Facebook, TipJoy, the Deal that Didn't Happen and the Hire that Did - <AUTHOR> http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20090822/the-odd-tale-of-facebook-tipjoy-the-deal-that-didnt-happen-and-the-hire-that-did/

<comment><USER3> Basically it appears like Facebook made the rational calculation that hiring the developer at retail is a lot cheaper than buying the company wholesale.

That is consistent with what I have argued in HN comments: with the glut of start-ups (50 from YC alone this year?) prices will drop towards replacement value. The replacement value of a start-up amounts to a hiring bonus for its developers. This is likely true even with substantial user traction.

We saw much the same thing in the implied valuation of iLike - <USER2> liquidation preference, developers basically get a hiring bonus, if they stick around. And iLike had 10 million monthly users on Facebook.

So unless a start-up has a plausible path to independent profitability, it is going to be subject to the brutal laws of a buyer's market. In other sectors this effect has been well observed: take enterprise software for example. There are public companies with $100+ million revenue that trade for basically not much more than cash on hand.

<comment><USER4> Note to the reader: don't believe every plausible-sounding explanation of events you read on a comment thread.

<comment><USER5> I'd like to know why you think this isn't close to reality. There are tons of startups out there with no path to independent viability. Why wouldn't potential acquirers simply wait until the founders run out of what little money they have on hand then snap it up for a pittance? Or simply hire the developer?

If someone can get something to market in three months the first try, it's going to be much quicker on the second try, especially if they don't have to deal with all that "other" stuff (marketing, business dev, launch plans etc).

<comment><USER4> _I'd like to know why you think this isn't close to reality._

Because I was there in person when reality took place.

<comment><USER3> These are what outsiders know: a) Facebook and many acquirers looked at the company and passed b) Company ran out of money c) Facebook hired the developer, who also posts in the blog that his idea would work far better as part of Facebook or Twitter. I am not asserting that (a) and (c) are directly connected. It is perfectly possible that the people who looked at the acquisitions aren't the same ones who made the hire and the two sets of people may not even have talked to each other.

However the one thing no one outside Facebook can _really_ know is _why_ they passed on the acquisition. My reasonable guess is that they figured it would be cheaper to hire ( _some_ , not necessarily the same) developers and do it themselves. Are you asserting that it is outside the realm of possibility for them to have thought that way? Or that future acquirers, facing similar choices, would not calculate that it would be cheaper to hire developers after they run out of money?

<comment><USER4> "However the one thing no one outside Facebook can really know is why they passed on the acquisition."

I know exactly why they passed on the acquisition, and it was not because they thought it would be cheaper to hire someone.

It's strange to watch you keep insisting on this. You said something mistaken when there was no evidence, and now that evidence has emerged contradicting you, instead of changing your theory, you fight to find a way to make the facts conform to it. It's like watching a creationist respond to geology.

<comment><USER3> I will accept that Facebook did not think this way (ie. it is cheaper to hire developer than acquire). But to be fair to me, until this parent comment, nowhere had you actually mentioned that you knew exactly why Facebook passed on the acquisition. Until you mentioned that fact, it was reasonable to assume that one party in a negotiation does not know all the motivations of the other party.

Having said that I would still let my thesis stand while withdrawing the Tipjoy incident as any kind of evidence of that thesis: given the proliferation of start-ups and the buyer's market, it is reasonable for acquirers to think that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This completely doesn't tell the whole story, and those of you commenting should realize that.

<comment><AUTHOR> Ivan, I'm noting your comment, and Paul's, on my post. But the offer I made multiple times to you and Abby still stands -- if there's more info that you want to get out, I'm happy to chat. pk

<comment><USER7> This is my favorite online "journalism" technique ever. When someone you want a scoop from won't comment, just make a bunch of crap up and then when they get angry say "hey feel free to comment".

<comment><AUTHOR> What part is made up?

<comment><USER8> "Some basic, undisputed facts: ... he and his wife are shutting TipJoy down and returning what's left of the $1 million they had raised to their investors."

Do you have any sources, documentation or other reason to believe that TipJoy raised $1 million?

<comment><AUTHOR> Re: Tipjoy's Series A. Multiple reports pegged it at $1M. [http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/24/tipjoy- raises-1-million...](http://www.techcrunch.com/2008/09/24/tipjoy- raises-1-million-for-its-simple-micropayment-platform/) [http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/technology/angel- investor/e...](http://www.thedeal.com/dealscape/technology/angel- investor/exclusive-betaworks-leads-1-m.php) Are you saying those reports are wrong? Or that the company didn't call down the entire round?

Re: Comments. I reached out to Ivan and Abby more than 24 hours before I published the story. I understand why they'd be reluctant to respond, and I told them that.

I appreciate the back and forth on this board -- Paul's comments have been particularly enlightening -- but I'm going to bow out now. Please contact me directly if you have specific comments or questions. Thanks. pk

<comment><USER9> From your article:

 _You could see why some of TipJoy's backers, which include BetaWorks, the Accelerator Group, ex-Googler Chris Sacca and the Y Combinator start-up factory, might cry foul._

Have any of them actually cried foul? I recommend following up with them if you are really interested in the facts.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So basically Facebook got the same benefit as if they had acquired the company(the talent) for less money and the investors got screwed.

<comment><USER11> Debatably, they got less than half the talent, thank you very much!

<comment><USER12> Abby > Ivan? :-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would like to hear PG's (or other investors) views on this.

<comment><USER4> Facebook didn't do anything wrong. Tipjoy was out of money. They'd been talking to several potential acquirers, including Facebook, but those deals all fell through. So the Tipjoys were going to have to get jobs somewhere. Since they were worried about money and Ivan admired the hackers at Facebook, I asked FB if they'd offer him a job, and they did.

It doesn't portend anything for the future of startups, as this story seems to imply. If your startup tanks, you have to get a job somewhere, and lots of hackers get jobs at Facebook. There are several other YC alumni working there.

<comment><USER14> Comparing this to voting, most people vote because they want to be seen in a good light by their friends and family (and some vote because they don't understand probability). Perhaps some sort of similar social pressure could have been employed with TipJoy.

<comment><USER15> My contribution voting makes as much difference as it should: 1 person = 1 vote.

By your logic, I guess I shouldn't worry about my carbon footprint.

<comment><USER14> Whether you should worry about your carbon footprint depends a lot on what your friends and/or family think of the issue. On a practical individual level, it's all about looking good in front of your friends and/or family.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's like the Zeno's Arrow of stories: we get half the remaining story every time.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is an really interesting situation. What I'm really curious about is how/where IP of Tipjoy would eventually end up? Ivan doesn't own those IP, TipJoy does.

Assuming Facebook had initiated the acquisition, I can only imagine they're after 1) The technology/IP behind Tipjoy 2) The talents

I find it hard to believe that Facebook would fork out $5M just for the "talent", so I think that was more of a technology buy for Facebook.

So if that's the case, Ivan would be threading into an unfavorable situation since their investors technically own parts of TipJoy and would want to protect TipJoy's technologu and IP. I do think there's a potential that those investors could file claims against Facebook and Ivan if he does end up working on Facebook's payment system.

Again, I'm not pointing out anything against Ivan but I do want to know as entrepreneurs, if we do get into such a situation, what sort of risks/factors could arise from this?

</comment><comment><USER13> This is clearly a conflict of interest. The founder should have disclosed the terms of employment offer to the investors (if not general public)

<comment><USER18> On what basis are you saying that they didn't?

Edit: Well, now we know. "No basis" actually turned out to be an understatement. <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=779693>

Edit 2: just noticed that it was you who asked the question. Credit where credit's due.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Well, that thickens the plot considerably.

</comment><comment><USER20> Ivan & Abby, are you both heading west? I'll miss having another startup here in Arlington.

</comment><comment><USER21> Isn't a startup's founder obligated to act in the best interest of the inventors whose money and risk made the venture possible?

<comment><USER22> There's no evidence that they didn't.

FaceBook held all the cards here - all they had to do was wait until TipJoy ran out of money, then snatch up one of the founders when he goes looking for a job. Which is what they did. What else would you have the founders do?

Just highlights the importance of bargaining position. Make deals when you don't need them, because you won't be able to when you do.

<comment><USER23> _Just highlights the importance of bargaining position. Make deals when you don't need them, because you won't be able to when you do._

I think this is the real take home here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow. What a ride it must have been. I wish to be part of such a ride someday. :)

</comment><comment><USER25> Sad to see another entrepreneur leave Boston.</comment>


Freedman Chair - A better way to sit? - <AUTHOR> http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/929020713/the-freedman-chair-a-better-way-to-sit

<comment><USER2> Thoughts? I've been reading about standing desks, not sure I want to go to that much effort.</comment>


YouTube Kids Is Going to Release a Whitelisted, Non-Algorithmic Version of App - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeed.com/alexkantrowitz/youtube-kids-is-going-to-release-a-whitelisted-non <comment><USER2> Parent and long-time ex-googler. I'm baffled that the original YT Kids was not whitelisted, and in fact I uninstalled it from my little one's ipads a long time ago. They were watching a Trolls (Dreamworks) animation, and I thought "boy, the writing on this isn't very good, but whatever". Then the plot started to become kinda bizarre and I realized it was a fake. As a user, I felt duped by YT Kids, who had promised me a window into the internet I can safely hand over to my <6-year olds. But really, it's just random people around the world uploading junk.

As an ex-googler who saw the way some (a few) PMs made decisions with their own Impact (aka career) in mind, I can cynically imagine them choosing the algorithmic method because at Google you must scale, and you get promoted by launching a cool machine learning product and not a product with <200 channels that were hand-selected (that's boring!). But as a parent all I wanted was just a few channels. Some disney, some science, etc.

<comment><USER3> People vote with their actions time and time again that they do not care if they are tracked.

If you want a future without all this happening, stop giving your kids YouTube in the first place.

<comment><USER4> Parents explicitly do want to track what their children are watching. That's not the problem. The problem is that YouTube Kids promotes garbage.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The safest way to use YouTube with kids is to download videos offline using youtube-dl or one of its front ends and use an app like VLC to play them.

Kids shouldn't be accessing YouTube directly. It really is bad. A simple example: looking for videos for a school women's history day thingamajig, YouTube kept recommending outright twisted videos which were sort of women's history but algorithmically generated and just plain wrong.

The other interesting thing I found with YouTube is that it's very hard to find good parent curated playlists. The bad stuff overwhelms the good.

<comment><USER6> Children bellow 10 should not have access to internet without supervision IMO.

<comment><USER7> We're visiting some friends in Australia and almost everyone has an ipad per kid with unrestricted YouTube access.

They feel kids keep themselves entertained with iPads and games. Some of them have glasses at a young age since they look at the iPad so closely.

I'm legit worried for the next generation of kids who grow up on YouTube consuming endless amounts of ads and crappy entertainment.

Add that to the fact that an iPad is a very poor creative device and mostly a consuming device. I learnt programming at a young age because I had a proper keyboard and programming was mildly entertaining. Flash and actionscript were my canvas of endless creativity in holidays.

It's almost impossible to program anything relatively complex on an iPad.

For the parents of HN, how do you ensure your kids use tech appropriately and don't develop mindless addiction to it?

<comment><USER8> > I'm legit worried for the next generation of kids who grow up on YouTube > consuming endless amounts of ads and crappy entertainment.

That's what we grew up on, too. I was hoping that streaming video would let me cut ads out of my kids' lives, but... they just changed form.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hmm, my nephew already saw pepa pig having her teeth extracted on YouTube kids so I'm gonna say this is too little too late.

<comment><USER10> /r/ElsaGate monitors this quite actively.

The current prevailing non-tin-foil-hat theory is that some animators realised that they could game YouTube's suggestion algorithm, and that kids videos are an easy target. Kids also are very inquisitive when it comes to subjects you tell them are inappropriate. Over time the videos with darker themes got more clicks and it has spiralled out of control since. Throw in some bots to increase views and comment rapidly once videos are released to increase rankings and you've got a perfect ad-revenue scheme.

Of course there's nutjobs who think it's a pedophile ring normalising sexual violence to kids, but there's an equal likelihood of pizzagate being real.

<comment><USER9> I think that's over thinking it a bit, youtube algos are easy to manipulate and a single thread on 4chan can create a fair bit of weird media, for the explicit intent of creating weird media.

<comment><USER10> I do prefer the 4chan theory, since it satisfies Occam's Razor. That said, the frequency of new videos from multiple channels dedicated to nothing but these videos, as well as the monetisation, makes it unlikely. Also considering the number of subscribers the subreddit has I'm sure that if there were any new 4chan threads suggesting people make those videos it would've been spotted.

It's honestly the sheer number of videos that is the shocking part of the mystery. It's not just a few dozen videos from different animators, it's hundreds of videos from dozens of channels pumping this stuff out. Unfortunately I find it unlikely that we'll ever find out the cause.

<comment><USER11> The cause is algorithms run amok. Find popular keywords: Elsa, Frozen, Fidget Spinner, Sexual. Have an AI mix these in whatever weird way and churn out nightmare fuel to kids, in exchange for big fat ad revenue. Kids, more easily manipulated, and with a whole life as consumers ahead of them, are valuable targets...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I don't understand why YT a kids isn't a completely parent controlled thing. I'd like to be able to simply choose the channels that my kids can watch any time, and let's leave it at that.

Why does this not exist?

<comment><USER13> You can.

You just have to do it "the old fashioned way", aka, spending the time with your kids.

<comment><USER14> I spend tons of time with my kids. If I need to prepare food or feed my picky daughter, YouTube can be helpful. This kind of shaming doesn't help and I don't buy that you can watch your kids 24/7.

Besides, have you ever had a bad day and wanted to finish dinner while your child decided to be a bit bratty? It's not the best choice to put kids in front of screens and I do it very minimally, but this shaming tactic isn't helpful

<comment><USER13> My parents worked multiple jobs, still had the time to make selections of titles to give me - or not.

This is not a corporation's job. Multiple streaming services have kid sections, downloading actual files that are the ones you want your child to see, etc.

Curating content for your children has never been faster or easier, so...how'd our parents do it?

<comment><USER14> Your parents had youtube? The internet?

Have you seen what kind of bait and switch content is on youtube? It can look like a children's show, but turn out to be something really creepy.

If you think it's the job of parents to curate content, that's also fine, but youtube should allow for a feature that lets you whitelist content.

It sounds like you had lovely parents, though. Congratulations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> One step closer to the only thing I ever wanted, an app that lets _me_ whitelist the channels. Without having to create an account too. The list will be small enough to store locally and pass with every list request. I never want to see another video about colors wrapped in bible verses for the rest of my life.

<comment><USER16> Same, I'm interested in Programming, Chess, History and Engineering.

YouTube recommends "Secret Alien Spaceship you didn't know about" or some equally inane bullshit.

It's so bad I used ublock origin to just filter out that entire vertical section.

The recommendations are simply useless to an end user.

<comment><USER17> I watch youtube a LOT and have 3 or 4 different primary interests, and I regularly spend a fair amount of time looking for new channels, etc typically with no success. And then occasionally, I will sometimes come across a perfectly relevant channel with 1 million+ subscribers, that the youtube algorithm has never suggested to me as a channel, or even any of the individual videos. It is so inept that it seems impossible to be accidental - obviously that makes no sense at all, but then knowingly allowing twisted videos to continue existing in children's channels makes no sense either, yet here we are.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Whitelisted by YouTube. Still no app to let the user whitelist channels or videos themselves. Only blacklist, which is useless with the amount of channels on YouTube.

<comment><USER19> Blacklisting doesn't even work. I blocked a channel and clicked "not interested" on about 10 videos and still keep getting videos from that channel

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> TIL there _is_ a YouTube kids service/app. Which I can't use because of my IP- address. Again.

I guess for us outside the US we'll just have to wait another 5 years for google to flip the switch to make this worldwide. Again.

At stuff like, Google really systematically sucks.

<comment><USER21> In this particular case, they will probably need local curators everywhere not just because of language but also because of what is considered safe for kids given the culture. So yes, it will probably take some time but I think that is understandable. After all, what's stopping someone in your (or my) country from making such a service themselves, even using Youtubes content?

<comment><USER22> Why can't the parents decide if the curation is good enough? Why is a complete hard lockout with no choice "understandable"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Wow, a whitelisted, non-algorithmic feed of videos! Oh wait, do you mean... a playlist?

<comment><USER24> If we could restrict the app to just play videos of a single playlist, life would be great. But today it is very easy for kids to exit playlist mode, thus defeating the purpose of curating a playlist.

<comment><USER25> My wife's business has a TV that plays some videos from YouTube of her company in the waiting room. At the end of the Playlist pops up videos from competitors. In the past it would autoplay those and it was embarassing but at least I turned that off.

She pays for YouTube Red. There is no way for YouTube to not autosuggest, or to repeat the videos in a Playlist over and over.

I decided for her to use YouTube because of the auto caption. Will need to find some other solution...

<comment><USER26> Its trivial on the desktop with one of the extensions/userscripts, both hiding suggestions and autoplaying what you select.

<comment><USER25> Yes, actually you can do it on a computer easily. You can even use like ListenOnRepeat.com and control the playlist. The problem is when she opens her retail location she wants to do it from the app on the tv, or app on her phone and do a Chromecast.

I'd rather not install a computer there just to show some videos...and I don't know why YouTube forces the suggested videos to paying customers without giving an option to turn it off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> So it's Netflix but with ads and worse content?

We deleted YT on our devices the kids use. Google policy and practice changes so frequently, I don't trust them as a long term solution. And like I said the content is low quality for the most part anyway.

Netflix has plenty of quality kids content for us.

</comment><comment><USER28> "Non-algorithmic"? It seems like the word algorithm is being bleached to the point of meaningless. I even saw a social media type service (I forget what) advertise it's self as having "no algorithms".

Feels a bit like people being scared of "chemicals in their food".

I hope we don't get to the point where "algorithm" has only a narrow popular denotation and only negative connotation.

<comment><USER29> I got annoyed at my father once for making a sarcastic comment about 'algorithms' in the sense you're describing here. So I sat him down at the table and cut 10 bits of string of different length. I then walked him through bubble sorting the bits of string. Then I said something like 'that is all an algorithm is. A set of rules or instructions that a computer can follow. The only trick the computer has is that it can do the instructions really quickly. There is no magic and they're not inherently oppressive.'

I wasn't expecting it to work, but after that he never made another dig at 'algorithms'.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Amazon has an excellent resource for Kids, where the content is curated by professionals. It's called Amazon FreeTime Unlimited. Why doesn't Google have the same already?

<comment><USER31> I have a love/hate relationship with FreeTime Unlimited. At $3 or so a month it's a great value, but I really wish there was a whitelist option for parents instead of the blacklist they already have, my wife and I have grown tired of trawling though the lists every month to ensure we keep some of content we don't care for blocked.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> YouTube responding to users' serious concerns? And it only took about 3 years? Well, may wonders never cease.

</comment><comment><USER33> But not for Chromebook.

It's amazing how high & dry parents are left without options for their kids to use a Chromebook. You wouldn't believe it until you see for yourself.

<comment><USER34> A few months ago, my Chromebook was updated to support Android apps. YouTube Kids should be available on the Play store assuming your Chromebook is updated to support it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> The bad parts of the internet has become too easily accessible, the greed of the 21th century is abusing childrens brains. That's what i can agree with, but employing first class espionage on your kids isn't nice either. It'll remove all trust between them and you, and they'll probably get used to it and not question spying governments and compaies either.

</comment><comment><USER36> I wonder if there will be a quality filter too. When my kids (now 6 and 4) were allowed YT Kids, even the "appropriate" videos were mostly terrible toy reviews and things like that. I've no idea why kids like them so much. I uninstalled it. Now the only video app they're allowed is BBC iPlayer Kids, which is great (but I'm assuming UK-only).

</comment><comment><USER37> Are there any apps that just let you select specific videos or playlists? That is, I'd like something even more customizable.

<comment><USER38> I don't know of any apps that do this exactly, so maybe if you want to stay within YouTube you could try restricting to a playlist. But that still has the possibility of random videos playing at some point. I've also been looking for something that allows me to loop videos, although that's more for creating a TV-channel like loop for my grandparents.

To be safe in this situation I'd just use something like youtube-dl [1] and save filtered videos locally. Kids tend to watch the same videos over and over, so why not save bandwidth/battery life and store it locally when it's so cheap to do so. And since it's likely cartoons, the compression is better saving even more space. Tip: You can download playlists, so if you set a cronjob task to download a playlist you can add videos to it from anywhere you have access to YouTube.

[1] [https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/](https://rg3.github.io/youtube-dl/)

<comment><USER24> That was my conclusion as well. I didn't get fancy about setting cronjobs. I just run a script every now and then, and it is enough for my case.

I'm still looking for a good player that would behave somewhat like Youtube Kids (auto play, fullscreen, no volume/brightness controls). All players I've tried have controls that kids don't understand and, accidentally or intentionally, end up ruining everything.

<comment><USER39> For what platform? On Android, MX Player has a lock functionality, and a Kids Lock plugin (makes a bit harder to unlock).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Youtube regular is still very very busted. Why is Russia Today showing up in my top recommended? To answer the obvious follow up question, I have never liked, subscribed or watched a RT video.

</comment><comment><USER41> Reminds me of a fictional program devised by EFF: YTKAd-Free.

[https://www.eff.org/missing-devices](https://www.eff.org/missing-devices)

</comment><comment><USER42> Who do you trust to decide what your kid should be able to see?

Human editorial is certainly better than algorithm editorial, and YouTube Kids was a nightmare so I'm not complaining, but I'm sure the value judgements of a lot of respectable YouTube employees are very different to mine.

Are Christian and Islamic and Scientologist morality tales all acceptable or not? What about science and engineering videos with high safety requirements, or even history?

<comment><USER43> In Australia, I believe most parents are happy to trust other parents they know as well as teachers and the ABC (our national taxypayer funded broadcaster). Relatively speaking, I think we do reasonably well; although Finland is probably the world's model citizen when it comes to raising kids.

Do you trust anyone?

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Finally, it's YouTube Kids, for Kids!

</comment><comment> w-ll What ever happen to Yahooligans?

</comment><comment><USER45> I had the same issue (bad content for kids on Kids Youtube) so I built [http://kiddotube.com/](http://kiddotube.com/) for my kid (be careful: it is just a micro ec2 instance) with only best youtube channels for kids. There is a "parent mode" in which I can disable channels, playlists or videos that I don't like.

</comment><comment><USER46> My son loves YouTube kids (my daughter not so much) but luckily we haven't come up against Elsagate yet. He's simply too dorky with his video choices. He has learned all about astronomy through YTK and most recently he has learned all the American presidents from YTK videos.

I am surprised that there's no whitelisting though. Looks like we're going all the way back to the original Yahoo days with their curated list of acceptable web site lists.

</comment><comment><USER47> Just curious, is there advertising in the YouTube Kids app?

<comment><USER48> nope!

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> As far as I know Youtube Kids is still unavailable outside the US. Anyone aware of a workaround to get it on my iPad?

</comment><comment><USER50> I think it's pretty clear that with kids the solution is a tablet with known content and no connectivity.

</comment><comment><USER51> ahh yes, the non-algorithm - also the future. As we learn that automation sucks for human interaction

</comment><comment><USER52> This sounds good but I see another side: Targeted advertising to kids.

<comment><USER53> Of course, most programming for kids has been just that for decades, with a few notable exceptions (Sesame Street, Mr. Roger's Neighborhood, others probably). The programs themselves when I was a kid typically took the form of a 22 minute toy advertisement, interspersed with more advertising. Of course, they didn't have data on my particular viewing habits and a psych profile, but honestly it still worked pretty well.

The best bet if you care about your kid is probably to try and curate yourself. That's definitely doable if you're well-off in a two parent home with one child at a time, but how many families does that describe on average?

<comment><USER54> > they didn't have data on my particular viewing habits and a psych profile

I'd bet that 8-year olds (as a population), with their under-cooked brains and extremely limited autonomy have MUCH more predictable psych profiles and viewing habits than adults as a population.

Anecdote for illustration: I, and everybody I went to school with, watched the same show when we got home from school. How much more predictable a viewing pattern can you get? Plus, you can bet that I wanted whatever toy they were advertising, and bugged my parents about it as soon as I could.

Thinking about it, I'll never see data to confirm this but I'll bet childrens' TV advertisers have better conversion rates than Facebook, with all of its carefully mined and organized profiling data.

<comment><USER55> I have a friend at Bandai that says the US market actually has laws that prevent the situation that occurs in Japan.

Shows like Power Rangers basically have their entire commercial blocks bought out by the toy company that manufactures the Power Rangers toys. This creates a very interesting relationship where the show runners and toy creators work together when creating the next season, where the two companies have veto power over ideas from the other. The toy companies come up with special guns or powers unique from the previous toy line, but the show producer can argue that it wouldn't translate well on screen or that there aren't enough good story lines and vice versa.

In America atleast the toy tie ins are limited in the amount of advertising they can show. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the limitations on online advertising are far weaker than their television equivalents. This tracks with my own viewings as a child from what I can remember. I remember being bombarded with toy ads when I was young, but I also remember being excited about toy tie ins I didn't know existed when I got my parents to rent Power Rangers on VHS and having the first and last 5 minutes of the video tape consist of toy advertisements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Is hackernews censoring peoples comments ?

How long is this been going on ..

</comment><comment><USER57> Earlier I suggested YouTube start to use actual editors: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16758397](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16758397)

I guess this is their response.

AI will never replace humans in judgement. Sorry Silicon Valley. It's not going to happen. Stop trying to make it happen.

<comment><USER58> I would be surprised if AI doesn't assist in the near future. Now, even.

<comment><USER59> "assist" is the key here. Often big companies such as Google believe than AI can "replace", because any process involving human interaction "doesn't scale".

<comment><USER58> Agreed. Apologies for keeping my first post too brief.

I think, quite firmly, that what we call ai we'll be used to augment many techniques without replacing them. I share the scepticism that it will replace them.

Though, I think it is prudent to acknowledge the progress that has been made. My self twenty years ago would be impressed with what we have. I suspect the same will be true in another twenty.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are your personal top 2017 stock pics? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I think the market will go up and to the right, just not in a straight line.

Not exactly a stock, but consider placing some of your portfolio in a bet on volatility. [https://sixfigureinvesting.com/2010/01/how-to-go-long-on- the...](https://sixfigureinvesting.com/2010/01/how-to-go-long-on-the-vix- index-2/)</comment>


Fun with Prolog: Priceonomics Puzzle - <AUTHOR> http://dangoldin.com/2013/06/07/fun-with-prolog-priceonomics-puzzle/ <comment><USER2> I really enjoyed reading this - thanks for posting!

I had totally forgotten about Prolog, and I love how it essentially forces you to approach problems in an absolutely new manner (conceptually) than more traditional imperative programming.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you enjoyed. It was pretty frustrating getting started when you know how easy some of the things are to do in other languages but once I got into it it felt great. You definitely start thinking about them at a different level although parts of it felt pretty functional/mathematical to me.

The other thing I realize now is how much easier it is to get started now with StackOverflow and Google being available. I remember having to go through tutorials and demos that came with the software or read books to learn new languages. Now there are so many resources out there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> The prolog solution is cool, but I would have solved it with a bellman ford algorithm.

<comment><USER4> Yup, Bellman Ford is the algorithm we had in mind for this puzzle. It's similar to Dijkstra's algorithm, but deals with negative costs as well.

(I work at Priceonomics)

<comment><USER3> I really like what you guys do. It is a great concept, and it sounds like a really fun domain to work in. I hope I didn't ruin the puzzle by blurting this out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If it was Erlang, the reason that _Prolog_ would be considered a variable would be the initial caps. _is_ and _sweet_ would be atoms (which are like names or labels) because of the lack of quotes and lack of initial caps. Prolog may convert atoms to strings when they're used in a string function (or that particular string function may convert atoms to strings.) Do they even call them functions in Prolog? Doesn't seem appropriate.

edit: also, single quotes in Erlang are a way of creating an initial cap atom, or an atom with special characters in it. Double quotes are used for strings. Might be the same.

edit: just checked, it's the same. And _compound term_?

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here - someone left a comment on the blog who's clearly more knowledgeable than I am. I'm copying it here:

        The quotes are necessary if an atom starts with something
        other than a lower-case character. Any unquoted token
        that starts with an upper-case letter is a variable.

        As for atomic_list_concat, it's an optimized library
        function that requires the separator. It's certainly
        possible to write an equivalent that is completely
        flexible.

<comment><USER6> I think the predicate you wanted to demonstrate is called append/3, which works on list (while concat applies to atoms).

In Prolog, 'foo' constructs an atom, which is equivalent to foo without any quotes (but the quotes are useful to construct atoms with spaces, with digits, starting with a capital letter, etc.)

However, if you want to manipulate atoms as text, you typically want to use strings instead, which are literally lists of character codes in Prolog, and can be entered as double quotes. For example, "ABC" = [65,66,67]. To convert between strings and atoms dynamically, use atom_chars/2.

For example:

      ?- append("Prolog is", " awesome", Z), atom_chars(A,Z).
      Z = [80, 114, 111, 108, 111, 103, 32, 105, 115|...],
      A = 'Prolog is awesome'.

      ?- append("Prolog is", Y, "Prolog is awesome"), atom_chars(A,Y).
      Y = [32, 97, 119, 101, 115, 111, 109, 101],
      A = ' awesome'.

      ?- append(X, "is awesome", "Prolog is awesome"), atom_chars(A,X).
      X = [80, 114, 111, 108, 111, 103, 32],
      A = 'Prolog '.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the explanation. It's such a neat idea that inputs and outputs can be interchangeable. Opens up approaches that are very different than the standard ones. The append predicate is definitely a better example so thanks for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> You mention doing it for variable length chains, It requires hardly more effort than hard coding the length, something like

        find_match(X, P) :-
            append([usd | _], [usd], X),
            profit(X, P),
            P > 1.

        profit([A, B], P) :- exchange(A, B, P).
        profit([A, B | T], P) :-
            exchange(A, B, P1),
            profit([B | T], P2),
            P is P1 * P2.

        # 1 ?- find_match(X, P).
        # X = [usd, jpy, usd],
        # P = 1.0040982 ;
        # X = [usd, eur, jpy, usd],
        # P = 1.0040882716200001 ;
        # X = [usd, eur, btc, usd],
        # P = 1.01209651875 ;
        # X = [usd, btc, jpy, usd],
        # P = 1.0025512896 ;
        # X = [usd, eur, usd, jpy, usd],
        # P = 1.003776175666278 .

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for sharing this. The way these are defined reminds me of the way I'd be defining methods in SML - a base case and then a recursive one to deal with the tail.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> My favourite part of Prolog is that if you ask it if something is in a list it will decide to add it to the list so that it can return true!

<comment><USER9> You must be referring to this:

        ?- member(what, X).
        X = [what|_G2122] ;
        X = [_G2121, what|_G2125] ...

If what you have isn't a variable, it is totally reasonable:

        ?- member(what, []).
        false.

This is because, lacking other evidence about what X might be, it can't distinguish between making an assertion about a new quantity ("there is a list X which 'what' is a member of") and a query ("is 'what' in the list?"). Making an assertion like that, however, is pretty normal. It's a perfectly reasonable declarative way to understand this behavior, it's just that this thinking is unusual, so it's weird.

Maybe this little demonstration will give the flavor of why you might want this:

        ?- length(X, 3), member(what, X).
        X = [what, _G942, _G945] ;
        X = [_G939, what, _G945] ;
        X = [_G939, _G942, what].</comment></comment>


Installing Ruby on Rails on Windows - A new guide - <AUTHOR> http://www.davidkewal.com/post/4803617595/easy-rails-setup-on-windows-7

<comment><AUTHOR> Nice! I think it's good to play around with both environments from what I've heard, creating and deploying apps in Windows isn't as great.

</comment><comment><USER2> Or you could just use RailsInstaller - <http://railsinstaller.org/></comment>


Study of the Day: Soon, You May Download New Skills to Your Brain - <AUTHOR> http://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2012/01/study-of-the-day-soon-you-may-download-new-skills-to-your-brain/250775/

<comment><USER2> And flying cars. There will be flying cars, right? See also: <http://xkcd.com/678/></comment>


The world is not an engineering problem - <AUTHOR> http://theviewfromcullingworth.blogspot.com/2018/11/the-world-is-not-engineering-problem.html <comment><USER3> Like hell it isn't.

At the risk of going "no true scottsman", I hate this kind of anti- intellectual nonsense. The methods of science, engineering and rational reasoning are the best tools we have for solving world problems. They were literally invented for it. They're reified applied reasoning. You eschew them at your own peril.

Now of course to solve problems involving humans, you have to factor in the human element - the complexity of our individual emotions, and of the societal interplay. This is where a lot of attempts at solving problems fail, and it's appropriate to criticize that. But that doesn't give you a free pass to go by your gut in contexts our monkey brains have never experienced in the past. This means we need to double-down and carefully, rationally, find out what works and what doesn't.

<comment><USER4> I don't think this essay is anti-intellectual at all. I think it is an exploration of the longstanding philosophical problem of trying to rationally design a world for irrational beings. The excerpt from Dillow on consequentialism brings to mind an idea from James Scott: that elites control policy discussions by limiting the accepted terms of the argument to legible, rationalizable factors - generally economic and technocratic variables visible from a top-down view. This can place serious limits on our access to the store of human knowledge embedded in emotion and practice. What we consider "irrational" impulses are sometimes the products of generations of evolutionary tuning that would seem to be feats of engineering brilliance if they came with the proper documentation. Meta-rationality includes exploring the bounds and the weaknesses of the tools in our contemporary rationalist arsenal, as well as searching under the couch cushions of irrationality for the occasional bit of value.

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the succinct account of irrational impulses, and for the James Scott ref. Can you recommend any particular book of his? My local library appears to have _Against the Grain_ on hand.

<comment><USER4> _Against the Grain_ is great. I'm drawing upon _Seeing Like A State_ and _The Art of Not Being Governed_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The Brexit rhetoric even though it probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes.

One thing that I feel is always missed in discussions of consequentialism are second order effects which are what make decisions untenable. While the classic "murder a stranger for organs" might technically save more lives it causes all sorts of nasty ripple effects - people would rightfully become more paranoid or take measures to ensure uselessness of their organs after death for sheer strategic spite. Taking a stand for principles is still possible in that framework - the goal being to make bad actions more expensive or good actions cheaper.

Still there are certainly good points about needing to choose how one wants to shape society while setting goals - as well as recognizing that society doesn't go as planned or projected and it changes in response to your actions.

<comment><USER7> _probably was meant in abstract terms seemed rather romanticist which I see as a danger in itself - dogmatically clinging to abstract ideas because of feelings regardless of outcomes._

Found myself in a perplexing discussion not long ago that-after a lot of words that seemed to operate similarly to what you're describing here.

The topic was over banning plastic bags versus something with more politically loaded outcomes like Brexit, though. The argument the other person brought up was to equivocate banning plastic bags with banning plastic straws and how this constituted a real harm to the disabled community and those who may have a valid need for straws--forcing me to ask if a better outcome for someone with a physical impairment would be to promote durable, fabric bags that are less like to suffer to sudden structural failure (overfilling a plastic bag that rips open unexpectedly), and where the logical limit was in comparing the harm of removing plastic straws and removing plastic bags.

They clung to the comparison that banning bags was equivalent to robbing the physically disabled from needed resources but couldn't really articulate any position beyond that emotional appeal to a community who-I conceded-should be considered more than they probably are. Comparing bags to straws on the grounds presented didn't feel like it was very outcome oriented, though.

It's an endlessly interesting phenomenon of thought to watch take place in real time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> > For my part, I prefer things a little messy because not only are the > solutions so often dependent on coercion but they also require that the > ordinary citizen's faith and feelings are denied. Maximising utility seems a > good thing but it is not the main reason why people do things like set up > business, create charities, build village halls, paint, sing, create or > innovate. Technocracy treats the world as an engineering problem when it's > an unfolding story, explorers in a dense jungle not white-coated scientists > in a laboratory.

There's a very famous fragment of Polish romantic ballad "Romantyczność" by Adam Mickiewicz:

        Feeling and faith stronger speaks to me,
        than the eye and the glass of a wise man.

It was written in 1821 in occupied Poland, and (together with other similar literature) was responsible for creating nationalist romantic movement that caused several failed uprisings, countless deaths, and whole generations of educated patriots being forced to migrate abroad escaping repressions.

When Poland got independent in 1918 (mostly thanks to a good luck and WW1, just like other countries in the region) - this attitude claimed the success ("if not for failed uprisings we wouldn't be here"), and people believed it. Failed uprisings are celebrated to this day, and a few rational generals who wanted to prevent the useless massacre and were hanged because of that - <USER2> still considered traitors.

Then it caused governments of interwar Poland to pursue unrealistic and opportunistic strategy that resulted in 1/6th of the population and 1/7th of the territory being lost in WW2 despite supposedly being on the winning side. But it sure felt nice to be brave and be the "first to fight". People are still boasting "Poland - first to fight" like it's a good thing to be stupid and die for no reason.

This national romanticism is still very much defining the public debate in Poland together with the only mainstream alternative - positivism and pragmatism. And romanticism is still winning - 200 years later. We've only got +-25 years of pragmatism after 1989, but it's over now.

It's why populists can win elections - because people want to ignore reality and stop analyzing it. "Just do what feels right, it will be OK for sure." "Winning trade wars is so easy". Everything is easy if you ignore reality because it's too complex.

It's a very harmful attitude. Don't let it take over your culture, it's very hard to get back to the enlightenment once you leave it behind.

</comment><comment><USER9> _The idea here is something we 've lost from our thinking, one of those virtues Deirdre McCloskey writes about, the idea of faith, that there are things we have to take as felt not as demonstrated by science._

Even if we don't understand everything scientifically now, even some things that we _feel_ , does not mean that we cannot try to do so in the future. I accept faith only as a step towards scientific understanding.

<comment><USER10> My favorite part of _Antifragile_ was where the author defines the 'Soviet- Harvard delusion' as "the unscientific overestimation of the reach of scientific knowledge".

Let us know when you find formal proofs for human values or systems of morality. That's almost certainly Nobel Prize-worthy.

<comment><USER11> Science isn't about formal proofs

<comment> comonad-colaboy Science is about verifiable proofs (verifiable within reasonable time limits) which somewhat means the same thing as formal proofs in the grand scheme of things. Correct me if I am wrong

Edit: forgot to put in time limits

<comment><USER3> You're wrong.

Science is about building and refining models (theories) in order to make them match observable reality as close as possible, in order to use those models to predict what happens in the future - both by itself, and in consequence of us poking stuff. That's what it means to know "how something works".

Engineering takes these models and adds a "what's the best way to poke things to achieve a desired outcome?" aspect.

Formal proofs are for mathematicians. Mathematics is a purely abstract invention and operates in its own universe, where absolute formal proofs are possible.

<comment><USER12> Mathematics is no different. Our brains are simply computers that verify that the system evaluates based on it's rule system. In fact, you can bootstrap an empirical verification of any mathematical proof holding if sufficient human brain-computes evaluate it, and determine it holds.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I don't see an alternative offered here. The argument seems to be "don't do things just because you think they'll produce the best result". Which...makes no sense?

If this advice is followed, we would have to knowingly choose to do something that we expect to be worse than another option we're considering. What do we hope to gain from that?

</comment><comment><USER14> Public policy should only be based on objective truths and not evidenceless beliefs or feelings. It's one thing to be for or against marijuana usage; it's another to still have a law on the books banning its use and sale when a growing plethora of science says it's far safer than substances already legalized and regulated (such as alcohol) and actually therapeutic in some cases (such as cancer). It's one thing to be against pornography being freely available on the Internet _personally_ ; it's another when scientific data (hypothetically) indicates that pre-adolescent exposure to pornography incurs long-term and tangible behavioral harms, BUT does not seem to harm adults nor their marriages.

"Appeal to disgust" is a fallacy for a reason, and laws should be rational.

<comment> compiler-guy "Damming this river will hurt the surrounding ecosystem" and "Damming this river will provide power for thousands of people" are both objective truths. The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things like how we value fish and the services provided by electricity.

Do we value keeping fish alive more than keeping old people alive via power- hungry air conditioning?

There are millions of similar conundrums, none of which are solvable via appeal to objective truths.

<comment> ur-whale >The only way to mediate between them is by discussing non-objective things

Wrong.

Both the fish and the electricity need to be considered in a long term utilitarian framework.

The only reason you seem to have two conflicting objective truths is because your time window is too short.

<comment><USER15> > Both the fish and the electricity need to be considered in a long term > utilitarian framework.

Says who?

You have an infinite regress problem here. You eventually are going to have to fall back on non objective feelings about how the world should be to justify your actions.

<comment><USER11> Right. We're going to fall back on "we should maximize utility because that's better than less utility". But we're not going to have to fall back on how it makes me feel to see dead fish or somesuch.

<comment><USER16> > "we should maximize utility because that's better than less utility

Depending on how you define "utility" \- this is either a meaningless tautology that doesn't say anything at all, or a subjective belief that can be easily challenged by equally subjective alternatives.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Kings have ever considered their own power as an end to itself, even if the small people have to suffer. They probably made arguments very alike to this one to justify the wars fought over another king's acres. And some of the small people bought into it too.

I don't want to live in that world, though. I think this as a case for the Brexit position only works if you can demonstrate that the people will in fact be materially better off (not in money but in well-being, which can factor in feelings like the one the author speaks about) after Brexit. That's a hard thing to demonstrate scientifically, since you can't run an experiment, but that's argumentative stance you'd need to take to convince me.

</comment><comment><USER18> I wrote something similar from the opposite end of the ideological spectrum a few years back: [https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart- libera...](https://jasonlefkowitz.net/2014/01/against-line-chart-liberalism/)

 _One reason why I disagree with [technocracy] is because of a core assumption that is embedded deep within it, namely that public policy is at root a values-neutral project. In this worldview, there is an objective Good that we all strive towards, and our progress as a society can be measured by the velocity towards which we approach that objective Good. We can determine this velocity by taking measurements — by gathering Data. These data will then tell us if we are on or off course, in much the same way that star sightings can do for a mariner lost at sea._

 _This works for the mariner, because the stars are objective. It is not a matter of opinion where in the sky the North Star is. But "good," in terms of public policy, is most definitely not objective. My definition of what is Good is informed by my background, my experiences, my ideology; my values. And your definition of what is Good is informed by yours. Your North Star, in other words, is in a different place than mine is — which makes trying to navigate by taking sightings of it a perilous proposition._

<comment><USER19> I think we disagree that laws are suppose to be a mechanism for achieving "good."

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Cause that's where the truth comes from ladies and gentlemen, the gut.

</comment><comment><USER21> This word soup reads like it was generated by the Postmodernism Paper Generator [1]. What am I supposed to take away from this? Is there a TL;DR version?

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

<comment><USER22> "The world is not an engineering problem." Pretty clear if you ask me.

What if we invented some gene therapy that could make everyone instantly and painlessly racially ambiguous? All looking like Simpsons characters or something. We could just _poof_ and everyone would be the same! It would go so far towards eliminating racism and prejudice, which is unarguably a good goal. Some questions, though:

1\. Would this really enrich human experience? Would it be "right"? 2\. If someone didn't want the treatment would it be right to force them to accept it, even though it might end racism? 3\. Would this actually end prejudice? 4\. Could this technology ever exist?

The authors answers would be: "Nope", "Definitely not", "Almost certainly no", and "If it couldn't or we have no plans to make it, why even discuss it?" Now think about it like this:

1\. Will Facebook having "better algorithms" end fake news? 2\. Will Google and Apple adding fancy new apps end smartphone addiction? 3\. Will cute little notes from Discord in their app end our huge lack of participation in democracy?

The author would say no to all of them, and he's right.

<comment><USER21> Hasn't this line of questioning been well-examined, though? It seems like the author is just re-inventing Greek mythology. Does anyone actually believe that the world is an engineering problem? It seems like the author is committing several rhetorical fallacies just to seem intellectual and bait people.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> to engineers it is. how the hell are they going to make a living otherwise? something being a problem of any type is just an opinion anyway... :D

</comment><comment><USER24> Yeah, democracy isn't "rule by those who know". That's our problem, nowadays, and why people by the millions go vote for Trump, Brexit, Bolsonaro, etc. Because of the smug "know-it-all".

</comment><comment><USER25> I was hoping this would be much a critique of the tendency of people to place too much faith in technology, to ignore the human element of solutions, and (among SV types especially) to prize their own goals above all else. To try and come up with purely technical solutions to the problems of society, but to do so by trying to create an environment which lets their own capitalist goals succeed while tossing scraps to the rest.

Cause even when it's well meaning, I still can't stand it. Their (our I suppose) own conviction they they are right fuels a randian like commitment to individualism. But then they want to appear woke and smart and so they start talking about basic income and how it's fine to have half the population just sort of subsisting. Or we'll fix democracy with smartphones and blockchain.

Also the tendency towards not just being temporarily embarrassed millionaires, but temporarily embarrassed tech billionaires.</comment>


Dreaming big: planning a human mission to outer solar system - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/science/news/2010/06/dreaming-big-planning-a-human-mission-to-outer-solar-system.ars

<comment><USER2> The problem I see with this mission is that it's essentially another "flags and footprints" mission on a grand scale: yes, the mission time is much longer, so perhaps there would be time to do something valid at Neptune or Saturn, but there aren't many things that could be done on such a mission that would make it cost-positive with an initial cost of $14 trillion. So what happens? We go once, can't afford to go again, and suddenly everything in the inner system is anticlimactic and the public loses interest in space for another 40 years.

</comment><comment><USER3> 50's Orion pulse-detonation combined with a "living off the land" strategy would enable manned exploration of the outer solar system in short order.

MPD thrusters might be good for manned Mars missions, but robotic probes are still a much better deal for the outer system.

<comment><USER2> The issue with Orion is that the radioactive byproducts of the pulses get trapped by Earth's magnetosphere and fall inward to the planet surface. I believe it was Einstein who calculated that every Orion launch -- whether from the surface or near space -- would cause 2 people to die of cancer.

Finding a politician who is willing to stand up for a cause with that fact associated would be tricky at best.

<comment><USER4> FYI it was Dyson, according to wikipedia, and the number was .5 to 1 cancer victim.

Of course, this issue is solved by launching from higher orbit and/or the moon.

<comment><USER5> That also helps with the materials issue. The moon has a lot of metals that would be useful for such a mission.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I had a thought regarding the radiation shielding issue I'm not sure how they calculated the mass but it seems to me if they focused on shielding the sleeping "pods" and allowed other common activities to be completed with these small areas so the crew could spend upwards of 80% of the trip in these tiny protected areas of the ship then they could greatly reduce the protection material needed...</comment>


Is training a NN to mimic a closed-source library legal? - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/MachineLearning/comments/6lk6cu/d_is_training_a_nn_to_mimic_a_closedsource/ <comment><USER2> The legal system is fucked up so I don't think there could be any sane answer to this.</comment>


Show HN: RiQ – An Arduino based robot with a tablet based programming interface - <AUTHOR> http://riq.edventureslab.com/

<comment><USER2> It looks like a good choice for equipping your own child with an engaging platform for physical computing and robotics, but at in its price range of "hundreds of dollars" there are many good choices. It is at the "nice present for a privileged child" price point. We could really use more choices that are at the $20 - $30 level where it becomes an easier decision to equip whole classrooms with one for every student in the class.

<comment><USER3> It's a trade-off between features/usability and price. I'm sure this one has its niche. It's much cheaper than a Lego Mindstorms kit, and probably easier for kids to use since they have the android and ipad interfaces.

But there is an ultra low cost (~$10) robot kit in the works (trade-off of course being less features/usability), but it's not available yet: [https://sites.google.com/site/affordableeducationrobot/home](https://sites.google.com/site/affordableeducationrobot/home)

At $99 is the Pi-Bot [http://pi-bot.org/](http://pi-bot.org/)

$50 Hack-E-Bot [http://www.hack-e-bot.com/](http://www.hack-e-bot.com/)

$100-$150 littleBits [http://littlebits.cc/](http://littlebits.cc/)

$99-$250 Finch & Hummingbird [http://www.birdbraintechnologies.com/](http://www.birdbraintechnologies.com/)

$250 Arduino Robot [http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Robot](http://arduino.cc/en/Main/Robot)

$100-$150 Parrot Minidrones [http://www.parrot.com/usa/products/minidrones/](http://www.parrot.com/usa/products/minidrones/)

and many others

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Hi all,

Thanks for looking at the RiQ and for the great comments. I'd like to point out three things since people are looking at it:

1) Regarding the price, as the CEO of PCS Edventures, I'd love to be able to offer it for much less - we do a lot of work in developing countries and we're working on versions that would be less expensive. Unfortunately, this little guy has high quality fischertechnik components, rechargeable lipo, built in shields for 2AMP DC motors, servos, etc. as well as custom designed injection molded parts such as the case, swivels, and system adapters. In addition to just the "stuff" the creation of something like this involves a hardware engineering team, a software company specializing in Unity game development, and an education team that works on the builds and projects and curriculum. Sheesh that's a lot of expensive stuff and people!

2)The Open physical platform approach of RiQ is something we are very excited about. The specialized case has the ability to connect to fischertechnik, LEGO, K'Nex, and other systems. There is even an R/C adapter that allows you bolt it onto your favorite RC vehicle. We wanted to create something that educators or home users could integrate with just about anything.

3) Same philosophy with the Arduino compatible nature of the board - you can program it with the UI we have developed or with the Arduino IDE - that's the path we want students to take so they can learn quickly with our system but move on to more advanced work.

Hope you don't mind the sales pitch, I am familiar with all the items listed in the last post - lots of choices out there. We want ours to stand out so let me know what else you think it needs. We're adding on new sensor packs and capabilities as quickly as possible.

Best wishes,

Robert Grover CEO PCS Edventures, Inc.

</comment><comment><USER5> Would somebody please develop a modern sonar system for low-end robotics? Those guys are using sonar sensors from the 1980s. They give you the range to the nearest thing in a cone about 90 degrees wide. They're from an obsolete generation of self-focusing cameras. There's been some progress since then.

Robot sonars should have capabilities comparable to bats by now. You've probably got at least an ARM processor available. There's a startup trying to do this ([http://www.chirpmicro.com/](http://www.chirpmicro.com/)) for mobile gesture recognition.</comment>


Ask HN: Do you or does anyone you know produce trash?  - <AUTHOR>

I see intentionally created trash (pandering art, throwaway ad bait websites, etc.) everyday that seems to make money, and I wonder: "Who does this stuff?"
To clarify my tone: I do not look down on this necessarily. Creating things that serve no purpose other than to help you or others make a living is a completely reasonable, although certainly not ideal, thing to do.
But creating this stuff can take real creativity and ability. In fact, some of the "trash" I'm referring to takes a lot of one or the other. So who's doing it? <comment><USER2> While not exactly what you're talking about, I did some contract SEO work recently that left me feeling like I'd done something even worse. A friend there got me the interview and spoke well of me. We'd worked together in local TV journalism, where I worked for years after he left. (I'm aware, many would consider local TV news trash in its right right. ;) )

I'll always appreciate his looking out for me like he did, but I'm one of those crazy people who thinks advertising in general is just... Grating. And doing it for something I don't care about? I thought I could stomach it and go forward, but I felt horrible. Now, I still did the work, and I don't think I did a poorer job, I just felt really dissatisfied about it, and the work took me far longer to do it than I should've.

I ended up ending the contract myself after a couple of months. I mean, there were a couple of good jobs in the contract... It's just, I can see how someone could do well in that field helping elevate bad or mediocre companies/people get more attention that they deserve. And that's horrible to me. I want to do some work I can believe in.

Like you said, it can take real creativity and ability, and I still have the utmost respect for my friend who works at the marketing company. I personally just felt so weird writing and doing that work behind the scenes for that reason, after years of working in journalism and enjoying that I felt I was contributing, even to some degree, to the public good.

</comment><comment><USER3> I created astroturfing marketing websites for a multinational company for two years. It was soul-sucking, and I'm glad I'm done with it.

</comment><comment><USER4> I've created what you call "trash" in the past, although I suspect we have different definitions of trash. Simply, it's a good way to make money.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't put any judgement in my post except to call it trash, which is what it is. Trash collectors are certainly honorable, but they collect trash</comment></comment>


'Sexual' use of eggplant and peach emojis banned on Facebook, Instagram - <AUTHOR> https://nypost.com/2019/10/29/sexual-use-of-eggplant-and-peach-emojis-banned-on-facebook-instagram/ <comment><USER2> > The Facebook Community Standards language is quite broad, not naming the > emojis specifically but referring to "[commonly used] sexual emojis or emoji > strings" as criteria which qualify as "Suggestive Elements."

> "[Content] will only be removed from Facebook and Instagram if it contains a > sexual emoji alongside an implicit or indirect ask for nude imagery, sex or > sexual partners, or sex chat conversations"

> "We aren't taking action on simply the emojis."

> Nude photos where emojis cover genitalia, butts or female nipples are also > now formally not allowed

<comment><USER3> Thank god nude photos where male nipples cover female nipples are still fine.

<comment><USER4> It's a shame they don't allow female nipples but allow male nipples. Clear cut sexism, and is there no way to sue them?

<comment><USER5> I would guess that the key factor is whether or not a body part is significantly erogenous. AFAIK, many more women than men find their nipples to be a source of sexual arousal.

EDIT: I hope people reading my post understand the difference between explaining vs. endorsing another party's reasoning.

<comment><USER6> The key factor is the arbitrary sexual moral of the country where FB is headquartered.

<comment><USER7> I think it's more about the sexual morals of the countries where the majority of users are located.

That said, I think it's silly. They're a technology company that should be able to come up with a technical solution. Twitter handles nudity just fine.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> What if I use suggestive emoji for political purposes? Will they allow it then?

<comment><USER9> Yes, but only if you're paying them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Right because sexual innuendo is worse than untruthful political ads.

<comment><USER11> this is everyone's reaction to this, and why this article is gaining traction on HN

<comment><USER12> But it's true. It seems like this policy change would prevent a consenting couple from "flirting" over Facebook by using emoji's but would allow a politican to create false content for an ad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> How will they even police this? If I say "Hey come over for dinner tonight :eggplant:", is that sexual innuendo or am I making my famous eggplant parmigiana?

<comment><USER14> Guess I can't make my peach baba ghanoush anymore.

<comment><USER15> This isn't how I was expecting to be offended on HN today.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Sexual use of eggplant and peach emojis is banned...but political propaganda is still A-OK:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21407531)

</comment><comment><USER17> It's fine as long as they don't ban ancient Egyptian hieroglyphs like U+130BA.

<comment> frant-hartm Pure gold. Keeping that one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm not really sure what group they're catering to here. Everyone who is at least 12 years old knows what those emoji mean. My guess is they must be doing this in order to help protect women from sexual harassment. What they're really doing here is trying to ban an entire way of thinking. That's just not going to happen.

<comment><USER19> It would make sense to respond to a complaint for a direct message that contained these emojis.

<comment><USER18> For starters, the issue isn't remotely as rampant for men as it is for women who _routinely_ (i.e. multiple times a day) receive unsolicited sexual advances offline and online in the form of dick pics. It's also much easier for a man to physically take advantage of a woman than vice versa, so women would naturally feel much more threatened by this behavior. Men's inboxes just aren't constantly getting filled with unsolicited nudes, and those that are received rarely cause men to feel concerned that it could lead to real aggravated sexual assault.

<comment><USER20> Unslicited 'dick picks' are now a crime in Texas, I imagine other states will adopt similar laws too.

>Men's inboxes just aren't constantly getting filled with unsolicited nudes, and those that are received rarely cause men to feel concerned that it could lead to real aggravated sexual assault.

I have several drag queen friends and friends that work/perform in gay clubs, simply commenting on their posts causes me to get 1-2 unsolicited dick picks (or worse, spread cheeks for example) a month on average from friends of theirs or people that simply follow them. I am not gay, I am not interested in penises, I did not ask for them. I report every single one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> There goes any argument that Mark Zuckerberg wants Facebook to uphold the "ideal of free speech".

<comment><USER22> Certainly not Free Peach AMIRITE?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I guess "an implicit or indirect ask for nude imagery, sex or sexual partners, or sex chat conversations" is OK without an eggplant emoji.

But if you add an eggplant emoji... that's it! You crossed the line. Facebook cannot tolerate that. Oh no. Not that.

</comment><comment><USER24> Does this apply to private chats? Because I'll send these in a joking way to my girlfriend and some of my other friends. I know that Facebook messenger parses chats and won't allow porn site links and torrent magnet links to go through.

<comment><USER25> Woah wait, they're blocking magnet links too?? That's horrible. It's already disgusting that they block porn links. Why are they censoring private speech between friends?

<comment><USER24> I haven't torrented in a while but I shared a non-piracy one for downloading creative commons game assets with someone about 5 years ago and it just wouldn't go through. I forget the automated message Messenger would give me but it was basically "We think this is illegal file sharing".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I think we've reached some singularity with regard to the obviousness of the futility of large scale content moderation on social media.

<comment><USER27> We can't talk about sex on the internet but we can still have civilized and gentile conversations about the need for genocide.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Political ads to influence elections with money that have global impacts on the entire world are fine, vegetable emojis... not acceptable!

<comment><USER29> fruit emojis

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why not also ban the gun emoji? Oh wait this is an American company where violence is OK but sex is taboo.

<comment><USER31> Yeah let's pretend guns don't exist. Knives exist too, those are weapons, better ban them. You could throw apples at someone for long enough and probably hurt them a good bit, better ban them too.

The sterilized world you want to live in is not necessarily the one that everyone else wants to live in.

<comment><USER32> I don't know, the rest of the developed world doesn't want to live with gun violence, and they... don't. Your argument is absurd, though, because most knives and apples aren't designed to kill people, and serve other purposes. You can prevent access to one thing (like pipe bombs) without preventing access to other things (like knives). As always, intent and purpose matter, and it's not all-or-nothing.

<comment><USER33> "the rest of the developed world"

This phrase is commonly used as though it were most of the global population or economy or something.

<comment><USER33> That was a glib comment based on my gut reaction, but in fact, I later looked up figures and the US plus all the countries outside the OECD or "high income" countries (which appear to be pretty similar) are >60% of global GDP and about 87% of world population. So maybe it is a little presumptuous to always speak as though the remainder is the only part that really matters?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> If Facebook really wanted to stop this they could make the eggplant less phallic looking or remove it entirely. Almost no one is going on Facebook to actually talk about eggplant.

They don't want users to have the same plausible deniability when sharing a cartoon wiener that they had when adding a cartoon wiener as an option. And honestly, it is probably for the better that sexual harassment via eggplant is now explicitly called out in the TOS.

I don't expect much enforcement of this.

Edit: Wow, the eggplant lobby found my post. To be clear, I'm not against the eggplant emoji, or its sexual connotations, but I am convinced that it gets used exactly the way its designers expected it to be used.

<comment><USER35> This is what I find most confusing. If Facebook's goal is to decrease the frequency of the eggplant & peach emojis being used as sexual references there are a million ways to "nudge" users in that direction. Make the eggplant & peach emojis sliced and I bet they'd just about disappear.

Why police content, especially _this_ content that seems like a total non- issue, when they're in the middle of a giant PR campaign trying to convince users they shouldn't police content _any_ content?

I've never once heard someone complain about emoji sexual innuendo and if Facebook's motives are to stop sexual harassment that might be the most half- hearted attempt in history. Someone who wants to sexually harass a person via Facebook isn't going to be deterred because they _might_ get reported (and then... presumably nothing?) for sending an emoji.

No matter Facebook's end goal, it seems like an odd strategy.

<comment><USER36> " Someone who wants to sexually harass a person via Facebook isn't going to be deterred because they might get reported (and then... presumably nothing?) for sending an emoji." No, but person reviewing such reported content now have in their guideline that emojis count too and know what to do.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> What about bananas and carrots?

<comment><USER38> And cherries and water droplets.

<comment><USER39> And hammers and plums.

<comment><USER40> Captain Hammer approves of this message.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Zuckerberg is a clown.

</comment><comment><USER42> The conversation in this thread is incredibly toxic and unhelpful, almost Reddit-like. @dang?

</comment><comment><USER43> The endless cycle continues... Sex sells, and has always been a big, if unspoken or understated, factor in the rise of these social media platforms. But then they reach critical mass, and the puritanical purges start...

</comment><comment><USER44> Political ads? Sure! Eggplant meaning wiener? NO WAY! Mark is way to pure for that kind of stuff. He is busy saving free speech with political ads!

Zuck is quite the eggplant head.

</comment><comment><USER45> Emoji use is just the latest step in the "Language Game", Facebook seems to be quite reactionary these days.

</comment><comment><USER46> Allowing eggplants and peaches to find each other easily was why thefacebook spread around college campuses.

</comment><comment><USER47> Makes sense. FB and Instagram reflect the sensitivities towards sexuality of its host country's culture.

</comment><comment><USER48> Yes to alt-right propaganda, no to boobs. Sounds about right.

</comment><comment><USER49> Good luck with that

</comment><comment><USER50> Seems very contradictory given that Instagram is 50% bikini photos.

</comment><comment><USER51> News these days.

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm so impressed at Zuckerberg's commitment to free speech. Such bravery in the face of adversity! /s

</comment><comment><USER20> Can't use eggplant emoji sexually, can post completely topless photo/video breastfeeding as a woman, can not post completely topless photo/video as a woman, sexually suggestive cartoon still images are arbitrarily allowed/removed, sexually suggestive art or art depicting nudity you made is often removed unless the genitals and female nipples are covered (including tattoos that depict nudity), sexually explicit art from a world famous artist like a famous painting or sculpture is fine...

In a former life I've even seen but I've seen friends' burlesque posters/flyers with cartoon nudity be removed if they don't have pasties drawn on nipples or the nipples airbrushed (yet throw a baroque painting with far more detail/realism up and it's ok) out and numerous performers that have had actual photographs of them removed even when they DID have pasties on.

Seriously, women wearing amply sized pasties has been a no-go "violating community standards" but you could post something like Reubens' The Judgement of Paris and that's fine because it's a 17th century painting worth mind boggling amounts of money and is tasteful art.

Facebook reaaalllly needs to get consistent with what they do or do not allow.</comment>


The Lego machine - <AUTHOR> https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.legomaschine.de%2F&edit-text=

<comment><USER2> So is it one machine making a cube or three independent ones close together?

( the way the video are cut point to the latter, I think )</comment>


We're Trying To Be Less Evil. Really. - <AUTHOR> http://www.thebigmoney.com/blogs/sausage/2009/07/10/were-trying-be-less-evil-really?page=full <comment><USER2> This article is over a year old.

Swoopo.com still exists, and is still absolutely and utterly evil.</comment>