Restoration of defocused and blurred images - <AUTHOR> http://yuzhikov.com/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm <comment><USER4> This tool appears to be an open-source (and faster) replacement for Focus Magic, in that it allows the user to perform parameterized deconvolution. By that I mean: if the blur kernel can be approximated by either a line or a filled circle, and you're willing to tweak the dimensions and angles of the blur kernel, this can do a decent job of recovering your photo.

If the true blur kernel is more complicated -- perhaps a wavy line -- then you probably need a blind deconvolution tool, which this is not (yet?).

If you're interested in blind deconvolution in general, Dr. Levin of MIT put together a nice overview paper a few years ago: [http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinE...](http://www.wisdom.weizmann.ac.il/~levina/papers/deconvLevinEtalCVPR09.pdf)

(Disclaimer: I'm the developer of Blurity, a blind deconvolution product)

<comment><USER5> Fascinating. I have tried to find methods to recover text from digitally blurred images but ended up doing research and survey on similar topics while not finding any available tool for the task.

I still have several questions:

\- How well does the state of the art deblurring work with digital blur of known algorithms for forensic purposes?

\- How does blind deconvolution compete with some manual recovery processes done by experts, if there exist such manual methods?

\- Can approaches in blind deconvolution extend to techniques of resolution enhancing from a sequence of photos taken with the same parameters?

\- Are there researchers trying to integrate visual cognition frameworks into making deconvolution results more visually recognizable? I remember one somewhat related research was posted on HN: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4241266> (and it happens to be coming from the same university as the paper you posted)

<comment><USER4> Good questions. My thoughts:

\- Are you asking about recovery of information that was intentionally blurred? If so, there have been some exciting results in this area in recent years. For example, it turns out that given reasonable priors on the underlying glyphs, it's possible to reconstruct even heavily blurred text. (e.g., <http://dheera.net/projects/blur.php> ) That doesn't involve deblurring per se, since the goal is simply to find the glyphs (and combinations thereof) with maximum likelihood given the blurred text. Still, it's interesting, and similar techniques have been applied to super-resolution problems lately, where the approach is often called "hallucination."

\- Blind deconvolutions often are used by experts. However, it's possible to help things along if a glint exhibiting the blur of interest is visible in the photo. That is: if a bright dot of light is visible in the photo, it will be blurred too, and so in the blurred photo the point of light will look like the point spread function (the blur kernel), and that can then be extracted and used with a non-blind deconvolution approach to recover the latent sharp image.

\- Blind deconvolution and super-resolution are related problems, so advances in one might certainly help in the other. The research you cited makes use of image hallucination (mentioned above) as a key part of its super-resolution algorithm.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If anyone would like to see another example, here's one I just did. The original photo was taken with a Galaxy Nexus and no flash. It's a grainy shot and not the best starting point, but I was curious how it would do with a lower quality starting point.

Original: <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24903613/hn/blur.jpg>

Using the program I was able to get: <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24903613/hn/blur-edited.jpg> with the following parameters:

        Defect type: Out of Focus Blur
        Radius: 17.4
        Smooth: 72%
        Correction Strength: 23%
        Edge Feather: 34%

It's by no means a perfect end result, but you are able to make out a decent amount. Here's a clear shot of the insert for comparison: <https://dl.dropbox.com/u/24903613/hn/blur-clear_shot.jpg>

</comment><comment><USER7> The deconvolved images have some pretty nasty ringing. If you use an algorithm which places a realistic prior on the pixel gradients you will probably get cleaner results.

For example, check out: Fast image deconvolution using hyper-laplacian priors (<http://cs.nyu.edu/~dilip/research/fast-deconvolution/>).

edit: I changed the link to the author's page, which has Matlab code and a GPU implementation.

</comment><comment><USER8> The example where it made unreadable text legible was patricularly jarring to me. I've been mocking CSI for years now. I'm nervous.

<comment><USER9> I think you're safe to continue mocking for awhile:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3uoM5kfZIQ0>

This one is obviously comedy, but always enjoyable: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KUFkb0d1kbU>

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Very impressive. It reminded me of a demo from Adobe at MAX 2011 that showed promising results; it was more focused on eliminating defects from real images to produce a more aesthetic result. <http://youtu.be/xxjiQoTp864>

<comment><USER11> I've been looking for this kind of software a while ago, and the best I found was this one: <https://www.blurity.com/>

And other program I'be heard but haven't tried before is UnShake: <http://www.zen147963.zen.co.uk/Unshake/>

It seems that if the blur is caused by moving the camera you can try to find the direction the movement happend and restore the original photograph quite nicely afterwards.

<comment><USER12> Topaz Labs has had a Photoshop plugin out for some time now (InFocus) that does the same thing. It cuts off at a fairly low blur radius, though, since it's intended for photo correction rather than forensic retrieval, and ringing can get pretty severe even at a small pixel radius.

What sets the Adobe tool apart from the rest (so far) is that you can define a non-linear path for motion blur. From what was said at the demo, there seems to be some hope for automatically determining a non-linear motion path. _That_ would be really cool.

<comment><USER4> Blurity author here. I'm happy to say that Blurity does exactly what you're requesting in your second paragraph: it can "automatically determine a non- linear motion path" using true blind deconvolution. Although Blurity is a commercial product, the watermarked trial is free. I'd be curious to hear your reactions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just a couple technical notes:

1\. The article states " _the operation which is opposite to convolution is equivalent to division in the frequency domain_ " which is not correct. 2. "Deconvolution" has no mathematical definition (as implied by that quote), it is the name of various algorithmic approaches used in signals processing. 3. Finally, the Wiener filter is not deconvolution, it is just a filter.

Nonetheless, a great article, with great illustrations.

</comment><comment><USER14> Github link: <https://github.com/Y-Vladimir/SmartDeblur>

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, Coral Cache link since sometimes the author's site is slowing down:

[http://yuzhikov.com.nyud.net/articles/BlurredImagesRestorati...](http://yuzhikov.com.nyud.net/articles/BlurredImagesRestoration1.htm)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Wow, pretty good. I wonder if there will be any scandals coming from various blur-redacted, sensitive documents, if they can be de-blurred as well as this demonstrates?

<comment><USER11> But I don't think in the first place it will be possible to de-blur sensitive documents as well as this.

If you blur a region and than resize you loose that extra bit information you'd normally need to be able to do a good de-blur afterwards.

But this does makes me think, who knows terrorists could be using regular photo's, looking not important at all at first sight, to store messages. So you'd have to de-blur an out-of-focus zone to reveil the message.

<comment><USER16> Uh, maybe. but there are far easier ways to hide messages.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Unintended Consequence the First: amateur porn producers have been "anonymising" their photos for nearly a decade now with heavy blur filters over the subjects' faces.

That's a decade of compromising images about to become significantly less anonymous...

<comment><USER18> No, there's no real worry of that, barring some serious revolution in deconvolution. Existing techniques can only deal with blurs of certain kinds, and theory suggests that the standard blurs used for faces/etc are in fact not reversible at all.

A short explanation can be done using the Fourier transform. Blurs like Gaussian blur, and photographic camera blurs (with some simplifying assumptions) are convolutions; they apply a 'blur kernel' to each pixel of the image, which spreads energy from that pixel to all the neighboring pixels based on the shape of the kernel. Visualizing the outcome of a convolution is not straightforward for complex scenes, but here the Fourier transform helps.

When looked at in the frequency domain, the convolution operator turns into a multiplication operator; the spectrums of the image and the blur kernel are simply multiplied frequency-by-frequency. So you can directly see where information is being lost in the final image, by seeing what frequencies of the blur kernel are zero - at those frequencies, the output image has lost all original information.

Deconvolution techniques are all trying to restore the original image; in theory all you need to do is to take the blur kernel, and divide by its frequency spectrum to obtain the original. Assuming you have no noise, etc, in the process, this works fine, except where the blur kernel is zero - <USER2> by zero doesn't get you very far, and the information there is truly lost.

With camera handshake, the shape of the blur kernel tends to be a squiggle (the path of the camera motion), and the frequency spectrum is reasonably nicely behaved - there may be no zeros or just a few spots. So reversing the blur is possible, maybe with some additional interpolation to cover up the nulls. Out-of-focus blur (bokeh) is much harder, since it tends to be much more uniform and smooth, like a gaussian blur.

A gaussian blur turns out to have a gaussian frequency spectrum as well - <USER3> means the blur kernel has 0 frequency content past a cutoff point, and the wider the blur, the lower the frequency cutoff, and the more information is lost. So deconvolution can't really work directly; you can make assumptions about what was there before (priors), to guide the reconstruction. But at some point it's about as good as pasting a random face from the internet on the blurred head. The question is mostly about where that cutoff is - how much can your knowledge of 'this is a face' make up for the zeroed-out information? In practice, you're probably pretty safe if you've blurred the face to the point where no features remain. If you're really worried about it, throwing in some random noise, etc, makes the problem even more impossible.

So in short: We can probably do OK on camera shake and maybe out-of-focus bokeh. We can't recover from smooth uniform blurs like gaussian blurs.

<comment><USER17> Awesome response. Thanks!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Wow, I was a little unimpressed with the results until the text deblurring at the end. It was so crazy, I had to go back and actually read the article instead of skimming it :)

</comment><comment><USER20> Enhance! It's real!

<comment><USER21> That's exactly what I was thinking the whole time

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Nice article that visually shows anyone what is (or at least used to be) third-year or better engineering material!</comment>


Ask HN: Cowboy vs. disciplined coding in startups? - <AUTHOR>

I've found I mainly have been cowboy coding my startups in the initial stages; tests don't get written, warnings often get ignored, and generally things aren't built for maintainability.
My argument for this was simply speed: I needed to confirm the hypotheses about my startup as quickly as possible.
However recently this has started biting my in the ass - the project is quite large now and previous technical debt is forever haunting.
As such, I'd love for any opinions on this matter. <comment><USER2> When there's a business case for paying down the technical debt then it is worth paying down. Prematurely paying it down is no more or less than a premature optimization...only perhaps worse because it comes at an opportunity cost. In the ideal world, the technical debt is forgiven because your company grows at a pace that requires a complete rewrite. In the typical case the technical debt is forgiven because the startup's outcome is typical.

Best practices are a means to an end. StackOverflow was running production and development off of a single box well after it became "a thing." Doing so was good enough because it worked and StackOverflow's successful growth was dependent on product not getting a glossy photo on the cover of _Startup Infrastructure Magazine_.

Make business decisions in a business like way.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> It is infinitely better to have a product, customers, and technical debt, than to have no product or no customers and no technical debt.

Personally, I focus on avoiding technical debt when the cost of the debt will outweigh the costs of cleanup even within three or four months. So I try to keep to some best practices - having tests, having a good build system, running a linter, because I find those systems help me reduce bugs. And every time I have to fix a bug for a customer in production, it is a major time sink. Every time I have to manually test a new release, or fix problems after the fact, or block my teammates because I checked in bad code, then I am wasting time. So I try to do enough clean up to make sure I avoid breaking things all the time.

</comment><comment><USER4> I find it quite interesting how many times we hear stories like this about "cowboy" startup engineers. I subscribe to an XP (Extreme Programming) methodology which includes things like TDD, DevOps, and Pairing. I have done this at both existing large companies as well as tiny startups where I was engineer #1 or co-founder (of course, pairing started with engineer #2 ;)).

When people ask me later, how could you do all of that and still run a lean, agile startup environment I always wonder "how could I have been lean and agile without it?!"

Is testing really all that hard? No, I am well versed in testing and pretty good at it. It doesn't get in the way of my process and does help with my design.

Is pairing really restrictive? No, it's liberating! I get to work hand in hand with another engineer to get ideas out quickly, tackle bugs fast, and stay focused.

Is DevOps really a huge problem? It sure is nice to know, early in the development of a new product, that I can deploy RIGHT NOW and continually and have continuous integration and test coverage. There is a lot of value in that.

Do all of these things slow me down? I don't think so, if anything building a new product or company isn't a sprint, it's a marathon.

Now of course the opposite to all of these point are:

Adding tests later is really hard. So is removing technical debt. That hurts, a lot. A newly formed companies can't always cross that chasm.

Multiple engineers all trying to solve big problems without communication can lead to architectural and engineering issues down the road. These are hard to solve. Pairing sure helps with that.

If you can't deploy, redeploy, or move your installation easily, that is a risk to your entire business.

One added benefit of not being a cowboy (outside of your technical debt not biting you later) is in the financing and acquisition discussions become a lot more fun and lucrative. A number of Angel and VC organizations are becoming extremely tech-savy. They want to know if you have test coverage. They want to know that one day your servers won't go down and you won't be spending two weeks trying to remember how to get your entire environment configured. They want to know that their money will be placed in a great investment. These disciplined principles of development go a long way towards showing them that they will meet that goal.

<comment><USER2> Extreme programming also includes work weeks approaching forty hours...it's about people after all. That sort of approach to work-life balance isn't really to the burn the candle at both ends and the middle rocket fuelled startup aesthetic.

That's not to say that there aren't sound practices there that can be applied to a startup, but XP comes out of the world of consulting where there are clients to prioritize features and decide when enough value has been created to pull the plug on the iterations. So there is a bit of an impedance mismatch between the technique and the brutal reality of going all in for several years.

<comment><USER4> You are right about the fact that XP pushes for (and should achieve!) a 40 hour week. Again I think it's unfortunate that in the start up world we have thrown out work life balance. As if working 16 hours a day, 7 days a week is a reality that is necessary for a successful start up. I disagree. My two start ups were both quite successful without having to work people more than 40 hours because we had good principles.

We realized very early on that we honestly didn't get a huge amount of value out of the hours after 40. Why do start ups work late into the night? To deploy a feature that is having trouble? Continuous integration and deployment help with that. Adding a new amazing feature that has to be in by morning? When you have a prioritized backlog of features you can tell potential investors or customers when something will be done and they can schedule around that. No need to work until 4am to present at 8am.

I guess I am very against reactionary development. When I am at the helm of a company or a development department, big or small, I don't allow others to dictate my schedule or my ability to make great software. I have been quite lucky, maybe, that my investors and customers have very much appreciated, and paid for, my approach.

<comment><USER2> It's less unfortunate in the startup world where a rainbow chasing deathmarch has at least a theoretical possibility of ending at a pot of gold. It's the deathmarch on the corporate culture treadmill where the carrot is climbing the ladder at best and keeping your health insurance more typically that really sucks.

On the other hand, a big push can be worthwhile when the timing of milestones is outside your control. Sometimes a December 26th ship date might as well be November 1, next year. Likewise, ramen is cheap but not endless and the pace at which leases burn through capital is calendar days not hours worked. The alternative isn't irrational.

I'd even go so far as to say that there is a certain buzz that comes from the occasional all-nighter...always 8-5 is the life of a shoe clerk. None of which is to suggest that balance isn't good and a worthwhile pursuit, but if the muse never visits, it's just a job not art.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The only discipline I truly push for when asked this question is Test Driven Development. Reasons:

1) You can still code pretty fast (trust me on this, code moves only a tiny bit slower and then gains heavily when it comes to debugging even while coding).

2) You tend to think smarter. Stuff that escaped you in your hastily done whiteboard/skype meetings will show itself when writing quick test cases.

3) Your code gets partially arranged at least thanks to TDD. You can skip the refactoring after passing tests, but when technical debt catches up to you (and it will), you'll be ready because your tests will tell you where you broke stuff.

I look at TDD as a great foundation to build any crap on. At the end of the day, it tells you if your features are working. So even if the features are implemented with crap code, you can rest easy knowing that there's something watching out to tell you if you broke anything while redoing stuff.

For me, everything without TDD feels like a cowboy

PS - My experience in this. I've coded full on idiot style. No tests, no design, just code. It's only caused me grief when I look at things 6 months later. I've worked with a company coding full on idiot style. Most miserable time ever. I've coded again in my next company as a smarter person but without any tests. Ok design, no tests, still made my life miserable 8 months later. And then I've coded a full blown system using TDD and meh-ish design. Over time, I've updated the design and I continue to love working on this system. I really do. I look forward to getting back from work and coding on it. Where I work right now, I'm looking at very advanced OOP but no tests. It's ok-ish when someone explains it to you, but it's still really scary to even think of making changes in there.

So to sum up: my own idiotic coding, someone else's idiotic coding, my own ok design, someone else's advanced super disciplined design, and my meh-ish design backed by TDD. TDD wins. Rawr!</comment>


2 Reasons Why Google Should Buy Ubuntu - <AUTHOR> http://www.ghabuntu.com/2011/06/2-reasons-why-google-should-buy-ubuntu.html

<comment><USER2> How could you even buy Ubuntu? Ubuntu is a community, not just a product. You can buy the trademark, but we saw how that worked for Oracle with Hudson.

And besides, I really doubt Shuttleworth will sell it; according to him, it's not exactly just a business, it's his contribution to humanity.

<comment><USER3> I'm sure the poster meant Canonical the parent company of Ubuntu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> There are a whole host of thoughts provoked by this post, but the most prevalent is that an acquisition of Canonical would do precisely zip to further Google's strategy of moving everything into the cloud.

The author seems to think that Microsoft is some sort of threat to Google. The last time I checked, Microsoft was only a threat to Microsoft. Both Apple AND Google have made it abundantly clear that their futures lie in the cloud. Google has no use for "fat" client software - their vision establishes the cloud as a file system and the web as a shell.

While I agree that Ubuntu could certainly benefit from a large cash infusion from a benefactor like Google, it provides very little value for Google's long-term strategy.

</comment><comment><USER3> And then convince Blizzard to port a native version of starcraft 2 to Linux...

<comment><USER5> I think this is the most convincing argument for Google buying Ubuntu</comment></comment>


The U.S. Can't Afford to Scrap the Visa Lottery - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-04/immigration-reform-congress-should-preserve-the-visa-lottery

<comment><USER2> Is discrimination based on country justified?</comment>


Attacking Web Applications - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/goldshtn/attacking-web-applications-32195752

<comment><USER2> Good and concrete examples. How come you left out OWASP's no. 10 though?</comment>


"Why do Phase III Trials of Promising Heart Failure Drugs Often Fail?" - <AUTHOR> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/182368464/2003-krum.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> Some relevant excerpts:

"There has been considerable recent disappointment with the failure of a number of major new pharmacological strategies for the treatment of chronic heart failure. In turn, there has been much speculation as to why trials of these therapies have not shown benefit. Among a number of plausible and scientifically valid reasons, consideration should be afforded to the potential contribution of "regression to the truth." Regression to the truth derives from the biological concept of regression to the mean, whereby random fluctuations in a biological variable occur over time, such that the true value of the variable is approached with repeated measurements. This same concept can be applied to clinical trial programs for new drugs for heart failure. Because only strongly positive trials generally go on to phase III testing, and some of these early phase studies are positive by chance alone, on retesting in phase III the results are very likely not be as strongly positive. Numerous examples of regression to the truth apply for trials of heart failure therapies, as well as in other areas.

To understand regression to the truth we must first consider the concept of regression to the mean. This concept derives from the random fluctuations that can occur in a variable over time. As a consequence, a single measurement of that variable more often yields a value removed from the mean, and the "true" value of the variable is approached with repeated measurements. As a corollary, in population studies, a single measurement of the dependent variable - for example, cholesterol - can lead to an underestimate of the strength of its association with an outcome such as coronary heart disease death ("regression distribution bias"). Consider a theoretical drug (drug x) being studied to determine its benefit in heart failure, as assessed by a surrogate measure, lowering of plasma norepinephrine (Fig. 1). The left panel shows that there is really no difference in plasma norepinephrine levels before and after drug x. However, the investigators went on to perform a subgroup analysis of those patients with norepinephrine levels above the mean (middle panel), and that subgroup demonstrated a significant reduction in norepinephrine levels with drug x. The investigators might therefore claim that drug x is effective in lowering plasma norepinephrine in patients with high norepinephrine levels. Furthermore, it is these patients (ie, patients with high levels) who are those that are particularly in need of a drug that will lower such elevated levels. Although it is possible that drug x does indeed lower elevated plasma norepinephrine levels, it is equally plausible (if not more so) that the high plasma levels were "captured" as being falsely or atypically high (for the individual patient) at baseline and then when the same patients were remeasured at a later time point, levels were not as high (ie, classic regression to the mean). This concept is well-understood for a biologic variable, but how can this concept be applied to that of a clinical trial program for a new drug for heart failure? This is conceptually illustrated in Fig. 2, which depicts early phase trials conducted in the assessment of a variety of potential new drug therapies for heart failure. Each dot represents a trial of a certain drug. As can be seen, some early phase studies will be strongly negative, some strongly positive, but most will cluster around neutrality and, therefore, one can construct a standard bell- shaped curve. We know that many trials of new chemical entities are conducted in the setting of heart failure. Because of the large number of studies conducted, some will be positive by chance and indeed some will be strongly positive by chance. Does this matter? Yes, it does. It is highly likely that only drugs associated with strongly positive trials (ie, those to the right of the vertical dotted line) will go on to phase III testing. Because some of these studies that are positive by chance alone will be among these, then when retested in phase III trials, the results will no longer be strongly positive. This is analogous to the high plasma cholesterol or norepinephrine being retested in the earlier examples. This concept is true, not just of heart failure trials, but of any drug therapy for any specific indication. What exacerbates the problem in the setting of chronic heart failure is the low percentage strike rate in the development of successful pharmacologic therapies for this condition. Only renin-angiotensin and β-adrenoceptor blocking agents have come to the market over the last 30 years or so. Therefore, very few promising drugs in early phase would be positive in phase III (if tested) and thus registrable for a heart failure indication. This is illustrated by the open circles below the curved line, interposed on the totality of early phase trials in Fig. 2. This line is curved because, of course, a strongly positive early phase study will make it more likely (but possibly still with low probability) of positive findings in phase III studies. Nevertheless, this still leaves a large number of trials strongly positive in early phase by chance alone (circled cluster) "regressing to the truth.""</comment>


Chase bank is quietly adding a forced arbitration clause to some credit cards - <AUTHOR> https://www.fastcompany.com/90357331/chase-adds-forced-arbitration-clause-to-slate-credit-cards <comment><USER2> The concept that seems to justify forced arbitration is that both sides agree to it.

A few years ago just as an experiment I went looking at the handful of mobile providers available to me in my area.

I couldn't find one that didn't have an arbitration clause. So if I didn't want to be a part of forced arbitration, I just couldn't have a cell phone (well service for it) at that time.

It seems a bit absurd that the legal system is cut off from me for an entire service that is increasingly a standard for participating in society efficiently.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I received one of these E-mails and it was incredibly shady; it was _several pages_ long, and effectively buried in bullet point EIGHT was this change to arbitration. And, of _course_ , the only way to opt out is via snail-mail.</comment>


Ask HN: Best Business Book For a 13-year-old Girl? - <AUTHOR>

My daughter turns 13 this weekend, and I would like to get her a book on business.
She has run her own bubble-gum vending business for a while now, but it's very low maintenance. I know she is interested in the web and writing, and she likes creating things.
What book would you recommend? Is a book even the right medium - perhaps a audiobook or a series of videos?
Initial thoughts were Seth Godin's "Tribes", but there are a ton of great options out there, like "How to win friends and influence people" or "$100 startup" <comment><USER2> Try "Art & Fear: Observations On the Perils (and Rewards) of Artmaking" by Ted Orland and David Bayles.

Pithy and written for those beginning their careers in fields traditionally considered "creative", the discussions within are relevant to both would-be programmers and entrepreneurs. Much of the book is about finding your work, ignoring distractions, recognizing failed attempts as essential to success, the intrinsic motivations of problem solving, cultivation of useful habits, and building a life of engagement with the ideas and materials that matter most to you.

</comment><comment><USER3> A lot of the books mentioned sound fabulous, but are mostly geared towards adults. Here are a couple of suggestions that I used with my 13 year old. We homeschooled him for a year so that he could develop his game app business.

1\. Show Me The Money by Alvin D. Hall: This book is by DK books. It is colorful and a GREAT intro to the basics of finance, business and economics. 2\. The Young Entrepreneur's Guide to Starting and Running a Business (Completely Revised and Updated) by Steve Mariotti is another awesome book. He was a teacher in a rough inner-city school when he noticed that he could keep the kids attention when he taught math in the context of running a business. He then developed a course around that idea. Your daughter may not want to read the entire book. It's one of those books where you can read different chapters based on interest. 3\. One of the homeschool writing classes my son took was How to Write a Business Plan. The teachers used the book The One Page Business Plan for the Creative Entrepreneur by Jim Horan. Great way for kids to learn the aspects of a business. The book is VERY EASY to follow.

Inspirational book for your daughter (I got this for my daughter): -Girls Think of Everything: Stories of Ingenious Inventions by Women

WRITING MAGAZINE: New Moon Girls (newmoon.com) My daughter has a subscription. This magazine and web site is written and edited by the girls.

VIDEOS: Khan Academy \- Economics of a Cupcake Factory \- Raising Money for a Startup (shows the whole process) \- The Business Cycle

VIDEOS: When my daughter was in 5th grade, I used some Schlessinger Media videos on economics to introduce her to the basics of business. I was able to check these out of the library (we are in the Silicon Valley). These videos are: \- Economics for Children: Starting a Business \- Economics for Children: What is Economics \- Economics for Children: Saving, spending, and investing money

INSPIRATION: Resources for your daughter: \- Woman Innovate Mobile (wim.co) - focuses on startups by female founders in the area of mobile products/services. \- Hackbright Academy (www.hackbrightacademy.com) - programming fellowship for women \- JumpThru Women's Business Accelerator (<http://jumpthru.net>) \- GeekGirl (<http://geekgirlcamp.com>)

MOVIE: Inspirational movie for your daughter: \- Temple Grandin: shows how Temple Grandin overcame the disabilities of autism and revolutionized cattle slaughter houses so that they would be more humane. Her invention is now used by most slaughter houses. The gore of the slaughter is kept at a minimum in the movie. It is mostly focused on the challenges she faced and overcame.

</comment><comment><USER4> It really depends on what facet of business you think she'd be interested in.

To be honest I think better than any specific business resource out there would be to just get her on the path to building the core skills she'll use later on in life. She's already got that started with her vending business which is great. I think pushing her towards taking on some school activities may be great too. Things where she can help organize events and fundraisers and really contribute to a group.

As for my favorite books on business I would suggest for a 13 year old:

"Death by Meeting" The author describes a fictional company that is terrible at conducting meetings until the main character comes and helps address the issues. I know she's not really running meetings at the moment so this may be of less use to her until she has others working along side her. <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0787968056>

I also agree that "How to Win Friends and Influence People" is an excellent book. I grew up with social anxiety disorder and it was one of the books that really broke me out of my shell and gave me the confidence to really push past it. <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0671723650>

Another book I found pretty interesting was "Win the Crowd." While not a 'business' book, per se, it goes into how to really grab your audience's attention and hold it. <http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0060742054>

Lastly "Secrets of Powers Negotiating" is an interesting book I'd suggest she take a look at. There are endless applications to negotiation in business from sales to even negotiating your first salary. [http://www.amazon.com/Secrets- Power-Negotiating-15th-Anniver...](http://www.amazon.com/Secrets-Power- Negotiating-15th-Anniversary/dp/1601631391)

Just some ideas -- hope it helps!

</comment><comment><USER5> I was once a 13-year-old girl and loved writing short stories and learning about business. Some books that worked for me: \- The 4-Hour Work Week, by Tim Ferriss \- Rich Dad, Poor Dad, by Guy Kawasaki \- The Magic of Thinking Big, by David. J Schwartz \- Seven Habits of Highly Effective People, Stephen Covey

One not super related to business but a great short read: Vagabonding by Rolf Potts. That book taught me to think creatively about my goals and not to allow traditional expectations to stop me from accomplishing them.

</comment><comment><USER6> An excellent post, and I look forward to seeing the suggestions.

Does she know and understand "added value"? Does she know about the chain of production from raw material, through processors and wholesalers, to retail?

There's some BBC programmes called "Blood Sweat and Luxuries". I hesitate to recommend these because she may be a bit young for them. (They're a bit depressing, and they might have some swearing.) They might be available through some unofficial method. Here's the link to the BBC information page for them. (<http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00s6103>)

The episodes about the sapphire mine or about gold are particularly good. You see just how much work is involved in getting tiny amounts of gold out of ore.

And you can use everyday examples to show her business concepts. Coffee is a good example for price differentiation. A cup of hot water and coffee has a cost. Adding a squiz of cream and flavoured syrup adds very little to the cost but allows them to sell the cup for a lot more to people who want to pay more.

</comment><comment><USER7> Something that I wish I would have learned at 13 is basic accounting (accrual method). Since your daughter is running a vending business, she has a great opportunity to practice accounting! Perhaps this book would be a good one for her:

The Accounting Game: Basic Accounting Fresh from the Lemonade Stand <http://www.amazon.com/dp/1402211864/>

</comment><comment><USER8> Instead of getting a typical fad driven business book why not instead get a book about a creative women who launched a business? Just find a role model and find the best biography available. Also it doesn't have to be about someone who started a business, there are other sorts of leaders and amazing people out there (examples: Amelia Earhart, Marie Curie, etc.). Even you grown ups reading this would get far more from reading about someone like Coco Channel rather than some recycled Guy Kawasaki PowerPoint presentation.

</comment><comment><USER9> A great thing would be an experience where she meets a business woman that shares her interest. Shadowing a professional would be more influential than a book.

Does she know what she wants to do? Perhaps she can visit businesses and meet real professional women that are in those jobs. It might be inspiring or it might make her rethink what she wants to do/learn.

</comment><comment><USER10> At 13, I read How to win friends and influence people. It taught me how to deal with people. Has she shown any interest in a given topic? At 13, I was dying to learn about stocks, but did not have the resources to do so.

</comment><comment><USER3> orangethirty mentioned the book How To Win Friends ...

Dale Carnegie's daughter wrote a version of that book specifically for __teen girls __. It is excellent! Same principles in Dale's original book, but in the context of a teen girl's world.

The book is entitled: How to Win Friends and Influence People for Teen Girls by Donna Dale Carnegie.

</comment><comment><USER11> Since you mentioned "$100 Startup", she should read "The Art of Non- Conformity"

One of the best books around.

</comment><comment><USER12> Business Model Generation is a great practical and useful book. I reckon she could like and enjoy that.

</comment><comment><USER13> I'm as big a book fan as anyone, but an online course might be appropriate too.

</comment><comment><USER14> I recommend 'The E-Myth Revisited' by Michael Gerber. An oldie but a goldie.</comment>


Some users say they're getting rid of Fitbit because they don't trust Google - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/17/people-getting-rid-of-fitbits-after-google.html <comment><USER2> Classic example of an article in search of a movement.

Take a handful of tweets that share an opinion and write an article that makes it seem like there's a mass exodus.

It's ok, you don't need anything more than a handful of tweets to back your claim.

Yes, _some_ people are privacy conscious and are going to stop using Fitbit but how many are actually doing it? A lot? A few?

Who knows. I'm sure author has no clue but that won't stop them from writing this empty article.

<comment><USER3> I don't know about anyone else, but I just got rid of my Fitbit and never spoke of it on social media. My guess is it's limited a few thousand to low tens of thousands of people which is not economically meaningful on it's own. But, it does show another side of the privacy debate.

Many companies are selling data not because it's significant revenue, but rather because they have no reason to leave money on the table. This kind of small scale boycott may actually be meaningful for those internal decisions, which IMO is interesting.

<comment><USER4> I have never felt harmed or threatened by the idea that my anonymized data (health or otherwise) is being used by large organizations... assuming it is anonymized.

As far as I can see, there are many good uses of this data (some potentially profitable, such as selling to health insurance companies so they can better price their products and evaluate risks) and very few bad uses of this data.

Can someone please clarify for me exactly what the potential harm is here... using evidence and reason instead of conjecture and belief? Because until then, this all smells an awful lot like a conspiracy theory [https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFalla...](https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/74/Conspiracy- Theory)

Here's an example: Google has had our data for literally _decades_ now. What is the measurable, significant harm that has resulted? And if there is nothing, what catastrophes are yet possible where a single or group of rogue bad actors profit off the suffering of many _and get away with it_?

Please explain to me my naiveté here.

<comment><USER5> Because it is -never - going to be anonymized. They are going to call it anonymized, and then publicly apologize for it not being so a couple of times, while keeping business as usual. There is just no incentive for them to anonymize it.

<comment><USER6> More to the point, I'm not even sure that, in principle, it is possible to truly anonymize this data without spoiling the data science easter egg hunt. And the easter egg hunt is arguably the entire point of this kind of data collection.

You can do something like k-anonymizing the data and then destroying the original, personally identifiable data. But k-anonymity has its limits, too.

Every other strategy I know of assumes that it's OK to keep a private copy of the original data, which works well if we're talking about scenario such as a source that needs to keep the raw data (like a health care provider) providing the data with a semi-trustworthy external party such as a health researcher. But it doesn't address what I'm guessing is the main concern here, which is that, even if you accept for the sake of argument that Google currently has no intention to do gross things with the data, they can't make any promises that will hold indefinitely. It's a long-lived organization that whose policies might change with any change in leadership, market, or even political conditions, so any promises they might make are simply meaningless in the long run. As they would be with _any_ organization, regardless of the presence or absence of any present-day warm fuzzy feelings.

<comment><USER7> Basically the data, to be useful, has to be capable of uncovering correlations with all sorts of demographics. Those clues can de-anonymize it. If we take your name out of a data frame (so that we can call it "anonymous") but leave all sorts of other properties (those being the payload useful to data science), you may be nevertheless identifiable from that combination of properties, together with other info known about you from other tracking sources.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> After having worked at Google, it is the only company I actually do trust with my data. (But I am also ok with them using it to customize my experience, and even target ads)

Their internal privacy controls are extensive.

As a human, it is nearly impossible to access someone's data, even when debugging code/ML models/etc.

And when you do need to, it requires exhaustive oversight/approval, and _everything_ is audited.

<comment><USER9> I'm an Xoogler who worked on the privacy team a few years ago. All of this is true, and at the time I worked there, I made the conscious, considered decision to buy in to the Google data collection ecosystem because I trusted the people I worked with to protect my data.

Several years out, I no longer trust Google - not because I trust my former (immediate) coworkers less, but because the direction the entire advertising/data science industry is taking as a whole is deeply concerning to me. I disagree with almost all of it on principle, and am no longer comfortable supporting it by allowing unfettered collection of my personal data, regardless of who is doing the collecting or how much they promise not to sell my data.

(Companies were never "selling" data anyway - they were using it themselves, sharing it with their partners without an explicit sale, and otherwise doing things with it that I don't approve of which do not meet the strict definition of "sale".)

<comment><USER10> > Several years out, I no longer trust Google - not because I trust my former > (immediate) coworkers less, but because the direction

It makes me uncomfortable that the data is always there, and the direction of the business just needs to change. Perhaps they're not being profitable enough for wall street? And on a time scale of 10 more years, I'm sure there will be a number of "incidents" in which teams were given approval to use the data in unsavory ways.

<comment><USER9> This is exactly why I'm one of the (probably many) silent switchers away from Fitbit now that this acquisition has happened. Whatever Google says now, in one or two or ten years, that could change, and my data will still be there.

> I'm sure there will be a number of "incidents" in which teams were given > approval to use the data in unsavory ways.

This is my other concern, closely related to the first. Data companies (Google included) have a very different idea of what is "savory" w.r.t data usage. Not from a place of malice, necessarily, but innocence/privilege/not thinking about the consequences.

Let's say the engineers are building a data-using feature, such as one which takes Fitbit health data and links it to your medical record to recommend tests or interventions that might benefit you. Those engineers may only think about how many lives this will save - the benefits of sharing this data. Because there are some benefits, for some people, in that use case. The problem is when those engineers do not consider all the many ways that sharing could go wrong, and how many other people could be hurt. Discrimination, denial of insurance, stalking, etc.

Personally, I think it would be incredibly beneficial for most software engineers to spend time learning hacking and adversarial thinking. Teaching the people who build these features to think about how the features could, and will, be misused would likely help them build better, safer features. (/soapbox :) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I bought a Garmin the day Fitbit sold out and haven't touched the Fitbit since. I'm very happy with the switch, the Garmin (Vivosmart 4) app and device are actually better than Fitbit's on almost every account, so that's a double win :)

The only unfortunate consequence is that Garmin's import service only imports very coarse data from your Fitbit export, so all detailed historic records are lost unless you manually dig through your Fitbit export files. I hope Garmin will still provide a 100% complete importer in the future.

<comment><USER12> Any idea how data exporting is with the Vivosmart 4? I thought about getting one but one of my main use cases for getting a fitness tracker is exporting data and then creating custom visualizations from it. I haven't dug into this world much yet but curious what the best hardware would be for this use case.

<comment><USER13> If you sync to garmin connect its easy enough to manually download many different formats of activity recording for fitness activities. I don't have a vivosmart but I haven't had issues collecting data from my Fenix watch.

There is a service I do like from [https://tapiriik.com/](https://tapiriik.com/) that will sync all your fitness data across a bunch of common fitness apps (it helps when all your friends want to link up for activities but nobody agrees on a single tracking platform). One of the sync options is just to directly download all the raw datafiles to dropbox which is pretty convenient.

If none of those sound good you could roll your own from the source code to tapiriik which is available here: [https://github.com/cpfair/tapiriik](https://github.com/cpfair/tapiriik) . It does use some hacks to get around garmin not making all their APIs easy for personal development.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> "Google could know which medications I take, and what any medical diagnosis's I have," Carpenter said. "It makes me feel sick to my stomach."

Google already knows what diagnoses people have, simply because people have been searching their symptoms. Remember when Google several years ago boasted about predicting epidemics faster than the health care system, based on searches?

<comment><USER15> They are not doing this anymore [0] and I assume there is a reason for that.

UDPATE: Here is the reason: "And then, GFT failed—and failed spectacularly—missing at the peak of the 2013 flu season by 140 percent. When Google quietly euthanized the program, called Google Flu Trends (GFT), it turned the poster child of big data into the poster child of the foibles of big data. " [1]

[0] [https://www.google.org/flutrends/about/](https://www.google.org/flutrends/about/)

[1] [https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure- google-...](https://www.wired.com/2015/10/can-learn-epic-failure-google-flu- trends/)

<comment><USER16> That just says they are no longer _publishing_ it. That is very intentional phrasing.

>Google Flu Trends and Google Dengue Trends are no longer publishing current estimates

<comment><USER15> As well they say they are working with universities on that. Basically, they are doing something most probably, but not necessary have something valuable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I had recently begun considering a smart watch to replace my original Pebble, and was considering Fitbit, but this is exactly why I won't be going with them. I'm slowly De-Googling and spreading my digital life across multiple providers instead of being at the mercy of a single one. I don't expect my total privacy exposure will be significantly less, but it's more about not having my email, media purchases, phone integration, and more all tied to just Google.

<comment><USER18> What for you will use "smart watch"?

For real. There is not so much they can do and even less they can do properly

<comment><USER17> Same things I used my Pebble for.

Read and send canned responses to texts. See who's calling me. Read emails. Check bus/train schedule.

Basically an extension of my phone. You can debate the "smart" label if you like, but the semantics don't really concern me.

<comment><USER18> I'm more about "fitness and heath" aspect of such devices

And probably just hate small displays in general

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I've owned/own 4 Fitbit products and was planning my change before this news. The privacy thing is an issue but compared to your phone, it's pretty small potatoes. The issue that really irks is the products seem to take software updates that make them worse, often with bad bugs. Like my ionic will vibrate when a phone call comes in and continue to until the call ends. Bands wear out too quickly and are expensive to replace. The watches themselves seem to die at an almost predictable rate. Then the price is sort of in this sweet spot of being inexpensive enough to not hurt you but expensive enough to be frustrating when it's not right.

I like the concept but I think Fitbit doesn't have enough data points to be really useful and then the execution is mediocre. Maybe google will be good for them but I think I'll switch

<comment><USER20> My blaze has the same calling issue...

The Blaze though has standard watch bands so you can replace it inexpensively with any type of watch band as long it's the right size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> 27 million active Fitbit users at end of 2018.

"Several" _say_ they are getting rid of the devices because of a lack of trust in Google. How many constitutes "several" is left for the reader to calculate. 27? 270? 2,700?

Poor journalism.

<comment><USER22> If I buy anyone in my family a home speaker, or Fitbit, or other thing for holiday I'm getting laughed back into my car

<comment><USER23> Anecdotes don't necessarily correlate to populations.

<comment><USER22> They certainly don't but this entire discussion board is either people talking about their views and their experiences or sharing information and resources about things that correlate to populations so have I done something wrong here?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Independent tech in the 2010s is like independent banking in the 2000s. You find a decent partner and 6 months later you roll over and see BigCorp beside you.

I struggle to see how this even is consistent with the spirit of the Fitbit terms-- the purchase of the company transfers ownership of user data, which Fitbit assured customers it would never do. Time for some common sense concerning this consumer-unfriendly trend.

</comment><comment><USER25> The average Joe that uses Fitbit probably doesn't even know that this transaction is happening. Sometimes we think people read the same news we read and understand things the same way we understand them. That's definitely not the case.

<comment><USER26> That was my thought - even the people who know may or may not care, but certainly everyone who owns a Fitbit doesn't know - my wife's work handed them out for Christmas one year - those people won't have any idea.

I'm also not sure why a sudden distrust of Google over Fitbit. It's not like Fitbit wasn't in a position to misuse your data as well. Google is just better at it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> For me the change is ownership was just the last straw, their incredibly crappy app and the difficulty in downloading my data was a more significant factor.

<comment><USER28> Same here. I'm not going to use a health monitoring device from an advertising company.

<comment><USER29> I flip-flop on that. I mean you just get more relevant and useful ads? Running shoes on sale? Cool if I need some.

But you also don't want ads publicizing private health info to people who are nearby. Like, I don't want to sit down and watch "TV" at a friends house and have to wonder why I'm seeing ad after ad for valtrex.

<comment><USER28> I used to be on the relevant ads side of the equation. Then I realized that I have been pumping data into Google for two decades and I still get terrible ads. I've let Google peek into many parts of my life and they aren't giving me more useful ads now then they did in 1998.

Plus, if I need shoes it's not hard to find shoes. I order from Zappos and they show up tomorrow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> For an anecdotal story, my finacee just went from a Fitbit to a Soleuos Fitness tracker. The change in ownership was one reason, but the reason was that the one she had broke 3 times within the first year of her having it. The first two times she sent it back, and the third time she gave up on it and didn't want to buy another Fitbit.

But I think seeing how Nest turned out is a great reason for not wanting to buy a Fitbit after being bought my Google (forcing tighter integration to Google, depreciating APIs to make it useful for other integrations, no really new innovation).

</comment><comment><USER31> Ideally I would prefer a SmartWatch that has AsteroidOS [0] preinstalled that on the software-level is free from Google.

Such a watch might be very difficult to obtain. Even by flashing existing Android Wear devices not only it requires several steps, but the unfortunate lack of apps might be a big turn-off for many people.

Either that or my money will be going to an Apple Watch.

[0] [https://asteroidos.org/](https://asteroidos.org/)

<comment><USER32> > Either that or my money will be going to an Apple Watch.

Because at least you're not the product?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> Pro tip for Fitbit users that want a great alternative:

[https://www.withings.com/](https://www.withings.com/)

<comment><USER34> At first glance, these products looked compelling. But how is Withings actually any better? Per [https://www.withings.com/us/en/legal/privacy- policy](https://www.withings.com/us/en/legal/privacy-policy):

>"How do we use your personal data?

...

>Marketing, advertising and making recommendations[.] Your personal data may be used to offer surveys, competitions, discount coupons or events in which you are free to participate. We may provide you with information on our Products, such as new features, sales offers from Withings or our partners, or to announce new Products. You may opt out of marketing offers by logging into your Withings account and managing your notification preferences.

...

>Modification of the present Policy[.] Withings may modify the present Policy with or without previous notice, block the access to the website, or change its access conditions "

Will all due respect: eff that. As others have noted here and elsewhere, marketing and advertising -- especially that using my personal data -- is adversarial.

I paid for a thing, just let me have that thing.

And before anyone unhelpfully suggests, "they have an opt-out policy"... well, we all understand that once your intimate, valuable data is siphoned off your wrist, the horse has left the barn, right? That genie is out of the bottle, that bell has rung, and all kinds of other euphemisms that illustrate how the data is no longer in your control, and all the opt-outs in the world are not going to actually delete all your data. It's been forked to Utah, backed up, sharded, "anonymized" and combined with all the other data you've generated on devices sold by other companies -- for every single "partner" that paid them, as well as everyone who did not pay them, in the cases of Utah and corporate espionage.

An actual alternative would be a device that has no connectivity to my pocket surveillance slab or anything with an uncontrollable baseband processor, nor connectivity to the Internet generally. Let me be in actual control.

Thanks for the advice, but I'm sticking with my Casio dumbwatch. Doesn't peep on my daily activities, but it accurately tells time and I love that thing. Bonus is that I have to think about its battery only once a decade.

<comment><USER33> Well, if the data is never leaving your wrist you will never see any graphs and never actually enjoy the great things a training watch gives you.

Sure they may store my personal data and I would prefer if they didn't sell it to any third party. I would also prefer a product which can store information locally on the phone but never sync it to the "cloud".

The thing is, there is no such products because people are stupid and would be furious if they switch phones and their data was lost on them because they didn't understand that the data was only stored locally and never left the device.

I would buy such a product, if it existed, but it don't AFAIK. Fitbit stored the same amount of data as Withings do, it's just because Google bought them that people are worried.

Withings is basically a rival to Fitbit and since you don't want the data to ever leave your wrist, this sort of product is clearly not for you.

<comment><USER34> I think the point I was making is not whether the data is allowed to leave my wrist, but to "let me be in actual control" of my data.

In a world of USB sticks, micro SD cards, and $5 Raspberry Pis, I can imagine human-friendly ways of sharing data that don't involve tethering my wrist to someone else's computer.

> The thing is, there is no such products because people are stupid and would > be furious if they switch phones and their data was lost on them because > they didn't understand that the data was only stored locally and never left > the device.

"[P]eople are stupid"? I'd like to give people a bit more credit. They can move data around, without surprise or fury: plenty still use Ethernet cables, USB sticks, iPod Shuffles, Blurays, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> Fitbit users are getting rid of the devices because previously all the services were bundled with the cost of the physical device but now they want you to buy the device _and_ subscribe to Fitbit Premium.

Source: first-hand contact with Fitbit users in the Real World

</comment><comment><USER36> I used to have a fitbit, it broke within the warranty time and sold the replacement rather than actually keep using it. Since then I've been thinking of getting a new one, but the Google acquisition instead prompted me to have my account deleted.

</comment><comment><USER37> Bought a device that uploads data to the internet, surprised when it's not used for their benefit.

Stop buying devices that require internet access, you have a supercomputer in your pocket that they can connect to. And a home network.

</comment><comment><USER38> I basically use Fitbit for sleep tracking more than any other feature. And I used to be a loyal Jawbone Up customer (yes, replacing it every few months when the band snapped) for the same reason.

This may be off topic since it has nothing to do with this acquisition, but does anyone know of a equivalent or superior sleep tracker that you wear on your arm?

<comment><USER39> I am afraid to sleep with my Fitbit, I think I would wake up with battle scars on my face.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> This is fine, people can do what they want, but they're deluding themselves if they think small companies are perfect stewards of data. How exactly do these people know that Fitbit wasn't already selling their data using it in a way they don't approve of?

<comment><USER41> One reason I like sharing smaller slices of my privacy with smaller companies is that it makes it harder to correlate everything.

I have no doubt Google can tie together every aspect of my life if I let them.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> _> Google explicitly said in the deal announcement that it won't sell their personal or health data._

That's not all. Google also said they will not use your data to target ads. In a forward looking statement about the deal. That's significant.

<comment><USER43> This sounds snarky, but I honestly don't intend it that way... Google's statements on this are only significant if you trust Google.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> For what it's worth: I switched from Fitbit to Garmin about a year back, but hearing about the Google purchase actually made me log back in to my old Fitbit account and request deletion of all my data.

</comment><comment> dawg- I don't think Google cares about this relative handful of people. They will keep moving on and 90% of society will go with them.

I often wonder what will happen to the few individuals who are willing to push tech/privacy issues so far that they will be okay with being left behind. In 50 years will we have communities of amish-like people who choose to continue living as if it's 2005?

</comment><comment><USER45> I saw some while killing time at an electronics store. My thought train went something like:

Uh, nice. Oh wait. Fitbit? Wasn't it just acquired by google? Ah I need to get off gmail too..

</comment><comment><USER46> And yet they use Android daily. :D

<comment><USER28> Privacy is becoming something only the wealthy can afford.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> I'm using a Fitbit and I'm thinking about just uninstalling the app.

The watch is set up like I want it to, it can show my heartbeat during training, the steps of the day and the time. Obviously without the app and data synchronisation I will not get weekly fitness reports, but I don't really care about those.

Maybe my next watch will be a dumb one again. Didn't get that much out of a smart watch as I expected.

</comment><comment><USER48> You might be able to estimate how many users are jumping ship by looking at the resale market (say on eBay) and if it's spiked recently.

</comment><comment><USER49> I'm just an n=1, but I got rid of my two Fitbits (returned to Costco as they were still within 90 days) primarily for this reason.

</comment><comment><USER50> Personally I stopped using Fitbit a long time ago because the band came unglued and it fell apart.

</comment><comment><USER51> I find this very naive. The op is not trusting Google because someone told them not to trust Google. They were trusting Fitbit because nobody told them not to.

How did Fitbit make their money to pay for the online services? Only from selling devices? You really believe that?

</comment><comment><USER52> not a single statistic or data point. this is really garbage content

</comment><comment><USER53> Are there any good alternatives out there? (leaving Apple/Google products aside).

</comment><comment><USER54> They should probably send a GDPA request to delete all their data as well.

</comment><comment><USER55> Ordered a Garmin few days back for the same reasons.

<comment><USER56> Same and I'm kicking myself for not switching sooner. If you care about improving your running ability then getting a Garmin is a no-brainer. The PacePro feature which just arrived on my FR245 is incredible.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> I am wearing xiaomi band. [trolling] What could be a problem?

</comment><comment> 867-5309 _some_ say

</comment><comment><USER58> Fitbit is a terrible product. Enjoy paying smart watch prices for a tiny screen that tells you your heart rate.

<comment><USER59> I have a watch with gears in it that only tells me the time. It cost more than an Apple Watch, too. How stupid of me!</comment></comment>


Principal Component Analysis for Dummies - <AUTHOR> http://georgemdallas.wordpress.com/2013/10/30/principal-component-analysis-4-dummies-eigenvectors-eigenvalues-and-dimension-reduction/ <comment><USER2> When I was studying this in college I always found the "Eigenfaces" example very enlightening ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eigenface)).

In case you're not familiar with them, the basic idea is treating a image of a face as a very high dimensional vector, and then doing what amounts to PCA on a collection of them. I'm leaving off a few steps, but the resulting eigenvectors converted back into images helped me grasp what was going on in a much more intuitive fashion.

<comment><USER3> About a year ago I repeated this experiment (well a very simplified version) with MegaMan sprites, including a quick write up of the process for anyone interested: [http://willkurt.github.io/EigenMan/](http://willkurt.github.io/EigenMan/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Another angle: the PCA is given by computing the SVD (a more general analog of eigenvalue/eigenvector decomposition) of a whitened representation of the data. Some idiosyncrasies of PCA them become obvious: we can't determine if a computed result is actually a sought result or its reflection/negative, because the SVD is only unique up to sign variance.

This is also closer to it's actual implementation: while it's true that you do technically need the eigenbasis of the covariance matrix, you should not actually form the covariance matrix to get there...

<comment><USER5>
      you should not actually form the covariance matrix to get there...

In case anyone's wondering why: it's not only because it takes extra time. The main reason is that computing X*X^T can bring numerical instability, where a direct SVD(X) would work just fine.

<comment><USER6> I remember this being elegantly demonstrated here: [http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3869/what-is-the- int...](http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/3869/what-is-the-intuitive- relationship-between-svd-and-pca)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It seems to me that explanations of technical topics in natural, everyday language are very valuable. People who would be turned off by a formalized explanation and dense symbolic manipulation can still get a lot out of this. Bravo.

</comment><comment><USER8> Does anyone else have an extremely hard time trying to read it due to being blinded by the bright yellow?

<comment><USER9> Definitely. I don't think it would be that bad on a 1024x768, but widescreen it's really bright.

EDIT: By the way, you can make it readable with:

document.getElementById("wrapper").style.backgroundColor='white'

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I like the goal, thanks for the presentation. Personally, I'd have preferred an example on high-dimensionality data like curve fitting where this is actually most important, but that's because I'm a nerd and I like graphs perhaps.

FTIR data analysis is a fantastic example for PCA analysis -- each principle factor ends up (probably) being the spectrum of one of the major real physical components. But this is maybe too abstract?

A less abstract one might be a distribution of test scores. Your actual dataset is "number" versus "score", and you could show two gaussians, one at a low number and one at a high number. Then you could show that across three exams, you always see the same scores, but with different intensities. That would let you compute that the principle components are those two gaussians. Then you can hypothesize that each group is a collection of students that study together, and so they get similar scores. Or something like that.

Anyway, no intent to be a wet blanket. It's a nice writeup, and it is nice of you to share.

</comment><comment><USER11> I found Lindsay I. Smith's "A tutorial on Principal Components Analysis" [1] really useful because it covers the mathematics behind PCA but gives enough linear algebra background for it to be understandable by those with distant or weak math backgrounds (e.g., me).

[1] [http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/cosc453/student_tutorials/principa...](http://www.cs.otago.ac.nz/cosc453/student_tutorials/principal_components.pdf)

<comment><USER12> Thanks, that is incredibly interesting, especially the example at the end relating to facial recognition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> PCA's are cool but I find it maddening when people convert sparse data (like counts of how many words are shared between documents) into dense distance data to use it.

You can shortcut the whole process by finding the smallest non zero eigenvalue/eigenvector pairs of the graph laplacian (Fiedler vectors). You need to use a sparse solver that can find the smallest values/vectors instead of the larges (like LOBCPG) but that is faster anyways.

</comment><comment><USER14> Wow, this brings back memories. I remember using PCA for feature extraction from image data to be used in SVM based image classification. Though as I recall, PCA added a huge tax on the processing time and provided, in comparison, a small boost in accuracy. (IIRC We split the data 4:1 into training & classification)

</comment><comment><USER15> Thank you for this primer, this is related to something I'm studying right now and is much easier to understand.

</comment><comment><USER16> doesn't the spread-out-ness then depend on the units? If your data have unit X on one axis, and unit Y on another, then how can you say that the "maximal- spread-outness" is in any given direction, when you can merely adjust the scale on one axis and alter how numerically spread out it looks?

<comment><USER17> Yes. The author of "Information Theory, Inference and Learning Algorithms" had this to say about it:

[http://www.amazon.com/review/R16RJ2PT63DZ3Q/ref=cm_cr_rev_de...](http://www.amazon.com/review/R16RJ2PT63DZ3Q/ref=cm_cr_rev_detmd_pl?ie=UTF8&asin=0521642981&cdForum=Fx37214P6NH2KSB&cdMsgID=Mx19BAIRVRARPZV&cdMsgNo=1&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx2OVZUUHW9MMJ9&store=books#Mx19BAIRVRARPZV)

<comment><USER18> An interesting argument.

It seems like PCA would already be a method that would only mean something if it was applied to comparable dimensions. What would transformed, dimensioned variables mean anyway? Chart A=mass - 3 _charge by B = mass + 2_ charge. What could a correlation mean.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> yes there's hundreds of these online - though i must admit that the images are well done to convey the main point of dimensionality reduction, those who don't necessarily understand eigenvectors or covariance matrices will be able to see what's happening between the lines

</comment><comment><USER20> that's brilliant. i've studied the maths behind all this years ago, and only now do i find an intuitive explanation of all this. many thanks.

</comment><comment><USER21> These intuitive guides are great for those of us who've built an intuitive understanding of higher math through practical application on computers instead of formal, academic means.</comment>


Mozilla Awards $385k to Open Source Projects - <AUTHOR> https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2016/06/22/mozilla-awards-385000-to-open-source-projects-as-part-of-moss-mission-partners-program/ <comment><USER2> The full list:

 _> Tor: 152k_

 _> Tails (secure-by-default live operating system): 77k_

 _> Caddy (HTTP/2 web server that uses HTTPS automatically and by default via Let's Encrypt): 50k_

 _> Mio (asynchronous I/O library written in Rust): 30k_

 _> DNSSEC/DANE Chain Stapling (standardizing and implementing a new TLS extension): 25k_

 _> Godot Engine: (high-performance multi-platform game engine which can deploy to HTML5): 20k_

 _> PeARS (lightweight, distributed web search engine): 15,5k_

 _> NVDA (open source screen reader): 15k_

I agree with the highlight given the open source screen reader. Accessibility is very important and unfortunately very neglected, mostly because (IMO) the tools to properly test can be very expensive or incompatible.

<comment><USER3> Could you expand more about accessibility? Thank you.

<comment><USER4> It's about software for people with accessibility problems. In NVDA's case (and for computer related accessibility in general), it means vision impaired/blind. From NVDA:

" It reads the text on the screen in a computerised voice. You can control what is read to you by moving the cursor to the relevant area of text with a mouse or the arrows on your keyboard.

NVDA can also convert the text into braille if the computer user owns a device called a "braille display"."

<comment><USER5> This is really important, although only to a very small set of users. I know someone who has to work with a braille display, and he's stuck on Windows XP since that's the only platform which has a screen reader that fulfils all of his requirements.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I am curious about the mechanics of how the projects will spend this money. I have had quite a bit of professional experience working as a developer within an open source project and I honestly don't know what we would have done had someone showed up with a one time payment of this size.

The dollar amounts are too low to hire a full-time dev. They presumably have insufficient volunteers or they wouldn't need this money. So I am guessing that they will be offering existing volunteers some money to devote more time to the project.

Another alternative would be hiring in some contractor who has no prior relationship with the project but having someone who doesn't know the project come in and implement something before vanishing and leaving everyone else to maintain their stuff is unappealing.

<comment><USER7> Yep, that's a huge problem with "sustainable" OSS: it's wonderful to get a one-time $50k grant but if you expect to spend the next 10 years maintaining a reasonably complex/sized project, that $5k/yr is still minimum wage.

<comment><USER8> I don't think there's any expectation that $50k will fund 10 years of development.

<comment><USER9> No, but "I donated $10 3 years ago and you guys are SLOW at responding to my queries!" is an incredibly common attitude. Open Source has shown that it's a far superior development methodology, but there is definitely some negativity associated with "expect stuff for free"

<comment><USER10> For a lot of OSS projects users who have donated feeling entitled would be a good problem to have. There are plenty of users who feel entitled and they don't donate _time_ or _money_!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm impressed that MIO is getting funding. It will be great to have a safe library to create event-driven apps in Rust.

<comment><USER12> Yeah. It's a great library. I use it now, there are some things to clean up cross OS from my experience, but in general it's an excellent multi-os async library.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'd never heard of PeARS. I was _just_ discussing this very idea with a friend of mine. I'd love to see a decentralized web, but search seems like a really tricky problem in that space. This is a clever solution.

<comment><USER14> Never heard of PeARS either, but YaCy has been around for quite a few years: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaCy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/YaCy)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I hope this type of funding continues to grow. A significant number of people getting paid to contribute to public software sounds like some utopia to me.

More people could strive to create projects that actually make the world a better place, instead of another SaaS product to pay the bills. Some (many, all?) open source projects provide exponentially more to the world than was ever invested both monetarily and in donated time. There is not often an obvious gain for investors, though, so the practice of selfless funding remains a privilege to few.

</comment><comment><USER16> That's awesome news, NVDA and Caddy awarded for contributors work. I hope, in future there will be more companies donating money to attractive open-software projects.

<comment><USER17> I'm so happy NVDA is getting some funding! I work with a blind music producer who uses Windows and we make great use of NVDA (and Window Eyes).

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What do security folks think of the DNSSEC/DANE award? This isn't substantiated, but my understanding was that those technologies were considering kind of a joke by the security community.

<comment><USER19> Isn't it more the case of them being a different joke than the CA system and cert pinning?

<comment><USER20> It's "apply more of the same" compared to the CA system. Cert pinning is different, that part is controlled by the actual cert owner, but only starting on second connection.

<comment><USER19> Well, "trust on first use without revocation" is an entirely special kind of broken key distribution. But then again, they are all broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> 30K for mio, that's a bold move!

<comment><USER22> There is a lot in the pipeline! I'll be talking more about it soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> How do we apply? Our open source platform aims to re-decentralize the web.

[http://qbix.com/platform](http://qbix.com/platform)

<comment><USER24> > Instructions for applying for MOSS grants can be found under each of the > three tracks listed on > [https://wiki.mozilla.org/MOSS](https://wiki.mozilla.org/MOSS)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11958584](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11958584)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Nice to see Caddy getting some dough.

<comment><USER26> Exactly. Caddy's the first HTTP server I've felt was truly easy to configure with all the "hosting best practices", and HTTP/2 future-proofing is the cherry on top.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> PeARS looks very interesting I had never heard of it before not had I considered P2P web-search to be honest. That is a pretty exciting idea and I'll follow them closely :)

</comment><comment><USER28> TOR and MOSS are both extremely deserving recipients, but I'd say Mozilla is borderline unethical with their spending.

Of the millions (yes millions) of dollars they've received, little seems to have gone toward Firefox development.

Mozilla received over $121 million in 2010 from corporate sponsors. This is the same Mozilla that placed ADS in their new tab views. Really, they placed Paid Ads on the new tab screen. What were those for again?

I do understand that Mozilla's mission is to improve the web. Donating to these causes certainly helps with that. But I'm still troubled that they put ads (with aggregate user tracking) into their core product.

<comment><USER29> can't agree more.

Feature with hundreds of requests gets shunned away. And things that people heavily opposes gets in just to be like chrome.

All the last features on firefox were corporate driven. Bookmark system by pocket. Video chat by Telefonica. Sync goals was probably to make their ad share revenue grow as now you are a logged in user. etc etc etc

Their most well paid dev is a javascript advocate!

Chrome gives you much less control of the web, but everyone uses not because it is fast, but because firefox is getting behind on everything. While the owners arguee about UI changes instead of doing what was successful in the past: put the patch someone already provided as an option and release!

the only interesting thing coming out mozilla nowadays that can change the world is fennec. the mobile version. But last builds on android cannot be completed without google proprietary apis anymore. and usability is crap now that they are trying to "fix" image viewing, which mind you, wasn't broken, it was just different than chrome.

<comment><USER30> > the only interesting thing coming out mozilla nowadays that can change the > world is fennec.

A couple other interesting things they're working on: Servo[0] is a browser engine written from the ground up to take better advantage of multi-core computers. Rust[1] is a programming language that was originally created to help Servo achieve its goal of building a fast, concurrent, but secure browser, and has grown into a very interesting project in its own right.

[0]: [https://github.com/servo/servo](https://github.com/servo/servo)

[1]: [https://www.rust-lang.org/](https://www.rust-lang.org/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> This is great news. More companies should donate money to useful open-software projects

</comment><comment><USER32> Mozilla, please help fund Privacy Badger for Firefox on Android. Thanks!

<comment><USER33> Instructions for applying for MOSS grants can be found under each of the three tracks listed on [https://wiki.mozilla.org/MOSS](https://wiki.mozilla.org/MOSS)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> cool that they are awarding funds, but giving tor this kind of money, it being a spy/insurgent/criminal tool and after all the scandals it is involved in, is not great. tails is, of course, another such spy tool. it gives the impression mozilla is mostly concerned with undermining state/rule of law/formenting political instability. i think they might contribute more to projects that benefit everyday digital citizens rather than activists. I like Caddy, Pears, godot and NVDA though.

<comment><USER35> ? Tor is freely available to any one. Tor browser is so simple my mother uses it. At this point I don't understand why people would do a websearch for something they would not discuss in public without using Tor.

<comment><USER36> I hope Mozilla will add seamless Tor interoperability in future versions of Firefox.

<comment><USER35> Some sort of super private browsing mode would be nice. I'm not sure I trust Mozilla to get that right though. Their main priority is pushing the Web forward (and keeping up with chrome). Privacy is difficult and conflicts with functionality in some cases e.g. webrtc, javascript, window size etc. The current solution where Mozilla have an lts release that the tor project can use as a base seems quite a good compromise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> That's great. Now if I could just read www.theonion.com on Firefox for Android without it crashing every time, that would be sweet.

<comment><USER38> Can you share any crash report URLs from your about:crashes page?

<comment><USER37> You mean this:

[https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp- fa160cdc-8a2...](https://crash-stats.mozilla.com/report/index/bp- fa160cdc-8a25-4935-a105-c0a0b2160623)

?

<comment><USER38> Thanks though I don't know why none of the threads in the crash report have any stack traces. Unfortunately this doesn't look actionable. I'll have to ask someone to take another look.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Would have been cool of them to support Django. [https://www.djangoproject.com/fundraising/](https://www.djangoproject.com/fundraising/)

<comment><USER40> Why?

<comment><USER39> Sorry for not explainig futher: -It seems to fit their criteria of Open Source Projects -They ultilize it a lot in their projects, here is just one big example: [https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/](https://github.com/mozilla/bedrock/) -They've received donations from Mozilla before: [https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/dec/11/django- awar...](https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2015/dec/11/django-awarded-moss- grant/) -The fundraising needs all the help it gets, its only at 20% and over half of the year has gone :/ [https://www.djangoproject.com/fundraising/](https://www.djangoproject.com/fundraising/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Shouldn't they use part of it for making an awesome browser instead of playing the role of benevolent patron for other projects?

But obviously, I don't know whether they have already given up going against Chrome.</comment>