EFF's Letter to Zillow on Behalf of McMansion Hell [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.eff.org/files/2017/06/29/wagner_eff_letter_to_zillow_-_2017.06.29.pdf <comment><USER2> EFF is a public good, clearly we all benefit from them taking the time to draft this letter. This letter is merely between attorneys but has all of the work required for a legal brief including tons of citations of precedent.

Thanks, EFF!

<comment><USER3> EFF isn't as good. They criticize NSA and other alleged privacy violators while it turns a blind eye on the worst offenders: google and facebook. I would not donate to them.

<comment><USER4> Wrong. EFF has gone after both Facebook and Google. Specifically, they filed an FTC complaint against Google claiming privacy violations, and they defended a client against a CFAA lawsuit from Facebook. This took 30 seconds to look up. I'm sure there's more examples, but I can't be arsed.

<comment><USER5> The FTC complaint was for student privacy:

[https://www.eff.org/document/ftc-complaint-google- education](https://www.eff.org/document/ftc-complaint-google-education)

Their student privacy campaign has been invaluable to me, and I have used numerous EFF resources in (ongoing) correspondence and a meeting with assistant superintendents of my school district on precisely those topics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Update: Zillow won't pursue any legal action.

> In a brief statement, Zillow said it will "not pursue any legal action."

> "We've had a lot of conversations about this, including with attorneys from > the EFF, whose advocacy and work we respect. EFF has stated that McMansion > Hell won't use photos from Zillow moving forward. It was never our intent > for McMansion Hell to shut down or for this to appear as an attack on Kate's > freedom of expression. We acted out of an abundance of caution to protect > our partners—the agents and brokers who entrust us to display photos of > their clients' homes."

[https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/mcmansion- hell-i...](https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2017/06/mcmansion-hell-is-back- wont-use-zillow-images-anymore-and-zillow-wont-sue/)

<comment><USER7> Wait, so Zillow agreed to back down but McMansion Hell can't continue their (clearly legal) fair use of images fro Zillow's site? How is that a win for anyone but Zillow?

<comment><USER8> Because Zillow is ultimately right here and her use of the images without Zillow's permission is against their terms of use (which contrary to the hand- wavy analysis in EFF's letter, is absolutely enforceable). However, Zillow doesnt have a lot of damages to recover from her use and definitely wants to avoid another big PR stink, so they get to back off gracefully, she agrees to stop saying she gets the pictures from Zillow (which is what they really wanted), and everything goes back to normal.

<comment><USER9> Just because Zillow has something in their terms of use that doesn't make it enforceable.

<comment><USER8> The EFF letter cites a bunch of cases where an arbitration clause was unenforceable because of the way the terms of service were presented, which has nothing to do with the current situation (whether a restriction on using images from Zillow is enforceable). I know it's not fashionable to express support for a big bad corporate machine over the little guy/gal, but I'm trying to share some actual information instead of just gush.

<comment><USER10> You're contradicting statements made with sources cited without citing any of your own, or explaining how they would nullify the other points made on why this use is acceptable.

<comment><USER8> When lawyers write letters, they will throw everything they can possibly think of and the kitchen sink, even if it's not relevant. Many of the cites in the letter are not relevant to this situation (I'm not going through every one, but just as an example):

The letter says:

"But Wagner is not bound by your Terms of Use and, even if she were, the relevant provisions are unenforceable. Courts routinely decline to enforce "browsewrap" agreements like Zillow's Terms of Use, which fail to present terms except via a hyperlink and without a checkbox to signal assent. See, e.g., Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., 763 F.3d 1171 (9th Cir. 2014); Meyer v. Kalanick, 199 F. Supp. 3d 752 (S.D. N.Y. 2016); Be In, Inc. v. Google Inc., No. 12-CV-03373-LHK, 2013 WL 5568706, at *9 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 9, 2013); Kwan v. Clearwire Corp., No. C09-1392JLR, 2012 WL 32380 (W.D. Wash. Jan. 3, 2012)."

Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc., - court declined to apply arbitration clause ([https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._Barnes_%26_Noble,_In...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nguyen_v._Barnes_%26_Noble,_Inc.)) Meyer v. Kalanick, - court declined to apply arbitration clause ([http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/08/judge- declines-...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2016/08/judge-declines-to- enforce-ubers-terms-of-service-meyer-v-kalanick.htm)) Kwan v. Clearwire Corp. - court declined to apply arbitration clause ([http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/kwan_v_clearwir...](http://blog.ericgoldman.org/archives/2012/02/kwan_v_clearwir.htm)) Don't have a link to the Google case, but I would be shocked if it werent the same issue.

Do you see how the very first paragraph where they start citing has very little to do with the actual issue? Translation: "Hey Zillow, first of all your terms of service arent enforceable, see these 4 cases, all of which have to do with whether an arbitration clause could be applied and have nothing to do with the current situation."

2nd paragraph: "Even if an agreement were formed, paragraph 14 of the Terms of Use, asserting Zillow's right to alter the contract without notice or justification, would render the agreement illusory and void for lack of consideration. See, e.g., Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc., 378 Md. 139, 144, 835 A.2d 656, 659 (2003); Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc., 16 Wash. App. 359, 362, 557 P.2d 357, 359 (1976)."

Again, nothing to do with the situation at hand

Cheek v. United Healthcare of Mid-Atl., Inc. - arbitration clause in an employee handbook held unenforceable ([http://www.whaylaw.com/employee- arbitration-agreement](http://www.whaylaw.com/employee-arbitration-agreement)) Interchange Assocs. v. Interchange, Inc. \- an agreement where directors agreed to serve 10 years or until they resigned was an "illusory promise" and did not provide sufficient consideration for a contract ([http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/016wnapp/016wnapp0359.htm](http://courts.mrsc.org/appellate/016wnapp/016wnapp0359.htm))

Again, neither of these are really relevant to the situation. I'll stop here but I hope you get the gist of it. Here's what happened - some junior lawyer at EFF spend 4-5 researching all the cases they thought would be remotely relevant and threw them in there because hey it looks impressive, but if you spend some time digging into them the truth quickly becomes apparent.

(I don't work for Zillow or EFF)

<comment><USER11> The "Nguyen v. Barnes & Noble Inc" decision is absolutely relevant. It's true that they were arguing about whether an arbitration clause applied, but what's important is the analysis the court used to determine that it did not. The distinction between clickwrap agreements (where you click a checkbox to say you agree) and browsewrap agreements (where you're expected to see some notice buried in the footer about the terms of service) was critical to the court's analysis in Nguyen. In the opinion, the court cites a long line of precedents to show that if a browesewrap agreement is sufficiently well-buried that it does not put a "reasonably prudent user on inquiry notice of the terms of the contract" then it does not apply.

You could try to draw a distinction by showing that this particular browsewrap agreement was more prominently featured than the one at issue in Nguyen, but you don't get to just hand-wave it away by saying that it was about an arbitration clause.

<comment><USER8> Flip it around - courts decide not to apply arbitration provisions because it involves giving up a key right (jury trial), so they find that there was no meeting of the minds in the TOS given the manner it was presented. Essentially, if a browsewrap TOS is not presently prominently enough to let you to make an educated decision on waiving your right to a jury trial, you get to keep your right to a jury trial.

You dont have this situation when the issue is whether you have the ability to use a provider's images for non-permitted purposes. Your right to use someone's images how you like is not nearly as important as your right to a jury trial. I'm not aware of any case where non-arbitration provisions of a TOS were not applied due to browsewrap reasons, if you are aware of any I'd love to see them.

EFF's argument would be totally valid if Zillow was trying to force McMansion into arbitration. That's not the issue here, and it's misleading to start off with "your TOS are unenforceable [because courts have declined to apply arbitration provisions in certain browsewrap TOS contexts]"

<comment><USER12> Meekro's point is compelling; to me it doesn't look like you read the Wikipedia page on that case beyond the "holding".

It's very clear (in everything but the Holding synopsis)) that court sees the ability for browserwrap to hold over a website visitor is contingent on affirmative action being required of a website visitor. That makes the citation more than just pertinent but a knockout if Zillow is arguing that McMansion Hell were bound by their ToS, and so ...

That said I can't see the court acceding that ToS overrule Fair Use for reporting/critique/parody/education as that would neuter Fair Use completely.

<comment><USER8> You (and most people in this thread, and discussing this on the Internet) are confusing 2 completely separate concepts.

Fair use is a COPYRIGHT doctrine. It is part of the US copyright law that says, creators of a copyright can enforce their rights against people who misuse their creations, except in certain cases, fair use being one of them. So if Zillow brings a claim under the US Copyright act, McMansion can assert a fair use defense. ([https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more- info.html](https://www.copyright.gov/fair-use/more-info.html))

Zillow's terms of service is a CONTRACT. It is separate from whether Zillow can bring a copyright claim. They could sue for both breach of contract and copyright infringement. Fair use is a legitimate defense for the copyright infringement claim (and I agree would likely be successful). It is NOT a defense for the breach of contract claim. There is no such thing as "TOS overriding fair use" because they are on separate and distinct tracks. ("However, binding agreements such as contracts or licence agreements may take precedence over fair use rights.[21]" \- [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fair_use))

As for whether the arbitration cases show that restrictions on use of proprietary images on browsewrap TOS are enforceable, we'll agree to disagree - jury trials are a far more important right (as someone below pointed out) than whether you can use someone's proprietary images for your own purpose. I find it difficult to believe a judge or jury could (fairly) find that there is no 'meeting of the minds' on whether you can take and use any images, website content, code, etc. you feel like from someone's website or online product under a browsewrap license. It's a significantly different issue than whether an arbitration clause can be enforced. I would argue that most people know that 'taking things from other people is bad and not allowed' without requiring prominent notice on a website about it. But this case will be litigated, so we'll never know.

<comment><USER12> >There is no such thing as "TOS overriding fair use" because they are on separate and distinct tracks. //

I don't know it to be certainly true, if you can cite something solid on the point I'd be happy: however in general there is such a principle, that certain rights can't be disclaimed.

Taking a logical approach - and law is not always logical - Fair Use could be disclaimed, eg in a ToS, then all Media corps would say words to the effect "this work can't be used under USC's Fair Use legislation" and the democratic law would then be subverted entirely.

Per your final para, most people do know infringement (no one 'took' anything, it's a copy) is not allowed [tortuous]. But, Fair Use very rightly allows copying for parody, reporting, education and similar purposes. They also know that no matter what you try to claim about not using images of your product, news and review, parody and education _are still allowed_ (not in all jurisdictions, however).

The established precedent is n that a browsewrap license needs affirmative action - checkbox, click-thru/interstitial, etc. - this precedent means nothing written in the license is pertinent, the viewer isn't party to the contract.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Its funny how giant douchebags who are trying to "mitigate their risks" never seem to perceive the risk of _everyone realizing they are giant douchebags_.

For those who don't know the history of the EFF, it is detailed in Bruce Sterling's "The Hacker Crackdown" which is available here [http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html](http://www.mit.edu/hacker/hacker.html) and on Amazon. The guy behind Lotus 1-2-3, Mitch Kapor, spent a sizable portion of his spreadsheet fortune setting it up. The events that Kapor and other founders were responding to make quite the riveting tale.

<comment><USER14> >Its funny how giant douchebags who are trying to "mitigate their risks" never seem to perceive the risk of everyone realizing they are giant douchebags.

The market doesn't really care if you're a giant douchebag so it doesn't matter to them if everyone finds out.

<comment><USER15> Douchebag-driven PR disasters aren't good for biz.

<comment><USER16> Exhibit A: Uber

<comment><USER17> That's a great exhibit you can be a total douche company fucking over everyone, and as long as you don't hit a socially superhot topic (e.g. sexual harassment), it won't affect you negatively in any way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The EFF presents a fairly strong argument here.

I don't think Zillow had much of a case before, but this certainly makes it clear that they will not be able to scare McMansion Hell into submission. Zillow, if they want to achieve an outcome they want, will have to press this in court where they will likely lose.

Curious to see the response from Zillow here, though I've already created my Red Fin account and will likely not bother to go back to Zillow.

<comment><USER19> Except they achieved the outcome that they stated they wanted. EFF says McMansion Hell won't use photos from Zillow moving forward.

<comment><USER20> She doesn't have to change her old photos. She's just not going to use any _more_. Which -- well, I can imagine not wanting to have anything to do with Zillow in the future. Or to give them free advertising by referring to them for each photo caption. I quite like the idea that her future posts will say "Images from Redfin, a pretty awesome site that isn't threatening to sue me for using images for purposes of education, commentary, and parody." :)

But seriously, she won the most important thing: Her entire existing body of work is going to remain available.

<comment><USER19> In their original letter, Zillow's first demand was that Kate Wagner confirm that she has "stopped, and will not in the future, access or otherwise use the Zillow Site or Images," which she has now done.

Even in the worst case scenario, the internet was going to keep Wagner's original celebrated body of work available.

I dislike the idea that Zillow's legal goons can now guarantee Zillow's sellers that their photos won't be subject to mockery by McMansion Hell.

<comment><USER20> Zillow's initial demand letter included this:

"(ii) delete all images, and derivatives thereof, in Your possession and on Your site"

As Kate noted in her twitter feed, the decision to not use them in the future was hers:

[https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352](https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352)

[https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352](https://twitter.com/mcmansionhell/status/880517699725668352)

The Innertubes may have kept her originals around, but being forced to delete them would have destroyed the value to her of a year of pretty concerted work on it. That would have acted as a very strong deterrent to speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I thought this was particularly interesting:

 _Third, Zillow cannot leverage its agreements with third parties to assert some kind of 'super copyright' that overrides fair use. The original copyright owners could not deny Wagner permission to make fair use of the photographs. See Lenz v. Universal Music Corp., 815 F.3d 1145, 1152 (9th Cir. 2016) (a fair use is not an infringement of copyright). Zillow, which does not even own the relevant copyrights, cannot then assert rights that the original copyright owners could not assert._

If only more platforms, publishers, and creators took this concept to heart.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Some previous discussion on this topic:

1) Zillow's 1st letter to Ms. Wagner: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14639908](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14639908)

2) Commentary on the wrongness of Zillow's 2nd letter to Ms. Wagner: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656242](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14656242)

</comment><comment><USER22> Man I love a good smack down letter :-). This one is typical of the genre, in terms of content and well executed. I particularly like that they cite the Righthaven LLC case because a really good letter points out all the scumbags who have tried to do what you are trying to do and lets the reader know you think they are scumbags without actually having to call that out directly.

I wonder if they would be interested in writing a letter to the "JustPrintIt 3D" people. (see video [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPnhkQZ9fzM](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPnhkQZ9fzM))

</comment><comment><USER23> The crazy thing about this is that if Zillow had sent a nice email to the McMansion Hell author and buttered her up a little, maybe offered her some paid guest blogging opportunities- They probably could have convinced her to stop using Zillow-sourced photos for a tiny fraction of what they paid their lawyers (not to mention the damaged brand capitol).

I could imagine a different version of this where they sponsored an artist/illustrator so she doesn't have to use photos of real houses if that's what they were worried about. It would have been a great fit for their brand, a weekly "what to look for in your next house, sponsored by Zillow" feature or something. Instead they just stuck their finger in their eye for no reason.

<comment><USER24> I'm sure some exec on zillow's marketing team thinks that someone making fun of some houses will hurt their business. Everyone working for this exec thought they were stupid for pursuing it, but they don't want to lose their jobs over it so they just roll their eyes and ignore it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just renewed my EFF membership and would encourage others to do so as well.

</comment><comment><USER26> So much in here is interesting (and right), but the best part I think comes at the end: Zillow doesn't own the images. So whether or not you there's a legal argument for fair use, Zillow has absolutely no right to file a copyright case in the first place because they don't own the images. As the EFF rightly points out, there is no "super copyright" that Zillow can exercise here. Really good stuff overall on fair use, but love that nice whopper at the end.

<comment><USER27> The "super copyright" comment has less to do with their ownership of the copyright, and more to do with the rest of the context about the owners not being able to exert copyright claims due to fair use. (This of course is predicated on the assertion that the usage _does_ fall under fair use.) The "super copyright" comment is alluding to Zillow attempting to assert something that even the original owners cannot (i.e. a "superset" of copyright rights).

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> There is so little differentiating the real estate finding websites that something like this is enough for me to suggest to my home-searching friends to use a different service.

<comment><USER29> Zillow Group owns Zillow, Trulia, HotPads, RealEstate.com, and others. What else is there?

<comment><USER30> Redfin, whose UI I liked more than Zillows back when I was buying a house.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I was loving this letter until this part near the end.

> _In the interests of compromise, and because Wagner no longer wishes to use > Zillow's website, she will no longer source photographs from Zillow for her > blog._

What an unnecessary and obnoxious capitulation. Zillow pretty much got what they wanted by doing what they did. Poppycock.

</comment><comment><USER32> Zillow has been threatening small startups for years. Most just go away quietly. It's good to see people fighting back on their behalf.

<comment><USER33> There is a difference between a business and social commentary/satire. (But that doesn't mean they're not bullies.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> I still don't understand what Zillow hoped to achieve by this. Zillow displays all types of housing, right? If anything, Kate's site gave Zillow free advertising.

<comment><USER35> Some of their clients, realtors, probably complained that their listings were being used as bad examples and were shown as coming from Zillow.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> I had not heard the term "browsewrap" before this but that part is very interesting in and of itself.

</comment><comment><USER37> This is the kind of argumentative writing I used to show my students when they wrote essays. It doesn't argue against a strawman, but instead demonstrates that even the most charitable interpretation of the opponent's argument won't stand up to scrutiny, even if some of the opponent's more contentious premises are assumed to be true.

For example:

Zillow's terms of use are unenforceable because they are browsewrap agreements, _but even if Wagner had agreed to the terms of use_ , they would still be unenforceable because they contain unconscionable clauses in several different places.

Zillow doesn't hold a copyright to the photos, _but even if they did_ , Wagner would be protected by a fair use defense.

I have no idea how a judge would rule in this case, but this is definitely good persuasive writing.

<comment><USER38> As someone who listened to quite a lot of court cases (did you know that the Ninth Circuit has a YouTube channel?), it's quite common for judges to ask "if we rule that your argument X is invalid, do you lose?", giving the opportunity for lawyers to make that kind of alternative argument.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> > "may violate" the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA)

Oh wow, just saw that. So Zillow is throwing everything at the wall including "she is hacking us".

Well one good thing is it looks like McMansion Hell's Patreon account will get bumped up with a few more zeroes at the end. And Zillow just gave her free advertising and in the process managed to embarrass themselves.

Doesn't anyone there do any kind of risk analysis? Even from their totally selfish corporate perspective, someone should have said "attacking a fairly popular blogger and accusing her of CFAA crimes and other crap is probably going to end up not benefiting us, and may hurt our reputation". It would seem like a no-brainer...

<comment><USER40> The CFAA is a really, really nasty law. According to some interpretations, you are breaking it any time you violate the tiny terms of use at the bottom of a website. So basically anybody could get convicted if the prosecution really wants to. Somebody got convicted for pretending to be a fictional person on myspace, but it was overturned (granted, the person was cyberbullying that resulted in a suicide, but still) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suicide_of_Megan_Meier)

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> TIL: there's a list of open source projects for the EFF that anyone can contribute to

[https://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer/coding- wit...](https://www.eff.org/about/opportunities/volunteer/coding-with-eff)

</comment><comment><USER42> This is a really beautiful legal document. It's concise, readable to someone not a legal professional, includes ample citations (and sometimes summaries of cited works), and is convincing using very simple, isolated, well structured arguments.

If I ever need a lawyer, this is exactly the caliber of document I'd hope they put out.

</comment><comment><USER43> Good points in the EFF letter that all web programmers (or programmers who use content from the web) should be aware of. The difference between "click wrap" and "browser wrap" ToS is extremely important, especially with web scraping.

</comment><comment><USER44> I am grateful for the EFF and the work they do taking on Internet copyright bullies. Well done.

</comment><comment><USER45> Thanks EFF. Should I ever get a threatening letter from a Big Corp, I'm def going to use this letter as a template to respond and save myself some lawyer fees.

</comment><comment><USER46> Curious question: Why does it say CC Christopher Poole at the bottom of the letter? As in, the founder of 4chan?

<comment><AUTHOR> The author of the original cease and desist from Zillow was a lawyer coincidentally named Christopher Poole. I wonder how many 4chan jokes he gets?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> Does anyone know of any thoughtful writeups that make the case from Zillow's point of view?

<comment><USER48> If I read things right, the pictures were being used were actually from MLS sites, and Zillow was using them on their site.

A large goal of the site is to take the different closed off MLS listings and aggregate them on one site for people to find.

But, working with the MLS sites is extremely hard to do and they require sometimes large fees and have very strict/weird requirements to use the data.

The big thing with Zillow, is that a problem for them is having access to as many MLS listings as possible, since most of the realtors use the MLS to post homes. Without these, its basically just a price estimator and search engine for homes.

Zillow already has a tenuous relationship with the MLS sites and most likely pursued the lawsuit to prove to the MLS sites they are serious about the use of their images, and likely were worried about this affecting their relationship with some of those listing agencies.

Although only speculation, I see this as more likely than the lawyers just going after this to be a bully (but they still probably did the wrong thing either way).

<comment><USER49> MLS?

<comment><USER38> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_listing_service](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiple_listing_service)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> I accepted much better. The grammers and spellingses ate not goods.

</comment><comment><USER51> Summary: [https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.158316898.2338/flat,800x800,...](https://ih1.redbubble.net/image.158316898.2338/flat,800x800,070,f.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER52> eff.org Offline For Maintenance We're currently offline for server maintenance. Please check back soon.

2017-06-29

</comment><comment><USER53> Christopher Poole? The 4chan guy?

<comment><USER54> He isn't the only Christopher Poole in the world.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> I <3 EFF

</comment><comment><USER56> So, this is what it looks like when you stick your metaphorical head into a buzzsaw ...

</comment><comment><USER57> Thank you EFF!

</comment><comment><USER58> >CC (by email): Christopher Poole

Very interesting - it does make sense that moot would have relationships with the EFF.

</comment><comment><USER59> > McMansion Hell educates the public about architectural concepts, urban > planning, environmentalism, and history.

That's simply not true. It's ludicrous.

At the EFF level, this is a complete waste of time. There are more than a few instances of fair use out there that are defensible and are worthy of protection efforts. McMansion Hell provides a fraction of the public value that Perez Hilton does - and like most people I consider his site a black mark in societies history.

I get that everybody deserves a level of protection, but everybody does not get it. Resources are thin. EFF should be focusing on more important pursuits.

<comment><USER60> > _EFF should be focusing on more important pursuits._

Your opinion of that website has absolutely no bearing on whether EFF should focus on defending them. This is a clear First Amendment case with digital rights square in the middle. Zillow is attempting to exert copyright claims against a blogger when Zillow owns zero copyright on the photos in question.

This case is exactly what EFF is all about, hell it's what their name means.

Don't let your own biases block out common sense.

<comment><USER59> This is not a first amendment case at all. Freedom of expression has nothing to do with the privilege to use images posted on a website.

<comment><USER38> The SCOTUS disagrees,

 _We have repeatedly rejected First Amendment challenges to injunctions from copyright infringement on the ground that First Amendment concerns are protected by and coextensive with the fair use doctrine._

<comment><USER59> This is not a copyright issue. Copyright was peripherally mentioned in the C&D and not the basis of the C&D. Copyright does not belong to Zillow, as they mentioned themselves directly in the C&D.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Personal-Essay Boom Is Over - <AUTHOR> http://www.newyorker.com/culture/jia-tolentino/the-personal-essay-boom-is-over <comment><USER2> This is an interesting meta article, but it skirts the bigger picture. "Personal essay" seems to be a euphemism for "first world feminist problems." Note all of the examples in the intro are wealthy(ish) women drumming up trivial problems somehow related to womanhood. There are no listed examples of men having equivalent problems (let's say having a mishap with his pant zipper), and there are no listed examples of lower class problems (let's say a dishwasher who gets type 2 diabetes). The sexual assault essays go both ways - some are genuine and useful to understanding crime, some are authors desperately exploiting other people's victimhood for their own self aggrandizement ("stare rape").

The author's failure to acknowledge the _topic_ of the personal essay boom may stem from her own employment at Jezebel, a publication largely devoted to first world feminist problems.

Personally, I welcome this change. I've been very disheartened by what has been an obvious attempt at the Western upper classes to redirect money attention away from the needy and towards themselves. Sadly, I've seen a fair share of this on HN as well.

<comment><USER3> I think that yours is a typical viewpoint on this topic among white men. I don't mean this as an insult in any way; since that's most likely your entire life experience. But when you constantly have your competence questioned when people don't do the same to coworkers, you feel unfairly boxed in. It'd be great to solve the big problems of the world; but most women / people of color have to fight to prove that they belong in the conversation. It's a daily frustration, so we complain on blogs about it.

The shitty thing about it is that you really don't know when it figures in. All you see is your white male coworkers advancing in their careers while you're left to wonder "Was he promoted because he goes fishing with the boss? Or is he doing something I'm not?" Never mind that the boss doesn't invite _you_ fishing because you're female and his wife won't allow it.

It's that constant, nagging "What if?" that bothers us. It's not that I don't care about the problems of other people in the world; it's that I'm constantly reminded how little little power I have within my immediate sphere of influence that I don't feel I have anything to contribute outside of it. There is a small but influential political base in this country that actually believes women are second-class citizens (watch how many people the Daily Show was able to get to un-ironically admit that they thought Trump was a better option than Clinton because he was a man -- even other women).

But at the same time, this has caused a backlash against "political correctness" that we first world feminists have to defend against that have very real consequences (abortion rights, family leave, etc). So yeah, the narcissistic essays are gone, but there are still problems to address -- both at home and elsewhere (ignoring the entirely patronizing idea that the world outside western democracies _need_ our help...)

<comment><USER2> Those white male retired coal miners living on welfare in trailer parks and dying of black lung will never understand the plight of middle class office politics.

<comment><USER4> Are you a white coal miner dying of black lung?

I think the issue here is simple. Some women make complaints about events in their daily lives, and connect it to a wider conflict/issue about the rights and status of women. Let's call these women group A.

On the other hand, it seems rare for men to complain in the same way.

I've seen men complaining about group A merely having discussions.

I've seen men complaining about the treatment of men whom they are not connected to (e.g. coal miners, kindergarden teachers, nurses).

However, I rarely see _personal_ gripes.

I'd invite you to actually make a personal gripe, because it will be more topical than dragging up an age-old trope.

<comment><USER3> Yes. This.

My theory is that Silicon Valley (aka "white men" in the most air-quotes way possible) have moved on to solving the problems of the whole world (whether the world wants them to or not) because they don't have acute social obstacles they have to deal with.

The rest of us have things that bother us every day: we work on fixing those. There's no app for that: it takes the hard work of millions of women and people of color every day. Hard work that is assumed as a "given" by most companies.

And this is _in no way_ a critique of white men for not working on these problems: they're not your problems to solve. Just _please_ don't tear us down when all we're trying to to is claw our way up to your level. A little support (even purely verbal) goes a long way.

<comment><USER5> _My theory is that Silicon Valley (aka "white men" in the most air-quotes way possible) have moved on to solving the problems of the whole world (whether the world wants them to or not) because they don't have acute social obstacles they have to deal with._

I think it's a mistake to assume that anybody who isn't complaining about something doesn't have anything to complain about. Look at somebody like Robin Williams. Who expected him to kill himself? Nobody.

In general, men are discouraged from complaining about their problems in public. It's unseemly and unmasculine. So to be fair to everyone, we should not assume that the volume of complaints is any reflection on how hard people's lives are.

<comment><USER6> Yes. The big company i work for has a new popular mailing list where anonymous happenings related to sexism/racism are sent, and weekly summaries are sent out. Frequently you see something like "I (female) was asked by my manager to not work on anything that he wasn't aware of"

It's really hard to imagine that this is an instance of sexism, or that men aren't sometimes treated similalrly. Yes , we don't see equivalent "I (male)" statements, but maybe because men generally don't want to complain, or think that it is a personal issue and they don't generalize it to a gender issue

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Completely false, very narrow minded perspective that pretty much works backwards from its conclusion using lots of anecdotes.

The Personal-Essay Boom is just getting started, because now people are sharing more interesting things in more interesting ways in the past. Dishing on former employers. Describing personal journeys. Letting people experience a slice of life that they otherwise would not come across.

The only problem with Personal-Essays is that anybody without any training or practice can sit down and give it a try, which is why 95%+ will read like a Sophomoric diary entry based on literary merit (if lucky) or Ranting (overloaded with emotions), or just not as interesting as the Writer thinks.

So, to contrast the anecdotes and conclusion I disagree with in the article, I will happily cite that on my Medium.com page, where I have 70 publications, the highest viewed, most shared, and apparently most liked are Personal Essays. They are about interesting subjects - Film, Music, Writing - not, as the Writer uses as a comparison - some kind of nuveau-critique about life as told through the lens of a Tampon.

The signal to noise ratio has always been a problem. That's the role of Copy Editors (RIP, really they're seemingly extinct in the US outside of Top 1%) and Publications to get things into shape. Or, to re-frame the discussion in terms of guitar and me experience with it, "Anybody can pick up a guitar and make noise, but making beautiful music is going to take a lot of time and effort." Personal Essays also follow this axiom.

<comment><USER8> I personally cannot relate to reading other people's journeys unless I'm trying to get actionable information out of those reports. E.g. you're someone who achieved a good degree of success somewhere, let's say a Derek Sivers, in which case I WANT to know how you did it.

I don't enjoy being a passive consumer, I'd rather have the experience instead of reading about it. And yes, it takes a lot of work to get yourself in a position where you can have an interesting lifestyle, which is why most people would much rather passively dream of those experiences.

Reminds me of how every person on Instagram has to show the world how great of a time they're having, how amazing of a vacation they're on, and how much they've grown from the experience every day. Some of that is done to build an audience for later advertising revenues, sure. I however have no reason to look at any of it.

The way I see it, nobody with a fulfilling, busy, exciting and interesting life of their own will consume that kind of content. People are fundamentally selfish and self-centered, they don't care about other people's experience nearly as much as we think.

<comment><USER9> This is a strange response. You talk about _yourself personally_ and then go on to generalize: apparently no-one with a "fulfilling, busy, exciting and interesting life of their own" will ever be interested in other people's experience. Apparently the explanation of why other people have tastes that are different to your own is that their lives suck.

A less preposterous (and less self-congratulatory) idea might be that "people like different things".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> > "The boom in personal essays—at Salon, at least, but I suspect other > places—was in part a response to an online climate where more content was > needed at the exact moment budgets were being slashed."

That makes those essays the literary equivalent of Reality TV.

</comment><comment><USER11> I wonder if it has something to do with trends in education. It seems like the only thing my generation ever did in high school English classes was learn how to write college application essays, the more personal, the better.

</comment><comment><USER12> no it's not over. the personal essays have moved to Medium

</comment><comment><USER13> The phrase "personal essay economy" drove me nuts.

The personal essay largely to me seemed like posting a blog in the paper, I'm not sure why you'd want to, but sometimes they're interesting to read.</comment>


Patch Workflow with Mutt - <AUTHOR> http://kroah.com/log/blog/2019/08/14/patch-workflow-with-mutt-2019/ <comment><USER2> I wonder if his workflow could be even more automated using a MUA like "[nm]mh" ([http://marmaro.de/prog/mmh/](http://marmaro.de/prog/mmh/)) or "mblaze" ([https://github.com/leahneukirchen/mblaze](https://github.com/leahneukirchen/mblaze)). The latter is maildir-specific though.</comment>


A bonus for HipChat users - Live Chat integration for customer support - <AUTHOR> http://www.hipmob.com/hipsplash

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey HN - Ayo from Hipmob here. Recently several users have asked us about using HipChat to support customers (there's also a Quora question about it: [http://www.quora.com/How-would-one-integrate-Hipchat-and- Ola...](http://www.quora.com/How-would-one-integrate-Hipchat-and-Olark)). We've made a solution and we're rolling it out would love any feedback to firstname.lastname@example.com</comment>


Ask HN: Quitting a job in favor of a startup? - <AUTHOR> I am currently working on an AR platform with a partner. I also work full time as a full-stack dev at a large marketing company. Yet, each day that goes by I feel like I should make the leap. I am not quite sure how I would handle it financially but suffer from massive amounts of FOMO. Any thoughts? <comment><USER2> I'd work on getting your cost of living as low as possible first, and try to have at least a year of living expenses saved up. The reality is that most startups don't succeed, it's kind of a numbers game, so be in it for the long haul.

Personally I'd stay at the job until your projects get some actual momentum. Leaving your job to work on your project is really exciting at first but it can be pretty disastrous if you don't have a 'plan b'

</comment><comment><USER3> Make the leap when you have customers for your new AR software.

Financial stress while doing startups is very distracting and possibly deadly to the new company. Plus your income can help fund expected and unexpected expenditures.

I've done 8 startups, only one from my savings. I'm on #8 right now with a job and slowly building it on the side. It's 12-16 hour days sometimes but I have health insurance covered, paid time off/holidays, and significantly more revenue than I need with dual incomes.

I'm leaving once there's enough capital in the company to cover myself and my partner's payments for 1 year with no income and our first 5 clients.

If you feel you're not giving your customers the service they need, you can setup a small coloc office and hire a 15-20/hr employee to man the phones give customer support.

Good luck. I worked on AR products in Oil & Gas, some of the worst crap I've ever seen in my life. A good workflow will make your users love your product, so eat your own dogfood :-)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks a bunch for the response, great advice. We are slowing but surely getting to the point where we can begin building enough income to leave but you are right. It is just hard sometimes as it can be very distracting when all you want to do is code your own stuff. No one said it would be easy so onward we must go, haha.

<comment><USER3> Believe me, capital is the biggest issue I've run into in all my startups. You can never have too much.

The groundwork your laying now will help determine whether you're successful down the road.

Read The E-Myth on how to run a successful business. It's a bit silly in its writing but the point of the book is really helpful and eye opening in my opinion. I've got my startup partner reading it now. He's 100% the "technician". It's only 280 pages so maybe a 2 day read max.

The best sales book I've ever read is 10 Steps to Sales Success by Tim Breithaupt. I think it's out of print but you can get a used copy cheapo.

Running a business is a hell of a lot more than just coding, the sooner you recognize that the better your chances to succeed.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What is your side project for 2019? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I want to make a site to track how often I accomplish my daily goals in respect to my new years resolutions. Such as running, reading, journaling, etc every day.

</comment><comment><USER3> This past year I finally launched [http://www.finewordclocks.com](http://www.finewordclocks.com) I wanted a side project that wasn't focused on income but rather scratching my creative itch. I am hoping to start selling more clocks though. So far I've sold one.

My goal this year is to start marketing it and sell some units.

I hope to post a show HN soon. Side benefit, I get to make cool projects with my kids using the new tools too. We made a cool present for all the cousins this year.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> In 2018, i have lunched [https://www.cmyport.com/](https://www.cmyport.com/) and it was not successful as i thought , and this year i have lunched simple [https://www.tweetvideo.info/](https://www.tweetvideo.info/) Twitter video downloader, and planning for chrome extension, learning SEO stuffs which i can rank my website higher in google pages.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have started to work on a todo list tool, just to improve my skills.

It turned out for me that it has potential for more. So I want to create a MUP: [https://github.com/doganoo/todolist](https://github.com/doganoo/todolist)</comment>


HyperCard almost shipped as a plugin-based Flash competitor (1996 WWDC) - <AUTHOR> https://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.hypercard/msg/ffb50cd21b7774df

<comment><USER2> I have to say one of my few regrets about the Steve Jobs era at Apple was that he didn't bring HyperCard back to life. I realize that by the time he came back that the web was already on the rise, but if feels like a missed opportunity — not just for Apple but for the industry.

</comment><comment><USER3>
        What this means is that every Hypercard stack is a movie
        and can be played by ANY existing movie player, including
        (and demoed) MoviePlayer, WordPerfect, Netscape and
        OpenDoc's movie part.

Yeah, that'll be useful for all of those OpenDoc applications that flooded the market in the late '90s... /sarcasm

<comment><AUTHOR> You jest, but pluggable HyperCard could have been one of the _very_ few interesting things to come out of OpenDoc.

... Or not. I'm not sure there's anything that could have saved OpenDoc, but QuickTime itself did have broad plugin adoption for a while there.</comment></comment>


Oauthd: OAuth.io open sourced - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/oauth-io/oauthd

<comment><USER2> This looks sick, and easy to deploy just redis and node. Will give it try for [https://commando.io](https://commando.io) and a GitHub integration.

[[ Tried getting it running, but ran into an issue. ]]

[https://github.com/oauth-io/oauthd/issues/5](https://github.com/oauth- io/oauthd/issues/5)

<comment><USER3> Would be better if you could raise a bug on the github page...

<comment><USER2> just did. :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> AGPLv3. Technically open source, but not what most have in mind.

<comment><USER5> may be to your mind GNU/GPL is also "technically open source, but not what most have in mind." Licenses that enforce open source to spread are to my mind more in the open source spirit than MIT or Apache2.0

You think that people understand open source as free (as free to re-use)? I don't believe so, there are many open source licences for these reasons, depending on the willingness of the authors. Linux is open source or not? ;)

<comment><USER4> Nope. AGPLv3 is very different from GPLv2. Also the wishes of the creators of Linux and git make the GPLv2 more comfortable to me. Companies that have a dual-licensing model with GPLv2 and a paid proprietary license may try to stretch the meaning of the GPLv2 to make it more restrictive.

The problem with oauth.io is I could spend time learning it to use it on a personal project and then not be able to apply the same knowldege on a client project where the client doesn't find the copyleft situation acceptable.

<comment><USER5> May be they will go like MongoDB, RethinkDB, OpenERP, SugarCRM as well as WURFL, they all now utilize the AGPLv3 as a vehicle for dual commercial licensing.

<comment><USER4> Doing what SugarCRM is doing would be better than what they're doing right now. Many companies would find both AGPL and SaaS against their policies but would be OK with paying for non-copyleft software that they can install on their own server.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Tsutomu Yamaguchi, Survivor of 2 Atomic Blasts, Dies at 93 - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/07/world/asia/07yamaguchi.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I have read about him before, but only came across the news of his death today by accident.

Let this never happen again.</comment>


Neutralizing the iOS camera click sound through active sound cancellation - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/23758875/capture-image-via-capturestillimageasynchronouslyfromconnection-with-no-shutter <comment><USER2> I wonder if Apple is intentionally forcing the shutter sound, to prevent secret upskirt shots. I know several phones have had shutter sounds that cannot be disabled, and some countries have required it. In that case Apple might reject apps that use this trick.

<comment><USER3> Shutter sound is required by law in many countries.

<comment><USER4> _Many_ countries? South Korea is the only one I can find a source for online. In Japan it appears to only be a voluntary choice among device manufacturers.

[https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/south- korea/ii-...](https://www.privacyinternational.org/reports/south-korea/ii- surveillance-policy)

<comment><USER5> "voluntary" choice in Japan is basically the regulators telling the carriers that if they don't do it they'll have to regulate. From the carrier's point of view, it's a matter of doing it now in friendly terms, or doing it tomorrow with the regulators on their back.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is a really cool solution to a problem that really seems like it shouldn't exist.

<comment><USER7> It's all relative. There are probably a lot of subway riding Japanese ladies that would argue that this problem really really should exist.

<comment><USER8> How do you figure? The same laws don't apply to digital cameras which come on all shapes and sizes.

<comment><USER9> When you are holding a camera, the intent is somewhat obvious. When you are holding a phone, not so much. That's the real separation.

<comment><USER8> Cameras come in all different shapes and sizes. I can get cameras that look like cellphones. I can even get keychain cameras for $4 off eBay and put them in my shoes. Set them to video and shoot hours of up skirt shots.

The law does nothing to stop people who want to take pictures without you knowing they're doing it. Anyone who wants to will. The law is pointless

<comment><USER10> No, it is not pointless.

The point of this law is to create the perception that the authorities are doing something about the perceived epidemic of upskirt photography.

The same authorities also erect signs next to escalators warning people that upskirt photography is a crime. They serve the same purpose: to make escalator-riding ladies feel that the authorities are watching out for them.

Don't knock it. It works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How is this possible? Doing ANC would require the sound to be played at the _exact same microsecond_ as the target sound.

<comment><USER12> Closer to exact same millisecond. 44.1 kHz sampling rate + 64(ish)-sample buffer granularity = ~1 millisecond.

<comment><USER13> Even that is an overly harsh requirement. While being close does not completely remove the sound but still does severly reduce its volume:

[http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%28x%29+-+sin%28x-0....](http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sin%28x%29+-+sin%28x-0.2%29%2C+sin%28x%29+-+sin%28x-0.5%29%2C+sin%28x%29)

<comment><USER12> No, not really. If you're off by a millisecond (the minimum, assuming 64-sample buffers and 64 kHz sampling rate), frequencies which are even multiples of 500 Hz will be nullified, those which are odd multiples of 500 Hz will be _amplified_ , and the rest will fall somewhere between those extremes. (This is known as a "comb filter"; see [1] and [2].)

Your examples demonstrate the behavior of such filtering only for frequencies much less than 500 Hz, which will indeed be attenuated. However, a camera "click" sound, being both brief and noisy, contains lots of high-frequency content which will be, on the whole, preserved.

In fact, assuming the "click" sound can be approximated by white noise, its total energy will be _doubled_ by such filtering!

So yes, you _do_ need to play the sounds within the same millisecond.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comb_filter)

[2] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comb_filter_response_ff_ne...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comb_filter_response_ff_neg.svg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Barely related, but it's surprising how often DSLR newbies show up on photography forums asking how to disable the shutter sound on their cameras.

</comment><comment><USER15> Is this how noise-cancelling headphones work?

<comment><USER16> Everyone is getting really excited because they think this is how it works, but no, not exactly.

The shutter sound comes from the same speaker as the anti-shutter sound. The phone is mixing the tracks together and playing nothing.

It's _not_ like both sounds are played and they neutralize each other as sound waves.

<comment><USER17> Inverted sound waves can cancel each other in air, I've heard (or not heard) the effect with my own ears.

<comment><USER16> Sure, but my point is that there is only one speaker involved so the cancellation happens in the electronics, before any sound is made.

<comment><USER18> It's interesting to think of 'cancellation' in different mediums. Waves in physical space. Radio in electromagnetism. And now 'computed' waves cancel each other too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Hilarity from the comments: I wish I could upvote twice: once for the inverted-cancelling hack, and once for answering your own question, just to counteract anyone daft enough to downvote you for that. – Daniel Earwicker 1 hour ago

<comment><USER20> i think that was aimed at me. i said in a now deleted comment:

> Wow! Even though I know it's allowed, some coolness points deducted for > posting the question yourself :-). I'd definitely do the same though. I'd be > stopping random people in the street telling them the hack!

i know posting and answering your own questions is encouraged on SO, it was just a joke!

<comment><USER21> It looks like he posted it AND answered it at the same time though, which is really weird.

<comment><USER22> There's a checkbox at the bottom of the "Ask" screen that lets you write your answer before posting the question. Makes it easier to document a piece of knowledge if you don't have a blog to post it on.

[http://stackoverflow.com/help/self- answer](http://stackoverflow.com/help/self-answer)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Awesome hack! If anyone wants try it out and play around, here's a demo project: [https://github.com/vpdn/SilentPhotoCaptureDemo](https://github.com/vpdn/SilentPhotoCaptureDemo)

</comment><comment><USER24> Another trick is to use a dummy cord. Use a broken headset and cut off the jack. Plug that into the phone.

Diverts sound to headset which doesn't exist. Or just put on a working set of headphones

</comment><comment><USER25> Apple owns the copyright of the shutter sound.

That's enough to reject an app using this trick.

<comment><USER26> I guess the app could read the shutter audio file and invert it on the fly, it doesn't need to ship with the inverted sound upfront. As a bonus it would likely work even if future OS updates changed the sound (well, unless they moved the file so it would no longer be found)

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> On Android you can record without the user knowing which is way cooler.

<comment><USER28> Is that really true?

<comment><USER27> Only if you side load apps and give full permissions.</comment></comment></comment>


Founder Institute Expands To Seattle - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/10/27/founder-institute-expands-to-seattle/ <comment><USER2> I wonder why none of these incubators/schools come to NYC? It is the 2nd largest tech scene in the US. It would seem obvious.</comment>


Testing a New Class of Speedy Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/22/technology/testing-a-new-class-of-speedy-computer.html

<comment><USER2> D-Wave does a nice dog-and-pony show, but I won't be cheering until they actually do one of the long-promised "holy grail" things that quantum computers are supposed to be able to do.

Like what? Like running Shor's Algorithm (for integer factorization) on a big integer, in the expected amount of time.

<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shors_algorithm>

(and I will be cheering, because they're based in Burnaby, where I live.)

<comment><USER3> I don't think you can run that Algorithm on adiabatic quantum computer. From what I recall quantum adiabatic chips use hills and valleys optimization, but they aren't generalized quantum comptuer.

[http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial- qu...](http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn23251-controversial-quantum- computer-aces-entanglement-tests.html?full=true)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Some USC scientists recently analyzed the performance of a D-wave system and found that "quantum annealing is indeed being performed by D-Wave One": [http://www.pppl.gov/events/adiabatic-quantum-computing-d- wav...](http://www.pppl.gov/events/adiabatic-quantum-computing-d-wave-one)

So their computer does behave quantum mechanically. But I can't find any evidence that they have shown entanglement, which is necessary to realize the full promise of quantum computing, see e.g. <http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954#comment-40364>

<comment><USER5> I think they only do _adiabatic_ quantum computing, which is not what most of the people mean when speaking about quantum computing (it does not involve entanglement, only quantum annealing). Edit: Wikipedia article: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_annealing>

<comment><USER6> this is correct. for those with a hazy understanding of quantum mechanics- or to lazy to read link- the adiabatic process basically adds an extraneous (kinetic) part to the Hamiltonian and then the commutation of these properties allows for a superior process than thermal annealing. D-Wave folks would like us to believe that this imitates the vast majority of computation improvements expected in QC, and it may yet create some performance improvements.

However, in 'true' QC, there is something very physically different happening; we expect to see universal superposition of Hamiltonian states (entangled vector bases), which allows for some remarkable parallelism in a gate architecture that mirrors programmable (classic) computers. Specifically, we would be able to perform an operation on 2^N different numbers with just one calculation, while in classical computing such a computation would actually require 2^N separate (sequential) iterations. DWave systems, although it has produced some evidence of engtanglement, could not achieve anything on this magnitude of computational efficiency/parallelism. Footnote: as promising as the big picture of recombining said superpositions and 'hacking the multiverse' (a la Deutsche) is, fragility & decoherence of said states is an extraordinary barrier to overcome in order to achieve a 'true' QC in the near term or even medium term (as some critics as Wolfram would argue)...

<comment><USER7> Your explanation of 'true' QC seems misleading as well. We can (and have) constructed the quantum gates necessary to build a computer with the classical gate structure. It is true that in doing so, if we make the input a superposition of states, then the output will be a superposition of the states that would result from passing in each individual state into a classical computer. However, this is not sufficient for us to actually take advantage of the massive parralelization. Lets assume you have a N quibit input, which is a perfect superposition of all 2^N possible states, and as many internal quibits as you want. You have some boolean function, f(n), that is true for exactly 1 number (and that number fits in N bits). If you tried applying programming your QC to apply f(n) to the superposition, then after you do that, you will have a superposistion of 2^N-1 0s, and one 1, all with an equal probability. When you go to measure it, you will read either 0, or 1. Not very usefull.

You can fix this problem using N+1 quibits, and returning the input number along with the answer. Now, you have 1 state where the 'answer' quibit is true. When you go to measure the system, you have a 1/(2^N-1) probability of seeing that state. If you see another state, then you have collapsed the superposition and need to redo the computation. This is equivalent to just randomly picking an input in the first place. Quantom mechanics does not allow a way of taking a system and making one state more probable based on its value (IE. guaranteeing that the one you measure is the one marked 'true'). However, their are some quantum mechanical mechanisms that can provide provable improvement.

One such algorithm is Shors, which allows efficient factorization of prime numbers.

In my opinion, their is a far more interesting result I have seen, which is a general algorithm that can take any problem with a solution space of 2^N, and solve it in 2^(N/2).

Sadly, it has been a while since I dabbled in quantom computing so I do not recall the details of that, and I very well might have gotten stuff wrong to.

I am however becoming convinced that P/=NP is a physical law of the universe.

EDIT: I just read farther down the thread. I think the algorithm I was referring to is Grovers search algorithm which was mentioned by zaptheimpaler.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Paywall-less Google link to article: [http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&#...</a>

</comment><comment><USER9> The folks at D-Wave have published some interesting & perfectly legitimate papers on techniques for optimizing parallel tempering simulations (including on non-quantum computers, but especially helpful if you have a quantum computer handy for quantum PT, which is how they vaguely describe their actual setup). That suggests to me that at the very least they have some legit people who are good at solving stochastic optimization problems & are not fraudulent.

<comment><USER3> Newscientist did report they have proved that their computer does work with entagled particles, so its an quantum computer and not a sham.

<comment><USER10> This is false. I guarantee you, scientists would be very interested if they actually demonstrated entanglement. For example, in the slides of the linked talk, the presenter goes over a very general measure of entanglement which allows you to construct after-the-fact a "witness" of entanglement. It is respected theory, and a credible last-resort approach; no numbers. His latest preprint[1] doesn't have a clear claim either. The Newscientist section refers to a conference 2 weeks ago, without published abstracts, procedings, or video. I'll believe it when I see it (there's no indication Aram's quote is in context, but maybe he has).

The first thing any qc lab does when they get their second qubit is make an entangled state and measure Bell Inequality violation. D-wave's lack of interest in this or in running Shor[2] is very telling. Everybody wants to run Shor, it's where the money is.

[1] <http://arxiv.org/abs/1212.1739>

[2] [http://dwave.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/computational- universa...](http://dwave.wordpress.com/2013/03/20/computational- universality/#comments)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I remember many people, especially Scott Aaronson, questioned D-Wave back when I was in school. Has anything changed recently regarding the community's opinion?

<comment><USER12> Scott's visit to D-Wave shifted his opinion. He obviously can't come out and say he changed his mind as a professional skeptic but it comes about as close to saying as much.

<http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=954>

<comment><USER13> This seems to me a very inaccurate and unfair characterization, especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic".

Aaronson is clearly still unconvinced that D-Wave's machine actually does anything "sufficiently quantum" to get any speedup over what you can do classically. He says:

 _D-Wave does have something today that's more computationally-useful than a roast-beef sandwich; the question is "merely" whether it's ever more useful than your laptop._

and:

 _It remains true, as I've reiterated here for years, that we have no direct evidence that quantum coherence is playing a role in the observed speedup, or indeed that entanglement between qubits is ever present in the system._

On the other hand, he is willing to say that D-Wave have indeed made a machine that does Something Interesting, namely giving approximate solutions to a particular mathematical problem.

So it looks to me as if he (1) has changed his mind about the things he's been given actual evidence for, (2) is perfectly willing to say so despite his role "as a professional skeptic", and (3) hasn't so far been convinced that D-Wave have an actual useful quantum computer doing quantum-computer things that you couldn't do just as well with a classical machine. Which is approximately the exact opposite of what you say.

<comment><USER12> >especially the insinuation that he's dishonestly suppressing his newfound belief in D-Wave because he's a "professional skeptic".

That wasn't my intent; moreso I intended to portray that he is emphasizing, and greatly warranted in this case, scientific skepticism paraphrasing his own terms. I don't think that is the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> How does something like this affect bitcoin?

Putting the cost of the machine aside, would a computer like this be able to mine coins at high speeds using relatively little electricity. Seems like it could crush the market with inflation.

<comment><USER15> It's an interesting technical question: analogous to the quantum fourier transform, is there an algorithm only quantum machines can run that computes sha-256 hashes faster? I don't have the answer. (I know sha-256 is O(N) normally.)

As for bitcoin, though, I don't think there's too much to worry about. If a quantum algorithm grants a complexity speed up (or some sort of deal-breaking cryptographic weakness is discovered in sha-256 for that matter), I imagine the network could agree to update to a new protocol using a different hash, if that was the proper solution. If a quantum computer just gave integer-factor speedups such as ASICs are currently doing to GPUs and FPGAs, then I suspect by the time a quantum computer is made that can efficiently mine bitcoins, enough can be made at once that, just as we're seeing with ASICs, quite a lot of miners will grab them (avoiding a 51% issue) and the difficulty will simply rise.

Edit: <https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=78693.0> tells me <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover%27s_algorithm> would work, making the algorithm O(sqrt(N)) and effectively making the problem of finding a sha-256 hash into finding a sha-128 hash.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> > It could be possible, for example, to tell instantly how the millions of > lines of software running a network of satellites would react to a solar > burst or a pulse from a nuclear explosion

Can anyone explain in understandable terms how a quantum computer will help solve this type of problem? Or is the article's author just dumping random affirmation to hype things up?

<comment><USER17> Theres some truth to it. Despite how revolutionary quantum computing _could_ be, there still aren't a lot of quantum algorithms that are asymptotically faster than their classical counterparts. The two important ones are Shor's factorization, which can factor an integer in O((log n)^3) time, and Grover's Search, which can search an unsorted collection in O(sqrt(n)) time.

Grover's search is pretty amazing though - a lot of problems can be reduced to some form of search in the solution space, and sqrt(n) search will let us say "fuck it, lets just brute-force it" to much bigger search spaces. I could see that being applied to the example you mentioned - searching through a list of possibilities very quickly.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Play 20 Back, the Music Videos being aired exactly 20 years ago - <AUTHOR> http://www.play20back.com/

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys, I'm the creator of this. It is just a little experiment about doing some sort of 'ongoing nostalgia'. That means right now it is airing videos from December 1994, and the idea is that it will keep advancing that way (e.g. next month it will show videos from January 1995).

If you have any feedback or questions about it feel free to post them here.

<comment><USER2> I guess the videos are manually collected, right?

<comment><AUTHOR> The billboard magazine archive has some historical account of the most played videos (of some weeks not all), so I'm mostly extracting the video names from there; finding the video on YouTube is also automated but that last part does need some human supervision. So I guess you could say is done pseudo-manually.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Dec 94 == freshman year of high school for me. This is definitely going to be a nostalgiafest.</comment>


The High Line Opens Its Third and Final Phase - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/20/arts/design/the-high-line-opens-its-third-and-final-phase.html

<comment> Brian-Puccio Even weirder to me will be a view that will no longer exist soon. The development (and covering) of the West Side Yard:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Yard#mediaviewer/File...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Side_Yard#mediaviewer/File:PennStation.jpg)

... to include 16 skyscrapers built on 26 acres to create almost 13 million square feet of residential, office and retail space:

[http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/realestate/commercial/deve...](http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/16/realestate/commercial/developers- prepare-to-compete-for-tenants-in-hudson-yards.html)

As someone who lives on Long Island, whenever I go to the city, it is into Penn, which itself is a disappointing reincarnation of its former self, which is in midtown :/

To have the High Line nearby is nifty, but I will miss being able to see the West Side Yard. It's going to be one of those old NY things that residents and visitors take for granted but later on, when people who haven't seen it look at photographs, they'll be kinda amazed.

Like this cowboy on 13th at 11th:

[http://friendsofthehighline.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/photo-o...](http://friendsofthehighline.wordpress.com/2008/03/12/photo- of-the-week-west-side-cowboy-twofer/)

Or underground cow tunnels:

[http://www.cityfarmer.info/2010/12/14/historic-cow- tunnels-o...](http://www.cityfarmer.info/2010/12/14/historic-cow-tunnels-of- new-york/)

Or trains pulling into a cookie factory:

[http://theboweryboys.blogspot.com/2012/03/bowery-boys- high-l...](http://theboweryboys.blogspot.com/2012/03/bowery-boys-high-line- audio-walking.html)

... which you can now walk through as part of the High Line.

The West Side Yard will still be there, just hidden from view, one of the millions of pieces of awe-inspiring infrastructure that make the city run. I need to go take photos there one last time before I'll never be able to see it again.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm incredibly bummed not to be there on account of having to move to California...When I was new to New York and just randomly walking around without a direction in mind, I stumbled on the High Line Park when it just opened and it's been my favorite place in the city since...I probably went there 5 times as much as I did Central Park.

I was lucky enough to see the third section 2 years ago, before it underwent construction (photo album here: [https://www.flickr.com/photos/zokuga/sets/72157647451319277/](https://www.flickr.com/photos/zokuga/sets/72157647451319277/))...I can't tell from the NYT's photos how much of the wild grass is there, but it doesn't look like much, which is too bad, considering the area is much wider than the other two parts (i.e. the narrow hallways of Section 2)...Then again, the un-renovated area was pretty treacherous to just walk around in...I remember seeing some parts of the railway siding with holes and gaps big enough that if you tripped, you'd fall down into the street.

</comment><comment><USER3> Recommended podcast both in general but for this particaluar episode too.

[http://www.fromscratchradio.com/show/robert- hammond](http://www.fromscratchradio.com/show/robert-hammond)

</comment><comment><USER4> A map would be really helpful here.

<comment><USER5> [http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/West_side...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/26/West_side_line.png)

The section they're talking about is in pink.</comment></comment>


Can't Unsee: Select the design that is most correct - <AUTHOR> https://cantunsee.space/ <comment><USER2> That's a bit biased. "Easy 2/18" insists that "Invite friends..." is the default button and should be blue, while "Skip" button should be white which makes look like it's not a button at all, so a user does not realize that he can skip the useless spamming "Invite" step. I think it's a bad design.

<comment><USER3> Yeah, that one was blatantly biased. It is a dark pattern trying to dissuade user from clicking that button - which honestly is just a bad design.

Some of them are genuenly good - the alignment ones for example, but others are open to interpretation where you have to pick the most 'in' option.

<comment><USER4> Dark patterns are still patterns!

They key is consistency. Please leave your morals at the door.

<comment><USER5> I have been a designer for 10+ years, when you ask me "which is more correct" I'd always go for the option where skip is also a blue button.

Good design is not just consistent patterns, but also clear communications. This is the design equivalent of fraudulent small print in a contract. This is saying to the user: you have two options, but one is rather silly, don't go for it.

In that regard: weighting and sorting options by how often they are used is good design (because it reduces the communicative friction in everyday life).

Making the (from a privacy standpoint) better option seem like no real alternative option is increasing the friction for some and manipulating others into not choosing at all. Like a car that warns you about steering right while it praises you for steering left, although both should be equal options.

Bad design, because it is bad communication.

<comment><USER4> Yes. Again all true. But as a product designer your job is usually to make the product in the most cost efficient way for the company, not the user. So implementing design in a way that is also part of the product strategy is good design!

The same way IKEA stores are designed to keep you furthest away from the exits. Designing that in a good way is much harder than simply designing a system where the user has to make educated guesses.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are some of the "broken" designs (like corner radius or capitalization) that amount to design choices and not necessarily constitute a good or bad design by themselves. Also, most of the examples seem to be taken from Skype. And why should we log in at the end, what do I get if I login?

</comment><comment><USER7> Ive done all 3 series. To me, some of them are quite blatant, especially in the easy series. Some of them are irrelevant to me, especially in hard. In a few cases, I actually prefer the bad design.

My main takeaway is that design has quickly diminishing returns. Which is probably not what the authors wanted.

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been doing UI/UX for a long time. I scored about 6700.

Some of the stuff is objectively bad, but once you get into the hard territory... does it really matter if your users or even other designers can't perceive it after a couple of seconds?

I'm all for consistency in design, but considering how those extreme levels of UI _nitpickingness_ don't really affect the UX, I'd say this falls into overdesign.

UX is much more important than UI.

</comment><comment><USER9> This is kind of neat. Thoughts:

I can only toggle between them in-place after I've made a selection. It would be nice to be able to be able to compare them like this before I choose.

It also wasn't clear to me if by "correct" I was supposed to pick the one that I found most _familiar_ , or the one I thought was _better_. Then eventually I figured out that this was a game, and there was a predetermined "right" and "wrong" answer for all of these.

What would be really cool is a service where people making a design could upload two possible samples, and you could have 100 users quickly select which one they thought was better. No comments, no analysis, no thinking. Just A or B, two possible views of the same data, and you click which you think is right.

<comment><USER10> Regarding your first point, I think that would make it too easy. Part of the challenge is figuring out what the differences are.

I _love_ your second idea though! Someone should make this if it doesn't already exist. Although if it's not gamified, what's the incentive for people voting between two designs?

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I might be mistaken about this, but a lot of the ones where it says that the letter kerning is wrong, looks to me like it's the letter spacing that is wrong.

Kerning being a specific adjustment between two letters and letter spacing being the general distance between the letters.

Nevertheless a fun little quiz, but I think it needs some improvement to not be so full of essentially arbitrary design decisions. Also, to not promote dark patterns.

<comment><USER12> Designers tend to love buttons with rounded corners, but users don't care if buttons (or text input boxes) are rounded or squared, or if the magnifying glass icon in the search box is 5% bigger than the text.

Is there a standard to horizontal separator thickness? Oh, the separator didn't go the extra 20 pixels over to the edge? Whatever, the separator is there and doing its job, and it made its point.

</comment></comment><comment> pedantic-fool Fun, but: I can't unsee that it says "Press and hold COMPARE or SHIFT to compare, ENTER to continue.", but while there is a "Compare"-button, there is no "Enter" button, only a "Next" (yes, I know the RETURN-key works, but still)

X "Inconsistent labels"

</comment><comment><USER13> I scored 7030 and had PTSD flashbacks to the time I worked with a 40-year veteran graphic designer. You wouldn't want to run designs by that person on a Monday, ever. Overall though I thought it was a neat little game. Thanks for posting it.

</comment><comment><USER14> This is fun but broken, on mobile safari it's mixing up the images and giving me the same pair from the previous question.

</comment><comment><USER15> Can one improve at this kind of skill? This is a serious question.</comment>


World War Meme - <AUTHOR> http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/03/memes-4chan-trump-supporters-trolls-internet-214856 <comment><USER2> Its sad how many news outlets grapple to find some excuse for Trump's meteoric rise to power besides the obvious one; a massive voter-base of disenfranchised American workers, nearly completely ignored by the administrations of the past 25 years. And they're still being ignored by the press, if this article is any indication.

Wait. Sorry, I'm the crazy one. Its the memes. The dank pepe memes are what helped him win. How could Hillary have been so blind?

<comment><USER3> I really hate to burn Karma, but I'm going to disagree.None of the polling data bares out your assessment. The majority of his voters were not poor ex- coal miners. The average income was somewhere around $70K/year.

<comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multimodal_distribution)

<comment><USER5> Right, the mean is meaningless.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > There is no real evidence that memes won the election

Yet still enough to write this article? Or is this article Fake News™?

> but there is little question they changed its tone

Correlation doesn't equal causation. What if Trump's popularity resulted in a torrent of pro-Trump memes? In general, I find it much more likely that both the memes and Trump were caused (or at least influenced) by a third factor, e.g. the incresingly hostile culture of political correctness in mainstream media.

<comment><USER5> "I did it for the lulz." is the best explanation, I think.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> But hypothesis that memes helped Trump win (and also helped brexit) is itself a metaironic dank meme.

I'm not even sure that all these "fake news", "alt right" exist. And isn't 4chan something from the past like Myspace, is there still any active users? Or there left only 2 insane anonymouses who write all the posts?

<comment> nommm-nommm >I'm not even sure that all these "fake news", "alt right" exist.

BuzzFeed News tracked down and spoke to Macedonian teenagers who created over 100 fake news sites, who readily admit it. They were pro-trump sites because pro-trump stories made the most money, not because of any political ideology.

[https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia- became...](https://www.buzzfeed.com/craigsilverman/how-macedonia-became-a- global-hub-for-pro-trump-misinfo)

>"Yes, the info in the blogs is bad, false, and misleading but the rationale is that 'if it gets the people to click on it and engage, then use it,'" said a university student in Veles who started a US politics site

<comment><USER8> Wow, did buzzfeed makes something of substance....?!!

<comment><USER9> They did the ole switcharoo.

Garnered intense notoriety and then used that infamy to push their real journal.

The clickbait and listicles are only to keep the lights on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For as long as I can remember, every election is followed by the losing political party claiming either (1) they didn't do a good job with marketing, or (2) the other side does marketing better.

The political parties never publicly state that the voters disagreed with their platform, or that their platform was focused on the wrong things, or that the voters were willing to take a gamble on something new, etc. It's always the case that the voters would have chosen their party if they had run better ads, or more ads, or ads in different places, etc.

<comment><USER11> The electoral college decided the election. Voter sentiment was at least even, or favored Clinton. So the mechanics of marketing and such were really an important factor in the election.

Hopeful, empty rhetoric about jobs just might have won the election for Clinton. Instead there were gaffes and silence.

<comment><USER10> Maybe this election really came down to marketing. However, when every post- mortem amounts to "we don't need to change the party platform; we just need to work on messaging" I start to wonder if the post-mortems do any good.

Sometimes you need a shake up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> I'm not so interested in what caused what, but more of why the visible rhetoric is memes and Trump tweets and soundbites, and devoid of coherent plans and policies.

<comment><USER5> WYSIWYG, I think. Also, loose lips sink ships.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I'm not American, but noticed a strong difference in memes leading up to each of the last three elections. I have no numbers, but I noticed that there seemed to be an unnatural amount of pro-Obama memes that spread before the '08 and '12 elections. They were high quality and spread fast. In my (largely liberal/progressive) social media bubble, I noticed very few pro-Trump memes before the the '16 elections, but huge numbers of anti-Hillary ones.

As I said I don't have numbers and I don't know what kind of effect memes actually have, as they are largely consumed by young non-voters, but it's not secret that Obama had a very active meme-team and it makes sense for Trump to have followed the strategy.

</comment><comment><USER14> There are at least a few Great Meme War veterans who truly believe they made a difference: "I helped meme a President into office, cucks" \- Gab.ai CEO Andrew Torba.

If any effect came from 4chan /pol/ it was because the mainstream validated them and tried to categorize them as a coherent whole: The Alt-Right. Anonymous self-marginalizes. It was the Hillary campaign who drew attention to Pepe the Frog and made it part of the common discourse.

And no word (yet) in this article about Russian influence on social media and political campaigns. Even though the far-right plays a clear role in that propaganda machine.

<comment><USER9> > _" I helped meme a President into office, cucks" \- Gab.ai CEO Andrew > Torba._

Reading that, I thought is was an innocent meme and would pave the way for free and open expression of memes. But, after reading the full story it's sad he had to get violent about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It seems to me that the memes (in the wider sense, not image macros) that won it for him were primarly spread by Fox News, with talk radio, infowars, various think tanks etc. thrown in.

If we did focus only on the internet I'd suggest "forwards from grandma" on Facebook are another contributor, usually with the content coming indirectly from the above sources. But I don't really see the evidence to give any credit to these youngsters with their new-fangled pepes.

I started twigging that Trump would win by watching video journalists who visited the heartlands of america and did vox pops with random people. Their opinions about politics seemed to have no basis in any reality I recognized. A very nice chairwoman of a Republican committee said "There was no racism before Obama" for example. This wasn't some spittle-flecked ideologue, just an average old lady happily offering her opinion on politics.

</comment><comment><USER16> I personally think memes only happened because so many people were already primed for change of the status quo.

<comment><USER5> Maybe more like ready to burn the damn thing down.</comment></comment>


Google's legal process for government data requests - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/transparencyreport/userdatarequests/legalprocess/

<comment><AUTHOR> Since there seem to be a lot of conversations regarding the Google blog post along the lines of "A: this seems pretty complete. B: no it's not, they don't specific what they do share"... here's some details on what sharing does happen.</comment>


It is a Sad and Beautiful World - <AUTHOR> http://www.hyperlexic.com/it-is-a-sad-and-beautiful-world/ I am spending my life writing user manuals for  products that don't exist. They might exist someday. But is this my fate? <comment><USER2> +1 for the 'Down by Law' quote, but the rest of it seems fairly similar to a lot of other content in the same vein.</comment>