Google's iron grip on Android: Controlling open source by any means necessary - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/?p=339141 <comment><USER2> "Google was terrified that Apple would end up ruling the mobile space. So, to help in the fight against the iPhone at a time when Google had no mobile foothold whatsoever, Android was launched as an open source project."

This is not a quote from anyone because it's false. Andy started Android _well_ before anyone knew iPhone existed (years). I say existed only because I don't know offhand when Apple started iPhone internally, so i can't say for sure he started it before Apple did, but i suspect that's true as well.

Andy left Danger in 2003 to go start to create Android. The first iPhone was not released until mid-2007.

Google was terrified, but it was terrified the _carriers_ would end up owning the mobile space, because they already were.

Andy also didn't open source Android to "get a foothold in something".

He's literally said his reasons before.

Given how poorly researched just this simple paragraph is (it literally can't be true), it would take a lot of time to point out how bad the rest is too.

<comment><USER3> Actually that's mostly true. Rubin's open source Android didn't have to stay open source. But there was no choice, unlike Apple Google didn't plan on making the phone. So they had to have a lot of partnerships with OEMs and carriers.

And as Google was trying to sell that phone (with keyboard and no touchscreen) and OS to carriers Apple launched the iPhone. At this point Rubin and Google changed course and made their phone and OS less Blackberry and more iPhone because they were smart enough to realize that was the future.

The _only_ way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :).

Rubin himself said that the iPhone was the thing that made them reconsider their entire strategy and come up with the first Android phone as we know it.

If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: _Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution_.

<comment><USER2> "The only way to make it work, to convince carriers and fight Apple, was to keep it open source. Or to sign it away to the carriers :)."

Again, it's simply not. You are confusing having access to source with being open source. The partner were happy with closed source.

They did care somewhat that they had source. They definitely did not care if anyone else did, and didn't want anyone else to.

"If you're curious about the story there's a good book with all the behind the curtain details: Dogfight: How Apple and Google Went to War and Started a Revolution."

I literally was in the room, so i don't need the book :)

<comment><USER3> Take it up with Rubin. He seems to have had a different understanding. And he was the one negotiating with carriers for a long time.

And while I wasn't "in the room", Rubin said it himself in multiple interviews: he wanted to make an _open source_ OS, not _with access to source_ in order to appeal to exactly what the carriers wanted.

In fact every time Rubin talked about this he referred to Android as it was since its phone OS inception as _open_. It's always "his idea to create an open source OS for phones".

I'll just assume that one of you is embellishing his story. And in all honesty it could be either way, founder stories tend to get beautified over time.

<comment><USER4> You're not even rebutting him. He didn't say Rubin didn't want Android to be open source. He said Rubin's reasons for supporting open source were not the ones people attribute to him; that open sourcing Android had nothing to do with penetration among hardware vendors, who _did not want Android to be open source_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Before I read this article, I was unaware of the struggles of Skyhook vis a vis Google's own geolocation service.

Google really, really, really disliked the idea of an OEM installing Skyhook and setting it as the default location service on their devices.

Ultimately, Skyhook sued and won a settlement from Google. IMHO, pretty ugly behavior from Google.

[https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails- reveal-g...](https://www.engadget.com/2011/05/10/internal-emails-reveal- googles-desperation-over-skyhooks-andro/)

[https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti- compet...](https://www.geek.com/mobile/google-emails-reveal-anti-competitive- moves-against-skyhook-1376609/)

More interestingly Google internally recognized that Skyhook's ability to locate the user's device may have been superior when Google's Steve Lee wrote, in an internal Google email:

 _Skyhook 's accuracy is better than ours_

[http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook- emails-2011-5#...](http://www.businessinsider.com/google-skyhook- emails-2011-5#heres-the-email-that-started-it-all-subject-line-can-you- explain-whyhow-this-happened-googles-vic-gundotra-links-to-our-post-about- motorola-ditching-googles-location-service-for-skyhooks-and-wants-to-know- why-1)

</comment><comment><USER6> Funny story. I loved smart phones. From the first Palm with cell access to the Treo 270 and 650. I bought the first iPhone and then spent tons of time in IRC working out with a large group how to unlock it as my company paid for T-mobile, not ATT. I loved my iPhone and had a few. At some point I bought a Galaxy Note. I loved the HW, but hated the OS. Did the whole custom ROM etc, but it was just never as clean as IOS. About this time I was at a small party at a friends who used to work at Google. There was the normal crowd of techies from most of the major players in the valley. I was talking to a few friends about how much I disliked the Android experience. There was this guy there that I did not know. He starts asking tons of question zeroing in on why I disliked Android, which came down to the lack of interface guidelines between apps and the like. This Q&A went on for like 30 minutes. At the end I asked him, "why do you care so much?" He said "Sorry, we have not been introduced, I am Andy and I run Android at Google." The thing that impressed me very much was the depth and detail of the question and his understanding of what my issue was. He said at the end "you are right, we can do better". Nice guy.

</comment><comment><USER7> Could we add "(2013)" to the HN title? Article is a re-post from 5 years ago. Original discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6582494)

</comment><comment><USER8> Project Fuchsia is clearly their attempt at rectifying the mess they had with Android. No pesky GPLv2 licensing with the Linux kernel getting in the way, no ambiguity with Oracle... an OS completely owned by them.

Sure, it _might_ be OSS as well, but in the end, they'll be the ones to call the shots, and sure enough they won't include any of the secret sauce. Hopefully also for good by forcing providers and manufacturers to give some reasonable support to their phones and not be lazy with security patches, or better yet, completely lifting that kind of "responsibilities" off them.

</comment><comment><USER9> Clickbait, sensationalist. Counterpoint: Amazon FireOS.

<comment><USER3> Counterpoint: Because of FireOS (not a "Google approved" Android fork) Amazon is no longer allowed to license any Google apps. As hinted by them missing from the OHA members list: [http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html](http://www.openhandsetalliance.com/oha_members.html)

How many phone companies can afford to do this?

Imagine a different scenario with a company you may not have a strong positive bias towards: Microsoft. Imagine all the OEM agreements are: "if you want to sell laptops with Windows you must agree to never sell laptops with other OSes". Or "if your software runs on any competing OS you are no longer allowed access to some proprietary and critical Windows API".

What many people refuse to understand is one simple fact: what Google did is illegal. And it's only their personal pro-Google bias that makes them ignore and excuse the behavior. Or even to claim that the law should change for them. The fact that so few people were outraged when Microsoft landed in the same hot water is irrefutable proof of this.

<comment><USER10> The same people that dismiss Android as excessively fragmented will also cheer the recent decision to punish them for trying to reign in that fragmentation. The mobile market is healthy right now, with meaningful choice and competition that has benefitted consumers on both leading platforms. Hopefully that will still be the case after this recent misguided attack by the EC.

There was no meaningful competition in the OS space when Microsoft was fined.

<comment><USER3> Microsoft was fined in 2009 for bundling IE with Windows. At the time IE had... 65.5% market share. Today's Google market share is larger than that in basically every segment that counts.

<comment><USER10> At that time Microsoft had almost complete dominance of the operating system market, at 93%, which is the point. There was nothing like the counterpart to it that iOS is to Android today.

Android may look like it's similarly dominant but in the most valuable markets it's way closer to parity and if you exclude the cheap low end devices it's actually a minority. Apple isn't raking in 85% of the profits in mobile for nothing.

Be careful what you wish for. A lot of improvements in iOS in recent years were inspired by Android.

<comment><USER3> At this time Android has 87% market share. And climbing.

The only thing I wish for is for none of these companies to be allowed to get the entire pie. Those improvements you talk about? They were done during a fight when they were more or less tied with the opponent. The closer you are to 100% market share, the fewer and far between they are. You want proof? Look at MS, or Intel. The moment they got dominance they coasted on it for years with no tangible improvement to anything else but their bottom line.

And you seem to think that I must be an iOS fan and probably hate Google. My main phone is Android and has been for 7 years now (although I tend to own and use one of each Windows, iOS, BB10). That's exactly why I want to see more free competition.

P.S. Google deals in user data, not selling phones. So a valuable market is one that gives them access to that data. One with lots of users. The phone they use is irrelevant.

<comment><USER10> It's 55% in the US, 32% in Japan, and only 75% in Europe. It doesn't make any sense to pretend that an iPhone and a low end Chinese burner phone are even remotely in the same category of device. And in other markets Apple only has a minority share because they'd rather protect their unprecedented profit margins than sell something those people can afford.

Those are the most valuable markets and even in those markets startups and developers target iOS first. If you kneecap Android you're just putting Apple even more in the driver seat than they are today.

I still haven't heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?

<comment><USER3> I'm sorry but I don't think you understand where Google's position is here and where the revenue is coming from. Here's a primer: [https://arkenea.com/blog/big-tech-companies-user- worth/](https://arkenea.com/blog/big-tech-companies-user-worth/)

Notice how conspicuously absent is the price of the phone or the number of apps you choose to buy.

It's not just Android, it's also the Google apps that come with it (you know, the ones that an OEM loses access to if it tries to compete).

And the revenue is not a percentage from every expensive phone you buy in the US. It's the user data that phone, cheap or expensive, gives them access to. So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one.

Why do you think Google complies with every request it gets from the government of one of its biggest markets that you forgot to mention, China? Because access to that trove of user data is almost priceless. Why do you think the likes of Facebook want to give free internet in Africa? For a Nobel prize? No, it's because that's paving the way to accessing more user data.

> I still haven't heard anyone explain how they think this recent ruling makes > anything better. Who is going to benefit from this?

The customers. I see you are commenting a lot but probably didn't bother to read the article linked here on HN. You are asking questions that have very logical answers available everywhere you look, even in real life. Which makes me believe you're not actually trying to get an answer, you're suggesting that competition law is wrong. Possibly just when some companies have to suffer.

<comment><USER11> _And the revenue is not a percentage from every expensive phone you buy in the US. It 's the user data that phone, cheap or expensive, gives them access to. So as long as the phone is able to provide data about your location, browsing habits, emails, music preference, searches, etc. Google will never care if it's a cheap one._

This is why I don't understand how computer geeks can prefer Android over iOS. I understand not everyone can afford iOS products, but for the people who both know Google's business model and can afford it, why wouldn't someone prefer the simple transaction that Apple offers - you give them money and they give you stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A lot of Chinese no name phones come with 2.* era Android exactly because of that. Google provides no workable lawsuit threat free userspace apps for later versions of android.

I think they just began to feel what a big impediment it will be for them in the future. 2.* android is what IE6 was to Windows.

A lot of app authors still intentionally target 2.* era APIs because they clientele lives in countries where "Chindroid" is dominant.

</comment><comment><USER13> I find this sort of delusionary. Look what China has done with Android

</comment><comment><USER14> The entire ecosystem of Google and Arm are not open in any way, it's a one sided relationship and this kind of fake open source makes a mockery of the open source movement and the extraordinary value Google, Facebook and rest of the ecosystem have got from open source.

The apologists and hand wavers do a disservice to good faith discussion on open source and are more interested in moats, which is a legitimate objective but then build your own moat. Don't posture about being open. That's just corrupt.

Here is a quick test of value. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google dropped Android and moved to Fuschia today? It will not even be noticed.

Same with Google's use of Linux in the rest of their infrastructure. Will Linux be affected in the slightest if Google stops using Linux? Again no.

So Google is actually benefiting hugely from Linux and adding little to no value back. Open source licenses need to learn from this to prevent their abuse. Even better a new clause which forbids the use of open source for surveillance and stalking is sorely needed. Or if this is the result people will simply not be motivated to contribute.</comment>


An anti-ageing startup is offering transfusions of blood from young people - <AUTHOR> http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/06/this-anti-aging-start-up-is-paying-thousands-of-dollars-for-teen-blood <comment><USER2> They buy the blood from blood banks, so people donating blood don't know it's going to paranoid rich people instead of sick people, and they don't get any of the money!

Edit: I thought it was illegal in the USA to pay for body parts, but there is an exception for plasma (and maybe the rest of the blood?). But it's already predatory [http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/business/06plasma.html](http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/06/business/06plasma.html) and this new business only makes it look worse.

<comment><USER3> _" His start-up, Ambrosia, is charging about $8,000 a pop for blood transfusions"_

And a quick google search says that people donating to a blood bank get $20 to $60 a pint, and the blood banks sell for $200-$600 a pint.

I wonder if blood banks will figure out the model here and sell direct.

<comment><USER4> Blood banks don't usually pay for blood. That's why it's called donating... If someone is paying for blood where do I sign up because I could use the money.. :-/

<comment><USER3> Elsewhere in the thread, but the nuance is what it is used for. You can get paid if it ends up as plasma.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I love that, true to form for the U.S.'s peculiar flavor of capitalism, the producers can't legally sell their product, but those who receive the donations can, leading to a company whose value-add is apparently advertising and customer service creating yet another creepy service for rich paranoids.

Think I'll be checking with the place I occasionally donate to and see where theirs ends up. If they need money, they can ask for that; reselling what I thought was going to hospitals, etc. to these literal vampires is not, ah, kosher with me.

<comment><USER6> This will discourage voluntery doners from blood donation. It's really shame that there is no regulations to prevent this behavior.

<comment><USER7> I hope it does. If we need to ruin the system to rebuild it then so be it. But it is colossally fucked up that we ask/pressure teenagers to give blood without compensation. It's fucked up that we don't tell them, "we're going to sell this for $1000, and use that money to help pay our CEO $10,000,000 this year."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Putting aside the ookiness factor, the science here seems pretty tenuous. "Self-reported improvements that scientists have been unable to replicate in clinical trials" are what's behind every questionable medical practice from homepathy to crystal healing.

Especially given the time and money involved in having to get regular transfusions, I'd think the practitioners would be better off using the time to spend an extra hour in the gym.

<comment><USER9> > "Self-reported improvements that scientists have been unable to replicate in > clinical trials"

I'm not sure where this quote comes from or even if it's a quote, but over the last couple of years I often read about studies proving just what this controversial startup claims. Reversing aging in mice and better healing through younger blood. The ability to use pre existing stem cells through transfusions of "younger blood" and such. I'm not sure what to think of it especially since it was only tested on mice and I didn't check the credentials of the researchers, but a quick search turned up multiple hits:

https//arstechnica.com/science/2017/04/component-of-human-umbilical-cord- blood-perks-up-the-minds-of-old-mice/

[https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130325093659.h...](https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/03/130325093659.htm)

I remember another article that I couldn't find right now, but claiming a non reproducibility seems wrong.

Again wouldn't go to this startup and think that many things are wrong here, but plausible at least.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Without knowing how reputable any of this is, I'm somehow not shocked to hear Peter Thiel is interested in medically unnecessary blood transfusions. This could be totally fake, but just based on what I know about him from news, this seems like a perfectly plausible and normal for Peter Thiel interest.

<comment><USER11> Here's a prior article about this startup and Peter Thiel:

[http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiel-wants- to-...](http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2016/08/peter-thiel-wants-to-inject- himself-with-young-peoples-blood)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> There is already a shortage of plasma and blood for people with real medical conditions that need treatment.

Consider in IVIG treatments that thousands of plasma donations are needed to make a SINGLE treatment dose and most people receiving these treatments have chronic diseases requiring ongoing treatment, so for just a single patient for one year you are talking about in excess of 10,000 donations needed.

But hey; lets just sell it all to the Peter Thiels of the world so we can keep them alive forever...

</comment><comment><USER13> "I don't want to say the word panacea, but here's something about teenagers, whatever is in young blood is causing changes that appear to make the aging process reverse."

Sounds like the most stereotypical trope of snake oil.

</comment><comment><USER14> The title should be "a scam startup is stealing money from fool people".

<comment><USER15> And blood from injured people.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This remembers the death of Gianbattista Cibo in 1492, or Pope Inmocent VIII, and an attempt from a foreign doctor to revive him on his deathbed by blood transfusions from three young male children (who died as well in the process).

<comment><USER17> Interesting piece on the wiki page: there appears to be confusion re: drinking blood vs transfusion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> From what I understand, Ambrosia is transfusing plasma, not whole blood.

There are a number of studies, going back many years, suggesting that young blood has a rejuvenating effect in older animals.

I have been using bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells to develop therapies for stroke and other forms of neural injury for more than a decade. What is particularly striking, is the effect of age upon these cells is quite obvious, both in vitro and therapeutically. In our own work, we found that when we treated stroked older animals with syngeneic MSCs from younger mice, they recovered much better than if they were treated with aged-matched MSCs.

What is even more interesting IMO, is that a couple of groups have reported that transplantation of young-to-old bone marrow, or just young-to-old MSCs significantly extends lifespan in mice. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967009](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23967009) [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355586](http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22355586)

Based on the value of preserving your own autologous bone marrow stem cells, and their potential to be used in self young-to-old rejuvenating transplantation, I co-founded [https://foreverlabs.com](https://foreverlabs.com). In short, we cryopreserve your own bone marrow stem cells, to be used later in life. It's much like cord blood stem cell storage, but for adults.

The blood is born out of the bone marrow. Furthermore, the bone marrow cells (including MSCs) produce many soluble factors (proteins, cytokins, microvesicles, non-coding RNAs, etc.) that can significantly alter the blood profile. Thus, there is reason to believe that the parabiosis or the 'young blood effect' could be conferred by rejuvenating the bone marrow niche. Indeed, we this might be happening in the studies cited above.

We just launched our own version of a young-to-old bone marrow stem cell transplantation study in mice. It is our goal to better understand and optimize the young-to-old bone marrow transplantation effect, and to eventually offer the ability for our clients to donate their own younger bone marrow to their older selves (in addition to providing a store of young cells for other potential therapies).

There is much work to be done, but IMO there is real opportunity for a health- maintenance approach to medicine, and this is one of them. Disease treatment will not long remain as the most rational or economical approach to healthcare.

</comment><comment><USER19> In the meantime people who need transfusions because they have kidney failure they might have a hard time getting them.

<comment><USER20> do you want free blood? are you a communist European?!

...now grab the popcorn and see how the people against free healthcare is going to rationalize a defense for this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> More traditional clinical trial is being run by Stanford. Estimated completion was January 2017, but data is not posted yet.

The official title is "The PLasma for Alzheimer SymptoM Amelioration (PLASMA) Study: Intravenously-Administered Plasma From Young Donors for Treatment of Mild-To-Moderate Alzheimer's Disease". More on [https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02256306](https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02256306)

</comment><comment><USER22> Who knew that Countess Bathory was a visionary entrepreneur?

<comment><USER23> VaaS. Vampirism as a service. Brilliant!

This is another one of those things that makes me fear that open class warfare is imminent, with torches, pitchforks, guillotines, and all the accessories.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Their website looks like it was designed in FrontPage 2002: [https://www.ambrosiaplasma.com](https://www.ambrosiaplasma.com) \- The whole thing is super weird. As someone who has an interest in transfusion medicine, I would absolutely not do this.

</comment><comment><USER25> I was concerned about this because I'm scheduled to donate blood later today so I contacted the American Red Cross on Facebook and asked if they had ever sold blood to Ambrosia.

"The Red Cross has no record of providing blood to this organization."

So Ambrosia must be getting their blood from another supplier.

</comment><comment><USER20> there is a bad 80s made for tv movie (or maybe a twilight zone ep) where a convenience store worker finds out the store is a front for stealing young's people blood so old rich people can live forever. in the end he run away and one of the old rich customer hold the pursuit saying "don't worry, he will be back eventually"

...and now it's lucrative pseudo science. sigh. maybe if they find the director he can be their very own hon Hubbard!

</comment><comment><USER26> Now you too can have your own blood boy. Careful that your donor has good habits, or your cholesterol might go through the roof. At that rate, you might die by 120!

For those of you confused, it's a reference to a recent episode of Silicon Valley, which actually covered this.

</comment><comment><USER27> Anyone watch the Strain? [http://the- strain.wikia.com/wiki/Eldritch_Palmer](http://the- strain.wikia.com/wiki/Eldritch_Palmer)

</comment><comment><USER28> The old taking the vigor of the youth; what an apt metaphor.

<comment><USER29> It's just like social security!

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> If we are on the verge of cultured meats of various types, is blood that far behind?

</comment><comment><USER31> Every millionaire wants their personal blood boy :)

</comment><comment><USER32> I always suspected Peter Thiel was a vampire.

</comment><comment><USER33> Thought Silicon Valley TV show was a comedy.

<comment><USER34> It's satire.

<comment><USER35> I'm pretty sure its actually a documentary

<comment><USER36> Life is satire?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Start-ups in the health care field have difficulty managing their HIPAA / HITECH compliance. You would have to be a special kind of idiot to allow them anywhere near your blood.

</comment><comment><USER38> vampires

<comment><USER39> Blood vampires & financial vampires combined! Horrible..

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> just make it a market, regulate it to ensure there's no abuse and let people sell their blood if they want to. this could lead to improvements in people's health - to donate your blood it gets tested for diseases.

edit: grammar</comment>


A Drug That Could Give You Perfect Visual Memory - <AUTHOR> http://io9.com/5306489/a-drug-that-could-give-you-perfect-visual-memory <comment><USER2> "I can't see much of a downside for this potential drug"

Really? The brain is one of the most complex organs in the human body. It is also a finite resource. There is a very high probability that increasing performance on one area will have complex side effects in other areas.

<comment><USER3> I think the author of the blog post meant that given the drug a) works in humans and b) is determined to be 'safe' by some level of metrics, she doesn't see the downside to remembering visual memories for much longer. I don't think it's fair to leave it to bloggers to assess the dangers of a neurological drug.

<comment><USER4> I agree that you've probably nailed the intent, but it makes the statement seem rather vapid in the first place.

"If the drug [does this great thing] and has no destructive side effects, then I can't see much of a downside to it." Well, duh.

<comment><USER3> No, I don't think it's obvious. We forget things for a reason; increasing the level of noise in the human mind doesn't just come with no side effects. Even if the drug works perfectly as intended, not having the ability to forget memories that are irrelevant can be a big disadvantage I'd think.

<comment><USER5> I don't think you can proceed from "we forget things" to "it's good that we forget things." We get cancer.

However, a decade and a half on the internet _is_ enough to convince me that the ability to let certain visual memories fade into oblivion is a good thing.

<comment><USER6> There is fairly good evidence that inability to forget is at least correlated with cognitive and social deficits. For an overview see: [http://books.google.com/books?id=BooNAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Min...](http://books.google.com/books?id=BooNAAAACAAJ&dq=The+Mind+of+a+Mnemonist)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > "I can't see much of a downside for this potential drug"

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

"In effect, Funes not only remembered every leaf on every tree of every wood, but even every one of the times he had perceived or imagined it...It was not only difficult for him to understand that the generic term dog embraced so many unlike specimens of differing sizes and different forms; he was disturbed by the fact that a dog at three-fourteen (seen in profile) should have the same name as the dog at three-fifteen (seen from the front)."

<comment><USER7> "Funes the Memorious" is a work of fiction.

<comment><USER8> "Funes the Memorious" is allegory

<comment><USER4> "Funes the Memorious" is merely (tasty) food for thought :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> > I can't see much of a downside for this potential drug, unless the act of > not forgetting what you see causes problems or trauma.

Many years ago I read about a professional gambler with photographic memory who was unfortunate to be caught in a deadly casino fire. Since the fire, he was unable to enter another casino because he would be flooded with perfectly horrific visuals of the deadly fire.

</comment><comment><USER10> _I can't see much of a downside for this potential drug_

Amazing that the author of a _sci-fi_ blog would say this; such a drug could feed the premises of a dozen short stories or Twilight Zone episodes -- and many would have dark endings. (Perhaps this was really her intent, to trigger fun scare stories in comment threads.) Examples:

You could remember a good experience so well you spend your whole life trying in vain to reproduce it.

You could remember a bad experience so well it paralyzes you.

Your initial advantage could go through phases of benefit and detriment, ultimately be so isolating you're completely alone, and then be reversed (a little like 'Flowers for Algernon').

There could be an ironic turn (blinded just after gaining perfect visual memory; 'Time Enough at Last').

You could, imperceptibly at first, lose other valuable skills in proportion to the memory gain. Social abilities; judgement; empathy. The irony would be you can't even remember the dimensions of life you've lost -- they're no longer perceptible compared to the eidetic perfection.

Etc, etc...

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks like you can self-administer for $340.

<http://www.abcam.com/RGS14-antibody-ab14262.html#images>

</comment><comment><USER12> This is one of the few places I think I would actually prefer a technological solution, rather than bioengineering. Given the scifi-prophesied implanted visual and aural enhancements, I would like to be able to search my stored memories, giving me a much better signal-to-noise ratio.

</comment><comment><USER13> In no way would I want this. Perhaps I'm just being that old guy on the porch complaining about technology, but I happen to like my innate ability to forget things.

I come from an extremely forgetful and absentminded family, and so it is a constant struggle to keep 'important' things in the brain. But the benefits of it by far outweigh the drawbacks (which usually come in the form of late fees and only 1 arrest :).

The brain needs to wash things down the drain to make room for new stuff. While medically we might be able to prove this is not damaging, I can only think I'd get a little crazy having so many details in me. How can we say it's not damaging when we know so little about how the brain works?

</comment><comment><USER14> I am skeptical of anything like this, because if it were so awesome to just goose the production of one protein and suddenly gain some new awesome cognitive power, evolution would have already selected for it, in all probability.

The flip side is that our current environment is very different than it was even a thousand years ago, and what was disadvantageous then _may_ be an advantage today, but this turns out to be a very tricky determination to make.

Redesigning the human body is _hard_. Almost by definition, it's already largely in a local optima; presumably it isn't entirely, but finding the path out in the horrifically multidimensional space of possible enhancements is non-trivial, in the dry-mathematician-humor sense of the word "non-trivial".

<comment><USER15> Evolution is not the process of selecting for traits you think are awesome, it's the process of selecting for traits that lead to more offspring. The fact that this particular protein hasn't been naturally amped to the max just means photographic memory may not be as important a part of getting laid as you might hope.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Cue the luddites...</comment>


Trojan found in Filezilla downloaded from SourceForge - <AUTHOR> https://forum.filezilla-project.org/viewtopic.php?t=36762 <comment><USER2> Something came up last time Sourceforge was discussed here, namely "why are projects still using it?"...

I'm the project lead for LXQt ([http://lxqt.org](http://lxqt.org)). We inherited some infrastructure legacy from LXDE, which was hosted on sourceforge. Today, we have moved most of the legacy to Github but we're still using Sourceforge's mailing list system.

We're moving to a self-hosted mailman3 instance but it's been excruciatingly painful. Email is _not fun_ to deal with.

So I'm pitching this to bored devs and entrepreneurs: Help us, and many other projects, by creating a "Github for mailing lists" with a web client featuring a clean high quality UI, easily browsable/linkable archives, etc. Make it open source, make it self-hostable, stuff in enterprise support. Make it quick and easy to create new lists.

This model can work. It's not unheard of either (cf. Discourse), but it just hasn't been executed properly yet, or is forum-only and does not support email properly. Right now, the UX of mailing list software is like IRC's. Very raw. If it were made more seamless, more approachable, overall easier, it would have a similar effect as Slack has had on unthreaded-async-topical- conversation.

PS: You should change your adblocker to uBlock Origin. It blocks Sourceforge as a malware risk.

<comment><USER3> Why mailing lists are still quite massively popular in 2015?..

<comment><USER4> How would you replace them? ( Please don't say Slack. That is just _not_ a good replacement, especially for projects that needs publicly searchable archives. )

IMHO a publicly/semi-publicly logged irc channel would do just as well, but that's even more oldschool.

<comment><USER5> The alternative is pretty much only online forums. Which imo. doesn't offer a lot of advantages, and most forum software is exceptionally bad (though yes, a few new and nicer ones are coming along)

<comment><USER6> Discourse NodeBB and Vanilla comes to mind

<comment><USER2> None of them appropriately support mailing lists, though. Email-based communication is a big deal for devs which contribute on maybe 5+ projects at once and have to manage comms in one central place.

As for Discourse's mockery of a mailing list mode, let's not even talk about it.

<comment><USER7> Are you familiar with DFeed [1] used by the D-Lang forum [2]? It is, in my opinion, one of the most usable web frontends for mailing lists (as well as a few other sources).

[1] [https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed](https://github.com/CyberShadow/DFeed)

[2] [http://forum.dlang.org/](http://forum.dlang.org/)

<comment><USER2> Never heard of it. Looks quite good. I will keep an eye on it, thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > If someone really wanted to download FileZilla and skip the malware do just > that.

> Then after installation is complete install Malware bytes and Avira. Scan > with both and restart the computer.

> Then run with ADWcleaner and and remove the infections and restart. should > be good from there and enjoy FileZilla.

Do people really think this works? I mean, there's no-one on HN who thinks this works, right?

<comment><USER9> Even if it works, that sounds telling somebody to park their car crashing it into a wall and then scraping off the pieces.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> SourceForge and Filezilla are both on their way out, hence their owners desire to monetize their remaining users while they still can.

WinSCP is a decent alternative. As is Swish:

[http://www.swish-sftp.org/](http://www.swish-sftp.org/) [https://github.com/alamaison/swish](https://github.com/alamaison/swish)

<comment><USER11> On Windows, you don't always need a 3rd party FTP program. Windows Explorer (not IE) already does FTP. Just open any folder and type ftp://example.com into the path bar.

<comment><USER4> Or you type 'ftp' in the command line.

<comment><USER12> It doesn't come standard, not on all Windows flavours. It's a part of "Core networking utilities" package that used to have some really odd dependencies.

<comment><USER13> You're mis-remembering or something... There's no such thing as a "Core Networking Utilities" package on Windows (never has been) and ftp has been a command line tool since at least Windows 95.

I don't particularly like the built in FTP command line utility (even with scripts). But it has existed a very long time indeed.

<comment><USER14> Eh, yes, it is. On the Windows 7 Home Basic and Home Premium edition, it's not pre-installed, and you have to go to System Settings -> Programs and Features -> Install or Remove Features to install it.

<comment><USER15> I have Windows 7 Home Premium on my Mac via Parallels, and just I just typed in "ftp" into cmd and it came straight up.

The only packages I have installed are "Media Features" ".Net Framework 3.5.1" "Print and Document Services" "Windows Gadget Platform" "Windows Search" and XPS Services/Viewer. All of which are default features.

Which package are you even suggesting contains the ftp.exe client? Because I don't even see one. Also why would anyone go to the trouble of putting a 47 Kb binary inside of a feature package? It makes absolutely no sense at all.

<comment><USER14> They used to put all that stuff – ftp, network utilities, etc in one package.

Granted, I haven't used Windows in 4 years, but I remember fighting with getting ftp on Windows without admin.

<comment><USER15> Are you sure you aren't mis-remembering and were installing the Unix Services for Windows, to utilise Linux-like command line utilities?

As the person said above, ftp.exe has been in Windows since the MS Dos days, and is a core utility. I've never seen it not been available on any version in any situation.

Now an FTP server definitely needs to be installed. Always has. But we're talking about the ftp.exe client.

<comment><USER16> _ftp.exe_ should be there, but _telnet.exe_ is no longer installed by default. One must go to "Add/Remove Features" (or similar) and enable it first. Maybe that's what he's confusing it with.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> _As far as the password storage goes, you are not up-to-date. They are stored base64-encoded now._

Yes, much better.

<comment><USER2> FTP passwords can't be hashed. The right solution would be to support platform keyrings but ... [https://trac.filezilla- project.org/ticket/1373](https://trac.filezilla-project.org/ticket/1373)

<comment><USER18> Why can the passwords not be hashed?

<comment><USER17> FTP is inherently insecure, everything is transmitted in plaintext. Because the server cannot check a password against a hash (due to the limitations of FTP), the client needs to store the password, and can't keep only a hash.

That being said, Base64 is woefully inadequate, just google 'base64 decode'; and this response (from someone who appears to be a contributor) is just not a defence.

<comment><USER19> If the server checked against a client-provided hash, _the hash would become the password_ , and the attacker could just use the hash as-is to login to the server. Hashing on the client solves nothing.

<comment><USER14> Except if you require hash of (password+timestamp modulo 60000)

<comment><USER20> In that case you can't just store the hash of the password, you will need to password itself.

<comment><USER14> Hmm. Yeah.

I've thought about it for the last few hours, and decided that the best solution is to just use RSA in client.

<comment><USER20> How would that work? If you would use a private key to authenticate to the server you would still need to protect this key with a password. Otherwise stealing the private key will get an attacker access to the server just as simple.

<comment><USER14> Well, you'd be 100% safe of MitM.

And you could use a hardware key auth.

Like the German eID, where the key is signed by the government and on a special chipcard.

The software requests the card to sign, you need to type in your PIN on the reader itself, and the request will be signed with RSA.

The public key is world-readable on the card, so you can just send that to the server.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I stopped using Filezilla on Windows a while back, due to this and other issues (passwords stored in plaintext, etc.) and switched to PSFTP and PSCP, which are MIT licensed and offered directly from the developer's page[1]. However, reading this article reminded me that Filezilla was actually still installed on that box, just not in use, so I decided to uninstall it while it was on my mind. Immediately after uninstalling it, it tried to force a shutdown on my computer. The only reason I was able to stop it was because I had a process running in the background that wouldn't terminate and I was given the choice by Windows to force shutdown or cancel.

Now, I've only ever installed it from ninite.com[2], so I know it didn't initially have the Sourceforge trojan/adware junk. However, I've since allowed it to download its own updates instead of doing it manually through the Ninite downloader. I've never, ever seen a program I've uninstalled via the Windows Control Panel with the ability to force a shutdown or restart without first notifying me or giving me the option to postpone. I'm starting to think there's something nefarious in Filezilla itself, perhaps in one of those "direct from the developer" updates, not just the Sourceforge wrapper.

Another interesting thing is that the built in Filezilla updater will first uninstall the app before reinstalling the updated version, and it never tried to restart or shutdown the computer during those updates, only during uninstallation from the Control Panel.

[1] [http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.h...](http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~sgtatham/putty/download.html)

[2] Ninite strips out any malware or other crap from the installer and only installs the pure program with default settings, in the background, and sources the app directly from the developer's site when possible. It's my go- to tool for essential Windows utilities.

</comment><comment><USER22> The linked thread is from 2015-04-20. SourceForge has been bundling adware with Filezilla since then and continues to do so. Here's a VirusTotal analysis of the current installer: [https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/16e0ecda06ed98f835e449e1e...](https://www.virustotal.com/en/file/16e0ecda06ed98f835e449e1e3e58959df60703c0262e357f5bcc0c3db9fae97/analysis/1449152400/)

If you want clean software you must not install directly from Sourceforge.

</comment><comment><USER23> AFAIK this practice (and not on the FileZilla project alone) is why uBlock Origin is blocking SourceForge.

<comment><USER24> Though ublock origin can use it, it's the ublock badware risks filter list which is blocking sourceforge : [https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Badware- risks](https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/Badware-risks)

<comment><USER25> You are linking to uBlock Origin ("uBO") -- that filter list is specific to uBO. The other "uBlock"[1] (abandonware) does not support strict blocking, which is what blocks SourceForge.

[1] [https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock](https://github.com/chrisaljoudi/uBlock)

<comment><USER24> Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, what I was trying to point out is that for ublock origin to block sourceforge the badware risk filter list has to be enabled. Also I suppose this list can used with other blocking software.

Oh and gorhill, much much thanks for your time and work on this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Unfortunately Filezilla has this trojan for some years now! The trojan send all your identities to a server. This is tested 100%. We had many passwords stolen this way and we are 100% sure that it's filezilla.

Just take this test: Try to download the Filezilla and when the download page shows click on the Direct Link. Then compare the two executables, one that downloaded automatically and the one that it downloaded via the direct link. You will see that the direct download is clean but the other has the SF icon and it has a virus!

<comment><USER27> That's a pretty serious claim. Do you actually have evidence to prove it was FZ? Just because the SF executable includes spyware doesn't mean it's disclosing passwords.

<comment><USER26> You are kidding right? And what do you think that spyware does? They steal passwords! Our DC warns us of stolen passwords every time a client is using this exactly "touched" version of FZ. The DC is informed by a security firm and 100% of the situations is the Filezilla that steals them!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> So SourceForge has gone from terrible to (somehow) even worse than that.

It makes me wonder; why don't we have a good site for Windows programs yet?

Ideally, it'd be run by volunteers (not a company with a profit motive), would manually moderate the programs posted them (and remove any adware/spyware/bundled programs by force if necessary) and tell every malware ridden sleazy ad network to sod off.

It exists in more niche subject areas. If I look for game making resources, a lot of those sites actually do proper moderation and try and make sure viruses aren't present in uploads. Places like MFGG are pretty good about this. So why don't we have that for software in general?

I mean, there's GitHub and package managers, but it's disappointing how this market has no honest people in it.

</comment><comment><USER29> This has been known about for some time. The Filezilla guys know about it.

[http://sourceforge.net/blog/devshare-relaunch-power-to- end-u...](http://sourceforge.net/blog/devshare-relaunch-power-to-end-users/)

<comment><USER30> Shouldn't this be a criminal offense?

<comment><USER29> It's usually hidden in the EULA. Very hidden.

It's not just Filezilla or sourceforge doing this. Lenovo do this routinely. They used to bundle something called BrowserGuard, which contains a PUP by Conduit. Conduit have since been partially acquired by another company Perion. I followed that rabbit hole last year, Lenovo point blank refuse to acknowledge it is spyware.

And it IS spyware. I created a Perion account to see what they actually had going on. They have an online form you can upload your executable to and it wraps their malware in the form of a toolbar. I tested it by uploading notepad.exe, and sure enough it works quite easily.

They capture your location and a whole bunch of data about your computer. They also have remote update facilities built into it. It's pernicious, and the company structure has been designed to make it very hard to determine who owns it. And Lenovo were very happy to use them.

Oh, and here is an article that confirms the autoupdate:

[https://support.lenovo.com/au/en/documents/ht101178](https://support.lenovo.com/au/en/documents/ht101178)

<comment><USER30> Good to know - I was almost ready to consider Lenovo again after Superfish, but no...

<comment><USER31> You should generally not trust preinstalled OSs, regardless of vendor. Most (all?) of them shovel crap in there, often because they get paid to do it. It's sad, but it's just the world we live in.

The really scary thing is when vendors put in backdoors or trojans like this at a level below the OS (in UEFI, for example).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> It's done intentionally to make the owners a bit of money. They have direct download links on their website (click show all on download page), avoid the green Sourceforge link.

<comment><USER33> Nope, all links direct to Sourceforge.

<comment><USER34> Yes, all the downloads are hosted on Sourceforge, but Jonnerz is pointing out that the additional links come without the Sourceforge wrapper (the links will have "?nowrap" at the end).

We all wish FileZilla would just drop Sourceforge completely, but at least the non-wrapped versions are still available.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> No way I'm supporting this kind of behavior. Can you suggest an alternative to FileZilla ?

<comment><USER36> The problem is not FileZilla, but SourceForge. They do this to all their files.

<comment><USER37> That's not quite accurate... FileZilla has opted into the bundle-with-crapware program [1] to make some money.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8849950](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8849950)

<comment><USER38> Not only that, but the FileZilla Admin is posting in that thread denying any claim that there is anything wrong with the installer, despite repeated reports from multiple users.

FileZilla is maintained by people who _want_ to push spyware to you because it's how they get paid. This isn't an accident.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The Filezilla forum admin in that thread obstinately blames users for "accidentally" accepting a bundeled "offer", when users are clearly warning project admins that the installer is infected with malware.

Does sourceforge share revenue from bundeled installs with projects?

<comment><USER14> If you opt-in, they do. Filezilla was one of the first to opt-in.

If you say "no, I don't want you to bundle your installer with my project", they will do so anyway (look at GIMP), and you get nothing.

<comment><USER39> so yeah, it seems like there's kind of a conflict of interest here. if there's no way for a user to know whether the project opted in to revenue sharing, then how can they trust the project?

in other words, in my view, a project that opts in to revenue sharing with crapware bundlers who are known to sometimes distrubute malware, is behaving unethically.

so now i don't trust filezilla dev's in general, even if i get an package signed by my distro or whatever. very dissapointing. worse still, it makes projects that didn't opt in suspect in my view, simply because they are on sourceforge; if i can't find out whether they opted in, how can i know any project isn't taking kickbacks?

i really hope i'm missing something here....

<comment><USER14> For your information, currently sourceforge "usually" only bundles the crapware with projects where either the person opted in, or where sourceforge has "seized" the repo.

If it bundles crapware, and the maintainer listed on sourceforge.net is sourceforge itself, they didn't opt in.

Otherwise they did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Older thread about Sourceforge: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9623142](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9623142)

Just don't use them.

</comment><comment><USER41> Absolute money quote: "As far as the password storage goes, you are not up-to- date. They are stored base64-encoded now."

<comment><USER11> There's the argument that if someone has access to the passwords then they've already got enough control over the computer to do whatever other damage they like - like reading them out of memory after they're decrypted.

Base64 at least provides some protection against somebody looking at it with their eyes and memorizing them, which is perhaps a more likely scenario - family members, kids, etc.

<comment><USER42> Base64 provides no protection from malware that infects your machine and actively looks for this kind of stuff. Stored passwords from websites, ftp programs, key safes, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> "While the SourceForge Installer may present third-party offers,"

Don't worry, it's just an "offer". They're totally not distributing malware via their installer.

</comment><comment><USER44> About two hours ago I pondered installing the Diffuse merge tool[0] on a Windows box. Then I noticed that it was hosted on Sourceforge and thought "nah, not really worth the risk". Now that I see this post I feel even more content that I avoided Sourceforge.

[0] hxxp://diffuse.sourceforge.net/

</comment><comment><USER45> What really gets me is the glib attitude of the FileZilla maintainers to this news. Whether trojan or adware, the "just uncheck the boxes" mindset is rather insulting.

Move your stuff off Sourceforge! What the _hell_ is wrong with your people?

<comment><USER8> Filezilla opted in to the malware wrapper. They made a concious decision to do this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> It's funny, I literally just messaged the maintainer of the Minibian project, politely asking that he move the Minibian project away from Sourceforge, when I saw this post on HN. It's too bad to see Sourceforge ending up like this, after it was so useful years back.

</comment><comment><USER47> Slightly O/T, but has anyone experienced similar problems with downloads from PortableApps.com? They use SourceForge as well, and I am now hesitant to recommend PortableApps to friends and co-workers.

</comment><comment><USER48> It would seem that more projects would benefit from running their own free software on their own virtual server infrastructure. A decade ago, there was GNU Mailman and it's still around - [http://www.list.org](http://www.list.org).

Yes, this means that a self-contained project needs the funds for basic hosting and also someone with system admin experience. But that should not be unreachable for major projects.

</comment><comment><USER49> Tim Kosse has really tarnished the reputation of FileZilla by ignoring the SourceForge malware problem.

Chrome and Firefox should add SourceForge to their malicious site list.

<comment><USER50> There are a few things that could happen:

a) Certainly if a site is distributing malware/virus/trojans it needs to be flagged as such -- whether it is intentional or not.

b) Sourceforge's policies indicate it they are no longer a trusted source for official files and is probably being ranked far too highly on Google and other search engines.

c) If Dice fails to promptly and adequately address the distribution of malicious files for profit the appropriate government agencies should become involved.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> There is a safer way install FileZilla through ninite installer or chocolately

[https://ninite.com/filezilla](https://ninite.com/filezilla)

Chocolatey nuget is similar to Linux package managers but for Windows programs

[https://chocolatey.org](https://chocolatey.org) choco install filezilla

<comment><USER52> Please don't recommend chocolatey for this reason. While it's excellent, you should probably check the install file first: [https://chocolatey.org/packages/filezilla](https://chocolatey.org/packages/filezilla) (and click "show" on "tools\chocolateyInstall.ps1")

You don't see the installer UI, but it still downloads from sourceforge because that's where the executables are stored.

<comment><USER53> Unless ninite is building everything from source where do you think it's getting the installer binaries?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> > 2015-04-20

</comment><comment><USER55> Clicking on the download link ws blocked by ublock origin. Weird.

<comment><USER56> After the last Sourceforge malware-bundling debacle (Can't even remember who it was at this point--someone who said Sourceforge seized their repo from them and then repackaged it with malware), gorhill added Sourceforge to the uBlock blacklists.

Good riddance, I say.

<comment><USER14> It was the GIMP guys, btw.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> Refuse to download anything from SourceForge anymore. Sad too, used to be the best out there back in the day.

</comment><comment><USER58> People are still using SourceForge? :O

</comment><comment><USER59> you can get a clean version from fosshub

</comment><comment><USER60> Are we still using FTP?

<comment><USER16> You might be amazed at how much FTP is still actively used -- especially by the financial industry!

<comment><USER60> Amazed _and_ alarmed ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> That article is from April. Good to know about it, but is this news?

<comment><USER62> First post on the thread is indeed old, but there are some newer ones.</comment></comment>


How do you find testers for a new mobile app? - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=core.nakedshelf&hl=en_GB

<comment><AUTHOR> Im still finishing bug fixing nakedshelf - am looking to get more detailed feedback for bug testing. What networks have people tried?</comment>


Why FriendFeed Deserves a Billion Dollar Valuation - <AUTHOR> http://tchblg.wordpress.com/2008/05/31/why-friendfeed-deserves-a-one-billion-dollar-valuation/

<comment><USER2> The biggest issue is how mainstream they will be able to become. Many of my friends don't even know what the RSS is, not to mention aggregating them. ;-)

But I agree about the Search feature being the most useful part. I have found that search on twitter and FF conversations is pretty useful already and I use it often when basic googling is not enough.

<comment><USER3> This is probably the only comment I've read here that addresses the fact that the majority of people on the internet are not hackers.

Google is useful (through the same interface) to your grandma and a rocket scientist. THAT'S why it's so valuable and was able to go mainstream.

In order for Friendfeed to go mainstream, the services it's syndicating have to first. I don't think I've run into a single person in everyday life that knows what Twitter is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does the company generate profit, or even income?

</comment><comment><USER5> I wish I had a billion dollars. I would spend them all to buy FriendFeed. Yep.

<comment><USER6> You've got to remember that the marginal utility of your _first_ billion dollars is a lot higher than the rest...</comment></comment>


Nearly half of Twitter accounts pushing to reopen America may be bots - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/2020/05/21/1002105/covid-bot-twitter-accounts-push-to-reopen-america/ <comment><USER2> Headline is strange. The article itself says something similar but not the same:

> But in a new study, the researchers have found that bots may account for > between 45 and 60% of Twitter accounts discussing covid-19."

Edit: this was more interesting:

> not only were bots gaining traction and accumulating followers, but they > accounted for 82% of the top 50 and 62% of the top 1,000 influential > retweeters

<comment><USER3> CMU has published before that probably Russian adversaries fused different groups in the social graph of Facebook in 2016 and basically got in control of both groups after the merge.

Bots are used to get attention, steer the conversation, introduce key retweeters to bot retweeters and merge a couple independent user groups at scale.

This is a highly specialist job not a couple of random amateurs, and could be the underlying mechanism at work here.

Big brands pay a fortune to execute similar tactics but are not even 10% as effective. Coke for example has an annual advertisement budget 7+ billion.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Again, it follows the same pattern of observing American culture, looking for the pre-existing conflicts and just pouring gasoline into whatever side needs it to catch fire.

</comment><comment><USER5> Bot Sentinel uses machine learning to find bots. [https://botsentinel.com/](https://botsentinel.com/)

<comment><USER6> From Bot Sentinel's About Section:

"Instead of creating a model based on our interpretation of a troll or bot, we used Twitter rules as a guide when selecting Twitter accounts to train our model. We searched for accounts that were repeatedly violating Twitter rules and we trained our model to identify accounts similar to the accounts we identified as "trollbots.""

That's not a bot.

<comment><USER7> It's also a very questionable way to source training data.

Most bots should be programmed to avoid violating Twitter rules to ensure they are not banned.

Maybe Bot Sentinel's model is simply finding users that prefer not to follow authority/rules.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So only 0.5% of America's population is advocating for reopening America on Twitter as opposed to the 1% that is for keeping it closed?

</comment><comment><USER9> probably more than half of all Twitter accounts are bots :)

edit: apparently this too is a pursuit of academic study. estimated at 15%:

[https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/view/1558...](https://aaai.org/ocs/index.php/ICWSM/ICWSM17/paper/view/15587)

</comment><comment><USER10> News flash, half of twitter is bots.

</comment><comment><USER11> What about the account pushing to keep america closed? Are half of those bots as well? Or was this "study" done with a particular agenda in mind?

<comment><USER12> Exactly. You can probably find pots pushing it just about anything. Wire articles about and takedown the ones that question mainstream opinions. Leave the rest. They did the world we live in right now. Extreme, forced conformity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> In every crime, look the one who had a solid reason to commit it. Russia and China support literally any freaks, like anti-vaxxers, just to make US focused on its internal problems. Notice, how well-organized the reopen movement, and how sporadic and unprepared anti-reopen protests, mostly organized by small groups of medical workers.

<comment><USER14> No need to leave the country to find well capitalized suspicious characters.

I'm sure the CEO of Jet Blue (the guy that funded a phony study to minimize covid) and execs like him would gladly astroturf on twitter.

</comment></comment><comment> throwaway-2020 Even though this is an interesting story, I'll make a prediction this post will be flagged into oblivion, as an earlier post will testify

[https://news.ycombinator.com/itemid=23258169](https://news.ycombinator.com/itemid=23258169)

</comment><comment><USER15> Russia's view on C19 changed from disbelief to acceptance in April I think?

So either you will see this in the data, or you'll see them playing both sides.

So where are the bots to close America?

The study isn't even released yet. So who knows what they may have made up yet with their 'machine- learning'.

There obviously is a lot of misinformation from nation states on Twitter and Reddit and HN. This press release is next to useless unless it has a point or interesting proof or names a new nation not Russia.

<comment><USER16> >So where are the bots to close America?

Bot disinformation campaigns like this tend to be fuelled by US adversaries and thus usually push into directions that are harmful or embarassing for the US, so there isn't much incentive to advocate for keeping the containment measures going, because that's essentially the sensible decision backed by health experts at this point.

All the spam around covid, which you can even see if you just browse twitter yourself is mostly miracle cures, reopening the US, Bill Gates conspiracy theory stuff and so on.

<comment><USER15> > and thus usually push into directions that are harmful or embarassing for > the US,

No they aren't. They push conflict is the theory. If this theory is incorrect, then that's a big deal.

But as I also said Russia also did a 180 on whether lock downs were good or bad.

So we still should have seen this turn. They would have wanted the USA to lockdown at first, since they didn't.

If any other country is involved, that too is a big deal.

This press release just repeats what we know. Russia messes with twitter to piss people off, but the article leads with a great Russian designed title "Only bots push to reopen"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Everyone _may_ be a bot.

</comment><comment><USER18> Anytime something doesn't fit the narrative we're all supposed to submit to: bots.

<comment><USER19> So you believe there are conspirators who manipulate the media to push a certain narrative on the public, but you do not believe there are conspirators who manipulate social media to push a narrative?

<comment><USER20> I saw something recently that was supposed to be a tearjerking story about a doctor who is just drained by all the crazy conspiracy theorists that are persecuting him. But the whole story _was_ a conspiracy theory about Facebook and Google creating viral conspiracy theories, with no particular motivation or mechanism. This seems to me like a whole genre, it just stood out because of the anti-conspiracy theory fillip.

I can hardly think of anything I've read in a long time that attacks conspiracy theories, specific ones or in general, without promoting an unbelievable one as an alternative. Or demanding one by implication.

If you absolutely are going to reject the idea of a conspiracy being responsible for general insanity, it seems like maybe we should be looking for an environmental factor, analogous to leaded gasoline.

Everybody has been worrying about cell phones causing cancer, maybe the radiation just makes people crazy instead? Or maybe there is a virus that unlike Covid doesn't cause lung problems that people notice?

<comment><USER20> I just want to note that when I wrote the above I was unaware of the specific conspiracy theory that covid-19 is caused by 5G - I saw that this morning, and it's a coincidence, I swear!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I'll admit that I didn't read the article, but the headline sounds so much like "the boy who cried wolf" by now.</comment>


White House shares doctored video to support punishment of journalist Jim Acosta - <AUTHOR> https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/white-house-shares-doctored-video-to-support-punishment-of-journalist-jim-acosta/ar-BBPuaAo <comment><USER2> I can't tell whether one version looks more aggressive than the other. As for the extra frames, maybe it's been mangled a few times by things like screen recorders.</comment>


Why EMC May Soon Buy Out  VMware - <AUTHOR> http://recode.net/2015/08/03/why-emc-may-soon-buy-out-not-spin-out-vmware/ <comment><USER2> EMC and VMWare (and Cisco) have a partnership for the vBlock managed infrastructure device. VMWare has other managed device platfroms, like the EVO:RAIL, which runs on the hardware provided by other partners, like Dell or EMC. Or the vCloud, a VMWare managed service provider.

Overall their marketing seems a little unfocused. And these managed infrastructure devices are so large (physically, monetarily, resource-wise) that you're really tied into the one you chose, it's not easy to demo more than one of these at once.</comment>


The Basics of Prototyping - <AUTHOR> http://adamwiggins.svbtle.com/the-basics-of-prototyping

<comment><USER2> Love this. However, my biggest issue with prototyping isn't in convincing other devs why it's useful, but (A) convincing clients why they should pay for it, and (B) convincing management why it's a sound internal investment.

</comment><comment><USER3> two additional reasons i am a big fan of prototyping. First, it's an excellent to store requirements; and second, it's a great way to provoke relentless iteration of the extant requirement list (e.g., some are thrown out, some are refined, etc., the priority order of the entire list might be changed). Giving stakeholders a simple web client with a few widgets that encapsulate the project's technical crux, is perhaps the best and simplest way to encourage their useful feedback, because as they are interacting with the simple prototype client, they are actually thinking about the project in a very critical and useful way.</comment>


I Weigh Way Less - <AUTHOR> https://blog.urth.org/2020/02/11/i-weigh-way-less/ <comment><USER2> interesting write up on the lifestyle change and the transition of a obese type 2 into obese type 1, and still somehow this person makes sound a small improvement as a success.

<comment><USER3> I've made a similar loss and maintained it for about 15 years (so far). Although I'm still marginally obese, a number of symptoms I was having have greatly reduced or left entirely.

You could say I failed, in that I'm still fat. Or, you could say that I succeeded, since I lost more weight than most people ever will, and have kept it off, probably forever. Life's like that.

(How? No idea. Did eliminate most pop and quite a lot of fried/sugary/floury food from my regular diet. But who knows.)

<comment><USER2> Small improvements are not failures either successes. The thing would be to get into the healthy range of weight</comment></comment></comment>


Time and Attendance System Software - <AUTHOR>

Today, most employers face a challenge in controlling employee's attendance. Some of the major problems are; "buddy‐punching", unauthorized overtime, time spent on processing employees' attendance, and human error in payroll calculation.PayPunch Time and Attendance system was developed in 2004 and since then Xpress Software, has been providing Biometric Time and Attendance solutions to thousands of customers in organizations such as; government, medical, food processing, manufacturing, and retail. PayPunch system is being implemented in businesses of all sizes, numbering from just a few to thousands of employees operating in different environments; such as factories, restaurants, hotels, warehouses, offices and construction sites. PayPunch is a Time & Attendance tracking system that works in conjunction with biometric time clock: Fingerprint Readers and Hand Readers, as well as, non‐biometric devices: Proximity and HID Card Readers. Instead of employees punching in a time‐card or logging their attendance by hand, they simply place their finger on the Fingerprint Reader sensor, place their hand into the Hand Reader or flash a card in front of the proximity or HID card reader and PayPunch does the rest! PayPunch is a simple solution that pays for itself over and over again by allowing your organization to:
• Automate payroll processing • Eliminate buddy‐punching • Eliminate time‐cards • Eliminate early punch‐ins • Eliminate unauthorized overtime • Eliminate hours of payroll calculations
Accurately reports employee time/attendance to Payroll & HR PayPunch on average will pay for itself within 1‐3 months. It completely eliminates the time and effort required by the Shift Supervisor to monitor the time‐clock activity at punch in/out times and significantly reduces the manual involvement of payroll and human resources departments, consequently leading to substantial cost savings and improved productivity.
PayPunch Features • Daily and weekly statistics and reports • Manual adjustments (by Authorized Personnel only) • Shifts schedule support • Attendance exceptions tracking • Multi‐factories support and multi‐devices support • Vacation and paid holidays tracking • Multi‐level password protection • Flexible configuration of the rounding rules and grace periods • Attendance data export to Payroll software PayPunch Overview PayPunch Time and Attendance System is comprised of 3 main parts: 1. Punch Clock device such as Fingerprint Reader, Hand Reader or Proximity Card Rader. 2. Universal Biometric Driver (UBD) software which provides communication between device and computer with the database. 3. PayPunch software which provides the necessary user interface to review and modify punches, print various reports and export data to a payroll system.
Each employee punches in when they start work and punches out when they finish work at a time clock device located at an entry point. (This can be done many times throughout a day to account for breaks and lunches.) Universal Biometric Driver (UBD) software periodically connects to the device(s) and downloads logs into the PayPunch. Authorized user, can then login into the PayPunch program to view all employees punctual attendance, and make appropriate adjustments. Different reports can be printed out such as Time Card, Latecomers, Absent, and others. In addition, PayPunch offers a report builder tool to allow users to create their own custom reports. Payroll data can be exported to excel, CSV or other preferred formats later to be imported into the company Payroll System. PayPunch can work with unlimited number of devices. In addition, different types of devices can work together. For example, Fingerprint Reader can be installed in the office and Hand Reader can be installed in the warehouse. Data from both devices can be extracted into the same system. Time clock devices can be connected to PayPunch remotely. All Fingerprint Readers and Proximity Card Readers have a built‐in ethernet module and for the Hand Reader ethernet module can be added as an option. As long as the remote location has internet, PayPunch can connect to the devices and retrieve the attendance logs. In addition, Hand Reader can have optional dial‐up modem module and PayPunch will connect to the device using dial up modem. <comment><AUTHOR> www.paypunch.com</comment>


5D Chess with Multiverse Time Travel - <AUTHOR> https://store.steampowered.com/app/1349230/5D_Chess_With_Multiverse_Time_Travel/ <comment><USER2> Because regular chess isn't complex enough.</comment>


Growth at Any Cost: Social Media Has Made the World a Worse Place, How to Fix It - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dareobasanjo/growth-at-any-cost-social-media-has-made-the-world-a-worse-place-heres-how-to-fix-it-8a80e0683ff3 <comment><USER2> (It's mostly about Twitter and Reddit.)

 _there is no incentive to think about how their product affects the users that use it and the world at large._

That sounds like most newspapers, TV, radio, movies, games etc</comment>


The problem with rating systems - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/4a17dc6c4c7

<comment><USER2> I think a further issue with rating systems is the difference between individuals.

Some people's 3 star reviews are higher than other people's 4 star reviews so reviewing the ratings can often be misleading.

I think the issue arises from some people viewing 3 as the default, the "everything worked, nothing went wrong" rating, reserving 4 and 5 for people who go above and beyond.

Whereas others see 5 as the default and the "nothing went wrong" rating.

I think 3 should be the default personally, as the article says, if you rate everything a 5, what do you do when something exceeds all of your expectations. I think it would help when looking at the quality of a product.

If anything that "does the job" has a majority of 5 star reviews, how can you tell when something really goes above and beyond?

At the moment it seems review systems have one level of good, and four varying degrees of poor.

<comment><AUTHOR> > At the moment it seems review systems have one level of good, and four > varying degrees of poor.

Really well said. And the more tiers there are the worse this gets...

Being less ambiguous about what each rating stands for is such an easy way to resolve this.</comment></comment>


A 13-year-old girl reportedly makes over $1,000 a day creating ASMR videos - <AUTHOR> https://www.businessinsider.com/mackenna-kelly-asmr-children-videos-2019-2 <comment><USER2> Reactions to this girl's channel went viral on YouTube a few months ago. The main instigator was this[0] slightly controversial video response to this girl's ASMR channel. The linked video went viral and got banned, then unbanned and demonetized. The main gist of the speaker here is that there's something fishy about underage girls making these videos. Some of this girl's videos are blatantly sexual (she re-enacts porn-plots, references Tinder, dating, etc.), and her viewerbase seems to know that and want that. The whole situation is a bit sketchy.

[0] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk) (NSFW)

<comment><USER3> Goddamn, I really _really_ didn't expect that level of extreme creepiness. The honey thing was weird, but the "sassy" policewoman thing? Wow. If you walked in on someone watching that, you'd be seriously concerned. Again, my asmptiom going into this was "oh boy, Internet moralizing and outrage again," but it's... incredibly sketchy. At best.

<comment><USER4> Moralizing has gotten a bad rap over the past couple decades, to the point of being almost completely declawed in progressive circles, but one can only hope that morals will grow their claws back soon enough for stuff like this to be stopped.

No matter how liberal you are, you're shooting you a future self in the foot if you profess a unconditional disregard of moralizing, because eventually you may discover that you do actually have morals. All it takes to get enligtened is for something bad enough to get spread around.

Edit: don't get misled by thinking I'm using the Twitter/Cable News vernacular, by liberal I mean "permissive," and by progressive I mean "in favor of changing things." Those categories could apply to the forces in any culture, even historical cultures.

<comment><USER5> Where have you gotten the impression the 'progressives' and 'liberals' would have any qualms about calling out how dodgy these videos are?

<comment><USER4> By "liberal" I mean more liberal than average, which requires pushing back or at least not supporting at least one taboo. By doing so you put yourself at risk of dismantling your own ability to keep any taboos around, even the ones that actually are right.

I'm not talking about political groups; by any measure in urban areas the political group called liberals would be just "normal," or "average." Progressive doesn't mean "Democrat," a Democrat in a blue county that believes things should be the same tomorrow as they are today is by definition a conservative.

<comment><USER6> What are these lost taboos you're referring to?

It sounds like you're saying people ought to go back to being homophobic, for example, because it will save us from a slippery slope to pedophilia?

<comment><USER7> What slope? Some people are already there.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vux3-uFNtLw)

<comment><USER6> Some people have always been there. That doesn't mean they got there because not being homophobic is a slippery slope.

Your video seems to be about a pedophile who is upset that the LGBT community _isn 't_ inclusive of pedophilia. I don't understand what point you were trying to make by linking that.

<comment><USER7> The point is that that some people are already using the good ideas like tolerance about what people do in the bedroom to sneak outright pedophilia in there. Where you see someone complaining that not everybody accepts it, I first and foremostly see someone who _does_ accept the argument they are making, otherwise they wouldn't be making it. That doesn't not count just because not everybody on the planet agrees with them. And if you think that's just the one person that exists, rather than an example for many persons that exist, that's a very bold assumption.

And in Germany for example, there is quite the long and sordid history regarding that, among other things with people trying to legalize "consentual" [sic] sexual relations between minors and adults, but I don't know if there is anything thorough in the English language about it:

[https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie- Debatte_(1970e...](https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/P%C3%A4dophilie- Debatte_\(1970er_und_1980er_Jahre\))

And that was directly in the wake of working against discrimination of homosexuality. For some naive people, it _all_ fell under the umbrella of "being different sexually", and for pedophiles, that was how they tried to get a foot in the door.

This sentence

> Die Debatte über die Legalisierung pädosexueller Akte ist historisch eng > verbunden mit der Forderung nach Abschaffung des § 175 (StGB)

translates to

> the debate about the legalization of pedosexual acts is historically tightly > connected with the demand to get rid of [ > [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragraph_175) > ]

Or hey, this

[http://www.taz.de/!5143954/](http://www.taz.de/!5143954/)

An article about an article that appeard in 1979 in the taz, declaring pedophilia is a victimless crime in the title. One sentence from that:

> Bei einem Blick in die Archive wird klar: Teile des linksalternativen > Milieus sympathisierten mit Pädophilen - zumindest boten sie ihnen einen > ideologischen Rahmen.

translates to

> A look into the archives makes it obvious that parts of the alternative left > scene sympathized with pedophiles - at least they provided an ideological > framework to them.

So, that already happened. And it absolutely was fueled by being overzealous about being liberal and progressive -- that's not what made anyone a pedophile, but that's how some people fell for the schemes of pedophiles, and let themselves and their networks be used. That's a fact. I'm not familiar with similar things in North America but I wouldn't outright bet on not finding anything _if_ I had the nerve to go looking, which I don't at this time.

edit: there's ignorance, and there's active suppression of information. what a cesspool.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I remember seeing a video posted on /r/videos about how this girl's parents were probably exploiting her for money and how youtube is not doing anything to stop this.

\--edit--

there it is. (please be warned this is very NSFW) [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk)

<comment><USER9> For those may not know, Wubby's video (the video you linked to) was taken down by youtube and a strike was incurred on Wubby's account [1], while the video(s) that he criticized continue to remain up.

It was eventually re-instated and the strike removed, but for a while there the drama surrounding this imbalance of discourse was through the roof on reddit.

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA)

<comment><USER10> Why was the video taken down ?

I have just watched it, so far I disagree with him (this ASMR channel is weird as fuck but I don't think it makes it sexual) but I don't see what would justify taking down his video.

<comment><USER11> He shows that Youtube says that sexualisation of children is absolutely forbidden on YT, so they banned his video. Yes, this is baffling when they left up the original channel.

<comment><USER10> I don't understand your sentence.

Do you mean that his video was taken down because it sexualizes a child ?

If so, that's almost as weird as these videos themselves

<comment><USER11> Yes, his video was taken down because YouTube said it sexualises a child.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> What is the danger here? There are kids making more money on youtube doing other things. Is this sexual? Because nearly anything can be sexual for someone. Some are excited by people popping balloons. The only complete answer is to ban kids from youtube, and that isnt going to happen.

Before going after asmr, take a close look at who watches the gymnastics and cheerleading "demos". Pole dancing is also now a sport for kids. That is on youtube too.

I once taught a law class where we had to discuss this stuff. If you take away every "sexualized" image of an under-18 you are blacklisting huge areas of modern culture, everything from family sitcoms to superhero movies. Some disney movies have scenes that are shocking when you play them on thier own, many ironically on youtube... which made playing them during lectures much easier on me.

<comment><USER13> Interesting that HN is just hearing about this, it made the front page of reddit back in October when a youtuber named wubbey "investigated" it.

His video is both funny and hard to watch due to the extremely awkward sexual undertones. So to answer your question, is this sexual?

Yes, and that seems to be the intent of whoever is running that channel.

See for yourself: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk)

<comment><USER12> This issue comes up all the time: is it sexual per se, ie for everyone, or does the viewer make it sexual? Balloons are not sexual. They only become so in the mind of certain viewers. Is asmr always sexual, or does it only become so because a kid is involved? That might say more about the viewer than the material.

Without clarity, if there is room for debate, i side with not restricting the speech rights of these kids.

<comment><USER14> Out of curiosity did you watch the linked video? This isn't "Pizzagate" looking for pedophilia where it doesn't exist. The girl posted a video titled "sassy cop roleplay" featuring dialog that sounds like it came from a traffic stop in a cheesy 90s porno, but updated with Tinder references. It's not illegal bit that doesn't mean that YouTube has to host it. They've certainly deleted and demonetized videos for less.

<comment><USER12> Ya, but that is nothing compared to some of the other vids on youtube. Teenagers make and post crazy stuff every day. I am very hesitant to start pointing fingers at behavior that in other context our culture openly encourages and rewards. I dont like it, but it is the sort of thing best left to parents imho. I had some girls at my door last halloween dressed as harley quin. If thier parents are ok with it then im not going to say a word.

Imho they looked less sexy than literaly very cold.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is the first time that I heard of ASMR. Verrrry Innnnteresting!

I work in a similar field. Inducing weird feelings and related trippy stuff. I tend to the other end of the spectrum tho. Crass strobes. Full saturation. Lots of throbbing.

[https://vimeo.com/308956882](https://vimeo.com/308956882)

If we can do drugs via digital audiovideoetc then.... a very important field of development is suggested.

<comment><USER16> Thanks for sharing, these are really lush. It seems like high-frequency visuals have a lot of latent potential; frequency oscillation has been widely explored with audio, but less so with visuals, even though our ability to rapidly interpret complex rhythmic patterns exists in both fields. There is perhaps a long history of related work you're familiar with, but I first came across this type of phenomena in an early film by Tony Conrad: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY5VryfCRig](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yY5VryfCRig)

Have you experienced significant perceptual changes from viewing them for extended durations? Are there specific sequences / parameters you've found to be more powerful than others?

If you don't mind sharing, I'm also curious to know what language you're using to write the software!

<comment><USER15> Key elements that I see are

synchronizing the audio with the video. Video strobes correspond to audio strobes.

Some kind of simple physical-metaphor sound and video logic. Like, bigger = lower, smaller= higher. Certain colors correspond to certain sounds. Simple stuff like that.Like cartoon logic.

Total engrossment of the senses. Fill them up compltelely (thus "whelmer"). I see smell, tactile effects... stuff like that, being incorporated later.

There is definitely some kind of trance thing happening.

There is another tech at my site (fleen.org) called "clouded plain" that uses moving intersecting vibrating stripes. MUCH hallucinations off of that. Little kids like it very much. They just stand and stare.

I wrote it in java.

You really should download a hq copy and view it projected large (like 6-10 feet tall) with nice speakers. Here : [https://www.dropbox.com/s/6t9skr0ua4le5ma/whelmer46a_5m.mkv?...](https://www.dropbox.com/s/6t9skr0ua4le5ma/whelmer46a_5m.mkv?dl=1)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I got to know about ASMR recently thanks to the video that was taken down and the description felt very similar to what I've experienced since I was a kid. I used to even flaunt this as a super power when I was young. Wondering if someone knowledgeable could explain-this-phenomena / suggest-some-literature to me. Reddit probably is the right place to enquire about this but here goes nothing.

I can spontaneously generate this tingling feeling at will by moving my chest muscles ever so slightly. This act lifts my shoulders a tiny bit and results in a mild pulse descending from the back of my head that flows through the spine. Doing this continuously 3-4 times results in goosebumps in the right weather conditions.

I got a similar feeling(comparitively milder than what I could generate spontaneously) when I watched/listened-to one of the ASMR videos which made me wonder if there a way to quantitatively measure these ASMR responses claimed by people.

<comment><USER18> I made an account to comment on this. I experience a similar thing but the generation feels like it comes from the base of my spine and travels up rather than down. I've been rather unsuccessful at finding out anything substantive about it. There's a lot of woo surrounding it - I'd recommend checking out what people say about Kundalini meditation as it seems to describe what you and I have experienced.

When I was a child I thought it was conscious generation of adrenaline. Now I'm wiser I know that's probably not true, but it certainly feels very similar.

<comment><USER19> As I sit here reading your comment, I generated same kind of feeling, throat, neck, down spine, and forearms. I thought, "oh yeah, that thing." I guess I can kind of do it at will, though it's sort of difficult to explicitly describe. Almost think that when I focus to do it, the effect is more reluctant.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I hope this doesn't ruin the kid for real work.

<comment><USER21> US median income is roughly $30k, why would you want to do "real work" if you can make a decades worth of money in a year? *

* not saying the particular characteristics of this story are not a little creepy

<comment><USER22> Isn't that the same argument that could be applied to child actors / singers / performers? I don't know the statistics, I admit, but there seem to be not so many people who were those things are a kid who are happy and well balanced people, and many who are not (or who are dead). Given the sexual undertones of a child doing ASMR, I can't imagine being a child Youtube star is going to work out any better.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Pedophiles.

Just look at some of the comments left on her videos. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk)

<comment><USER24> I watched it expecting hyperbole, but yeah, this seems very aimed at attracting a 'certain audience'. Then again what do we expect, sexualization of children seems to be increasingly accepted.

I've recently seen media celebrating kids in sexualized drag, not even condemning 11 year olds dancing for money in bars.

<comment><USER23> That poor kid in drag dancing for dollar bills is in for a _rough_ life.

I'm completely blindsided how HN people are downvoting the comments highlighting the pedophilia.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> If you find it easier to fall asleep with the TV on... you're likely someone who would enjoy ASMR.

I used to think of it as, "That tingling feeling in your head when you learn new things." And there are so many triggers. Throughly enjoyable to explore.

* What The H-ck is ASMR!? - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFqbWwKg_o4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vFqbWwKg_o4)

But... yeah, look, the kid doing it in sexy clothing... pure cringe.

* Kids doing ASMR is a problem - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M78rlxEMBxk)

As was YouTube's response to all of this. TL;DR: YouTube removed the critic's video of the kid's video, saying the critic's video was "sexual" but they left the kid's video.

* Apparently Kids Doing ASMR Was A Problem: YouTube Deletes Video - YouTube || [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JM4OwGhchUA)

Now all the videos are back, but some have been de-monetized.

</comment><comment><USER26> that there is a discussion about this at all is saddening.

</comment><comment><USER27> In a way that's the power of capitalism. I don't think any central planning committee in a centralised economy would have ever thought there was a demand for that stuff!

</comment><comment><USER28> Never before have I wished I could downvote a submission.

Edit: Because this is a toxic subject and there will never be interesting or productive conversation about it, not here or anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER29> Part of me wonders what kind of person pays for these types of videos. $1000 a day is also quite disturbing. First it starts with paying for ASMR videos. Then it becomes paying for underage cam models. I can't help but see the parallels in the business model here.

<comment><USER30> I don't think that anyone pays directly. This is estimated ad income.

But viewers most likely include other children. Plus the soft pedophilia market. Which is huge.

And yeah, this is just a more sophisticated take on the cam whore thing. With lots more protection of performers from their audience. As long as it's totally child-driven, I don't think that it's problematic. But when parents are pushing their kids, it becomes exploitation.

<comment><USER31> nah, she takes "requests" and makes personalized videos, its pretty much straight cam __*^^^camgirl

<comment><USER30> Oops, missed that. I have no Google account, so can't "sign in" to see any of that junk. But damn, "personalized videos". That's totally camgirl.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Errors and Omissions Insurance - Is it necessary? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a contract developer and in my 10 years of developing professionally, I've never once heard of a developer getting sued for an error or omission. You hear about other professionals getting sued all the time like realtors, CPAs or attorneys, but never a developer. I've heard of them getting sued for other contractual things (non-competes) but never because a single developer really screwed a system up.
Am I just living in a sheltered world? I'm about to start a contract that does not explicitly require it and all my work will be done pair programming with a FTE developer and all the code is has unit tests. Is it really worth it for me to drop $1000+ for an insurance policy? <comment><USER2> In reality the "correctness" of a solution should be a shared burden on everyone involved in the development process, not just the developer.

Can something like this be added to the contract:

"The software is provided "as is", without warranty of any kind, express or implied, including but not limited to the warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and noninfringement. In no event shall the authors or copyright holders be liable for any claim, damages or other liability, whether in an action of contract, tort or otherwise, arising from, out of or in connection with the software or the use or other dealings in the software." :-)

</comment><comment><USER3> In my "better safe than sorry" opinion, $1000 seems like an ok price to pay to be safe. However, if it's not required, and you're covered for general liability, workmans comp, etc, I don't think I'd go for it.

Pairing with a FTE, having good tests, etc all make the situation sound safer, but I'm not sure you should take them into consideration when buying insurance. Shit still happens even if someone is there watching with you.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I might also add that I'm pretty damn confident in my developing skills, which makes me further weary of spending so much money on a policy.</comment>


Evolution of Application Data Caching: From RAM to SSD (Netflix Tech Blog) - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/netflix-techblog/evolution-of-application-data-caching-from-ram-to-ssd-a33d6fa7a690 <comment><AUTHOR> Dormando's blog post [1] included a shoutout to Netflix for their adoption of memcached extstore, so now Netflix has provided details on their implementation. Definitely interesting so thought I'd tie things together.

[1] [https://memcached.org/blog/nvm-caching/](https://memcached.org/blog/nvm- caching/)</comment>


Weird new forms of money. - <AUTHOR> http://twitter.com/laprice/status/8063783431 <comment><USER2> The way I see it we've got barter: Something you want for something I want.

And we've got symbolic: Something that represents what we both want (Currency, rewards points, gift cards).

Even those giant stone wheels were a form of currency. What gets weirder than stone coins? Plasma pennies?</comment>