Ask HN: Is anyone actually excited about using chatbots? - <AUTHOR> There is a ton of buzz around chatbots these days. Major tech companies like Facebook and Microsoft are rolling out bot platforms. It seems like every day a new startup launches with a chatbot product - either a bot for doing something people usually do in an app or website, or a tool that helps other people create bots for doing things people usually do in an app or a website.
The thing is: all the excitement I've seen is coming from people who are hoping to make money from other people using chatbots. I haven't seen much excitement from people actually using chatbots. Am I wrong?
Do you ever use chatbots? If so, what do you use them for? Why do you use them? What's great about the experience? <comment><USER2> I'm not sure "excited" is the right word. Some technology is going to break through the keyboard/mouse/touch barrier and bring us into more natural contact with all the data and processing power around us. It's almost certainly going to be based on language. What else is there? Gestures have been tried, as have custom "swiping" languages, but the momentum is shifting strongly toward natural language. So maybe not "excited" but definitely "fascinated."

<comment><AUTHOR> That's a really interesting point. And it certainly would be phenomenal if we could interact with computers using natural language.

At the same time, fascination doesn't necessarily make a person an active user of any particular product.

<comment><USER3> _A person_ doesn't have to be an active user of a chatbot for it to be useful. Chat could be the ultimate discoverable API - with bots talking to one another.

<comment><USER4> Or the ultimate undiscoverable API. It is quite similar to speech input in cars. If you don't know what is valid to say and what not you are quite lost and will probably only use a subset of the total available API. And writing/yelling random things against a device just to check if it will work is something that most people won't do.

This applies to human users, but I think it would be similar for non-humans as well.

<comment><USER3> It wouldn't be hard to build in tools to aid discoverability. A 'help' function that returns a list of features for example. That's pretty much what WSDL[1] tries to be, but that's really to hard to use well. If there were a much more flexible "natural language" interface to it then it'd make finding and consuming APIs both easier and more robust.

I'm just musing on the possibility really. I'm absolutely sure there'd be difficulties in the technical implementation, and obviously it'd be quite inefficient compared to a known and well-defined API, but if it could be made to work the advantages may outweigh those problems. Plus, implementing it for humans goes 90% of the way to implementing it for computers too, so it's almost zero-cost if you're considering a chat interface to your service. It's something to think about anyway.

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

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Chatbots on irc and things like reddit (e.g. mirroring images or quoting a bible verse from the name, or getting info about a user),or twitter (eg the wolfram tweet a program bot, or the deep forger bot) can be convenient for some things, but I'm not particularly motivated to make any purchases with one, or do anything with one that requires registering, or anything that makes me think it profits by collecting information about me.

</comment><comment><USER6> I can think of many cases where I prefer a text-based interface to a phone call. I can't think of any case where I specifically prefer a bot-driven text- based interface to a human-driven text-based interface, though. If chatbots let companies build more and more effective text-based interfaces to replace call centers, then I'm at least a little excited, but it's the result and not the process that has my interest.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most Slack integrations are essentially first-generation chatbots (parsed and tokenised text input linked to a finite state machine to actually do things), and they're hugely popular among users. I see Microsoft and Facebook's moves as bringing those things to a wider audience - instead of telling Hubot to deploy some code using Slack we'll tell a brand we've bought something from that an order has been delayed using Facebook.

People already seem to prefer to interact with a brand using Twitter than the phone. There's no reason why many Twitter interactions need a human being behind them.

Chatbots are essentially Blade Runner for customer relations. Sort of.

<comment><AUTHOR> > People already seem to prefer to interact with a brand using Twitter than > the phone.

Do you think they prefer to use Twitter because of the conversational UI? I've always thought it was because Twitter is public, so brands respond to complaints quickly out of fear that they will look bad otherwise.

<comment><USER3> I don't know why, but if it is speed and visibility as you suggest, a chat bot hooked up to Twitter would be a really valuable asset to a business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> AS others said, they are not new but the way are being used is something which matters, specially AI bot. Like we used to hear _There 's an app for that_, we soon will hear _There 's a bot for that_

I tried to develop an FB bot and record details here:

[http://blog.adnansiddiqi.me/develop-your-first-facebook- mess...](http://blog.adnansiddiqi.me/develop-your-first-facebook-messenger- bot-in-php/)

</comment><comment><USER8> The question hinges on the definition of "chatbot". Since I never get excited by the prospect of chatting with a scripted human, I'm not excited about chatting with a bot. On the other hand, natural language API's available via text appeal to me as an alternative to the-hamburger-of-intuition thinking that dominates interactive design.</comment>


Pea whistle steganography - <AUTHOR> http://www.windytan.com/2015/10/pea-whistle-steganography.html <comment><USER2> It only takes a little bit of steganography before everything looks like a secret communication channel!

Cool experiment. The biggest surprise to me is that the fluctuations of the real whistle appear to be a fairly constant frequency; I would've expected more chaotic behavior.

EDIT: While we're near the topic, does anyone have any recommendations for acoustics texts/resources? In particular, I'd love something from the approach of analyzing real-world sounds & instruments.

<comment><USER3> > analyzing real-world sounds & instruments

One of the most important books on the subject:

[http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Musical-Instruments-Neville- Fl...](http://www.amazon.com/Physics-Musical-Instruments-Neville- Fletcher/dp/0387983740)

It's mostly covered from a synthesis/physics POV angle, btw. But will give you a tremendous foundation in the types of waveforms many different instruments produce.</comment></comment>


All of Einstein's writings are now online - <AUTHOR> http://alberteinstein.info/ <comment><USER2> This is great. Would love them in a more accessible format. 10 mins in and I still haven't been able to find anything actually written by him… :-)

<comment><USER3> Just did a wildcard search and found all the documents in a second.

All 80,000+ documents from the archives:

[http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Search/Results?lookfor=*&...](http://alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Search/Results?lookfor=*&type=AllFields&submit=Find)

<comment><USER4> I did the same, but I still can't figure out how to read a document once you clicked the search result. i.e. [http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Record/EAR000000005/T...](http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Record/EAR000000005/TOC)

<comment><USER5> You have to click on the blurry DB Info image.

I know, intuitive, right? You know it's a "a user-friendly interface" because they say so [1].

[1] <http://alberteinstein.info/manuscripts.html>

<comment><USER6> Did you actually see a page yet? I only got "Currently there is no image available for this record. This is due shortly." so far, or no image to click on.

<comment><USER7> [http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Digital/EAR000034428#...](http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Digital/EAR000034428#page/1/mode/2up)

"Notes on field theory and general relativity", by using the query "General relativity". I hope there'll be more like this, it's quite interesting to see.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I'm excited about the digitzation project, but the search experience is so poor that it's difficult and cumbersome to locate any actually digitized work. Some of the digitized documents appear to be broken - like this one <http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Record/EAR000016939>. Those that you do find are virtually impossible to read, because they aren't actually transcriptions, they're relatively low-res image scans of his manuscripts. [http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Digital/EAR000000025#...](http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Digital/EAR000000025#page/1/mode/2up) \- then there's access wall pdfs embedded in some of the DB entries [https://sec2.einstein.caltech.edu/CookieAuth.dll?GetLogon?cu...](https://sec2.einstein.caltech.edu/CookieAuth.dll?GetLogon?curl=Z2FarchivesZ2FscansZ2F004Z2F4002.pdf&reason=0&formdir=2) What a mess. I can only hope they make it much better in future revs.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'm sure the internet will now point out how horribly wrong he was about everything.

<comment><USER10> Almost an Onion headline:

[http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-biography-reveals- einst...](http://www.theonion.com/articles/new-biography-reveals-einstein- devised-theory-of-r,27313/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The thing that makes me saddest about Einstein is that his last words are forever lost since they were in German to a nurse that did not speak the language.

<comment><USER12> I haven't heard this nor can find the narrative. Please cite.

<comment><USER11> [http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_einst...](http://www.time.com/time/archive/collections/0,21428,c_einstein,00.shtml)

<comment><USER13> Wow, what fascinating quotes. Thank you for sharing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I clicked on "Archival Database" and then "Find" (with no input) to see all documents. Using the filters on the right, I was then able to filter for Author = "Albert Einstein", Language = "English", and Digital Object = "Digitized Documents". Here's a link to what I got (sorted by title alphabetically): [http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Search/Results?lookfo...](http://new.alberteinstein.info/vufind1/Search/Results?lookfor=&type=AllFields&filter\[\]=authorStr%3A%22Einstein%2C+Albert%22&filter\[\]=language%3A%22English%22&filter\[\]=has_digital%3A%22IDG%22&sort=title)

Even so, I am unable to figure out how to access the document. Perhaps I am missing something relevant?

</comment><comment><USER15> Heh, not after the HN + Reddit effect.

</comment><comment><USER16> we should always have people commenting when the site goes down after HN/reddit effect (if no one has done it already) and then we can have an avg time goes down/host provider graph show up. :)

</comment><comment><USER17> It sounds cool, but site doesn't load for me.

<comment><USER18> Same here.. Anyone found a mirror? or contacted the original hoster? I wouldn't mind hosting a torrent if that can help.</comment></comment>


Study finds organic food no more nutritive than non-organic - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/09/03/us-organic-food-idUSBRE8820M920120903

<comment><USER3> Bad title. Misleading.

I can't say I ever thought that organic food would have higher levels of vitamins than their non organic counterpart. And, of course, article says they have similar levels of specific vitamins.

Organic does apparently have less pesticides (also per article) -- which is what I thought was one of the major motivations to go organic, not "more vitamins"

<comment><USER4> Perhaps for you, but I anecdotally find that many people who buy organic tend to think that it's also more healthy in terms of vitamins. There's a tendency to think that organic has a "higher nutrition density" because of the naturalistic fallacy, in that natural == better; people think that any modification to plant products only spreads out or even decreases that nutrition.

In terms of pesticides, though, years of scientific study have been used to clear the pesticides used on our foods. People who think that pesticides are somehow unhealthy are also not scientifically justified. Organics are also "no healthier" than non-organics in terms of pesticides as well, since pesticides are found to have no health impact.

<comment><USER5> Organic foods for increased vitamins seems like an expensive alternative to vitamin supplements. But I feel like people who eat organic foods would rather not eat manufactured vitamin supplements, leaving the main benefit of organic food to be the fact that it's less processed and more "natural". I prefer to eat cows that don't eat cows, and chickens that don't eat chickens.

<comment><USER6> Chickens eat other chickens in the wild - what's wrong with that?

<comment><USER7> I'd imagine it's a _slightly_ smaller proportion of their diet than in an industrial feed lot.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The title of the Reuters article is of course utterly misleading, in that it simple-mindedly equates "no difference in vitamin content" with "no healthier than." The key disambiguating sentence appears on the second paragraph of the article:

"Organic produce and meat typically isn't any better for you than conventional varieties when it comes to vitamin and nutrient content, according to a new review of the evidence.

" _But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria,_ researchers from Stanford University and the Veterans Affairs Palo Alto Health Care System found."

Unfortunately they didn't bother to get the short URL to the original article right, so we can't go and find out what the authors of the original article were actually saying about the matter.

</comment><comment><USER9> What I call organic is way more healthy and nutritive:

I call organic not only to those that are natural but also to food that I could trace, e.g eggs that start with 0 or 1 in Europe had expiration rate witch is a fixed date from the egg laying. The fruit from my friends house is picked the same day I visit them.

As a general rule the levels of antioxidants and vitamins in food decay exponentially with time and temperature. Some fruit is stored in cold and anaerobic rooms for months. It looks like fruit but had degraded. Fortunately it is easy to taste the difference(It taste like nothing).

Antibiotics and hormones in meat certainly affect humans for the bad. In USA(money is everything there) and some parts of Europe is totally out of control. I have friends that are doctors and had problems as microbes develop resistance to antibiotics, and they have to use much more aggressive ways to fight them. People die because the treatment is not as effective as it was in the past.

"Organic milk and chicken may also contain more omega-3 fatty acids" That is exactly what we want. Food has a tremendous unbalance between omega3 and omega6 because omega6 is so cheap to industrial manufacture so we have to consume natural fish(not farmed) or wild animals(like wild boar, deer or grass eating cow) to compensate.

I had seem tremendous abuses of synthetic pesticides in Spain, where I worked installing greenhouses. It too easy for some people to add too much to be sure they don't lose money. Some people continue using DDTs and other forbidden chemicals because it is effective.

Nothing to see here, just another PR article from the food industry to fool consumers.

</comment><comment><USER10> This is a meta-study, which looks at a couple hundred studies done on this. From the article:

 _Many of the studies didn't specify their standards for what constituted "organic" food.._

I'd say this is a pretty serious limitation to both the studies in question, and, as a result, to this meta-study.

</comment><comment><USER11> Unfortunately, the "organic" label means less and less.

What I think is still true (although I have no data to back it up) is that farmers who actually conscientiously maintain their soil, in a way that maintains both the fungal colonies and the nutrient density, through natural means... that is, using proper crop rotation, nitrogen fixing cover crops, and manure addatives, but no chemical additives (which are allowed under organic farming, so long as they are "organic" chemicals).... those foods _are_ more nutritive.

Organic/non-organic, like all certifications, doesn't measure _exactly_ what you'd like it to. In the end, sustainable, healthy farming is a very complex thing, and the details matter. If you want to get really high quality produce, you really do have to educate yourself and talk to the people producing your food. There's no silver bullet.

</comment><comment><USER12> Organic and conventionally grown broccoli ( 2012 Aug 30 )

<http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22936597>

 _"... In addition, organic broccoli maintained higher concentrations of bioactive compounds (ascorbic acid and phenolics) and antioxidant potential during storage than conventional broccoli, with higher potential health beneficial effects."_

</comment><comment><USER13> I think the point of organic food it isn't to get more (good) stuff, it's to get less (bad) stuff.

The fact that they have lower amounts of pesticides, chemicals and antibiotic- resistant bacteria makes organic food healthier (as in doesn't make your health worst).

<comment><USER14> I'd estimate that the amount of bacteria on organic food is _higher_ , not lower due to the lack of said pesticides and using dung as fertilizer.

See the 2011 E. Coli outbreak in Germany that killed 50 people, caused by organic sprout: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_ou...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Germany_E._coli_O104:H4_outbreak)

<comment><USER15> Pesticides have no effect whatsoever on bacteria. And dung from plant fed animals is harmless.

And all bacteria is not equal, so it's doesn't matter how much there is - <USER2> matters what kind. Cheese is just full of bacteria, so are pickles, and yogurt. Food grown using antibiotics will have more of the dangerous resistant kind, rather than the beneficial kind.

With the sprouts it was not the organic that was the issue - it's simply that it's sprouts. Sprouts are wet, not cooked, and not washed. It's a perfect environment for bacteria if you are not careful.

I don't think non-organic sprouts even exists - they grow in less than a week, why would you put pesticides on it?

<comment><USER16> "And dung from plant fed animals is harmless."

Nonsense.

Animal dung can carry everything from tapeworms to salmonella to E. coli.

Update: added link.

<http://umaine.edu/publications/2510e/>

<comment><USER17> What I think the guy is getting at is a holistic view here. That the manure from animals raised in healthy conditions-- meaning low density, no antibiotics, natural diet--is a safe and ecologically sound fertilizer. It is, after-all, how farming developed over thousands of years.

Sorry if that sounds too Michael Pollan for you but I think it passes as both common sense and historically accurate.

<comment><USER16> Which is also nonsense.

Animals raised without antibiotics and vaccinations carry a horde of diseases.

<comment><USER18> This is a ridiculous assertion.

First of all, "organic farming" doesn't preclude you from treating sick animals with antibiotics, if necessary, nor does it prevent you from vaccinating. (Sick animals _are_ required to be held back for a specified period before entering the food chain.) What it does attempt to prevent is animals being fed prophylactic antibiotics, which is a major cause of antibiotic resistant bacterial strains.

Second, organically raised animals are not festering with disease. My wife and I have _hundreds_ of healthy, organically raised animals on our farm. For example, in the last summer we have grown, processed and sold over 500 chickens which we have lost _ZERO_ to illness.

Animals raised in humane, low stress (and the low stress is key) situations GET SICK VERY INFREQUENTLY. It's in situations where they are concentrated in industrial settings (ie. chicken broiler barns or cattle feed lots) that the stress kicks in, suppresses immune system function and you end up with sick animals that get fed antibiotics to cover up the symptoms.

<comment><USER16> Your anecdote does not trump data.

Sorry.

<comment><USER18> I welcome any data that you care to provide.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Who cares about healthier? Organic food, especially local organic food, simply tastes better. Probably not because it is grown without pesticides but rather because the farmer gives a damn.

<comment><USER20> And yet, when double-blind tests are done the non-organic food usually does better.

<comment><USER21> Compare organic to non-organic carrots. Double blind yourself all you want, hands down organic carrots (things labeled as) are x10 better than the woody sticks they are compared to.

<comment><USER16> That has more to do with the cultivar than the method of growth.

Standard supermarket vegetables are bred to withstand shipping and handling, not for taste.

<comment><USER21> Ok, so organic is correlated but not the cause. I will stick with my weak, can't be transported long distances tasty food.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> By not using poisonous pesticides, organic farms are healthier for farm workers, for people drinking water near the farm, and for wild animals.

</comment><comment><USER23> It all comes down to people's perceptions. When they hear that something is organic or natural, many people assume it must be better for us, and if it is better, it must contain more nutrients.

Food company's like to use this to their advantage, and the terms have lost a lot of their meaning unless you know how the food is produced. I think this is a key point. An organic farm using improperly composted manure for fertilizer or contaminated water for irrigation may end up poisoning people with e-coli. On the other hand, grass fed, free range chickens produce the best eggs I've ever tasted. If the farmer happened to also give the chickens antibiotics, I don't know if that's really a bad thing.

The other big issue of course is cost. Food labeled organic is much more expensive. Many people just cannot justify the extra cost. When our son was small, we looked at giving him organic milk versus regular milk (<http://foodconstrued.com/2010/09/got-milk/>). We started with organic but eventually switched to regular.

</comment><comment><USER24> Title is not supported by facts discussed in article.

</comment><comment><USER25> And I always thought the motivation behind eating organic food was it's less of a burden on nature. Is personal health really the only thing people are concerned about?

<comment><USER26> Organic cereal crops generally yield at about 0-50% of the rate of conventional cereal crops. This means they need twice as many acres of land per bushel, twice as much fuel per acre, et cetera. In other words, it's much more of a burden on nature than conventional cereal crops.

And I really did mean to say 0 above -- organic cereal crops fail at a much higher rate than conventional crops. That's a lot of diesel fuel burned for no return.

<comment><USER17> Woah waoh, high yields aren't free. Fortifying that soil to produce those yields has a cost -- both economic and ecological. Synthetic-N is just the beginning.

And the "0-50%" sounds ballparkish to me. If you have any cites I'd love to take a look.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> > But organic options may live up to their billing of lowering exposure to > pesticide residue and antibiotic-resistant bacteria

That is the entire point of buying organic. I dont know anyone (sampling bias) that thinks organic has anything to do with nutrient content. That's what non- gmo is for*

* in some cases

</comment><comment><USER28> It doesn't even mention taste… give me free range ibérico ham over its caged cousins anyday.

</comment><comment><USER29> Who claimed organic food has more nutrients. It has to be free of pesticides, hormones and other harmful chemicals and must taste natural.</comment>


It Should Not Be Illegal to Hack Your Own Car's Computer - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/01/let-us-hack-our-cars/ <comment><USER2> It used to be that people who bought property became owners. This _ownership_ of private property provided exclusive power over a object, rights to offspring or products produced by it, and governing the use of the object.

DRM eliminates this concept from anything with a computer in it, which in 2015 is most properties of significant worth. The right to govern is retained by he who has the key, which the seller keeps in order to create additional opportunity for revenue. To justify this, the seller argues that this helps reducing the initial cost of the product.

If the property then happens to produces anything of value, say data logs which can be sold, the producer also retains the right to that data by a shrink-wrap license. This is of course insane, as any such schemed used with physical property would be fast put down as fraud. You can't sell a cow, put a 40 page long shrink-wrap license on the gate, and claim thus the milk or offspring are yours. The legal system would not stand for it, especially if it was done large scale with millions of customers.

<comment><USER3> _It used to be that people who bought property became owners._

Depending on who you ask, that stopped being the case the minute states started charging property tax. It's not yours, you just rent from the government. With the addition of zoning laws, it's hard to argue with that interpretation.

 _You can 't sell a cow, put a 40 page long shrink-wrap license on the gate, and claim thus the milk or offspring are yours._

If Monsanto could prove the cow was GMO and their intellectual property, they could do almost exactly that. At the very least, they could put an injunction on the sale of cows and milk until they could verify if a patent had been broken. During which time, the farm would most likely go under.

<comment><USER2> There is a difference between the state overriding property law and private entities doing it. The state has monopoly on breaking laws, and in a democracy, is supposed to only do so when it serves the public they represent. It is this difference that allow the police to lock people up, or fine individuals. As you say, they use taxes, copyright, and patent law, all which override private property laws.

DRM however allows private entities to override property laws completely, while tricking the consumer. While Monsanto can with the help of the government prevent the sale of produce, they do not come in the night and steal it and sell it as their own property. They don't turn food into stone with the flick of a switch. I dislike Monsanto and I think they do trick people into a deal which is not obvious, but they are not even in the same league as DRM with 40 pages long licenses that updates dynamically which not a single person can understand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This article is one-sided and shortsighted. There are many reasons why engine controls must include anti-tampering measures. There is a business case to extend these principles to other control modules in a car. Disclosure: I've been an automotive DMCA violator for nearly a decade.

An obvious reason is that the manufacturers do not want to deal with warranty issues. Of course you can probably understand that the possibility is there that bad software can result in engine damage. This applies to other systems, too, for instance the guy who demonstrated that he could alternately flash his headlamps like a police car by sending traffic to the lamp controller probably does not realize that he should not be reigniting the HID lamp every couple of seconds, because this will shorten its life.

The automakers are liable to laws in every developed country. The United States has these average fuel economy laws that the carmakers must meet, and in some states, harsh emissions regulations must be adhered to and guaranteed. The emissions testing regime in some of these states has done away with exhaust gas analysis and relies on the engine control's self-diagnosis to show that the vehicle is performing to spec.

However in other countries, increasing pollution emitted by a car constitutes tax fraud.

Road safety is also important. One German carmaker uses the same diesel engine for a range of vehicles which have differing performance levels. I thought it was clever when I found that you could change the low market six cylinder from a cheap model to give the power output of the top model of the range simply by carefully changing eeprom data. But the low market model has a lame exhaust and small brakes. Triple the engine output power and this is potentially a disaster.

For as long as the universe of tinkerers will include those without experience or scruples, the carmakers will have to keep developing anti-tampering measures to show that they are attempting to guarantee that their products will perform within the bounds of the law, and indemnify them against bogus liability and warranty claims. Some tinkerers are smart enough to see the big picture and think about the results of what they are doing. Others either don't realize that these systems were designed by teams of engineers with more degrees and experience than them, or figure that they can sell genitalia enhancements to any twentysomething that walks in the door. These are the guys that scare me.

<comment><USER5> Road safety is an admirable goal, but that's an issue that you tackle with liability law, car registration and inspection regulations, road users code &c. The DMCA is such a badly written piece of law that lends itself to overreach, and it doesn't need to be extended to yet another area.

Besides, people have been tuning their cars for 100 years now, you'd think that by now the police had some experience keeping the worst specimens of the public roadways.

<comment><USER4> We have computer-controlled braking and throttles now, and while I figure it's unlikely that someone will tinker with the brakes software (as long as it's not integrated into something he wants to tinker with) there has been a famous case where a factory throttle control has been alleged to be bad.

The emissions (and taxes in the countries where taxes are a function of emissions) aspects are more likely to be the justification of any repercussions against these activities.

<comment><USER3> _We have computer-controlled braking and throttles now_

Couldn't the same case be made for doing your own mechanic work, though? We have braking, which is hydraulic and throttles which operate by wire. There's nothing preventing you from replacing the tried and true hydraulic brakes with something that runs on bluetooth. That would be just as dangerous as messing with the software of modern car brakes. More so, since one would hope modern car software has some failsafes built in[0].

[0]: they probably don't, but I know Sevcon does. Sevcon is a company that makes electric vehicle controllers for EV vehicles. They're popular with the DIY e-motorcycle crowd. Messing with the settings directly affects the power delivered to the motor.

<comment><USER6> Pulling out your old throttle system _is hard_. It's self-protecting, the difficulty keeps the uninitiated from doing anything too stupid.

Copy/pasting code from the internet is easy, so it has to be made artificially difficult. We live in a world where people put their iPhones in microwaves because they heard it would charge the battery. We have to keep these people very far away from the internal workings of their cars.

<comment><USER3> Have you ever tried to program a controller? It's hard too. You need special hardware, special software and know how to connect them all up. It's not just copying and pasting code from the internet. It's sufficiently discouraging for those who think microwaves are wireless battery chargers. :)

If you're curious, you should poke around [http://endless- sphere.com/forums/](http://endless-sphere.com/forums/).

<comment><USER6> I appreciate the link, but at this point I'm not going to buy a car if I don't trust and like the engineers who built it. My "improvements" generally aren't :)

Even with needing special hardware and software I'm not happy about it the tinkering. Cars are too much: 3,500 lbs of metal going 40 mph with 10 gallons of gas in it is a lot to go wrong.

I hate DRM, I really do. And I think we should have kids programming Arduino's and Raspberry Pi's by junior high, but part of me thinks they should bury the computers so deep in the engine bay you have to pull the engine to get to 'em. It's just my opinion, but if you don't have a (relevant) PE license, minimum, you shouldn't be allowed to mess with ECU's in cars that go on public roads.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is a property rights issue. If you sell somebody something, they own it.

Extending the old-school boxed software "licensing" model to everything on earth which contains a computer undermines the basic concept of property rights. The result is a bizarre neo-feudalism where corporations own everything and people just lease it.

It's your car, you own it, the end.

<comment><USER8> Owning doesn't mean having absolute control.

For example, if you own land on the California coast, you may be prohibited from shutting down public access to the coastline. If you own a house, you may be prohibited from kicking out renters.

"Neo-feudalism" has an interesting observation. In Sweden, Norway, and Finland there is still a "freedom to roam." A land owner can't simply prohibit people from entering to go hiking, pick berries or mushrooms, camp overnight, etc. These countries also didn't have feudalism. One conjecture is that there's a meaningful connection between the two. The idea of "you own it, the end" may itself be neo-feudalism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It should not be illegal to alter the car's computer, but to drive that car on a road where you are endangering other people, we have certifications and laws for that. IMHO, that is reasonable. I don't want your buggy software to deactivate your power steering and have you slam into me.

</comment><comment><USER10> Chrysler provides me no way in which to disable the 3G cellular modem in my UConnect system and I'm breaking the law if I try repogramming the buttons on my steering wheel to work with my phone's voice activated controls.

I can't even begin to sort out how upset this makes me feel.

</comment><comment><USER11> I'm a Mechanical Engineering student and one of my recent projects had a lot to do with onboard computers on modern vehicles. This article is viewing only one side of the scene, and doing this with great bias.

While some of the examples like the Dinan S1 M5 is legit, these companies are less of a concern that the average script kiddy who wants to "hack" his car because it's the new thing to do in town. Advanced features like traction control and even cruise control on vehicles are critical to implement perfectly, and a small mistake in the code that guides these can be fatal. Companies like BMW spend millions on testing the code and making it perfect for use, and what this article is arguing for is replacing that with something that anybody can write. This is not safe.

On the other hand, some things like the Nismo and it's software imposed speed limit are just state restrictions. The Nissan GTR has a set speed limit which is turned off when the GPS detects that you're on a racing circuit.

Companies are ethically obliged to make sure that no amateur or third-party can make their cars unsafe. They are right in doing so, because at the end of the day they are liable. If there is a fatal accident of a BMW M5 due to a software failure error, nobody (read, the media) is going to blame Dinan. BMW takes the brunt for it. They are blames for writing "shitty software".

Unless companies or individuals are legally obliged to be accountable for the changes they make to a car, companies are right in making the cars impossible to tweak. It's not about the fact that you "own" the car and hence should be allowed to do whatever you like. That works only for iPhones and Play Stations where your actions probably wont result in somebody dying.

tl;dr — Much like spare parts, faulty software can kill onboard passengers in vehicles. While hacking sounds "cool", slight irresponsibility can end badly.

<comment><USER12> Ha! Traction control in my Subaru Forester is a joke. On snow and ice it turns my car into one of those football players in that vibrating football game. The only way to drive in Iowa is to turn the feature off, every time I get in the car.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I wish that the media stops saying Hack, That is counterproductive.

You should be free to customize, fix, improve your own car's computer for your personal purposes.

<comment><USER14> But then why will people click on the article? Gotta use those sensationalist buzzwords!

<comment><USER13> Well the worse effect is the current comments in this thread, they are discussing liabilities, possible endangering others!

Not about the simple idea that I have to be free to buy a car and make it an airplane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Presumably the agreements people enter into regarding functional modifications to cars when they purchase insurance already prohibit this, and I imagine insurance companies would be all too happy to deny payment based on car- computer-modification.

</comment><comment><USER16> I'll support you hacking into your car's computer as long as it doesn't endanger me when you drive it on the road.

<comment><USER17> Endangering people on the road is already a crime.

<comment><USER18> Right, but then people doing so would only be able to be arrested after someone gets hurt. It's not really preventable crime. I just see this as being open to negligence and misuse.

<comment><USER19> I would rather live in a society that severely punishes bad behavior after it happens as a deterrent to others who would be tempted to do the same than live in a society that imposes ever more restrictions in an effort to prevent misbehaviors from happening in the first place.

Obviously neither is good if taken to its most extreme, but I feel we should skew heavily towards the former.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In normal countries freedom of research is written into the constitution. What do use rights and reproduction rights have to do with examining works of engineering, even if they come with copy protection?

<comment><USER20> > _In normal countries freedom of research is written into the constitution._

Can you name some examples?

<comment><USER5> Germany, article 5: _Kunst und Wissenschaft, Forschung und Lehre sind frei._

<comment><USER21> Could you elaborate? Especially since I don't speak German I feel that I'm not getting the whole picture from google translate.

      (1) Everyone has the right freely to express his opinions in speech, writing and pictures and disseminate freely to obtain information from generally accessible sources. Freedom of the press and freedom of reporting by radio and motion pictures are guaranteed. Censorship does not take place.

      (2) These rights are limited by the provisions of the general laws, the provisions for the protection of youth and the right to personal honor.

      (3) Art and science, research and teaching are free. Freedom of teaching does not absolve from loyalty to the constitution.

I assume provision 3 is the one relevant to your comment, but I can't make heads or tails of that translation.

<comment><USER5> This is from the German _Grundgesetz_. You could translate it as "The Arts and the Sciences are free, in practice and in teaching." It's from the section where the constitution defines what the fundamental rights are, it's on the same level as freedom of conscience or freedom of expression. These rights are only constrained by other constitutional rights. Research on human subjects might affect human dignity, you can't do that, but copyright isn't on that level.

The High Court defined science as a sustained, methodical effort in pursuit of truth. It's not confined to universities, companies and hobbyists count. That's how German courts read their constitution.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> This isn't about copyright, it is about the DMCA. And just because someone else owns a copyright, doesn't mean you can't own a copy.

</comment><comment><USER23> For racing, yes, but not for street-legal cars.

<comment><USER19> In the lower-end circuits nearly all of the cars are modified street cars. They are no longer street-legal, unless competing in a race that requires them to be, but they all started that way.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Even if it's made legal, they can always sell you a 100 year lease on the car with terms and conditions.

If it's that bad, let market pressure will push the model out of existence.

<comment><USER20> > _If it 's that bad, let market pressure will push the model out of > existence._

Not enough people in the market care about this for it to truly impact car manufacturers.

> _Even if it 's made legal, they can always sell you a 100 year lease on the > car with terms and conditions._

This, however, seems like something that the market would react poorly to, unless it was made significantly cheaper than owning.

<comment><USER25> In Hawaii (at least in the past, I think currently too), when you buy a house, you often don't buy the land, you lease it from someone on a typically 100 year basis. I believe this form of ownership, leasehold, exists elsewhere too.

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


CreepFace.com – Facial Recognition for Online Dating - <AUTHOR> http://www.creepface.com/ <comment><USER2> It'll be interesting when someone sues for a false positive result. Emotional damages can be costly depending on your state.

<comment><AUTHOR> I gave it a shot with a picture of myself and the results were dismal.</comment></comment>


Reverse-engineered CarrierIQ code (Forth) - <AUTHOR> https://git.eff.org/?p=iqiq.git;a=blob;f=profiles/tmob-connection.fth;hb=HEAD

<comment><USER2> Pretty ugly Forth code. I'm surprised that big chain of "SWAP DUP XXX =" didn't get factored into a loop over a lookup table. Is this code time- critical somehow?

edit: for example, ('cause who doesn't like seeing more Forth code on HN?)

      create table 66 , 271 , 3 , 40 , 101 ,
      4 constant table-size-1
      \ ...
      false table-size-1 for
        over i table + @ = or
      next swap drop

Would've made that bug harder to miss, too.

<comment><USER3> Isn't this generated code, ie. a nicer FORTH macro in the original source (which we don't see) is being turned into some ugly case-like series of SWAP DUP XXX =?

<comment><USER2> Possibly. I guess the other part that gets me is that you could make the straight-line sequence quite a bit shorter (and with a constant stack footprint) by reordering stack arguments slightly.

Their code starts with a value on the stack, primes the unrolled loop and then goes into a series of nested constructs like:

      DUP X1 =
      SWAP DUP X2 =
        SWAP DUP X3 =
          SWAP DUP X4 =
            ...
            SWAP DROP
          OR
        OR
      OR

This builds up a growing mound of flags on the stack and then collapses them down at the end. As the mound is built, the value is constantly flipped up to the top of the stack and then covered with a flag. A better way to do this would be to collapse the flags as you go:

      DUP  X1 =
      OVER X2 = OR
      OVER X3 = OR
      ...
      SWAP XN = OR

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's a link to the page that briefly discusses the reverse-engineering effort and links to the above source-code page.

[https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/analyzing-carrier- iq-p...](https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2011/12/analyzing-carrier-iq-profiles)</comment>


A key ingredient for a universal flu vaccine may come from llamas - <AUTHOR> http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-universal-flu-vaccine-llamas-20181102-story.html <comment><USER2> This is actually a terribly misleading pop-Sci writeup. Any chance mods can change the link to the actual study?

[http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/598](http://science.sciencemag.org/content/362/6414/598)

<comment><USER3> We try to stick with the best popular article when a technical paper is outside most HN readers' specialty. Is either of these better?

[http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn- universa...](http://www.latimes.com/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-universal- flu-vaccine-llamas-20181102-story.html)

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/nasal-gene-spray- ins...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/11/nasal-gene-spray-inspired- llama-antibodies-could-prevent-all-types-flu)

<comment><USER2> The LA Times article seems like the best of the bunch.

<comment><USER3> Ok, we've changed to that from [https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46078989](https://www.bbc.com/news/health-46078989). Thanks!

<comment><USER2> No; thank you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'd love to have more articles that revisit all the amazing sounding findings we read about every day. Especially about the ones that fail trials.

<comment><USER5> Some cynic should really do a web site that just follows up on all miracle cures that flash by the feeds.

Let's say take the top viral cure each week, and follow up how it's developing each anniversary. It could actually be really interesting, if done well.

But what to call it?

<comment><USER6> I was thinking isitcuredyet.com but the domain is already parked.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > The genetic instructions for making the antibody were packaged up inside a > harmless virus, which was then used to infect the noses of mice.

That's interesting. I didn't realize gene therapy could be so localized.

<comment><USER8> Yep, they usually use a pseudo virus that doesn't replicate, called an adeno associated virus. Check out this guys video on his own gene therapy for lactose intolerance : [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=J3FcbFqSoQY)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> >It was tested on mice, which were given deadly doses of influenza.

I never realized there was an LD50 for influenza viruses (in healthy individuals)...

</comment><comment><USER10> I know that cow antibodies are also generally more effective than human antibodies due to their increased length... Why specifically use lamas?

<comment><USER11> llamas produce very small antibodies that can attack the parts of the virus that are further inside, and these parts do not mutate as often as the outer parts, which our antibodies generally attack. The outer parts mutate pretty quickly, meaning that any vaccine or treatment that we normally provide only works for a short time.

<comment><USER12> If the inside parts have more to do with the functioning of the virus (which is what one might guess from hearing that they are more conserved), could targeting them with antibodies bias viral evolution towards colds turning deadly as opposed to slight changes in their shell proteins?

<comment><USER13> Evolution often makes viruses less deadly, as it wants to maximize dispersion, and killing the host is usually not a good strategy. They will probably just try to mutate to cover those inner parts of the shell proteins.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminds me of Roovers' work on nanobodies. Everything old is new again, I guess.

<comment><USER15> I'm old and am bitterly disappointed that I haven't been new again

<comment> brian-armstrong Try having kids?

<comment><USER16> I imagine that that simply reinforces how one is old and not new in contrast with the additional person.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I can't bring myself to be in any way happy from reading stuff like this. We get articles like this every freaking day and probably only a fraction of them will ever get into production.

<comment><USER18> Only a fraction of them end up being repeatable.

<comment><USER19> Not my field, but based on what I know of the quality of research in this lab and the fact that it was published in Science, I would be very surprised if the results aren't very solid and reproducible.

<comment><USER20> Then the next question is whether it will work effectively in humans, with no cure-worse-than-the-disease side-effects.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Can't help thinking on Winamp.

 _Llama, it really whips the flu 's ass._

<comment><USER22> Ahh, Justin Frankel's baby.

Also, this BBC article is two days old and is now in the 5th position on HN's homepage, for me currently.

<comment><USER23> cough 4 cough

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> What I don't get is why are we are spending resources on artificially fortifying our bodies for something that's not event a serious threat? We as society already possess capabilities to survive against threats even more serious. Our body is magnificently apt at defending itself. Disease becomes a problem for us only when we are not taking good care of ourself and our environment, like all the disease outbreaks in UK and US in 1800-1900 when we were living in filthy environment of cities and consuming food/water contaminated by our own filth. Thanks to sanitization revolutions we were able to regain our health. We can once again reach pinnacle of our health if we get rid of newly create pollution in our environment/food.

<comment><USER25> Eh what? Even with modern healthy conditions the flu can be devestating to the very young or old / frail. The vaccination aproach is not just to keep yourself from getting sick, it's also to prevent yourself from being a vector to infect people who might not be able to be vaccinated or survive if they were to become ill.

<comment><USER26> Right, that I think I understand. However, maybe we could do better by eliminating micro-plastics from the food chain and having health guidance that isn't written by big sugar, big fat, and big agro? Why do we have to inject new manufacturered drugs into the entire population? Where's the limit with vaccines? Should all viruses and bacteria be eliminated through vaccine? I've never seen a drug without a side effect so while I am pro-vax for things like polio and even chickenpox, I really do wonder where the imperative is for flu. We can likely make much greater strides in general numbers by simply providing free access to mental health practitioners. Heck, I bet even returning the US House of Representatives to a 100,000 count per would have meaningful results on the public's welfare, and that doesn't require injections!

<comment><USER27> i believe the reason you are being down voted here is because we as a society can work on more then one thing at a time.

people working on flu vaccines are probably not interested, trained or able to work on public welfare. People who work on public welfare are not interested, trained or able to work on vaccines.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Xkcd's Money Chart - <AUTHOR> http://xkcd.com/980/huge/#x=-9862&y=-2690&z=5

<comment><AUTHOR> Includes many gems, including the EPA's dollar value of a human life...</comment>


So Elon Musk's Hyperloop Is Actually Getting Kinda Serious - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/08/elon-musk-hyperloop-project-is-getting-kinda-serious/?mbid=social_fb <comment><USER2> So many submissions, so little comment. Does no one have anything to say?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10105003](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10105003)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10095595)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093968](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10093968)

</comment><comment><USER3> >near supersonic speeds

Just to nitpick I think they refer to supersonic speeds in standard pressure. The speed of sound in very low pressure ("vacuum") is much lower and they probably far above that.</comment>


Cost of living will, eventually, be zero - <AUTHOR> http://peterdiamandis.tumblr.com/post/147548445548/demonetized-cost-of-living <comment><USER2> How are companies selling food, transportation and health care gonna make money if the cost of living is zero?

<comment><AUTHOR> Their costs will also be zero. Maybe zero is impossible but costs are going in that direction.

<comment><USER2> So everybody will just be doing things for free?

<comment><AUTHOR> Robots..

<comment><USER2> Who will make/maintain/develop new robots?

I'm probably gonna stop after that. I don't have a degree in economics, but I always find these "everything will be free, everybody will be pretty and live 300 years" predictions kind of hard to buy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Genome sequencing should allow for better drug discovery?

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom's_Law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eroom's_Law)

The opposite is occurring.</comment>