The Citizen's Guide to the Future

Aug. 28 2014 10:17 AM

This Cheap Exoskeleton Lets You Sit Wherever You Want Without a Chair

Exoskeletons help people do amazing things, but a Swiss startup wants to use them for something really simple. The company, Noonee, is developing a “Chairless Chair” so factory workers who have to stand all day can take a quick load off using the exoskeleton they're casually wearing.

Noonee’s design is a low-cost exoskeleton just for your legs that goes into a seated position when you push a button. When it’s not activated, you can walk or run pretty normally, but when you put it in the seated position, the aluminum and carbon fiber frame becomes rigid to support you. And the device itself only weighs about 4.5 pounds. The Chairless Chair is still a prototype, but CNN reports that Audi is planning to offer a pilot to some of its employees in September, and BMW has plans for a similar trial period.


Keith Gunura, the CEO and co-founder of Noonee, told CNN, “The idea came from wanting to sit anywhere and everywhere, and from working in a U.K. packaging factory when I was 17.” The company’s CTO and co-founder Bryan Anastisiades adds that the Chairless Chair has added benefits over regular chairs because it seats people with their backs straight. It’s hard to slouch in an exoskeleton.

Though we’re all trying to move around more, because of evidence that frequent prolonged sitting can cause health problems, there are so many scenarios where having a chair built into your body would be extremely convenient. The next time you’re wearing your Noonee exoskeleton and someone tells you to pop a squat, you’ll be able to pretty literally oblige.

Video Advertisement

Aug. 27 2014 6:45 PM

Is Anyone Actually Reading Your Tweets? Now You Can Find Out.

You worked so hard on that clever tweet. Did anyone actually read it?

Until now you could only guess based on the number of favorites or retweets it received. That changed on Wednesday, when Twitter announced that it’s opening a feature to all users that allows you to see exactly how many people viewed and engaged with each of your tweets, along with a demographic breakdown of your followers and several other analytic tools.


You can find your own analytics dashboard by clicking here.

The default tab lists your tweets in reverse-chronological order and shows you the number of impressions and engagements. In case you’re not familiar with the lingo, “impressions” means the total number of people who saw your tweet in their feeds. “Engagements,” in this case, refers to the total number of times people clicked on your tweet. That includes clicks on your username, clicks to expand the tweet, and clicks on any attached links, in addition to retweets, favorites, and follows. You can also track your impressions and engagements over time.

The dashboard also includes a second tab called “followers” that shows you the trajectory of your follower count, as well as the gender, interests, and geographic breakdown of your followers.

So what can you learn from your personal analytics tools? I learned, rather unsurprisingly, that mine tend to be men living in coastal U.S. cities who are interested in politics, business, and technology, and who also follow The New Yorker, Wired, and the Economist. I learned that “sports” is nowhere among my followers’ top interests, which might help explain why a bunch of people unfollow me every time I tweet about them. And I learned, as Alex Howard has also pointed out, that tweets with photos attached tend to do better than text-only tweets. This one, for instance, got about 100 times more impressions than my average tweet:

Twitter how many people read your tweet
Click on an individual tweet to see just what kinds of engagements it received.

Screenshot / Twitter Analytics

This is the sort of data that Twitter and other social networks have historically made available only to their advertising clients. Twitter is among the first to extend its analytics tools to the general public. This feature has been a while in coming: I first reported that Twitter was experimenting with it back in June 2013.

For most people, this probably isn’t particularly actionable information. Still, it’s a nice gesture at a time when Facebook continues to take a PR beating for the unfathomable opacity of its news feed algorithms. And it might help to reassure you that there actually are a few people out there reading, even when it feels like you’re tweeting into the void. It could also give you a better idea of what types of tweets resonate with your followers and which ones fall flat. Then you can stop boring the hell out of everyone with stray thoughts that are probably amusing only to you.

Or keep doing them! After all, Twitter isn’t a contest, and just because you now have the same tools that are available to advertisers doesn’t mean you have to act like one.

Previously in Slate:

Aug. 27 2014 5:23 PM

Huge Pacific Hurricane Bringing “Gnarly” Swell to Southern California

It’s been years since surfing has been this good in Southern California.

The big waves turned deadly for one surfer on Tuesday morning at Malibu, where the pier was closed for safety reasons. The high surf also damaged several homes in Orange County on Wednesday morning after sand berms meant to hold back the waves failed overnight. Huge crowds of onlookers flooded to the “Wedge” in Newport Beach, where some waves were estimated to reach at least 25 feet.


For a Kansas native like me, it’s almost impossible to imagine being out there on a day like today:

Wednesday’s epic surf is coming thanks to Hurricane Marie, a storm so big it’s already gobbled up a fellow hurricane (Karina) this week. Earlier in the week, Hurricane Lowell also brought great surfing conditions for south-facing beaches. I put together this two-and-a-half day animation that starts around when Marie was at peak strength—Category 5—on Sunday afternoon. (The right-to-left swipes are sunrises and sunsets.)

Surfer Matt Meyerson summed up his experience in one word: “Unreal. … It was so good Sunday, I went back and surfed Malibu in the afternoon. It was the best I've ever seen. It was so good, I was high for the rest of the day.” Though he said Wednesday morning’s waves were “gnarly,” in his opinion, they didn’t live up to the hype, partly due to the crowds. “This morning I was up at 4:30, and it was still dark when I got in the water at Topanga. Still, the beach was packed. When it gets this good, everyone's out there.”

At Newport Beach, Diogo Maltarollo broke his board this morning. “It was on a beautiful wave too." His story:

I rode the barrel for three to five seconds. As it started breaking, I flew to the front of the wave, grabbed the base of my board, and when I came up, there was only half of it left. It really gave me my money's worth, that's for sure. That was my big wave board right there, and it couldn't handle it.
Diogo Maltarollo and his broken board

Image by Alex Bogni, via Tammy Delgado*

Mary Hartmann, who runs Girl in the Curl surf camp at Doheny State Beach in Orange County, is sitting this one out. “We can’t have surf camp in these conditions, but I’m stoked for the people that can take it.”

Since the waves are coming in from the south, parallel to most of Southern California’s beaches, they’re generating exceptionally strong rip currents, requiring extra paddling. Even for experienced surfers like Dan Bialek, that’s made the waves “almost unsurfable.”

“I’ve been running two or three miles a day after work all week just to get in shape for today. This morning, at Seal Beach Jetty, my buddies and I probably paddled at least a couple miles. It was basically nonstop paddling.”

A Wednesday morning wave map showed a bull’s-eye of big swell emanating from Hurricane Marie. Near the storm’s center, waves are close to 40 feet high.

Image: NOAA Wavewatch III model

This weekend, Hurricane Marie briefly became the first Category 5 hurricane in the Eastern Pacific since 2010. Since comprehensive records began in 1949, there have been 15 storms in that part of the ocean that, like Marie, topped out the hurricane strength scale. All but three of these storms have occurred since 1994. On average, global warming is expected to boost the number and intensity of the strongest tropical cyclones, but this year, at least in this part of the world, El Niño may be to blame for the Pacific’s frenetic pace so far.

Update, Aug. 27, 2014: This post was updated to add additional credit information for the photo of the broken surfboard. The photo was taken by Alex Bogni.

Aug. 27 2014 4:00 PM

U.S. Government to Labs: Take an Inventory of Your Pathogens

Update, Aug. 28, 2014: The White House tells Science Insider that while it will request an inventory of pathogens, it will not ask labs to "suspend" their work. The headline on this post has been updated, and the original text appears below.

The U.S. government is planning to request that all federally funded laboratories working with “high-consequence” pathogens suspend all work for 24 hours, so that personnel may take stock of what they have stored. According to Science Insider, the order is expected to come from the White House’s Office of Science and Technology Policy through funding agencies. The Department of Veteran Affairs and some other agencies began this process prior to the distribution of a memo on the matter by the Council on Government Relations. However, it appears the request isn’t enforceable, and there are no consequences for noncompliance.


Manmade pandemics have indeed occurred before, and occured because the pathogens were being worked with in laboratories to prevent the outbreaks they ended up creating, as was the case with the H1N1 human influenza pandemic of 1977. 

The governmental request follows the potential exposure of workers to anthrax after the inadequate inactivation of samples, a mix-up involving a fatal flu strain that could put the global population at risk, and the discovery of smallpox in an unsecured government lab. (The six vials of smallpox were found along with 321 other vials, some of which were infectious pathogens that are “serious enough to be considered potential bioterror agents.”) However, the inventory stock is not expected to result in new policy or regulations.

Aug. 27 2014 1:43 PM

No, Out-of-Control Groundwater Pumping in California Won’t Cause the “Big One”

Californians have enough to worry about these days, what with the historic drought. Are they also unwittingly ice-bucket-challenging their way to an earthquake disaster? Probably not.

Sunday’s magnitude 6.0 earthquake was the Bay Area’s largest since 1989, when a magnitude 6.9 famously hit during the World Series. A new estimate by the U.S. Geological Survey shows the weekend quake dealt a billion-dollar blow to the state’s economy. The damage was concentrated in the wine region of Napa and Sonoma Counties, where the value of individual bottles can run into the thousands (and also made for some impressive post-quake photos).

Aug. 27 2014 12:49 PM

The House and Senate Intelligence Committees Need Privacy Advocates, Too

“It’s called protecting America,” Sen. Dianne Feinstein, chair of the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence, asserted in June 2013. In the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, she has defended the domestic surveillance conducted by the NSA as something that has “not been abused or misused” and is “essential,” “necessary and must be preserved.”

The chair of the U.S. Senate Committee on the Judiciary offers a sharply divergent view. We “have to have some checks and balances before [we] have a government that can run amok,” Sen. Patrick Leahy said in January. He has warned that the NSA’s domestic surveillance could lead to “the government controlling us instead of us controlling the government.”

Aug. 27 2014 10:22 AM

Nixing Net Neutrality Would Produce More Healthcare.govs

Last week, the White House hired a head of the U.S. Digital Services to get the whole government to adopt technology processes like the ones that saved after its disastrous launch. But, what the White House giveth, the Federal Communications Commission taketh away. The FCC is an independent agency outside the White House, and its chairman, Tom Wheeler, is proposing to adopt an online discrimination rule that will result in more disastrous websites from federal agencies, and from cities and states, despite the White House’s new service. Worse, we taxpayers will have to pay through the nose for these unworkable government sites.

Back in May, the FCC chairman proposed a rule that would permit cable and phone companies to create slow and fast lanes on the Internet by giving them “substantial room for … discrimination,” including cutting exclusive deals, and the power to impose new tolls on websites. Three million people, including hundreds of businesses, and dozens of civil liberties groups, have already filed comments in nearly unanimous opposition to Wheeler’s surprising proposal. But it is not just the private sector that will feel the pain.

Aug. 27 2014 9:09 AM

Survey: More Than One-Third of Young Workers OK With Bosses Monitoring Their Tweets

This article originally appeared on the Conversation.

Will employers in the future watch what their staffers get up to on social media? Allowing bosses or would-be employers a snoop around social media pages is a growing trend in the United States, and now a new report from PricewaterhouseCoopers and the Said Business School at Oxford University suggests it may well become the norm.

Drawing on a global survey of 10,000 workers and 500 human resources staff, the report predicts that employers’ monitoring of workers’ lives on social media will increase as they “strive to understand what motivates their workforce, why people might move jobs and to improve employee wellbeing.”

More than one-third of the young workers surveyed said they were happy for their employer to monitor their status updates and tweets in return for greater job security.

Aug. 26 2014 3:42 PM

Facebook’s Not-So-Evil Crusade Against Clickbait

Facebook brought clickbait into this world, and now it’s trying to take it out.

In a blog post Monday, the company announced a change to the algorithms that govern what you see in your Facebook news feed. The change is aimed at filtering out “click-baiting headlines”—that is, headlines that entice people to click on them, but lead to stories that fail to satisfy. The goal, Facebook says, is “to help people find the posts and links from publishers that are most interesting and relevant, and to continue to weed out stories that people frequently tell us are spammy and that they don’t want to see.”


This should come as a welcome change for just about everyone. One of the loudest complaints about Facebook in recent years has been the profusion of viral junk that is carefully designed to game the site’s algorithms by attracting cheap clicks and likes. (See the post below for an example.)

Facebook clickbait example
It turns out people don't particularly like being manipulated.

Screenshot courtesy of Facebook

It would be bad enough if this sort of content were confined to Facebook itself. Unfortunately, it has also infected the wider Web due to Facebook’s outsize influence on other media organizations’ fortunes. You can now find headlines that oversell their corresponding stories just about everywhere, from Upworthy to Business Insider to the Atlantic. Yes, Slate too has been guilty of this on plenty of occasions, despite our writers’ and editors’ genuine efforts to walk the fine line between entertaining headlines and sensational ones.

The fact is that most journalists don’t want to oversell their stories. But Internet advertising and social media have ushered in a free-for-all marketplace in which the grabbiest headlines tend to win the readers—even if the ensuing content doesn’t deliver on their promise.

Some of the most irksome excesses been driven by Facebook’s news feed algorithms, which have historically rewarded stories that get clicks and likes, regardless of whether those stories are actually any good.  Sites that don’t attempt to game those algorithms risk irrelevance or extinction at the hands of those that do. So if any single entity has the power to tilt the incentives back in the direction of headlines that actually tell readers what a story is about, it’s Facebook.

Ah, but how can Facebook know whether a story is any good? That is, how does it define clickbait? Those are important questions—and Facebook has surprisingly good answers.

Clickbait, says Facebook, is “when a publisher posts a link with a headline that encourages people to click to see more, without telling them much information about what they will see.” That’s a pretty fair subjective definition of the term. As BuzzFeed’s Matt Lynley explains:

This is not to suggest that all stories that have clickable headlines will be penalized. While the term “clickbait” is often a placeholder to describe undesirable internet content, the clickbait that Facebook will look to eradicate is made up of posts that often fail deliver on the headline’s promise or posts that leave readers feeling tricked.

OK, so how can Facebook’s algorithms recognize clickbait when they see it? They do it by looking beyond the standard metrics—total likes and clicks—to focus on what happens after a user clicks on a story. Do people actually spend some time reading the post once they’ve clicked through? Do they go on to like it, comment on it, or share it with their friends? If so, Facebook assumes that they got some real value out of it.

If, on the other hand, people click on a story only to end up right back on Facebook moments later, that raises the probability that it was clickbait. Likewise, if most people are liking a story before they’ve read it rather than after, that’s an indication that they’re responding to the headline and/or the photo rather than the substance of the story.

As with any change to Facebook’s algorithms, this one has sparked its share of carping and conspiracy-mongering despite its apparent good intentions. Who is Facebook, critics demand to know, to tell us what to read and what not to read? If people like clickbait headlines, why should Facebook withhold them from us? What’s the secret agenda here?

These questions rest on flawed premises.

First, Facebook is not telling people what to read. Like any media company, from CNN to the New York Times, Facebook’s goal is to present its users/readers with a selection of content that it thinks will interest and inform them. If it fails in that task—if readers don’t like what they see—they’ll go elsewhere. Schoolteachers tell people what to read. The Chinese government tells people what not to read. Media organizations in a competitive marketplace—including social-media sites—simply do not have that power.

Second, if people really liked clickbait headlines, Facebook probably would keep showing them to us. Facebook isn’t waging war on clickbait out of some paternalistic sense of responsibility. It’s doing it because Facebook’s own users have explicitly told Facebook in surveys that they don’t like clickbait. Yes, they may succumb to teaser headlines, but they usually end up feeling cheated and annoyed. That feeling, in turn, makes them less likely to spend time on Facebook in the long run. And that is the worst thing that could happen to Facebook’s business.

Whether this strategy will work as intended is another question. It’s quite possible that Facebook’s implementation of this change will backfire somehow, or open up new ways for publishers to game the system. No single metric, including “attention-minutes,” can fully capture the value of a given story to readers.

Facebook understands that, and is likely to keep tweaking its algorithm to respond to new traffic-grubbing tactics as they emerge. This is exactly what Google has been doing for years to combat shady search-engine optimization strategies that skew its search results.

Facebook’s rise as a portal for news has profoundly changed journalism in just the past few years. Some of those changes are welcome, like the way the social network can deliver a great story—or even a life-saving one—to a far wider audience than it would have reached otherwise. Others are insidious, like the way it can deliver wildly sensationalized or inaccurate stories to a wide audience at the expense of more nuanced ones.

Fortunately for all of us, Facebook is beginning to realize that those skewed incentives risk harming its own brand in the long term. The better Facebook gets at understanding what its users actually like, as opposed to what they just Facebook-like, the more its positive effects on journalism will balance out the insidious ones.

Previously in Slate:

Aug. 26 2014 3:04 PM

All of Your Facebook Friends Already Agree With You

How do most of the people on your Twitter timeline feel about Ferguson? About foreign affairs? About the latest pop culture scandal? Except for that one weirdly conservative uncle or those random people to whom you never really spoke in high school, the answer is probably: a lot like you do. And if not, you aren’t going to tell them so.

A new study by the Pew Research Internet Project found that social media sites like Facebook and Twitter do not offer a platform for those hesitant to speak up in public on policy issues when they feel their views are in the minority. On the contrary, a survey of 1,801 adults focused on the divisive public issue of Edward Snowden’s NSA revelations revealed that people were even less willing to discuss the surveillance is online than they were in person (42 percent compared with 86 percent, respectively). And online, as in person, people were more willing to speak up if they thought others agreed with them.


Furthermore, those who went on Facebook and Twitter a few times a day were less likely to share their opinions offline. For example, a person who checks Facebook multiple times a day is half as likely to share his opinion offline as someone who does not go on the site as frequently. Those regular users who felt themselves in the majority on Facebook were “still only .74 times as likely to voice their opinion” offline as those who did not quite so frequently go on Facebook.

The report offers a few theories as to why social media perpetuates what it refers to as the “spiral of silence.” (It also acknowledges that there are limitations to a study that focuses on but one policy, and that other factors, like confidence in one’s knowledge and opinions, matter, too.) Perhaps people do not speak out of fear of isolation. Perhaps they do not want to lose friends and alienate people. And “as to why the absence of agreement on social media platforms spills over into a spiral of silence in physical settings,” the report ventures that “social media users may have witnessed those with minority opinions experiencing ostracism … this might increase the perceived risk of opinion sharing in other settings.”

That could certainly be. But maybe, since regular users of Facebook and Twitter who feel themselves to be in the majority are still less likely to express their opinions offline, the problem isn’t the spiral of silence. Maybe it’s all the noise.

Maybe those who spend time online reading the same views, over and over again, on the same topic, are tired of hearing it. Maybe they don’t want to contribute to the cacophonic chorus telling itself, over and over again, how right it is. Online or off.