> "I was presented with information that caused me to doubt the veracity of 2 of the 5 reactions in the video [...] It appears (and I've since confirmed) in these two cases, the 'thieves' were actually acquaintances of the person helping me."
It wasn't faked. The incidents where the pickups happened at his place were real. However he paid people to place it on their doorstep and those people had an accomplice pick it up.
Faked and discovered to include fake reactions that were then removed, are different situations. Mark has been producing high quality educational and entertaining videos that encourage kids to get into science. I have personally watched kids go nuts over his Fluidized air bed experiments, and convince their parents to try it out. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My4RA5I0FKs
It sucks there was fake content in there, but the device was real and the fake actions removed.
I'm a bit more miffed that he didn't make it very clear he didn't create the device. I enjoyed watching the video of the guy who did, but I only got to watch that video because somebody in the last HN thread recommended it.
He was caught using two fake reactions, and he owned up to those. But we can’t say if the others are real or not with any certainty. Personally, I thought the parking garage reaction looked like bad acting as soon as I saw it, so I’m still skeptical.
He also initially claimed the package was placed in Illinois, but he edited the video after people called him out on it.
And he presents the device as something he engineered himself, only briefly mentioning that someone helped him. Another video shows that the other guy, Sean Hodgins, actually built it (find the link in jtokoph's comment below).
So who really knows? It wouldn’t be the first time something on the Internet was staged.
Its disappointing that Sean is getting absolutely zero credit. Mark Rober just keeps saying “I built”. There’s a link in the description but just suggests Sean has more build details.
He could have at least brought Sean into the original video for some credit. Who knows, maybe this was the deal and Mark is giving Sean all of the ad revenue in exchange for the views/subs/credit...shrug
I guess "ample" is a typo? Also this isn't a coincidence. This has been posted because someone saw that video and wondered what exactly glitter is. I also looked it up after watching that video.
I was wondering about that too: the safety considering how secretive manufacturers were.
Intuitively, I'd think the particles are just too large to be a considerable risk. The photo of the man wearing a mask is because they're around it all day every day (+ OSHA I'm sure), but I'm sure people have though the same thing about asbestos or pink fibreglass insulation.
I thought the answer was right in the article: Automotive paint. They've got a lot of surface area to cover, and car companies want their vehicles to shine.
Makes sense and could be it, but somewhere in that reddit thread there's a car paint guy who claims they use pure aluminium particles and not just aluminium painter polymer.
I don't think automotive manufacturers would be worried about people knowing that their shiny paint contains glitter. Also, there are a lot of cars in the world, but most just get painted once.
My first guess would be a consumable. Maybe food-related, where we don't expect (or want) glitter. The "toothpaste" guess sounds like it's on the right track. "Fast food" wouldn't entirely surprise me, either.
It's still probably under NDA and the glitter suppliers are contractually forbidden from revealing their customers. It'd be up to the customer to reveal it.
I thought the answer was given in the article as Revlon. Nail polish, eyeshadow, lipstick, blush... all can contain micro glitter particles. I wonder, what is the total surface area painted by cosmetics each year?
Probably, no. My guess is it contains small metal particles. But if I wanted to determine that, I wouldn’t look at a photo. I would read the ingredients.
A lot of cosmetics straight up contain phthalates as an intentionally added ingredient.
I thought that too but I think that line was just worded awkwardly. It was meant as a change of topic to end the writer's insistence.
For reference:
> I asked if she would tell me off the record. She would not. I asked if she would tell me off the record after this piece was published. She would not. I told her I couldn’t die without knowing. She guided me to the automotive grade pigments.
Currency is my favorite theory from this (and would explain the extreme secrecy). Take a look inside your wallet, it's probably a little glittery.
(Related: For those who enjoyed the photos in this article, make sure to follow the photographer's Instagram, it's incredible. https://www.instagram.com/chrismaggio/)
> Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm.
> Figure 1. Radio frequency chaff cartridges (Air Force version RR-188/AL, top; Navy version RR-144/AL, bottom) and chaff fibers (right). Fibers of different lengths can be seen in the Navy operational version (clear cylinder). These lengths correspond to the frequency modes of the radar spectrum
I'm guessing floor tiles/fake stone benchtops. Huge market that would require a lot of glitter and it's not something you initially think would contain glitter. The expensive fake stone benchtops would feel "cheaper" if you knew that it was just glitter making them look good.
I was thinking asphalt and concrete - it seems that New York uses a specific percentage of mica flakes in their sidewalks, but I wouldn’t be surprised to find that roadways would use something to aid reflectivity as well.
I looked road markings up earlier because it was also my first guess, but everything I've seen indicates they just use plain glass microspheres in reflective paint and such.
For the roads themselves, more reflective might be a bad thing anywhere that sees heavy snowfall. Less sunlight absorbed=colder roads=more snow buildup and many other related problems.
None of these uses would need to be kept secret though.
Yeah, the microspheres have the property of being very retroreflective (shine headlamp light directly back toward a driver efficiently) and so get used in lots of automotive visibility scenarios.
The makers of "Passion Dust" are pretty upfront about the benefits of putting "magically delicious" glitter in your vagina, so it's probably not them. But I wonder what flavoring they're using?
>Passion Dust is billed as an "adult novelty item" and its sole purpose is to "add a sparkle and flavor to your natural vaginal fluids to make the experience of lovemaking that much more fun and enjoyable for you and your partner." Um, ok. The flavor is apparently "sweet like candy but not overly sweet," the website says, just enough to make your partner think that your unicorn vagina is "what all vaginas are supposed to look, feel and taste like; soft, sweet and magical!"
"When he looks down at his 'magic stick' and sees it shining like it's 'God's gift'. It will be weird, but he won't be mad!...He'll either be really impressed with himself or really impressed by you! You can tell him or don't."
(There is no item of "futuristic clothing" that pins a piece of visual SF to a particular point in history in the 1960s quite like this material. Especially when used for miniskirts.)
This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum go from being not on the film to being on the film without at least some Scotch tape? “They evaporate aluminum and deposit it on it,” said Mr. Shetty. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum be evaporated? “It’s a very, very thin layer. They put it in a vacuum chamber, then evaporate the aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. “With heat,” his son added. “What are they evaporating out of it?” I asked. “Aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.
What's worse, the lack of understanding of high school science among journalists (Boyle's law and elements changing state are very basic chemistry) or the the lack of communication skills among scientists?
Is this a lack of understanding, or a narrative written with a supposed lack of understanding to effectively communicate to a general audience? The type of person reading this is probably not trying to relive a high school science class.
Evaporating metals for surface deposition is a well-known materials technique, but I guess it's mostly us nerds who care. Like, I literally go to TAP Plastic and stare at the various aluminized mylars and think about maker projects that could use it, but I know I'm a rarity. That said most people who took photos of the solar eclipse this year were using aluminized mylar filters.
Glitter can apparently be used to help solve crimes, according to Wikipedia's "glitter" article [1]:
> Due to its unique characteristics, glitter has also proven to be useful forensic evidence. Because of the tens of thousands of different commercial glitters, identical glitter particles can be compelling evidence that a suspect has been at a crime scene.
It links to this review article on glitter from a forensic point of view [2].
I'm curious what the answer to the title is but "aluminum metalized polyethylene terephthalate" doesn't exactly help me. Aluminium, okay, but what is the rest? The article goes on and on and on, rambling about how everyone likes it just like we once hunted for honey, what company it originated at, what kind of word it even is... thousands of words for a couple of interesting bits of information. This either needs a summary or some more concise writing.
i felt like the article describes a whole bunch of the details – e.g. covering the plastic with vaporized aluminum (i believe this is what "aluminum-metalized polyethylene terephthalate" means); making plastic iridescent by etching microscopic patterns into the plastic and exploiting the way light refracts off of those; maybe others that i can't remember now.
but to me that wasn't as interesting as the part where the glitter industry turned out to be weirdly secretive about the whole process.
Think "potato chip bag" (the kind that's shiny on the inside). It's a thin layer of metal sandwiched between two layers of mylar. The aluminum would be prone to tearing by itself, and the mylar would let too much oxygen through, thus spoiling the potato chips.
If you enjoyed that article, you might appreciate an episode of Forensic Files titled "All That Glitters is Gold" where an crime was solved by forensic analysis of glitter.
Apparently, glitter is not as generic as one might think! And, there are glitter collectors.
Mildly different, but still a pthalate. Guilty until proven innocent when it comes to endocrine disrupters imho.
Commentary published in Environmental Health Perspectives in April 2010 suggested that PET might yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use and recommended research on this topic.[26]
"Previously"? Mica powder is still used in a lot of glitter products. For example, glitter make-up is almost always made with mica powder. 3D printing filament with "glitter flake" is mica powder.
And not because its particularly useful, but as a method to funnel money from taxpayers into a few glitter companies. They play along and everyone makes money.
This passes the- "Why is it a Secret", "Why it can be a secret", and "Why they buy so much".
A highly effective tactical weapon in our long standing battle against the sea and everything that lives there. That damn sea, one of our oldest enemies and yet it still persists. We'll get the better of it yet though, the big wet bastard. Glitter production will help enormously and I am delighted to say it has almost doubled since our recent glitter marketing through social media and that article in the New York Times.
I wouldn't be too surprised to find out the fast food industry uses some form of glitter to make things look tasty. If you imagine that for example most burgers are usually precooked frozen meat that's then reheated, getting it to look like freshly made can be quite a challenge.
There are edible types of plastic and having it melt once on the food product during reheating might be beneficial. I'm not saying this as a conspiracy theory or anything of the like, but rather pointing out that this could very well be one application.
It's referring to this, from earlier in the article:
> A December 1942 article in The Times — possibly the first mention in this newspaper of the stuff — advised New York City residents that pitchers of evergreen boughs, placed in their windows for the winter holidays, would offer “additional scintillation” if “sprinkled with dime-store ‘glitter’ or mica.” The pitchers were to replace Christmas candles, which the wartime Army had banned after sunset — along with neon signs in Times Square and the light from the Statue of Liberty’s torch — after determining that the nighttime glow threw offshore Allied vessels into silhouette, transforming them into floating U-boat targets.
> Metalization, he explained, is the process by which aluminum is deposited on both sides of the film. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum go from being not on the film to being on the film without at least some Scotch tape? “They evaporate aluminum and deposit it on it,” said Mr. Shetty. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum be evaporated? “It’s a very, very thin layer. They put it in a vacuum chamber, then evaporate the aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. “With heat,” his son added. “What are they evaporating out of it?” I asked. “Aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.
Judging from this thread and all of the guesses re: the mystery industry that uses glitter perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement. How can we easily avoid something when we aren't aware of all the ways it's used?
116 comments
[ 2.4 ms ] story [ 140 ms ] threadhttps://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1075767629703372800
It sucks there was fake content in there, but the device was real and the fake actions removed.
Until I saw this subthread, I had no clue that he didn't design and build it. I don't recall any reference, even to a partner.
Here's the full explanation: https://twitter.com/MarkRober/status/1075767629703372800
He also initially claimed the package was placed in Illinois, but he edited the video after people called him out on it.
And he presents the device as something he engineered himself, only briefly mentioning that someone helped him. Another video shows that the other guy, Sean Hodgins, actually built it (find the link in jtokoph's comment below).
So who really knows? It wouldn’t be the first time something on the Internet was staged.
Its disappointing that Sean is getting absolutely zero credit. Mark Rober just keeps saying “I built”. There’s a link in the description but just suggests Sean has more build details.
He could have at least brought Sean into the original video for some credit. Who knows, maybe this was the deal and Mark is giving Sean all of the ad revenue in exchange for the views/subs/credit...shrug
He clearly mentions Sean and even includes a couple of frames in the video of Sean working on the device's PCB.
Start here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxhDk-hwuo&t=70
You probably want to say something like "What an apt time.." or "What a fitting time..."
Intuitively, I'd think the particles are just too large to be a considerable risk. The photo of the man wearing a mask is because they're around it all day every day (+ OSHA I'm sure), but I'm sure people have though the same thing about asbestos or pink fibreglass insulation.
No conclusive results yet, but I believe Reddit will deliver.
My first guess would be a consumable. Maybe food-related, where we don't expect (or want) glitter. The "toothpaste" guess sounds like it's on the right track. "Fast food" wouldn't entirely surprise me, either.
A lot of cosmetics straight up contain phthalates as an intentionally added ingredient.
For reference:
> I asked if she would tell me off the record. She would not. I asked if she would tell me off the record after this piece was published. She would not. I told her I couldn’t die without knowing. She guided me to the automotive grade pigments.
If not to that sub, then the peeps over at /r/rbi and /r/whatisthisthing has achieved incredible findings
(Related: For those who enjoyed the photos in this article, make sure to follow the photographer's Instagram, it's incredible. https://www.instagram.com/chrismaggio/)
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b0/Usnchaff...
Yup, wiki says it can be metallized plastic: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)
http://www.agriculturedefensecoalition.org/sites/default/fil...
> Chaff consists of aluminum-coated glass fibers (also referred to as dipoles) ranging in lengths from 0.8 to 0.75 cm.
> Figure 1. Radio frequency chaff cartridges (Air Force version RR-188/AL, top; Navy version RR-144/AL, bottom) and chaff fibers (right). Fibers of different lengths can be seen in the Navy operational version (clear cylinder). These lengths correspond to the frequency modes of the radar spectrum
I'm sure knowing that glitter is used in a diamond ring would turn a lot of people away.
https://old.reddit.com/r/UnresolvedMysteries/comments/a8hrk0...
>defense department would be extremely secretive
>And they very much wouldn't care about the environmental impact
>A few hundred tons of glitter is significantly less bad than thousands of tons of agent orange and dioxin.
>And depleted uranium
I guess it's possible chaff is made by Glitterex.
It's a toxic heavy metal, but it doesn't present any serious radioactivity danger.
For the roads themselves, more reflective might be a bad thing anywhere that sees heavy snowfall. Less sunlight absorbed=colder roads=more snow buildup and many other related problems.
None of these uses would need to be kept secret though.
"metallized glass fibre(fiber) or plastic" [1]
Metallized pastic sounding a lot like... glitter.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaff_(countermeasure)
https://www.self.com/story/do-not-put-glitter-in-your-vagina
>Passion Dust is billed as an "adult novelty item" and its sole purpose is to "add a sparkle and flavor to your natural vaginal fluids to make the experience of lovemaking that much more fun and enjoyable for you and your partner." Um, ok. The flavor is apparently "sweet like candy but not overly sweet," the website says, just enough to make your partner think that your unicorn vagina is "what all vaginas are supposed to look, feel and taste like; soft, sweet and magical!"
https://www.prettywomaninc.com/q-a
"The sparkling effect can last for up to 5 days."
"When he looks down at his 'magic stick' and sees it shining like it's 'God's gift'. It will be weird, but he won't be mad!...He'll either be really impressed with himself or really impressed by you! You can tell him or don't."
But all the more horrifying in light of talc conferring asbestos into cavities in ways that provoke cervical cancer.
I had to check this wasn't Dave Barry writing.
Anyway, this seems to have genuinely been a space age invetion, aluminised mylar: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BoPET
(There is no item of "futuristic clothing" that pins a piece of visual SF to a particular point in history in the 1960s quite like this material. Especially when used for miniskirts.)
What's worse, the lack of understanding of high school science among journalists (Boyle's law and elements changing state are very basic chemistry) or the the lack of communication skills among scientists?
> Due to its unique characteristics, glitter has also proven to be useful forensic evidence. Because of the tens of thousands of different commercial glitters, identical glitter particles can be compelling evidence that a suspect has been at a crime scene.
It links to this review article on glitter from a forensic point of view [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glitter
[2] https://projects.nfstc.org/trace/docs/final/Blackledge_Glitt...
but to me that wasn't as interesting as the part where the glitter industry turned out to be weirdly secretive about the whole process.
* metalized - take a non metal material and cover it in metal
* polyethylene terephthalate - this is simply PET plastic, also called Polyester, and is used to make fabric and bottles.
Apparently, glitter is not as generic as one might think! And, there are glitter collectors.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phthalate#Endocrine_disruption
Commentary published in Environmental Health Perspectives in April 2010 suggested that PET might yield endocrine disruptors under conditions of common use and recommended research on this topic.[26]
The US Military
And not because its particularly useful, but as a method to funnel money from taxpayers into a few glitter companies. They play along and everyone makes money.
This passes the- "Why is it a Secret", "Why it can be a secret", and "Why they buy so much".
Something simple like chaff could have all sorts of interesting properties depending on shape, size, method of manufacturing, etc.
They have a legitimate reason to buy it. Why not cronyism at the same time?
This would explain the industry leading quantities as well.
edit - Some people actually like the sea and dare to speak against our mighty and patriotic glitter industry - https://news.nationalgeographic.com/2017/11/glitter-plastics...
Ashley-Amber - How do you think they make glitter?
Brittany - Hmm. I don't think we've learned that yet in science.
Salesman - Can I help you, ladies?
Ashley-Amber - Yes. How do they make glitter?
Salesman - Why, they capture a moonbeam and crumble it up into tiny little specks of magic.
Ashley-Amber (to Brittany) - Then we can save a bunch of money by doing it ourselves.
https://www.thinkgeek.com/product/e5a7/
Well that came out of nowhere.
> A December 1942 article in The Times — possibly the first mention in this newspaper of the stuff — advised New York City residents that pitchers of evergreen boughs, placed in their windows for the winter holidays, would offer “additional scintillation” if “sprinkled with dime-store ‘glitter’ or mica.” The pitchers were to replace Christmas candles, which the wartime Army had banned after sunset — along with neon signs in Times Square and the light from the Statue of Liberty’s torch — after determining that the nighttime glow threw offshore Allied vessels into silhouette, transforming them into floating U-boat targets.
Glitter is plastic and aluminum. You could just burn those separately if that's what you wanted. What's the purpose in making them into glitter first?
And in any case they wouldn't turn the smoke white. And there are better ways to get rid of black smoke (easier is add some air into the fire).
Who alleges this?
> Metalization, he explained, is the process by which aluminum is deposited on both sides of the film. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum go from being not on the film to being on the film without at least some Scotch tape? “They evaporate aluminum and deposit it on it,” said Mr. Shetty. This made sense in theory, but how could aluminum be evaporated? “It’s a very, very thin layer. They put it in a vacuum chamber, then evaporate the aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. “With heat,” his son added. “What are they evaporating out of it?” I asked. “Aluminum,” said Mr. Shetty. I have no idea how humans figured out how to do that, or why it occurred to them to even try, but it sounds expensive.
Judging from this thread and all of the guesses re: the mystery industry that uses glitter perhaps that's a bit of an overstatement. How can we easily avoid something when we aren't aware of all the ways it's used?