“Ghost shark” captured on camera for the first time | Hacker News Reader

“Ghost shark” captured on camera for the first time

chicagotribune.com

67 pointswglb25 comments

Too bad there are more comments about the format of the discovery, than the actual discovery.

I gathered that this is not actually the first time a ghost shark was caught on camera, but the first time it was filmed in its natural habitat. It was seen alive in California and Hawaii in 2011 [0]. There are other ghost shark photos, such as this one (date unknown, file uploaded July 2016) [1]. Video has even existed, such as this one from May 2016 [2]. Maybe this is the first filming of a live Hydrolagus trolli species? What actually happened for the "first time" here?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pointy-nosed_blue_chimaera

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chimaera#/media/File:Deep_sea_...

[2] http://www.cnn.com/videos/world/2016/05/18/noaa-marianas-tre...

Per National Geographic: "The video is the first time the pointy-nosed blue chimaera [Hydrolagus trolli species] has been seen alive in its natural habitat." [0]

[0] http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/12/pointy-nosed-blue...

Another interesting link: perhaps this creature is now dead because of the format of the discovery

https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2n1yd4/how_is_i...

> I'm a marine biologist and one of my former professors actually did all his research on deep sea eyes, mainly in invertebrates. I asked him about it once, about whether or not it was harmful to have the submersibles blasting white light around everywhere, and his answer was "yep, most of those animals are now blind and will likely die." Research subs usually use red light when in the deep sea since 99.8% of animals can't see it (red is the first wavelength filtered out in seawater so there is no red light at depth. Almost all deep sea organisms don't even have photoreceptors to see it) and it's not harmful. The white lights are mostly used for filming purposes. But yeah, they absolutely are being blinded most of the time.

So, that could be the reason for the way this animal behaves (in my amateur opinion a bit aimless), too?

Looks more curious than afraid. Investigating the camera probably. If feeling pain would swim away.

A healthy fish also; not parasites at sight.

If you feel better, this fishes can probably survive even being blind. Sharks have complex and sophisticated senses related with smell, touch and taste, and can also sense electric fields emited by preys (or machines)

> this is not actually the first time a ghost shark was caught on camera

Nope, they have been filmed before

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=itDgL7nq8Kc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SxuAh8hXnS4

Is just that is a rare species of Chimaeridae

the link provided by thefalcon: http://www.mbari.org/the-pointy-nosed-blue-chimaera-really-g...

has a really well done and informative video at the bottom!

Strangely enough what appears to be the same article but published on WashPo directly [1] plays fine with uBlock on.

[1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/speaking-of-science/wp/2...

The claim that is the first time filmed seems very strange to me. Could be true. I don't know, but chimaera are relatively common and relatively well known species for its habitat. I had one (dead) in a jar for several years in fact. On the other hand, is true that are related with sharks, but is a totally different kind of animal.

[ObOfftopic]

Hmm. Site blacklists me from using site till I turn off adblocker.

I view that as "Program that refuses to run until I turn off Antivirus". Both avenues are ways for a machine to become infected.

Adblockers prevent a known avenue of attack: js based 0-days and drive-by attacks.

I agree, sites that enforce disabling add block should not be allowed to be posted here.

I am really hoping that companies are measuring the bounce rate for these types of tactics.

When I see one of these I could become a subscriber and log in, I could whitelist the site's advertisements, or I could open Web Inspector and disable the popup layer manually, but I don't do anything of these things. I acknowledge its existence and hit the back button.

I just sent a LinkedIn email (yeah, spammy horrendous-ness all of its own, but I digress) to Malcolm CasSelle, the CTO of Tronc, the owner of the Chicago Tribune. This is the contents.

_________________

I'm [kefka], a systems engineer. I regularly read Hacker News, https://news.ycombinator.com . A user linked to a story on your property, ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13206294 ) which goes to ( http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/ct-ghost-shar... ).

It's the response that your website gives me when I try to go to said link: " Advertising revenue helps support our journalism To read today's stories, please turn off your ad blocker or subscribe"

I get that your company needs to make money, which I greatly understand and get. However, asking me to quit my adblocker or otherwise disable it is unconscionable. Advertisement servers have been one of root ways drive-by attacks are dome on users, combined with Javascript attack ads that end up with millions hacked. Forbes themselves, with a day of implementing the same Adblock-shaming techniques ended up being the site that infected 3 million with DDOS clients.

I am not against subscriptions, or static advertisements. You have to make money as well. But there's ways to run effective advertisements without alienating users.

But, if a program demanded you to disable your antivirus, would you? (That's the kind of situation I'm at).

Sincerely, [Kefka]

> Advertisement servers have been one of root ways drive-by attacks are dome on users

I hope this isn't a copy-paste of what you actually wrote.

As if that guy had any clue what are "javascript" "drive by" or "DDoS".

Might as well have sent an email in chinese.

This one also sets the body to `overflow: hidden` and has a scroll event listener that tries to prevent scrolling the document. At which point I bounced.

Why would they care if you bounce if you aren't paying? My guess is that the possibility that you might share it with others is low enough that it is probably better for them if you don't get value from the site if they don't get value from you.

Try uBlock Origin

yep, uBlock Origin works for me too in this site

I think this is the source article: http://www.mbari.org/the-pointy-nosed-blue-chimaera-really-g...

For those wishing to disable this particular "feature", the script which activates this functionality is:

http://www.tribdss.com/meter/ctcngux.min.js

Filtering that script in uBlock Origin allows the page to function as normal.

Or program not letting you use it until you install valid, paid license?

Sort of related: I have a Nexus 5x and run the latest Android. I will no longer install and use apps that are ad supported because I've twice gotten malware that opens misc apps (Google Authenticator was one, and that scared the shit out of me).

It's clear that ad networks cannot be trusted.

I'm seriously considering rooting again and installing Xposed so I can block ads, but maintain root is such a PITA I'll probably just never use ad-supported apps again.

As an example, look at the app reviews for QuizUp (a recently recommended app).[1]

[1] https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.quizup.cor...

That shark is now blind and will most likely die from starvation. what a way to appreciate the diversity of life...

https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.reddit.com/r/askscience/com...

Reply on news.ycombinator.com