Faysee solves a problem I have with Snapchat: giving my friend feedback on whether I thought their message was funny or not, and worth posting on Facebook or Twitter, for example.

Faysee makes it easy to get feedback from multiple people easily, or to see if you can make friends/family laugh.

Does the video explain the app clearly?

Does it make you want to try the app?

How could we improve the app or video?

Thanks for any feedback!

Joe Laws (hn: jlaws) built this app with me. Jon Collins (hn: jonathancollins) helped fix some bugs. Jordy Clements (hn: JordyClements) is the funny Snapchat-sending friend, wearing the crustacean hat in the linked video.

Not clear what you lose. Your brain probably still has whatever memory of these moments it would have without the video, and you can choose not to watch the video. All I think you lose is the time you spend taking the video. But if the moments you spend taking the video are just moments you would spend simply observing, the difference is very little.

Your brain doesn't have a cinematic memory of every moment. It's very malleable and memories will probably degrade more as you rely on this kind of thing more. Net effect may well be worthwhile, but it's definitely a downside to consider.

It's not clear how memories degrade as you rely on videos more, but it is an interesting hypothesis.

Ah you're a scientologist - that explains your aversion to psychologists. Scientology is the worst, most evil organization I've ever had contact with. Just disgusting.

> Your brain probably still has whatever memory of these moments it would have without the video

I don't have a citation now, but there were studies done that suggest you actually don't have reliable memories of past events; the brain actually recomputes parts of them based on what you know now, thus sometimes making false memories.

You're referring to the "generate-recognize" theory of memory recall. It's actually an interesting theory, which states that you can't actually recall memories directly -- at least ones from more than a few weeks ago -- because your brain does not store that much detail about them.

Instead, the theory states, memory recall is a rapid-fire, iterative process of "generating" details of a memory, then checking whether it matches the original. If it does, then the detail is 'recalled' and the process moves onto other details, in this way hopefully producing a reasonable reproduction of the original memory. There is some experimental evidence of this theory, but as far as I understand it, the theory is not entirely accepted. In my opinion, it's probably part of the story but not all, perhaps as an 'error correction' mechanism that fills in gaps but not for producing the entire memory.

What you're referring to about false memories is somewhat different and much better accepted. There's a lot of evidence that shows that memory recall is a destructive process: after recall, a memory becomes labile and must be reconsolidated into long-term storage. Essentially, recalling a memory destroys it and it must be re-encoded as a new memory. In that time while it is labile, details can be added or removed and changes can creep into it from your own thoughts or the suggestions of others. The changed version is usually indistinguishable from the original.

I'm interested in these comments. Do you have references and/or search terms for further learning?

Many studies referenced here for example http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_memory

here is a way to combine technology and transparency to make it more difficult for someone to do this:

guns owned in America have mandatory geolocation installed. guns lock if geolocation is disabled or hacked, an alert is autosent to local people and authorities with the last known location, and law enforces speedy investigation of the guns whereabouts and reinstallation of the geolocator. i'd like an app that tells me where the nearest guns are to me and some info about who they belong to, i.e. police, citizen, military etc. if a gun is brought near public spaces, schools, theaters, etc., it should tweet, sms, or otherwise alert local police and anyone who would like to know. i'd like to also set my own alerts, such as alert me if a non-police gun is within a few hundred feet of my location, or my kid's location, etc. the constitution says there is a "right of the people to keep and bear arms," but does not use the word "right" to defend privacy.

Can you explain this divide further?

I thought the idea was that telomeres are like chaff that the DNA drops over the course of many replication cycles instead of losing "more important" bases of DNA. In that sense telomeres might protect against loss of function (cancers). I did not know they prevented non-homologous end joining, but see how they could. I take it non-homologous end joining could lead to gain of function (cancers).

So what is the divide? Do some people think that telomeres protect cancer?

A comment above (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4846137) suggests something like this. First a cell is converted into a cancerous state, perhaps even due to a lack of telomeres and subsequent loss or gain of function. Then telomerase somehow is upregulated. If there was some error correction process (to correct the loss or gain of function cancer), could the sudden increase in telomerase and telomere length prevent that error correction from occurring?

Without telomerase, the telomeres will degrade each cell division until the Hayflick limit, where they die. So without telomerase there is a built-in limitation on the number times a cancer cell can reproduce before it dies.

It's quite simple and doesn't require any interaction with other cellular machinery.

Thanks, but it's not clear to me that cells die without telomeres or at this Hayflick limit. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hayflick_limit says they enter senescence. They stop dividing. This seems different than cell death.

That is interesting to me too though. I don't know why cells should stop dividing without telomeres, or with telomeres below a critical length. That suggests to me there is interaction with other cellular machinery at this onset of senescence.

Hamming makes clear his remarks are about how to do "significant things," and he is using science as a microcosm to describe what that is, only because it is the microcosm he is most familiar with. See here:

"Why shouldn't you do significant things in this one life, however you define significant? I'm not going to define it - you know what I mean. I will talk mainly about science because that is what I have studied. But so far as I know, and I've been told by others, much of what I say applies to many fields. Outstanding work is characterized very much the same way in most fields, but I will confine myself to science."

"They see how much Pao, still merely alleging, is costing a firm such as Kleiner Perkins: time, image and distraction from its main work, finding value."

If Kleiner Perkins practices sexism and/or sexual harassment, then they brought theses costs on themselves.

Forget the suit costing these things. The practice of sexism and sexual harassment by themselves costs "time, image, and distraction from its main work, finding value."

I would not pay anything because the search engine I use doesn't display ads.

$100.00

$10.00

$1.00