Amazon Low Prices Disguise a High Cost - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/16/business/media/amazon-low-prices-disguise-a-high-cost.html?ref=technology <comment><USER2> This is the same stuff we've read on music and movies, saying that low prices will kill the authors, even go as far as to kill creativity, if you are inclined to believe this socioeconomic-romance.

That is not at all what is happening. Publishers and "music labels" are bleeding out, not writers and authors. It's killing the middlemen, not creativity. And I won't shed any tears on their demise; for their existence is only because of technological shortcomings, and capitalisms very nature is to straighten the process and eliminate them.

<comment><USER3> Here's hoping there will still be some level of quality copyediting involved in this new world. Most self-published works I've read I have an extremely hard time reading because the quality is just so bad.

<comment><USER4> Maybe there is a model for a version 2 of self published works?

Self publish first, if it gets a following, do the copy- editing/polishing/revising for a different "cut" of the same book. Maybe even throw an extra chapter in to give the dedicated fans a reason to buy the new one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> David Carr has an agenda here, which is the preservation of the old order of media. As a result of this blind-spot, he makes some logical leaps and mistakes.

Most egregious amongst them is suggesting that Amazon's strategy is akin to Apple's, which is profiting off of devices.

Except, Amazon sells the Kindle at a _loss_ ; it treats it as a loss- leader.[1] They reportedly take a $10 loss on every Kindle Fire, and a $5 loss on every $79 Kindle.

[1]: <http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2396248,00.asp>

<comment><USER6> Just curious, isn't selling below cost called "dumping" and is illegal in many places?

<comment><USER7> I am pretty sure dumping is only considered for international trade where an item is exported at a lower cost than it is sold domestically. Another example of selling below costs, is in the console industry where Sony and I am sure other companies as well have sold consoles well below their cost and make up for it with game sales.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _Amazon views e-books as cheap software sold to animate device sales, in this case, the Kindle._

This seems like a pretty bizarre assertion, isn't Amazon generally thought to be selling Kindles at, or close to a loss?

</comment><comment><USER9> I wonder how much the New York Times viewpoint was influenced by its proximity to the headquarters of book publishers and the extent of book publishing advertising in its newspaper.

Amazon probably does not advertise much in the New York Times.

I say bring on low prices!

I am done buying dead-tree books, and my book reading has trebled after buying a Kindle. I hope that Amazon's own imprints do well and give even more authors the chance to profitably publish their works.

</comment><comment><USER10> Anybody know of a site where I can browse and read novels published and sold independently by the Authors?

</comment><comment><USER11> Amazon allowed the book sellers to set their price, x, from which Amazon could set the retail price to whatever they wanted (whether at lots of profit or no profit). The booksellers got paid x regardless.

Apple allowed the book sellers to set their retail price, y, giving them a 70% cut on a sale, demanding that this model be forced on all other sellers (because if Apple's model was an outlier, they would have no sales).

There is no universe where the former could be cast as worse for consumers, but through the most ridiculously extrapolated unintended consequences. This piece certainly makes no compelling case, beyond some notion that an equal price for all (and a higher cost for all) is good because it props up less competitive resellers. Welcome to Soviet Russia.

<comment><USER12> _Amazon allowed the book sellers to set their price, x, from which Amazon could set the retail price to whatever they wanted (whether at lots of profit or no profit). The booksellers got paid x regardless._

Indeed. A friend of mine was happy to receive royalties on a non-free ebook that Amazon decided to give away for free for a while.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: would you (founders) use this service? - <AUTHOR>

I want to offer localization services to startups (for free/affordable), especially in the mobile arena. The idea is that startups often neglect this in their early focus and loose valuable market share when they can't test stuff (and adapt to local customs, special cases, etc.) in other countries.<p>Initially I can only handle UK and Germany properly, but if successful this can be grown country by country with new subcontractors or whatever. <comment><USER2> Here's something related that I definitely _would_ pay for: a subscription- based service that provides reliable proxy servers in a wide variety of countries. There was a thread recently about this sort of thing-- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=405946>.

Basically, I want to be able to browse the web, reliably, as if I were physically located in anywhere.

<comment><USER3> Here's one for US, CA, UK, AU. <http://worldproxy202.com/>

</comment></comment><comment> puzzle-out I think a product's sensitivity to serving a number of different locales often has to be sacrificed during the start-up phase, as otherwise the product development could end up, well, unfocussed. I think your service would be most beneficial during the expansion stage - but then of course, with internet start-ups the lag-time between start-up and expansion can be very short, so your service could really be onto something.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also: how do you currently solve this problem, if you do. And if you don't, how do you feel about staying within your own country?

</comment><comment><USER4> While there is more to localization than just translation, I colleted these resrouces for transaltion of small chunks:

<http://www.cucumis.org/translation_1_w/> \- free (peer-to-peer)

<http://www.onehourtranslation.com/en/> \- $4/100 words

</comment><comment><USER5> <http://99translations.com/>

</comment><comment><USER6> It depends on price and what's involved.

Don't do it for free. As much as free and freemium has become all the rage, I'd want to pay for this. I wouldn't want excessive fees, but consulting like this can't be free. It involves human work and not cursory work if it's going to be good.

Do more than simply translations. First, I don't think many people in the UK would care so much about spelling, but also I think translation is easier to come by than a lot of stuff. Geo/mail stuff is a pain when you don't know the country. What services are you thinking of offering.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes, I would love an affordable version of this service. I think of XHTMLized as a potential model for you. I think there are some parallel types of services popping up in testing.

I think it's more important for you to be convenient then it is to be perfect. We have foreign-language users who struggle with our english version. Any translation would be a huge upgrade for them. And the users would be our test bed.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting idea, and something I've considered doing myself, for Italy. The "downside" to it is that it's a linear-growth consulting business, rather than a product business. Still, it seems like something that US companies ought to think about so as to avoid having their lunch eated in other countries by clones. I'd be interested in talking more if you want to look me up through my profile.

</comment><comment><USER9> Currently I only localize things, if I have a friend that I trust very well that knows the language. Basically no matter what service I use, I am going to want to check it myself.

If you establish trust I will be very interested in this type of service.</comment>


South Korean cam-hunter squads conduct electronic sweeps of public spaces - <AUTHOR> https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/south-korea-spy-cams-metoo-sexual-harassment-ahn-hee-jung-a8470771.html <comment><USER2> > though there are scores of such teams nationwide, police officials say none > has ever found a camera – but perhaps that is not the point.

...

> Last month, the province's police force received about $267,000 (£203,000) > to focus on the problem, according to local police official Chae Kyoung- > deok.

...

> despite the focus on hidden cameras, 90 per cent of the crimes involved > filming with regular smartphones, statistics show.

This is seems to be similar to terrorism, in that the fear of the problem is much bigger than the problem itself, and because attacking the root causes is too difficult, most of the effort is spent on useless security theater.

<comment><USER3> Even if they did find something, are they going to keep checking every single day forever? While it is good they are trying, problems like these can only be solved by changing the societal mindset and raising boys to be better men

<comment><USER4> Until someone posts a video of one of these teams missing a hidden camera they provide a real sense of security to women that can't really be provided in other ways.

<comment> yjftsjthsd-h Isn't it a _false_ sense of security?

<comment><USER5> It's the opposite. A false sense of security is feeling safe when it isn't safe. In this case, it is safe, but people mistakenly feel unsafe.

The police are providing a real sense of security that both represents the actual security and the peoples' feeling of security.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> All smartphones sold in Korea are required to make shutter sound when taking a photo, to prevent spy cam using a phone in a public place. If you buy an iPhone in Korea there is no way to turn it off.

<comment><USER7> There was an article on HN about a dev who played the inverse shutter sound when taking a photo, which would destructively interfere with the OS camera sound (this was iOS) before being output by the speakers, resulting in no audible sound.

<comment><USER8> It can be fixed by adding little randomness into builtin shutter sound. Or by adding a LED that is physically connected with camera voltage supply.

<comment><USER9> A better fix is for the camera to take full control of the audio output for the duration. It can override volume and such while it's at it.

It's still kinda a stopgap, though. If one is a dedicated creeper, opening a cell phone and disabling a speaker is intro-level electronics hacking, hardly even worthy of the term. I mean, I've _accidentally_ disabled the speaker on my laptop once because I sealed it up after a hard drive swapout and simply forgot to hook the tiny speaker wires back up afterwards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Wonder if there is a way to have a device that can detect whether you are being recorded. Is that even possible, if yes, that would be a good idea for someone to build? Would make lots of cash given the current climate of concern (especially for kids). Interesting article on this topic [https://mashable.com/2017/12/04/airbnb-host-spying- webcam/](https://mashable.com/2017/12/04/airbnb-host-spying-webcam/)

<comment><USER11> Some sensors (CCDs, i think) are strong retro-reflectors. So you could detect possible cameras with a strobe light and some more cameras.

<comment><USER12> And their camera (array) detects yours and tries to disable it ... we're going to need lasers (sharks optional).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> just mandate image sensor manufacturers to include a resonant structure, to aid detection? then its a matter of time before old image sensors start to fail or get replaced...

</comment><comment><USER8> I think that buying or posessing a hidden camera should be illegal. So that police could arrest people only for ordering such device. Also, there should be a punishment for porn site owners who host such videos. They should check the documents and verify that video is taken with permission from models.

<comment><USER9> 30 years ago that might have worked, when "hidden camera" was arguably a distinct category of device. But every cell phone has a camera in it that 30 years ago would have been government spy level tech, and it's not hard to buy the cameras alone or with minimal supporting electronics for perfectly reasonable reasons, and anything that fits in a cell phone is also small enough to be easy to hide. Even an old cell phone is not that hard to make into a "hidden camera", honestly, body and all. Here's a CNET article on the basic principles, just to show how mainstream this tech all is: [https://www.cnet.com/how-to/turn-your-old-phone-into-a- home-...](https://www.cnet.com/how-to/turn-your-old-phone-into-a-home- security-camera/) It takes only modest creativity to hide that fairly well.

There isn't a such thing as a "hidden camera" as a distinct product any more to be banned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> ...while in California you almost have to stay indoors if you are to avoid seeing scantily clad - sometimes a bit too young - women!

</comment><comment><USER15> Probably a unpopular view / idea. But if we just took the tabo out of being nude... It would resolve the issue 2 fold, people would not be afraid of being seen nude, and the drive for people wanting to take pictures of people nude would go down too.

There once was a time a ankle showing, then it was the knee was taboo too.

Remember we were all born nude, and the idea that being nude is taught.

I have a meeting, wanted to say more, but no time, sorry. TTL!

<comment><USER16> This is a pretty big privacy invasion and privacy is something very valuable to people. Our browsing activity doesn't seem like a big deal, but when companies are taking away our privacy and using it to create ads, a lot of people care! The big problem is that people have their privacy and personal space bubble, and if you reach into it they will be very angry.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is not a sustainable solution.

What will happen when cameras become as small as a grain of rice, and drones become as small as a fly?

This is the end of privacy. We should embrace it, rather than fight it.

</comment><comment><USER18> I guess better copyright enforcement may help. They should also read about deepfakes and stop thinking that filming once body itself is already a serious crime. It matters how that info is used. Homosapien personality is not his body but his brain.

PS: Ironically another news on that page says "Women stage topless protest over Facebook 'discrimination' Did police arrest everyone who filmed this? Did police arrest these women for five years in prison for using their body as a weapon? Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?

<comment><USER19> "stop thinking that filming once body is serious crime."

Firstly, the article is not talking about taking pictures of women on the street but rather in changing rooms and locker rooms, which is a crime. Second, even if you would be comfortable if someone took a picture of you naked without your knowledge and posted it online doesn't mean that other women and men are.

"Is it ok for the same woman to appear in both these news?"

Yes. It was her decision to pose topless in public, and it doesn't give anyone the right to spy on her in privacy and take pictures of her.

<comment><USER18> > changing rooms and locker rooms

But it is kind of public place too. What if you open it by mistake with google glass on? 5 years in prison? What if another woman there receives video call? 5 years in prison? What if some stupid child does it? What if hackers or sneaky woman intentionally put such shots on your phone and call police?

>if someone took a picture of you

I'm not comfortable with it too. But I don't think it is more criminal than piracy. I don't want that police restrict cameras anyway because of it. I want the police to protect copyright better

>It was her decision to pose topless in public

So the subject for protection is not her body itself but her power to define how to "sell" it? Isn't it prostitution? They should make prostitution legal first then.

<comment><USER8> Let's say that you work for the government and accidentally read top secret documents with your Google Glass on and accidentally upload the recording to Youtube. Would it be a good excuse? And of course other people's privacy is much more important than those documents that are boring and uninteresting to 99% of people.

So of course the use of cameras should be regulated.

<comment><USER18> I can't accidentally read top secret because it is secured much better than public places. I can't disclose it by mistake. Its guards don't expose it when they want to protest. People privacy can't be more important than government documents, because protecting each citizen is much more complex/pricy task than protecting those documents. Disclosing those documents is a problem for all citizens. Disclosing citizen privacy is a problem for him. You can't restrict good willing citizen rights because of bad guys.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Getting very early customer feedback - <AUTHOR>

I'm trying to get some early feedback before I spend much time building out my product. I like my idea, but, in the interest of customer development,  I want to make sure I'm building the right things.
So I put together a survey. I've advertised it on forums, LinkedIn groups, Twitter, Facebook, and other places that target the people I'm interested in (which happen to be "entrepreneurs").
I've gotten 11 responses.
How can I get more responses to guide my product development? <comment><USER2> Why not post the survey here if it targets entrepreneurs, maybe the way your survey is designed does not "speak" to people?</comment>


How does Facebook manage 1800 MySQL Servers with just 3 DBAs? - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.sun.com/startups/entry/how_does_facebook_manage_1800

<comment><USER2> I expect this may be down to the terminology. Sybase always used to quote huge numbers for DBA:database ratio compared to Oracle. But what Sybase refers to as a "database", Oracle just refers to as a "schema", and there can be as many schemas as you want within an Oracle database.

And even if it is 1800 physical servers... If significant fractions of them are identical, they really should only be counted as one database cluster with so-many nodes.

</comment><comment><USER3> The title is pure linkbait.

While interesting, this is a sales pitch and not much about the product itself. Flagged.

</comment><comment><USER4> If I had to guess I would say it is by locking the 3 DBAs in a small room and not letting them touch a computer...</comment>


The first fungi-based "steaks" just announced - <AUTHOR> https://newfoodeconomy.org/move-over-plant-based-meat-fungi-steaks-are-here/ <comment><AUTHOR> "At first glance, Emergy appears to be another company jumping on the plant- based bandwagon. Across the food sector, well-financed companies are racing to replicate the taste and texture of animal protein without actually using meat. But this new offering is fundamentally different from Beyond Beef and the Impossible Burger. While most alt-meat products, from veggie patties to fake- chicken nuggets, approximate the finely minced texture of ground meat, Emergy's Meati steaks strive to emulate whole animal muscle. The result is geared more toward the steakhouse than the drive-thru."</comment>


Keyboard Locker – Cats please don't touch my mac - <AUTHOR> https://www.producthunt.com/posts/keyboard-locker <comment><USER2> why not simply lock the screen? it seems like a cumbersome fix for such an easy task</comment>


Ask HN: Who is the best tech reporter of our time? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> For explaining personal technology to the masses, it has to be Walt Mossberg. The guy basically invented the commentary + review format that most mainstream publications use today.

For how much people in the industry wince when they heard she was rooting around, probably Kara Swisher. I can't think of any reporters who struck as much a gut-level fear in the investors and executives I know.

Jessica Lessin has been doing interesting things lately with The Information's business model, and has broken a lot of news lately.</comment>


Why hiring is paradoxically harder in a downturn - <AUTHOR> http://blog.summation.net/2009/03/why-hiring-is-paradoxically-harder-in-a-downturn.html <comment><USER2> A-player vs B-player vs C-player is misleading.

I know that this is how everyone thinks nowaways but I think a solid team will beat a team of disagreeing rock stars.

Easy-to-work with B+ players are completely missed by the A,B,C system. There are some awesome engineers who will never be famous.

<comment><USER3> It's also idiotic because there are so many variations, and people can change. There are C players who have the talent to become B players in 6 months, and A players after 5 years, and B players worth having because of their other abilities (management potential, mentoring). There are also A players who will flame out, or become discouraged upon meeting the wrong challenge. Humanity does not divide so neatly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Our company has not experienced this paradox. In fact, it seems easier to hire good people right now because few other companies are hiring. Maybe this is more of a problem if you are hiring outside your network. So far, I don't think anyone we have hired has been layed off. They all are top people who see the writing on the wall at their less successful companies and are happy to find a better job elsewhere before things get really bad.

<comment><USER5> In my experience the noise in a recruitment is generally a reflection of how well you write your ad and how clear you are in your mind about the kind of person you are looking for. Even in a downturn, I doubt anybody wants to waste their time applying for a job they are clearly not qualified for. Through the years I have learned to write much tighter job ads avoiding generic terms like "DBA" in favour of things like "Sybase administrator". At least that weeds out the people who don't know that Sybase is a database :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Anyone know whether the problems of that Stanford programming course are online? It'd be fun (maybe!) to test oneself against the benchmarks. Of course, I'm sure the correctness tests aren't available even if the project specs are.

<comment><USER7> The class is CPSC 323, but it won't let me access it on the Yale server:

<http://zoo.cs.yale.edu/classes/>

If you're really determined, you could email the teacher (see his homepage here: <http://sce.cs.yale.edu/>).

I think a better way to figure out your ability would be to do the problem described in this study and see how you measure up to the participants:

[http://page.mi.fu- berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpp_cacm1999....](http://page.mi.fu- berlin.de/~prechelt/Biblio/jccpp_cacm1999.pdf)

You can see Peter Norvig's solution and commentary here:

<http://norvig.com/java-lisp.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players". I have indeed worked in places where I could do things that other people couldn't. But I still feel that people fall down in performance because they aren't given things that suited their ability.

But, reading more, this so-and-so doesn't just incidentally divide people, he makes this division the foundation of his approach.

"They ("great people") only want to work with other great people. Once you recruit a few great people, you're in a bit of a quandary. You'll need to, from then on, only recruit other great people or the great people you do have will leave. And if you hire any good people by mistake, the great people will (directly or indirectly) want you to let the perceived mediocrity (i.e. good people) go. And letting go of someone that is good is really hard to do. So you're stuck and that's the rub." (<http://blog.summation.net/2008/02/the- power-of-gr.html>). I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with. This moron's description of a great person sounds like the "brilliant" software engineer previously featured on hn who "write incredible code" and sneered at anyone who expected comments. He "only wants to work with great people". Right. Smart people who can keep their "genius bubble" intact can indeed run rings around the fools who accept their dodges.

Authentically good and pleasant people can work with many kind of people ...

The funny thing is that Rapleaf as company is a complete joke. Their server takes many minutes to up with the most minuscule bits of information from any email address. But the company keeps its genius bubble visible all the time. Their hiring smart engineers... maybe some more great people can make the scheme work.

<comment><USER9> I understand where you're coming from, but I think you have interpreted the author in a very different way to me. You say:

 _I actually haven't noticed that "rock star quality" makes people anything but jerks to work with_

Nowhere does the author suggest that A Players are jerks to work with. In fact, had he had this assumption, he surely wouldn't have called them 'A Players'. It appears to me that _you_ have correlated something that he said 'being very good at what you do' with another trait 'being a jerk to work with'. In my experience, this is not a strong correlation. Maybe in your experience it is, hence your interpretation. But the crux here is that your issue with his points _hinges on your addition_ : A Player = jerk to work with.

As to _serious loathing for people who divide the world into "C players", "B players" and "A players"_ I really do see where you're coming from - it does sound a little distastefully, doesn't it? Anything that apparently force-ranks human kind risks sounding distasteful I feel. But this isn't about classifying the _person themselves_ (in their entire life), it's about classifying the person's ability to job the job that they are currently pursuing. This is hugely important. Someone might be a B Player in the world of software engineering, but an A Player on the soccer pitch.

<comment><USER8> If you glance at the page that Auren Hoffman links to, you'll see that he defines his "A players" in the classic "Rock Star" fashion - they won't work with anyone but other "A-Players", they'll leave if you hire other types, etc. You can follow the link I provide for this.

Sure, people perform differently in different job and people who perform well should be hired. Even then, the "only A-players" thing is dubious - even in a super bowl team, some people are supporting players __and __good "stars" respect their support __and* a variety of talents is useful even in software creation.

It's pretty obvious that venture capitalist Hoffman using his "Rock stars" rhetoric to pump up Rapleaf as "another Google". "Truly outstanding people" is not a particularly well articulated criteria for hiring but it sure appeals to the plebs and the marketers. It's unfortunate, because your management philosophy shouldn't be a "look at how great I am" tool. If you really need to get people to look at you, there are other ways to do it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> "[S]pecifically target candidates rather than to post a job ad. I would suggest targeting a company you think has great people[.]"

Like Rapleaf? Or was 'everyone but us' implied?</comment>


Ask HN: How would you tackle building a successful G Suite alternative? - <AUTHOR> Hi HN,
It seems to be a bigger interest in 'degoogling' lately. I'd like to ask the smart folks around here how would you tackle building a successful G Suite alternative as a sustainable business. What strategies / partnerships / business model would you pursue?
For example, being such a big effort, I think open source is required in order to attract contributors, both hobbyists and companies (and maybe governments). It would also be the main differentiator.
FYI I made a proposal for Mozilla (https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/open-letter-mozilla-please-offer-g-suite-alternative-marius-andreiana/) which seemed a great fit, but they weren't interested. <comment><USER2> My approach that I am actively building right now is to rebuild the user facing half of the OS. This thing I am building is fully distributed, peer to peer, end to end encrypted, and if both end points are IPv6 point to point without a central server. The GUI is in the browser, limited to localhost, and secured by CSP. Changes to sharing between peers occur in real time without manual updates, queries, or refreshes.

On top of that I have a security model that restricts availability between peers at the users discretion. First my goal is to master real time file system sharing in this security model. Then I will start working on sharing of application.

</comment><comment> open-source-ux What is needed is a solution to how the G Suite alternative (presumably open source) will be hosted. Lots of businesses (maybe the majority) won't want to self-install a piece of software that will generate hundreds, maybe thousands of documents (in addition to the need to manage backups and security).

The G Suite alternative needs to follow something like the WordPress model. In other words, businesses can shop around to find a suitable hosting plan for their G Suite alternative needs. Like WordPress, there will be cheap-and- cheerful hosting plans at one end of the scale and at the other end are managed services with SLAs (Service Level Agreements) and premium support.

The G Suite alternative will include an API that enables data to be transferred from one hosting provider to another allowing easy data transfer from one hosting provider to another.

The "WordPress" model is not a "pure" decentralised model but it's far more practical and more likely to have a chance to succeed.

</comment><comment><USER3> Agree that Open Source is core. This might be something that could get crowd funding support.

A set of concrete principles, a modest plan* and roadmap and a slick vision captured in a video demo.

Modest in that start with 1 or 2 core features of G Suite like email and sheets rather than a claim "we can have it all".

</comment><comment><USER4> API everything. Nothing should exist in the public view which is not exposed as an element in the API. So, JMAP and IMAP.

No uncrypted state on backing store. I know things flow in uncrypted but once at state of rest, encoded with my keys. You can offer escrow and key management but it has to be optional. If I throw my private key away and destroy recovery keys and have no escrow the data has to be gone.

Your logs can't be that easy to wipe because law enforcement will make demands on you.

</comment><comment><USER5> Don't take it all on at once, take a particular piece of it on.

</comment><comment><USER6> I would say first of all that it has to be self-hostable. Not necessarily free, but should be licensable for on-site use with no dependency on an external service.</comment>


Ancient Egyptian coffins and mystery of 'black goo' - <AUTHOR> https://blog.britishmuseum.org/ancient-egyptian-coffins-and-mystery-of-black-goo/ <comment><USER2> I guessed quite a few of these ingredients because I work with beeswax, tree resins and plant oils in the wood shop, particularly when doing instruments.

I was surprised about the bitumen and its origin story (floating blobs in the dead sea). That stuff looks like bitumen but I did not expect that they had petroleum products so long ago.

I use lots of materials in my craft that were once used by the ancient Egyptians. Beeswax, linseed oil, hide glue, propolis were all used for at least 4000 years successfully. It breaks my heart to know that we abandoned these traditional materials less than a hundred years ago and replaced it with plastic crap, which seems unlikely to stand the test of time.

<comment><USER3> > I was surprised about the bitumen and its origin story

Interesting, bitumen was the first (and only) thing I thought of.

<comment><USER4> Indeed - I believe people in the middle ages burnt mummies as fuel because of their bitumen content

<comment><USER5> [https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2341/do- egyptians-...](https://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2341/do-egyptians- burn-mummies-as-fuel/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The black goo is bitumen, or tar. It is the binder used in road asphalt and was a common pitch used to seal boat hulls. The article focuses on the ritualistic aspect but doesn't focus on the functional reasons. Sealing the mummified remains from the elements, sealing in the gasses and smells from mummification/decomposition, and gluing the sarcophagus seem like reasonable functional explanations.

Some statues are also covered with pitch so maybe it was also used as a theft deterrent. The pitch covered statues are the best evidence that the pitch was ritualistic rather than functional, in my opinion.

<comment><USER7> Indoor or outdoor statues? Stone eventually suffers from the elements if it left outside.

<comment><USER8> Indoor, I guess? These statues were found in tombs -- they weren't made to be displayed.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I love the clash of deeply detailed language like "we vaporized the samples and used 'Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)' and separated the molecules" with them using 'black goo' as a term.

I am fascinated that the goo wasn't just a random choice for mummification but apparently had spiritual/cultural significance. Never knew too much about Egyptian culture but this being a sort of 'regeneration' symbol, perhaps tied into some sort of afterlife beliefs, that's amazing.

<comment> Digit-Al > I love the clash of deeply detailed language like "we vaporized the samples > and used 'Gas Chromatography – Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS)' and separated the > molecules" with them using 'black goo' as a term.

I would argue that 'black goo' is the most deeply detailed and technical term that could be used for such a substance. I think we can both agree that one cannot argue that it is not black. Now read the following definition of goo:

Noun. Any semi-solid or liquid substance; especially one that is sticky, gummy or slippery; frequently of vague or unknown composition, or a bodily fluid.

Can you think of any more precise and technical term for such a substance? :-)

<comment><USER10> Not precise or technical, but from an evocative perspective, I like the term "Necroplasm".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > it appears that the goo was a ritually important anointing fluid used for a > range of purposes, all relating to the burial of the deceased and their > transformation into Osiris.

It's worth noting that the color black signifies manifestation in Hermetic thought. The "first stuff" upon which everything is made. Think of statues of the Black Virgin (Mary, and before that Isis).

Blackness signifies how we should be if we want to be alchemically changed into a higher state. Open palms, receptive, like a mirror reflecting divinity.

Super interesting topic imo.

</comment><comment><USER12> Some records suggest that people in Azerbaijan were taking crude oil baths as early as 6th century.

I can't say what's true but it seems to make sense that people were fascinated by a liquid pouring from the ground. Just like when plutonium was first discovered it was used for health.

<comment><USER13> > Just like when plutonium was first discovered it was used for health

[citation needed] because this doesn't really seem to be the case. Although apparently there were eventually some plutonium based pacemakers in the 70s, plutonium itself was first produced in the 40s but I couldn't really find how it was used for health except for some highly unethical studies done on radiation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> The Ancient Egyptians mummified bodies for over 2000 years, surely they must have inspected ancient mummified bodies, even if religiously taboo, maybe when grave robbers broke into a tomb, and adapted their practices accordingly.

<comment><USER15> I don't doubt that there's been scientific research into the best way to mummify a body; they wouldn't have done all of the steps on a whim / guess. But we're talking about a tradition spanning hundreds, if not thousands of years here. Mummification or otherwise preserving a body goes back a long time - the oldest form of intentional mummification goes back to 5000 BC, or 7000 years ago (according to wikipedia), so even then they had developed a tradition and the knowledge of preserving a body already.

<comment><USER16> To put things in perspective we are closer time-wise to Alexander the Great's conquest of Egypt than he was to the building of the Great Pyramids. Ancient Egyptian culture was immensely old, even at that time, and was basically continuous for the whole period.

<comment><USER17> The figure I usually see used for that comparison is Julius Caesar or Cleopatra. I think Alexander is a little too old for it to be quite true.

<comment><USER18> I remember feeling surprised (although I shouldn't have been!) when I learned that ancient Rome had their own historians studying ancient history, but who didn't consider themselves to be ancient history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> >The exact ingredients vary from one coffin to the next, but the goo was always made from some of these ingredients

what I understand is that they didn't measure the ingredients, but rather put how much they thought was good

<comment><USER20> I don't think it's arbitrary. Despite being from similar times, burials occurred decades or even centuries apart. The recipe likely evolved based on experimentation and availability of ingredients.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Let me guess, another ancient artifact stolen by the british museum. It rightfully belongs to the Egyptian goverment... similarly the Elginian marbles belong to Greece.

</comment><comment><USER22> here is a proposal to procure some of this liquid and drink it

"we need to drink the red liquid from the cursed dark sarcophagus in the form of some sort of carbonated energy drink so we can assume its powers and finally die"

[https://www.change.org/p/let-people-drink-the-red-liquid- fro...](https://www.change.org/p/let-people-drink-the-red-liquid-from-the- dark-sarcophagus)

</comment><comment><USER23> Is it maybe a little bit weird to be doing research on old corpses that were just dragged out of their graves in a foreign country?

</comment><comment><USER24> If they had said mastic I would have been there like a shot. Mastic and gum- arabic were used extensively in the ancient world.

<comment><USER25> Mastica(sp?) is still chewed today in Greece as some kind of chewing gum. I wonder if the word "masticate" zcomes from this ie vice versa

<comment><USER26> It's also used to flavour a kind of festive brioche:

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

And liqueur:

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

Etymologically, it looks like the root word means "chew", and i would guess that mastikha is named for that, rather than vice versa:

[https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B...](https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%CE%BC%CE%B1%CF%83%CF%84%CE%B9%CF%87%CE%AC%CF%89)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> tldr: plant oil, animal fat, tree resin, beeswax and bitumen

</comment><comment><USER28> x-files theme intensifies

<comment><USER29> or Prometheus. Seriously, never touch anything that looks like black goo, especially in ancient setting.

<comment><USER30> I was thinking Stargate!

<comment><USER31> Indeed

<comment><USER32> I see what you did there.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Recharge your cellphone in 20 seconds - <AUTHOR> http://www.cnn.com/2013/05/20/tech/whiz-kid/?hpt=zite_zite9_featured

<comment><USER2> Grr. Another article about this prize, and still no more details on what the actual substance is.

According to the comments on CNN, the device itself is the battery being charged, and the title is misleading. I prefer not to trust comments on CNN, though, and I'd like more technical information on this prize winner.

<comment><USER3> Read her "paper" / abstract about her project here: <http://www.usc.edu/CSSF//History/2013/Projects/S0912.pdf>

It's alleged that she's just reproducing previously published research from Dr. Yat Li's lab.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Duracell will sue the shit of her</comment>


Watch a Ph.D. thesis dissertation being written in (somewhat) realtime - <AUTHOR> http://theoriginaltakeaway.com/research/thesis/

<comment><USER2> Forget the dissertation. Nobody really reads those (really, not even my committee).

What we want to watch in real-time is the defense. Especially the spanking tunnel at the end.

</comment><comment><USER3> I was expecting to see the ten-year process involving teaching assistantship, employment, marriage, and children, all illumninated by the light of a candle at 2 am in a basement office next to the crib.

</comment><comment><USER4> Whilst not as slick as the JS version, I did much the same thing with mine: [https://vimeo.com/76969179](https://vimeo.com/76969179) when bored one day. I couldn't find any tools to create exactly what I wanted, so knocked up [https://gist.github.com/archgrove/6766129](https://gist.github.com/archgrove/6766129), [https://github.com/archgrove/PDFProofSheet](https://github.com/archgrove/PDFProofSheet), and a bunch of shell scripts to generate a folder of images. Fed this lot into iMovie, and voila.

</comment><comment><USER5> Related, I loved watching pg writing an essay live : [https://code.stypi.com/hacks/13sentences](https://code.stypi.com/hacks/13sentences)

</comment><comment><USER6> That's really neat! I'm not sure if this is intentional because your work is private, but I would love it if I could click on the images or SHAs to go actually see the thing.

<comment><AUTHOR> At the moment I'm a little hesitant to make it public. Partly because there's a large chunk of unpublished research in there, but also because some of the early drafts are a little embarrassing.

Perhaps when the thesis is deposited (and hence public) I could add that in for "historical" interest.

<comment><USER7> Definitely don't make it public. I know people who have had their thesis topics scooped.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wrote something similar while I was writing my diploma thesis, albeit not that visual. For me it was handy to see whether I was making any progress, so I regularly updated a CSV file with the current number of pages, lines, words, figures, code lines, and code comments. The idea was that on every day I did something I could at least look at the data and see how much (also the script automatically adjusted page, line and word count for the appendix which I didn't want to count).

</comment><comment><USER9> Excellent! People writing important papers really should be using Git. When documents are extremely complex, previously removed portions can have pertinence later.

<comment><USER10> This doesn't work particularly well for fields not using LaTeX as their document creation tool.

<comment><USER11> Why is that?

<comment><USER12> I would think the GP means that git works much better if you are creating a document in a non-binary format (of which LaTeX is one example.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is really cool stuff. Reminds me of a stripped down version of notch's live coding sessions for Ludum Dare.

Any reason you chose LaTeX as your content dev language and publishing over something a little "easier" like DocBook XML and Publican (which uses LaTeX as an intermediate build language to create PDFs)? Is it required, what you're used to, or purity of notation?

<comment><AUTHOR> Partly it's what I'm used to, but I've yet to find anything "easier" for the large amount of mathematics I typeset. There is a lot of notation and very little graphics or difficult formatting.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Why am I obsessing over the arrow not quite lining up on the points of time? Until the fourth tick, then following some pattern..

</comment><comment><USER15> While you mention that you are hesitant to release the content of the dissertation prematurely, could you instead release the build tools you used to make your "flatplans"?

It would be a huge help to those of us about to write our dissertations :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> The code is horrible, but it's here: [https://github.com/hds/repo-flatplan- animation](https://github.com/hds/repo-flatplan-animation)

You'll find the JS bits in the repository for the website which is there too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> You could do it in Authorea (Git+LaTeX) and actually show us what you are writing too!

</comment><comment><USER17> That's an excellent solution for big problem in my country (not at PhD level though) namely plagiarism. Make students to use such system, turn autocommit on and you can see their progress and all deviations (big chunks of text appearing from nowhere etc.).

<comment><USER18> once they learn about it nothing will change.</comment></comment>


Amazon Sells Clothes from Factories Other Retailers Shun as Dangerous - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/amazon-sells-clothes-from-factories-other-retailers-shun-as-dangerous-11571845003?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> Amazon didn't join because it would be nearly impossible to police their third-party sellers and their use of these factories.</comment>


Concepts for Your Cognitive Toolkit - <AUTHOR> http://mcntyr.com/52-concepts-cognitive-toolkit/ <comment><USER2> Actually a kind of cool little article. However, a few little errors/improvements I think could improve it:

14\. Time value of money: Its actually the opposite of whats stated. We value money today MORE than money tomorrow, not less. The discount rate is how much more money/return you'd need in the future to compensate.

21\. Bikeshedding phenomenon is not really substituting an easy problem for a hard one: its more a comment on how people will focus on the problems that they are cognitively able to understand. Or more flippantly, the time spent on a problem is directly proportional to its triviality.

32\. Hawthorne effect: This one is close to my heart, because my mother mis- stated this one when I was little. Its that people act different when they are AWARE they are being observed, not just that they act differently when observed.

34\. Flynn effect: I feel its important to recognise the subtlety that the flynn effect is about the observed increase in INTELLIGENCE TEST SCORES over several decades. Indeed, the whole point of learning about the flynn effect is to learn about the ambiguity and controversy between tests, test scores, and general intelligence, and the general investigation into why this apparent increase is happening. I feel to simplify this to "IQ has been increasing" is to miss the entire point/controversy/investigation of the flynn effect.

46\. Cognitive dissonance: Is i think a mis-statement/erroneous. Cognitive dissonance is indeed the uncomfortableness experienced by humans holding conflicting beliefs, but it does not imply that one of the conflicting beliefs have to be discarded. Rather, it is the interesting ways that human beings deal with conflicting beliefs that don't involve discarding them which I think the real-value/most interesting point of the concept of cognitive dissonance.

47\. Coeffcient of determination: Just to save space in this comment, read the wikipedia article if you're into this kind of thing: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coefficient_of_determination). Personally, I'd barely call this a concept...its more of a model specific stats metric really, but i'm not really in the mood to argue it...

<comment><USER3> All good points, thanks. 14\. Yes, that was a mistake, sorry. 32\. Agreed, edited to avoid confusing people. 34\. Agreed and added. 46\. Yeah, one isn't always discarded. For example, humans are pretty good at compartmentalising. 47\. Maybe not a concept, (I'm not one to quibble of definitions - [http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/](http://lesswrong.com/lw/np/disputing_definitions/)) but I feel as though it can be useful. Beyond the formal use, it can be helpful to think about how much variance is explained in a model by any particular attempt. For instance, say someone claims that women are bad at giving directions. Even if on average this is true, gender might only account for a small amount of differences in direction-giving abilities. In this example, you'd want to see some data, but at least it can be instructive to how one might conceptually picture the claim someone is making.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Ahh, these are "mental models". Charlie Munger gave a great speech on the advantages of thinking using mental models and how going through them in a checklist fashion makes into some powerful thinking. Speech here: [https://old.ycombinator.com/munger.html](https://old.ycombinator.com/munger.html)

Also, here's an ebook outling more mental models in case anyone's interested: [http://www.thinkmentalmodels.com/](http://www.thinkmentalmodels.com/)

</comment><comment><USER5> Found the article to be a good summary of a lot of concepts I had encountered on their own, but hadn't seen together in list form before. If you enjoyed this, you might find Daniel Dennett's "Intuition Pumps and Tools for Thinking" interesting [1]. I would highly recommend "The Philosopher's Toolkit: A Compendium of Philosophical Concepts Methods" by Julian Baggini and Peter Fosl as well [2].

\- [1] Link to Talk at Google By Dennett: [https://youtu.be/4Q_mY54hjM0](https://youtu.be/4Q_mY54hjM0)

\- [2] Link to pdf: [http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_10474.pdf](http://www.mohamedrabeea.com/books/book1_10474.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER6> Google cache: [https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mPkna3...](https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:mPkna3e1knAJ:mcntyr.com/52-concepts- cognitive-toolkit/+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us)

</comment><comment><USER7> Biases and heuristics are the same thing.

The banana example for marginal thinking contradicts the expected value text. Expected value really only works that way for things that you expect to keep happening.

The efficient market hypothesis doesn't quite hold in the real world, but it's still a useful heuristic.

The typical mind fallacy is a special case of availability bias.

Aumann's agreement theorem assumes that both agents have the same set of goals and values. This doesn't entirely hold for humans.

Against chesterton's fence, there's also the principle that it's easier to ask forgiveness rather than permission. Or if you don't know what the fence is for, take it down and watch what happens.

I seem to recall hearing that the Hawthorne Effect could just as well be that people are more productive at the beginning of the week. Productivity experiments should not be on a weekly schedule.

<comment><USER8> \- Biases and heuristics are both priors, but they are particular kinds of priors. The former mostly refers to priors which systematically slightly shift our thinking away from the truth and on which we can only counteract by self- reflection. The latter is a prior which we consciously choose which is very rule-like and probably overly general.

\- Aumann's agreement theorem assumes that all actors are perfect Bayesian actors and have plenty of time to talk to each other. Since goals and values are not preprogrammed (unlike needs), it follows that they can update on these things as well, if one party convinces the other one of better goals and values for maintaining/achieving their needs. Unless I'm overlooking something, it must assume that the actors have the same needs.

<comment><USER9> I'm confused with the "goals and "values" terminology, I've never once heard of these terms in this area of research. Aumann's agreement theorem simple: two agents with common priors cannot agree to disagree if their posterior beliefs are common knowledge.

Beliefs are common knowledge if I know that you know that I know .... (and so) on that something is true. This occurs anytime there is trade between two agents, such as in stock markets. If I can see that you can see that this is the price we're trading at, then the traded price is common knowledge.

One of the curious implications of this theorem is that no rational agent in any market would ever agree to trade with another rational agent.

So Aumann's agreement theorem is really a warning against applying game theory to every scenario. Specifically, the common prior assumption limits the usefulness of game theory in real settings. He makes no mention of "goals" or "values", only the assumptions that the priors beliefs of the two agents are the same and their posteriors are common knowledge.

In the context of the article, disagreement means either: 1) one of you is not Bayesian rational or cannot update probabilities properly (bounded rationality) or 2) both of you must have different priors (subjective beliefs).

Both points are likely to be the case in reality, although we dislike the the second point since once we begin to entertain the idea that agents have subjective priors, you can rationalize anything and "anything goes".

<comment><USER8> Needs are what your neural architecture has evolved to optimize (e.g. sustenance, pain avoidance and affiliation). Goals are the preferred states that the brain learns to optimize its needs (via reward). Values are cultural or (fortunately, but also necessarily due to evolution) Schilling point memes which manifest as virtual rewards that mostly enable human cohabit (e.g. you are good if you don't litter the street, i.e. that will increase your chance of future social reward).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think "Algernon's law" and the "Efficient Market Hypothesis" are suspect because they amount to "Just So Stories"[1] about the vastly complicated topics of neurobiology and investing. Limiting the field of inquiry of researchers and specialists in these topic by proclaiming these broad general laws, and thus ignoring possibly useful new technology, theory, or experimental evidence is not rational.

1\. [http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc](http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc)

<comment><USER11> There's a classic joke related to the EMH:

An undergraduate and an economics professor are walking across campus. The undergrad sees a bill on the ground. Getting closer, he sees that it's a $100 bill.

"Professor, there's a $100 bill on the ground there!", he says.

"No there isn't", the professor responds. "If there were really a $100 bill, someone would have picked it up".

<comment><USER12> And the brilliant continuation of this story I once heard:

Everybody always tells this joke to make fun of economics professors who believe in the EMH. But - have you ever _actually_ found a $100 bill lying on the ground? If not, that's the EMH in action :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Aumann's Agreement Theorem is slightly misstated. A better statement would be: if two rational agents disagree _when they both have exactly the same information_ , one of them must be wrong. The qualifier is crucial; very often disagreement is due to differences in information, not failure of rationality. So you should take disagreement seriously _if_ you have reason to believe the other person has significant information that you don't.

<comment><USER9> A better statement would be: if two rational agents share the same prior beliefs and their posterior beliefs are common knowledge, irrespective of what private information they have been exposed to, they cannot rationally agree to disagree.

When are beliefs common knowledge? when both agents can directly observe one another's beliefs. I.e. Bob must know Alice knows that Bob knows that .... ad inifinitum that XYZ is true. Mutually witnessing an event is sufficient for common knowledge.

I feel this is not a useful day-to-day heuristic since the theorem was intended to highlight deficiencies within the Bayesian rational paradigm (specifically the common prior assumption since game theorists weren't ready to abandon rationality in the 70's).

<comment><USER13> _> irrespective of what private information they have been exposed to_

I think this statement is too strong. I can see it being correct if the domain being reasoned about is monotonic (i.e., new information can never change the belief state of a statement once it is established), but most domains of real- world interest are not.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The bikeshed example is also somewhat misstated. In the original (fictional) story from the book _Parkinson 's Law_, the issue is not that people looking at the design of a nuclear plant spend too much time looking at the bike shed design and not enough looking at things like nuclear safety. The issue is that the committee trying to decide whether various projects should be funded at all spends only about two and a half minutes in approving an expenditure of $10 million on a nuclear reactor, but spends about forty-five minutes arguing about the design of a bike shed, with the possible result of saving some $300. (They then spend an hour and a quarter arguing about whether to provide coffee for monthly meetings of the administrative staff, which amounts to a total annual expenditure of $57, and refuse to make a decision at all, directing the secretary to obtain further information so they can decide at the next meeting.)

The point being that "bikeshedding" is not (just) about what parts of a project to pay attention to, but _which projects_ to pay attention to. Spend more time and effort paying attention to projects where there is more value at stake.

</comment><comment><USER14> Am I the only one not finding the connection between the _Anthropic Principle_ and the _Sleeping Beauty problem_ completely obvious?

</comment><comment><USER15> Great list, but I think the Shelling Point one (35) is blurring it with Shelling Fences. The former is (correctly) described as the point that people converge do in the absence of communication; the latter is the need to "hold the line" against proverbial camels that want to keep going further into our tent.

</comment><comment><USER16> They're retracing a lot of the ground explored by Less Wrong. Look up "Rationality from A to Z" for a (long!) series of essays on all the topics that were mentioned.

<comment><USER17> I believe the title is actually "Rationality: From Ai to Zombies", unless you're referring to something else.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for the recommendation! FYI for those interested, the ebook is 4.9* on Amazon. Here's the Amazon link:

[http://smile.amazon.com/Rationality-From-Zombies-Eliezer- Yud...](http://smile.amazon.com/Rationality-From-Zombies-Eliezer-Yudkowsky- ebook/dp/B00ULP6EW2?sa-no-redirect=1)

I bought it and plan on reading it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I am just putting these here for reference:

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

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

</comment><comment><USER20> Most of these are pretty interesting. Algernon's Law, however, is a ridiculous misunderstanding of evolutionary biology.

</comment><comment><USER21> There were some good ones in there that prompted me to follow up with some reading on my own, but for the most part these were quite elementary and unchallenging. I dont quite get all the praise this one got, considering all the more in depth content that gets posted on here?

</comment><comment><USER22> >money today is worth less than money in the future

The marginal utiliity decreases with increase in the money. So if you have less money in the future, the value may increase. This is something faulty, I would say.

</comment><comment><USER23> How do we reconcile "Algernon's Law" with the Flynn effect?

<comment><USER24> The world changes, so we are not really adapting to the same conditions that our ancestors did. Let's go for a fake example.

Imagine that there is a mutation that hands a human 20 points of IQ, but then makes said human extremely near sighted. For most of human evolution, that'd be a terrible call: Being able to see well was far, far more important than those 20 points of IQ: There are diminishing returns, of both eyesight and smarts.

But today, we are smart enough to make bad eyesight be a minor annoyance, as opposed to something crippling than it was 2000 years ago. So if smarts and myopia were to be related genetically, then today we'd be selecting for more nearsighted people, because today, being nearsighted is not a big deal, but the extra smarts are valuable. A change in the world leads to a different optimal tradeoffs. The one difference is that now, it's us selecting ourselves, and using technology to account for our genetical weaknesses: We are a bit ahead of Darwin's finches.

This is what is so amazing of the world today: We have social, behavioral selection mechanisms that work far faster than any external pressures we are facing today. Think of, for instance, of AIDS: For many years, a deadly STD, with no cure and not even treatment. Social adaptation to STDs (monogamy + condoms) and our awareness of the problem made it so that we didn't lose most of the population to it. Without rationality, we'd deal with a disease like that like mosquitos deal with pesticides: A whole lot of them die, but eventually a tiny minority has the right genes that make them resistant, and you get a new population of mosquitos, with different genetics. So by adapting technologically, our evolutionary pressures change completely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Time value of money is how money is worth _more_ (not less) today than it is a year from now, which is why you would have to pay interest to give it to me in the future.

<comment><USER26> True, but don't forget: [http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21/is-the-us-headed-for- negative...](http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/21/is-the-us-headed-for-negative- interest-rates-commentary.html)

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> This is a fantastic article that I highly suggest everyone read! It contains a quick run down of a lot of cognitive tropes which can add a new perspective.

</comment><comment><USER8> I think I would have added "attractor states" and "constraints".

</comment><comment><USER27> Down for me

</comment><comment><USER28> You shouldn't comment asking for people to read. It makes it look like you're gaining something from it.

Though, I will say it's a very in depth article. It's a good share.

<comment><USER29> >It makes it look like you're gaining something from it.

I object to the implicit assumption that "gaining" from sharing valuable content (corrected for conflicts of interests) is immoral or bad.

I would venture forth and suggest that community of developers should strive to increase financial and other "gains" of independent developers to counter centralization of megacorporates.</comment></comment>


Cigarettes Without Smoke, or Regulation - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/02/us/02cigarette.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss <comment><USER3> I have quit smoking for over a year now using these and have been through at least 15 different models. They break easy and as demand has increased, their quality has worsened. One supplier I know who has made a killing selling them says when He first started in business, 10% of his sales would be returned as DOA. Now it is ~40%. He has a 2 week warranty in place on parts but sells them with only a small mark-up(~$50) compared to the mall stores(~$125). They retail for $12-$17 wholesale. When he first started in business, there were under 10 suppliers in the US. A year later there is over a hundred and counting.

There are a couple of legitimate concerns in using e-cigs though most of the scaremongering has been concocted by organisations associated with the pharmaceutical industry who fear these like Saudi Arabia fears lithium-powered cars.

1: Though an ingredient might be classified as FDA approved, it does not mean it is safe to inhale. Recently it was discovered that workers at a popcorn factory were suffering from a deadly lung ailment due to a synthetic flavour that replicates butter which they were inhaling. Some avid consumers of the popcorn have also died due to the disease. One won a $6 million payout posthumously. The chemical remains FDA approved. There is a new e-cig flavour out every other day - from red bull to black tea. No-one knows how these flavours might affect our lungs. One supplier who had his mint flavour tested discovered that it contained methanol. He quickly halted it's sale. Others are not as cautious. I have never seen a list of ingredients on any bottle of e-liquid I own.

2: The main ingredient in the liquid is propylene glycol. This is the same substance that is found in fog machines. It is found in many cosmetics and toothpastes too. PG is generally recommended as safe though its cousin diethylene glycol which acts in the exact same manner, tastes the same though costs far less is deadly. Recently in Nigeria over 80 babies died because a teething formula imported from China which was supposed to contain PG had been substituted with DG. How long before someone wanting to cut corners in China does the same with e-cigs. Hopefully never - but it is a legitimate concern.

Regardless, I do suggest to everyone I meet who smokes to try these. Some are amazed, some laugh. They are not for everyone. I keep a site updated with relevant news at <http://www.e-cignews.com>

<comment><USER4> Hm. I live in Canada, and they are expressly banned: [http://www.hc- sc.gc.ca/ahc-asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2...](http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ahc- asc/media/advisories-avis/_2009/2009_53-eng.php)

<comment><USER3> Yes, Canada, Australia, Hong Kong and Iran have banned them outright. S.Korea consider them a tobacco product and tax them accordingly. Other restrictions apply in some other countries.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Pointless regulation. Full disclosure, a family member has used these to quit. And also broken the law while doing so in the US.

This is regulation by inertia, to insure everyone's safety everything of type X needs very expensive trials and regulations. X happens to be "medical device" whatever that means in this case.

<comment><USER6> I think these devices are definitely a step in the right direction but I am not so sure that regulation of them is _pointless_. Surely at the very least we can agree that all drugs (and e-cigarettes are certainly a drug delivery device) should meet some minimum standards for quality, purity and safety. For example, does the dose of nicotine in a cartridge match what is advertised? Also, it may be worthwhile to restrict the sale of e-cigarettes to adults.

It should be very easy [1] to show that the e-cigarette is as safe or safer than a cigarette. The problem of the fake smoke is easy enough to deal with-- simply manufacture a version that does not include propylene glycol. The fake smoke sounds obnoxious anyway. The whole reason for banning cigarettes in public are the second-hand effects; it seems silly to replicate an aspect of them.

Once the safety issues are worked out it just becomes a morality issue: do we care about cigarettes because they are addictive or because of their public health implications? I would argue that, as a society, we should concern ourselves primarily with the latter. But I wouldn't be surprised if a lot of the push-back is because of the addictive nature of the nicotine.

1\. Generally when you introduce a new drug or device that is similar to an existing product, there is a much lower regulatory bar to cross because the precursor has already gone through the more rigorous demonstration. However, there may be more red tape in this case since the FDA doesn't even have explicit authority to regulate tobacco yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Wow, these are kind of cool. If I could be shown studies that demonstrate that these don't affect health very negatively, I might be willing to give them a try. I think nicotine, like caffeine, can be useful, but its benefits aren't worth the risk of getting cancer from smoking. I have a friend who's never smoked but sometimes uses nicotine patches (cut into small strips - <USER2> they're too strong) for the stimulant effect. I could totally see him using this as an alternative.

<comment><USER8> Some of my coworkers use snus, a kind of chewing tobacco from Sweden. It's supposedly much less likely to cause oral cancers due to its method of preparation, though I'm not sure how thoroughly it has been studied.

I haven't tried it, and find the spitting etc. kind of unpleasant, but it's probably less harmful than smoking. (It's certainly less noxious to others around the user.)

<comment><USER9> The largest study I know of found no increase in oral and lung cancers for snus consumers as compared to nonsmokers who did not use any tobacco.

However, the risk for pancreatic cancer is double that of people who do not use snus.

Source: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17498797> Lighter reading: <http://www.slate.com/id/2170141/fr/flyout>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I don't they they are meant to help you quit. I bought the starter kit from blucigs.com last week. I'm waiting for it to arrive. E-cigs are for people like me who like nicotine a lot, and not for people that want to quit using nicotine.

</comment><comment><USER11> I actually saw an ad for these yesterday and did some research and ended up buying them for my dad. On the other hand Health Canada has already 'banned' E-cigarettes in Canada citing possible nicotine poisoning, and addiction. (<http://tinyurl.com/pqmmnm>)

I decided to buy them anyways because my dad has already been smoking for years and hasn't been able to quit. The only issue is whether they are similar enough to normal cigarettes to act as a replacement.

At the very least these devices will allow smokers the hit they need without consuming a majority of the toxic chemicals normally found in a cigarette. In fact the regulation is almost hypocritical since its hard to imagine how these devices could be as bad as normal cigarettes (maybe plastic, and water turn out to be lethal carcinogens).

One issue I foresee is taxation, these devices as they are now won't replace nicotine patches or gums (theoretically they could incrementally lower the nicotine content over time), but they could replace cigarettes since they mimic a lot of the sensations.

</comment><comment><USER12> I think they're a fantastic idea and should not be impeded by the FDA unless they can actually be proven to be more dangerous than analog cigarettes. Like someone else said -- there are lots of people who don't want to quit smoking but might consider an alternative. (especially if it was cheaper and from the research I've done e-cigarettes can be)

</comment><comment><USER13> I smoke and although I haven't really made an effort to quit yet since I actually enjoy the activity (or act) of smoking rather than the cigarette itself. This is actually the first product (solution) I'd be willing to make an effort towards using in order to quit _smoking_ cigarettes, if not for my wallet but for my health as well.

<comment><USER14> I agree with the act of smoking makes me smoke rather than the cigarette itself. +5 for you on that statement. I enjoy it if me and my friends go out for a few minutes to smoke -- but when I am alone, it makes it less appealing, so sometimes I just forget about smoking all together. But I do crave for a stick after a heavy meal.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> As an ex-smoker I see two preposterous ideas in this e-cigarette:

(a) That if one wishes to shake a drug addiction, they should do so by _using the drug_. Addicted to heroin? Start by doing _a little less heroin!_

(b) That this is somehow "better" than smoking. The only thing better than smoking is _not smoking_. It isn't smoking less or smoking electronic cigarettes. Just _stop smoking_.

Nobody wants to smoke; not even smokers. If you think otherwise you're deluding yourself. The only thing the e-cigarette does is give you two options instead of one: social leper, or weirdo nerd smoking a battery-powered cigarette.

I respect peoples' decisions to smoke and I don't complain to those who do (unlike non-smokers did to me), but come on people. This is just one more addition to a multi-billion dollar industry based on the ability of people to infinitely delude themselves.

<comment><USER16> With regards to b, most of the reasons that people have against smoking have to do with nasty smelling smoke and increased chances of serious health problems from inhaling tobacco smoke, not addiction to nicotine.

Nicotine isn't what's giving people cancer, and nicotine isn't what's causing people to stink of smoke.

Regardless of what you think of addiction, these reasons are why the e-cigarette can be considered "better than smoking".

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> It's not a bad idea, and certainly is the first alternative nicotine product that replicates a lot of the cognitive feedback and sensations that are so intricate to the positively reinforced behaviours of smokers. I've tried a few of these and have been reasonably satisfied with the experience, and during the time that I had them I pretty much was ready to never smoke a real cigarette again. It's not that the experience is comparable to real smoking, and if you expect that it is, you won't like the e-cigs; that's the wrong question to be asking. The real question is whether it's something you can make yourself switch to, not whether it's identical--it's not.

While the damn things worked, that is. The problem is that the cheap, Chinese- made technology breaks down after a few weeks, necessitating a complete replacement (and, of course, waiting for it). The vendors appear to know this: they are happy to send you a replacement unit free of charge and with no questions asked, but they won't answer any questions either. I told them I appreciated their generous warranty policy, but what I really wanted to know was, is there something I'm doing wrong with the thing that's causing the atomiser to overheat and/or stop working? To that, the response was amazingly silent. Apparently, that's just the level of product quality. I've had other problems as well -- e.g., after about a month, the batteries won't hold more than about 5 minutes of charge.

Let's just say the MTBF on these is very, very short.

If they'd actually get that part right, I could see this really taking off, Big Tobacco's efforts to kill it notwithstanding. I know Health New Zealand published a study a while back (you can find it as a footnote off the Wikipedia page about e-cigarettes) declaring that it is free of virtually all of the health hazards of real smoking, and appeared to endorse it publicly (NZ has a high per-capita smoking population).

</comment><comment><USER18> I saw a kiosk at the mall selling these. I didn't stop to take a look, but I've never seen a kiosk at the mall with so many people crowded around it.

</comment><comment><USER19> This will never be popular. Buying e-smokes is admitting defeat -- it's saying that you don't have the willpower to rebel _or_ to quit.

Can you imagine the Marlboro man riding into town to buy batteries for his smokes?

<comment><USER20> To be honest I can't imagine the Marlboro man undergoing chemo for lung cancer. Or standing outside a bar smoking in the cold with all the middle aged office workers.

What I'm trying to say is that he's a pretty two dimensional fictional character. I don't think we bother to fill in any details beyond the few that he signifies: freedom, smoking, epic marketing triumph and whatnot.

<comment><USER19> Exactly! That's probably why people don't sell chemo treatments or smoking regulations by talking about cowboys.

What I'm saying is that people smoke to be someone, and very few people want to be the person who smokes these. I guess if they invest as much in branding as Phillip Morris did, they can change that. But it's probably not worth it.

<comment><USER21> I'm guessing most people smoke because they are addicted to nictone. I can't see the _be someone_ motive extending far beyond 10th grade.

<comment><USER8> It's probably something for people rationalizing their brain's begging for nicotine to latch onto, though. Same with, "...but if I quit smoking, I'll gain weight!"

Like people struggling with alcohol reminding themselves that red wine is good for their heart, as long as they stop after one glass.

<comment><USER21> I don't know. Nicotine is an ugly addiction that I read somewhere is almost as strong as crack. And crackheads don't seem to need any rationalization for what they do other than the high. I think the same mechanism, for most smokers, is at work here, given the power of the habit.

<comment><USER8> Well, part of it is that cigarettes are ubiquitous in many places, and considerably more socially acceptable than crack. I don't smoke, but I know people who have had to completely avoid bars and coffeehouses for months at a time because they associated them with smoking.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: WHy is my computer typing by itself? - <AUTHOR> I have tried anti virus, anti trojan, turned off speech recognition, tryin to disable text to speech narator, seems like almost imposible, it does it online and offline, sometimes i can write like now, other times i can not write at all, what i do is go mad on the keyboard and well loadsa stuff happen, stuff you never knew the comp can do like cool formating and other stuff, anyway, i have no idea what it is and like i really want it to just go away. I though if i try upgrade to vista it may go away but apparently I cant cus my comp does not have enough ram. This has happened to me before, but then it was the speech recognition software, this time I have no idea, I have tried uninstalling all audio drives and software, reinstalling windows xp restoring it also, so, besides the obvious explenation of a ghoast being in my room :P what do you think is it, like what can I do and how may I get rid of narrator.<p>P.S, I aint a pro with computers like, just can find my way around it fine when theres no ghosts lurking haha. And sorry about the awful writing. <comment><USER2> Could just be some fried circuitry. Since it's a laptop, you're kinda in a jam. I had this once when a mouse was going bad. It started phantom-mousing around the screen. See if there's any diagnostic software for your laptop and run all of those scans to see what you come back with.

</comment><comment><USER3> I hate to be that guy, but...

<http://www.ubuntu.com/getubuntu>

</comment><comment><USER4> You may have a stuck key or a fouled up contact layer... happened to me on an older keyboard as well, suddenly I'd get crazy input. A while later somebody fessed up to dropping their drink into my keyboard :(

Try another keyboard, see if it goes away.

<comment><AUTHOR> my laptop isn't that old and it does not write just one leter on an on like ggggggggggggg, although it does do that, it, sometimes it just starts doing thing without touching it at all.

<comment><USER4> On my machine it looked like someone typing weird stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> If the keyboard works fine after you boot from Ubuntu LiveCD(or any other LiveCD really), then the problem might be some deep problem with a really smart Windows rootkit. That said, I haven't heard of such a rootkit which was able to survive a clean reinstall(it is possible as a proof of concept though).

The most likely explanation is a fried keyboard. I used to have the original Microsoft Natural Keyboard that I spilled a drink on, it started doing weird stuff similar to your laptop keyboard afterwards.

</comment><comment><USER6> Perhaps you or someone with access to your machine have enabled a remote desktop server and one of your friends, or enemies, is having his jollies at your expense.

</comment><comment><USER7> If the keyboard doesn't work, Google hijackthis and download it. When you run it, you can click on the items it finds in the report to learn more about what junk is in your trunk, and how to get rid of it....then you can hit up one of the online scanners to make sure your Antivirus didn't get compromised.

<comment><AUTHOR> Have scanned it with housecall (an online anti virus) as well as sophos anti virus

it is working now like, lol, seems all good now, until all the sudden will start going crazy again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe someone like me got ahold of it. I wrote an app that I put on one of my coworkers machines that would start to slowly move the mouse to the right side of the screen if it sat in the same spot for more than 30 seconds.

</comment><comment><USER9> Do you have a wireless keyboard and do you live in close proximity to other people who do? (roommate, dorm, apartment buidling)

<comment><AUTHOR> no, its a laptop, so the keyboard is built in. I reinstalled windows so have not installed the driver for wireless internet, but last time it found a wireless network but that was encrypted.

<comment><USER9> I was referring specifically to a wireless keyboard not wireless internet. I've read stories on the net about a neighbor's keyboard attaching itself to a different computer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Someone else may have gotten hold of your computer, and s/he is trying to drive you nuts.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you reinstalled XP the only remaining common theme would be, well, the keyboard.</comment>


Ask HN: How do I appear more senior in a field dominated by older professionals - <AUTHOR> I am 30 years old working in a field where I am consulting for a SaaS product that is used heavily by Fortune 500 companies.
In my current company, I am the youngest engineer but have a title of senior engineer because of my technical chops.
I made the mistake of recommending process improvements early on when I joined; however, because my recommendations weren't implemented, it created scenarios where engineers had to email code to each other to track changes.
I recently applied and interviewed for another job and the feedback I was given was that the people that I interviewed with liked me but felt like they would want to add another engineer that was more "senior" than me so that they would have a go to person for the product that I consult for.
I feel as though I should make a career change but I want to make improve how people use the SaaS product and try to introduce new ways to automate and add more value for customers that use this product.
My greatest strength is that I can learn new technology very easily and that I try to follow industry best practices  where I can.
I know that I want a change, but not sure if it's better to start over or do something new; has anyone else faced this situation before? <comment><USER2> You can imagine a skill gradation of:

1\. Follow implementation instructions from someone else. I.e. new programmer straight out of school.

2\. Solve problems presented by someone else. They figure out the task, you figure out how to implement it.

3\. Identify problems, and more broadly figure out what to do based on team goals.

Some possibilities:

A. You're in level 2, they wanted level 3. Solution: find a job elsewhere, and meanwhile up your skills (a lot of it is mindset, e.g. [https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/02/11/working-long- hours/](https://codewithoutrules.com/2018/02/11/working-long-hours/))

B. You're level 3, but you presented yourself as a level 2. In this case you want to emphasize (in resume, interviews, etc.) that you are able to identify needs independently. It's a subtle difference, "I solved this problem where company was losing money" vs "I identified that the company was losing money, came up with solution, implemented it."

C. Like B, but you're underrepresented minority and facing (possibly unconscious) bias so you have to work even harder to demonstrate your skill level.

Happy to discuss in more detail off of HN - email me at email@example.com

<comment><AUTHOR> Either B or C... never thought of it that way, pretty interesting breakdown. Thanks for the insight...

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> To start, read this excellent article about what a senior engineer really is:

[https://allarsblog.com/2018/03/16/confessions-of-an- unreal-e...](https://allarsblog.com/2018/03/16/confessions-of-an-unreal- engine-4-engineering-firefighter/)</comment>


PeerTube 1.0: A decentralized video hosting network, based on libre software - <AUTHOR> https://joinpeertube.org/en/? <comment><USER2> Discussions from the last few days:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18204410](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18204410)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18196255](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18196255)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've been doing lots of research on video games and some other niche areas, it's staggering how much information is on YouTube and only on YouTube. There are millions of hours of super high quality user-generated content locked up in videos that can't be (or aren't) indexed properly, all of which are effectively owned and maintained by Google.

The number of alternatives to youtube is approximately zero. No one wants to upload to a new platform because it's a lot of work and you don't get paid for it (once you hit a certain number of YT views you start getting paid and there's real incentive there, you can potentially get relatively wealthy from it).

Perhaps peertube will be the solution, but I suspect we need something groundbreaking to conquer the monopoly here.

<comment><USER4> It's a good point. I'm very interested in plans to allow recouping of network costs. I'm happy to store my videos on my home desktop or in the cloud somewhere; that's inexpensive. But if a million people want to download my videos in 4K someday? I can't afford to pay for that. Those downloaders might be willing to pay a few pennies each, though. An advertising network seems like the obvious but wrong solution. I wonder if there could be some standardized way of generifying payment for videos, so that users could plug in any combination of ad viewing, direct payments, or whatever as desired, so that the ecosystem around getting money out of viewers could develop independently from the ecosystem for providing content.

<comment><USER5> Ever heard about Brave or BAT? [https://github.com/brave](https://github.com/brave)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Good media hosts with all the fixins like CDNs, multiple formats, etc. are much needed on the fediverse.

And iirc this project has been ongoing for at least a year, maybe more than two, so this isn't a rushed 1.0. Kudos for the persistence and contribution.

Another win for ActivityPub!

<comment><USER7> I don't think it's possible due to issue #1229. I know I shouldn't judge a project by it's closed issues but honestly I think the issue closure here has branded PeerTube as forever small fry in my mind

[https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/1229](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/issues/1229)

<comment><USER8> Chocobozzz didn't say that PeerTube _will never_ support load balancing, just that -- for the issue you linked -- _load balancing the transcoding engine_ is not a priority for the core dev team/doesn't promote their top-line goals of decentralization.

I'm sure they'd accept a well-written PR.

<comment><USER7> For context

> Sorry but peertube does not support load balancing. If you plan to have many > users, you should consider creating different instances (to promote > decentralization).

How I read this, whether correctly or not, was that it's suggested you set up an entirely new server, new database, new domain, new storage (cluster?), etc instead of being able to grow out your one instance. So now any new users need to register and upload to server2.example.com because of "because decentralisation"

It's just not feasible for the mainstream.

Please do correct me if I'm interpreting incorrectly

<comment><USER8> > How I read this, whether correctly or not, was that it's suggested you set > up an entirely new server, new database, new domain, new storage (cluster?), > etc instead of being able to grow out your one instance.

I could see that interpretation. Personally, I read that as "if you need to load balance transcoding, that code won't be done by the core team (right now)". You can already use whatever Postgres/Redis/nginx setup you want, cluster/load-balance those how you desire, etc. Load balancing _the transcoding engine_ for new uploads is simply a different beast.

> So now any new users need to register and upload to server2.example.com > because of "because decentralisation"

The only scenario in which load balancing transcoding changes anything is if 1) a user is uploading videos to a specific instance and 2) that instance is busy transcoding videos that were uploaded previously. So if a user uploads a video to an instance where all the transcoding threads are already busy, it wouldn't be available until a thread freed up to transcode it.

> Please do correct me if I'm interpreting incorrectly

FWIW I'm not trying to put words in Chocobozzz's mouth, just my interpretation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> So close, but ug [0]. A worthy effort (one I might pursue myself) is a self contained binary (or installer if I have to) that runs on Windows, daemonizes/service-izes itself w/ built in web server, dyn DNS's itself or other NAT punch approach, etc.

A laudable first step to be sure, but to decentralize we need to target desktops. Many have them at home and are willing to leave them on all day, especially content creators. And it needs to be as easy to setup and non- desktop-invasive as possible. So sqlite instead of postgres? In mem instead of redis? Built-in web server instead of nginx? Windows instead of not-Windows? UI instead of a bunch of scripts? Bandwidth concerns, now we can talk about the value of BT or similar, but lots of content has few enough users to leverage a home connection.

Or we can meet in the middle, find a quality hosting reseller, and have a UI that internally deploys containers/content for them for a couple bucks a month.

0 - [https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/...](https://github.com/Chocobozzz/PeerTube/blob/develop/support/doc/production.md)

<comment><USER10> An omnibus Docker container is preferable, and could even be run from always- on home gateways and NAS devices instead of transient desktops.

Targeting desktops natively (and the development effort required) would be a bucket of sadness, and IMHO, a waste of time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I like this project in it's concept, but I could never get the server to run properly.

I also have problems with the fact that the IPs of the watchers are publicly shared due to the nature of the beast (p2p sharing). I'd like something like this but where I could give the users the option of running directly off my server or p2p. Perhaps this is even possible and that I have not seen it yet.

It would be awesome if I could run my own "pod" with my let's plays and have it federated throughout the network. Currently I use google but without any form of monetisation as it's a hobby and I don't want to burden people with adds.

Knowing google though they probably show adds themselvs and/or penalise me in the search for not having the on.

</comment><comment><USER12> With YouTube I have noticed more and more videos require "age verification" which means forced log in. Just turns me off to be honest. Because first of all, anyone can create an email address and sign up, including my teen kid. So no it is not an age verification but a tracking system. If I am at my moms or a friends and using YouTube I don't want to sign into their potentially compromised pc with my credentials(sadly no yubikey at this time). Plus my password is like 20 long and random generated so I have no chance of remembering it. So I get to these videos and I am blocked from watching it without putting in an effort so I clearly can be tracked. I wait for the day people ditch YouTube for peer tube and the few videos I have in mind to future create, will be straight to peer tube not YouTube. My motivations are to share my knowledge not make any money from it.

<comment><USER13>
        anyone can create an email address and sign up
        including my teen kid

        my password is like 20 long and random generated
        so I have no chance of remembering it.

Solution: Ask your kid to set up a throwaway account for you. With an easy to remember password.

<comment><USER12> That does not address the tracking I have a problem with so not exactly a solution. Every time I use that throw away account on any pc I become connected forever to that pc in many data points. Youtube is getting plenty of data even if I use a throw away account. I would need to make a new throw away account, from a different ip address each time I wanted to do as you describe to avoid tracking so sometimes I just don't bother with the video.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I prefer the DTube approach personally.

It instead uses the Steem blockchain for text content so it doesn't have the issue that ActivityPub or other federation protocols have where it needs to bootstrap to the largest instances, which is in effect partial centralisation.

Blockchain use also means that server costs are passively paid for due to block rewards which makes it scalable. Lastly content creators can get paid directly via cryptocurrency so it encourages much more content creation.

</comment><comment><USER15> I was hopeful for something more normal user manageable, an .exe would've be nice :/

</comment><comment><USER16> How do you search across all those instances?

<comment><USER8> IIRC You can search from any instance that's well-peered: [https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances](https://instances.joinpeertube.org/instances)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> So what does this do that bitchute.com or d.tube doesn't do?

</comment><comment><USER18> Is this going to be the new youtube for piracy?

<comment><USER8> Piracy, or other objectionable content, is not exclusive to P2P platforms. YouTube has moderation features and so does PeerTube. From the FAQ:

      Being free doesn't mean being above the law! Each PeerTube hosting provider can decide on its own general conditions of use, abiding by their local laws.

      For example, in France, discriminatory content is prohibited and may be reported to the authorities. PeerTube allows users to report problematic videos, and each administrator must then apply its moderation in accordance with its terms and conditions and the law.

      The federation system, for its part, allows hosts to decide with whom they want to connect, depending on the types of content or the moderation policies of others.</comment></comment>