Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Bop Spotter

walzr.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

321–330 of 405 posts

Re: Bop Spotter

#321

Post by xk3 »

oorza wrote: post #302
simonw wrote: post #250

Some details on how this works: https://twitter.com/rtwlz/status/1840821351055311245 The phone has a Tasker script running on loop (even if the battery dies, it’ll restart when it boots again) Script records 10 min of audio in airplane mode, then comes out of airplane mode and connects to nearby free WiFi. Then uploads the audio file to my server, which splits it into 15 sec chunks that slightly overlap. Passes each…

If 2% of the battery is 2% of 3000mAh (which is probably a generous over-estimate of the phone's capacity), that means the phone pulls ~60mA. You can buy a 60,000 mAh battery (or build one) for about $50, which would buy this device 10,000 hours, or round it down and call it 1 year.

It uses solar power, right? So I think it was built with that in mind. charge during the day and run until it loses power at night

Re: Bop Spotter

#322

Post by 7e »

imchillyb wrote: post #149

How does this project not run afoul of federal and state wiretapping laws? > http://www.dmlp.org/legal-guide/california-recording-law

They’re listening in a public place, where there is no expectation of privacy. Also, it’s not clear it can hear any conversations, only music may be loud enough to teach it. Finally, it’s not recording the sounds, only analyzing them.

Re: Bop Spotter

#323

Post by jbullock35 »

bilalq wrote: post #320
tiagod wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect is the enemy of good. I've found it's much better to get a project up and running as an "MVP" than to chase the perfect until the details suck all the fun out of it.

I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Chasing an MVP doesn't have to involve disrespecting people's privacy and recording without consent. There are many worse violators than this, but it is what it is.

It's a very public place in the United States. It's not clear that people should expect or be entitled to much privacy in these public places.

We also know that, regardless of the degree of privacy to which people should be entitled, they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. Federal court rulings have been extremely clear on this point. In these places, we don't even have the right to not be photographed.

Re: Bop Spotter

#325

Post by otteromkram »

t-3 wrote: post #266
scottyah wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or spotify jamming a song into everyone's algorithms, as a cynical take. I have never looked up and played Drake or Taylor Swift, but they come up in "curated" playlists thought-provokingly often.

> I have never looked up and played Drake or Taylor Swift, but they come up in "curated" playlists thought-provokingly often. That's not necessarily due to payola or whatever - both Drake and Swift are very talented as well as prolific and among the best operating these days, even if they are pop artists. It's not strange to see them recommended algorithmically if the listener is into modern music at all.

> both Drake and Swift are very talented

Weird way to say "nepo kids."

There's 1,000,000+ Taylor Swifts and Drakes out there; connections and money are the true talent brokers.

Re: Bop Spotter

#328

Post by jaza »

microtherion wrote: post #55
cousin_it wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess it will mostly reflect the musical taste of assholes who turn their music up loud. Hmm, but maybe all culture works like that.

It might reflect different attitudes between cultures as to what volume makes one an "asshole".

I spent several years in South America, and down there (it varies by country, but by and large) it's totally normal for people to play music on loudspeaker on public transport, walking down the street, in the park, etc, nobody bats an eyelid. The same behaviour in most western countries is met with disdainful looks, and often with someone else blatantly telling the "offender" to put on headphones. So, yeah, it does depend on the culture.

Re: Bop Spotter

#329

Post by t-3 »

otteromkram wrote: post #325
t-3 wrote: post #266

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I have never looked up and played Drake or Taylor Swift, but they come up in "curated" playlists thought-provokingly often. That's not necessarily due to payola or whatever - both Drake and Swift are very talented as well as prolific and among the best operating these days, even if they are pop artists. It's not strange to see them recommended algorithmically if the listener is into modern music at all.

> both Drake and Swift are very talented Weird way to say "nepo kids." There's 1,000,000+ Taylor Swifts and Drakes out there; connections and money are the true talent brokers.

That's pretty unfair. Drake's writing abilities are questionable, but his ability as an performer is undeniable. Swift is well known for both writing and performing and her popularity speaks to her skill and many years of effort.

Were they helped by having wealthy parents and breaking into the industry young? Certainly. Is that the whole story? Definitely not.

Re: Bop Spotter

#330

Post by waffleiron »

jbullock35 wrote: post #323
bilalq wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see what that has to do with what I said. Chasing an MVP doesn't have to involve disrespecting people's privacy and recording without consent. There are many worse violators than this, but it is what it is.

It's a very public place in the United States. It's not clear that people should expect or be entitled to much privacy in these public places. We also know that, regardless of the degree of privacy to which people should be entitled, they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places. Federal court rulings have been extremely clear on this point. In these places, we don't even have the right to not be photo…

>they're not legally entitled to much privacy in these places.

While I think this is a really cool project, I also agree with the privacy issues. CA is a two party consent state, and recording a conversation (which this is likely to do) like this is likely illegal. While a person might not have a expectation of privacy about someone just hearing the conversation, they are protected by law if they are recorded without their knowledge.

NB: I am not a lawyer, and the above could very well be wrong.

Edit: As I was informed below, I was wrong on the legal points.

Post reply on HN