is quite capable.

<comment><USER6> Finally someone pulled out meaningful fact about flying. How funny people keep saying about video without taking into account any engineering or physical requirements to make this real.

<comment><USER4> Annoying as hell, isn't it?

>:(

More usefully, I don't mind if this turns out to be a fake--but this off-the- cuff "no it is not possible ever" is so narrowminded when not combined with credible facts and analysis.

<comment><USER7> I agree. It is good to be skeptical - as they say extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Experts are trained to be skeptical. I am not saying that video may not be a fake but I am also equally skeptical about all the expert opinion on the impossibility of it all. And that is because experts have a long tradition of often being dead wrong about what is possible. Lord Kelvin - who was England's top scientist and President of the Royal Society flatly stated in 1895 that "Heavier-than-air flying machines are impossible" - just a decade before he was proven wrong. There are many more similar examples in the history of progress. It is a good thing inventors also have a long tradition - of ignoring experts and just trying to achieve what has been claimed as impossible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Incredibly skeptical. Red flags:

1\. He's received criticism about his videos before, but still insists on filming in random parks, only releasing to press after the event, and using blurry/shaky footage.

2\. When he takes off, the camera shakes heavily. When he lands, someone steps in front to block the view.

3\. At 0:35, his legs lift up so that his body is parallel to the ground (necessary for flight.) If he had been placing his legs on some sort of device for flight, why would the liftup be that smooth?

This would be awesome if it were real, but... just seems fishy.

<comment><USER9> Also, birds don't generate lift from merely flapping their wings up and down, they generate lift due to the angle of attack of the wing during the upstroke and downstroke. The wings in this video don't address this issue.

<comment><USER10> Depends on the bird and mode of flight. Large birds like condors basically glide like fixed-wing aircraft, flapping every few _minutes_ ; hummingbirds flap at 200 Hz and use various aerodynamic tricks to stay aloft. The flight in the video looks similar to the that of those toy flapping birds powered by a rubber band. It's possible to flap & fly without fully articulated twisting wings, just not as efficient.

<comment><USER9> True, however those toy birds generate forward thrust and rely on the tail to move upwards or downwards since they're so simplistic. There is no tail on the device in the video, so there's no mechanism driving it upward.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've worked in the visual effects industry and I don't think this is CGI, at least not in the sense that most commenters mean, a digital rendering of the dude and the wings. If it is, there's a lot of small details that they got right. It could be, and the poor quality of the video makes it hard to tell for sure, but I think that's misdirection.

My guess is that the wings are not mechanical at all beyond being flexible, and he's just pulling on them to flap, and they pulled the guy from an ATV or something. His motion looks like a kite, when he's flapping wildly the front of his chest stays pretty stable and looks like it's anchored. The wings look like they could be modified versions of those kite-surfing things people use.

It's a hell of a lot easier to paint out a wire and a vehicle than it is to put in a synthetic flying dude. and that would get you the helmet-cam footage without having to do extra work.

Also there's tire tracks on the ground from previous takes.

edit: for example:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvD_0qZzhdo>

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XKlaRtCwIqk>

It might not even be the wings providing the lift, he could have a whole chute behind it like in these videos.

<comment><USER12> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TH3fQbGlQlM#t=52s>

Look at the left tip on the mechanism as it moves slowly as the woman holds it.

I know it's supposed to be light, but it appears to jitter as if it's massless.

The lighting on the mecanism doesn't seem so right either. This looks a little like the early Star Wars' to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting that Jamie Hyneman of the MythBusters fame Doesn't think it was faked. According him to the science checks out ! [http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the- mechani...](http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-mechanics-of- assisted-human-flight/)

<comment><USER14> OK but where are the batteries that Jamie mentions? I didn't see any in the video or the videos that came before it in the series about how they made it.

<comment><USER12> In earlier videos a guy even walks in with a cardboard box full of batteries. I think they're zip-tied low on the backboard.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Conceptually plausible: the cyclic motion of articulated wings (flapping) seems understood in models e.g. <http://www.ornithopter.de/english/clips.htm> Jarno's idea of a powered exoskeleton wing to provide x20 power is right in principle, but needs light batteries: Prof Otten [http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/interview-with-bert- otte...](http://www.humanbirdwings.net/about/interview-with-bert-otten/)

As comparison, a human-powered articulated wing: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ> A non-articulated wing <http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1638710914506519616> (18km) And the famous Gossamer Albatross flew from England to France <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gossamer_Albatross> Also <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ornithopter#Manned_flight>

To the downvoters: haters gonna hate, hackers gonna hack

</comment><comment><USER16> There is simply not enough air being moved by those airfoils to lift a 150+ lb object off the ground. He'd need much more speed than that. Or much more wing area. Or much faster articulation. And in any of those cases, the pathetic "wings" would deform horribly and ruin any aerodynamic properties they might possibly possess.

*edit Now that I've actually watched the video, there's something I'd like to add to the list of red flags others have already pointed out: His landing trajectory. It's way too steep and forward. He'd have to enjoy a near 1:1 thrust ratio to land at that angle, and he'd have to have been pitched up and back to apply all of that thrust against gravity and his forward motion.

</comment><comment><USER17> I made this for a nested comment, I'll bring it up a level. Think this looks real? <http://i.imgur.com/YtPMI.png>

The grass in the second one (suspected CGI) isn't even the same color or saturation level.

<comment><USER18> My biggest issue is with a piece of the machine that suddenly appears 2 seconds latter: <http://i.imgur.com/xZCAu.jpg>

<comment><USER19> That doesn't look off to me. There is a dark spot in the first frame -- it's just masked by the much larger shadow going across the whole wing.

It seems fake to me, but I have yet to be convinced there's CGI. If it were CGI, within 2-3 hours someone will post a statistical analysis of the images. That would be extremely obvious, whereas most people in this thread are pointing out things that are ambiguous.

I mean they if they got the trees, the shadows, and the grass right, then I have a hard time believing they forgot to remove a dot somewhere on the wing. Those aren't the kinds of mistakes you would expect if someone was trying to match CGI to real footage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I believe this could be real, but the wings are powered by 4 electric motors. He uses an HTC Android phone and a WiiMote to read the movements of his arms, and that readings are used to control the wings.

There are many more details on his blog <http://www.humanbirdwings.net/project-timeline/>

Edit: JoeCortopassi raised some good points in his comment. I'm not so sure this is plausible, even with the 4 motors.

<comment><USER21> If it's written on a blog, it's certainly true, then?

<comment><USER22> why are you posting so many skeptical comments?

<comment><USER21> Because I am skeptical that the video is real.

<comment><USER22> yes, we get that, but there's no need to reply to every comment about your skepticism.

<comment><USER21> There's no need for you to position yourself as a gatekeeper for HN comments, either, but you're doing it anyway. Who elected you to quota individual comments? When you went after me, I had left three comments on this entry. There were more than a dozen by the time you said something, and I had made my point and was willing to back out.

If you've identified a noise problem in the signal -- the only possible reason to go directly after another commenter and expect that you're improving HN at all -- how does spamming yet more about the noise problem improve the situation for anybody?

Thanks for reminding me why I don't contribute to HN, by the way. I'll show myself back out.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Other confirmed man powered flight tests:

Snowbird ornithopter <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0E77j1imdhQ>

MIT Daedalus <http://www.dfrc.nasa.gov/Gallery/Photo/Daedalus/HTML/>

</comment><comment><USER24> Disclosure: I fell for this. That said here is another red flag:

The guys reaction at the end of the video is not one of triumph and excitement. Here are some videos of what real reactions look like:

First time skydiving:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=nSuGJB7ZykI#t=228s)

Breaking a world record:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=vWde8sMxe1w#t=42s)

Winning:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcf6oEiRT0&feature=playe...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EOcf6oEiRT0&feature=player_detailpage#t=50s)

*Edit - Fixed last link

<comment><USER25> I haven't done anything ^ extreme or cool on that level, but I'm pretty introverted and don't necessarily get excited externally too much. It could be plausible that he's introverted as well and doesn't go crazy like some people. My parents often were upset with me because they didn't think I liked what they got me for my birthday, christmas, etc. but on the inside I really was happy/excited.

So all that to say, everyone handles events differently and it's hard to have a set guideline for how people act.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> Maybe the Internet has ruined me too, but this reminds me of that other viral ad campaign of guys running on water.

[http://gawker.com/5539222/how-not-to-fall-for-a-viral- market...](http://gawker.com/5539222/how-not-to-fall-for-a-viral-marketing- scheme) (Yes it's Gawker but they did have one of the better write-ups :/ ).

A few minutes browsing the project homepage (<http://www.humanbirdwings.net>) and WHOIS (<http://whois.net/whois/humanbirdwings.net>) makes it look more legit though...

<comment><USER27> How does the WHOIS info make it look more legit?

<comment><USER26> I guess I rather meant that it's subscribed through a GoDaddy-ish service instead of a marketing company that forgot to cover its tracks... :-/

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I've thought about whether we'll start to see things like this soon with composites and nanofibers. I'd love to see the math taken apart, I assume we're still a ways away from it.

The first person to really fly like this may well be a double amputee or other person generally thought of as "disabled". Someone like Bob Wieland would have an enormous advantage on paper over someone like the guy in the video.

</comment><comment><USER12> In the part 14 video, at 0:34 it cuts to another camera on the right much closer to the point of liftoff. It's not a long range shot because the angle seems to sweep up to 45 degrees quickly. A camera at this position should be visible in the shot before, but there's not one.

Edit: OK at 0:23 you catch a glimpse of someone by the lake that might be in position for that shot.

</comment><comment><USER29> This is the beginning of an ad campaign. My old agency used to do these things all the time. Here's one we created to make Japan look more intimidating leading up to an A-League match, <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t9G89gGJayA>

Hint: It's fake.

</comment><comment><USER30> Just to be clear, the power is coming from electric motors, and he is flapping his arms just because that is how the control system was designed, right?

</comment><comment><USER31> If this actually worked, wouldn't he have done it dozens of times, and have videos of each flight?

</comment><comment><USER32> They could verify this easily. Just get a couple of news crews down there to film another trial.

The fact that they haven't makes me think it's fake.

I wish it were real though.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm just a beginning hang glider pilot - but everybody at the largest national hang gliding site (<http://hanggliding.org>) calls fake. The main clue from a hang glider's perspective is that the wings absolutely don't look loaded. Assuming power source, batteries, etc all were available there's no way those flapping trailing edges are actually bearing weight by pushing against the air.

Yes the dream of human flight is alive - but it looks like this - <http://vimeo.com/20775072>

</comment><comment><USER34> my bets...

1\. GoPro-camera viral ad... 20% 2\. funny joke... 10% 3\. this is real ... 70%

damn... the track record of incredible, but fake videos in the recent past makes me feel skeptical, but I wish it was real

btw 0:57 the tracks on the grass.. look suspicious ;)

<comment><USER17> Ad: 90%, funny joke: 20%, real: 5%

Why does it add up to 115%? Because apparently basic physics is bullshit so why not math?

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is obviously a spoof of art.

I am sure since we are only 10 days away from April 1st, that will be the reveal.

There is simply not enough surface area, not enough motor power and not enough battery power for it to be real.

</comment><comment><USER14> I really wish this were real.

The only part that really ruins it for me is, where is the battery powering the electric motors?

I mean, since I am ignorant about aerodynamics and a bunch of stuff, I can suspend my disbelief about the wing actually providing enough lift, and suppose that there exist incredibly powerful motors that could operate in that way.

I would even like to believe that there is an ultrapowerful battery that would be able to provide enough juice for these incredible motors. But where is it?

Man I hope Mythbusters does this one!

<comment><USER36> He is just flying for 30 seconds, you don't need much battery for that. 500gram LiPo should have more than enough juice for that.

Look at your laptop battery, they are around 50Wh which should be able to provide 2kW for almost 2 minutes, disregarding the maximum current it can pump out.

This is what makes me doubt if it really is fake or not. "Why has nobody done this before"? Because light weight power storage and motors has not been available until now. But the videos smell CG so I'm still calling fake on this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> So I did a little poking around:

I can't find any reliable mention of Jarno Smeets on the web before May 2011.

His blog, his domain, his Twitter and YouTube accounts all seem to have started about June of last year.

His Linkedin lists some plausible employment for a mechanical engineer, but comparing his userid to mine, that account hasn't been around too long either.

The Biomechanics professor he interviews in the video seems legit: <http://www.kalons.nl/otten/> [http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2011/opinie29_2011...](http://www.rug.nl/corporate/nieuws/opinie/2011/opinie29_2011?lang=en) But the professor only speaks in general terms about the requirements for flight and is never seen again in the building or the testing videos.

Perhaps someone could check his Facebook. Does FB say when he signed up for that?

None of this is completely incriminating of course but sadly it does fit the pattern of an ad agency project.

</comment><comment><USER37> So, no one noticed the crushed grass in the shape of tire tracks along the path of flight? Looks fake.

</comment><comment><USER38> Skeptical. Camera angles coming from the helmet are different in two shots and his head isn't moving at all. Stationary. You would think when flying, your head would be moving slightly, but his is not.

I also see a bit of CGI in his legs when he is shown to be flapping in the air.

Very Skeptical.

</comment><comment><USER39> I call fake, if you watch his previous test video you can see it's CG/Composited, they point the camera at the ground to swap clips with/without the real man/wings.

This one seems to be much better however when he lifts his legs you can see it's too smooth.

</comment><comment><USER40> Agreed with others that it's probably fake, but there I disagree that it's impossible. One of the slightly counter-intuitive things you learn when becoming a pilot is that you take off into the wind rather than with a tailwind. The wings don't care what your ground speed is when creating lift, they care about your airspeed. Given a big enough "kite" and a nice headwind and of course you can do this. Kitesurfers, kiteboarders, and hangliders do this all the time. The flapping may or may not assist, but it's certainly not doing the brunt of the work.

</comment><comment><USER41> I initially thought it was real but after all the negative posts I have looked at the video closely. The GoPro camera take of the landing is what gives it away. Note how low the camera goes next to the ground, while we see the pilot always standing as he lands it. The flight was probably filmed with an RC and that is why see the camera go so low as it lands. But whether this is fake or not, it's irrelevant. This is a great idea and with the proper brains behind it, one should be able to make it work.

</comment><comment><USER42> I am sorry if someone already pointed that out but i just realized how fake this is. Watch that video. <http://youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI> while guy is about to take off(1:49), everyone including cameraman runs for some reason and we can not see the guy with the wings for a second. Then when we see the guy again and there is a black squaure box next to big s logo this time. You can see that video is edited at 1:52

</comment><comment><USER4> Hey, for all you people that are pulling things out from their collective asses, at least criticize from the damned website and press release:

<http://www.humanbirdwings.net/press/>

Closeup of backpack here:

[http://www.humanbirdwings.net/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/IMG...](http://www.humanbirdwings.net/wp- content/uploads/2012/03/IMG_3954.jpg)

<comment><USER14> So maybe the white blocks wrapped in blue are batteries?

But now I don't see any motors.

<comment><USER4> Just above the blue batteries you'll see two little walky-talkie looking things. Those are motor controllers (note the thick wires coming off of them). Those are mounted on a plate. The motors are farther up, under the plate.

<comment><USER14> OK.. great..

Now I have a new problem. Someone else mentioned this: watch how the leaves on the ground change at 1:50 <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI>

<comment><USER4> The thing you should also be complaining about is the sudden appearance of a black square on the wing.

I think our friend may have damaged the wing, patched it, and the cut there is them trying to edit out a fuckup launch attempt.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> steve-howard Hope he doesn't fly too high, lest they melt.

</comment><comment><USER43> Well, no, it's quite obviously fake... Does no-one else see that?

(Not for any logical reasons, but the video just _looks_ fake!)

</comment><comment><USER42> What is that trace we see on the grass?(1:00) Looks like they us some type of vehicle to pull the helmet-camera up

<comment><USER12> I noticed that track too but didn't put that together. So maybe that was a 2nd take with the track left from the first take?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Isn't it a little early for April fools?

</comment><comment><USER29> Here is a less polished version of the thing 'flying': [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmf...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&feature=relmfu) Skip to 1.45 and tell me that is not CGI.

</comment><comment><USER45> Has anyone pointed out that wind direction makes a hell of a lot of difference to this - if he was running into a strong headwind I'd say this is almost possible. Ever try holding onto a big kite like that in a strong wind?

</comment><comment><USER45> Its real guys: Jamie Hyneman (Mythbusters) says so ... [http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the- mechani...](http://www.tested.com/articles/43440-thoughts-on-the-mechanics-of- assisted-human-flight/)

;-)

</comment><comment><USER46> And when will this be on kickstarter so i can donate for a promised set in return?

</comment><comment><USER47> It's quite obviously fake -- given that we are 11 days from April Fools, it's probably either an April Fools joke discovered prematurely, or set-up for a bigger one. Maybe something similar to the tale of icarus.

</comment><comment><USER48> Incredible! They should try another flight to address people's doubts.

</comment><comment><USER49> For me, the biggest red flag was "done in 8 months time". Nice CG though, and additional points for flying a RC plane with a camera on it on the path of the bird.

</comment><comment><USER50> If it's fake then you have to admit this guy can act. That was quite the performance especially when he's describing how it felt to fly for the first time.

</comment><comment><USER51> Earlier attempt with same tech (ca 800s AD)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_Ibn_Firnas>

</comment><comment><USER52> This is absurd (and I can't believe its at the top of hacker news).

The article insinuates this is human powered flight.

Any realistic attempt at a solely human powered flying machine would utilize leg power, not arms which pale in comparison in terms of power output.

Also seems a bit fishy a buzzing sound, much like that of an engine, starts the same time as the wing flapping.

Interesting engineering feat but definitely not the holy grail of man powered flight. This is Turnigy powered flight, big deal.

"The design is based on mechanics used in robotic prosthetics."

<comment><USER53> Where does it "insinuate this is human powered flight"? The article is quite up-front about the fact that human power would fall 95% short and that in reality the arms were only being used as controls, not for power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> I would pay so much for one of these

</comment><comment><USER55> painfully fake. i'm surprised that there is even any discussion as the whether it is fake. putting aside the breaking of the laws of physics the actual cgi shots are c-grade at best. Look a the linked wired video between 0:35 - 0:40 the cgi is laughable.

</comment><comment><USER56> incredible. i never really thought how jarring and jerky flapping wings would be...

<comment><USER57> i can't wait for the fine-tuning and improvements to the wing design and mechanical assistance system to reach flying finesse. with all respect though, he really looks like a giant bird taking off and then gliding. on another note, it'd be so cool to watch human flying sports to spawn from this à la track or polo.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Come on guys. Just believe it ;) it would be so superb ... I believe I can fly ...

</comment><comment><USER59> obviously faked ... but i hope i'm wrong!! at least thanks for the short moment before i started doubting :-)!

</comment><comment><USER7> Since all the videos are numbered n of 14 - how did he know _in advance_ that he would need exactly 14 videos for documenting his flight?

<comment><USER60> You can edit video titles...

<comment><USER61> ... or wait and upload them all in a batch.

<comment><USER7> They were not uploaded in a batch - the first of the 14 videos was uploaded on Aug 5, 2011 [1]

So either a) he planned to make only 14 videos in advance - culminating in the flight video OR b) he went back and edited all of the titles.

So I checked the cached version of the previous videos - and it does appear that it is (b) - he edited all the titles adding the 14 after the fact.

[1] [[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cocLpRzZnvk&feature=chann...](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cocLpRzZnvk&feature=channel)]

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> Where was the camera operator at 0:35?

<comment><USER63> Good thought, but there is actually someone standing in that vantage point. You can see him off to the right in the footage leading up to that.

I'd be amazed if this is real, because it would be far easier to fake than to really pull off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER64> this has got to be a thinkmodo campaign for the sail brand used for the wings in the ad.

</comment><comment><USER65> a lot of people in the wired comments are posting about how it's fake... huh?

</comment><comment><USER66> Wow.

This makes me wonder what Leonardo da Vinci could've accomplished given some base robotics technology to work off of.

</comment><comment><USER67> An April 1st reveal, anyone?

</comment><comment><USER68> Hey did you guys see the video of the guy flying on YouTube?

</comment><comment><USER69> This video is fake, that has been established beyond doubt. But CGI, even "prosumer" CGI like this, is really getting better. Even at this level, people are relying on "hints" that a CGI transition has taken place - camera looks away, is obscured, or the picture is blurry.

Give it a couple of years and those distracting-from-transition tricks probably won't be necessary any more. Then what?

<comment><USER70> "If the US could create Avatar, it could fake 9/11" [http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/if-us-could-create- avata...](http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/home/if-us-could-create-avatar-it- could-fake-911-attacks-mahathir/354031)

Probably, we won't believe anything.

<comment><USER71> Could be great material for Mike Daisy's next show.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'm skeptical. Am I the only one that noticed what appeared to be the plethora of CGI in the video?

<comment><USER72> it's definitely fake - check the previous video [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&t=1m30s](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0tKFOcHyrI&t=1m30s)

<comment><USER17> Sooooo fakity fakely fake!

It's oh so convenient that the cameraman "happens" to look down and the camera happens to blur (what is it refocusing on?) between the time when the wings are resting on the ground and when they are picked up and ready for the test flight. Then the camera is conveniently moving and keeping things just a tad blurry while the wings start up. If you compare the appearance of the wings before and after the cut you'll notice some slight differences.

You tell me, does this look real or fake? <http://i.imgur.com/YtPMI.png>

<comment><USER73> Definitely fake as there is a black square on the right wing in the later (CGI, after the camera has looked up again) images that doesn't exist in the earlier (real) footage. You can clearly see this in the video and your screengrab.

From the video it is also obvious that there is no way someone could have stuck that there in the time it took for the camera to turn away and back again.

<comment><USER12> Not saying it isn't fake, but the black squares look like silhouettes of some structure underneath. It could easily change as the fabric moves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER74> Believe it or not.

</comment><comment><USER75> awesome!!

</comment><comment><USER76> to infinity and beyond</comment>