Mind Emulation Foundation - <AUTHOR> https://mindemulation.org/ <comment><USER2> _" While we are far from understanding how the mind works, most philosophers and scientists agree that your mind is an emergent property of your body. In particular, your body's connectome. Your connectome is the comprehensive network of neural connections in your brain and nervous system. Today your connectome is biological. _"

This is a pretty speculative thesis. It's not at all clear that everything relevant to the mind is found in the connections rather than the particular biochemical processes of the brain. It's a very reductionist view that drastically underestimates the biological complexity of even individual cells. There's a good book, _Wetware: A Computer in Every Living Cell_ , by Dennis Bray going into detail on how much functionality and physical processes are at work even in the most simplest cells that is routinely ignored by these analogies of the brain to a digital computer.

There is this extreme, and I would argue unscientific bias towards treating the mind as something that's recreatable in a digital system probably because it enables this science-fiction speculation and dreams of immortality of people living in the cloud.

<comment><USER3> I've posed this claim to dozens of neuroscientists. If you consider the connectome just the static connections then you might be right. If you include the dynamics of the brain (the biochemical processes) as part of the connectome then most neuroscientists would agree that is sufficient to produce the emergent property of mind. The honest answer is we don't know yet. That said, it's likely not necessary to model every atom's interaction with one another so there must be a level of abstraction sufficient enough to emulate a mind. Our foundation is trying to identify what is the minimal level of abstraction necessary to emulate a mind.

<comment><USER4> In support of the requirement for high-fidelity (atom-for-atom) modeling is the notion that an evolved computer would converge toward behaviors that supervene on specifics of the host environment. If porting a binary to another CPU architecture is tough, how easy will it be to port a mind to a simulated simple physics? How many edge cases will it have to get right to even run at all? If brains are hacks designed over millions of generations to surf overlapping fitness functions, it makes sense they'd find implementation (real physics) dependent optimizations that compound in ways which fall apart in toy physics. That's not to say we can't add cool peripherals.

ps even with atom-for-atom modeling, how do you know the behavior doesn't depend on relations which are not computable? If physics ranges over the reals, some of those edge cases might be hard to find with a simulator.

<comment><USER5> I can hit myself in the head and I don't lose my train of thought, instantly lose consciousness, or die. If consciousness relied on the precise positions of individual atoms (as far as that makes sense with moving particles) it would be way more fragile than we've observed it to be. The fact that your brain is resilient to being knocked around a bit is evidence towards the underlying mind being at least slightly higher level than where strong quantum effects live and also fairly redundant.

<comment><USER6> I agree, but I think there is a case to be made that there is important state separate from just which cells connect to which and how strongly, but is also more coarse grained than single atoms floating around.

The cytoskeleton may be found out to have a role to play. The number and locations of ion pumps. Or epigenetic changes in clusters of brain cells.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My favorite books about mind emulation:

* "Fall, Or Dodge in Hell" by Neil Stephenson [1]

* "Permutation City" by Greg Egan [2]

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PXM4VMD/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?...](https://www.amazon.com/dp/B07PXM4VMD/ref=dp-kindle- redirect?_encoding=UTF8&btkr=1)

[2] [https://www.amazon.com/Permutation-City-Greg-Egan- ebook/dp/B...](https://www.amazon.com/Permutation-City-Greg-Egan- ebook/dp/B00FDWCPV2)

<comment><USER8> Whole Brain Emulation Roadmap [http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/Reports/2008-3.pdf](http://www.fhi.ox.ac.uk/Reports/2008-3.pdf)

The Age of Em [https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198754620/](https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0198754620/)

<comment><USER9> Thumbs up for "The Age of Em". A nice example of how to assume a technology and work out economic consequences. Hanson goes into some good detail and includes physical constraints, emergent properties like relative time elapsed for simulated minds when transferring between locations and such.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> (I'm the founder & CEO of the Mind Emulation Foundation)

Flattered to see this hit the front page! This is a project I've been passionate about for a while and been keeping it mostly under the radar.

Now that it's public, I'm happy to answer any questions the HN community has.

<comment><USER10> Not really a question, more of a remark: both the destructive and non- destructive approaches result in the same thing: a copy of 'you', not actually 'you'. (The same is true when you go to sleep, of course. Whoever wakes up isn't you either)

What you would need is a Ship of Theseus approach - preserving the consciousness stream while neuron after neuron is being replaced by a digital version, slowly, to convince the stream into thinking it's still the same. You can't just take a single scan; you have to keep scanning continuously and keep a running feedback stream between the (decreasing) wetbrain and the (increasing) bitbrain to ensure the illusion of continuity.

(But to be honest, I don't actually believe in consciousness or a Self. Whoever started writing this short comment wasn't 'me', and neither am I, nothing is)

<comment><USER3> The gradual replacement approach (as you describe it) is a useful thought experiment that gets people more comfortable with the possibility of mind emulation but the end state is the same for both approaches. One just intuitively _feels_ more _you_ than the other, but as you said, it's likely all an illusion so doing it while you "sleep" is probably enough to make _you_ sufficiently happy to be alive when you wake up non-biologically.

<comment><USER11> This would be like Bicentennial Man in reverse. Call me skeptic but it sounds like a good foundation for a new novel and not like a good basis for Foundation.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I am always amused at this kind of approach to immortality. While the copy of me that is reborn would appreciate my preparedness, that doesn't make this copy any less unhappy about dying.

<comment><USER3> When you wake up in the morning billions of your cells have changed from the night before. Are you any less you?

It is possible one day you will go to sleep biologically and wake up non- biologically. It's just a matter of sufficiently emulating the processes that were present when you were the biological you.

<comment><USER12> I have meditated enough to be unconvinced that even the me that goes to sleep is the same guy who woke up that morning.

I try to be good to the guy who wakes up with my memories and body the next morning. That makes me no less unhappy about dying.

<comment><USER13> I'd even go so far as to say that the me from 10 minutes ago isn't the same me as now. Consciousness isn't continuous, it arises and ceases. It's our memory that gives us the illusion of continuity. And this is what makes me absolutely unconcerned about dying. From what I read, this is what the Gautama Buddha meant with Anatta[1].

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Recent work in philosophy has called into question the notion that the mind/cognition/identity is entirely independent from the body.

[https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied- cognition/](https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/embodied-cognition/)

Personally I think Western culture in particular has neglected the physical aspects of existence. The idea that our bodies are simply vessels for our minds seems more the result of cultural neglect than anything.

<comment><USER3> We are not claiming they are entirely independent, quite the contrary. The mind is an emergent property of the body. Just like music is an emergent property of sound waves.

<comment><USER14> But if your mind and self is formed by and dependent on your body, how can you transfer it to a bodyless existence without losing that self?

The mind as an emergent property of the body is also not an established philosophical or scientific fact, and is quite dependent on positivism, which has plenty of issues.

It seems to me that at best, you're creating a surface-level copy, but one inherently limited to contemporary scientific knowledge. Not to say that this isn't interesting or useful, but it's certainly not the same 'self.'

<comment><USER3> The notion of self is an illusion the mind creates. (There are many benefits for doing so, not least of which is self-preservation which is helpful to producing progeny and so therefore is selected for during natural selection.)

To answer your question directly: one can transfer an emergent property of a system to another system by sufficiently transferring the mechanism that produce that emergent property in the first place. A good analog would be emulating the hardware of the Nintendo Entertainment System (NES) entirely in software [1].

[1] [https://jsnes.org/](https://jsnes.org/)

<comment><USER14> The self is far more complex than the simplistic positivist notion of it. And again, this only works if you assume that at the time of the mind creation, your knowledge is complete. That seems fairly ignorant considering the history of science, not to mention the inherent limitations of empirical knowledge.

The NES example is not really a good one because it's a created object and knowledge of it is complete, therefore replicating it is possible.

Even then, assuming all of this didn't matter- I still don't see how the mind maintains itself in a new body. It's not as if a human mind is a static entity-it constantly comes into contact with the world through its embodied form and this reinforces and extends this notion of identity. Assuming you could emulate it on a computer, it would seem logical that the mind would change to adapt to its new body, thus no longer being the same self.

Ultimately any "transfers" will actually just be the creation of new minds, which IMO is more interesting anyway.

<comment><USER3> > The NES example is not really a good one because it's a created object and > knowledge of it is complete, therefore replicating it is possible.

One could replicate the NES hardware without any knowledge of how it was built by reverse engineering it

> Ultimately any "transfers" will actually just be the creation of new minds, > which IMO is more interesting anyway.

I actually agree but in the same way that you have a "new mind" when you wake up in the morning. The continuity of self is an illusion. "I" would be very happy to one day wake up having been transferred into a non-biological system the same way that "I" would be very happy to wake up tomorrow.

<comment><USER15> >One could replicate the NES hardware without any knowledge of how it was built by reverse engineering it

Not sure if one could do that if that person is not very familiar with similar projects. Give the NES system to a scientist from 1800 and tell me what they could conclude.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Once you become immortal, someone can put you in hell

<comment><USER17> I think there is a fundamental paradox at the root of consciousness and thought: once we succeed in alleviating suffering by discarding the body, we are already in hell. What is the purpose of a mind without a body? To witness? To what ends? There's a reason that the lower brain is at the seat of the throne. Maybe we should focus more on cooperating and less on becoming a purposeless husk. If the string is too tight it breaks, if it is too loose it will not play.

<comment><USER18> If you can emulate a brain, you can _probably_ emulate a body.

<comment><USER17> But to emulate the body, you must emulate the environment that shaped it, so now we're talking microverse creation. You could at best emulate the full set of current functions, but without the environment that model would be subject to incompleteness, entropy. You could perhaps watch for change, using the human corpus as input; all set conclusions seem to lead back to AI as human local intelligence orchestrator, rather than AI as emulation of human thought, maybe the two becoming one over time.

<comment><USER18> > But to emulate the body, you must emulate the environment that shaped it, so > now we're talking microverse creation.

Yes, this is called "virtual reality" and "physics engine". The brain does _not_ need its environments to be 100% indistinguishable from its ancestral environment; if it did, we could never move away from where we were born.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> The best I've seen the topic of mind and computation bridged and well communicated has been by Joscha Bach. Recommend watching this video on Computational Meta-Psychology [1]. Also his 3 hour conversation with Lex Fridman is a whole other amazing rabbit hole [2].

[1] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRdJCFEqFTU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WRdJCFEqFTU)

[2] [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2P3MSZrBM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P-2P3MSZrBM)

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm not convinced.

1\. We still don't know what the memory engrams truly are ( [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_(neuropsychology)](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engram_\(neuropsychology\)) ). I once read that aside from relying on the interconnections of the neurons they also rely on specific proteins created during memory creation. They are then vital for memory recollection.

2\. We know that the connections between neurons are important but we just realized that the support cells (glia) also affect the firing mecanism: they are not only support but a filter as well ( [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glia](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glia) )

3\. Inhibitory interneurons provide a way for synchronous firing of neurons to form a learning experience: [https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13170-w](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-13170-w)

All in all to replicate the brain functionality we would need to fully replicate the chemical composition of the brain to the lowest level (molecules).

I'm not holding my breath.

<comment><USER3> > They are then vital for memory recollection.

Even if specific proteins are needed for memory creation (which is debatable [1]) it doesn't mean you need to model those proteins to retrieve the stored memories from the structures that they created. You can read data from a hard drive without modeling the CPU or memory bus of the computer that stored the data.

> support cells (glia)

Glia cells are the order of 40-50 microns [2] and can easily be seen with an electron microscope. In fact, they are present in the Lichtman paper [3] linked from the Mind Emulation website.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745628/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2745628/) [2] [https://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych402/Biotutorials/4/par...](https://psych.athabascau.ca/html/Psych402/Biotutorials/4/part1.html) [3] [https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(15)00824-7](https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674\(15\)00824-7)

<comment><USER20> Glia cells can be seen, sure. But to my knowledge we still don't understand their impact.

Anyway, my point is that even if you are able to recreate the structure you would need to replicate the functionality.

A better analogy would be that even if you have the data on the hard drive you would need a special program that would know how to interpret it. In this case the data also contains a time variant exactly when the data applies which is not captured within the structure unless you go to the molecular level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So the C. Elegans connectome was done in 1986, and we still haven't made a fully functional model of the c. elegans brain. I'm not sure that this bottom up approach (synapses -> model -> behavior) will work better than a top down approach that has been making a lot of progress in AI (behavior -> model)

<comment><USER3> OpenWorm [1] has made a lot of progress toward building a fully functional model and when it simulates a worm's behavior it is almost indistinguishable from the real thing. Here is a video they produced in 2013 of C. elegans moving: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaovWiZJUWY](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SaovWiZJUWY)

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

<comment><USER22> It's modeling the firing of neurons contracting muscles. C. elegans is capable of learning about its environment, looking for food, finding a mate, and so forth.

It's only 1mm long and has 300 neurons.

You're going to scale to 86 billion neurons by 2084?

I hate to call shenanigans, but the idea that you will have made any real progress on a mammal of any size in 60 years is not realistic. If "Life is Precious" (as stated in your pitch) why not spend the money on things that are possible for humans that are alive?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Focussing on synaptic connections seems rather simplistic. For full "emulation" they would probably need to emulate the electric fields and neurotransmitter concentrations, otherwise just-the-spikes simulation will probably capture only a small percentage of brain dynamics.

<comment> ravi-delia You're probably right, at least in terms of neurotransmitter concentration, but I doubt that synaptic connections are only a 'small percentage' of brain dynamics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> This is so ahead of the curve of reality that it's easy to dismiss- BUT at the least it's possible that it could lead to some interesting basic research being done. Hopefully that, rather than misleading rich marks and separating them from their cash is the real goal.

<comment><USER3> Thank you for your optimism. The goal is to fund and conduct basic research.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> That plot half way down the page where they fit a straight line through 2 points and predict to be able to map human brains by 2084 made me laugh.

<comment><USER3> The y-axis is logarithmic so it's actually representing exponential improvements which is a fair upper-bound assumption given the rate of improvement in cost to map a human genome was better than exponential.

<comment><USER25> I get that. It's just that for an excel-trapolation 2x outside the observed range based on only 2 data points, 2084 is a strangely precise estimate. I find it hard to take this seriously.

<comment><USER3> Pull requests welcome. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> > the body will be partitioned such that it could be scanned with an electron > microscope

"Partitioning" the brain will destroy some of the nanometer-scale tissue as it is sliced.

</comment><comment><USER27> this could effectively lead to the creation of heaven, an afterlife that would eliminate the notion of death. I never quite understood why the entire human species, once made aware of the non zero probability of this working, not diverted most of its entire global energy, time and resources towards this effort. I can only imagine it is because most people have no capacity to really imagine, or outright refuse to ever imagine, death. In a way I do envy them.

<comment><USER28> You're basically arguing a techno-religious Pascal's Wager, so my contra- argument is the same: if the nonzero probability is a 0.1% chance, would you really risk your one and only life dedicated to something that has a 99.9% chance of not happening, whether it be real or techno-heaven?

<comment><USER29> You're implicitly assuming that accepting the Wager means "losing" your one and only life. OK, it depends on your utility function, but most religious and techno Wagers don't require immediate martyrdom.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Ive been wondering whether this was possible and/or feasible. We don't know if the "brain in the vat" would alter their original personality, which is very likely having that it has to live in foreign artificial environment. The mind itself could become depressive and unwilling to tick because why would it? Just so it exists while not really existing phisically?

</comment><comment><USER31> Reading this reminds me of a great Cory Doctorow / Charlie Stross book - "The Rapture of the Nerds" ([https://craphound.com/category/rotn/](https://craphound.com/category/rotn/))

</comment><comment><USER32> My hesitation with mind emulation is not so much with the technical side; I think it's fairly clear that we'll get there.

However, the question of responsible stewardship looms large, and is rarely addressed. With whom am I entrusting my mind? How can I be sure that such stewardship won't be transferred to another party at some point? Who's to guarantee that my mind won't be installed into an eternal torment sim?

The stewardship questions have always bothered the hell out of me, and the lack of convincing answers has always led me to avoid buying completely into the preservation of my body for future scanning and uploading into a sim.

</comment><comment><USER33> It's been done: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_(1983_film)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainstorm_\(1983_film\))

</comment><comment><USER12> How does having the connectome get you the mind? Don't you need the weights in the neurons? I thought I also read that neurons are not discrete units, that there might be weights within the dendrites/axons.

<comment><USER3> The connectome includes the weights.

<comment><USER12> Do you have a reference somewhere that says that? The Wikipedia entry for connectomics does not imply that and I've not read of anything that can get the weights out of neurons.

<comment><USER3> Connectome: How the Brain's Wiring Makes Us Who We Are [1]

[1] [https://www.amazon.com/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring- Makes/dp...](https://www.amazon.com/Connectome-How-Brains-Wiring- Makes/dp/0547678592)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> At this point, I wonder if it would make sense to establish a Time Travel Foundation, to ensure that such dangerous technology does not fall into the wrong hands once it is, inevitably, created.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm not as critical of these goals as some, but to not even mention another dimension of complexity beyond connections: electrophysiological firing pattern, is quite an oversimplification.

<comment><USER3> With a sufficiently robust representation of the connectome including its spatial orientation one can also emulate the electrophysiology.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annals_of_the_Heechee](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annals_of_the_Heechee)

</comment><comment><USER37> Get ready for the pseudo science terms to get investor money

</comment><comment><USER38> Imagine the torture of being the result of an early "success" in such an experiment. There's a real pickle of an ethical dilemma here.

<comment><USER39> If you haven't, you should check out the book Fall, or Dodge In Hell by Neal Stephenson. It explores this concept very deeply. (Sometimes far too deeply.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> >a reasonable estimate for the first human brain being mapped would in 2084.

:(

</comment><comment><USER41> Looks like a bunch of kids have watched too much Westworld.

</comment><comment><USER42> Any major difference from the Carboncopies Foundation?

</comment><comment><USER43> is this troll content?</comment>


The perils of pragmamorphism - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.reuters.com/emanuelderman/2011/09/23/the-perils-of-pragmamorphism/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hat tip to dxbydt for mentioning this new article by Emanuel Derman, a famous Wall Street "quant" (physicist who theorized about financial trading), in an HN comment today:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3043777></comment>


Why men fight - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/613980/why-men-fight-an-empirical-investigation-of-the-extremes-of-masculinity/ <comment><USER2> That was an interesting read, but the title question is never answered or even addressed substantially. Articles like this sorta piss me off to be honest. I'm a combat vet, and the subject in my mind just by reading the title became flooded with questions about what kind of things would be said in the article... and then I read it. It good for what it is, a story about a transman's journey of fighting in a boxing ring, but the interspersed poetic questions about why men fight are'nt answered, and are just left hanging, though I can tell they are intended more as conversational glue.

</comment><comment><USER3> Men fight because since time immemorial violence was (and, to an extent, remains) extremely effective for securing mates.

Although male aggression is not tied solely to it, testosterone injections should help a sufficiently reflective transsexual understand this over time.</comment>


Chelyabinsk meteor #2? - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C_7FuJVG0c From a different angle: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ygxGrXskxPE <comment><USER2> It seems like a blast to me. But I'm inclined to think that a blast should have lasted longer. As far as I know, a meteor should bring white light over the sky, not yellow/orange.</comment>


Want your own resume infographics? Early invitations available. - <AUTHOR> http://vizualize.me www.vizualize.me<p>Visualize your resume in one click. Examples of infographic designs on our blog at http://vizualizeme.posterous.com <comment><USER3> 1) Give them your email.

2) They tell you, "Want an invite? Invite more friends!"

Even for a legitimate product, this approach makes it feel like a scam.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a legit product, and it's not a scam. The reason we want people to sign up is to show that the idea has demand. This is important for us to validate our own efforts as well as to show our stakeholders that people are interested in the idea.

<comment><USER4> I think the point people here are trying to drive home to you is that if you want people to risk their reputation by recommending your product to their friends then you need to let them use it first.

it's like a chef saying, "sure i'll cook at your private event. But first you have to recommend me to all of your friends."

What if the product is awful, why risk your reputation? Atleast give us something to try out first:)

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a good point... we are using Launchrock's default settings to figure out how to send out invites. I've also been asking people who don't want to share to DM or tweet us at @vizualizeme if they want super early access. Everyone will get a beta invite eventually, though

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I feel a little uncomfortable being asked to invite my friends to something I haven't even tried...

Oh well, looking forward to the chance to try this out! :)

<comment><USER6> And, it's being run on launchrock which advertises "Create a viral "Launching Soon" page in minutes."

So, is there actually a product here, or is this just a five-minute market test to see if its' worth building a product someday?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, this is a real product. We are not running a test. We will be beta launching in mid July

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I hate the way sites are using this kind of way to sign up. It feels so scammy and turns me right off what ever their "product" is, now I just want my email address back and couldn't care less about them.

Next time I see the LaunchRock format I'm just gonna close the window

<comment><USER8> I think it's scammy too - just flag the article. They'll learn soon enough that they need to tell customers there's an additional requirement before getting their email address.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This idea makes a lot of sense, without seeing much of the actual product, this is actually something that I had thought of doing some time ago - inspired by a few posts on HN about visualizations of other resumes.

So, given that I probably won't do it, here are a few suggestions.

I think there is some useful data about people already in various 'social sites' that you can use to generate some interesting visualizations.

For instance, Stack Overflow and github for developers.

For Stack Overflow, you can develop some sort of quotient that is easily identifiable. Don't just use SO points, but use that as part of the quotient. Where a quotient is either a combination of their overall SO points and the quality of feedback given or gotten.

I would also graph/visualize various elements of Stack Overflow, example if they have really popular answers you can highlight it - i.e. get that code snippet/answer from SO and display a summary or the actual answer to the question on their 'resume'.

The idea is as their SO profile grows and more people find their stuff useful, your service is improving their resume. So the job recruiter can look at their resume at a glance and get a summary of their activity on SO, or they can drill down and see if the person asks a lot of questions or if they answer questions or if they do neither, do the questions they answer get lots of activity/votes or does the same apply to the questions they ask. There can be awesome developers that don't answer questions, but the questions they ask are really top-notch, cutting-edge stuff that many people are struggling with - <USER2> by weighting the activity around both the quality of the question & the answer, you use the activity (i.e. the community) as a proxy for the quality of the question or answer. I hope that makes sense and wasn't too rambling, but I didn't intend to give this stuff away until I saw this.

Github, you can also do some cool visualizations there - e.g. you can have a quick summary of repos forked, or new repos created. You can look at the activity on their original repos (i.e. you are trying to find the quality of their original work, not say a fork of a Rails repo). If they are the creator of Merb or jQuery for instance, you should be able to visualize how popular/how much activity is surrounding those repos, so the appropriate creators & collaborators/contributors get the credit and not people that fork.

Although, if there is a fork and there is a lot of activity there, that should definitely count for something.

So, all in all, imagine there is a resume generated by your service that quickly gives an accurate snapshot of the quality of the developer by either the quantity of projects they are affiliated with/contribute to/collaborate on, or by the quality of their feedback to the community.

I know it sounds a bit immense and there could be all sorts of directions to go in, but I think this gives you a good start.

Once you conquer those, you can also move to images - you can do the same for designers with communities like Forrst & Dribbble. Then you can also do the same for social media 'experts', although this one is a bit more tricky. There are other things you would have to look at and measure here.

Hope this makes sense, and if you are able to execute on it like I would want, then I won't need to compete with you.

But, if you don't....beware and forewarned....I think a product like this could be extremely useful :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the feedback, we were thinking along the same lines... we'll try and do SO and Github integration in our later releases

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Is there a demo available?

The HN link title is more descriptive than the page itself...

<comment><USER11> There is a kind of demo on their blog, it's the resume of Ashton Kutcher as if it was made in vizualize.me : [http://vizualizeme.posterous.com/ashton- kutchers-resume-info...](http://vizualizeme.posterous.com/ashton-kutchers- resume-infographics)

Direct link to picture : [http://currycloud.com/vizualizeme/vizualizeme- ashtonkutcher....](http://currycloud.com/vizualizeme/vizualizeme- ashtonkutcher.png)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> The "17.8" on that splash page... that's from the Feltron report, isn't it? (Just checked: it is). Is Nicholas Feltron involved in this?

</comment><comment><USER13> Another infographic resume creator: <http://inforesume.heroku.com> \- Create a simple resume infographic by logging in using LinkedIn.

I mainly built this site to improve my RoR/CSS skills and also to play with heroku. If you have any comments, please let me know.

</comment><comment><USER14> You need a sample visualization for effect before you ask folks to provide their own.

<comment><AUTHOR> You can check out one of our sample visualizations - [http://vizualizeme.posterous.com/ashton-kutchers-resume- info...](http://vizualizeme.posterous.com/ashton-kutchers-resume-infographics)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> They should post some examples

</comment><comment><USER16> great demo at democamp in toronto!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Simply awesome</comment>


TripAdvisor Launches Redesign to Hook the Non-Bookers - <AUTHOR> https://skift.com/2018/11/12/tripadvisor-launches-redesign-to-hook-the-non-bookers/ <comment><USER2> Trip Advisor used to be an awesome resource with deep knowledge about things to do and attractions in almost every city. Over the past couple of years they made a hard pivot into driving bookings and its now a lot harder to find all of the solid user generated content that used to be front and center. To me, it's long been indistinguishable from any other booking site, and there's little reason to visit. The hard left turn toward monetizing their audience feels so short sighted, and this seems like just another optimization tactic heaped on top.

<comment><USER3> And given that they promoted a _non-existing_ London restaurant to the #1 of London restaurants[1] I'm anyway not quite sure what to think of their rankings.

Reviews used to be much better 10 years ago, but a cotton-industry burping out phony reviews seems to pretty much soil the quality of the reviews.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Based on the astounding level of UX dark patterns on TripAdvisor's existing design I can't say I have high hopes for whatever "revamped design" they come up with.

<comment><USER5> Yes what's with all these travel sites and shady marketing techniques. The worst of the worst is booking.com.

Oh my god, booking a hotel on booking.com gives me anxiety. The constant notifications like "10 people are going to book it", "sorry we sold our last room", "you missed it by 1 min", "last room booked 2 mins ago" feel like they want to just scare you to death with scarcity. Wtf, this site definitely crosses the line between marketing and just plain shady.

<comment><USER6> edreams is just as shitty and even more deceiving, i just use it now to find all avaliable flights and then go to the airline page and book there.

<comment><USER7> Careful, depending on the airline and their distribution model, it can often be more expensive to book direct (airline.com) than indirect (through an online travel agency such as edreams). I know this is often the case with Emirates

<comment><USER8> It's definitely worth comparing, if you just want the cheapest bare flight I've found booking through the cheapest agency on comparison sites can be cheaper. However you will usually end up with Ryanair level of service where you can't change anything and are the lowest priority if you the flight is full.

A couple of years ago a friend booked an intercontinental flight, they saved €20 by booking through an agency, but later wanted to cancel the flight due to illness. If they'd booked even the cheapest option direct, they could have paid to do so, but as it was through an agency they couldn't.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I spoke to a former VP of tripadvisor when they had acquired Viator. The business model they had was to get commissions on bookings(and ads), and apparently did not get that the volume needed. He compared the experience of browsing trip advisor for booking experiences as 'When you step out of the airport and a 1000 taxi drivers screaming at you all at once to choose their taxi for commute." (he then went on to join Musement I think)

Even now, for hotels they have made it like booking.com. The problem is that I am on tripadvisor for reviews, and would never trust a review from a site when the site is trying to sell me something. Like why would a site show me a negative review if that would mean i would not book the property.

All things said, I think the social feed model could work for them. They are about users browsing the experiences of other users (through reviews, ratings and forums) and this facilitates that. Though other social networks already have a lead in that space. Given their already high distribution, they could have a decent userbase in no time. Eager to see how this one goes.

<comment><USER10> > and would never trust a review from a site when the site is trying to sell > me something.

I guess you don't use Amazon.com?

<comment><USER9> Two different answers here. If I am looking to buy something that I have already researched elsewhere, I would look at the reviews, but wont lay much weight to it. I have an idea of what the product is and what it is supposed to do before buying. Plus there is trust in Amazon that if the product is faulty, I can get a replacement or refund.

If I am looking to buy something in general(may or may not be from Amazon), and looking for review, I will research on my own, but not look at Amazon for even referencing. It is in their interest to only show good or mildly bad reviews for the product. Especially the ones visible right on top or first scroll.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> They say they are not changing the "things to do" pages as they for people close to booking. I actually think they are for people that have already booked - I have a trip to Geneva coming in 1 week, let's plan my days...

Also I feel that in the travel industry people have their favourite website where they ultimately go to purchase and TripAdvisor is just not one of those. Anyone I know of thinks of it as helpful travel advice, not a booking engine. People find hotels on Booking.com, look them up on TripAdvisor, book on Booking.com.

<comment><USER12> I look up hotels on booking.com and TripAdvisor and then head to the hotel's own website to make the booking.

<comment><USER13> Same here. Also, often if you call the hotel they'll offer you a better deal as they don't have to pay the big booking agencies.

<comment><USER14> I've found this hit and miss. Which I'm surprises by since they save 30% if I book direct

<comment><USER15> People who call might be less likely to shop around, since calling is a pain.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> The most annoying thing about TripAdvisor is that they annexed top search results positions for 'sights in city_name'. Their list is automatically generated, has no attractive photos or any description of the places.

Usually I used it to look for a tour agencies to book specific activity (day tour to a desert or afternoon diving), but the more I travel the more annoying it's become to see simple word 'TripAdvisor".

</comment><comment><USER17> Whats with these websites no longer showing the total price if you are staying more than one night! First Agoda now TripAdvisor.

<comment><USER18> I would guess user behaviour discovered through AB testing. Not showing the total price probably leads to a higher conversion rate. It's irritating when usability is less important than money

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I used to be a major user of the site and i think the reviews on TripAdvisor are a lot more honest and genuine. The problem for me was that TripAdvisor's app did not allow me to book a hotel last time I have tried it, merely provided links to other sites and vast amounts of extraneous features. I ended up uninstalling it.

When you are traveling on an impulse and want to quickly find a room (the whole point of using such an app), the last thing you want is to fiddle with a myriad sites and accounts.

Compare this to booking.com's app, razor sharp focused on getting my card details and book a room. In a few minutes i get a strong guarantee that there is a place to crash to wherever I'm going, and I can go back to enjoying my vacation.

</comment><comment><USER20> I think I might be in the minority but I use sites like Tripadvisor and Expedia a lot, but they haven't made a penny from me other than through banner ads. If I find a place I like, I Google it and book direct.. solely because I'm paranoid some intermediary might lose my booking or not even be officially representing the hotel or whatever.

</comment><comment><USER21> TripAdvisor's design team basically just comes up with new dark patterns all day long. A former student of mine worked there and quit after 3 months because their entire team was a bunch of unsalvageable assholes.

They're still using the "free beer and ping pong" method of recruiting to get design grads to work 80 hour weeks.

</comment><comment><USER22> Oh how I hate card view UIs. So much wasted space. It looks vapid.</comment>


It's Scarily Easy to Track Someone Around a City via Their Instagram Stories - <AUTHOR> https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/meghara/instagram-stories-earthcam-times-square <comment><USER2> "If you constantly post videos of where you are and what you do, people can figure out where you are and what you do."</comment>


"We Need to Solve This": Colombia's Race to Build a $1k Ventilator - <AUTHOR> https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2020/04/colombias-amazing-race-to-build-a-1000-ventilator/ <comment><USER2> The data coming out of the UK on ventilator use is not reassuring at all. [1] It feels like we are treating a symptom of the coronavirus, and in practice ending up with 50% and higher mortalities. That these people would have died anyway, is not an excuse to rush forward with a technique that results in so many deaths.

Separate research from the SARS outbreak showed promise: "Now Viagra is being explored as a treatment for COVID-19. A pilot study in China is testing the drug in COVID-19 patients with breathing troubles who do not yet need mechanical breathing assistance." [2] "Like nitric oxide, Viagra, known generically as sildenafil, dilates blood vessels. The Chinese scientists investigating it believe it may help open the tiny vessels that draw oxygen from the lungs, allowing patients to overcome the respiratory distress that occurs in some cases of COVID-19."

[1]: [https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/07/65-people-put-ventilators- wil...](https://metro.co.uk/2020/04/07/65-people-put-ventilators-will-die-nhs- data-shows-12521335/?ito=cbshare) [2]: [https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-05/viagra- disc...](https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2020-04-05/viagra-discovery- could-treat-coronavirus-patients)</comment>


Startup crisis. Dorm room style.  - <AUTHOR>

This is a joke compared to drinko's story, but I've really gotten myself into a bit of a bind lately. I'm hoping you guys might help me. I'll start with the background story...
One of my roommates is a film student, and he is taking a class in the film school on Internet media this semester. The class is brand new and has never been offered before. They basically spent the entire semester going over web 2.0 buzzwords (blog, wiki, mash-ups, news feed, beta, social bookmarking, social network, RSS, etc). They were also assigned to come up with a "cool idea for a website" for their final grade, and they are actually expected to develop this site.
My roommate's group quickly found they had no idea where to start. He came to me with some questions, and at first I was glad to help him. I started by walking him through the steps involved in purchasing the domain name and hosting plan. Then he started asking more questions, and I eventually had to tell him that I didn't have time to help him all the time and that the class was just ridiculous.
A week later he tells me that he wants to pay me to work on his project. All I would have to do was make a working prototype. At the time it didn't sound like a bad idea, and it sounded like fun. I thought I could make some money and help a friend out, and I would be able to copy and paste code from other things I have worked on to cover the majority of the project. So I told him I would charge $20/hr, and I agreed to a cap of $400 since it was coming out of his pocket.
Then a few days later, he comes into my room with a stack of papers. It turns out to be a 17-page contract that his dad, who happens to be a lawyer, wrote up. The contract would give my roommate full ownership of the code, ip, license, etc, and all for only $20/hr with a cap of $400. It also states that I would not be a partner or have any equity. I scan it over and quickly decide that there is no way I am going to sign it (and I still haven't). Not to mention that I was just scared of a 17-page contract and feeling a little outgunned when his dad is a lawyer.
So a week later, he doesn't seem to care that I didn't sign his dad's contract, and he pays me for the first couple of things he needed to meet in-class deadlines.
Now, the project is looking really good, and I'm starting to think that their idea combined with my awesomeness might actually have potential. What should I do?
I feel like I am too easy to take advantage of, and I wish I knew the rules on the legal side of things much better. <comment><USER2> Don't be afraid of the lawyer dad. Keep in mind that lawyers want to make things complicated so that only they understand them. (That is not really true, but it saves time to think that way.)

They made you an offer. You rejected it, smartly. Now it is time for your counter-offer. You already mentioned several downsides to their offer (you can't understand it, no equity, too low pay, probably lots of personal liability for you). You already mentioned that you don't even need this deal (because you are young and you could be doing other things).

I don't understand why you don't see your own leverage here. He wants you to do work RIGHT NOW. If he needs the work done right now, then he will capitulate to your demands, if you have the guts to make any. The first thing you need to do is STOP WORKING RIGHT NOW.

Then, throw away the 17 page contract and write a 1 page contract of your own, where (a) you disclaim all liability, (b) you can walk away at any time, (c) you get significant equity (if you are doing all the work, you should be getting at least 50%), and (d) you get paid a real wage ($20 an hour is not a real wage for a programmer). Give him that one-page contract and tell him to sign it if he wants you to continue working on the project.

He will object. He will want to make changes to the contract. You have the leverage, so tell him no. Definitely do not let his dad insert anything into it--you must write every word yourself, in crisp, clear, English.

If you can convince him to agree to a contract where you have no significant risk and you have significant benefits, then the deal can continue. Otherwise, you have to walk away, because his lawyer is too big of a problem. (Notice that this turns the tables so that his dad is a liability for him, not an asset.)

You might think that it is not possible to convince somebody to sign a contract where you have no risk and you receive a lot of benefits. Not True. I've done it twice on contract programming gigs. Each time, the (small) company signed the contract because they needed something RIGHT NOW. Then came back later with changes suggested (demanded) by their lawyer. I rejected all changes (think "I am not willing to sign anything except the backs of my checks"), they got mad, and they either canceled the project (1 time), or got over it (1 time). You just have to stand firm.

Personally, I still wouldn't take the deal because it sounds like your "partner" is adversarial. The point I am trying to make is that you don't have to be scared of lawyers, and there is no need to be intimidated when you have all the leverage.

<comment><USER3> All excellent points. You do have _all_ the leverage here, not film student guy.

> Personally, I still wouldn't take the deal because it sounds like your > "partner" is adversarial.

This is what stood out most in my mind as I read the OP. I wouldn't go into business with anyone that I didn't trust like my own brother. If he is trying to make you sign some 17 page contract as a college kid, imagine what would happen if there were ever any real money to divvy up.

<comment><USER4> The contract, I suppose, was a standard one from a laws/contacts database. So don't worry much about the layer father.

It might be that father has told the son what is best to do (to buy all the rights for the copyrighted material), and the son trusted father's authority.

I don't know if in your country a vocal contract has any power. Right now you can prove that this material is under your copyright, but he can't prove that he payed you for _all the rights_. So in my legislation system you'd still have 100% of control over the situation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Um. There is some really bad advice in this thread. In fact, nearly everyone is giving you bad advice and doesn't seem to know anything about copyright law.

First - YOU own all the rights to the code, since you created it - even if they paid you. If you sign that contract, THEY own all the rights to the code.

Second - It is up to you how you want to proceed, but if you want to own the rights to the code, just keep working without a contract.

Third - DON'T involve any other lawyers or write up your own contract or call the school's tech transfer office. This is only going to set up the situation to favor the other guy or the school. Remember, YOU own everything.

Fourth - The lawyer dad knows all of this and that is why he wants you to sign the contract. Lawyers are assholes - DON'T let him bully you into signing anything.

<comment><USER6> _YOU own all the rights to the code, since you created it - even if they paid you._

Are you absolutely certain of that?

I'm not an attorney myself (nor am I trying to be flippant or argumentative), but it seems the combination of verbal contract, his continuing to do the work specified by his roommate, and his acceptance of payment may create problems for the O.P.

 _Lawyers are assholes - DON'T let him bully you into signing anything._

Very true: standard legal M.O. on the first contract document is to try to get away with anything.

I.e., they will _expect_ you to push back and remove some terms (and if you don't, that's a bonus win for them).

<comment><USER7> His acceptance of payment / verbal contract amounts to him granting license, not transfer of copyright.

You don't have to take anybody's word for it. Most of title 17 is reasonably accessible:

Ownership:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201----...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000201 ----000-.html)

See especially the definition of "work made for hire" here:

[http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101----...](http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_00000101 ----000-.html)

<comment><USER8> I'm a little confused

A "work made for hire" is— (1) a work prepared by an employee within the scope of his or her employment; or

I read that as: if someone hired you to write some code for them, then the code you write seems to be work made for hire, in which case they own the copyright.

<comment><USER9> I think this is not a work made for hire because it was done on contract rather than as an employee. From PubLaw (<http://www.publaw.com/work2.html>)

"But if the creator of the work is not an employee, but instead a freelancer, than the "work made for hire" requirements of the independent contractor prong must be satisfied. This means that the work must be specially ordered or commissioned by the publisher, the work must fall into one of the nine enumerated categories of work, and there must be a signed writing between the parties where they agree that the work will be considered a "work made for hire."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> You agreed to work on this as a contractor, for pay. You aren't being taken advantage of if you agreed to a price ahead of time (cap or no cap).

Just because they have a good idea doesn't mean you have to be involved, there will be other great ideas that come your way as well.

And hell, if this is successful, believe me: you don't want to be in business with the kind of guy who a) goes to his father for help on such a simple thing and b) would think a 17-page contract was a good idea in any way.

<comment><USER11> Totally agree. You need to be true to your word.

If the project has any future beyond the prototype, your friend would be crazy not to ask you to stay involved. The time to discuss compensation and risk is then. If you want something to happen, do a good job with the project and make your partners excited by the prospect of doing more.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll do this, but I still own the prototype, right?

<comment><USER8> Let them own the prototype, they are paying for it after all (however little that might be). It shouldn't be hard for you to completely rewrite the prototype if you want to go forward with the idea yourself (after all you're talking about 20 hours of initial work, and chances are the rewrite will be much faster and of much higher quality).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Wow, this could get really complicated if you end up building something people want. Before it gets any further, you need to have a talk with your partner and his group members and talk about what they want to do with the site after the class is over and if they're willing to give you significant equity. If they don't give you equity, and you cease development after 20 hours, make sure that you are allowed to launch your own competing startup. You'll have to recode it, but make sure you're allowed to compete.

If they do give you equity, make sure they're not only doing it because otherwise you won't do the project, which is the situation the last crisis poster had. If every member of the group is not really happy with the arrangement, you will have problems.

<comment><USER13> rms, why do you think jfornear will need to recode? (S)he hasn't signed over the copyright, and there is no mention of it having been discussed in the verbal agreement. And the bulk of it was copy and pasted. The 'customers' cannot copyright the idea, although they may have explicitly stated that part of the discussion consisted of trade secrets.

This is rather different from the Facebook case, where there was pre-existing code when Zuckerberg was engaged.

If the father really thinks it's a valuable proposition, it's in his interest to clean up the intellectual property situation sooner rather than later. I'd have a friendly word with them to say you think the whole project is much more likely to succeed if you've got equity as well. Once you've got an agreement on terms that you all feel are fair, that's the time to get the lawyers to put it into writing.

If they really want to get all legalistic on you, first think whether you want to be in business with them, second you could suggest that they pay your costs to hire your own lawyer.

<comment><USER14> IANAL, but it sounds like it's work-for-hire. If you pay someone to do work (particularly by the hour), it's my understanding that they own the intellectual property you generate.

<comment><USER6> Except this was for a class project, so it's possible the school owns the IP, and if a venture comes out of it, he company will have to ask the school for a license.

<comment><USER15> exactly. i just finished creating an application for a doctor, but since it was done as part of my master's program, the school owns the code. this means that though the doctor may have aspirations of turning it into a million- dollar product, he can't without working out a deal with my university. i'd be very surprised if this guy's school doesn't have a similar policy regarding code written for its classes. i think it's likely that the contract the other person's lawyer dad drew up is moot--the school probably already owns all (or most) rights to the stuff.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> First: recognize that you made a mistake here. Accepting the money without a contract is only going to confuse things. Pay the money back, (borrow from the First National Bank of Mom and Dad if you have to).

While doing so, tell Roomie (and RoomieDad) that you want equity. Explain that you like the idea, and think you have a lot to contribute. Also explain that if they're not interested in giving you equity, that's cool-- you haven't signed anything giving up the IP on what you wrote, and while you're happy to let him use it for his class project, you retain the commercial rights to your code.

Try not to make it sound adversarial. Explain how psyched you are about the idea. And, when you get a revised contract from RoomieDad, get a lawyer of your own to look it over before you sign it. (Again, prostrate yourself before Mom and Dad if you have to-- it's not pleasant, but an hour of a lawyer's time is worth it.)

<comment><AUTHOR> I haven't cashed the check yet, but I was approaching this as helping a friend out in exchange for lunch money or something so I feel like I should keep it?

<comment><USER17> You can keep it, if you intend to keep working on it. But don't sign the crazy contract, and don't agree that what you're building belongs to your friend except as it pertains to his use as a school project. If you want to commercialize it (and maybe if he wants to be involved), you should retain all rights to do so...and it sounds like any contract that involves your roommates father isn't going to be acceptable--he's a lawyer who thinks his son farts rainbows...you need to set the terms. I don't mean "go over the 17 page contract of doom with a pen and make a few changes"...I mean start from a blank page, specify the terms, state your ownership position (100% unless you want to partner with this cat on a future business), and hand it over. It'll only be one page, so even his dad will be able to understand it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Don't work with this guy. He's trying to take advantage of you.

If his dad is a lawyer, you are going to be in a trouble if you actually get into some kind of a disagreement with the guy. He can say that you did in fact have a verbal agreement and that he showed you the papers and you agreed.

$400 is very, cery little money if there is a possibility of legal fight involved and by giving you the contract he has laready showed that he's serious about the legal stuff.

<comment><USER19> Yes. _Do not work with this guy._ Just stop, now.

It's just not worth it. There are other ideas in the world. There are other art students. There are _certainly_ better paying, more deserving consulting gigs. Just bail now, before you kick yourself later for not bailing sooner.

If you need a list of creative excuses I'll offer a few:

\-- One of your pet goldfish died and you can't work while you're in mourning.

\-- You've converted to a new religion in which the Sabbath runs from Monday to Saturday. You could work on Sunday, but that's when all your homework needs to be done.

\-- You need money to finance your expensive drug habit, so you got another gig that pays $150 per hour. Unfortunately, it takes up most of your time.

\-- Walk around in public with one arm in a sling. Claim, sorrowfully, that you can't type anymore. Bonus points if you switch the sling from arm to arm every other day.

<comment><USER20> "-- You need money to finance your expensive drug habit, so you got another gig that pays $150 per hour. Unfortunately, it takes up most of your time."

I like the way you think.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If you're going to be heading in to any kind of adversarial situation involving contracts, then you're probably already outmatched; your roommate will go to his dad, and then whether you've drawn up your own contract or purchased one or consulted with an attorney of your own, you'll still be staring down the barrel of a lawyer whose son is involved. Lawyers love nothing more than billable hours, except presumably your roommate will getting a pretty healthy chunk of them for free.

So, I don't think you can make this work out.

But, if you wanted to try anyway, I'd suggest drawing up your own contract as a counter-offer. They aren't hard to write, and they don't have to be long. They just have to describe, in very plain language, what work you'll perform, what you expect to receive in return, and what to do if things don't work out.

</comment><comment><USER12> Also, that really sounds like a ridiculous class. It's part of the film school? How could they expect mundanes to do programming (even HTML/CSS) in a class with no programming prerequisites? Is your friend on the only team without a CS major?

<comment><AUTHOR> I heard one student in the class has worked on the school's website, but other than him, you've guessed right, no one even knows html.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I don't think your roommate is being malicious. He probably told his dad about the project and his dad being the lawyer that he is, said "hey, have him sign this contract." And because it was a 17 page contract, your friend didn't even read it.

I would have an open & honest conversation with him about what your vision is for the software and what expectations you have for compensation, including equity.

If you can't have this discussion, walk away. It's a good indicator that you two won't be able to work out tougher problems in the future.

PS: This conversation doesn't have to be a tense situation. In fact, if you are excited about the future of this software, communicate it and maybe he'll catch the fever.

<comment><AUTHOR> You're right, my roommate hasn't read the contract. I'm really just scared of his dad because I don't know what he's thinking.

<comment><USER22> Sounds like a straight talk is definite in order. Once your roommate is on- board and you've got a simple contract done, have a sit down talk with his dad. He may be a great asset in the future. Don't burn that bridge.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I would advise you to talk to an IP attorney. They can probably help you rather cheaply and might not even charge.

You're going to get a lot of moderately but not fully informed opinions on this site, as you're talking to a lot of people who have probably dealt with one end of somewhat similar situations. When it comes to law you're best talking to experts who have your exact situation in mind.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, I'll look into this. (Enjoy your blog btw)

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> If you've been paid, then they own what you gave them in exchange for the money. Assuming you've met your contractual obligations, you don't have to type one more line of code from here.

You should tell them the truth: you've reconsidered the potential of the project and you want to re-negotiate for continued involvement. They have the option of hiring someone else to pick up where you left off. If they exercise that option, then move on to another project. You probably learned something and made some cash.

If you ask me, the dad probably wasn't thinking "I'm gonna screw this programmer as hard as I can! muahaha!". It was probably more like "I want to make sure that my son doesn't pay some guy to make a website, then have him copy it and put up a competitor".

Just tell the truth and state your point of view and it'll probably work out fine.

</comment><comment><USER25> Usually in college, thaving a contract does not matter as work between _friends_ does not need this and costs are generally shared. However, in your case you guys are _not_ doing this as friends, which is highlighted by his inital contract. If he is paying you then you are an employee/contractor paid to do a job and as is the case in most companies what _you_ produce remains the property of the company (or person paying) unless otherwise agreed.

Hence sort this out now before a small problem becomes a big problem :)

</comment><comment><USER26> An important aspect of negotiations is improving your BATNA (Best Alternative To a Negotiated Agreement). So what you most need to know is, if you walk away from this partnership, what encumbrances are there on the IP that you produced without a contract?

I _think_ that since you never did sign a _written_ contract with your roommate that either explicitly transferred IP or contained the magic words "work-for-hire", you and/or your school still own the IP and the roommate just has a license to use it for his class project. But I'm not a lawyer and this is really the sort of thing you need a legal consultation for. Since there's a chance your school owns the IP, maybe someone in your school's technology licensing office would be willing to tell you where you stand for free. If not, your state bar association may have a referral service where you can get a brief consultation for a low (as lawyers go) fixed rate. (At least, that's what they have in Massachusetts.)

If you own the IP, then you can counteroffer from a much stronger bargaining position. That is, if you decide to pursue this arrangement at all; I tend to agree with the people who say this guy is not worth doing business with.

</comment><comment><USER27> First off, a written contract is not required for your initial agreement to be valid. Do not sign the written contract unless it has only the same terms you agreed to in the verbal agreement.

Basically, you must complete your original verbal agreement, or his lawyer father may come after you for breach of contract. You do not have to enter into any other contracts. If he (or his dad) don't like this, ask them if they will cancel the contract, in which case you're off the hook completely.

If you want to be a part of this venture beyond your original agreement ($400 for the contract work), come back with your own proposal (ideally, a co- founder size equity stake).

It makes sense for you to get a co founder position, since it appears that you are the only one who can create the site, plus they will need someone to keep up the site and implement changes as they need them.

The downside is that from what I can see this person might not be the best choice for a co founder. Especially if he undervalues the need for a technical co founder on a "web 2.0ish" startup. The upside is that you do have access to an inexpensive lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER6> _So a week later, he doesn't seem to care that I didn't sign his dad's contract, and he pays me for the first couple of things he needed to meet in- class deadlines._

IANAL, but that's a bad sign.

It might be that by virtue of continuing working and continuing accepting payment, you are already contractually obligated, etc.

You should stop work and return whatever money you've accepted.

</comment><comment><USER28> You already agreed to this via verbal contract to the $400 maximum. I'm not sure where some of the other guys can say you should do anything.

Unless you stated you would keep on working for free after the $400 (which I think probably would be the softest point in the verbal agreement later even if you did), the best you can do is work until that contract expires and negotiate a better written one with equity.

Let me repeat: you _verbally agreed_ to work when he offered to "pay [you] to work on his project". You need to do the best you can to meet that agreement because you agreed to the deal.

You need to return the contract to them and firmly state you did not agree to this during the verbal agreement. If he wants you to sign something more than you already verbally agreed, he has to negotiate. Be sure he understands you want equity opportunity during any renegotiation because you are interested in the site and want to continue to work to help it grow after the contract is over.

</comment><comment><USER29> Definitely don't sign! It very well may have potential, and you didn't start assuming you'd be building someone else's empire. If one is being built, you should be a founder too. Technically at this point, the copyright ownership on that code is entirely yours. You've simply granted him a license to use it for his original intended purpose (handing it in for school).

It may just be that his dad pushed him to do that, but I would be concerned with trust if he's already tried to pull something like that. You do need to be able to trust the other founders.

Also, if he or his dad suggest to help work out an agreement between you two, get separate legal counsel. That's a clear conflict of interest (which if his dad doesn't disclose that to you up front, could land him in hot water too).

So you do have cards to play, but figure out if you want to play with these people specifically. Ideas are not that hard to come by, as others on here have said -- it's execution that counts.

</comment><comment><USER30> STOP WORKING!

Legally, you're not well off here: taking money is an implicit acceptation of the contract.

Technically he needs your help since the project is still in its infancy.

Talk it out with your friend; proceed with a friendly conversation. Offer to give back the money, explain the possibilities of being together in this project and go for at least 50/50 equity with respect to the fact that you made a mistake. Mainly don't be apologetic, at the same time don't look down on him and avoid as much as you can the lawyer dad during the discussion. He has as much to lose as you do.

</comment><comment><USER31> I don't understand two things:

a) If the film school is a college, couldn't your roommate get expelled for cheating?

b) Would not the college own the IP anyway?

<comment><USER17> "b) Would not the college own the IP anyway?"

Only if OP were employed by the school for the creation of that IP. University research grants often have a commercialization clause in them that requires some involvement of the school in the event a product results from the research...but independently funded projects certainly do not fall into this category.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> lawyers charge $150-thousands of dollars per hour. For you to get legal council on this would require an expense of more than $400. If they want you to sign a 17 page legal document, ask for 17 * $650 an hour for your lawyer to read it and give you advice. I think they will get the point!

And then you can all go, get a beer, and discuss some reasonable terms like everyone else suggested.

<comment><USER33> I'm not an expert on copyright law. Not in my own country and not in the US (those $s were US$s, right?).

Having said this in these ~60 comments you probably have at least 10 different opinions and everyone seems to KNOW that their interpretation is right. Assuming half of the people here actually know what they're talking about then this is clearly insanely complicated and you need professional help.

As such my vote, for what value it has, goes behind this idea.

<comment><USER32> streety, my point was to point out the irony of the situation to his roommate, i am sure they will work it out.

This film class seems like a great class, both of them are learning something. I also think that the roommates father is trying to teach him something, and its up to our young entrepreneurial hacker friend here to offer some learning back.

My parents have gotten involved in a similar way to our YC friend's roommate, and the only thing it did was make things more complicated. Yes I learned about contracts at an earlier age, but what my folks should have been teaching me was that I WILL HAVE THOUSANDS of great ideas, its not the idea that is important, its the ability to follow through on it. I fear that this 17-page contract has already jeopardized that.

I don't think any of the parties involved here should be trying to put all of their eggs in one basket. Their goal should be about fostering the relationship, if this project turns out better than a failure, then the next one has an even better chance of succeeding. I think the goal here is to try to learn as much as you can about building business relationships, and not about the project. I still do business today on handshakes, and sometimes, i move to a contract, but it all depends on the intended length of the relationship.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Forgot to mention, if the idea is good and things are working dont let these issues stop you guys. Too many good/promising ventures fail as people get greedy/petty early. Better you both have 50% of some thing big than 0% of nothing (okay 0% of nothing is not possible but you get what I mean).

</comment><comment><USER34> Dude: Just... walk... away. Seriously. Say thanks, and sorry, and just walk away. Forget the website, forget the awesome idea. Just do your best to salvage the relationship with your roommate, and walk away, or you are absolutely, positively going to be walking into a burning train wreck.

<comment><AUTHOR> I would have already, but his grade is on the line. I just want to give him something he can turn in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Don't sign the contract. According to U.S. copyright law, YOU own all the code unless you sign something that explicitly states otherwise. The lawyer dad knows this, which is why he sent you a 17 page contract.

</comment><comment><USER25> With a contract or any written agreement you are putting yourself in a difficult position. Clarify things with him asap and put something in writing what you agree upon.

<comment><USER25> Typo. Should be _without_ a contract... ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> I would just continue without signing the contract (as long as he pays) and wait some more time how things turns out.

<comment><USER36> I suppose there already is a contract. At least in my country, vocal contracts are binding, too. Then a lot of "default laws" apply, if the contract does not specify anything else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Copyright the code yourself, first. All's fair in love, business and war.

</comment><comment><USER38> Please let us know how this shakes out.

Fortune favors the bold.

</comment><comment><USER39> Just add in a zero to your hourly rate and keep on working on it.

</comment><comment><USER40> OK, let me see if I got this right...

Your roommate is paying you to do his homework

and

In order to "earn" that money, you're providing him with work that was already done before.

Am I the only one who thinks there is something fundamentally wrong here?

This thing was f*cked up before it started and needs to be terminated. Now.

If your roommate is in college to learn something, leave him alone and let him learn.

If you want to start a business, either drop out of college and start it or do it outside of class.

If you are as "awesome" as you claim, then find one of the 12,309,384 other ideas out there and run with it.

Nothing good will be harvested from bad seeds planted.

Oh, and while you're at it, read this:

<http://paulgraham.com/good.html>

<comment><USER5> I sort of agree with your sentiment but... I could be wrong, but this is for a film school (or at least film course) and this sort of thing happens all the time in film school. Cuz everyone in the film industry expects to get paid (except for the interns) and you might need a pro to help you out on a project.

<comment><USER40> OK. I didn't know that film school operated under different morals from everyone else. I guess that's Hollywood!</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Sshit – quick and dirty ssh config management - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/thcipriani/sshit <comment><USER2> Dirty indeed.</comment>


Google Web spam - Gabriel Weinberg's Blog - <AUTHOR> http://www.gabrielweinberg.com/blog/2010/07/google-web-spam.html <comment><USER2> Being in the index isn't very meaningful. Very little of our spam- fighting/ranking prevents sites from showing up for "site:" queries, because in general we think that if someone is intending on going to a domain directly, the only reasonable thing to do is to show that domain.

Unfortunately I don't have a better way of assessing it to offer. Internally, we often look at impression-weighted precision as a metric, but I don't think there's an easy way we could expose that to you.

A more reasonable thing to do would be to take a sample of DDG's query logs, scrape the results from Google, then see what percentage of Google's results come from your spam domains, but that requires sending a lot more queries to get any useful data.

<comment><USER3> I think this method would violate (at least the spirit of) my privacy policy: <http://duckduckgo.com/privacy.html>

That said, if anyone has a meaningful sample query set, I'm certainly interested in running it against my spam index. I see a lot of hits on it via other search APIs.

<comment><USER4> You could let people opt their queries into such studies.

<comment><USER3> I don't have accounts right now so it's a bit tricky. If there was some way people could export their Google search history, then I could use that. Feel free to email it in anonymously.

<comment><USER2> I found this link which looks like it dumps search history as an rss feed. That might be a convenient way to send it over.

[https://www.google.com/history/?lookup?q=&output=rss&...](https://www.google.com/history/?lookup?q=&output=rss&num=1000)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> On an tangential note, it's a shame that Google don't offer a service like BOSS (though BOSS could be enhanced by offering revenue sharing, as an alternative to charging per query).

It seems the Google search APIs have actually gone backwards over the last few years.

<comment><USER6> Yahoo's goal with BOSS is to fragment the search market; Google is so far ahead that Yahoo knows they can't compete head-on.

Google doesn't want the search market to be fragmented; they want to dominate the market. I think that's why Google doesn't have a good search API offering.

<comment><USER7> I think DDG is a great example of why Google _doesn't_ have a BOSS-like API. It seems pretty clear that DDG is violating the TOS of the Yahoo API by mixing search results. Yahoo seems to be looking the other way (for now), but you can bet that Google would be less forgiving.

There's not a search engine out there that wants to allow you to muck with their relevance algorithm by changing the results, and Google has more to lose from DDG-like activity than it might gain.

<comment><USER3> <http://developer.yahoo.com/search/boss/>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The writer states himself that the results of "site:" don't mean anything: "Of course this says nothing about how much they appear in the rankings." So what's the point of this article?

<comment><USER3> They mean something, i.e. that they "are in their index in some form." I've been blacklisted before, and when you're blacklisted, you don't show up in site: queries.

That said, I wanted to acknowledge that this isn't ranking data. However, perhaps as a result of this post, I'll be able to get some and re-post those results.

<comment><USER9> I'm sure you would agree with this but in case others are reading, simply blacklisting these sites wouldn't be the best thing to do. Many are simply expired or parked pages.

<comment><USER3> Google visits domains all the time so they should be aware quite quickly when things move from spam/parked to non-spam/non-parked. Therefore, I don't see why they shouldn't all be out of the index until they have useful content on them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


More than you really wanted to know about Patch - <AUTHOR> http://lists.landley.net/pipermail/toybox-landley.net/2019-January/010049.html <comment><USER2> If you ever find yourself needing to maintain a set of patches to apply to two or more similar codebases (e.g. various linux kernels of various distros), I found stacked git to be very helpful for that purpose. [http://www.procode.org/stgit/](http://www.procode.org/stgit/) (or maybe just apt-get install stgit).

<comment><USER3> Yes, I can definitely recommend stgit if what you're doing is basically "maintain this stack of patches". It's much more user-friendly as an UI for doing that than raw git rebase, though of course you can achieve the same workflow with the basic git plumbing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Of course, this idea goes back further than "back in the 1980s" with Larry Wall.

In the mainframe world of the decade before that, people had ZAP, which later was to become SPZAP, OBJZAP, and AMASPZAP (not IAMASPZAP as the Hacker's Dictionary erroneously has it). ZAP's "NAME", "VER", and "REP" records work similarly to the process described by M. Landley: name the file, verify that the original contents at a particular place are thus, replace them with some new contents if so.

ZAP could also twiddle metadata, record patches applied, and dump contents. It has several imitators.

* [https://ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSB27U_6.4.0/com....](https://ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSB27U_6.4.0/com.ibm.zvm.v640.dmsb4/zapp.htm)

* [https://ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com....](https://ibm.com/support/knowledgecenter/en/SSLTBW_2.3.0/com.ibm.zos.v2r3.ieav100/spzap.htm)

* [https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/sasc/doc/tec...](https://support.sas.com/documentation/onlinedoc/sasc/doc/techsup/zenid-24.htm)

* [https://m204wiki.rocketsoftware.com/index.php/RockZap](https://m204wiki.rocketsoftware.com/index.php/RockZap)

<comment><USER5> Thanks for the links provided, made me happy to realise I don't have to parse that documentation :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I was very surprised to learn that diff / patch file formats are essentially unstandardized. Shouldn't there be an RFC or something?

<comment><USER7> It's standardized the same way Perl is standardized - whatever the reference implementation does is the standard!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I hope someone somewhere is compiling this kind of material for the Foundation time capsule.

</comment><comment><USER9> After reading the man page for diff and the -e option, I found that they actually generate the diff hunks from the end of the file to the beginning in order to keep the start line numbers consistent. I wonder why the other diff formats decided to do it the other way around (from beginning to end)? Doing it from end to beginning actually makes it easier to apply individual hunks without having to regenerate the diff after applying one (assuming you start with a later hunk before applying earlier ones).

</comment><comment><USER10> That was quite refreshing to read. It's funny how little thought I'd given to such a vital tool

I had a good chuckle at 'given a choice between "system with no battery" and "system with systemd" it's no contest'

</comment><comment><USER11> patch: hey everybody look at javascript it has _two_ nulls. wat lol

javascript: at least my nulls aren't like _midnight, january 1, 1970_

unix: damn js that's an _epoch_ burn</comment>


Video Games are already art, Mr Ebert - <AUTHOR> http://nikgregory.com/2010/04/video-games-are-already-art-mr-ebert/ <comment><USER2> I agree with the premise (video games can be art), but I find his arguments unconvincing.

Some games I consider art because of the story, the immersion, and so on. From the top of my head: _PlaneScape: Torment_ , and perhaps _The Longest Journey_. These games are great because they are great novels, and _more_.

Other games, such as _Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis_ (the one by LucasArts) and _Grim Fandango_ I consider art because they are _great movies_ and more. It's really more of an interactive movie than a game. Watching somebody play games like this is almost as much fun as playing it yourself.

Some games I consider art because they make me stop and think. _Sanatarium_ for instance.

On the other end of the spectrum you can have a game like _Super Mario_. Mario is reductionist. Everything that can be left out, is left out. You walk, you run, you jump. There is no story, you don't need one. I imagine people will still play and enjoy Super Mario 30 years from now, perhaps a 100 years from now. If a game stands the test of time like that, it almost _must_ be art by definition.

A great game, when you pick it up, can immediately blow you away because it's _just that good_. In the same way a painting can take your breath away or keep you captivated for hours. Music can do this to you too. Paintings, Music and Games can be art because the artists can decide what to leave in and what to take away. They completely own the medium, and so the artist owns the experience.

With movies, this isn't the case. They're clumsy because there are too many details, too many uncontrollable factors, too many budgetary issues. Movies are never _perfect_. No matter how great a movie is, there are always jarring imperfections. But if there is a perfect movie, a movie that can't be improved upon, that can be _really_ considered art... you'd probably end up with a movie from Pixar.

<comment><USER3> I think yours will be the best comment on this article.

The trouble with this discussion is people keep attempting to define objective attributes of art. But art doesn't have objective attributes; they are all subjective. Art is a feeling we get when we look at something others call art. We see three paintings, all "art", and two of them give you a certain feeling, so you call it "art" and suppose they feel the same about the third painting. And there it is. You now have an idea called "art" to develop.

It is in this way that our idea of art overlaps with each others, appearing to be the same from a distance, but irreconcilable at proximity. This is why this concept is so fuzzy and difficult to sketch out. We really do need to experience art before we can believe it as art. So, Mr. Ebert's right. Video games aren't art - _to him_.

<comment><USER2> Thank you. I was thinking about deleting the comment because it's so disjointed and a bit of a braindump, but now I'll leave it up.

I don't agree that art is _just_ in the eye of the beholder, but this probably isn't the place to get into that whole argument. In short, some things _must_ be art because they're truly timeless, other things _cannot_ be art because they're strictly worse than something else. If you have X, and X' an uninspired derivative of X, then X' cannot be art. So I'm pretty sure there are a bunch of necessary attributes for art. I don't think you (plural you) do art justice by saying it's all subjective.

<comment><USER3> When you put it that way I agree with you. But I don't believe art is _just_ in the eye of the beholder. I believe there is a web of definitions for art that all overlap. Great Art is art that mostly agreed by everyone that it is great art. People the world over converge to believe a certain symmetry and proportion makes the most beautiful face. In the same way I believe there is a shared inclination for what is Great Art [1]. But I don't know what it is, and challenge you to define it, because it's a little different for everyone, particularly subject to their perspective.

Let's consider person A and person B. Both A and B see and consider derivative art X' separately. A thinks: there's nothing original here. She's already seen art X. B thinks: wow, how interesting. B has not seen art X and so the uninspired derivation is still interesting.

Similarly, I think the Mona Lisa is a reasonably accurate painting of an unattractive woman. There is nothing beautiful or intrinsically interesting about it. It's due to POV. In fact, each of your examples in the OP is a different perspective. A different reason to consider something art. If you had a stricter definition I don't see how you could change perspective so easily.

I actually reduced all words defined on emotions to being subjective. I don't think this causes a problem. I don't see this as doing art injustice. Saying it is _just_ subjective just gives us a spot to start from.

(Oi, now I don't know if I made sense.) [1] There was a PBS like program on the BBC one night that discussed some research about this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I love video games, and have been playing them my entire life (beyond as far back as my memory goes), and I would not consider the majority of games to be art.

"Is it art or not" is a stupid debate. What is art? You cannot even have this argument, because two opposing viewpoints will not have the same definition of art.

Great essay on this matter: <http://johnhenrylambert.com/essays/bad_words.html>

Are video games fine art? No. Are they art like you might find at a modern art museum? Sometimes, but very rarely. Almost never, for the sort of game you can buy for a console from the store. Are they art like industrial design, transportation, bridges, etc? Probably not, since the games themselves are usually only software. Is software art? Sometimes, probably. Then are games art like software is art? Could be, but most people think of the game as the entire package itself, not just the code that powers the engine.

Are the in-game assets art? The characters, scenery, etc? Individually, certainly. As a whole? Debatable. Individually, the assets have no purpose other than their form. Collectively, they take the form as fulfilling part of an exchange the consumer (who paid money with the understanding that he or she will receive a minimum amount of stimulation and entertainment) has made with the producer of the game. Few people expect to pay $60, put a disc into their console, and look at pictures of chairs nailed to a wall and read a marker- felted diatribe about the uselessness of progressing fashionable design standards if the functional form does not change over time. If you pay $60 to go through a museum of modern art and don't like it, well, too fucking bad.

Most commercially produced games, just like with most commercially produced movies, the consumer pays money with the expectation that their purchase will be fulfilled.

So by that definition, most Hollywood movies are not art, either. Which I would also agree with.

Entertainment is not exactly the same thing as many of the more formal definitions of art.

<comment><USER5> I liked the part where you called it a "stupid debate" and said "You cannot even have this argument" and then wrote a long post doing exactly what you criticized.

Also, "[x] is not art" statements are a tremendous bore.

<comment><USER4> Stupid debates can be fun

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Games are mechanisms for play. Play is not art. Play is dynamic, art is static. Play engages, art coerces.

I think Ebert is mostly right, but we shouldn't give much serious attention to someone who has had so little experience with games. That's like arguing about Hermann Hesse with someone who staunchly refuses to read anything longer than a road sign. We should be _proud_ of the distinction between play and art. If we're going to argue at all, our position should be that play is _potentially_ as important as art, if not more so.

\---

(Emphasis on "potentially". Game developers still have a lot of ground to cover. The linked article was praising games like Dragon Age and Mass Effect as positive examples of storytelling in games. Yikes.)

        BioWare has got lost in the dense tangle of what it was trying to
        accomplish. It hasn't been able to see the wood for the trees. It
        has summoned an entire world into existence in the most meticulous
        detail, but failed to give it an identity beyond the blandest
        cliché. It has created living characters that respond like humans,
        but speak like dictionaries and move like mannequins. It has
        engineered solidly absorbing RPG gameplay and character progression
        and stranded them in a succession of hackneyed and hide-bound
        scenarios.

        http://www.eurogamer.net/articles/dragon-age-origins-review

<comment><USER7> Play is not art... why?

Art is static? So fountains, kinetic sculptures, improvisational comedy, and rose gardens are not art? I find your definitions lacking.

<comment><AUTHOR> Fine art is (generally) static, but film and theatre are not, they're the performing arts and this is where I believe video games fall. Where is the difference between Titanic and Avatar? Is Avatar not art or is it excluded because of graphics? Is Shreck not art because it's even more computerised? Where is the line? There isn't one, people insist there is a line somewhere yet they, like Ebert, fail to define where and why that line is.

As I said, there are many things I wouldn't consider art, but I know for a fact 90% of people disagree with me.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This argument is all about what's good enough to be art.

If the first film ever made was boring, film was not yet art. If the second film was good, film suddenly became art. Including the first film?

Is a really really good film art, or must it be at least really really really really good?

There is no film everyone likes, so the only way to recognize a good film is by majority. Must it be filibuster-proof?

This debate makes no sense.

</comment><comment><USER9> Why do we care what Ebert thinks?

<comment><USER10> This was my reaction too, at first.

But Ebert is a hugely influential cultural figure, spreading ill-informed opinions to a public who would rather listen to what he says than think for themselves. Willful ignorance is a metavirus.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Very few films are "art". Who's the video game equivalent of Kubrick or Kurosawa or Bergman?

Penny Arcade's comment on this is wonderfully wrong: "If a hundred artists create art for five years, how could the result not be art?"

Interestingly, that's exactly the sort of film that fails to be art. Great films are, without exception, products of a single driving vision, not designed by committee.

The only way to really claim that video games are art is to say, "Here, this game _X_ is the equivalent to _The Seven Samurai_." Only that's not going to happen, because it doesn't exist. And because it doesn't exist, Ebert gets pummeled with long screeds of gamer angst rather than the only answer that would matter: "Game _X_ is art."

<comment><USER12> Half Life is the equivalent to The Seven Samurai.

I have Half Life. Yes, I have The Seven Samurai, in its black and white goodness. They both helped define in their respective areas the future. Half Life was that game for me. I still remember the feeling of finally seeing the soldiers, and then coming to a firm realization in horror that they were trying to kill me as well. The entire pulled me in at the time.

Art is, at it's core, something someone creates to experience. A painting is art because you experience it with your eyes. A song is art because you experience it with your ears. Both were creations intended to be experienced.

Architecture is art, not just because you can see it, but because you can actually feel it, move through it, use it. Beautiful architecture can be functional, and usually is. It solves a problem while being beautiful.

So, why does a game not become art? Winning, as described by Ebert? Architecture's goal isn't being art, it's to be a structure. The purpose of the art doesn't dictate whether it's art. The Mona Lisa isn't less art because it was commissioned. The goal of the Mona Lisa was in celebration of a birth, but does this diminish it's artistic value? The 'players' here used the painting for another purpose.

So, it can't be the goal. Winning isn't why I played Half Life. The story was why I played, the emotions it pulled on.

You make the argument that great films are driven by a single vision. But The Seven Samurai was not driven by a single person. So, if a game is designed by a single vision, can it become art?

The argument against games as an art is not new. Movies weren't art. Pictures weren't art. So many things weren't art before their time, and had to become art, evolve to art.

No. Discounting games as art diminishes all other forms of art.</comment></comment>