Palmer Luckey Leaves Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/03/30/palmer-luckey-facebook/ <comment><USER4> The TechCrunch write-up almost exclusively focuses on the "Nimble America" thing. I'm sure that didn't help his standing at Facebook, but he's been doing other things besides that failed Reddit campaign. Some more context in the Ars Technica writeup (I hadn't remembered how much he was on the hook for the Zenimax charges):

[https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/oculus-co-founder- pal...](https://arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/03/oculus-co-founder-palmer- luckey-leaves-facebook/)

> _Luckey did appear briefly at a January trial in which id Software owner > Zenimax Media accused Oculus of misappropriating trade secrets. While Oculus > was cleared of the worst of those charges, the company was found liable for > $300 million for various related charges. Luckey himself was personally > found liable for $50 million in damages._

<comment><USER5> What was Nimble America anyway, and why the outrage?

The Daily Beast article isn't much help, talking about Pepe the Frog and "shitposting", with the banner picture, presumably the most egregious example they could publish, being Hillary's face with the caption "Too Big to Jail". Partisan, sure, but well within the realm of normal politics these days.

<comment><USER6> Some political campaigning group that intended to take online memes and run them as actual political billboards. The outrage was because it was pro-Trump.

<comment><USER7> > The outrage was because it was pro-Trump.

Or because someone managed to find a way to make American political dialogue _even dumber._

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I got big into VR partly because of him, enamored by an interview of him my girl friend pointed me to in 2013. He was young, enthusiastic, idealistic, relatable to me.

Well, as the years wear on he, and oculus itself, has established more of itself from the hacker/open source vision. They've made enemies along the way, and many of the reasons people hate him/Oculus I disagree with.

It's an infant field, they need to fund games to even having reasonable games. Making games have become increasingly expensive. Sure there's a place for indie devs, but those games don't draw the mainstreamers VR needs to take off like I, and many others need.

That being said, the things I've heard and seen from him make me think he does emobdy the gamergate "tech bro" (and I do use that as a pejorative) make my stomach churn. That I can't really forgive, and don't want to support.

The privacy aspects of a Facebook (or google for that matter) owning VR, and getting access to what we __physically look at __for advertising, is such a gold mine. Totally terrifying. That's one reason my next system will likely be something like the Vive, inspite of me finding Oculus far more polished and fun to have.

EDIT: Interestingly enough I asked him specifically on an AMA if he planned on staying at Oculus, his answer was an emphatic yes: [https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/40ea0x/i_am_p...](https://www.reddit.com/r/pcmasterrace/comments/40ea0x/i_am_palmer_luckey_founder_of_oculus_and_designer/cytnax2/?context=3)

<comment><USER9> >He was young (still is) enthusiastic, idealistic, relatable to me.

I would not describe him as idealistic or relatable. He's a self-identified Trump supporter/donator[0] and definitely has some alt-right leanings. Regardless of your politics, I think it's fair to say that someone with his political leanings is not considered "relatable" by a decent portion of Americans.

[0]: [http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13025422/palmer-luckey- ocu...](http://www.theverge.com/2016/9/23/13025422/palmer-luckey-oculus- founder-funding-donald-trump-trolls)

<comment><USER10> It's very odd in 2017 that so many people are being socially disqualified because their political ideology doesn't align with San Francisco's.

<comment><USER11> Fortunately, that's not what's happening.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm actually doubtful it has much to do with politics, if at all.

Dude is a world-class weirdo and an extremely bad communicator. So was Zuck, but he took media training and got..decent at it. Palmer didn't and hasn't, and there you go.

<comment><USER13> > extremely bad communicator

I don't know, some mistakes were made, but he was also pretty throughout in his Reddit AMAs. I think he does deserve some credit for that.

<comment><USER12> Reddit is not real life. If you could gain the communication, leadership, and political skills necessary for an executive position at a company like Facebook by posting on Reddit, then their meeting rooms would smell a whole lot worse.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> In general, if you run a product or company it is a bad idea to get political. You instantly create 50% detractors when you need to always win about 60% support. Hold off politics activism until you have fuck you money.

In most cases politics is a waste of time, change the world via the market and products and focus on your own success. Don't degrade your work by getting into politics, it is merely a divisive system today. Politics suck and they are past the point of grass roots influencing anything, only money works [1][2].

Palmer, like many other 20-somethings, got caught up in it. Political activism peaks around 27-30 ish, Usually by 30 you realize it is all bullshit and a waste of time other than voting and giving money to causes you believe in or that you think should win, quietly, on your own without sharing with the world your beliefs because others have differing beliefs.

[1] [https://act.represent.us/sign/the- problem](https://act.represent.us/sign/the-problem)

[2] [http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs- echochambers-27074746](http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746)

<comment><USER15> Hm ... given Oculus' continued hegemony in the market place, and the high reward of supporting the United States' winning administration in the global marketplace, couldn't he just as easily not.... done anything?

Like there are still devs on Oculus, Trump won, every one with clout that supported him is now in power, and I personally had no idea

uhm yah he's probably got a lucrative VR contract signed up w/ DARPA, I think this is all show

<comment><USER16> > Oculus' continued hegemony in the market place

I don't know what you're on about? Despite billions of money thrown at it by Zucks, the Vive outsells the Oculus 2:1, the PSVR outsells it by 3:1, the Gear VR outsells it by 18:1. [1]. There are still devs on Oculus (dozens of them!), but everybody sane develops on SteamVR from what I hear...

Palmer is smart to take his cash and run while he can.

[1] [http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/6-3m-vr-headsets-were- shipped...](http://www.mcvuk.com/news/read/6-3m-vr-headsets-were-shipped- in-2016/0178470)

<comment><USER15> Wow! Alright

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> > Facebook, which acquired the VR company almost exactly three years ago > today.

Perhaps Palmer is able to 100% cash out all his stocks/RSUs today so he's out to do something else?

<comment><USER18> He should set up a VR company

<comment><USER19> Fairly sure FB would have made it worth his while to sign a non-compete.

<comment><USER20> Pretty sure non-competes are illegal in California.

<comment><USER21> For employees. There are absolutely noncompetes in California for people who sell their businesses.

[http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/business-and-professions- code/bp...](http://codes.findlaw.com/ca/business-and-professions-code/bpc- sect-16601.html)

<comment><USER22> Question: If you're a rank and file employee who has exercised options, and are therefore a (very small) shareholder, does this apply to you?

<comment><USER23> IANAL, but the plain text of the statute says:

"For the purposes of this section, "owner of a business entity" means ... or any owner of capital stock, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation.

For the purposes of this section, "ownership interest" means ... or a capital stockholder, in the case of a business entity that is a corporation."

So it certainly seems possible. Note that you would have to "sell or otherwise dispos[e] of all of his or her ownership interest in the business entity" in order for this code to apply. So it sounds like it may be possible for a company to include a non-compete in an offer to buy back your shares.

Again IANAL and this is not legal advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Is he really that "embattled"? Do people really have the energy to keep the outrage going this long?

<comment><USER25> Enthusiasts are _intense_, and the VR community is still all enthusiasts. At least partially because of the price, but probably also because of the severe lack of high-budget games.

So yeah, the Reddit echo-chamber keeps the hate going long after it would normally die in that kind of community.

<comment><USER26> Add on the "gamer" subculture as well, and you've got a recipe for holding grudges for decades...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Lesson of the day: Keep out of politics if you're not on the "correct" side. If he walks away from VR we've all lost something.

<comment><USER28> Or, "if you're a public figure, or plan a public campaign supporting someone who is controversial, don't expect there to be zero criticism of your position because it's somehow sacred".

<comment><USER29> it's sort of strange that a mainstream candidate with enough support to win the whole election is considered controversial, plenty public figures endorsed hilary and none received the level of backlash that palmer did. max temkin even funded a similarly cringey billboard campaign:

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-23-report- oculus-r...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-09-23-report-oculus-rift- creator-palmer-luckey-secretly-funded-pro-trump-meme-website)

[http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-15-anti-trump- ad-a...](http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2016-10-15-anti-trump-ad-alleges- candidate-mains-hanzo-in-overwatch)

unless we are to enforce a standard of public apoliticism for public figures across the board, uniquely singling out endorsements on one side regardless of wealth doesn't seem like a good way to generate effective discourse

<comment><USER28> > plenty public figures endorsed hilary and none received the level of > backlash

No? You don't recall the decrying of "Hollywood elites" by right wing media and supporters?

> uniquely singling out endorsements on one side regardless of wealth doesn't > seem like a good way to generate effective discourse

I am only obligated to commentate on endorsements that I agree or disagree with. I have no "fair time doctrine", and nor should I have to.

<comment><USER30> >No? You don't recall the decrying of "Hollywood elites" by right wing media and supporters?

This is generalized, and it's not an active campaign of literal harassment to make it difficult for specific individuals to work. For whatever reason, the Right is much less interested in seeing their political enemies suffer than the Left. Perhaps it's because the Right sees the Left as naive, whereas the Left sees the Right as human garbage.

The literal inventor of JavaScript, totally irreplaceable and undeniably the most qualified person for his role, is forced out from Mozilla over a campaign contribution to another mainstream political cause (which also won). He had silently made that contribution 7 years prior, and it was only discovered due to campaign finance disclosure laws. Major sites like OKCupid ran blackouts against Firefox users to punish them for running a browser associated with Brendan Eich. Unlike Luckey, he was not trying to get involved publicly, and only quietly exercises his rights as a citizen.

Now, the guy who "kickstarted" the multi-billion-dollar modern VR revolution is harassed and chased out of his position for committing a slightly-more- public form of heresy against the Silicon Valley dogma.

The "criticisms" are not comparable across the aisle.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Anyone seeing this as having any connection to the VR industry as a whole is completely ignorant on the subject. Palmer has repeatedly shown himself to be a toxic liability to the brand, and this was inevitable to anyone who follows Oculus.

<comment><USER32> "He was just in the right place at the right time with a neat hobby project that got noticed and picked up by Carmack."

 _eye roll_ Really? He's accomplished more than most of the folks on this site. I really really hate the "They weren't an engineer therefore they're just background noise" mentality. A startup is a team. Everyone from executives to the doc writers are important, often in very intangible ways.

<comment><USER33> What did Luckey contribute? The first seed of the idea? A proof of concept [0]? I haven't followed it very closely, but it seems to me that Carmack is the one that not only had the technical skills at the early stage and did a lot of evangelizing for the young technology even before he joined Oculus, his name was also a major factor in bringing in other talent and investment. I don't think Oculus would have been close to where they are today without Carmack, I've yet to read about any crucial contributions by Luckey. Right place at the right time does sound accurate.

And of course companies need more than engineers, Steve jobs wasn't and engineer and his importance for Apple can hardly be overstated.

[0] [https://youtu.be/kw-DlWwlXHo?t=169](https://youtu.be/kw-DlWwlXHo?t=169)

<comment><USER34> Why would John Carmack -- who revolutionized graphics processing and led development of a frikkin rocket ship, mind you -- waste his time with Luckey if Luckey didn't bring anything to the table?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Not sure how much he has in terms of liquid cash, but according to wikipedia his net worth is $730 million

He'll be fine.

</comment><comment><USER36> Nothing in the entire article answered WHY he left. So it was because of the Trump thing?... Because that's stupid reason. Mark Zuckerberg who is the actual CEO of facebook is getting bad press on a daily basis and for much worse reasons than Palmer Luckey. Nobody outside of the tech community even knows who Palmer Luckey is but because he funded some trump trolls he gets ousted from the company he started??...something just doesn't sound right. Seems like a power play is happening behind the scenes and this is just an excuse

</comment><comment><USER37> I give it 12 months before John Carmack leaves, too.

</comment><comment><USER38> While not directly talking about Palmer, I'm not surprised that Oculus is having these sorts of troubles (co-founder leaving/lawsuit).

Being the first-movers in the VR space, or in the current wave of actually viable VR products, it'd be surprised if they turn out to be the dominant force in the space

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First- mover_advantage#Resoluti...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First- mover_advantage#Resolution_of_technological_or_market_uncertainty)

</comment><comment><USER39> Curious how this will affect Oculus, if much at all.

In the long run, I don't think Oculus is good for the industry. Their room scale tracking hardware is inadequate, and their exclusive titles are dividing a fledgling market. I say this as a Vive owner and enthusiast. This along with the lawsuit… maybe it's for the best.

<comment><USER40> I haven't tried the Oculus Rift, but I do own the Note 4 Gear VR, and recently tried the Vive. I felt the Vive was clearly inferior, with a much closer and much more obvious and shallow feeling of depth to it, what felt like a worse field of view, and just more primitive VR games.

I was severely disappointed, considering how great the reviews of Steam VR games were, how much I looked forward to finally trying them out, and how primitive and demo-like the Gear VR games and apps were. It felt like the Gear VR games set a relatively low bar that the Vive should easily exceed, but sadly the games for the Vive were even worse.

If the Rift is actually better than the Gear VR, as I have expectation it is, then the Vive must be really awful in comparison.

It is nice that the Vive tracks you as you walk around your room, but that doesn't make up for the poor game quality and other issues I mentioned.

Overall, though, I think VR as a whole has a very, very long way to go. I was stunned and blown away when I first tried the Gear VR, but that sense of amazement wore off after a few weeks, and after that all the fun was in letting other people try it and vicariously enjoy their amazement. That lasted a few months, and ever since my Gear VR has been gathering dust, as it's just too much of a hassle to use, especially for long periods of time, when it gets too uncomfortable.

The main problem, though, is that all the games and apps are way too primitive, and all feel like bare-bones demos. If any of them were great, all the hassle and discomfort would be worth it, but they're really not.. at least not after the novelty has worn off.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> I wish him the best - he jump started this entire industry, which was for a long time in the realm of scifi. Go and read his IAMAs on Reddit: he's clearly passionate and knowledgeable about VR. I hope he finds a proper outlet for his talents, now that he has the resources to do whatever he wants.

</comment><comment><USER42> Interestingly [https://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey](https://www.reddit.com/user/palmerluckey) shows no posts for almost a year.

</comment><comment><USER43> In my experience, innovators hate big companies. The culture and people there are all selfish, self involved, trying to "beat the game" by maximizing their RSUs, piggy backing on other people's work.

</comment><comment><USER44> I'm not sure how I feel about this - ambivalent, I guess - pretty much how I felt after the FB acquisition.

I was a KS supporter - but I had followed Luckey for a while before on the MTBS3D forums, when he was just playing around, modding classic HMDs - <USER2> up the parts. He was one of only a handful of people that I could see who still played around with VR in that mid-to-late 1990s way. At the time, I thought that if there were anybody who could bring back VR, it was him.

I've played with DIY "homebrew" VR off and on since the mid-90s. I have a collection of old HMDs and other gear from the era. I've modded a powerglove, and at one time hooked it up to my Amiga and messed around with AMOS3D for fun with it. Later, Rend386...in short, I was disappointed to see VR die - so when the Kickstarter was announced, I was - to put it mildly - stoked.

That KS was the first one I backed (and not the last!) - I had high hopes, especially because Luckey had made a huge deal out of there being Linux support. With the FB deal, that was dropped, and that's when for me at least, the gilding rubbed off revealing a more base interior to the whole thing. Still, I had hoped that it would all lead somewhere.

In a way, I guess it did. More people than ever before got to play around with VR and such, and experience it all in ways that in the mid-90s I could only dream about (the tech just didn't exist at a price any normal person could afford). It was, though, a disappointment to hear that people were still having the same usage problems with this new tech that were the bane of VR back then.

Now it seems that once again, interest is waning. The hardware is still way too expensive for most people to come on board. People are still skeptical about what it is, whether it really works, or worried about side effects and other problems. Others simply don't understand the concept of immersion - <USER3> if they do, they can't seem to grasp why that would be such a great thing (I find it odd that some can't understand the idea of being -inside- a virtual world - a world of make believe, a world of dreams? One would think that would be something everyone would be gung-ho about, but I guess not).

Then to find out Palmer's true side, which - at least to me - wasn't apparent before; conservative, a seeming "I've got mine" attitude (and I don't begrudge his newfound wealth - in fact, I kinda proud for him on that mark), and bro- dude, let's support our favorite cheeto-in-chief...

And then the whole Zenimax thing.

For me, his reputation has been horribly tarnished. I'm glad he gave the whole VR thing another boost, but at the same time, it looks likely that this is the last great "hoorah" for the technology, and it will likely never get another chance again - at least not in the "gloves and goggles" classic form we've come to associate the term "VR" with.

Perhaps that's for the best.

<comment><USER45> I also remember the short lived VR craze of the mid 1990s. As a kid back then, I remember trying some kind of 3d tennis game in an arcade, which was like $3 to play. What turned me off from it was a weird realization that I much prefer playing sports in real life with the bonus of not feeling nauseated and seeing cross-eyed after wards. Thus, I would love to see this modern incarnation of VR applied to something more than just games...

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Politics takes up a lot of time and I don't think creatives should get involved. Atleast not voluntarily.

</comment><comment><USER47> I completely support and forgive Palmer Luckey. I hope for the world's sake that he goes on to do more great things.

There are truly bad people in the world. People who deserve to be hated. Palmer Luckey is very far from being one of them. If you're still piling on Palmer Luckey, you're a real piece of shit human being.

</comment><comment><USER48> ooof. that sucks.

Kinda makes sense. Between the odd political stuff, the lawsuit where he was partially blamed, and the general poor PR at times.

</comment><comment><USER49> I don't find it takes much energy to consider him a horrible person.

e: Downvoting because you disagree is not a proper use for your downvote button.

<comment><USER50> Unrelated to this thread, I was just thinking to myself a few minutes ago "2015 me would be very surprised at how mad i've been able to bee for this long". So I would be more surprised if people weren't still outraged.

<comment><USER49> I think there's a difference between being mad, and having formed an opinion about a person. I'm not actively raging about Lickey, but I have formed an impression of him that is unfavorable.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Peter Thiel next?

</comment><comment><USER52> Probably indicates that VR really is deader than dead. The only people this appeals to are the tech-bros.

I really don't understand the Silicon Valley tech-bros that think VR has any hope. How do they not see the obvious user-experience problems, like motion sickness and limited visibility & resolution, as well as its product liability issues, like always falling down along with running into walls and breaking things? If you think VR is a solution, then we know you're a bad product designer.

The first generation of VR died out because of product-liability issues. Did those fundamental issues get solved? No.

<comment><USER53> I don't understand people who use the demeaning and sexist term "tech bros" unironically.

Did you know that there are women who like VR? Who code for VR? Who work to create it? Who are on the boards making decisions about its future?

Does your "techbro" bigotry leave room for the women of tech?

It makes me think you're a Gawker commenter who accidentally found their way to a community where you don't belong. I just don't get how this kind of condescending sexism finds its way here.

<comment><USER54> I think there are two distinct things you can disagree with in the parent comment. The first is whether the use of the phrase "tech bros" is defensible; the second is whether all the people who are supporting VR are those who can be called (rightly or wrongly) "tech bros". I think you're conflating those.

I've always interpreted the term as being gendered, but not gender- essentialist; there are plenty of women who are "tech bros", because it's referring to a culture and set of ideals derived from gendered spaces like fraternities, but not those spaces themselves; plenty of "tech bros" were not members of a college fraternity, for instance. It is true that the _vast majority_ of tech bros are men, for many reasons relating to society and gender. It's certainly possible that the term could get inaccurate, in which case I at least would favor a different one, but it works for now.

Under that definition, "there exist women who do behavior X which you attribute to tech bros" does not imply "attributing behavior X to tech bros is incorrect".

That leaves the question about whether "tech bros", such as they are, are the only people rooting for VR. I think that's fairly unlikely to be true, and yes, your points seem do rebut that claim. (That said, it's probably worth mentioning somewhere here that while women _exist_ in VR, the industry seems to be biased towards an assumption of men, from various apps placing virtual objects at heights that are difficult for most biological women to reach, to the entire concept being based on a model of 3D visual processing that is more common in biological men: [https://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed- to-be-sexi...](https://qz.com/192874/is-the-oculus-rift-designed-to-be- sexist/) _Pointing out_ the obvious truth that VR seems to be male-dominated is not excluding women, and your question about bigotry seems to be attacking the messenger.)

But even if it's misplaced to associate the entire VR industry with "tech bros", I don't think that invalidates the concept of "tech bros" itself.

Finally, I think it's inappropriate to imply that a good-faith participant doesn't belong here.

<comment><USER34> You're bending over backwards to try to rationalize a sexist term, and digging yourself deeper by then stereotyping fraternities.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: A simple, visual way of debugging JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/b44rd/jsbug/ <comment><USER2> Why do you need jQuery for such a simple plugin?</comment>


Scott Adams: The Social Media Hive Mind - <AUTHOR> http://blog.dilbert.com/post/156806516721/the-social-media-hive-mind <comment><USER2> I'm surprised that platforms like Twitter and Facebook aren't seen as de facto utilities, when a certain percentage of the population uses them, and when they're the main method of communication for powerful institutions like corporations and the president.

Because when they aren't, you end up with arguments like "If you want free speech, just don't use private platforms". I don't think that's a reasonable argument anymore...those platforms wedged themselves into being a necessity for public figures.

<comment><USER3> Neither Twitter nor Facebook are "the main method of communication" for the President.

<comment><USER4> Outside of the State of the Union address, I'm not aware of any "main method of communication" for the POTUS. You could argue the press conferences held by the press secretary are _one_ form, but they're not mandated by the Constitution.

<comment><USER3> I would say the press conferences are the main method as they are from the White House and happen multiple times a day. I don't know that a Constitutional mandate would have anything to do with it.

<comment><USER2> They're the main method to address the public. But how does the president _communicate_ and interact with the public? Twitter.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There could be so many reasons for tweets becoming unavailable, not related to The World Hates Scott Adams(tm). It appears to happen when you quote someone, then block them, for example. It could also just be a bug. I've seen the "this tweet is unavailable" message tons of times, but never noticed a pattern.

If it's true that this is throttling, a tool used to suppress and censor "any content that disagrees with [Twitter's] political views" then that would be interesting but there's nothing in this post that supports this except a strange video.

The "great video" makes a lot of claims without any proof. It's mostly a long, super aggressive, homophobic[0], rant.

Could it just be selection bias. If you mostly follow a __holes on Twitter, and some tweets become unavailable because the quote feature is broken (or something), then it seems like your a __hole opinion is being censored?

[0]: Uses language like "I'm the worlds biggest faggot", "fat bull dykes", etc.

<comment><USER6> This is exactly what I said. The guy in the video seems like the type of personality that would immediately default to "I'm being censored, OH NOEZ!" when a simple technical issue could cause his tweet to show as unavailable. There are any number of reasons that this could happen and the fact that every single piece of info he has is anecdotal and without a pattern is extremely suspect. I mean, this theory could be easily disproved just by showing a left- leaning tweet where it shows as unavailable. This seems like a perfect fit for Occam's Razor.

<comment><USER7> The problem with this argument is that there have been hundreds or possibly thousands of accounts removed from Twitter since the election simply for political content.

It's not a technical issue, nor is it a secret. It's a purge of content and accounts that Twitter deems offensive because the content and the people who tweet and retweet it are on the opposite side of the political spectrum. And it's not based on a failure to follow community guidelines -- or if it is, those guidelines are very unevenly enforced under the "don't shoot anyone to our left" rule.

<comment><USER6> Where's the evidence of that removal, then? The most extensive "evidence" of this is maybe 5 accounts getting removed and for every 5 on the right that got removed, there are 5 on the left. Anecdotes are not evidence.

<comment><USER7> Found the story for you, conveniently dated today and published by AP so you don't have to wonder if it's fake news.

"Also on Tuesday, Twitter said it's creating a "safe search" feature that removes tweets with potentially sensitive content and tweets from blocked and muted accounts from search results. The tweets will still exist on Twitter if people look for them, but won't appear in general search results.

Twitter is also making some replies less visible so only the most relevant conversations surface."

This is exactly what Scott Adams and commenters above complained about, and what others doubted or dismissed as technical glitches. Turns out it's not a technical problem, it's policy.

Sure, Twitter has the right to do it. But please don't dismiss the serious questions about whether they ought to do it and expect me to take you seriously. To my knowledge, unlike the tweets of Islamic terrorists that caused some of their accounts to be deleted, there has been no violence associated with the speech of the "alt-right". There has been violence on the "antifa" side with associated tweets, but there is no mention in the article of any of those accounts being shut down.

[http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_TWITTER_ABUSE?...](http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_TEC_TWITTER_ABUSE?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2017-02-07-09-03-50)

<comment><USER6> These 2 things aren't the same _at all_. The article is talking about tweets being excluded from search results and users being banned from creating additional accounts. Adams is talking about tweets being censored by claiming that they're unavailable when they are. He wasn't talking about either a search or a specific user being banned, only tweets being censored.

<comment><USER7> From TFA: "The video describes how Twitter gives a fake message that some tweets are no longer available, to discourage you from clicking to them. The tweets still exist, and you can access them by directly clicking the links in the tweets, but most people would not think to do that."

From the article I quoted: "Twitter is also making some replies less visible so only the most relevant conversations surface."

Sounds like the same thing to me.

<comment><USER6> Way to cherry pick. The article you quoted is talking about _search results_. That's exactly what I said in my reply to you. You're pretending like they're the same thing when they're not.

<comment><USER7> You probably won't see this, but Scott Adams and I are not the only ones to notice this. Stay on the right side of the narrative, though; you wouldn't want to run afoul of the powers that be.

[https://freedomandfulfilment.com/twitter-censorship-free- spe...](https://freedomandfulfilment.com/twitter-censorship-free-speech/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'll get spanked here for sure, but he is right. Facebook did it too, got caught, and admitted it. Half of what I read in the collection of comments looks as credible as fake news. FYI I watch CNN AND Fox. Left and right obviously. Regarding political matters, I deem Fox more credible. They show more of the actual info. CNN has been caught multiple times editing at the perfect moment to change the meaning. "You can't add too much water to a nuclear reactor"

</comment><comment><USER9> Oh the irony! The fact that this story got flagged basically supports it.

</comment><comment><USER10> Breaking News: Twitter is free to not boost his tweets for any reason of their choice or no reason at all in exactly the same way that Fox news is free to only cover things from a conservative point of view.

Curiously, you only see Scott Adams complaining about one of these things.

</comment><comment><USER11> I have been following Adam's blog through the election and his analyses of the psychological factors behind Trump's rise is IMHO required reading, whether you are for Trump or against.

<comment><USER12> His persuasion techniques didn't work to convince a majority of Americans to follow him, as Adam repeatedly said it would. He is doing a victory lap for being 100% wrong

<comment><USER11> The object of an election is to win. Trump persuaded the people he was supposed to do to win. Persuading those who don't count is not a winning strategy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The more interesting title of this story: "Scott Adams: Twitter is censoring my tweets."

<comment><USER14> "Scott Adams: Asserts that twitter is censoring his tweets without evidence"

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Are we sure that the "Tweet Unavailable" message isn't just because a tweet was really popular and the script that's pulling the info didn't get a 503 error or something temporarily when it was pulling the tweet content?

Why is it always a conspiracy for something that's explained by something a lot less conspicuous?

</comment><comment><USER15> What's the solution?

A peer to peer link/text sharing?

Tweets in a block chain?

<comment><USER16> I think you have to build out multiple channels to your "audience" email, twitter, facebook, etc.

<comment><USER15> I think a lot of us do that already, maybe the silver lining of the debacle is that the general public will understand the need for this too.

Still, I feel that a generic, simple, non-censored, non-censorable, way to share links and short updates is needed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> If it's like Facebook they throttle anything that's too viral. Then, send you a "boost this post" ad so you can pay.

</comment><comment><USER14> I know the only reason I never go viral with anything is because of conspiracy... it is the only possibility. /s

<comment><USER17> Scott Adams is already famous, and he is very specific about topics that are throttled, Trump and Climate Change.

He may have a point and he may not have a point, but he is not a source to dismiss.

<comment><USER14> It is irrelevant how famous he is... if he doesn't have evidence to back up his claim then he is a source to dismiss. In fact, when considering the truth of anything that is my main criteria. Im curious what yours must be.

<comment><USER17> His fame matters because he has lot more twitter followers and each tweet has massive feedback in likes etc. a variety data-set than for example me (with 4 followers). That is where I am coming from.

The uppity in your post, as if you are the only priest of Truth is confirming what I already suspected.

<comment><USER14> Oh? so he knows how twitter's algo works? cool...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Funny that this is a flagged story on HN

<comment><USER19> Why is that funny? Adams is making an entirely unsubstantiated, and again self-centered, claim: These sorts of things always get flagged. He's done this time and time again -- if an error (which Twitter has many of, and I respect as a consequence of the scale) happens to him, it's a conspiracy. If he isn't at the top of people's feeds, it's a conspiracy.

Didn't the people like Adams all claim they were going to go to some alternative Twitter? Why haven't they just done that by now?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Why has this been flagged?

<comment><USER20> Users clicked 'flag', presumably because stories with more political charge than intellectual interest are off-topic here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is concerning and gives the right some credibility when they claim "fake news" and "censorship".

<comment><USER22> No it doesn't because it contains no evidence other than Scott Adams's unsubstantiated (and by this point paranoid) claims he's being censored. What he describes is flaky twitter behaviour that happens all the time. Twitter doesn't censor the overt Nazis and racists and they're singling out Scott Adams? Really?</comment></comment>


Device can theoretically trap a light 'bit' for an infinite amount of time - <AUTHOR> http://phys.org/news/2015-11-device-theoretically-bit-infinite-amount.html <comment><USER2> The article is totally misrepresented by this title, unsurprisingly. The notable thing about the paper is that the authors found a way to exploit non- linearity to separate pumping and emission with a particular nano-structure which is impossible with linear optics.

<comment><USER3> ELI5?

<comment><USER2> Imagine the nanostructure as a bucket and light as water. The goal is to fill the bucket with water and store it there. Light "fills" a material by polarizing the electrons inside the material. However that polarization can and must re-emit light. If there's a 1:1 ratio between the amount of polarization you get in the material for field in the light the reverse process is equally likely, then it turns out the material polarization will always just make light again in the same amount as you add. Ie: there is a hole in the bucket and you cannot fill it.

Some materials polarize non-linearly. Ie: you add 1 drop of water into the bucket and it becomes two drops inside or the reverse. Actually all materials do this but much less than ordinary (linear) polarization. The author's contrived some setup which would exploit this effect to keep the polarization in a nanostructure. Something like (and this is an abuse of analogy): one drop in bucket, it splits, one of those is emmitted and one kept etc. The operating principle of such a device is to control the paths the drops travel on, and separate the directions to enhance the desired processes. Something like a mouse trap.

There are many devices which already exist and maintain states of light given some energy input, for example LASER cavities. Non-linear phenomena are well understood and exploited in all sorts of fascinating optical devices. Non- linear processes are usually weak and rare, so seeing them requires intense light which is expensive to generate and can burn weak materials. Preparing nanostructures which have the desired nonlinearities could be hard or impossible.

For example it's easy to theoretically imagine a crystal that would take the many of infrared photons emitted by the heat of your hand, and upconvert them into fewer visible photons you could see. However any material which could be polarized so much by those low energy photons would not be stable at room temperature so no such thing exists...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Humans normally use the word "permanently" to describe this condition.

<comment><USER5> "Permanent" has a very different meaning from "infinite amount of time."

Permanent implies that it's irreversible, and this is definitely not the case.

Given that the gain element must be employed for the storage of the light, and the removal of the gain element causes the release of the light, it is not "permanent" \- it is "potentially infinite, as long as the gain element is in place."

That makes it useful for research into all-optical computation.

<comment><USER6> Theoretically, the gain element is not necessary. They only need it to compensate for physical imperfections in the device.</comment></comment></comment>


Avoiding website project disasters - <AUTHOR> http://sixrevisions.com/project-management/20-questions-to-know-for-avoiding-website-project-disasters/

<comment><USER2> "If you can't get the client to provide any of these answers, I'd strongly suggest that you consider declining the project."

That's exactly what I was thinking as I read the list. I've dealt with projects where people either couldn't answer those, or couldn't be bothered to answer those questions. They're vital to the project and need to be answered by someone. Unsurprisingly, I (as the developer) rarely answer them correctly.

<comment><USER3> From my experience, I have found customers have a hard time answering some, if not most of these questions. Instead of rejecting the project because the customer cannot answer, I tend to provide detail to what each question is pointed at and provide a spectrum as an example.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Good questions, but I would go a step further: a lot of clients do not have a good feel for what a web site might really do for them. An important part of the engagement is to act as a facilitator to help the client identify what their needs really are.

</comment><comment><USER5> Sometimes clients are expecting you to answer these questions for them because they don't know. I suppose what's what's more important is to define your role as a website-maker?</comment>


Programming and Painting - <AUTHOR> http://www.paulgraham.com/hp.html <comment><AUTHOR> Old, but gold. Here's a response: [http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm](http://www.idlewords.com/2005/04/dabblers_and_blowhards.htm)

<comment><USER2> I have to admit, I'm rather disappointed with his response. I don't know a whole lot about the techniques of painting, and the way he described how Graham was incorrect about his statements was the start of something that could have been an amazing essay. He then had to make blanket statements about both painters and programmers, that are both way over generalized, and sexist. It's too bad, because he seems to be well versed in both painting and programming.

<comment><USER3> Can't comment on the respondent's actual attitude to women.

As far as painters vs hackers goes, this is a topic which really lends itself to generalisations. They are fundamentally different kinds of person. Here's another attempted refutation of PG, just off the cuff:

Painters (artists in general) need charisma to succeed. It's rare for them to become deeply involved in complex bodies of knowledge -- this doesn't pay off because the audience for art resembles the general public: it's not specialized. Among artists, painters in particular think visually and spatially, but the most technical ideas they are involved with are usually to do with the practical chemistry of artists' materials.

Hackers are generally all about gaining knowledge of complex systems. They like to improvise and work in a self reliant way -- so, like painters, they are individualists. Do hackers pursue charisma? In a way, yes. The Unix hacker stereotype is a charismatic in a crude way (elitist, beard, sandals). But hackers are charismatic members only within a culture of technicians, and relative to that culture. Technicians are stereotypically not charismatic, or, at least, any charisma that they have is irrelevant to their effectiveness as technicians. This is essentially the cultural definition of a technician: [http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicianVersusP...](http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TechnicianVersusPerformer)

Charismatics, with their Reality Distortion Fields, are sometimes mistrusted in the technical domain. Part of this has to do with the typically narcissistic or otherwise non-normative personality of charismatic individuals. That same pattern is absolutely expected and tolerated in the arts, painting especially.

So, the overlap between hackers and painters is quite minimal. The most painter-like hackers are the ones with the worrying large egos. The most hacker-like painters don't succeed as big name artists and end up teaching and pottering around with art materials.

<comment><USER4> Those who consider unix hackers crude are doomed to reinvent them, poorly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'm quite intrigued that this essay pops up every few years. It seems to resonate deeply with certain people for some reason, like they've been searching for something and this essay unlocks it.

<comment><USER6> I don't know about you, but it helps put my overly large ego in check.

I especially like the read of Technician vs Performer. It truly unlocked something: it helps me rekindle the passion I had when I first started.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anyone know what the broken link in the essay used to link to?

[http://www.paulgraham.com/piraha.html](http://www.paulgraham.com/piraha.html)

<comment><USER8> [https://web.archive.org/web/20060211013646/http://www.paulgr...](https://web.archive.org/web/20060211013646/http://www.paulgraham.com/piraha.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> (2003) please

</comment><comment><USER10> I like the architect/engineer analogy, to explain the dichotomy. I use it all the time, when my friends or relatives ask me to fix their computer. I tell them it's like calling an architect when your bathroom pipes get clogged.

<comment><USER11> Except as a programmer you can probably fix their problems (you just don't want to). An architect does not have the skills to fix plumbing.

<comment><USER12> It's a poor metaphor. I'm an engineer and I still call a plumber.

What I enjoy about Engineering is that you have a set of constraints and you have the challenge of working within those constraints to solve a problem in a feasible manner. All most everything can be boiled down to an optimization problem, make this reactor use less fuel, make this engine deliver more power, make this component lighter etc.

To create my own (bad) metaphor engineering is about coloring between the lines in the most efficient way possible. Science is what draws the lines and engineering is what fills them in.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I just picked up Hackers and Painters by PG at local library. Hoping its a good read !</comment>


Ask HN: Deploying scripts and tools to production - <AUTHOR>

Hi,
I've got a number of batch processes that run behind the scenes on a website.  They are starting to grow in number and complexity, so I want to bring a small amount of process to bear on them.
My source tree has a bunch of cpp files and scripts, organized with development but not deployment in mind.  After compiling all the executables, I need to put various scripts and binaries on a cluster of machines.  Different machines need different executables and scripts for their batch process.  I also have a few of tools that I've written that belong on every machine. At the moment, this deployment process is manual and error prone.
I'm guessing I'm just going to end up with a script that runs at the root of the source tree and builds a smaller tree of everything necessary for any of the machines.  Then, I'll just rsync that to the appropriate machines.  But I'm curious how other people are managing this type of problem.  Any ideas?
Thanks! <comment><USER2> I have two tools that I am extremely happy with and use regularly to deal with these sorts of scenarios:

Capistrano - <http://www.capify.org>

Puppet - <http://reductivelabs.com/trac/puppet>

They may not be completely fitting depending on what you are doing, and they both require some understanding of Ruby. In general, though, these tools have proved invaluable for me.</comment>


Music Sales Continue to Plummet for Albums and Digital Downloads - <AUTHOR> http://variety.com/2014/music/news/music-sales-fall-albums-digital-downloads-losses-1201257795/ <comment><USER2> A market for recorded performances is about 100 years old. It is a novelty in human culture as well as commerce. Cartels controlling this market are an even more recent and dubious "innovation."

Expecting them to have lifespan and protection of the property under one's house, or to even be analogous to that property, is delusional.

<comment><USER3> how is it different from say, a book?

<comment><USER2> That's the question, isn't it: Copyright became mainstream in the era of books, printed sheet music, and other publishable symbolic encoding of information. Performances were not protectable.

Why do you think a recorded performance of a work should be protectable under copyright? It's NOT an original work of the intellect. It's a performance of what is often someone else's work. Just because it is recorded, should it be protected? Does the technological innovation of recording make it protect- able? And, if so, shouldn't the technological innovation of infinite copies at zero marginal cost make performances un-protectable?

<comment><USER3> There is plenty of music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music, and is original work of the intellect.

I don't see any difference in a book and an original music recording in terms of why one should be subject to copyright and one not.

Whether recordings or books are protectable in practice is another matter, as it is very easy to make digital copies of both.

But if one takes the stand that an author of a book (be it an e-book or a printed one) has the right to set a price for a copy for her work, and benefit from protection by copyright if she so chooses to, I don't see how a recording of an original piece of music is any different.

<comment><USER2> I would be happy to limit copyright protection to recordings of "music which is only recorded in an audio form and cannot be encoded as sheet music." Despite the fact that I've been published by several major book publishers and I'm a "real" author with representation and the whole nine yards, I have not defended the continuing copyright protection of the written word, either. One of my publishers uses no copy protection (except for Kindle where they have no choice), and they distribute a large part of their backlist for free. The whole notion of copyright and publishing needs a rethink. Some publishers are farther along this path than others.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> There is too much art, because former amateurs now have the tools to make something that's _good enough_ to pass within their chosen splinter of culture. And give it away free. [http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/09/13/culture-is- not-about-aesthe...](http://rocknerd.co.uk/2013/09/13/culture-is-not-about- aesthetics-punk-rock-is-now-enforced-by-law/) Artists are now directly competing with their fans.

Or, more directly: I have a disk with literally terabytes of media on it. It is _still_ more convenient for me to find stuff on YouTube and play it from there.

<comment><USER5> Have you seen [http://www.ektoplazm.com/](http://www.ektoplazm.com/) ? It's a free music label. There's no obvious monetization strategy and it's hundreds of albums worth of independently produced electronic music, some of it quite good, all available for download at full quality. Perhaps it's just so so cheap to produce music that people give it away for free? Maybe they just do it to get a higher profile, so they can get DJ gigs, or they just love the music?

<comment><USER4> Or indeed Jamendo or Bandcamp, where you can basically _put your stuff up_ and get _paid_ instead of hammered by bandwidth charges should you accidentally gain popularity.

People like _making stuff_ and _putting it up_. Witness DeviantArt, which is >90% unspeakable shit the perpetrators of which should have their hands cut off to stop them abusing pencils ever again, with a small percentage of actually goddamn brilliant artists whose presence justifies the whole enterprise.

(COI: I'm shacked up with one of said decent artists.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Personal anecdote - <2% of visitors that play a preview ever click on a buy link on [http://wonderwheel.fm](http://wonderwheel.fm)

It's something I built for myself and I didn't expect to make anything, but it's still been entertaining to have the expectation confirmed.

The site has seen some okay traffic but hasn't made enough to buy me a half of Tennent's.

</comment><comment><USER7> I don't think that the transition from physical to digital/streaming music is the only explanation. There's also plain simple demand and supply. There's never been so much music available as now. It's never been easier to create, publish and distribute music. The digital supply is just immense. The demand just can't follow.

<comment><USER8> especially through youtube and the gratis availability of so much existing music you never heard of. just listening through the stuff created between 2000-2010 will take years. and then youtube carries all the older stuff.

add pandora, spotify, etc. and you don't need to purchase music, at all, anymore.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> YEs the whole media market appears to be transitioning from outright purchase towards a leasing model with the likes of Netflix and Spotify and others doing streaming of films and media.

This is not entirely unexpected given how cable operators operate TV packages, but it does open up for more competition and it is that competition that makes the private sector model work for the consumer.

This all said, I can often get a CD cheaper than the online equivalent, more so if a bit older and you shop about. Aspect of old stock taking up space does play more for the physical store offerings, unlike digital versions.

<comment><USER10> I hope it never actually transitions. I'm one of those people who still buy CDs; I want to own what I buy, not have it leased to me for a limited time. I love music and having my own library is cheaper in the long term than paying some monthly amount. Imo that only makes sense for people who jump from artist to artist on a daily basis.

<comment><USER11> Same here. I want to be able to rip it to FLAC, archive the rips, convert it to Ogg Vorbis for my portable device and never have anyone take my music away from me because they revoked license keys, or the service died, or because I happen to be in Australia...

<comment><USER9> That does raise a whole very valid point.

The issue of portability globally with subscription streaming services. The World is getting smaller and more people travel further than before and with that.

Are streaming services all equal, do they lock you down to certain countries and with that do any offer true comparable global reach that a physical object affords you.

I see this as something that will become more of an issue as time goes on and also somewhat worrying. Bad enough planning a local SIM card for a phone as cheaper than roaming. Will streaming services start to add roaming charges too later on? I do wonder and suspect they may very well end up doing that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> People don't really want to own music. People want to listen to what they want, when they want.

If a company can provide that service, for a fee, that company will succeed.

The older and slower to move companies, will not understand. Those old and slow to act companies will fail.

People don't want to own music. People want to listen to music.

<comment><USER13> > _People don 't really want to own music. People want to listen to what they > want, when they want._

Actually music fans used to want to own their music -- and took pride in their collections.

The current decline is a combination of two things:

1) for the younger generations music (pop/rock/whatever) is not as important as it was up until the eighties and slightly into the nineties.

Pop/Rock music thrived in an era when it was a major escape into a fantasy world. Nowadays there are 100 other diversions, from video games, to YouTube, to 9gag, to anime, 200 tv series, etc etc.

2) the remaining (but not that culturally important anymore) music fans, can listen to anything they want in several different ways, none of which involves paying for the music ("radio" streaming, youtube, torrents, etc).

(Btw, "concerts" and "merchandise" is not the answer for musicians. Band merchanidise is a non-musical gimmick for teenagers and immature 20-somethings, and concerts were traditionally a loss-leader for album sales, except for bigger bands. Plus concert attendance is even on the decline on the younger demographics).

> _If a company can provide that service, for a fee, that company will > succeed._

Bah,, it will just be a company with razor-thin margins in a declining market. They might make some profit, but they wont "succeed" the way music industry of the past had, especially when it starts charging a fee. With ads they might do better, but still not that great.

<comment><USER14> > > People don't really want to own music. People want to listen to what they > want, when they want.

> Actually music fans used to want to own their music -- and took pride in > their collections.

It used to be that owning your own music was the only way to listen to what you want, when you want, since if you didn't own it, you couldn't play it on demand.

Now, those two things are separate, and the demand for ownership has dropped. That may be a change in desire for ownership or other priority changes of the type you suggest, but the simpler explanation is that the ownership wasn't desired as an _end in itself_ , it was desired _as a means_ to the end of listening to what you want, when you want, and when the available means to acheive that changed, the desire for ownership of music was reduced because there were now alternative means to the ends.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It probably doesn't matter to the artists, but I wonder how much of that business went to streaming services, and how much to BitTorrent?

<comment><USER13> There's this bizarro idea you get from a lot of people that torrents are not any threat to artists, because those people dowloading from torrents wouldn't have bought the record anyway. Not to mention it brings them "new fans" who discovered the record on the torrent.

In real life, of my 30+ friends, few and very rarely bother to buy anything from the artists the like anymore, they just torrent it. And they almost never see them in concert either -- since most rarely visit my country.

So a band that used to sell 100.000 and 300.000 records here (say U2), now sells around 10.000-20.000 or so (on a lucky day).

<comment><USER16> While I think some of the evidence in support of torrenting is more than a little suspicious, I do question whether or not heavily fighting it can provide value.

That is, I don't know how many folks that torrent stuff do buy stuff. Anecdotally, I actually just don't know that many folks that torrent. Of the few I suspect do torrent, they wouldn't be buying anything anyway. At worst, they would have been fine with crappy taped copies from the radio. Or music videos on VHS. (Heck, as a kid I probably watched more VHS stuff than anything else, and we bought videos.)

So, my hypothesis is that the amount of money and effort that is extracted from and goes into fighting music torrenting eclipses any supposed money that was lost in the crime.

I'm definitely game for any links. Or ideas on how to explore this hypothesis.

<comment><USER17> > So, my hypothesis is that the amount of money and effort that is extracted > from and goes into fighting music torrenting eclipses any supposed money > that was lost in the crime.

I think that part if it is to create a legal environment that is hostile to making torrenting more mainstream than it currently is.

<comment><USER16> Apologies, but I'm not sure I follow your sentence. :(

<comment><USER17> Suing torrenters / torrent sites makes the legal environment around torrents hostile. It increases the risk that you are taking in trying to 'mainstream' torrents in a way that _everyone_ would fire up a torrent client to download pirated music / movies / etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I don't see how market movements of -13%(digital) and -15%(albums) equal a plummet.

</comment><comment><USER19> Url changed from [http://pando.com/2014/07/03/digital-music-sales-are-in-a- fre...](http://pando.com/2014/07/03/digital-music-sales-are-in-a-free-fall-as- spotify-does-to-itunes-what-itunes-did-to-cds/), which points to this. HN prefers original sources.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I was wondering.</comment></comment>


China has more Internet monitors than soldiers. - <AUTHOR> http://mashable.com/2013/10/08/china-internet-monitors/

<comment><USER2> I'm not sure what to make of this, if indeed it is true. One or more of:

1\. China keeps a tight reign on its populace, or at least on popular opinion.

2\. China needs to employ a whole lot middle-management types.

3\. It's cheaper to censor debate that it is to have debate.

4\. Censorable debate isn't necessarily or even very often criminal in China - if the USA censored something, the author(s) would likely end up in jail.

5\. This is the future of The Rest of The Internet.</comment>


What GitHub Pages, CloudFlare and AWS Lambda Have in Common - <AUTHOR> https://orlandodevs.com/blog/github-pages-cloudfront-aws-lambda/ <comment><USER2> I don't think you have CloudFlare setup correctly, if you need to bust the cache.

[http://pastebin.com/ktbavQKV](http://pastebin.com/ktbavQKV)

Either 1. you don't need the Lambda service, or 2. set up a cache everything pagerule if you're wanting to cache the html page.

[https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/200168306-I...](https://support.cloudflare.com/hc/en- us/articles/200168306-Is-there-a-tutorial-for-PageRules-)

CloudFlare doesn't cache html by default.

Disclaimer: I work for CloudFlare.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the heads up snug! We went with option #2 and added a page rule to cache everything :)</comment></comment>


Display and Probe a J Sentence Graphically - <AUTHOR> https://code.jsoftware.com/wiki/Vocabulary/Dissect <comment><USER2> This is neat and given how concise j code is, I wonder if it would be possible to just code in a gui like this directly.

<comment><USER3> (Screen-comparable resolution) XR relaxes the tight constraints of screen real-estate, and enriches representation with 3D. And encourages richer human interface devices. All reducing visualization cost and increasing payoff.

Beyond J, similar visualizations help with "just what is happening here?!?" issues with macros, multiple dispatch, inline caching and code, optimization, collaborative compilation, and so on.

Javascript has a trend towards fully-deterministic checked styles, supporting the dream of ASTs being the canonical representation, and making it easier to do representational editing.

When onboarding someone to a program in a J-like language, eyeball abstractions (phrases and patterns repeatedly used, but not named) will get described. What if an IDE can capture those, without compromising the clarity of code brevity?

> I wonder if it would be possible to just code in a gui like this directly.

So I hope and expect to see much more of this in the years ahead. Yay.</comment></comment>


Screw Email – Let's Create Something Better - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/p/dd9e5cf5eca5

<comment><USER2> I think in order for it to be a true challenge to email it will need to be a free protocol. something that people can make money with but it in and of itself is free. Also, that kills vendor lockin and profiting off network effects so that's why most people wouldn't want to invest in it as a project.

<comment><AUTHOR> I guess that's the problem :-)</comment></comment>


Berkeley apologizes for listing xenophobia under coronavirus 'common reactions' - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2020/01/31/berkeley-coronavirus-xenophobia/ <comment><USER2> People are so sensitive.

<comment><USER3> Based on my experience, you are correct, as is the calling out of the xenophobic response by Berkeley. Can we not talk about this in an open and civilized manner?</comment></comment>


I, Will Not. Siri Disobeys the Laws of Robotics - <AUTHOR> http://www.michaelcritz.com/2012/04/15/siri-disobeys-the-laws-of-robotics/

<comment><USER2> Well, calling 911 uses a line which may in some cases (when the emergency response system is overloaded) prevent someone who is or may become injured from receiving assistance, so in a way you could say Siri is just obeying the first law ;)</comment>


New Android OEM licensing terms leak; "Open" comes with a lot of restrictions - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2014/02/new-android-oem-licensing-terms-leak-open-comes-with-restrictions/ <comment><USER5> Ars's headline is inaccurate. These are the licensing terms for Google's closed-source suite of ecosystem apps that turn a generic AOSP-based port into a Google-logo commercial product.

The restrictions stem from a choice you have to make: If you use the Google ecosystem in your products, you have to use all of it, and you can't use parts of Android to compete with the Google ecosystem. You can make the other choice, but, in those cases, Google doesn't want you to have their closed, proprietary apps. That might be hard-nosed dealing, but it isn't more restrictive than Google's competitors are in similar circumstances.

There are some seemingly nonsensical parts to the agreement, especially the prohibition against distributing an SDK derived from the Android SDK. I'm having a difficult time imagining what harm that might cause. Some OEMs, like Samsung, are shipping SDK extensions that Google apparently is fine with.

The openness of AOSP is not compromised by this contract. Amazon is an example of a partly direct competitor using AOSP. Google has done nothing to thwart Amazon, not even a hint of FUD. If only Oracle were that straightforward about Java.

<comment><USER6> Ars' headline is not just inaccurate. It's part of what now seem like a clear design of FUD against android.

I don't know their rationale for that but I'm starting getting sick of it. Every. Damn. Article. They insinuate, more or less clearly, that you should be very careful with android, it's not open! The best thing being: they are always talking about Google play services instead of android. Even when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess)

<comment><USER7> >>when they explicitly say AOSP, they make it sound like is a minor part, not enough to run an actual phone (which, for being any useful, requires google apps, is their thesis I guess)

It is 2014. Modern phones need to do more than just make phone calls.

Mobile app developers want to build with the best APIs available. Location, in-app advertising & search features are best when they use the api's associated with google's custom services.

The hair you're trying to split misses the point about modern mobile apps & modern smart phones. Google is clearly using API compatibility as a wedge against the OEMs.

Samsung's Taizen project wouldn't exist if this pressure was not a real problem. Google is behaving like mid-90's microsoft. This deeper link paints a bleak picture of what's going on:

[http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html](http://www.benedelman.org/news/021314-1.html)

<comment><USER8> Ben Edelman is _literally_ paid by Microsoft (and admits as much), with his one goal being to target Google. So i'm not wildly surprised that he would paint a bleak picture of what is going on - that's what they pay him to do!

Before this he used to paint a bleak picture of google advertising:

[http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for- monop...](http://techrights.org/2011/08/30/ben-edelman-works-for-monopolist/)

<comment><USER7> So, I'm all for context and appreciate this color.

I don't think Edelman's stooge status damages the argument.

If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen? You don't build your business on someone else's property. I work with many people in mobile. These complaints about Google are not anecdotal.

The squeeze has been on for years. Google is ramping up the contractual requirements without investing in support infrastructure for the OEMs- only one of which is not dying. This is a real thing and not zeitgeist or blogger drama.

<comment><USER8> "If Samsung is a comfortable success in android, why in the world would they invest in Taizen?"

In samsung's ideal world, they are Apple. That's why. Plus, you always need a plan b.

<comment><USER7> Bzt.

The real reason is that the promise of "open source" in Android has always been wildly overstated.

Over time, the OEMs have come to realize that Android is prone to vulnerabilities, they don't get the support for updated code that they do fully purchased OS's, and google is rapidly eliminating any opportunity for differentiation of experience. Google wants the OEMs to only focus on the plastic covers of the phones, which does not make a sustainable business model.

That forceful negotiation over time has resulted in Samsung's investment in Taizen and a legitimate opportunity for FirefoxOS & Ubuntu for Phones. All it's going to take is for someone to create a VM on windows phone and the other OS's for executing android sdks- google is going to be in real trouble with their OEMs. The OEMs won't drown without lashing out for survival.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> With Android, for some, it's damned if Google does and damned if they don't! Kind of amusing to watch lately - bloggers, writers, whoever - going out and writing inflammatory stuff that is bound to get page views and comments.

Hangouts - people were pissed that there wasn't a integrated, one stop messaging solution on Android in 2013. Google tries to do something like that - integrating Google Talk and SMS and now suddenly it's a move to take all your bases.

There was lot of cry about the F word. Google does the only thing they could - put reasonable amount of control while keeping their business interests in mind - to reduce fragmentation and offer a more uniform experience. Now people are crying too much control. If on the other hand they would have said here's Android, and here are freely downloadable GApps that you can freely use to avail Google services, you can do whatever you want with them - I am sure there would be an article somewhere claiming the F word, "dumping", lack of uniform experience and few other things vaguely implying malaise.

You also notice that this drivel is coming mostly from two sources - <USER2> benefiting from page views and user interaction via comments and people who kind of feel threatened by Android's success - techies on the other mobile platform for example.

Problem is none of these articles provide any practical solutions for Google to implement - I guess doing that would be too inconvenient for a future article they might need to write claiming what Google was doing then was bad! If one of these articles articulated the path Google should take to keep Android successful, have no fragmentation, have singular, uniform experience without violating any of their future whiney articles ( [2015]How Google screwed up - Android went from 78.1% market share to 1.5% by following what we said in 2014) - it would be worthwhile paying attention.

But of course that is impossible to do - you can only have your cake OR you can eat it! Why solve that when you can just keep writing nonsense drivel and 'engage' you audience.

<comment><USER10> >Problem is none of these articles provide any practical solutions for Google to implement

Practically speaking, it would be pretty easy for Google to make many of its already standalone updated apps fully standalone. Anyone could distribute the Gmail package, Google just won't let them.

It's very useful that Google Play is integrated in a way that reduces the friction of payments and protects the users and developers from various kinds of fraud. I don't know how to allow multiple stores to be installed where a high-stakes third party developer doesn't get ruined by fraud when they reach a sufficient scale.

<comment><USER9> > Practically speaking, it would be pretty easy for Google to make many of its > already standalone updated apps fully standalone. Anyone could distribute > the Gmail package, Google just won't let them.

CM and ton of other ROMs are distributing GApps as standalone Zip - <USER3> isn't doing anything to stop them. Tomorrow if Huawei does that - it would be a different story. Then Huawei can ship with 2.3 and outdated/incomplete Gapps (no browser, just gmail, no Google location APIs, instead incompatible APIs, and do a bunch of other things that could be bad for everyone else - <USER4> brings me to the point I made - that will result in people then complaining - In China you don't get uniform Google experience - Huawei phones ship with HuaweiKit instead of Blink, HuaweiBrowser instead of Chrome - so site owners can't even create a web app that works on all "Android" devices etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Anybody else a bit worried that this basically comes down to the good old "embrace extend extinguish" ? It's slightly different in that the "embrace" step was the purchase of Danger and open sourcing of the base AOSP - but the "extend" bit is pretty clearly in full effect here.

<comment><USER5> No. Or not yet.

Google is very consistent in their treatment of AOSP. That's not to say it's a bed of roses. AOSP was and maybe still is under-resourced. It hasn't always had stable hardware targets. That's not a good way to treat a resource that is instrumental to creating a community of developers that know how to keep Android updated on a wide range of SoC platforms. Google makes no attempt to create an independent AOSP governance and pool of maintainer resources. I can go on. How much time do you have?

But the bottom line is AOSP has been remarkably free of shenanigans. Very unlike some other in-house but nominally open source projects I can think of.

<comment><USER12> That's not the point that GP is making. The point is that AOSP has been extended through google play services in the same way MS used to extend open protocols. It has used that to bring up a lot of people who associate android more closely with the google play services ecosystem than the AOSP ecosystem.

If google said "we're ditching AOSP but we're making a new closed source OS with google play services and a compatible API layer" then really would people move to AOSP or the new google OS?

The potential for "extinguish" is there. Had this all happened the other way around or had AOSP been around and MS had embraced it and extended it in this manner then I think people would be acting differently.

<comment><USER13> That new OS is Chrome OS. Notice that the Chrome OS device manufacturers don't get to rebrand it, modify it in any way, or control delivery of the updates. It is far more closed than Android ever was.

Google are applying their lessons from Android to Chrome OS.

<comment><USER14> That's a rather bizarre way of putting it. Another way of looking at it is that Chromium is completely open source and anyone who wants to build a Web- browser based netbook could do so, they just couldn't call it ChromeBook. Since all the apps are web apps, everything would continue to work as normal. There's no "if you don't agree to all of this, you can't use the GMail Web App or Google Maps on your device"

<comment><USER13> Can you access the Chrome API from apps not delivered through the Chrome Store?

Chrome OS is closer in spirit to iOS than it is to Android.

<comment><USER14> AFAIK, you can install apps and extensions without going through the Chrome store, and if you have the source, you can certainly hack it to use an alternate store host.

The thing you might not get access to is cloud based Chrome services like Chrome Sync. But since these are Javascript APIs, you can easily polyfill them to use your backend.

I don't think forking ChromeOS is as difficult as forking Android.

<comment><USER13> That's like arguing that iOS is open since you could all become developers and distribute the ObjC. Not all Chrome apps are web apps ( [http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps.html](http://developer.chrome.com/apps/about_apps.html) ) and you can't distribute those packages trivially to end users, so the whole distinction is almost identical to the iOS situation, by design. Google's Chrome group have a serious case of Apple envy, and this is how it manifests itself.

The whole point is forking Android is unnecessary - you can build all you want on top of the base platform without needing to make many lower level changes. To fork Chrome OS to add hooks for app delivery would be a far harder undertaking, whereas implementing an Android app to download an apk and run it is about 10 minutes of work.

<comment><USER14> Almost identical to iOS? Absolutely ridiculous analogy. ChromeOS doesn't compare to iOS at all and Chrome is far more open than Android in terms of development (All new Chromium development is done in the open and new releases happen nightly and every 6 weeks. Do you know what Android 4.5 will have in it yet?)

1\. The majority of iOS apps can't be side loaded, are locked to the App Store. Vast majority of ChromeOS apps are not "Chrome Apps", it's a red herring. Plus, Chrome Apps can still be side loaded and are not locked to the Web Store. None of Google's major apps: GMail, Maps, Docs, YouTube, etc are actually "Chrome Apps" in this regard. Then will run on any ChromeOS fork. Chromium today supports side loading any app from the Extensions page without going through the Chrome Store.

Simply put, it is not possible to create the kinds of Google-service lock-in agreements for ChromeOS that have been created for Android, because ChromeOS is just a web browser.

2\. ChromeOS doesn't need to add hooks for app delivery contrary to your claims. The Chrome equivalent of an APK is a CRX file and CRX files can be self hosted, see "Hosted Apps". In fact, they used to auto-install if you just clicked a link pointing at one, but phishers/hackers took advantage of this, so now you have to go through the Extensions page.

Any Web app you build for Chromium will work on any subsequent ChromeOS fork without needing to make any lower level changes, because Web apps don't have huge dependencies on local OS services. Many ChromeOS apps will even work on Firefox because again, the vast majority of Chrome apps don't really depend on local OS privileges like getting access to the USB port.

Implementing a different app distribution mechanism is trivial.

In practice, Android apps are far more likely to depend on non-AOSP services (like Google Play Services) than Web Apps are to depend on Chrome Web Store required services (of which there is only a tiny few, like push messaging). That's just the facts, so the practical reality is, forking AOSP creates more incompatibility than forking Chromium.

<comment><USER13> Nope, look at the docs - you need developer stuff enabled to side load. The rest is being removed "for user safety". This makes it just like iOS, where if I'm a developer I can likewise sideload anything I have the source to.

Chrome OS is _not_ just a web browser, as that link to the Chrome Apps stuff very clearly demonstrates. It's not "pure web" at all. This is PR nonsense, when there's a whole extra API.

Clearly you don't like it being pointed out, but Chrome OS is Google's walled garden.

<comment><USER14> How about actually owning a ChromeOS device before making comments? "Developer Stuff Enabled" = "Menu -> Extensions -> Developer Mode Checkbox". It's not different than going to Android settings and saying "allow apps from unknown sources."

Besides, the whole argument is how easy it would be to fork Android vs Chrome, and the reality is, turning off install restrictions in Chrome in a few lines of code. Replacing Google Play Services/GMS are far far harder.

<comment><USER13> I'm on a Pixel!

I'd suggest you try writing some Android services, and you'll find you don't have to modify the OS at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Did Ars just conflate android with the Google play apps again? Why isn't this surprising?

They swallow whatever any PR person is feeding them.

</comment><comment><USER15> New in the sense that they're newly available to the public. The agreement is dated Jan 2011.

</comment><comment><USER16> From a game theoretic point of view the OEMs are probably grateful for most of the restrictions because they apply to their competitors too.

It's the same reason that GPL often make sense for shared projects, the restrictions on "freedom" prevent defection and so enable cooperation.

The OEMs rejected the GPL, but they probably want some kind of protection from say Samsung freezing them out of the market, or just as bad, everyone trying but failing and ending up like Unix.

</comment><comment><USER17> In the end Google wants what Apple has: control. In this case it's a slow strangulation.

</comment><comment><USER18> It's like Ars is on a mission to discredit Google here.

I've actually been waiting for Google to take a harder stance on OEMs and force them to provide better support to their users for a long time. It will also make things a lot easier for developers in the future, as this will have the effect of reducing fragmentation, and not having to use APIs that are 5 years old.

</comment><comment><USER19> The overarching problem here for Google is that they set an expectation of openness from the outset which in reality was probably an unreasonably high expectation. As Google realized they need more control to provide a better user experience over time they have had to make moves that fall short of those expectations.

Apple doesn't get this sort of flack because from the very beginning expectations were set that they would exert full control over iOS. So if they make a dick move no one is surprised.

There is something to be said about how setting reasonable and even lower expectations is always a good route in all sorts of aspects of business. It leaves you options, room to improve, and it changes to those expectations are less jarring to fans and customers.

<comment><USER16> This has been part of the PR strategy against Android from the beginning. Remember when not releasing Honeycomb meant that Google was taking Android closed source? Or the list of AOSP apps that Ars claimed were abandoned but then got major updates in KitKat?

So by the standard of the mud being thrown at them Google are actually exceeding expectations for openness. And it's just odd to see Apple and Microsoft boosters take positions that are more extreme than RMS just to minimize this advantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> As such, the software which makes up "Android" resembles OS X to me: open source in parts (even large parts), but the bit which most people (including developers) use is closed source and restricted to running only on sanctioned hardware.</comment>


Cloud Telephony - a reality check - <AUTHOR> http://www.sipwise.com/news/technical/cloud-reality-check/

<comment><USER2> Right now my gripes with cloud telephony are not only the lack of transparency which you cover quite well, but also vendor lock in. What happens when your provider goes under, doesn't have it together technically, or decides to raise prices, changes use policy, etc, ad infinitum.

One of the great things about open source telephony (like Asterisk) is how you can actually use multiple service providers at once. If one fails you can drop over to the other, or even use the cheapest one for the call context. It's a nice efficient marketplace.</comment>


Intel announces full set of new Atom and Xeon server processors to fend off ARM - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/152979-intel-announces-full-set-of-new-atom-and-xeon-server-processors-to-fend-off-arm <comment><USER2> This is from 2013 (please add that to the title) and of interest historically because here 3 years later since, well they haven't managed to fend them off yet.</comment>


Do we still need server side programming? - <AUTHOR> http://www.vertabelo.com/blog/notes-from-the-lab/do-we-still-need-server-side-programming

<comment><USER2> Umm... yes.

If browser-based JS is ever able to ship in an completely compiled form, some people may be comfortable enough to ship their core business logic around that way, but until then, no dice.

The large number of services that 'server side' languages end up talking to - shipping/delivery services, financial services, etc - will likely never (well, not any time soon) be comfortable with letting every single browser connect directly to them for whatever info they need.

Number crunching large sets of data? Server-side - scale up/out. Running in browser? Won't happen.

Too many other things need to happen - new browser functionality and security models, compiled code, etc - before this even has a hope of making a real dent in server-side dev.</comment>


Migrating ZooKeeper into Kubernetes - <AUTHOR> https://product.hubspot.com/blog/zookeeper-to-kubernetes-migration <comment><USER2> I work at HubSpot (on Kafka) and so I was a "user" of this migration because kafka uses Zookeeper for coordination. Its pretty amazing how convenient Kube services made this whole transition and we actually learned a lot from this that we will likely end up applying similar strategies for migrating other services onto Kube. Allowing kube services to point to either external resources or pods/internal ones is a probably the best feature I have found in Kube so far (and there are a lot of great features)

</comment><comment><USER3> it's a little funny to think that if you're running ZooKeeper in Kubernetes that you're using etcd to manage the state of the servers of your state management servers

<comment><USER4> In context of Kafka, hopefully KIP-500 [1] will get implemented sometime soon.

If you're feeling lucky, you can also use zetcd [2] to connect ZK apps to etcd. I've been able to actually run Kafka with it as a toy project a little while ago.

[1] [https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-500%3A...](https://cwiki.apache.org/confluence/display/KAFKA/KIP-500%3A+Replace+ZooKeeper+with+a+Self- Managed+Metadata+Quorum)

[2] [https://github.com/etcd-io/zetcd](https://github.com/etcd-io/zetcd)

<comment><USER5> What is the problem with ZK though? The only thing I can think of is that requires JVM, but other than that it is quite solid as far as the locking service is concerned, and since you are using Kafka you already are using JVM.

<comment><USER6> Because if I already have a K8's cluster, and I want to run a application that requires ZK, I now have to dedicate resources to running a ZK cluster, within my K8's cluster just to run the one application I cared about.

I also personally find configuring and running Java applications confusing AF. Why are the configs seemingly split into different places and environment variables? Does it get clearer after dealing with Java things for a while?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> So do none of consul, zookeeper and etcd have a tool for migrating from one of their competitors?

I suppose you end up with Zookeeper running in Kubernetes because the only way to migrate service discovery is to have all machines report to both clusters and then start moving to reading from the new one.

<comment><USER7> Looks like etcd has a module that implements the zookeeper API, but the logistics of moving a bunch of services (without an outage) still seems massive to me. Because old servers still want to discover in the old registry, not the new one.

You can't just bridge two Raft protocols. If the bridge goes down even once, good luck getting consensus again. And based on the benchmarks I can find, it seems the wire protocol is part of the secret sauce for at least etcd.</comment></comment>


What A Giant Solar Eruption Would Do To Earth - <AUTHOR> http://www.popsci.com/technology/gallery/2011-06/gallery-global-blackout

<comment><USER2> At least homeland security is developing some alternative to our transformers when this unfortunate events occurs.</comment>


Hello Nano. | NanoHack.me - <AUTHOR> http://nanohack.me/?p=4 <comment><USER2> I was hoping for a guide on how to use nano the text editor (or as it is aliased on my machine: pico because I'm so old school).</comment>


Redpomo: Redmine, Pomodoro technique and Todo-txt. Together. - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/stefanoverna/redpomo

<comment><USER2> I've tried this and it looks interesting; probably there are too many tools to install to get it working though, i.e. todo.txt looks a bit like garbage to me.

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been using it since a couple of months... no doubt: best tool of the year!!!

</comment><comment><USER4> cool

<comment><USER5> Yeah, well. If you're on a mac, and use Redmine, and like pomodoros.

<comment><USER3> sure for the first and second points; I don't like pomodoro so much but I always need a time tracker and something to check the time I'm spending daily. This has been really usefull.</comment></comment></comment>


It's hard for a programmer to give good advice on what language to learn... - <AUTHOR> http://terrychay.com/blog/article/learning-programming.shtml <comment><USER2> While Python is always a safe choice, another strategy would be to investigate what the new programmer is trying to accomplish. Most people aren't like "I'm going to learn a programming language as an academic exercise!", they want to actually do something.

If they are interested in writing web apps you might suggest Flash. If they are interested in writing a 2D video game you might suggest Python. If they are interested in performing numerical analysis of math functions you might suggest getting a girlfriend.</comment>