The Ugliest C Feature: tgmath.h - <AUTHOR> https://web.archive.org/web/20131205042841/http://carolina.mff.cuni.cz/~trmac/blog/2005/the-ugliest-c-feature-tgmathh/ <comment><USER2> The ternary operator is indeed special as it (is the only one AFAIK that) introduces in the language some type constraints between the two result branches, that affect the way one or the other is interpreted.

A similar trick in C++ is explained on [https://www.artima.com/cppsource/foreach2.html](https://www.artima.com/cppsource/foreach2.html) and allows to return the type of an expression _without evaluating it_.

From the link:

> You may be thinking this is needlessly convoluted. After all, couldn't we > just use encode_type(container) without the conditional operator and get the > same result? No, because that would have caused container to be evaluated. > With the conditional operator, only one branch of the condition is ever > executed. In this case, since the condition is always true, the first branch > will always be taken. The second branch is "dead code"—it will never > execute—yet it extends a ghostly finger into the land of the living and > exerts its influence on the conditional expression's type. Spooky!

<comment><USER3> Qt apparently does something similar to implement Q_FOREACH: [https://stackoverflow.com/a/10522384/5230900](https://stackoverflow.com/a/10522384/5230900)

<comment><USER4> That was pre-c++11. Now using C++11, it is much simpler (using 'auto'). And the C++17 version is even simpler

[https://code.woboq.org/qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/global/qglobal...](https://code.woboq.org/qt5/qtbase/src/corelib/global/qglobal.h.html#1085-1107)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> With apologies to Philip Greenspun:

Any sufficiently complicated C program contains an ad-hoc, informally- specified, bug-ridden, slow implementation of half of C++.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but the C++ STL is to code as this [1] is to knives.

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Wenger-16999-Swiss-Knife- Giant/dp/B00...](https://www.amazon.com/Wenger-16999-Swiss-Knife- Giant/dp/B001DZTJRQ).

<comment><USER7> For the low low price of $9999.99.

Is that the maximum you can charge on Amazon? Seems strange that they'd want to put a limit on it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I always thought it was setjmp.

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

<comment><USER3> setjmp isn't really that ugly, IMO.

<comment><USER9> Yeah, low level and rare isn't the same as "bizarrely ripped from the design of another language"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> C11 obscoleted this with the _Generic macro

<comment><USER11> C11 doesn't obsolete it, right? It only permits it to be implemented portably.

For the curious, here's an implementation of tgmath.h on top of _Generic:

[https://github.com/NuxiNL/cloudlibc/blob/master/src/include/...](https://github.com/NuxiNL/cloudlibc/blob/master/src/include/tgmath.h)

<comment><USER12> Far from obsolete.. more is coming :)

'Add type generic interfaces for string functions to the C library, see N2068' has been mentioned as a possible C2x addition [https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/](https://gustedt.wordpress.com/2018/11/12/c2x/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> (2005)

Discussed in 2011: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392728](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3392728)

</comment><comment><USER14> Has C jumped the shark?

</comment><comment><USER4> ... and this is why I will never touch C++ and stay with simple C.

(Ah no..., wrong thread. This is actually about C. /s)</comment>


Awesome TUIs: List of projects that provide terminal user interfaces - <AUTHOR> https://gitlab.com/jgarr/awesome-TUIs/blob/master/README.md <comment><USER2> Funnily enough, includes at least one webapp?! Guess that happens if you try to quickly fill a list.</comment>


Wuala out of business? - <AUTHOR>

I've just received an email as a customer of theri service that says you cannot buy new storage as of today. Also by the 15th of Nov.2015 all data stored will be deleted.
I guess I saw it coming as I was aware there was no advertising and not much sales/promotion and dynamics from them...
:-( it's a shame... now I have to find another secure provider and vet it and install all the clients in all my devices etc.
Even in the cloud era a "simple" service failing can be a major pain, hey? ;)
any news out there on this? thanks <comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.wuala.com/](https://www.wuala.com/)</comment>


Trump tests Twitter policies with Iran threats - <AUTHOR> https://thehill.com/policy/technology/477046-trump-tests-twitter-policies-with-iran-threats <comment><USER2> It's clear that Twitter's position on this is becoming increasingly untenable. If Trump bombs Iran in an act that was is war crime he described on Twitter how can they not be liable? Time to shut Donny down for a few weeks as a lesson.

<comment><USER3> Do you mean "liable" in a legal sense? If so, liable for what crime?</comment></comment>


The Design and Engineering of Curiosity: How the radioisotope power system works - <AUTHOR> http://www.planetary.org/blogs/emily-lakdawalla/2018/0514-book-excerpt-curiosity-mmrtg.html <comment><USER2> The company I work at explosively welded the material for the end caps on the MMRGT. It was sourced through a contractor so we did not know the application until a reporter called to verify that our parts were on mars!

<comment><USER3> What is explosive welding?

<comment><USER4> It's exactly what it sounds like... using explosives to bond two metals together. I don't know much about it other than in passing though, so I can't speculate what the parent's application was. I think it's most commonly done to clad a thin layer of one metal onto a thicker substrate, so probably something related to that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a great book, by the way -- surprisingly technical and thorough. I preordered it thinking I was getting a coffee-table book full of glossy photos and not much else, and was (pleasantly) surprised to be wrong.</comment>


Pullin' a Rabbit out of a Black Hat - <AUTHOR> https://www.privateinternetaccess.com/blog/2012/03/pullin-a-rabbit-out-of-a-black-hat/

<comment><USER2> Could I float a proposal that all bitcoin-related articles be indicated as such, in the title or link domain?

<comment><USER3> Do we need to mark all CSS related articles as such in the title or link domain? No. For bitcoin, I do not use them, but the social and legal implications of a money or a way to transfer money between two parties without the ability for a centralized organisation to control this transfer are enormous. Just because of this, I like to read about bitcoins on a regular basis.

At the moment, I guess, we have maybe 1 or 2 articles a week making the front- page, fairly acceptable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Wallet encryption only goes so far. For a start it's probably in main memory when the program is running, secondly you need to put the key in every time you start the bitcoind, how many lazy admins put the key in the startup script?

</comment><comment><USER5> Encrypt your wallet.dat with the most recent updates of the satoshi client.

<comment><AUTHOR> It's quite simple enough for an intruder to install a keylogger to obtain your wallet.dat password. Further, the intruder could easily modify your send- addresses and have you send Bitcoins to him unknowingly. Some sort of secured 2-factor authentication definitely needs to be implemented moving forward.</comment></comment>


Pharrell Williams: $7.3M Blurred Lines verdict threatens all artists - <AUTHOR> http://www.theverge.com/2015/3/20/8262343/blurred-lines-copyright-verdict-williams-creativity <comment><USER2> OK, I just listed to both.

They are not similar enough. I'd say that sure, there was clearly some inspiration, as with all art. Sometimes there is more sometimes there is less, sometimes the inspiration is obvious.

This lawsuit definitely does set a dangerous and unfortunate precedent. Can't say I'm surprised about it. :(

<comment><USER3> Worked for years in music biz -- saw numerous cases of this level of "copying" \-- the groove, a similar bass line etc -- this was never, ever enough to sue much less win.

The standard in my mind for actual musical theft is George Harrison's "My Sweet Lord" vs Spector's "He's So Fine" \-- a clear rip-off, chords, melody, both verse and chorus. But Lines vs Gaye, it's just not enough.

The jury must be tone deaf.

<comment><USER4> People __hate__ the song. Since it came out feminists have attacked it as a "date-rape anthem"[0] and Robin Thicke has become the poster boy for everything wrong with world.

It would be a pretty big coincidence if this copyright case and the level of hate the song has received have nothing to do with each other. The feminists I know are giddy about this.

[0] - I heard that, looked up the lyrics and immediately dismissed it.

<comment><USER4> You could at least explain why you're downvoting? Is it

      * Suggesting this is a fishy case of copyright infringement?
      * Pointing out a powerful political group has been attacking the song since it came out?
      * Disagreeing with their half-baked critique of the song?
      * Or maybe because I noticed that they're now celebrating the verdict?

This is a discussion board after all.

<comment><USER5> Probably because it's speculation with no tangible proof behind it, and not even a plausible mechanism for the connection. Is the judge a militant feminist or something? How would these two things even relate to each other?

<comment><USER4> _Now_ we need tangible proof? _Now_ somebody speculating on the internet is unacceptable?

When Robin Thicke was attacked for penning a "date-rape anthem" were you the voice of reason in that conversation encouraging people to actually look up the lyrics and act like adults?

Yeah, I'm looking for a reason this verdict came out because the case for actual copyright infringement is really weak. [http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines- cop...](http://flavorwire.com/508795/heres-why-the-blurred-lines-copyright- decision-is-wrong)

Related, do you think the public perception of 2 Live Crew had nothing to do with them losing their case and having to go all the way to the Supreme Court[0]? Justice isn't blind, the law generally doesn't favor pariahs and social outcasts. All it would take to turn the jury against Thicke would be one or two jurors who halfway through the trial remembered it's "that date- rapey song". I don't think that's very far-fetched.

I have no idea what the judge's personal politics are beyond knowing that Obama appointed him which means he probably leans left. Overall it's been a pretty weird case[1].

[0] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff- Rose_Music,_I...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campbell_v._Acuff- Rose_Music,_Inc). [1] - [http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin- gaye-s...](http://www.nydailynews.com/entertainment/music/marvin-gaye-song- trial-judge-article-1.2095786)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Another good case why inheritance should simply not exist beyond some practical level.

You die, your live's work should become public domain, meaning, no one can use it and pervert it or change it or use it for profit, but it should not be controllable or some "estate", i.e., your parasitic children and dependents, start suing to extract even more undeserved, unearned, and unwarranted wealth.

<comment><USER7> This is an overly extreme opinion. We are not simply born in isolation - totally separate beings from one another. It's in our nature to perpetuate society as we see fit and that is not only through actions as we live but also through your progeny - whether they're students or children.

Perhaps you wish to see the world become less dependent on fossil fuels and you've spent your life building a business and cultural following in green tech. You've shared your opinions on why it's so important with students, twitter followers, employees, as well as your children. Why is it not your prerogative to give those you trust the ability to continue your work?

Obviously there are people who don't leave behind progressive and innovative marks on the world, but perhaps they just want the world to be a little bit less dumb and they believe their children are moving the world in that direction (which I think most parents believe of their children). Why can't them give them every advantage they wish to?

Not all children are parasitic and their wealth isn't unearned. It was earned by their parents and rather than shuffling it into a fund for the "public good" they can choose to leave it to their children. The public (including you and I) are just as undeserving of Marvin Gaye's wealth and intellectual property as his children.

On the other hand, these songs don't sound that similar to me and this lawsuit is bullshit.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. Also, it's important to provide incentive for people to work hard and make good financial decisions even after they are set up for life.

If, once you had your retirement set, you could only pass a small percentage of your income on to your friends and family (IANAL... and charities?), then why keep working? What about the people making valuable contributions to society: inventors, doctors, entrepreneurs, etc? Doesn't society have an interest in encouraging them to work past having $X million in their bank accounts?

<comment><USER9> It is possible to give away money before you die.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think many people know that this ruling is not some test-case that will unleash a wave of lawsuits.

People have been successfully sued for less than this, many times before...

[http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom- petty-...](http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/sam-smith--tom-petty- settlement-20150126)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Musical_plagiarism#Cases)

<comment><USER11> To me, the Sam Smith "Won't Back Down" case was much more straight-forward: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qkcZV97O3pw)

But that's a very simple chord progression with common vocal hits, whereas this case seems to hinge on a very distinctive bass line and percussive style.

<comment><USER12> Much more straight-forward. Much closer to being the same thing.

Would still have been pretty ridiculous if a verdict had been made that this counted as copyright infringement. (They settled it amicably)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> The situation surrounding "Blurred Lines" gives me a feeling of crushing sadness. It seems, to me, that the legacy of perpetual copyright (and the death of the public domain, as a result) will be a future in which the creation of new art is discouraged for fear of attracting the litigious attention of the zombie estates of dead artists or the corporate "owners" of the rights of prior works.

<comment><USER14> Creation of legitimate new art through the "proper" channels, as opposed to back-alley off-the-radar art where artists get compensated by the goodwill of an audience.

As we've seen with the growth of media content on the web, creators gonna create. Whether compensation for one's creation is something shared among many creators fairly in the light of day or consolidated in the hands of a few (while the rest scrape at charity) is really the question that this sort of legal decision raises.

<comment><USER13> It's not so much lack of compensation that seems chilling to me, as it is the prospect of the work of my creative expression being snuffed-out. Granted, I've never had any major creative ambitions (certainly nothing I tried to seek compensation from), but these types of verdicts come up in my mind whenever I think about personal creative expression. Were I compelled more strongly to create art perhaps I'd be less concerned, but my thoughts turn first toward personal liability when I think about sharing any of the photos or music that I've created with others.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Yeah, yeah, same old, same old.

If it's not "Look! Pirates! We're all going to die!!! We need to strengthen copyright NOW!"

Then it's: "Ouch! I lost a copyright lawsuit! We're all going to die!!! WHO is responsible for this insanity?"

<comment><USER16> Not all same old!

Same old = copyright laws are broken

New = this decision makes it even further broken

<comment><USER15> Same old = copyright laws are getting more and more broken

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Listen for yourself:

[https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY](https://youtu.be/ziz9HW2ZmmY)

<comment><USER18> Interesting. The basic percussive, vocal and guitar riffs are clearly based off the original, though the modern version is more polished and better packaged. The lyrics are definitely different between the two, changing the meaning and full structure of the song.

I'm not sure this justifies a copyright infringement, particularly in the era of remixes. If we can legally use actual samples of another song to build your own, why is a re-imagining which builds upon and modifies the original illegal?

<comment><USER19> From my understanding none of those things were used in the comparison nor any samples actually used. It was that the new song "sounds like" the old song is the criticism. Which could be expanded to mean the person who created a genre of music owns it.

If a musician can be sued for being inspired by another, then dark times are ahead for all musicians.

"What was your inspiration for this song?" "No comment."

<comment><USER14> Agreed.

It's worth remembering that nobody knows the original composer of the "Superman" theme. While John Williams is credited with arranging the cinematic version, his arrangement was based on the television show theme. That theme was purchased _sans-crédit_ from a French artist via a system intentionally architected to leverage the at-the-time gaps in international law to minimize Hollywood's cost burden for music scores.

To maintain this protection, they intentionally did not track the pedigree of the theme. This is a loss for history.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Imaginary property rights strike again!

</comment><comment><USER21> The real travesty of the blurred lines case is that data science was not used, from what I gather, at any point. At a minimum, the two tracks could have been compared as to quantifiable similarity using any number of methods. EchoNest, and other recommendation approaches, convolutional neural nets, etc.

The lack of computational methods to abstract and describe the material on either side is particularly bizarre considering the judge's decision to preclude original song material from being played by the Gaye family. I'm convinced that science, rather than expert insider testimony that culminated in a courtroom live-performance jam, could have prevailed.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I think this is stupid. "Feelings" aren't copyrightble.

<comment><USER22> Let's step back a little. The story is clearly written to trigger outrage -- really, meant to trigger your precise response. So, let's spend a google seeing if there are elements of this story that were left out due to not fitting the narrative (note: this isn't to say the decision wasn't stupid, or that you are wrong in any factual sense).

Okay, so first that that pops up is that the children of Marvin Gaye were the ones being sued. It's also revealed that Williams describes the issue in such a way that makes it sound like he wrote Blurred Lines in an hour while this Marvin Gaye song was playing in the room (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).

Now, surely this is enough to have us step back and be slightly more circumspect about this -- whatever the facts are, they are neither simple nor provided in the article. Honestly, I'd wait for a legal analysis. Lawyers are not so exceedingly stupid as to think feelings are copyrightable, and neither is the judge who issued the fines.

<comment><USER12> > (just to be clear, for a typical length pop song, writing it in an hour is > _remarkably, exceptionally fast_).

I think you'd find that the vast majority of pop hits are written fairly quickly. Yes producing, recording, finishing a pop song, adding everything that makes a pop song.. pop... can take a long time. But the actual writing is literally just

1\. Get an idea

2\. put it into the standard pop song structure

Especially for someone like Pharrell who has probably written a hundred songs or so.

It's by no means _remarkably, exceptionally fast_.

Edit:

Look at the way Notch writes code. Yes okay, we could call it remarkably fast. But he does it consistently. It's not a surprise when he finishes a game during a game jam.

Just as I do not find it surprising that one of the most accomplished songwriters of his generation writes a song in an hour

<comment><USER23> Sia supposedly wrote Rihanna's Diamonds in 14 minutes.

<comment><USER12> also Nickelback - How You Remind Me was written in 15

<comment><USER22> Okay, at some point this counts as improvised. We're talking about lyrics, percussion, bass guitar and other instruments (at least in the case of Blurred Lines, where the writing of the lyrics and instrumental tracks were what was in question). Assuming you have only two hands/ears with which to write/play with the sound of, that's writing at nearly 1/2 the speed it is performed (and could be considered near-live writing if you aren't da Vinci'ing it).

<comment><USER12> He doesn't write the chorus four times :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I know alot of people hate "THE MAN" and this is opportunity to do so but you all sound like this to me:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=29wNCH4RBrk)

These songs are very extremely similar. There is a fine line between being influenced and covering(or sampling) music. I think this song crosses that line. People get sued all the time for sampling without clearing the sample. To essentially copy distinct percussion and rhythms and keyboard rhythm and melody would definitely fall under infringement in my eyes since as any producers would tell you those elements drive the entire song. Even how the song starts with open percussion elements is the same. Its almost like the Mcdonalds vs Mcdowells absurd argument and just a clever way to steal ideas without paying tribute to the individuals who originated and copyrighted those ideas.

</comment><comment><USER25> Everything is cyclical, including people filing suit or otherwise causing problems for those accused of being a copycat.

</comment><comment><USER26> _Cough_ Bullshit _cough_

There is a really big difference between taking "inspiration" from an artist's style or a certain song's sound versus sitting down, listening to a song, and writing one in the same tempo that hits the same cues just by fiddling with the scale a little bit. Pharell is totally trying to argue a different point than what the lawsuit was about, and he's goat roping as many other things in as he can to try and save face. It's absolutely laughable for him to say "This is about protecting the intellectual rights of people who have ideas" when he just lost a lawsuit based on taking something from another artist.

Look, I'm all for revising the copyright laws on the books, cleaning up some of the issues regarding sampling, and eventually modernizing the commercial avenue by which musicians and other artists like cinema professionals make their money. Genuinely, I want to see things change for the better, not constantly be lobbied and pushed the wrong direction by monied interests (Disney) or legacy inheritors of material. The system is messed up, and I get that, which is why I've avoided the "traditional" system and held on to my rights through Copyright or Creative Commons for years and years and years and have no plans to change that.

Pharrell had his chance ON THE STAND to make his case, and the jury didn't buy it. The jury didn't listen to the recordings and render a verdict about the "sound" or "inspiration" of the tune. The jury listened to the notes being played based on the sheet music, and ruled that it was a ripoff. Why? Because it was a ripoff. Pharrell got busted and now he's doing damage control PR.

Besides, the music industry has ALWAYS been tied up with lawsuits...which is why people use caution when clearing samples (ex: Lemon Jelly), negotiating songwriting credits before/after the fact (ex: Sam Smtih), or defending sync rights when somebody is clearly trying to abuse the system (ex: GoldiBlox vs. Beastie Boys).

Oh, and don't forget the most typical lawsuits in the music business: artists suing the big labels for screwing them out of money:

[http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal- prepari...](http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/universal-preparing-to- settle-digital-royalty-class-actions/)

Not that many who sympathise with Pharrell will give this the time of day, but I do think the Gaye family's public statement is a very coherent explanation and should be held up for comparison purposes:

[http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter- from-...](http://www.completemusicupdate.com/article/open-letter-from-family- gaye/)

</comment><comment><USER27> Think of a song as something that can be distilled down to a formula. That formula is the 'essence' of the song -- the "groove" for lack of a better term.

Williams' song basically adapted 'the groove'. If I was on that jury I would have probably voted the same way. Inspiration is one thing but adaptation is another.</comment>


Bézier Clock - <AUTHOR> http://jackf.net/bezier-clock/ <comment><USER2> Excellent.

It looks like it uses linear interpolation between the different glyphs, which makes it look a bit jerky. The author might want to try a sinusoidal interpolation so that velocity reaches zero at the key frames and the whole thing thus spends more time dwelling on the legible parts of the animation and looks smoother.

<comment><USER3> One trick I've noticed to make animations/transitions "snappier" and more natural is to use quadratic/square (power of 2) scaling. For fun I did it on this clock just saving it locally - you can do it by modifying line 140 of `bezier_clock.pde` to square the ratio instead of simply assign it:

        animationRatio = ratio * ratio;  // can also replace with sqrt(ratio)

Again, just makes it a little bit 'snappier' ( _remember you have to hit spacebar to turn on continual animation_ ), and scales it so you can determine the numbers a bit more clear earlier in the cycle because of the scaling on (0.0, 1.0]. This is certainly a fun piece of code to play with.

<comment><AUTHOR> I've updated it with quad, cubic and sinusoidal modes. They all look good. Only problem is that because it's no longer linear, the various points can change at different rates and thus create 'kinks' in the curve. When it's linear, the 'line points' and the associated 'control points' are always in a line locally tangential to the curve (don't know the proper terminology but hopefully you understand).

<comment><USER2> That shouldn't happen if you do the motion transform uniformly on all axes. It should just be equivalent to changing the speed of time, rather than actually changing the trajectories.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Hi all, I'm the author. Thanks for all the feedback - really good to hear you like the clock. I've added some more animation easings as per your suggestions. To clarify: when continual animation is off, each digit only animates for a specified amount of time. I set this at 20 seconds for all but the 'seconds' digits, which animate continually. I thought this looked cooler and they're inessential to reading the time. I'll try and port it to Apple watch / Android wear when they release their proper watch face SDKs.

</comment><comment><USER4> My crappy addition to clocks: [http://myoldclock.appspot.com/](http://myoldclock.appspot.com/)

Did it in about 12 hours for a Google I/O competition 3 years ago. It's a countdown clock instead of a normal clock, but similar idea.

<comment><USER5> Another entry in the "weird clocks" thread: [http://sandbox.mikepurvis.com/js/clock/](http://sandbox.mikepurvis.com/js/clock/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, that's awesome. Reminds me of Timely Alarm Clock[1] which I use every day and still tout as probably the single most beautiful Android app ever.

However, for this Bézier clock, it would be more practical if the animation was finished before it had to change again, so that we could read the numbers.

[1]: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.bitspin.tim...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.bitspin.timely&hl=en)

<comment> vhost- I _love_ timely. It's the first app I install if I ever need to reinstall my Android OS.

So pretty.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Looks awesome, but tens of seconds need to morph faster. By the time 4 is clearly formed and visible seconds read 48. While continuous motion is aesthetic, it is hard to tell time.

<comment><USER8> The 4 actually becomes its true form at 40 (read the text below the clock), so what you were seeing was not 48 but rather 38.

<comment><USER9> Yes. Perhaps hitting the optimum form at 45 would be ideal. So 4 would start becoming clearer at 40 and then start degenerating after 45.

<comment><USER10> Or change the motion curve so that it stays in the recognizable state for longer, like 90% of the time.

<comment><USER11> I'd suggest capping the animation duration. 90% of 10 hours still leaves an hour for the animation.

If you've got an extended clock (days, months, years, centuries, millennia), morphing could take a while.

<comment><AUTHOR> Currently the animations all last at most 20 seconds, irrespective of the transition duration.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I propose a new sport: Bezier clock golf, in which we try to construct a readable clock using the fewest number of control points. Current par is 5.

<comment><USER13> cool challenge, but how do you do less than 5 bezier points for the numeral 8?

<comment><USER14> Actually you just need 2 for creating an 8 if it's a closed spline. 3 If open.

<comment><USER12> Seems like open is a requirement, since not all the numerals are closed and I'm not sure how one would morph between open and closed spines. Playing around here ([http://www.victoriakirst.com/beziertool/](http://www.victoriakirst.com/beziertool/) anyone know a similar tool that has bookmarkable results so we can share work?) I'm thinking three control points should be achievable (haven't found a way to make a nice looking 4 yet, but most other numerals aren't that hard to pull off).

<comment><USER14> Here is a quick upload of all the numbers (0-9) built with only 3 points. Sorry about not animating them... didn't have time. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yddpzyQoy_0&feature=youtu.be](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yddpzyQoy_0&feature=youtu.be)

<comment><USER12> Nice. Seems unlikely we could get it down to 2 points as numerals like 3 seem to require two distinct curves, but perhaps someone will try?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Hello!! I created something extremely similar and fully scriptable/configurable several years ago:

[http://www.animaclock.com/](http://www.animaclock.com/)

[http://www.animaclock.com/viewfont?font=anifont4_bez&clean=1...](http://www.animaclock.com/viewfont?font=anifont4_bez&clean=1&_mag=1.5)

[http://www.animaclock.com/viewfont?font=mrcl_kk_ghost&clean=...](http://www.animaclock.com/viewfont?font=mrcl_kk_ghost&clean=1&_mag=1.5)

</comment><comment><USER16> Nice animation. Something similar is JWZ's dali clock: [http://www.jwz.org/xdaliclock/](http://www.jwz.org/xdaliclock/)

<comment><USER17> I sure do remember that being a lot more awesome at the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Fun. I'd say you should have every number at x/60 or whatever of the way between first and next state, including hour and such, but that would probably just result in a bunch of unrecognizable squiggles.

edit: oops, RTFM devin

<comment><USER19> Seems like you can toggle that by hitting space.

Edit: oops, three of us got here at the same time

<comment><USER20> How do you do that on an iPhone?

<comment><USER21> Use it to buy a laptop.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Doesn't work unless cookies / local storage is enabled:

Uncaught SecurityError: Failed to read the 'localStorage' property from 'Window': Access is denied for this document. processing.js:9503

Not sure why processing.js needs local storage to work.

</comment><comment><USER23> Processing is absolutely wonderful. Be sure to check out p5.js as well [1], which has hooks into various HTML5 APIs including video and sound.

[1]: [http://p5js.org/](http://p5js.org/)

</comment><comment><USER24> The graphics are excellent.

I'm curious about the code organization: it seems that processing.js contains both the application code for the clock as well as the libraries for interpreting the Processing code. Is that true? Is that the best organization? Would it not be better to have have a processing.js which is the interpreter/libraries and a bezier_clock.js?

<comment><USER25> Per the Processing.js site, you include the processing.js file and then set an attribute on the canvas showing where to get the PDE file (your code). In this case they set it to: data-processing-sources="bezier_clock.pde"

Making the sources to the clock available here: [http://jackf.net/bezier- clock/bezier_clock.pde](http://jackf.net/bezier-clock/bezier_clock.pde)

<comment><USER24> Ah! I see now. Thank you very much for explaining that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Right now jwz is slapping his own forehead going "bezier curves! Of course! Why didn't I think of that?"

</comment><comment><USER27> Cute, but I would prefer if the tweening were adjusted to dwell longer on the numbers when less distorted.

</comment><comment><USER28> Pretty Cool! I wonder if it's possible / how hard it would be to port to Pebble.

<comment><USER29> probably not that hard, but the resolution is pretty low.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Reminds me of the animation on the numbers in Timely[0]

[0]: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.bitspin.tim...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.bitspin.timely&hl=en_GB)

</comment><comment><USER31> It would be fun to have it on phones. Can you make an Android app? ;-)

<comment><USER23> You could do it! Wrap an HTML file into a WebView Activity. The Android portion is pretty much:

        public class MyWebViewActivity extends Activity {
          @Override
          protected void onCreate(Bundle savedInstanceState) {
            super.onCreate(savedInstanceState);
            WebView webView = new WebView(this);
            setContentView(webView);
            webView.getSettings().setJavaScriptEnabled(true);
            webView.loadUrl("file:///android_asset/index.html");
          }
        }

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I image you would become used to reading the interpolated states eventually. That would be a pretty nice way to write fractions.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wonder what it would look like with interpolation pathways that minimize the amount of bending

</comment><comment><USER34> Why does this need a cookie to function? I block cookies by default and I get annoyed every time some site requires a cookie for something mundane like displaying the time or playing a game that doesn't even preserve state across browser sessions (like 2048)

edit: 2048 does indeed restore the game, but it should still work without a cookie.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm not sure, but it's a line in Processing.js that breaks everything if removed. Not something easily fixable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> Very nice and elegant way, for me this would be the first reason to get an Apple Watch

</comment><comment><USER36> Great idea!

But why is the site blocking the Ctrl+D keystroke? Don't they want to be bookmarked?

</comment><comment><USER37> Ahh, it was so satisfying to watch it right as 59:59 ticked over to 00:00.

</comment><comment><USER38> Too bad, doesn't work without cookies/localstorage enabled.

</comment><comment><USER39> Finally, Dali Clock arrives on the web!

</comment><comment><USER40> Gives me a headache

</comment><comment><USER41> I love it!

</comment><comment><USER15> hello

</comment><comment><USER42> Apple Watch.

'nuf said.

<comment><USER42> Fine, naysayers. I'll port it thereto. A Bezier clock is briefly amusing on a web page, but will make a delightful functional showpiece on a watch.</comment></comment>


Associating cameras with users and objects in a social networking system - <AUTHOR> http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect2=HITOFF&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=1&f=G&l=50&d=PALL&RefSrch=yes&Query=PN%2F9485423 <comment><USER2> Very innovative. I think I saw something like "see all the shots taken by this camera (matched by EXIF data) that were uploaded to this website" previously - IMNSHO trivially unpatentable.</comment>


Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-01-08/samsung-phone-users-get-a-shock-they-can-t-delete-facebook <comment><USER2> It's not just FB, my Samsung S9 came preloaded with 'undeletable' Microsoft apps too. But this is nothing new, Samsung phones have came preloaded with bloat since forever.

When buying a new phone I always spend some time deleting all Samsung, Microsoft, Facebook and carrier related apps. Yes, you can delete 'undeletable' apps through ADB, without rooting the device.

      pm uninstall -k --user 0 <name of package>

<comment><USER3> I know I can clean up crapware, via adb, but on principle vote with my wallet. It's not acceptable to charge me something that rounds to a thousand euros and then fleece me for a few extra bucks.

Right now, I restrict my selection to Android One [1] phones. The current one is a Nokia 8 Sirocco.

[1] [https://www.android.com/one/](https://www.android.com/one/)

<comment><USER4> I've had similar feelings... having finally ditched my Huawei Nexus 6P, which I came to loathe. This was after years of buying Google developer devices (going back to the G1). The 6P was the last straw, as I came to resent spending hundreds on something with a soldered-in battery that could be (and turned out to be) unusable after 24 months. The battery was a wreck.

I ended up getting an unlocked new LG V20 from eBay, which is a slightly older phone, but the most decent spec I could find with a replaceable battery. Been great so far, so it's been worth it for $190. Got a couple of spare LG batteries too, for $25 each.

Nice reminder about the ADB uninstall trick, as there's some AT&T stuff that would be nice to remove if possible. I'm also tempted by LineageOS, but need the core Google Android apps - so probably too suspicious to use a bundled install that someone else has put together.

<comment><USER5> I'm using the bundled install, micro I think. It's okay, it works just fine.

I always wondered what to replace my Nexus 5 with, thanx for the info.

<comment><USER6> Careful about buying 'new' copies of that phone on Ebay: there are none. Almost all of the new copies bring sold on Ebay for the last year or so are fraudulent. Finding an actual new LG V20, outside of perhaps Korea, is unlikely.

edit: just checked Ebay, and yup, there are no legit new copies to be had, except for _maybe_ AT&T or unlocked variants for $400+. There's a very low chance that anyone will be/or has been able to find a new LG V20 for at least a year, and almost certainly not for a reasonable price.

It is a similar situation for numerous other smartphones on the used market, most new copies for sale are actually remanufactured/used that have been repackaged and fraudulently resold as new from somewhere [originally] in China. The fake LG V20 new copies began flooding the market somewhere in the past 1-2 years, and have dominated since, but that practice is typical for smartphones in general.

<comment><USER4> Item was described as "new and sealed factory unlocked", and I had no complaints when it arrived. If it is repackaged, I was completely unable to tell any difference from other new devices I can remember unpacking (new from Amazon or directly from a vendor). The spare batteries I sourced from a separate UK supplier.

It's definitely intended for AT&T, but worked fine with Three in the UK as soon as I entered the appropriate APN info and restarted.

Here's a relisting, for what it's worth :

[https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/372561134735?ViewItem=&item=37256...](https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/372561134735?ViewItem=&item=372561134735)

<comment><USER6> Ah, perhaps my experiences are only valid for US/North American buyers of US carrier variants. I know that there was a proliferation of repackaged V20 models being sold as new, and they all seemed to come from the same source - they had the same packaging Chinese/international packaging, but the devices included were used/remanufactured and were often incorrectly-specced for their purported carriers, giving away their fraudulent origins.

Like the packaging shown in that Ebay link is incorrect for an AT&T variant. AT&T almost never uses OEM packaging, instead they use some weird gimpy branded boxes of their own. If it didn't come in a box like this, then it was a fraudulently repackaged and was not new:

[https://i.imgur.com/n2dFAq2.jpg](https://i.imgur.com/n2dFAq2.jpg)

Also the printed inserts should have AT&T branding on them, and will include AT&T-specific inserts. The flood of fraudulent LG V20s usually include generic international versions of the printed inserts. Watch for the IMEI label on the box being pasted over with another label, to hide the ID numbers of the device the box originally came with.

Just because its not new doesn't mean it might not work fine, it just means you'll likely never get warranty coverage; or if you do get LG to accept it once they examine in-house for repair you're probably boned.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This story (and from different outlets) is now all over the press, which is great.

Can I add another qualm in a similar vein? It involves Samsung TV's. I'm convinced Samsung is increasingly mean.

I only use streaming services (Netflix, et. al.), and for the past year I've been pretty pleased with "Smart TV" functionality, which makes life easy. That is, until the following happened. After a recent update, the TV:

* Now starts up automatically onto some broadcast TV station, I think it's some sports station. There is No Way to turn this off, because it's not an app, but a new functionality built into the TV. By "broadcast TV" I don't mean the old-school antenna or cable, I mean the equivalent of live broadcast TV streaming via the Internet. If I turn the TV off, for example, while the YouTube app is up, when it turns back on, I get that streaming broadcast crap again.

* The broadcast crap has commercials, and sound on.

* Ads have ALSO popped up in place of one of the "buttons" in the Apps menu.

You're not enraged yet? Let me save the best for last:

* When using the voice functionality on the remote during a search (either on YouTube or someplace), a popup jumped up telling me that I needed to accept THREE terms and conditions (three checkmarks), and click OK, or I could not use the voice functionality. The TOC involved aggregating my searches and data for ad purposes, and it said something about other Samsung devices. Luckily, I don't own any.

I went back to plugging my PC into the TV.

 _Folks, please do not buy any Samsung products._

<comment><USER8> I have a Roku for these and many other reasons. I have never seen or touched a smart TV that didn't suck in multiple ways, even if it was just the laggy as hell Java interface.

I'm not saying the Roku is perfect, it's far from it (and I'd love to be able to give them feedback), but at least if they piss me off I can throw their device in the trash and replace it with an Apple TV, Google Chromecast, Amazon Fire, etc. and still have a perfectly well functioning 4K TV.

<comment><USER9> Since it's relevant to the topic conversation, only use a Roku if you're blocking its outgoing requests. It sends out an insane amount of outbound data that goes beyond just your viewing habits (e.g. wifi name, "connection data") [1].

Installing pi-hole reveals how noisy a Roku is [2].

[1] - [https://docs.roku.com/doc/userprivacypolicy/en- us](https://docs.roku.com/doc/userprivacypolicy/en-us) [2] - [https://imgur.com/a/n5zcAwl](https://imgur.com/a/n5zcAwl)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> This is nothing new. Google especially has been in this position since the start of Android.

I have quite a list of apps that I've disabled but can't uninstall: Chrome, Drive, Galaxy Apps, Gmail, Google Play Movies & TV, Google Play Music, Google Text-to-speech engine, Hancom Office Viewer, Launcher3, Memo, Photo Screensavers, S Planner, Samsung Billing, Samsung Push Service, TalkBack, Weather, YouTube. I'm going to try LeonM's technique to see if I can in fact uninstall them without rooting the device (which I have failed to accomplish; it seems to me that you're basically stuck if you don't use a flagship device, and my Samsung J1 (2016) isn't flagship).

Then there are plenty of others that I'd like to disable but can't; including but not at all limited to: Email, Email, Email composer, Email storage, Email sync, Internet, S Planner, Samsung account, Samsung Cloud Data Relay.

<comment><USER11> Samsung devices are the worst. When I had an S8, I ran a toolkit that would constantly remove (and re-remove when it appeared again) almost all of the Samsung crapware, but even that is subpar since you need some of it like their Health product for basic phone features to work.

Samsung is by far the worst at it. I won't buy their phones anymore.

<comment><USER12> Recently got an s9 and there's a whole button I can't use because it is bound to the "Launch Bixby" function. I'm not exactly sure what Bixby is or does, some sort of voice control (but I already have google now?), but it requires me to have a samsung account to use, which I don't want/need.

So, unused button. Wish I could bind it to camera or something, no such luck.

<comment><USER13> > So, unused button. Wish I could bind it to camera or something, no such > luck.

The reddit thread about this story mentions an app "bxActions" that sees to be doing exactly that and might be worth a look: [https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ae265u/samsung_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/technology/comments/ae265u/samsung_phone_users_perturbed_to_find_they_cant/edmeti2/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I'm glad this story has gone viral recently. Hopefully there will be more pressure to stop this practice.

I've been using Android for a number of years now and between the handset manufacturers and the wireless providers, there has been undeletable crapware since the beginning. I've been slowly modifying my behavior in response. I stopped buying phones directly from the wireless providers (e.g. Verizon). This has noticeably improved my experience. Every time I upgrade my phone, I look into the Google flagship Android phones, but they always have some critical flaws that drive me to buy the Samsung Galaxy phones. The same thing happened a few months ago when I chose the Galaxy S9+ over the Pixel 3's. I also always think about switching to Apple iPhone, since I do think they take user experience and privacy more seriously than Google Android.

While I'm on the subject. Samsung, please get rid of Bixby and all of your crappy Samsung apps. I hate the feeling that there's two OS's loaded on my phone... the Android layer and the Samsung layer (which I never use but always get prompted for unless I figure out how to disable it).

<comment><USER15> I don't think all Samsung apps are "crappy". I quite enjoy using some of them like Samsung Health and Secure Folder. What needs to end is preloading so many duplicate apps and then preventing the user from removing them easily.

Personally, I can live with this situation since I can always remove what I don't like with adb, and I quite enjoy a lot of the features and changes that Samsung added on top of stock Android.

<comment><USER16> > What needs to end is preloading so many duplicate apps

That is not possible. They can either have only the google apps (great, just like ancient IE monopoly times) or "duplicate apps", but they can not omit the google apps if they want google play.

Also, preinstalls matter very much as can be clearly seen in the market share of IE, edge, chrome and safari.

<comment><USER17> You only quoted the first half of their sentence. They said duplicate apps are only an issue when you aren't allowed to remove the one (or both) that you don't use.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> While I like using FB, this is type of behavior by Android OEMs that largely drove me to the iPhone. The main reason I rooted my phone prior was to get rid of crappy apps I don't use from being on my screen.

Around 4-5 years ago, Android phone manufacturers started locking down their phones more while not letting them be rooted. They didn't solve the problem of having undeleteable apps waste my time & space with clear advertising plays.

After my experience with the Galaxy S5, I quickly jumped to the iPhone 6 when it came out, and haven't looked back. I've used Android for a period of time in parallel with a second phone, but it only confirmed my reasoning for bailing for the iPhone - the Android experience is just way behind.

<comment><USER19> I've been an iPhone user for a decade and am a huge Apple fanboy, but even with that bias, I have to say this is a load of crap. Apple has been adding loads of undeletable bloat since forever. they only really let you start deleting the Apple pre-installed apps very recently. I still have a folder on my devices called "iCrap."

<comment><USER18> There's a huge difference between Apple's built in apps and the third party apps doing who knows what background processing/data mining on phone usage. The effects on performance such as battery life is very noticeable.

<comment><USER20> This is what I want to know; If you get a brand new device and it has FB app installed - but if you never open it or use FB, does that app still monitor things like browsing activity and report anything back to FB?

<comment><USER21> Aren't android and iOS apps mostly sandboxed? It would be news to me if AppX could access browsing information from Chrome, at least without asking you for permission. Apps can't access folder i/o without permission, surely they can't monitor browsing history without permission.

<comment><USER22> iOS apps are heavily sandboxed (and given next to no process time when backgrounded).

Android apps are a bit more free, that leads to a lot of apps being good at talking to each other. But the cost is that your sandbox is less sandboxy.

Permissions are a moot point when you're talking about bundled apps because they're already going to be approved for all permissions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Says the site with ~20-30 crapware JS trackers (12 blocked by uBlock, 23 by uMatrix). I'm not forgiving FB here, just pointing out that others are often similarly bad.

<comment><USER24> Imagine the impact on energy consumption having to run these ad blockers + running the ad infrastructure. Global warming, is that you?

<comment><USER25> I looked for evidence for your claim as in my mind, energy consumption for the ad industry would not be that impressive.

I found a paper written in 2010 for the Netherlands [1], claiming that : "Thus, web advertisements increase the total energy consumption of PCs by 3.4%."

That's not counting the cost of running the infrastructure, and I suspect ads and tracking probably did not evolve in the right (i.e. less energy hungry) way in the last 9 years.

As for the current consumption of power by 'client devices', it is estimated to consume 5% of total world electricity [2]

I could not find any number on the energy consumption on the other side, i.e. servers/infras.

As a (very) rough estimation, without taking into account the 'server' side of ads, we can estimate the energy cost of ads to represent ~0.17% of total energy produced in a year.

In the end, I stand corrected : the amount of energy consumed is far from negligible at that scale. However, while it is definitely not negligible on absolute terms, I think there are lower hanging fruits to focus on to fight global warming, such as reliance on fossil fuels, common use of products made on the other side of the world, meat consumption...

[1] : [https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-hidden- energ...](https://research.utwente.nl/en/publications/the-hidden-energy-cost- of-web-advertising) [2] : [http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/tsunami-data- con...](http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/12/11/tsunami-data-consume-one- fifth-global-electricity-2025/)

<comment><USER26> I found this recent study[1] very interesting as well. Their conclusion: 'In 2016 online advertising consumed 106 TWh of energy and the infrastructure 1059 TWh'. So around 10%.

My view is that adblocking is an environmental necessity. And paying business model should always be provided. As a footnote, they estimated that If Netflix switched to a video ad model, 42.02 TWh of added electricity would be consumed!

[1]:[https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S019592551...](https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0195925517303505)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I'm not a huge facebook fan but this thing about only being able to disable but not delete the app is misleading about how sinister it is.

All it means is that the app comes installed by being part of the ROM image. It can be disabled which is essentially the same as deleting it, except you don't get the space back (which is fine since it's the rom, you can't use it without reflashing anyway). Once disabled, the Facebook app won't be able to track you or be loaded into memory.

What this deal is really about is the Facebook app coming preinstalled on new Samsung phones. Bloatware: yes. But don't make too big a deal about the "undeletable" thing.

<comment><USER28> Agreed, but from what I've been reading/hearing, the primary concern is "can FB track me even if the app is disabled?" These are non-technical people who don't trust FB. It's a valid question.

<comment><USER29> "These are non-technical people ..."

Don't know. I have the same question. "can FB track me even if the app is disabled?" How the hell do we know it's impossible?

<comment><USER30> it's not necessarily the facebook app (if you have it disabled), but most free and even paid apps are 'phoning' facebook and sending up data when you open the app (as part of the FB SDK). This is what became big news recently.

I've noticed it for years and thought it was widely known. There are apps that will try to hit graph.facebook.com before they even connect to their own services. You can install a VPN based firewall to block this behavior.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I hate to be one of "those people" but I logged out of Facebook on all of my devices on New Year's Eve and haven't been back since. I used to check the site multiple times per day. I thought I'd miss out on a few groups but to be honest the people I know from those groups IRL keep me updated on the rare important announcement - ie a couple of upcoming events. I haven't missed it at all.

Full Disclosure: I do still have Messenger Lite on my phone, but with notifications disabled so I only check it a couple of times per day.

<comment><USER32> What service do you use for chatting?

<comment><USER33> My telephone

<comment><USER32> I want a phone without voice. I hate when people call me and I never call anyone. I wouldn't want to be friends with anyone forcing me to call them to interact.

<comment><USER33> Yeah, I've also thought a phone without voice would be great; an iPod touch with data sort of thing.

Having said that, voice calls are simply more productive for quite a few things.

Making "must not interact via telephony" a condition of friendship seems a bit much. Is meeting in person also out of the question?

<comment><USER32> Sorry, I exaggerated for effect. However, I do have a phobia of phone calls and very seldom pick up the phone so if that would be the only way to communicate with someone I'm sure the friendship would die by itself.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> _Inside the flat a fruity voice was reading out a list of figures which had something to do with the production of pig-iron. The voice came from an oblong metal plaque like a dulled mirror which formed part of the surface of the right-hand wall. Winston turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely._

</comment><comment><USER35> FaceBook is scammy on many levels. Their ads business always reports very inflated numbers.

We spend $1000/mnth on FB ads. They show millions of impressions and 20k link clicks. However only 2k visits are shown by both google analytics and Mixpanel on the actual website.

It really seems like an empire that will crumble some day.

<comment><USER36> Maybe some of your users block Google Analytics/Mixpanel while not blocking Facebook ads. For example, because they are using the mobile app or because Facebook ads are harder to block...

<comment><USER37> There is no way that 90% of their traffic is blocking both GA and Mixpanel.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I feel like Facebook is getting more and more desperate.

There have been times I've loved it, but in the last year or two I've dialled back my usage to almost nothing. Now I get regular emails / (and when I log in a whole load of) red dot notifications - both things that used to be alerts about just _ME_ - that say things like "[friend name] just posted".

With an undeletable app, I wonder how far away we are from someone embedding Facebook notifications in the OS?

<comment><USER39> Yeah, I've had the same feeling the last 8 weeks or so, my phone is regularly spammed by FB's notifications about some random crap that is irrelevant to me.

I was discussing that with a friend and sure enough, within the minute, a FB notification about adding some random dude popped up.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> > Bloomberg spoke to a U.S. owner of a Samsung Galaxy S8 who, after reading > forum discussions about Samsung devices, found his own pre-loaded Facebook > app could not be removed. It could only be "disabled", with no explanation > available to him as to what exactly that meant.

First thing I do when I upgrade my LG phone (I've had the LG G2, LG G5, and now the LG G7, I don't think it was preinstalled in the G2 but I can't be certain) is to disable Facebook and related uninstallable apps. If I bothered to root my phone I'd remove them as well. It's obnoxious that phone manufacturers include more than just vanilla Android, which is why I will likely get Nokia or Motorola for my next phone, they're usually unlocked and not riddled with crapware, funny how much cheaper they are too...

<comment><USER31> The bundled crapware is the reason I switched from Samsung to OnePlus. I've actually gone one step further and run LineageOS now.

I've been an Android user since the original Samsung Galaxy, but to be honest my next phone will probably be an iPhone.

<comment><USER40> > The bundled crapware is the reason I switched from Samsung to OnePlus.

I'm not sure I trust them either, unless this apparent backdoor situation has since been resolved? I'd rather stick to Nokia or Motorola.

[https://www.wired.com/story/oneplus-phones-have-an- unfortuna...](https://www.wired.com/story/oneplus-phones-have-an-unfortunate- backdoor-built-in/)

<comment><USER41> Fortunately the backdoor requires physical access to the device, so it's not what worries me. I was more concerned about their data collection, but it looks like they changed to opt-in since: [https://www.tomsguide.com/us/oneplus-data-leak- fix,news-2596...](https://www.tomsguide.com/us/oneplus-data-leak- fix,news-25968.html)

I'm not sure how much I can trust them after that, though. They had a real chance to make a difference and they blew it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Am I the only one experiencing "Facebook is so bad" fatigue? I am not implying that there should be no criticism, I believe quite the opposite, but I think we have heard all of this before, many times over.

<comment><USER43> As long as they force their shitty software down people's throats every day (literally what the article is about), people will keep complaining about them. Just like everyone who's forced to use Comcast complains.

In fact it's mainly abusive monopolies that tend to receive this nonstop criticism. Ordinary crappy companies go out of business because people can switch to their alternatives, then no one complains about them anymore.

<comment><USER6> > force their shitty software down people's throats every day

Did Facebook force OEMs to include their software on their devices? Isn't it more likely that OEMs are getting paid for the placement and the blame for its inclusion lies with OEMs?

<comment><USER43> Ok, fair enough. The article isn't about Facebook forcing their shitty software down our throats (which they still do, via notification and email spam).

It's about Facebook paying OEMs to force its shitty software down our throats.

IMO not really a meaningful distinction in this context though.

<comment><USER6> I think it is meaningful distinction in this context. The responsibility for the inclusion of these apps lies solely on the OEMs and carriers. If there's beef to had then it has to be laid at the feet of the OEMs and carriers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> Also, they will endlessly re-suscribe you to their spam even after you unsubscribe.

Some months after unsubscribing from friend's posts email alerts, I changed my password to something I did not want to remember, only to be automatically re- subscribed, without notice, to their post updates.

<comment><USER45> Facebook has a ton of dark patterns. There is always one unread message in there shitty messenger client. Except there are zero conversations because I deleted them.

And the messenger app is an incredible piece of junk, whoever did the ux with the chat heads should find a new line of work.

<comment><USER46> Hmm. What do you dislike about the Messenger app?

<comment><USER45> Always having one unread message and the stupid chat head interface.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> If a giant like Facebook had bought Match Group and Tinder, would it be possible for it to manipulate dating and thus breeding people up to statistically significant scale? I feel it like being "@" in somebody's Dwarf Fortress. World's so narcissistic.

<comment><USER48> What makes you think Match Group and Tinder are not already statistically matching people based on their algorithms? They are part of IAC and IAC is a giant publishing conglomerate based out of NYC.

<comment><USER47> Yikes! There's only hope they'll add some paid service where I can find love and hunt deer with a crossbow in special national park, wild way. Just like those two domains, wild and artificial, from Huxley's Brave New World.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Mouse over the green icon in the corner, and you will see a 'like this on Facebook' button. I have never seen a single article criticising Facebook that didn't have one.

<comment><USER50> The most effective crapware is ever-present, pervasive crapware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is one of the reasons why I bought a generic MTK phone: they come with an unlocked bootloader (and at least several years ago when I did this, it seemed to be the case that they even _couldn 't_ be locked because the hardware had no such feature), and the first thing I do is a full flash dump for backup purposes. Then I root it, delete the stuff I don't need (surprisingly little comes with these generic phones; they usually don't come with much more than the stock Android install), and customise it to my needs. The fact that Android is Java-based and quite modular helps a lot with the modding too.

(Some of these phones do come with ad/spy/malware, but since they're easily rootable, it's not hard to remove. One could say the relative lack of security means the user is on an equal footing with the crapware authors and the manufacturer, whereas locked-down devices from companies like Samsung trade off user-control for company-control.)

</comment><comment><USER52> If the pre-installed Facebook app is just a stub, why is it needed in the first place? To keep the data around for a reinstall?

</comment><comment><USER53> After years of using android I just moved from my galaxy s8 to an iphone xs max, and I was surprised to see that apple allows to uninstall most of their apps. What I usually did on my former samsung was to disable the apps I didn't needed, it is not the same as uninstalling it but it does the job.

<comment><USER54> On iOS, the built in apps aren't "uninstalled" either as they're stored in the OS image just like on Android. So when you delete them, you're just disabling them the same way, and you can put them back just as easily.

The difference is that Apple makes the operation appear to be the same as deleting them and that's a good thing from a UI perspective. Clearly the "disable" option in Android is too confusing for some people.

<comment><USER55> But when you redownload a now-deleted-preloaded app, it actually downloads it. Which makes me think that Apple actually removes the App package from the phone.

Please correct me if I'm wrong.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Yes - FB s*cks. But as a long time Android user - this is more disheartening from the perspective of my continued use of Android.

What Apple and the iPhone have demonstrated over the last few years is that they really care about their user's privacy and control over their apps.

This does not seem to be true for Google and Android.

</comment><comment><USER57> This is fear-mongering. The app is a stub and it doesn't do any tracking. I used to work at an OEM - this is just an agreement that Samsung and Facebook signed.

</comment><comment><USER58> Hardly new. It was unwanted a decade ago, when forced down my throat. It just seems people are wising up to the monopoly status. I thought the IE case would have preempted this preinstalled crap. What kind of law can help us seperate hardware, software, and personal rights?

</comment><comment><USER59> This kind of crap is why I always buy phones that have stock Android. I have been a long time Nexus customer but after Google dropped the line I went for the Essential Phone during the $250 sale. Easily one of the best phone with stock Android .

<comment><USER60> The reviews of the Essential PH-1 were hilarious in this regard.

People were annoyed that they had to install "obvious" apps for their Essential that every other manufacturer forcibly included.

<comment><USER59> Yeah, I'm not sure why the PH-1 didn't take off. 128 GB storage, Snapdragon 835, and ceramic backing is amazing for less than $300 after tax. The only "downside" is the non-OLED screen, weird reception for T-mobile, and subpar camera app (which the pixel 3 port fixes). The screen is still great and vibrant though.

<comment><USER6> They would have needed to get on Verizon or T-Mobile to really make a dent in the US, being only available on Sprint was never going to be enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER61> "Not cool, Facebook, not cool."

I mean, yeah, but what about the device makers? It's not like FB can force them to do this..

</comment><comment><USER62> Will they also pull such shit with KaiOS?

I thought I'm a happy camper, when Nokia reissued the 8110. Ahh, no Google spyware, no Apple extorcionist paricing.

How wrong I was.

First of all it comes with Google Maps and Google Assistant. Then after the first software update it puts in Twitter and three crappy games, which full versions need to be bought and which cannot be removed.

Their privacy statement is also noo what I would call encouraging.

Do I really need to shell out for an IPhone after all?

<comment><USER6> I wonder what developer access you can achieve with that 8110 device? For FirefoxOS devices the debugging and developer stuff used to be fun via Firefox browser and was simply Android on the low level. Also FirefoxOS devices were generally not locked down in any meaningful way.

Curious to see what you can hack with their devices on that FirefoxOS fork. Hmmm. Need to get me one of those phones, so cool looking anyway.

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> I use [https://lineage.microg.org/](https://lineage.microg.org/) these days, a lot of things do work fine with a fake Google Play Services.

[https://infinity0.github.io/droid-hacks/](https://infinity0.github.io/droid- hacks/) for more technical tips, half-finished and badly-written.

</comment><comment><USER44> I see all this dark patters and user-unfriendly tactics as a way to deceive the market with metrics that wont matter if in the long term you lose user's trust.

It might increase the perceived value of a company to retain some users, but in the long term such tactics are damaging the company reputation, thus effectively diminishing the value of the company/product.

</comment><comment><USER64> Sometimes, I wish Rick Roderick were still around to comment on the present, then I realize that he did / is, even if he did it in 1990.

 _But in the matrix of needs, in such a possible future system, as if it weren't already kind of like that. Within such a possible future system, the only command or need that the machine would not respond to would be the one command that I have a feeling some of us would most want to type into the machine. Which is the demand that it destroy itself, you see, that would be my problem with the machine. It would meet all the needs except my need to see it destroyed. It would take every other command well, and meet every other need well, but the need to just shut it down._

[http://rickroderick.org/108-philosophy-and-post-modern- cultu...](http://rickroderick.org/108-philosophy-and-post-modern- culture-1990/)

</comment><comment><USER65> Don't use default smartphone firmwares, don't buy smartphones you can't install a custom firmware to.

<comment><USER8> Sure, but let's be honest, back in 2007 when the first iPhone came out it was a huge deal that Verizon, et al couldn't install crap on it by default because it came straight from Apple.

No "normal human" is ever going to install their own OS on anything. At least Apple enforces some standards...

<comment><USER65> > Sure, but let's be honest, back in 2007 when the first iPhone came out it > was a huge deal that Verizon, et al couldn't install crap on it by default > because it came straight from Apple.

Good, nevertheless all my friends jailbroke their iPhones to install apps not available in the store.

> No "normal human" is ever going to install their own OS on anything.

Whoever cares about having at least minimal degree of privacy will at least get root access, remove bloatware and install tools like droidwall and xprivacy on their android phones.

<comment><USER22> Your friends are more technical than 99% of the population of earth.

I applaud you for having friends who are so technically literate.

I think you would do well to remember the rest of the human race though.

<comment><USER65> I'm curious what portion of people lack a geek friend they can trust to set-up whatever for them.

<comment><USER8> I'm curious what portion of people you think even know that jailbreaking exists, let alone why they would want it done on their phone. This is, without any sort of exaggeration, a 1% issue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Corollary: Every post with "Facebook" in its title appears on HN.

</comment><comment><USER67> In Australia the ACCC which is our competition and consumer watchdog, released a preliminary report in December, into the dominance of the likes of Google and Facebook.

One of things they are proposing is stopping likes of Google from being a default search engine in Australian devices. In that consumers will be offered a choice rather than provided one as default.

I would really like to see this extend through to bloatware applications where possible such as the myriad of random Microsoft apps that get installed, as well as the Google suite in non-Google devices.

I should be able to remove the applications that are on my device and use the applications only I want to. If I use Spotify for music, then I should be able to remove Google Music and Samsung Music. In the same way that I can remove Apple music and use Spotify on my iPhone.

</comment><comment><USER68> Url changed from [https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/facebook-is-the-new- crapwa...](https://techcrunch.com/2019/01/09/facebook-is-the-new-crapware/), which points to this.

</comment><comment><USER69> I'm not quite sure why this is controversial. "Undeletable" applications is as old as keeping factory-reset images on devices.

Would people prefer that you could "remove" apps even if that meant they were still part of what's stored on the phone?

If you factory reset the phone, people expect it to look like whatever it looked like whenever you first started the device after taking it out of the box.

That's why you can't uninstall it; it's part of the system image. If there's an issue with how this work, the issue is that there are bundled apps, not that you can't uninstall them.

<comment><USER70> What I would like is a bootloader that has the following features:

        * End user management of trusted keys
        * Keep most major manufacturer keys pre-loaded (even if disabled for current use)
        * Factory reset online, not from device contents.

When a 'factory reset' or other base-reinstall is requested, look at an indirect URI associated with the preferred active key (this means WiFi, Ethernet, or other network connection must be made). Similar to how SYSLINUX (in various flavors) looks for different identifiers from specific to generic, query for an existing 'file' that matches the device model and serial / MAC in a pre-defined way. When a possible file is found download the bootstrap, validate that it is signed with an allowed key* (if it has a valid sig, but the key isn't allowed, ask the end user), if it's valid run downloaded bootstrap.

The downloaded bootstrap should, ideally, validate and re-configure the flash layout, possibly update system firmware if desirable, then apply the current version (or maybe offer a choice of back versions if applicable) of the 'factory' image for the device.

This way updates to the core image can be shipped with factory resets instead of some fossilized version of the software that should never be used for security or incompatibility reasons.

The above also applies to how generic computers should work, I understand that Apple devices are fairly close to this obvious process but I believe (offhand) that they lack end-user empowerment / management of authorized authorities at a bios level.

</comment></comment><comment><USER71> I also noticed when troubleshooting a VPN and doing some tcpdumps that my Xperia Z5C was making pretty frequent DNS lookups of mqtt-mini.facebook.com . From what I could find on Google search my best guess was that this endpoint is used by facebook messenger, but I don't have that installed. This is despite the fact that I've disabled the facebook app.

I took a second look while writing this comment and there's an addtional "Facebook services" app, which I've just gone ahead and disabled. Maybe that will stop the requests.

</comment><comment><USER72> I think all of these privacy problems can be traced back to contract law and contracts of adhesion where consumers are automatically opted into terms consumers would never wittingly opt into voluntarily.

</comment><comment><USER73> Every samsung smartphone i've ever owned came with an undeletable facebook app(along with a bunch of other undeleteable crap) preinstalled since at least android 2 days.

</comment><comment><USER74> FWIW, this might be a carrier pre-load thing rather than a Samsung thing: on the S8+ that I bought unlocked direct from Samsung, the Facebook app can be uninstalled.

</comment><comment><USER75> As anyone really surprised or "perturbed" by this? This nonsense has been going on for years. I can't remember a Samsung phone without garbage, undeletable apps.

I have a Samsung Galaxy Note 8. I like it. I took all the undeletable apps and removed them from my home screen. I hardly notice they are there. You can also shut down their permissions in the settings menu. They are basically inert.

</comment><comment><USER76> It's the old crapware too

</comment><comment><USER36> Even my Galaxy S7 Edge from 2015 came with an undeletable Facebook app. Why is the article portraying this as a recent development?

<comment><USER6> I think it's mostly a Facebook hit piece.

And actually since back then Facebook apps have become easier to disable on most Android phones. Used to be that you couldn't delete them nor disable them on most phones. Nowadays is usually possible to disable the apps, and they are usually just stubs, so their impact is minimal to null.

Still would rather not that have them shipped, but when it comes to bloatware I'd say Google was a much bigger culprit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> 2019: Samsung Phone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't Delete Facebook

2023: iPhone Users Perturbed to Find They Can't logout from Facebook

2025: Google Phone Users Perturbed to Find Their photos are automatically posted on Facebook

2027: Facebook Branded Phone Users Perturbed to Find Their life is cached 24/7 and automatically posted on Facebook

</comment><comment><USER78> Not sure if 4+ years is "new".

</comment><comment><USER79> Same problem in my Android TV set. Lesson learned: will never buy anything with Android TV anymore.

</comment><comment><USER80> This is my motivation to switch to iPhone. Samsung must be punished. Hope Samsung read this.

</comment><comment> mark-r I quick pulled my new Moto out of my pocket to make sure they didn't do the same thing - they didn't. I have never used Facebook and I never will, haven't trusted them from the beginning.

</comment><comment><USER81> This news is so old, I was sure the date on the article was 2009.

</comment><comment><USER24> Happens when tech is largely driven by ad companies.

</comment><comment><USER82> My Android TV has undeletable facebook inside it :(

</comment><comment><USER83> This is why I'll always run rooted Android and take back control.

</comment><comment><USER84> Fortunately I can still remove it from my current/older device

</comment><comment><USER85> I haven't been following... is Android open source, or isn't it?

<comment><USER86> _Android_ is open source, but a lot of the functionality delivered by modern phones relies on the closed-source app suite provided by Google (namely Google Play Services).

<comment><USER36> And closed-source hardware drivers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER87> This kind of anti-consumer behavior should be outright illegal.

</comment><comment><USER88> Lineage OS an option... I love having a minimal OS

</comment><comment><USER89> Hasn't this been the case for years now? Why is this only now newsworthy?

</comment><comment><USER90> iPhone

</comment><comment><USER91> I'm no Facebook fan, but doesn't it feel like there is a coordinated media effort to destroy Facebook? It's quite strange. Outside of WSJ, Google seems to get away with it almost the same things Facebook is doing. I'm not sure what to make of it.

<comment><USER92> I can live without Facebook. I can't live without Google.

<comment><USER93> I think you'd find a way to "live" (i.e., survive in the modern world) if Google disappeared. Their dominance makes it extremely difficult to avoid using their products and services, but it's possible.</comment></comment></comment>


Comedian Bakes iPhone Cookies To Trick The Cops - <AUTHOR> http://laist.com/2013/12/11/la_comedian_bakes_iphone_cookies_to.php

<comment><USER2> Comedian bates cops and wastes public servant's time by tricking them into thinking he's doing something unsafe.

<comment><USER3> good

<comment><USER4> You missed the part where the idiot got served. He's lucky he didn't get any charges besides his unpaid parking tickets. Next time, let's see how the cops react when he points a "cookie gun" at them.</comment></comment></comment>