AutoSender 6.0- Picture and SMS Scheduler - <AUTHOR> https://www.freeramble.com/news/2018/11/30/autosender-6-0-schedule-picture-messages/ <comment><AUTHOR> AutoSender is an iOS sms scheduler app that allows you to easily schedule text or picture messages that will automatically send at the time you selected.

Use my referral code NRCMRS while signing up to earn free credits upon sign up!</comment>


Shipping forgettable microservices with Rust - <AUTHOR> https://precompile.com/2016/06/23/shipping-forgettable-microservices-with-rust.html <comment><USER2> I don't think I have enough context to understand this article.

What exactly does "response time" measure, here? The diagram of the system makes it look like this program is essentially just a scan over a data stream, so each iteration should be minimally computationally intensive--certainly not in the tens of milliseconds.

Is this counting time to query the left-hand-side? Or is it time from receiving a message from the LHS to forwarding it rightward?

I don't know what a "HTTP log drain front-end" is: is this software an HTTP client, or an HTTP server? If making HTTP requests across some network is costing you up to 10ms, what network is that, and why not simply run this code on the host that generates the data you're currently sending over HTTP?

<comment><USER3> I got an eery vibe that this was the equivalent of an /r/SubredditSimulator post for Hacker News.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I may be getting this wrong, but I was under the impression that microservices are about having many small services as in a service bus architecture. I don't know how the author came to believe it's about short response times.

EDIT: Reading the responses, I should clarify: The question is if a microservice needs to be be fast to respond to be considered a microservice, or if both types are called micro based solely on the fact that they are limited-purpose small services, together building a greater construct. I would say kinda-synchronous fast responding services are just as micro as very- asynchronous slow responding but still limited API services are.

<comment><USER5> Microservices are SOA and there are two ways in which that typically happens: slow offline processing with many different workers. That's not really an issue and something that is a well understood problem. The second however is offloading work to different processes while something is waiting for a result and it wants it quick (a web request). In the latter case it's absolutely important that your services reply quickly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> What web framework is this on?

<comment><USER7> Iron, apparently: [https://github.com/dirk/metrics_distributor/blob/d29c897d156...](https://github.com/dirk/metrics_distributor/blob/d29c897d156d7aa335561deaf2ae90b15da4ca80/Cargo.toml)

<comment><USER8> Which has very disappointing benchmarks at the moment - even slower than some Python and Ruby stacks:

[https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r12&hw=...](https://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r12&hw=peak&test=plaintext)

I'm not sure why this is - I've Googled to no avail - but it is rather worrying.

<comment><USER9> When you see Rust being "slower than Ruby" it's usually because you forgot to turn off debug mode.

<comment><USER10> Looks like they use build with release mode:

[https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/mast...](https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks/blob/master/frameworks/Rust/iron/setup.sh)

<comment><USER11> So it's important to not compare master to when the benchmark was posted; remember, they do them at a certain time, then work happens. So like, I sent a PR to update Rust from 1.0 to 1.6 at one point, for example.

That said, I don't think that missing out on --release was the issue here, as far as I know, it has always been on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Why not Go? Checks the boxes of "performant" and "safe" while remaining developer friendly compared to Rust

<comment><USER13> You can just as easily ask, why not any other language, for the exact same reason.

But since you asked about Go, here are the 3 reasons that I would not pick Go:

1) no generics means less code reuse, which mean more testing of more code (potential runtime issues)

2) allowance of Null, means potential NPE/seg-faults (runtime issue)

3) non-type safe, inconsistent error handling (another runtime issue)

Go is a fine language, like many others, but it's not the same as Rust, and doesn't offer the same features (like no runtime/GC), which means it's not as flexible in its usage. But, I will grant you that Go is "easier" to write code in.

Anyway, there will be and are many great programs written in Go, as there have been in C, C++, Java, Perl, Python, Ruby, Erlang, Haskell, Ocaml, Ruby, JS, etc. To each there own. Mine is Rust today, was Java before that, C++ before that, C before that, and Basic before that.

<comment><USER12> Sure, it just felt like a more natural fit than other languages given the criteria which is why I called it out specifically

Thanks for your mention of additional runtime safety, it isn't something I had considered</comment></comment></comment>


Microsoft spies Apple vulnerability - <AUTHOR> http://news.cnet.com/8301-10805_3-57504849-75/microsoft-spies-apple-vulnerability/ <comment><USER2> Laptop + touchscreen = teh stupid. It's a pain (literally, in your shoulder or arm) to keep reaching out to touch the screen. Your going to get fingerprints all over your screen. Otherwise, it looks like they are slavishly copying Macbooks. And you're running Windows. Yech.

</comment><comment><USER3> Oh dear god no! This isn't a vulnerability, this is Microsoft being extremely naive in the field of human interface. Using that touch screen for 5 minutes and your arm is dead. Sounds like some horrible tech nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER4> Has the author not seen the iPad accessories which are a full keyboard and stand? Functionally the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER5> Emphasis on: "When I SAW this, it instantly killed any craving I had had for Apple's MacBook Pro Retina."

We've seen a lot of devices that look good but then end up poorly implemented.</comment>


Microsoft Discontinues All Current Zunes - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/gadgetlab/2009/09/zune-discontinues-all-current-zunes/

<comment><USER2> Outside tech circles, I'm not sure I know anyone who knows what a Zune is.

<comment><USER3> When I was traveling in Central America last year, I saw a number of Israelis with Zunes.</comment></comment>


Detailed review of MIT's "Introduction to Algorithms" course. Part three: Sorting - <AUTHOR> http://www.catonmat.net/blog/mit-introduction-to-algorithms-part-three/

<comment><USER2> I'm enjoying this series, but it's not really a review (in the sense of "book review") as much as a detailed summary.</comment>


Doubts about Johns Hopkins research have gone unanswered, scientist says - <AUTHOR> http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/doubts-about-johns-hopkins-research-have-gone-unanswered-scientist-says/2013/03/11/52822cba-7c84-11e2-82e8-61a46c2cde3d_story.html?hpid=z2#.UT-IYe5b9aw.hackernews <comment><USER2> I can't help but think some of this relates to this: [http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about...](http://www.ted.com/talks/dan_pallotta_the_way_we_think_about_charity_is_dead_wrong.html)

The pressures that we put researchers under to deliver nothing but positive results is terrible. There is an overhead to research. There is an overhead to progress. Why do we try to eliminate it with such prejudice, when the consequences seem so obviously dire?

<comment><USER3> I strongly agree. I was struck by the mention that in the 60s 2/3rds of research projects were funded, whereas nowadays only 1/5th are. This is not just due to stinginess; there are more research labs chasing funding and grant applications have become professionalized, if not commercialized. Maybe this is also a function of more people pursuing academic success as a career path, because the rise of IT has resulted in a significant devaluation of labor- intensive work and thus the earning power of people engaged in it.

<comment><USER4> 1/5? That would be nice... NIH funding levels are at 1/10 nowadays.

<comment><USER5> Paylines at many institutes are even lower, around 8% It's only going to get worse with the sequester

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I would trace this to the same root as the reason the largest banks are allowed to walk away from open corruption and money-laundering. We have inculcated into our society a servile deference to power. Nobody of any importance is held accountable for their actions, even if they would be universally recognized as wrong.

While it may be shocking that a laboratory director is more concerned with the reputation of his institution than that it does good science in an ethical and responsible; I doubt anyone is terribly surprised.

We know this, but to face it requires us to acknowledge our own complicity in the lie that things are alright, that we live in a stable society that is not on the verge of collapse. Our institutions are visibly failing, and we don't know what we would replace them with.

<comment><USER7> Oh yes, because a bunch of academics or paper-pushers at NIH have any power...

The reality of why nobody addresses these concerns is:

1) It's bad publicity. Everyone is on board with making these things look good, from the universities that support this research to the federal government that spends billions funding this research. It doesn't serve anybody's interest to blow the lid on something like this.

2) It's boring. It's too esoteric to explain to the average person what actually constitutes scientific misconduct.

3) It's hard to pin down. Scientists aren't self-policing. Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work, and indeed academia has a culture of letting everyone puff up their little egos. A given academic doesn't really rip into other academics so they don't rip into him.

<comment><USER8> _Academics don't have a culture of ripping into each others' work_

From my experience reviewing papers, being privy to program committee discussions, listening to my colleagues talk, and attending conferences, I have to disagree.

<comment><USER9> indeed, and the biologists are some of the harshest.

<comment><USER8> I think everyone thinks of their own field as the harshest.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The crux of this sort of issue was laid bare relatively early in this article: results and papers are more important than good science, which leads to an increased incidence of fraud and related misconduct. If good science were actually valued, one scientist wouldn't have been driven to suicide by the fact that his research (assuming it was not fabricated to begin with) was being questioned and the colleague who raised valid questions wouldn't have lost his job. I can't imagine that this is all that uncommon a scenario.

</comment><comment><USER11> Curiously, the data is publicly available: <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/geo/query/acc.cgi?acc=GSE29662>

<comment><USER12> It better be, the NIH paid for it and this kind of research must submit to an NIH approved archiving service.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> _"Deceased respondents no longer pose a risk," the letter said._

\- classic! Yes, science stops when the scientist is dead, says the US government ...

<comment><USER14> Or. . .even if doesn't stop, we now have an excuse to sit back and do nothing until our chain is yanked again.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This is one side of a story of guy that had just been fired and is filing a lawsuit. What exactly is the criticism of the paper since the paper is available? If the only argument is the threshold to consider something a hit or not on the screen, there is a ton of followup in the paper looking at those genes more closely. Am I missing something?

<comment><USER16> I don't understand why you've mentioned "on the screen".

If the treshold is set too low, we'll end up with false positives. I.e. we'll think the study shows something when in fact it doesn't. And this is not something that can be fixed in follow-up papers.

<comment><USER15> It was a genome wide screen looking for synthetic lethality with another gene. As with all screens you get a bunch of hits and you follow up on the most promising ones, which they did in the paper.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Shoot first and ask questions later. Better to apologize after than to ask permission before. Too big to fail.</comment>


How a Kubernetes pod gets an IP address - <AUTHOR> https://ronaknathani.com/blog/2020/08/how-a-kubernetes-pod-gets-an-ip-address/ <comment><AUTHOR> When a pod is scheduled on a kubernetes node, there are various interactions that result into a pod getting an IP address. This post goes into the details of how a pod gets an IP address and describes the interactions between various components - kubelet, CRI Plugin, Container Runtime and CNI Plugins.</comment>


Facebook's plans to sell user data revealed in email - <AUTHOR> https://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2018/11/29/facebooks-plans-sell-user-data-revealed-email/ <comment><USER2> Apparently it's not a new idea... this was posted to HN yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18556722](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18556722)

</comment><comment><USER3> "despite a promise never to do so" is a recurring Facebook theme.

</comment><comment><USER4> this case as whole is just gross. i dont think anyone will come out with anything positive.

that said, whats wrong with facebook selling their users data, the users agreed to it. don't want your data sold, stop handing it over to capitalists. :x

<comment><USER5> I was with you until you got to the "capitalist" bit. If you don't want your data to be sold, don't give it to anyone you can't trust.

I trust plenty of capitalists with my data, and Facebook isn't one of them. Basically if I'm not paying for their service, I'm cannot trust them.

I feel quite comfortable with ProtonMail controlling my email, BitWarden controlling my passwords, and Tarsnap controlling my backups because they all have a monetary interest in _not_ selling my data because they're competing with "free" products.

And communism is way worse in this regard. Just look at China if you want to see how that plays out (and yes, I know they're not really communist anymore, but my point stands).

<comment><USER6> _I feel quite comfortable with ProtonMail controlling my email, BitWarden controlling my passwords, and Tarsnap controlling my backups because they all have a monetary interest in not selling my data because they 're competing with "free" products._

You shouldn't trust Tarsnap simply because it has a financial interest in protecting your data. You never know when someone will come along with more money.

You should trust Tarsnap because it _is cryptographically incapable of revealing your data_.</comment></comment></comment>


Legal Moonshiner and University Battle Over Rights to 'Kentucky' - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/10/us/-legal-moonshiner-and-university-battle-over-rights-to-kentucky.html <comment><USER2> Let me get this straight, the University of Kentucky is suing a Moonshiner for the usage of the word Kentucky in clothing? Is it truly possible for a judge to rule in favor of the University?

<comment><USER3> The C&D letter is here: [http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/letter-10-12-15.pdf](http://lawprofessors.typepad.com/files/letter-10-12-15.pdf) and seems to specify the combination of 1) Kentucky 2) clothing and 3) UK's color scheme [blue & white]. This feels like the opening of a negotiation that is being turned into publicity.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are there medical practitioners who understand founders and engineers? - <AUTHOR>

I've seen a lot of threads on HN recently where health issues have come up. Quite often the comments are filled with anecdotes that lead me to believe engineers and startup founders have unique health concerns.
Our work leaves little time in the day for many regular administrative tasks, much less more spaced out tasks like health checkups. In males the deferral of health checkups is already a problem, but for founders and engineers who are male I believe it is exacerbated.
We work long hours in tense environments, but with little cardiovascular activity. If we do perform regular exercise, many of us gravitate towards very goal oriented intense workouts like spin classes, crossfit, marathons, century bike rides, etc. With such limited time and a drive to "succeed" at anything we do, there are no half measures.
I recently skipped on a doctor's visit, despite my company having access to on-site physicians. The problem was a "typical male" problem, but a few hours of research led me to believe I understood the symptoms and the physiology enough to spend the time on some critical stuff that needed to be done. My head was also filled with the drama of the U.S. medical system, where tests would be ordered that left me with a feeling of dread and uncertainty for weeks despite the statistics indicating a serious condition was extremely unlikely.
So what to do ... can we use our healthy remuneration packages to visit doctors that can spend the time to keep an eye on us? Can someone build a "Doctor as a Service" that I feel is always available and will spot unusual patterns in my results, rather than the doctor roulette of medical centers? Should I just get an exhaustive imaging scan every two years to find those dark patches that will eventually kill me ten years from now? Has anyone, as a founder or engineer, found a way of integrating a medical check into their lives that seems to make sense? <comment><USER2> >Our work leaves little time in the day for many regular administrative tasks, much less more spaced out tasks like health checkups. We work long hours in tense environments, but with little cardiovascular activity.

We bust our asses almost as much as any other working person, and like most other working people have little free time during the day.

>We work long hours in tense environments, but with little cardiovascular activity. If we do perform regular exercise, many of us gravitate towards very goal oriented intense workouts like spin classes, crossfit, marathons, century bike rides, etc. With such limited time and a drive to "succeed" at anything we do, there are no half measures.

We're special snowflakes who can do everything! Except take care of ourselves, because that's boring.

>I recently skipped on a doctor's visit, despite my company having access to on-site physicians.

I'm too lazy to walk down the hall, and don't have a problem making appointments I'm not planning to keep.

>The problem was a "typical male" problem, but a few hours of research led me to believe I understood the symptoms and the physiology enough to spend the time on some critical stuff that needed to be done.

But it doesn't really matter whether I see a doctor, because I ignore medical advice on general principle.

>My head was also filled with the drama of the U.S. medical system, where tests would be ordered that left me with a feeling of dread and uncertainty for weeks

And really, all I want is simple reassurance,

>despite the statistics indicating a serious condition was extremely unlikely.

so I can sue everybody involved when I develop an unlikely serious condition.

>can we use our healthy remuneration packages to visit doctors that can spend the time to keep an eye on us?

I'd like a doctor to visit me at my desk, but not the distracting sort of doctor that palpitates my abdomen and asks me questions when I'm trying to understand really important code. By "visit" I do not mean anything that involves traveling.

>build a "Doctor as a Service" that I feel is always available

even more available than my on-site medical center

>and will spot unusual patterns in my results

despite not doing any testing with which to generate results

>Should I just get an exhaustive imaging scan every two years to find those dark patches that will eventually kill me ten years from now?

ask your doctor/any doctor, who's trained for decades to answer questions like this

>Has anyone, as a founder or engineer, found a way of integrating a medical check into their lives that seems to make sense?

Yes: 1\. Find a doctor that works nights and weekends 2\. Leave work during the day, which isn't difficult for us white-collar types 3\. Make the time to do it, just like you make the time to do other unpleasant but necessary things</comment>


The tactics Russian intelligence uses to harass foreign diplomats - <AUTHOR> https://qz.com/914634/the-tactics-russian-intelligence-uses-to-harass-foreign-diplomats-according-to-estonia/ <comment><USER2> From the article:

>Tipping off television crews to meetings between a diplomat and an activist, allowing the crews to burst in on the "secret" meeting and grill the parties on tape.

How is this happening if the meeting is taking place at an embassy? The premises of embassies are inviolable under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations. So it's a failure on the part of the embassy security for reporters to burst in, but it's also a violation of a very basic diplomatic norm on the part of the Russians to let this sort of thing go unpunished.

<comment><USER3> Presumably it's not at an embassy as the activists are trying to keep a lower profile than someone who walks in the front door.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> FTA:

 _Entangling a target in accusations of theft. One way is using the "drop" ruse, where an agent walking ahead of a target drops a wallet or bag, and when the target returns it, he is accused of stealing from it_

This is a well-known general tourist scam in Moscow

</comment><comment><USER5> The PDF report this links to is more insightful than this blogspam. The "harassment" bullet points are pulled from p24-25.

<comment><AUTHOR> I saw that too. Comment on that PDF here: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14982419](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14982419)</comment></comment>


Completely Silent Computer - <AUTHOR> https://tp69.blog/2018/04/17/completely-silent-computer/ <comment><USER2> _This computer makes no noise when it starts up. It makes no noise when it shuts down. It makes no noise when it idles. It makes no noise when it's under heavy load. It makes no noise when it's reading or writing data._

I've used completely silent computers before --- some laptops --- and actually found the experience rather unsettling --- to me the fans, the soft humming/whining of the CPU voltage regulators, and the grunting of the hard drive all give subtle cues as to what's happening with the system at any given moment. Without them, I have to spend extra effort looking at the indicators (if any) or monitoring apps. The white noise is somewhat comforting too.

There are certainly people who like the silence, but I prefer the extra feedback; I wonder if it's related to how I'll easily get nauseous in a car that's too quiet and has a very soft suspension, but have no problems if I can hear the engine and "feel" the road.

</comment><comment><USER3> Tips on getting rid of coil whine?

Because that's literally the only sound I hear from my computer unless it's heavily loaded. Most annoying is an intermittent whine when it's idle. Loud enough to hear from the other end of my - admittedly small - apartment.

<comment><USER4> The drastic approach: finding the culprit and replace it. Years ago I had a combination of MB and PSU that produced an annoying whine. Putting a different PSU model eliminated the noise. Sometimes it's the combination of GPU and PSU, YMMV.

The thinkerer approach: find the noisy coil and bury it with a generous amount of hot glue or some other similar dielectric material. You are trying to reduce the coil "vibrations" and dampening the noise.

Personal anecdote, both mine and my sister's Dell XPS 13" (9333 model) have an annoying coil whine that is really evident on quiet rooms, in a normal office environment I can't hear them tho. From what I've read online recent XPS models still have that defect. Baffling, a lower specs Latitude 15" that was provided to me in a previous job didn't had any.

In my case an user has solved the issue disconnecting the audio speakers, don't recall if it was one of them or both, if someone is interested the post is somewhere in the Dell support forum.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> hey isn't there some kind of inert (non-conductive) oil you could fill the whole thing with that transfers heat better than air does? if nothing needs to be moving in there then viscosity etc shouldn't matter.

it just shoudn't leech into or out of anything and be chemically inert in the relevant ways. most oils are pretty cheap and probably every little bit matters in this kind of setup. removing components would be pain though. (everything oily).

<comment><USER6> This is what you're looking for: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJreUX3TCk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RrJreUX3TCk)

And yes, it does work - but it's a maintenance nightmare, since oil can eat some types of plastic that are commonly used, especially at their seams.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have yet to encounter an electronic device that doesn't emit a high frequency whine at some point.

<comment><USER8> I've never heard my iPhone make an audible noise that I didn't trigger.

<comment><USER7> The iPhone 6 I have for App testing does when charging. Some devices do it at certain display settings or under certain loads. Modern Smartphones are virtually silent 99% of the time but invariably they'll all whine at some point.

I am the type of person who is unsettled until I pinpoint the origin of a sound and my partner will find me with my ear against the wall tracing a drip or creak in the house.

I guess I must also still have some high frequency hearing left because I can still hear every electronic device hum at least under certain conditions.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 5 years ago I built the highest performance gaming rig I could using entirely fanless parts.

It got very hot to the touch and probably was rather bad for the chips long term.

The electrical whining was terrible! You could hear all CPU and GPU activity depending on load.

Now I use a macbook and it's far less irritating...

</comment><comment><USER10> Original discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17075489](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=17075489)

</comment><comment><USER11> About 10 years ago I purchased a Dell mini 10 laptop that has no fan and SSD. I was satisfied with the silence. Now the closest I could find is intel NUC. With Linux and proper fan control it is quiet (no fan turning) most of the time - almost all times. And I kind ma like the fact that the fan is there just in case. The noise from the environment is the major issue for me now.

</comment><comment><USER12> IMO proper huge slow fans are silent. No need to compromise.

</comment><comment><USER13> > It's totally silent — 0dB.

Sigh. Totally silent is -∞dB. 0dB just means that it matches the reference volume, which is nominally the threshold of human hearing. (And the definitions vary depending on whether it's dbA, dbC, or something else.)

<comment><USER14> Don't be overly pedantic. As inaudible to human hearing is exactly what the author meant, 0dB (implicitly relative to anything reasonable) actually matches the intent better. Also 0dB (relative to no matter what) is closer to the machines actual noise output than -infty dB (think high frequency hum emitted by the PSU and similar).

<comment><USER13> Since the OP didn't talk about coil whine at all, I would guess that the actual SPL was well above 0 dbA.</comment></comment></comment>


Leap Motion: Amazing, Revolutionary, Useless - <AUTHOR> http://www.hanselman.com/blog/LeapMotionAmazingRevolutionaryUseless.aspx <comment><USER2> Believe it or not, this is a century-old problem.

The theremin is an electronic musical instrument, played by waving your hands in the air. It works by detecting RF capacitance between a pair of antennae and the player's body. You can see the Theremin being played at the YouTube link below.

Playing the theremin is incredibly difficult, due to the lack of tactile feedback. The human body is very poorly equipped to point precisely at an arbitrary position in free space. Only a handful of players can achieve anything better than squeaky science fiction noises and even virtuoso players struggle constantly with intonation. Modern theremin technique depends on a system of discrete hand gestures, which reduce the player's dependency upon coarse proprioception.

If the Leap Motion is to have any real utility, it will need _phenomenally_ sophisticated software, to interpret intent from hand motion rather than simply passing the hand location as a raw input. The human body simply isn't capable of making the kind of movements that the designers of Leap Motion seem to expect, even with a great deal of practice.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptq_N- gjEpI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ptq_N-gjEpI)

<comment><USER3> I wonder if you could add some tactile feedback with some precision fans? A grid of fans below your hand and in front of it could provide a gradient of subtle pressure. Or maybe a fan on some sensitive servos that track each fingertip?

<comment><USER4> That's pretty much exactly the idea behind the "Aireal" project from Disney Research:

[http://www.disneyresearch.com/project/aireal/](http://www.disneyresearch.com/project/aireal/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the article is a bit unfair. I've been playing around with a leap for a few days and am suitably impressed.

What works very well with the device is coarse movements, especially relative hand movements. What doesn't work so well is finer gestures (1/100th of a millimeter motions of all 10 fingers? ha).

This app is a perfect example: [https://airspace.leapmotion.com/apps/cyber- science-motion](https://airspace.leapmotion.com/apps/cyber-science-motion)

You can use your hands, kept flat, to spin around / zoom a 3-D rendering of a human skull. You can also point at specific elements on the skull. Both of these coarse gestures work great, and the experience is incredible.

However, the app also unfortunately has a "click" gesture to pick apart elements of the skull - you click by spreading out your thumb and then folding it back in. Works terribly, as this fine gesture is detected maybe 50% of the time. It should've simply been left out.

I showed this app to my dad, who's a doctor, and he was blown away. He was visibly excited about the potential for a device he can use to spin around CT and MRI scans in the operating room without having to touch a mouse/joystick - currently he has a person doing this for him to keep things sterile, and this can sometimes be frustrating.

The leap, at least in its current incarnation, reminds me a lot of Google glass. Both Google/LEAP and their proponents say the devices are going to change the world. Maybe, maybe not. Neither device works perfectly like what you see in the heavily edited demo videos. But both can be invaluable in certain specialized fields, _today_ , as long as folks are realistic about what can be done with them.

<comment><USER6> _I showed this app to my dad, who 's a doctor, and he was blown away. He was visibly excited about the potential for a device he can use to spin around CT and MRI scans in the operating room without having to touch a mouse/joystick - currently he has a person doing this for him to keep things sterile, and this can sometimes be frustrating._

This is exactly the value proposition of my startup, TouchFree Labs. We're developing software that uses the Leap Motion Controller to allow surgeons to manipulate medical images inside of the operating room. You can see a demonstration of an early prototype here: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaO- cimDOEQ](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WaO-cimDOEQ). Demo starts at about 35s. (Apologies in advance for the low production value.)

Right now our bottleneck is medical expertise, and we're looking for surgeons who would be interested in collaborating with us. We're developing workflows that are tailored for different types of procedures, which requires very specialized knowledge. The application also learns the nuances of individual users' movements to improve gesture recognition, which requires lots of data.

I don't know how far away you are from Toronto, but if you could pass the message along to your dad, I'd be very grateful--if only to get some basic feedback. But if he's interested, he could be among the first surgeons in the world to use the Leap Motion inside of an operating room.

<comment><USER7> Is there anything you can say about how you arranged a license for this use? The default Leap EULA forbids use with medical equipment, as well as use on a shared work-station.

<comment><USER6> We're still working on this. But since our product won't be used for diagnostics or direct surgery, the regulatory requirements should be a bit more relaxed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There's a general assumption that the Minority Report interface is the interface of the future.[0] There are few reasons why I'm saying no.

1\. First and foremost, gorilla arm.[1] My presumption with the "interface of the future" is that it's needed for prolonged use. So, first thing's first, the interface can't be one where our arms require our hands to be higher than our elbows. Unless of course our species got a whole lot stronger in the forearm to support such a feature. Don't see our species doing that anytime soon.

2\. Feedback - Right now the feedback loop is eye->brain->hand->brain->eye (repeat) where the hand's pressure against a solid surface is the most important feedback response. With the minority report style interface we currently have a massive delay (comparatively speaking) between the brain->hand->brain loop. We also have to iterate the whole loop much more because we need to constantly assess with our eye where our hand is in 3D (not digital) space. Now let's say the technology gets much better and reduces this to 5ms. We are now bound by the differences of our synapses firing between touch and light. I could be wrong, but it's my assumption that due to the speed of light being the way that it is, that "touch" will always beat "sight" in performance.

For prolonged used applications my bet is on adaptive surfaces. For short term (turning an stove on, flicking a light switch, etc) interfaces I potentially see this Minority Report style interface happening. But does the benefit cost of innovation? Personally I think we are fooling ourselves.

[0] - [http://www.ted.com/talks/john_underkoffler_drive_3d_data_wit...](http://www.ted.com/talks/john_underkoffler_drive_3d_data_with_a_gesture.html)

[1] - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#.22Gorilla_arm.22](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Touchscreen#.22Gorilla_arm.22)

<comment><USER5> I agree with you that a Minority Report style interface doesn't make sense as the _sole_ interface to a PC. However, something like the Leap IMO makes a great secondary interface to a keyboard and mouse/trackpad.

I'm using a Leap controller right now, with BTT for Mac/Touchless for gesture- based control. As I read through a page I can simply stick my hand out and wave it up to scroll down the page - it's a phenomenal experience for passive reading as I don't have to break focus to reach out for my mouse/trackpad. I've also configured some additional coarse gestures to launch mission control etc.

Using the Leap for such brief, coarse gestures avoids both the problems you've mentioned because my arm is resting on my desk, with fingers just a few inches above my trackpad/keyboard, so no "gorilla arm" problems; the gestures are coarse, requiring very little hand-eye co-ordination and finally, the gestures are brief so no fatigue problems.

All of this breaks down once you start trying to do any finer-control gestures, like trying to point at links and click on them like the OP tried to do. IMO the Leap should be used to augment the keyboard/mouse as a secondary interaction interface that you use occasionally.

<comment><USER9> I don't really understand how reaching out and waving my hand to scroll a page is a step forward from simply using a scroll wheel on the mouse which is already under my hand. Even if its not under my hand, my peripheral vision is good enough that I don't need to break focus on what I'm reading to position my hand on the mouse.....

I totally accept that commenting on a LEAP with out first using one could / will make me look stupid.

<comment><USER10> >I don't really understand how reaching out and waving my hand to scroll a page is a step forward from simply using a scroll wheel on the mouse which is already under my hand

The real value proposition is not necessarily in applications designed under existing UI paradigms like scrolling text. It does, however, let you accomplish "science fiction" effects like changing the camera position on a 3D model far, far more easily than the mouse.

<comment><USER11> Is it better than a touchpad? My iPad with touch does rotating and zooming really well.

I can see this being an awesome technology in an operating room where they don't want to touch things for sanitation reasons. I have a hard time imagining how it is useful in my day to day use of a computer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A coworker and I have written some gesture recognizers for Leap in C# and Objective-C hoping to make the thing more usable and easier for other developers to write software using it. Hate to do a shameless plug, but both can be found here:

[https://github.com/uacaps/MotionGestureRecognizers- ObjC](https://github.com/uacaps/MotionGestureRecognizers-ObjC)

[https://github.com/uacaps/MotionGestureRecognizers- CSharp](https://github.com/uacaps/MotionGestureRecognizers-CSharp)

\---

We're hoping to start the community foundation for making tools that help make Leap extremely usable from both a development and from a user experience standpoint. The Leap is awesome, beautiful and we think can be used in a myriad of applications.

</comment><comment><USER13> If all you do is browse the web, a touchpad is often all you need.

For text editing / word processing, a good keyboard is often all what's needed, and the use of mouse is often discouraged by gurus.

I still can easily imagine using the Leap Motion device while editing images and especially 3D models. Even more I can imagine using it in games, especially games written with this device in mind.

I don't own the device but I tried it. What's great is that you don't need to wave your hands in the air, Minority report-style; moving your fingers us enough. I wish it was built into a keyboard; it would replace a touchpad / trackpoint easily, adding much more capabilities.

BTW does anyone here remember how clumsy were mice on PCs in, say, 1992?

<comment><USER14> Mice worked pretty well in 1992. They worked well in 1984 on the Mac, and five years before that, on Xerox hardware and LMs (though they suffered from "really small ball bearing" disease, and easily got dirty or cranky and refused to roll well).

With a mouse, you have at least one button you can signal an event with.

Imagine doing a UI where you didn't have a mouse button. All you can do is move and point. That's a Kinect, for the most part.

I haven't used a LeapMotion, but I suspect it's the same problem; there's no way to generate a discrete event. It's all fuzzy. Did your fingers touch? Did you wave in a particular way? Some fuzzy matcher is pumping out "90% probability of event X, 75% probability of event Y" every few milliseconds, and it's up to higher layers to turn this goo into decisions that people are happy with. It's hard at all layers.

I really think you need a button, a clicker. Something "hard" in the UI that slams a voice of reason into that fuzzy tower that's continually only able to /guess/ what you're trying to do.

[We wanted a clicker on Kinect. Politically impossible. I think it would have helped a lot.]

<comment><USER15> Actually, it's quite possible to build a "clicker" on the Kinect. It involves mounting the sensor from above, and building completely different software that tracks the hands and fingers well.

We've done it: [http://threegear.com](http://threegear.com) Here's a video of tracking arbitrary hand motion using a Kinect-equivalent sensor: [http://youtu.be/exZ6wukQCpk](http://youtu.be/exZ6wukQCpk)

<comment><USER16> I think he was calling out the microsoft politics as limiting the functionality of the kinect, not technical expertise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I find the Leap part of BTT (BetterTouchTool) is actually... err.. use- worthy..? Neither useful nor useless.

I've got some really cool (still a big part for me) and useful stuff working, augmenting my mouse/keyboard use. For example, a finger to the left minimises and two fingers to the right opens a list of recently used apps.

Yet I'm very conscious that everything would just be better suited to a keyboard shortcut..

I never bothered with Touchless and mouse emulation things; years of 2D GUI design isn't suited to this kind of interface. "Midnight" is a my favourite Leap app but I think that's just an iPad app that lends itself very well to the leap input too.

</comment><comment><USER18> I did some investigative work to look at if we could use the leap motions to replace the touch-sensitive overlays that we strap to 60" TV's for our on-air traffic folks to use during their segments -- the overlays run about 2500, and if we could replace them with a leap motion and get the same functionality with less cost, this could allow us to roll out the traffic application to more stations than the six or so that are currently using our in-house traffic application.

The first thing that I noticed was that it couldn't take the range of the 60" television that we had hooked up to the traffic software, so I scaled this down to a Thunderbolt display, and tried again. In my tests, the recognition for the thumb was sporadic, if not completely missing -- in both my (fat guy) test as well as during the testing of the local personality (non-fat guy).

I then made some changes to our software to try to minimize the effects of the natural movements of the hand -- I turned down the sensitivity to attempt to compensate for the normal shakes and jitters that you have with your hands. This gave it a better feel, but, the traffic reporters still missed the feeling of touching the display and watching that display interact with your touch.

They're still neat devices (I really wanted to say neat toys, but, I don't want to cheapen the work that the Leap Motion folks put into this thing), but, I'm having a hard time implementing them in a way that would work for us...so they're sitting on my shelf, waiting for a project that could use them (or, take them to my local hackerspace should I not find a good project for them shortly)...

</comment><comment><USER19> Amazing, Revolutionary, Useless... and let's not forget buggy! And with horrible support... My device was not able to recalibrate, a problem shared with many others should I believe the forum. A week or two has passed, and no reply from the makers of the device, neither on the forum or on my bug report.

I guess I just got another hunk of junk to put in the failed-devices-closet... :-(

<comment><USER20> same here. my device reports "bright light detected" even when there's not enough ambient light to see the keys on my keyboard. turning off the monitor seems to help, but...

<comment><USER21> It works by detecting infrared light - the lightsource is likely an infrared one that you can't see, possibly your monitor.

<comment><USER20> absolutely. yet if it won't work properly with the monitor turned on, there's little use for it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This is why I decided to back Mycestro [1] and skipped on the LeapMotion. While it won't support multi-hand (unless you have 2 devices) and multi-finger stuff, at least it should be able to easily recognize any motion I make with it on.

[1] [http://www.mycestro.com/](http://www.mycestro.com/)

<comment><USER23> Expensive. 30 USD shipping for a tiny < 50g light device. Will they send John Travolta delivering these things in person using his jet, or what is up with that?

<comment><USER24> How is that expensive? You pay more for a good mouse.

<comment><USER25> 30 dollars shipping for a mouse?

<comment><USER24> oops, I thought that was the item price.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> My first impressions with the Leap is similar. Got one, played around with it, felt kinda useless, haven't "touched it" since.

<comment><USER27> As another early adopter, I have to say that it's disappointing how much the company is relying on "the community" to generate their business model for them, rather than properly develop the software themselves.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It's obviously not a replacement for a mouse and keyboard and never will be. I could see some useful gesture based macros, like "throw your hands up in total frustration" to rage-quit an app or open a distraction-free full screen editor.

</comment><comment><USER29> I find Leap Motion quite accurate. You will quickly get used to the convenience of gestures with BetterTouchTool, and wish you had it on computers which don't have Leap Motion.

Otherwise, The gestures used by apps is something that needs to be carefully crafted. For instance Touchless, the mouse replacement, simply doesn't cut it; you'll find yourself reaching out for the mouse/trackball/trackpad within the first 10 seconds.

The leap gets effected by strong light sources on the ceiling. You might want to use it facing downwards if that is an issue. Also, if you are wearing a watch or a ring, it might get confused with the reflection.

</comment><comment><USER30> gorilla arms [http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla- arm.html](http://catb.org/jargon/html/G/gorilla-arm.html)

</comment><comment><USER31> _Disclaimer: I haven 't tried Leap Motion, yet._

Did I get this right? Leap Motion vs. Kinect:

      - LM is smaller (significantly);
      - LM is cheaper (significantly);
      - LM is more accurate (significantly);
      - LM has almost no real apps (mostly concept demos).

If these are all correct I find Scott's post nothing more than a "normal", "the competition sucks, too", Microsoft type of post.

<comment><USER32> Very different markets.

The LM is very short range, so you couldn't use it like a Kinect. And you wouldn't plug a Kinect into your PC to watch your fingers move either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> What surprised me after little digging up was that Leap Motion does not support point cloud. That means you can't get 3D world as points in space from Leap Motion. Their founders says Leap Motion isn't designed for this purpose. This means you can't use Leap Motion for applications such as 3D scanning. Personally I think that would be much more exciting then ability to move windows by waving.

</comment><comment><USER34> Is all writing seriously boiling down to animated GIFs of "reactions"?

<comment><USER35> I had the same reaction after seeing the first two gifs but the rest are mostly demonstrative and to the point.

On a side note, it's still quite amazing that gifs are still the simplest way to show short video clips on the web.

<comment><USER34> They're really not. Embedded video is a fraction of the size, and faster to render to boot.

<comment><USER36> Is that true? What kind of encoding are we talking about?

<comment><USER34> [https://mediacru.sh/](https://mediacru.sh/) was on the front page a day or so ago, it grabs GIFs and re-encodes them into video (MP4 and OGGv). The results are much smaller and, in my local experimentation, are much, much faster to render than the original files.

There's some technical details at [https://mediacru.sh/demo](https://mediacru.sh/demo) .

Draw your own conclusions, but that's how I have experienced it.

<comment><USER37> The gif loaded and played seamlessly. The video was a placeholder which loaded a full screen QuickTime window that delayed for 5-10 seconds then played.

Claim " _gifs are still the simplest way to show short video clips on the web._ " agreed.

<comment><USER34> I'm assuming you're using Chrome. Chrome delays the loading of <video> tags until after <image> ones. It's mentioned on the page I linked to.

<comment><USER37> No, mobile Safari.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> The biggest problem with the leap that I have seen (there is one in my lab) is that it sees hands spread out evenly on the surface really well, and that's about it. If you do a thumbs up gesture (or a rude gesture when it doesn't work), the fingers get occluded by the bottom of your hand.

Think about you hands as five friends trying to play connect at the same time and you can imagine the kinds of occlusion problems you might face.

Still, I, and probably others, like the leap. It's not useless. You just have to exploit it the right way, looking for natural interface design beyond a Tom Cruse movie.

The biggest free air interaction problems are (1) making visible what the available gestures are, and (2) providing tangible or visible feedback. You don't get to see and feel the the interaction like you can with a keyboard or less digitally inclined tools.

<comment><USER39> Maybe camera is just the way to go then. There's Kinect, of course, but Intel is getting into the act as well: [http://click.intel.com/intelsdk/Intel_Developer_Kit-0-C92.as...](http://click.intel.com/intelsdk/Intel_Developer_Kit-0-C92.aspx)

Video demos here: [http://software.intel.com/en-us/vcsource/tools/perceptual- co...](http://software.intel.com/en-us/vcsource/tools/perceptual-computing- sdk)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've been experimenting with the LeapMotion at work today, and some initial observations:

\- There's no apps yet that have made me go wow. \- The range is quite small \- The motion of hovering an arm in front of you is extremely tiring after more than 10-15minutes. Try holding your arm out in front of you for that long without moving and you'll see why.

The reason Kinect was a success is that you can take real-world activities such as dancing, jumping over obstacles, jogging (on the spot), and translate them into an interactive digital version.

With the Leap, I've yet to think of a real world scenario where I would be waving my hands in front of my chest, that would translate well into a digital experience. Conducting an orchestra would be one good application for this, perhaps training conductors, but I couldn't think of anything else.

</comment><comment><USER41> I think the "useless" comment misses that its sweet spot utility is unknown at this point. And I'm not sure "general purpose computer input device" is going to be such a sweet spot.

The precision "problem" can obviously be addressed with software.

That said, I do believe the absence of killer utility is a problem for Leap right now since it came out with a decent bang and now the less than favorable reviews are dripping in. I think they would have done themselves a significant favor by having a killer app ready from the outset. I also think they need to encourage people to look beyond simple human-computer interaction. Apparently these things could map a whole football game or count the number of people at a concert. Things like that. I also think the commercial angles will be better for business.

<comment><USER27> The onus was on the company to figure out what its "sweet spot utility" was before launch, don't you think?

<comment><USER41> Yep: "I think they would have done themselves a significant favor by having a killer app ready from the outset."

<comment><USER27> Sorry -- yes, chiming in with agreement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I've got my Leap doing what I bought it for: controlling iTunes when my hands are covered in hair dye. [1]

If I can get it to do more, awesome. But that's enough for now.

1: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6sR0PKofc](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_O6sR0PKofc)

<comment><USER43> Then you got ripped off!

[https://flutterapp.com/](https://flutterapp.com/)

<comment><USER42> When it's at my desk, my laptop is connected to an external monitor and keyboard; it runs closed. Flutter is of no use to me.

<comment><USER43> Why does it run closed? It doesn't have to.

<comment><USER42> Short answer: I like it that way.

Long answer: When it's plugged into the external monitor/keyboard/wacom tablet/leap/etc, the laptop is on a shelf beneath the main desk surface. It's completely out of view when I'm standing there working. I've got a 24" monitor on an adjustable arm; I don't _need_ a second screen. Or want one; if I have two screens next to each other I inevitably go crazy if they're not exactly the same color profile.

(Photo of my setup: [http://egypt.urnash.com/media/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/desk...](http://egypt.urnash.com/media/blogs.dir/1/files/2012/08/desk- porn.jpg))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> I played with a LeapMotion last week and was impressed by it but within 5 minutes my arm was tired.

<comment><USER45> The local BestBuy had one set up & I played with it for a few minutes. _Really Interesting_ , but not all that applicable to how I use a computer on a daily basis.

I think it's greatest potential will be in gaming. Imagine casting a spell by using the appropriate arcane hand gestures. Or swinging a sword - it can tell the difference between an overhand and a side cut, and a blocking move.

<comment><USER46> > I think it's greatest potential will be in gaming. Imagine casting a spell > by using the appropriate arcane hand gestures. Or swinging a sword - it can > tell the difference between an overhand and a side cut, and a blocking move.

I've had a Wii, and a Kinect, and gesturing as input got annoying very quickly with both. It's something that just sounds fun, but isn't.

Even with the Nintendo DS, when you'd use a stylus to trace a certain shape to trigger an action, it didn't translate well to sustained gameplay. Though it remained workable longer than with Wii/Kinect gaming. Simple swipes with a stylus or finger (on a screen) continue to work well, whereas even simple arm or hand gestures quickly become annoying and fatiguing.

It turns out that pressing buttons works just fine, and is actually ideal, even if other input methods sound sexier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> I think that the newer Kinect 2.0 will be able to take care of all these more sophisticated gestures. When compared to the Leapmotion it has much better range and its accuracy will improve now too.

</comment><comment><USER48> Four students at RIT are using this to develop a sign to text app.

[http://motionsavvy.com/](http://motionsavvy.com/)

So it does have potential/use.

<comment><USER49> Fascinating. What's annoying about computer/video based sign instructions is the lack of feedback. "Did I get this sign right or do I just _think_ I have it right?"

If MotionSavvy can notify me when I get it wrong, very nice!

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> I also have one, and after seeing what it sees during the orientation I wondered how many of its problems could be cured by having a second sensor that one could position about a foot away from the other to give the Leap stereo vision. I am speaking totally out of school because I don't know if that would create more problems than it solves, though.

On my phone, to apologies if this is a duplicate of another thread.

</comment><comment><USER51> Nice example of someone adding a leap motion controller to their site, GoSquared: [https://www.gosquared.com/blog/playing-around-with-the- new-l...](https://www.gosquared.com/blog/playing-around-with-the-new-leap- motion-controller-on-the-web) I'm not going to argue this demonstrates utility, but it does show some good recognition of smaller gestures.

</comment><comment><USER52> I think a ring to click might be the best answer. Clicking (for me) works better with a tactile response.

</comment><comment><USER53> Looks like a much better alternative just revealed itself: [http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/haptix/haptix- multitouch...](http://www.kickstarter.com/projects/haptix/haptix-multitouch- reinvented)

</comment><comment><USER54> I think combining a kinnect and several leaps with an Oculus Rift might be great. That way you can use your own body motions within the rift. The kinnect would be for gross motions and the leaps would be for detecting fine motions.

What do you guys think?

<comment><USER55> Well, as kinect already is capable of tracking your fingers, i am not sure the leap would be very useful. rather a slightly better kinect..

<comment><USER56> "kinect already is capable of tracking your fingers"

I will nitpick the word selection that "capable" is nearly useless in a user interface. It needs to be nearly 100% reliable or its useless. 99% of my interaction with Kinect is my daughter crying that she can't navigate menus in her dance games and is all frustrated, followed by me being all frustrated and swearing about how if only I could bypass this POS and use the buttons on the controller I would be done twenty seconds ago and I hate Kinect with a passion. It works fine for gross motor like my daughters dance games but useless for fine motor. Perhaps in the future I will write SQL statements by performing an interpretive dance at work, but I hope not.

The failure rate is vital... If I'm typing this at 100 WPM, which is probably about right, then a 99% motion detection success rate means I'd swear and hate motion detection and have to stop and fix an error, what, every six seconds or so? All day long? Forget that, I'm sticking to the keyboard and mouse, I don't have the patience for 99% success.

<comment><USER47> The newer Kinect 2.0 will be able to do almost perfect finger tracking. Infact sign language recognition apps have been written for even the older Kinect (XBox 360 version). Check out the SigmaNIL framework and FORTH libraries offered with OpenNI.

<comment><USER57> You wouldn't see this in an XBox game though - the XBox SDK doesn't support it.

<comment><USER47> I think that the SDK is way ahead of OpenNI. Soon the more enhanced features of the new Kinect will make their way into games too!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> Can someone build something like this but only have it recognize a small set simple gestures? Using it to simply browse the web would be cool. If you could throw in a way to click build in Xcode and IntelliJ then I'm sold.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is exactly my experience with the Leap unit; I played with it for a couple of days. Then uninstalled all the drivers and put it back in the box, will try again in a few months to see if things have improved.

</comment><comment><USER60> Leap Motion – Just a toy or the future? - [http://tech.particulate.me/](http://tech.particulate.me/)

</comment><comment><USER61> Question: does the LEAP need to be flat on the table, or could you hang it around your neck to get mobile gesture input in a vertical plane?

</comment><comment><USER62> Touchless sucks on AirSpace. Try BetterTouchTool. The gesture tracking and usability of that App is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER63> Well jeez, let's not even bother then. Wendell, shut off the generator, Scott thinks we're useless.

</comment><comment><USER64> Can it be that I saw a prototype at ICT Delta conference may 2007 in Utrecht, the Netherlands?

</comment><comment><USER65> Thank you for the most hilarity I'm likely to encounter today! That's a great article.

</comment><comment><USER66> "Hey so LeapMotion is still being developed, I better hurry to write a blog post and complain about it before they improve it".

<comment><USER67> If it's still being developed why is it on retail for $80?

Most people make sure their product is useful and working before selling it to people.

If you bought a car and the brakes _mostly_ worked, would you be happy?

<comment><USER68> If the year was 1896, I probably would be happy. Brakes were far less functional and reliable in the first 20 years of the automobile's history.</comment></comment></comment>


Europe's economic slump deeper than expected - <AUTHOR> http://www.iht.com/articles/2009/02/13/business/euecon.php <comment><USER2> "Today's data wipes out any illusion that the euro zone is getting off lightly in this global downturn," said Jörg Radeke, an economist at the Center for Economics and Business Research in London.

I thought I saw a thread in just the past day or so here on HN that suggested the European way would be seen as the way to manage economies in the future. I'm not buying.</comment>


ZX Spectrum: 30 years old, and still one of the cheapest computers ever made - <AUTHOR> http://www.extremetech.com/computing/127109-zx-spectrum-30-years-old-and-still-one-of-the-cheapest-computers-ever-made <comment><USER2> Not really.

$200 in 1982 = $475 in today's money. You can buy many, many systems for that kind of money.

<comment><USER3> Aye, very good point -- I'll update the story to reflect that.

I still think it's surprising that there are very few computers that are _really_ cheap (like the Raspberry Pi).

The difference in computing power/packaging size/etc between 1982 and 2012 is far greater than the price difference the ZX Spectrum and, say, a netbook. Even the $25 Raspberry Pi is probably (relatively) expensive compared to the ZX Spectrum.

edit: I mean, a really cheap home computer today is around $300 -- just $150 less than an inflation-adjusted ZX Spectrum.

I guess there's more to a modern computer (bigger case, drives, expansion slots, etc.) but there's still a big price disparity. I guess I'm just surprised that it took this long for something like the Raspberry Pi to arrive.

<comment><USER4> Prices will only go down to the point where enough people are willing to pay enough to make the product viable. When that price point is reached, the machines gain new capabilities instead of dropping further in price.

Another factor is software compatibility - if you design a machine that has capabilities similar to an entry level PC but can't run Windows, your market is much reduced. That's the main reason why this is an x86-dominated world that only recently became multi-core and 64-bit. This is another reason why PCs gained capabilities instead of lower prices - PC makers have to future- proof their products by making them compatible with future versions of Windows.

In order to compensate for that, you will have to go the Raspberry Pi route and build something where compatibility is not important and hitch a ride with a competing software ecosystem.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Just total nonsense which makes no mention of either general inflation or the price-deflation of consumer electronics. My parents saved up to buy my Spectrum when I was a kid. Now, a parent could get a laptop off eBay for $50 and install Linux. Computers are WAY cheaper now than they were then. _sigh_

</comment><comment><USER6> This article manages to cram a very very poor iPhone reference in just so they can tag the post with "Apple" and "iPhone" and get some extra page views and ad impressions. Dreadful "journalism".</comment>


Show HN: Show HN: New Universe, deep strategy MMORPG, universe location gameplay - <AUTHOR> I know what your thinking, it's just another empire building game.  But this one is different.
Conquest is a universe location community based deep strategy war game.  Unlike other MMORPGs, conquest  is all about location within the universe and the community that surrounds it.  You can move your fleets anywhere you want and attack anyone you want, but it all has social ramifications within the game.
You'll find alliances dedicated to training up new members.  You'll find alliance politics, drama and intrigue as you join alliances.  Trust takes time to build up.  Alliances may be slow to trust new members, as they could be spies.  But, once you earn their trust, you can have no better ally.  Players have a tradition of not sharing coordinates in global chat and global forums.  But within alliance forums, these coordinates are eagerly plotted over.
High value targets are rare stellar objects that are highly contested within the universe.  These can bring about vast amounts of resources to expand your empire.  After one alliance defeats another, they typically divide the spoils.
Although this game has been around for a while, I've recently released a brand new universe, ideal for new players to get started.
Give it a try: http://www.clicktaz.com <comment><USER2> You should probably add screenshots (even if it's mostly text-based) and a sign-up process that doesn't involve Facebook. Also, I doubt you've been granted the rights to use that DigitalBlasphemy wallpaper, so you might want to swap that out too.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have a life-time commercial license with digital blasphemy. Other in-game art work is commissioned and well paid for.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> It requires a Facebook login? Hard pass for me.

Sounds neat though!

<comment><AUTHOR> after you login with facebook, there's currently an in-game sign in, so you don't have to login with facebook after that first time.</comment></comment>


Is Organic More Nutritious? New Study Adds to the Evidence - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2016/02/18/467136329/is-organic-more-nutritious-new-study-adds-to-the-evidence <comment><USER2> The meta-analysis cited at the beginning of this article has problems. But even if it didn't, you only need to read the conclusion to know the headline writers are getting this wrong.

As alluded to in that conclusion, the study isn't so much a comparison of organic vs. conventional as it is a comparison of grass fed vs. grain fed animals. The article does refer to this in passing and then continues along.

And it is odd to tout the increase in omega-3s anyway. "Yay, we raised the omega-3s found in beef from a tiny-amount to a statistically-interstingly- higher-but-still-tiny-amount."

Going on to the next study cited in the article doesn't help it. Note how the article shifts from saying that the compounds are potentially beneficial over to saying they are. And then it ignores the evidence mounting that maybe all of our hopes that lots of dietary antioxidants would help us live longer/better may have been sadly misplaced.

Bah...I hate the state of health news reporting.

<comment><USER3> Take it from the source - NPR is playing to a pro-organic audience.

I personally hope organic is healthier because I can afford to buy it, but I'm reminded of watching the super at my old building toss the recycling into the regular trash - perhaps it's all really treated the same.

<comment><USER4> If it's all treated the same that would be a massive scandal, regardless of the ultimate health effects.

<comment><USER3> My understanding is that the testing regime for organic is very weak. I would be surprised if this doesn't happen a lot. Perhaps genetic testing could give some hints? (Of GMOs if not pesticides?)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I buy organic carrots and milk as a priority.

Carrots are highly absorbent, more so than other vegetables. They absorb so much that can't be washed or peeled away.

With milk, I just want to know the cow is happy. Buying organic increases the chance of that. You may laugh, but we all have our reasons.

I'd be interested to hear what other products people here consider a must-buy- organic. I can't afford to buy everything organic, but I'm willing to expand my essential organic list if convinced.

<comment><USER6> > With milk, I just want to know the cow is happy

This is idiotic. Organic farmers can't use chemicals to stop ticks, lice and other pests.

The cows can be living in hell to keep you happy.

They don't care about the fact they are eating a, basically religiously created feed.

For happy cows drink soy or plant based milks or non organic.

<comment><USER5> Do you run an organic dairy farm? No. You're just another armchair expert, pretending to have a monopoly on the facts.

The organic milk I buy comes from a dairy farm about 90 min drive from where I live. It runs about 150 head of cattle - Freisian/Jersery cross on 300 acres. Their milk processing plant is next to the farm.

Whether you "organic or not organic" is up to you, but I try to source milk from local farms with an emphasis on welfare of the animal and quality of the product.

Supermarket milk is generally ultra-heat treated to increase shelf life, even the so-called "organic" variety. The animals are packed in to increase "efficiency" and make the milk cheaper.

In the end, I don't mind paying more, and I'm supporting local dairy farmers. What the hell are you doing?

<comment><USER7> > Supermarket milk is generally ultra-heat treated to increase shelf life, > even the so-called "organic" variety.

Yes, it is, but I'd like to know why you frame this as a bad thing.

> In the end, I don't mind paying more, and I'm supporting local dairy > farmers. What the hell are you doing?

While I appreciate your good intetions, I think the "What the hell are you doing?" is a little bit overstated, since this is a low-impact, low effort activity and, really, does the fact that you're doing something oblige me to somehow "one-up" you?

<comment><USER5> Over-heat treated milk = poor taste. It's a balance, and the correct balance is usually not achieved by the popular supermarket milks.

> _does the fact that you 're doing something oblige me to somehow "one-up" > you?_

Not unless you called me an idiot for doing something. Which you didn't, but the person I was replying to did.

I don't mind at all if someone calls my argument into question, but at least come back with more than opinion. There are plenty of reasons beyond the welfare of animals to support local business. I admit it's not just the happiness of the cow which motivates me. Perhaps I should have explained that.

The more money we can circulate in the local community, the healthier that community is. I'm no economics expert, but I have a hunch that spending up at my local restaurants, cafes, dairy farms and businesses is doing my bit to improve the region where I live. I also try to do my "bit" for the environment and animal welfare within the eating habits I currently enjoy. Hence.... "what are you doing" was an invitation to suggest a "non idiotic" approach since they thought so little of mine!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Even if the nutrition is the same or worse ("organic" or not), varieties of fruit and vegetable that aren't big, brightly colored, perfectly round, non- bruising, transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful, tastes-of-nothing _garbage_ are better in my opinion.

Why? Because if they actually tasted different to all the other processed junk out there, then maybe people would choose them instead.

<comment><USER9> > varieties of fruit and vegetable that aren't big, brightly colored, > perfectly round, non-bruising, transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful, > tastes-of-nothing garbage are better in my opinion.

Heirloom varieties (what you seem to be praising) and organic methods have only a casual relationship (sure, organic certification may require non-GMO, but lots of the work on big, brightly colore. perfectly round, non-bruising, transportable, shelf-stable, beautiful varieties -- that incidentally produces tastes-of-nothing garbage -- is non-GMO "traditional" breeding methods that's perfectly capable of being organic, and often is what you get when you buy organic. Heck, because of the way GM methods work, you end up preserving other traits besides the one you want to change better than "traditional" breeding.)

<comment><USER8> Yes, that's why I put "organic" in scare quotes. George Carlin's piece food lingo said it better than me:

Natural

The last one of these bullshit food words is natural. And these comments are directed at all you environmental jackoffs out there. The word natural is completely meaningless. Everything is natural. Nature includes everything. It's not just trees and flowers and the northern spotted owl. It's everything in the universe. Untreated raw sewage, polyester, toxic chemical waste, used bandages, monkey shit. It's all perfectly natural. It's just not real good food. But you know something? It is zesty. And it's tangy, too. Bon appe'tit, consumers.

The rest of the chapter is here if you'd like to read it: [http://pastebin.com/jejt4dfm](http://pastebin.com/jejt4dfm)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's odd that "more nutritious" keeps coming up; to the extent I prefer organic it's because it's "more sustainable" and occasionally "less toxic".

<comment><USER11> "Organic" methods produce considerably less food per unit of land (and other inputs) than conventional farming [0] (that being one of the reasons for the price difference). How does that make it "more sustainable" ?

" _Right now, roughly 800 million people suffer from hunger and malnutrition, and about 16 million of those will die from it17. If we were to switch to entirely organic farming, the number of people suffering would jump by 1.3 billion, assuming we use the same amount of land that we 're using now._"[0]

[0][http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science- sushi/httpblogss...](http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science- sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience- sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/)

<comment><USER12> ... and yet the world produces on average more than 5000 calories per person. Is "increased productivity" really what we require?

There is also the issue that the idea of greater productivity is highly geographical and seems to be valid in the context of European and North American monocropping agricultural systems. Other farming systems may produce a lot more overall nutrients - it is not at all clear that systems fueled by synthetic fertilisers are more productive as far as overall ecnomic/livelihood benefit or nutrients are concerned in East Asian and African agriculture. Results got from research done in Europe and North America (greater productivity in monocropping non-organic systems) are often suggested as valid in the context of "ensuring sufficient food production Africa / East Asia" which at least from what I know of Bengal seem to be a truth which requires substantial modification (see for example a relatively conservative discussion in [1]).

Further, Rodal Institute's longitudinal study[1] seem to suggest that organic practices can indeed match conventional.

Finally - hunger and starvation is generally not an issue of too little food production as Amartya Sen's nobel prize winning research on Bengal famines highlighted.

[0] [http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ac116e/ac116e05.htm](http://www.fao.org/docrep/003/ac116e/ac116e05.htm) [1] [http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems- trial/](http://rodaleinstitute.org/our-work/farming-systems-trial/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Eating organic, for me, has very little to do with whether organic is more nutritious or not, but about not ingesting pesticide residues when I'm eating.

That's really what it's all about - for me. That organic tends to be more nutritious is a bonus,

<comment><USER14> Organic vegetables are allowed to have organic pesticides. When you find out what they are you will not be pleased.

<comment><USER15> Now that really depends on the 'organic' standards the farmer has decided to follow.

The UK Soil Association Organic standards ([http://www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards](http://www.soilassociation.org/organicstandards)) are known to be some of the strictest. And section 4.11 on controlling pests and disease makes me very pleased to support organic farming.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> > Organic crops tend to be exposed to higher levels of stress — including > insect attacks, Seal says. And in response, they form compounds to help > combat the stress.

I wonder then... what about indoor grows using organic methods that are bug free and stress free with all variables controlled for optimum conditions.

<comment><USER17> You still get bugs inside

<comment><USER18> No, there are cleanroom indoor farms. No bugs.

<comment><USER19> Unless you are sterilizing everything entering the cleanroom, that is simply not possible. Fungal spores, bacteria, and viruses are everywhere. If one of your workers is a smoker, they can spread Tobacco Mosaic Virus, for example.

<comment><USER18> Yep, that's what a cleanroom is. I know what words mean, thanks [http://imgur.com/EYm8jyn](http://imgur.com/EYm8jyn)

<comment><USER20> Clean rooms are not perfectly clean. I've always wondered if Intel, which is famous for wanting all of their fab cleanrooms to be the same, also infects them with the same bacteria and mites...

<comment><USER18> > Clean rooms are not perfectly clean

Yeah, but they are still clean and known as cleanrooms. I know about microbes, thanks

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The best thing about organic food is that it uses no gas to produce fertilizer like for conventional food [1]. Using gas to produce food is just crazy if you think about it.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizer...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fertilizer#Nitrogen_fertilizers)

<comment><USER17> Numbers vary, but somewhere between 7-12 calories of hydrocarbon energy in every 1 calorie of food. That's precooked; afterwards it can be 25 or more.

The entire food system is heavily dependent on hydrocarbon energy and long supply lines.

Take oil and natural gas away and billions of people would starve to death.

<comment><USER22> Are you using food kilocalories for hydrocarbon energy or normal calories?

<comment><USER17> kilocalorie</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Ship Your Enemies GDPR - <AUTHOR> https://shipyourenemiesgdpr.com <comment><USER2> I actually like this but there are a lot of similar services that make it easy to send GDPR requests with less such biased framing and without the abusive intent.

The arguments brought forwards against GDPR tell you probably more about the author than the regulation if Jerre's only concern is with the potential costs for businesses. That may be news to some, but the maximization of company's profits is not a value in itself or should be the goal of our societies. Otherwise, we wouldn't have safety/labor/product standards regulations, such as OSHA. Instead, ensuring human rights, such as privacy and data rights, (and a high quality of life) should be our concern - and that can cost companies - slavery would've been a lot cheaper too.

It speaks to a certain discourse prevalent in Silicon Valley and among business owners. The main source has been pretty well counter-argued in the original thread [1] but the author rather parrots that misleading information.

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20009017](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20009017)

<comment><USER3> +1 to this. Author is primarily concerned about financial costs without taking into account all other externalities that such hoarding such data causes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> why would it be a good thing if companies spent more on fines than on costs to comply with regulations?

<comment><USER5> People will do the thing that costs less.

<comment><USER6> Total amount fined vs total amount spent complying aren't comparable numbers. One side has orders of magnitude more organizations comprising its number than the other.

We need a median amount fined to non-complying organizations vs. median amount spent complying by complying organizations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Is there any research on combating policies by artificially overwhelming them? This seems widely applicable.

<comment><USER7> I don't know about any actual research, but some people are doing that to the software patent system in the US. Current wait for a patent to be approved (or rejected) is 3+ years iirc (and it keeps getting longer). And I definitely know some people irl who think the whole software patent system is a load of bs, which is why they keep filing patents (90%+ of which won't be approved) for even the most minutiae stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you want to weaken this regulation, abuse it like this.

<comment><USER9> That is the point of this page, if you see lower down the author is against the regs and this is an attempt to undermine them.

Honestly, it's crazy—HN is the _only_ place I see this kind of anti-GDPR stuff. Everyone I have talked to about it sees it as a huge positive. I include myself in that by the way—being able to get (and delete) my data from providers reliably is a huge positive, and it has clearly improved the way my data gets handled a lot of the time. The cost is relatively small.

<comment><USER10> That's because on HN there's five general types of people against the GDPR:

1) People who think any sort of government regulation is pure evil

2) People who read the opinions of the first group and assume that because it was said on HN it's correct

3) Adtech startup devs

4) People who really hate not being able to hoard personal data for no reason

5) People who think money is significantly more important than privacy

<comment><USER11> No it's because we are working at companies that implement this and understand that it creates a large compliance moat for google and facebook. If it had proper carveouts for small business then it would be more positive. But the EU wants to put its hands in its ears and pretend they don't exist.

There is a difference between a 5 person biz like bear notes who would be totally cool in deleting your login info on request / sending whatever small amount of data they have on you, and what they actually have to do be properly compliant with GDPR. They are probably not and they, like many small EU software business, are a liability waiting to happen.

<comment><USER12> What kinds of carveouts are you proposing? Should small companies be allowed to abuse personal data however they want?

<comment><USER11> I would exempt small businesses from GDPR requirements outright unless the business model is a surveillance capitalism one. Like small adtech startups.

Defining a surveillance capitalist company without BS is difficult although, so in the end, I would probably just wholesale exempt private small businesses that are not subsidiaries of larger ones. The small businesses would need to be arms length from larger ones too.

A lot of the danger of surveillance capitalism come from concentrated power, and many small businesses are by definition the opposite of that.

<comment><USER12> Small companies can sell their data. Almost all of the data collected by all those small companies mentioned in those GDPR popups will end up in the hands of a few large entities.

The data is the same, regardless of who collects it. Leaking it is equally dangerous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I noticed it asked if you hate your government, government agencies do not have as stringent requirements as non-governmental because damn if they did there is a particular agency I would be screwing with daily.

<comment><USER14> But... Wouldn't the end result just be that your tax dollars get spent responding to bogus requests that waste a lot of time?

If you are dissatisfied with a government agency, it seems counterproductive to deliberately make them operate less efficiently. This attitude seems like it would just reinforce an endless cycle of inefficiency and dissatisfaction

<comment><USER13> Since the only real interactions I've had with this agency is them screwing me over I don't care that much about its efficiency, and I couldn't be more dissatisfied.

On the other hand you are right in that it helps do other stuff that does benefit me, I just don't notice the benefits as much as the harm because the harm is direct and the benefits are societal.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Isn't it kinda pointless because it will only work once per "enemy"? Sure, the first time it will waste a bunch of their time, but the second email will just get the same canned response.

I suppose you could make it a bit worse by asking to see the information collected - then simple copy-paste will be insufficient, they will have to run a script as well.

<comment><USER16> The truly malevolent thing to do would be to run a programme offering their customers a payout for sending in a GDPR request. Bonus malefactor points for using targeted ads to reach those customers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> But what do _you_ do with our personal information entered?

<comment><AUTHOR> No personal data is captured or stored. The form fields are pure front-end (VueJS), immediately outputting the values you enter into the preview box. There is no backend that stores anything. The only tracker currently installed is GA, which doesn't capture inputs either.

<comment><USER18> Do you have my IP address in your logs or the logs of third parties like Google or jquery.com or jsdelivr.net or producthunt.com?

Please post the name and address of your data protection officer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Saving this. If it works, it's spectacular. And using it for Revolut, they're horrible scammers.

</comment><comment><USER20> FTA on why it was made:

> To show that GDPR is fucking stupid. Really, have a look at these crazy > stats after 1 yr of GDPR:

        ~$60m in fines
        compliance costs for US firms estimated at $150b (2500x fine amount!)
        small co's hurt more than large. GOOG actually benefits!
        VC $ invested in EU startups drops significantly

Is it redundant to say that this characterisation seriously misses the point of the legislation, and that this is a lot of trouble to go to just make a childish nuisance?

<comment><USER21> In my opinion, regulation is better judged on the facts and not on it's intent.

For example, draconian drug laws have great intent but horrible externalities - so much so, that even though I'm vehemently opposed to recreational drug use, I'm now sympathetic to treating it as an illness and not as a crime.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> So, let's say that I receive this and do no comply. What should my "enemy" who sent this do next? What is the worst case outcome for me?

<comment><AUTHOR> They can report you to their local authorities and (potentially) sue you. Take a look at this: [https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data- protection/refo...](https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data- protection/reform/rights-citizens/redress/what-should-i-do-if-i-think-my- personal-data-protection-rights-havent-been-respected_en)

<comment><USER23> Arguably it's an "undue burden" to send a form letter "designed to waste as much of their time as possible"

<comment><USER24> The targets will still need to spend time (and thus, indirectly, money) to demonstrate that such a letter is such an "undue burden".

This assumes they can even do so; if there are national regulators who hold the same opinions that some HN posters do about Google and Facebook, there may be no definition of "undue burden" they are willing to accept.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> The usual New Yorker comic caption applies here.

<comment><USER26> _What a Misunderstanding!_ ?

<comment><USER27> _Christ, what an asshole_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This is a really cool application. I like that you are advocating for internet privacy. To add on to this, it would be cool if you made a .onion version of the site for even better privacy. Then google isn't collecting my data while I am on the site.

</comment><comment><USER29> Mhh, a gmail extension to reply to newsletter spam with this would be nice.

</comment><comment><USER30> EU-enabled DDoS attacks. Expect automation developments on both the attack and the mitigation side to grow until it's cost prohibitive to do business with those in the EU and companies simply stop offering services to its members.

<comment> mike-cardwell Hopefully. It will be a good thing to see these privacy abusing services/companies ceasing to exist in the EU.

<comment><USER31> At least 90% of sites [in the Czech Republic] required to implement GDPR are not abusing privacy

<comment><USER32> What does that even mean? Where did you get the 90% from? Do you have a list of said sites? Not abusing privacy according to whom?

<comment><USER31> Well abusing privacy is a punishable crime here, so according to our courts - do you say you don't trust the courts of a western, functioning, EU member country? The figure is definitely way higher than I said since only a handful of website operators have been found guilty ever since the law is active. The law is not an exhaustive list btw.

> Do you have a list of said sites?

You are the one who claimed that all sites required to implement GDPR are privacy abusers. Do _you_ have a list? In my country we adhere to the concept of "innocent until proven guilty" and we don't keep lists of innocent websites.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> This is why we can't have nice things.

</comment><comment><USER34> GDPR may be overkill but god damn is it needed. Startup "hackers" playing fast and loose with data need to be reigned the fuck in.

<comment><USER35> It's not startups you should be worried about as finding data for them is difficult unless they already have a widely used product, use open data or have a partner.

The real ones to be worried about are the usual 'do no evil' suspects. They already have all the data.

<comment><USER36> Google will have no problem complying with this request. They already have the systems in place to do so without much effort. Many people have already requested data from Google.

Small companies dealing with their first request likely have (at best) a manual process that will take many hours of someone's time to process.

<comment><USER35> Whilst their processes might be superior (although that's debatable), they very much aren't up to speed with GDPR [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46944696](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-46944696) (even if the fine is small fry to them and it's financially more attractive to flaunt the rules)

<comment><USER36> That's a completely different issue from their ability to respond to data requests like the one linked. I'd assume the incremental cost for Google to send you the data it has on you is close to zero.

<comment><USER35> And being able to respond to requests is completely different to the op's comment about startups, which was the original comment I added.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> this is BS that trivializes GDPR and almost amounts to fraud. someone will get sued for this.</comment>