Tekton’s Everybit Tech Rescue Kit includes just about everything you need to pry open modern electronics, including pentalobe screws, triangle bits, spudgers, a suction cup, and more. There are 45 pieces in all, and they can all be yours for $19 today.
This deal is part of a larger Tekton Gold Box deal, which includes some more traditional tools for deeply discounted prices.
Commerce Content is independent of Editorial and Advertising, and if you buy something through our posts, we may get a small share of the sale. Click here to learn more, and don’t forget to sign up for our email newsletter. We want your feedback.
Senior Commerce Editor | Send deal submissions to deals@gawker.com
"Unpatent is a crowdfunding platform that eliminates bad patents," reads their web site. "We do that by crowdsourcing the prior art — that is all the evidence that makes clear that a patent was not novel — and filing reexamination requests to the patent office." An anonymous Slashdot reader reports:
"Everyone in the world can back the crowdfunding campaign against the patent," explains their site, which includes a special section with "Featured stupid patents". The first $16,000 raised covers the lawyers and fees at the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office, and "The rest is distributed to those who find valid prior art…any evidence that a patent is not novel. We review all the prior art pieces and reward those that may invalidate a claim… Then, we file an ex partes reexamination to the USPTO."
Their team includes Lee Cheng, the legal officer at Newegg, "worldwide renowned as the patent trolls’ nightmare," as well as Lus Cuende, who created his own Linux distro when he was 15 and is now CTO of Stampery, a company using the Bitcoin blockchain to notarize data.
They’re currently targeting the infamous US8738435 covering "personalized content relating to offered products and services," which in February the EFF featured as their "stupid patent of the month." Its page on Unpatent.co argues that "Taking something so obvious such as personalizing content and offers…and writing the word online everywhere shouldn’t grant you a monopoly over it."
Unpatent’s slogan? "We invalidate patents that shouldn’t exist."
It’s not every episode of cult animated series Space Ghost: Coast to Coast, but Adult Swim has just made a binge-worthy selection of episodes from over nine seasons available for free and easy streaming. The occasion is a sad one—the passing of lead animator and voice actor C. Martin Croker—but there’s no better way to pay tribute.
Here’s the full list of the bite-sized episodes, which—again—one must merely click to enjoy, no need to muck around with cable provider logins. The guests are a great representative of what a wide-ranging show Space Ghost was, with famous folks like Alice Cooper, Charlton Heston, Chuck D, Kevin Smith, Tyra Banks, Willie Nelson, and William Shatner showing up to take part.
Over the weekend, one of the people behind Adult Swim’s Space Ghost Coast to Coast cartoon passed away, and the network has decided to honor his memory by making episodes of the show available for free. C. Martin Croker voiced two characters on the show, Zorak and Moltar, as well as serving as an animator on the show and other projects. Like many shows of its era, viewing the old episodes is difficult since the DVD releases are now out of print. Adult Swim says it has posted every episode "that we could get our hands on," and you can watch them here with no log-in required.
In memory of our friend C. Martin Croker, @adultswim is putting every episode of SGC2C up on https://t.co/tSHbtM7czW, available w/o login.
For over a year now I have been blogging about Trump’s talent for persuasion, and that gives people the impression that I prefer him as my president. That is not the case. I’ll tell you why at the end of this post.
The best choice for president depends on the types of challenges ahead. And the future has a habit of surprising us. We have no way to predict whether Clinton or Trump would end up being the right match for an unpredictable future.
That said, let’s talk about assessing the risk – to the country – of Trump versus Clinton. My observation of their histories and their personalities suggests that Trump offers America an entrepreneur’s profile of risk, whereas Clinton would be more like investing in a CD at your bank. Which is better? The answer for you probably depends on how old you are, how selfish you are, and how much money you have.
If things are going well for you and your family, you probably don’t want to rock the boat. In that case, Clinton is a good choice for you. But if you are young, or things are not working out well for you and your family, it would be rational to accept higher risk with the hope of getting a bigger/faster improvement.
But how big is the Trump risk to the economy and the country in general? Let’s talk about how Trump has managed risk in the past. That’s the best way to predict how he will do it in the future.
Diversification: Rule #1 for an investment portfolio is diversification. Trump probably wasn’t sufficiently diversified early in his real estate career, but now he has his name on about 500 entities and he has succeeded across multiple fields. He understands diversification. That’s good.
A-B Testing: One of the best ways to manage risk is to try things on a small scale and only double-down if the test is a success. We see Trump trying out different Linguistic Kill Shots to see what sticks, changing campaign staff as needed, and employing different campaign strategies depending on the situation. We observe him being decisive when things don’t work (firing people) and we watch him pivot quickly based on what he learns from testing. That suggests a “systems” type of mind, as opposed to a “goal” mentality. You can read more about that distinction in my book, which you might enjoy because it has pages. The summary is that systems-thinkers manage risk better.
Licensing: A big part of Trump’s business involves licensing his name. I know a lot about licensing because I have done if for years with Dilbert. Licensing is a great way to manage risk because I get paid in advance even if the product that Dilbert’s image is licensed to adorn does not work out. Trump does the same. He gets paid even if the project with his name on it fails. That’s good risk management.
Likewise, Trump almost certainly negotiates for a lump sum advance payment from publishers for his books. Trump gets paid even if the publisher loses money. That’s good risk management.
Likewise also, The Apprentice probably paid Trump a guaranteed minimum no matter the ratings. And if the show had failed, Trump would not have any personal investment in it. He only had upside potential.
Two Ways to Win: We often see Trump choose strategies that have two ways to win and no way to lose. That’s the best risk management of all. For example, when Trump warned that Iran should release American prisoners before he gets elected, he created two ways to win and no way to lose. If the prisoners were released (and they were), Trump could claim his threat was effective. (He did.) If Iran kept the prisoners, Trump could say the United States needs a bad-ass President like him to deal with Iran.
Bankruptcies: When the general public hears that Trump had several bankruptcies (out of hundreds of projects) they think that means he did something wrong. Business people see a different picture. They see a diversified portfolio of projects that are wisely siloed into their own corporate entities so some can fail without taking the others with them. That’s good risk management because one would naturally expect several failures out of hundreds of projects.
Marriages: Trump is married to his third wife and still has good relationships with his exes. Apparently Trump had good prenups, and good lawyers. He managed the risk of divorce better than 90% of the people I know.
Alcohol and Drugs: Trump has never had a drink of alcohol or an illegal drug, because of the risk. If you have ever consumed alcohol or taken illegal drugs, you have a far higher tolerance for risk than Trump. He removed those risks from his life. And those are some big risks.
Seeing the Future: One way to reduce risk is to predict the future better than those around you. We know that Trump went all-in on his run for president this time, but in prior election years he dropped out early. Apparently he made the right decision this time because he could see himself making it all the way.
We have also witnessed Trump using unorthodox campaign strategies that almost everyone else in the world thought would fail. But apparently Trump predicted the future better than the pundits. His methods have worked.
Trump hasn’t predicted the future correctly every time. As noted, several of his projects did not work out. But evidently he expected there could be some losers among his projects because he set them up as separate entities that could fail on their own without dragging down the rest.
Listening to Advice: One of the criticisms we heard about Trump early in the campaign is that he wouldn’t listen to experts. But now we have lots of examples in which he has done exactly that. His entire campaign has transformed in the past six weeks. We watched Trump assess the changing election dynamics, take advice from advisors, adapt his approach, and spike in the polls.
Trump is also good at firing people. The smartest person I know told me that the most important skill of a leader is firing, not hiring. No one is smart enough to hire the right people every time, so firing is the more valuable skill. Trump apparently has that skill. Consider how hard it was to fire his longtime friend Corey Lewandowski, and later Paul Manafort. Trump pulled the trigger both times. And both moves proved to be helpful.
Trump’s Ego: Trump’s showmanship and branding comes off as ego, and narcissism, and that can be scary to the public. You want to know your President is making decisions based on what is good for the country, and not what is good for the President’s ego. But Trump’s appearance on Jimmy Fallon went a long way toward changing perceptions about his ego. Trump let Fallon mess up his famous hair on TV, and it humanized Trump. We watched Trump put his ego aside with no real effort.
We also see Trump doing more outreach to the African-American community, toning down his rhetoric (mostly) and generally doing what the public has been asking him to do. That suggests a candidate who has control of his ego. He listens to the people and gives them what they want.
—
In my personal situation, things are going great for me, so that suggests Clinton would be a safer choice in terms of managing my risk – both financially and physically. Change isn’t necessarily good for me. But I’m also at a point in my life where I’m focused on providing some public good before I check out of the computer simulation we call life. So if my American teammates prefer a Trump-like risk – because they think change is needed for their own benefit – I’m okay with that. Pick the president you want and I’ll work with it. I’ll be happy either way.
Thor: Ragnarok director Taika Waititi has given us the tiniest shred of hope that Thor’s roommate, Darryl Jacobson, could make another appearance in the Marvel cinematic universe. That could mean another short video, but in a perfect Asgard we’d see Darryl move in as Thor’s permanent roomie.
In an interview with IGN, Waititi chatted about the hilarious mockumentary that first debuted at San Diego Comic-Con earlier this year. In it, Thor shares a glimpse of his (not entirely volunteer) sabbatical away from The Avengers during the events of Captain America: Civil War, living in a flat in Australia with his roommate, an office worker named Darryl.
Darryl, played by Daley Pearson, was the ideal match for Thor. He’s basically Marvel’s version of the Doctor Who companion, a regular working stiff who helps our otherworldly hero understand humanity’s ways. Plus, he’s really good at vacuuming. Well, according to Waititi, Darryl’s story might not be over just yet.
“I think you probably could see him again. There may be other little pieces of that thing that everyone saw that may just be a small part of a bigger thing,” he said.
While many signs would point to the mockumentary series continuing with another chapter, I think it would so much better to give Darryl a cameo in Thor: Ragnarok. Heck, let’s go one step further and bring him to the Nine Realms as Thor’s permanent roommate. Think about it, it would be perfect. Here’s just a few reasons why:
He can help keep Asgard tidy
Asgard gets into plenty of scrapes, and explosions are about as common as Loki’s smoldering stares. Thor’s too busy to keep the palace clean, so he clearly needs someone to keep things in line. As mentioned before, Darryl is really good at keeping his flat tidy, even when Thor leaves his hammer just lying around the middle of the living room.
Plus, Mark Ruffalo has said Hulk and Thor will be embarking on a “universal road movie” across the Nine Realms, so somebody needs to watch the place while they’re out joyriding.
He doesn’t ask a lot of questions
There’s no way Thor’s got any kind of rental history or credit score, yet Darryl took him in as a roommate anyway. That kind of loyalty means he’s going to look the other way every time Thor does something stupid.
He can teach Thor how to send a damn email
How much simpler would things have been if Thor knew how to actually call Tony Stark or Captain America? Who knows, he could’ve de-escalated the whole situation before the Civil War even took place. Well, judging by the content of his first email, probably not:
Subject: Greetings!
Dear Tony Stark,
How’s it going? I was just thinking fondly on some of the times we had.
Remember when you created a possessed robot who nearly destroyed
Hey – we saved planet!!!!!!!!!!
Steve AKA Captain America, were havi
Darryl clearly tried his best to send messages for Thor when requested, but he could use his skills as an office worker to actually bring Thor into the 21st century. Ravens don’t work anymore, Thor, they haven’t since Game of Thrones.
He respects Thor’s privacy
Heroes like Thor need their space, and Darryl clearly knows how to keep his distance… probably because he needs his alone time from the nosy Norse god too. Thor put a sign on his bedroom to keep Darryl out, and not once do we see Thor’s roommate rummaging around, even though there’s some pretty in-depth research about Infinity Stones in there.
Hell, Thor’s had a piece of meat rotting in there for weeks, and Darryl still keeps out.
He’s Team Thor
In the age of Team Cap or Team Iron, we need a guy who’s going to proudly proclaim he’s on Team Thor. Or at least quietly agree when Thor involuntarily drafts him.
Gunnar Optiks and Uvex computer glasses both promise to reduce eye strain, prevent computer-related headaches, and be comfortable to wear for long periods of time. But Uvex’s basic frames, while not even remotely as visually appealing as the Gunnar line, are a fraction of the cost. Let’s see who is victorious in this battle between beauty and the beast.
The Contenders
You’ve probably heard of Gunnar, or at least seen one of their high-octane, gamer-focused ads with slogans like “keep your balls moist.” Uvex, on the other hand, is relatively unknown unless your job requires a lot of PPE (personal protective equipment). Here’s a quick rundown of what they’re all about:
Gunnar Optiks: Founded by Jennifer Michelsen and Joe Croft in 2007, and named after Michelsen’s son. Gunnar makes blue light blocking glasses and sunglasses in a wide variety of styles, with their target market being gamers—with partners like Razer, MLG, and Blizzard—and anyone who wants to look good while they stare at a screen. Their glasses can cost anywhere from $70 to $250 (non-prescription only.) For this comparison, I tried the Gunnar Optiks SheaDog Full Rim Ergonomic frames ($74).
Uvex: Uvex (uv-ex = ultraviolet excluded) is based in Germany and has been around since the mid-50s. They make eyewear and protective products for sports and leisure activities, as well as PPE for the industrial sector. For this comparison, I tried the only set of computer glasses they’ve got: the Uvex Skyper Blue Light Blocking Computer Glasses ($9), which double as safety glasses that meet ANSI Z87+ and CSA Z94.3 standards.
This comparison is all about how cheap and functional computer glasses like Uvex Skypers hold up against the chic, heavy hitters like Gunnar SheaDogs. Assuming they both work, the Uvex Skypers seem like the obvious choice for those looking to save some coin, and the Gunnar SheaDogs are best for those who like to look good. I’ve been wearing both for the past couple weeks to find out for sure.
Gunnars Block a Lot of Blue Light, but Uvex Block More
Chart via Gunnar Optiks.
In order to judge the effectiveness of these battling blue blockers, you need to understand how they work. Computer glasses have an unmistakable orange or amber tint to their lenses, which filters out the harshest light, or “blue light.” Some also have an anti-reflective, UV blocking coating that reduces the amount of bright light passing through the lenses and into your eyes. The more bright, blue light that’s filtered out, the less your eyes have to strain to look at your display. Do they actually work? We’ve talked about it at length before, and for the most part, they do. In fact, there’s evidence that suggests blocking out blue light before bed even helps you get better sleep.
In the chart above, you can see that Gunnar’s blue blocking lenses filter out about 65% of blue light. That’s pretty good compared to some of the other lens coatings on the market. However, Uvex Skypers block out a whopping 98% of blue light. Just for an example, my router has some blue LED lights. When I wear the Gunnars, the blue lights are less bright and turn a greenish color. When I wear the Uvex Skypers, the blue lights disappear entirely. The Skypers’ high blue blocking made me the most comfortable during long stints at the computer.
There is a downside though: Everything is a warm, amber color. The Gunnars at least allow for some color variance. Gunnars also have a UV400 anti-reflective coating to help reduce glare, and the Uvex Skypers don’t. I personally can’t tell how much this helps, but as we’ve explained, people prefer AR coated lenses over non-coated ones. Even so, UV protection does not mean Gunnars are designed to be worn outdoors. You’ll still need a pair of sunglasses for that.
Both Are Comfortable to Wear, but Gunnars Look Less Silly
How wearing each pair makes you feel.
Uvex Skypers get the job done, there’s no doubt about it, but they look absolutely ridiculous. Part of that is because they’re also impact-rated safety glasses, and also because they cost about as much as a fast food combo meal. Despite how dorky you might look in them, though, they are super comfortable to wear. They have a molded-in bridge that rests comfortably on your nose, and the cushioned temples are adjustable to three different positions. The lenses also have an anti-fog coating, so you don’t ever have to worry about your nerd goggles getting steamed up.
I can’t speak for all Gunnar styles, but the SheaDogs are pretty comfy as well. They’re super lightweight (only 20 grams), so you barely feel them on your face, and the frame seems flexible enough to fit different face sizes. The temples of the frames are also extra thin and rest right along the side of your head, so wearing over-the-ear headphones works perfectly. You can wear headphones over the temples of Uvex Skypers as well, but things aren’t quite as airtight. If you like to use noise-cancelling, over-the-ear headphones like me, the fit could be better. And of course, the Gunnar SheaDogs biggest boon: they look like a stylish pair of glasses. There’s no denying that all of Gunnar’s frames look way better than what Uvex is offering. That said, I still felt kind of odd wearing them. For reference, I felt silly wearing the Gunnars in a coffee shop, but I couldn’t even bring myself to put on the Skypers. As Dr. John Dorian would ask, “Do those come with allergies and headgear?”
The Gunnar SheaDogs also have a slight magnification to them that’s supposed to further reduce eye strain, but would actually give me a headache after an hour or two. I had laser eye surgery earlier this year, however, so my experience may be different than yours. Many people seem to like the slight magnification. The Uvex Skypers don’t feature any magnification (that I could notice anyway).
Gunnar Offers Prescription Lenses, Uvex Skypers Can Fit Over Some Frames
Gunnars also have the advantage of offering prescription blue blocking lenses for most of their frame styles. They’re not cheap, though. For example, the SheaDog style frames would cost you somewhere between $230 and $350 for prescription lenses. And that cost would be in addition to whatever your normal frames or contacts cost you.
Still, Uvex Skypers are one size fits all with no possible way to get a prescription. If you need vision correction, you’ll have to wear contacts or your normal frames underneath them. The adjustable temples on the Skypers make it possible to fit most frames underneath (I could fit my old thick, hipster frames), but it’s not the most comfortable option. Not by a longshot.
Uvex Offers Way More Bang for Your Buck, Gunnar Is Better for Gaming
No. No it doesn’t.
My eyes feel at rest when I wear my Uvex Skypers. That’s not always the case with my Gunnars. They do a decent job of blocking light, and are plenty comfy, but the slight magnification and smaller field of vision I have with the SheaDog frames end up doing more harm than good in the long run. And bottom line, Uvex Skypers cost me a grand total of $9 with free Amazon Prime shipping—or about 12% of what the Gunnar SheaDogs cost me. That’s insane. I can’t believe I bought a pair of Gunnar’s first. Also, for the record, I wore my Skypers while I wrote this.
If you’re really worried about looking somewhat stylish at the office, and you have money to burn, then sure, go with a pair of Gunnars. They work fine. But, truth be told, you’re not going to look cool anyway. The orange tint of blue-blocking lenses are always going to make you look like a neo-maxi-zoom-dweeby. Life hack: stop trying to look cool, nobody cares. I say go for broke—or not broke rather—and pick up a cheap pair that get the job done.
That being said, the amber tint on Gunnar lenses are better for gaming if that’s the main reason you want computer glasses. They don’t block as much blue light and I wouldn’t recommend them for long days of working in front of a computer screen, but they do let you see more color variation on your display. Uvex lenses make it feel like you’re inside a bottle of orange soda, and that’s not ideal when you want to have adventures in beautiful, colorful worlds. However, even Gunnars will give an amber tint to everything (unless you go for the non-blue blocking crystalline line). And, despite Gunnar’s claims, their glasses do not “increase gaming precision and graphics,” so temper your expectations. At best, they’ll let you play your favorite games for a little longer before your eyes get dry and tired.
Nine years, that’s how long I have been a Flickr user for and I have always found the service to be fairly good value. I like the way Flickr looks and how it presents my photos, I like the fact that I can use the Flickr App to share and show my photos to people on my phone when I’m out and about, I like that I can join groups, and I like that I can post photos to these groups. Flickr isn’t perfect but I believe it’s still pretty good and it’s better than some other hosted photo sharing services.
I have never had any reason to dislike Flickr enough to want to find an alternative since I have never really taken my photography seriously. However I have plenty of reasons to stop using Flickr now that I take my photography more seriously and Flickr has been acquired by Verizon. And it seems I’m not the only one who thinks it’s time to give up on Flickr.
Flickr’s future has always been fairly bleak since it’s acquisition by Yahoo who subsequently killed Flickr and lost the internet. Flickr did get marginally better after Yahoo CEO Marissa Meyer announced that Yahoo was going to make Flickr awesome again. But the redesign was more of a diversion tactic to distract people from a bigger change: the change Yahoo made to it’s business model which, as Derek Powazek puts it in his PC Worldarticle about Flickrs relaunch, was to “overprice its ad-free and paid memberships in order to force more people to see more ads”. But why would you want to provide worse value for money to paying subscribers? There is one simple answer: money. Because selling ads and forcing people who don’t pay for add-free subscriptions to see those ads by inserting them in their photo streams would earn Yahoo more money than it would otherwise earn from people paying to not see the ads. Anyway that doesn’t matter now that Verizon has acquired Flickr. I really doubt that things are going to get any better for Flickr or it’s users. In fact I think that Verizon is going to be more detrimental to Flicker and it’s users than Yahoo ever was. I hope I am wrong and only time will tell but I’m not about to stick around to find out.
In the mean time I don’t expect anything to happen with Flickr until later in the new year when the acquisition is due to be completed. However anything could happen between now and then including the deal falling through which is possible but unlikely. Flickr really is being sold to Verizon.
Even once the deal is complete I don’t expect that Flickr will disappear any time soon or even at all. I believe that the Flickr service is just going to go from bad to worse in the hands of a corporation that can’t be trusted to do the right thing given it’s history of being a complete and total fucking cunt to it’s customers and employees.
Another reason I’m leaving Flicker to self host my own images is because I have more than a few issues with hosted services which boil down to freedom. I want full control of my own images, data, rights, and the freedom to administer my site in whichever way I see fit.
A little less than two years ago Yahoo decided that it was going to sell wall prints of photos made by it’s users that were licensed under the Creative Commons “commercial attribution” licence and that it was going to keep 100% of the profits made. While the move wasn’t illegal Yahoo still coped a lot of flack so much so that Yahoo decided to scrap the plan about two weeks later. While the whole controversy didn’t affect me, since I had decided to retain all rights to my photos, it did get me thinking: what happens if in the future Verizon decides to do something similar with Flickr that does affect me? I don’t want someone else using my images to make a profit, if anyone is going to make a profit using my photos it will be me. I’m the one that put the effort in to creating the photos ergo I should be the one to reap the rewards, including monetary rewards, for my efforts. Should Verizon try anything similar with Flickr I wouldn’t have many options. I could hope that the decision sparks enough outrage that they decide to reverse their decision, but I doubt it given how unscrupulous Verizon is. I could remove all of my photos and delete my account. Or I could self host my own photos.
If the service is free then you are the service. This is true of Flicker, as it is with almost every other hosted service provider. Even if Flickr doesn’t sell my images to make a profit they are still using my data to make a profit by placing ads amongst my photos which is generating them revenue. The ads weren’t a problem when I didn’t take my photography seriously, but now I’m taking my photography more seriously the ads are a problem. Not only do I take issue with Yahoo generating profit by placing ads amongst my photos I also have an issue with the way the ads look. At first glance some of the ads don’t even look like ads and could easily be mistaken for an uninspired photo. I don’t want someone to mistake an ad that uses a terrible photo as one of my photos. Flickr has the right to put ads where ever they want if they are providing a free service, and I have the right to stop using the service. Placing ads amongst my photos that are designed to not look like ads is just another nail in the coffin for Flickr.
Other issues I have with hosted services include having to abide by bullshit arbitrary and arcane rules or risk being censored like Facebook has done in the past to Australian-based birth photographer Angela Gallo, because apparently birth photography is a type of porn. Then there was that time when Instagram (who’s owned by Facebook) censored a photo by Petra Collins by deleting her account. Most recently Facebook censored Pulitzer Prize winning photographer Nick Ut’s “The Terror of War”, otherwise known and referred to less tastefully as ‘Napalm Girl’. Facebooks reason for censoring the photo? It contained nudity which is a violation of it’s community standards. The move shows that Facebook doesn’t care about photography or photographers and that it knows nothing about the image it censored. If Facebook did know that Nick Ut’s image “The Terror of War” is a historically important and iconic image that has changed history and changed modern warfare would they have still censored it? Facebook has since reversed it’s decision but only after coping a lot of deserved criticism for it’s incredibly poor judgement, including criticism from Norwegian prime minister Erna Solberg who herself was censored by Facebook. Those examples are just the tip of the iceberg, there are a lot moreexamples of social networks censoring people sometimes for no reason at all. I doubt any of my photos would ever be censored but I still don’t want to risk being subject to such bullshit censorship decisions and practices. I refuse to support and use any service provider that censors photographers.
Also of concern is the chance that any hosted service could be acquired, shut down (like what happened to many failed businesses and startup flops during the dot.com boom and subsequent bust), or both like what happened to Picturelife. What happens if I choose to use a hosted service that subsequently shuts down? Maybe I might get lucky like how Picturelife users got lucky when their photos were saved by SmugMug. However if I don’t get so lucky I’d have to find another hosting provider, re-upload, and organise my images. Depending on how many images I have shared that could be quite a lot of work, work that takes time, time that I would rather spend making photos or doing something more productive. Luck isn’t something I want to rely on. I want to be in total control of my photos.
Another issue I have with hosted service providers is that they can change the service at any time, they can add features, remove features, change pricing, and generally do what ever they want with their service. A hosted service provider might think they know what features I need and want but they really don’t. I don’t want a hosted service to decide what features I need or don’t need and to grant or revoke those features as they see fit like howInstagram is retiring the ‘photo maps’ feature from it’s service because hardly anyone uses it. Sure hardly anyone uses the ‘photo maps’ feature but some people still do use it. Sucks to be someone that uses the ‘photo maps’ feature. I also don’t want to pay for a service that has the features that I want just to have the service provider raise the price like whatNetflix has done in the past. Getting a bunch of people hooked on something then increasing the price is a dirty and indefensible tactic. If the web host I use to host my own site increases it’s prices or removes a feature that I need and use then I’ll simply find a better value hosting service or a hosting service that offers the features that I need. It’s easier to migrate a web site from one host to another than it is to find another hosted service to share my images.
Security is another reason I would rather host my own images. I don’t want to risk my security with a hosted service provider. A large service provider is an attractive target for hackers, the more people that use the service the more attractive it is to hackers. Hacks happen every day and a lot of companies won’t even tell you if they have been hacked which just compounds the problem. If a service I use gets hacked and that service provider doesn’t inform me that it was hacked then I can’t change my password to secure my account from people who would use it for nefarious purposes. Security is always an afterthought for any large service provider, they don’t care as much about security as they do about making money.
Self hosting doesn’t come without it’s own set of risks and challenges, and it isn’t going to eliminate every problem or risk I face, whether it’s real or perceived, with using a hosted service but it at least greatly reduces those problems and risks. It also gives me more freedom and control over my creative vision.
Sure there are advantages to using a hosted photo service, like not having to worry about the security and upkeep of a web site, or worrying about your site slowing down, crashing, or exceeding your allocated bandwidth (unless you have unlimited bandwidth) should a photo on your site happen to go viral or your site receives an unusually large amount of traffic for whatever reason. But for myself the disadvantages of using a hosted service provider far outweigh any advantages they provide.
What it comes down to is at the end of the day a service provider is there to make money, and as long as it makes money then it really doesn’t care about it’s users. Yahoo proved this when it acquired Flicker back in 2005 and I would be surprised if Verizon doesn’t prove me right. The only person that really cares about my photography is myself, only I will act in my own best interest not some service provider who is out to make money at any cost.
And that is why I have chosen to stop using Flickr in favour of self hosting my own photos.
Good bye Flickr and good luck, you will need it, with your new corporate overlords.
About The Author
James Ingles, (Jingles for short), is a street photographer based in Melbourne, Australia. You can see more of his work on his site and get in touch via Ello, Pinterest, or YouTube. You can also hit him up on Patreon. This article was also published here and shared with permission.
Primitive Technology built a roofed shed so he can store firewood and do other fire-related projects out of the rain. It took him a week to gather the timber and turn them into a frame, three days to make and dry a kiln, and almost a day to make the tiles.