Zuckerberg's Side of 'The Social Network' 217
alkasem sent in a video clip where Mark Zuckerberg, speaking at Y-Combinator, tells
his side of The Social Network. He says [the movie-makers] "can't wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things." I did really like that a monologue describing Zuckerberg building his first website was shockingly technically accurate — they mention tools, tasks and languages, and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.
Zuckerberg is a douche (Score:3, Insightful)
Enough said.
Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
He didn't build it because he "likes building things". He built it because he wanted to make money. Facebook is designed from the ground up to do just that - violate your privacy and make the company money in the process.
To be fair, his initial motivation wasn't money but to make something that let him share all the nude pictures of the girls at college.
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
You couldn't get a more biased source.
Re: (Score:2)
I had to read your sentence four or five times before I could understand it.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
You couldn't get a more biased source.
You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
You must be new here..... You post a summary on Slashdot, you get 30 more biased sources within 30 min.
The worst part is that it is 30 biased and uninformed sources. At least Zuckerberg knows whether what he is saying is the truth or not. All the people here who post definitively that he was only in it to make money are just giving their gut feeling and they cannot possibly be basing it on fact. There is a 50% chance that they might be right, but they really can't say for sure.
It doesn't stop them from being modded as Insightful though.
Re: (Score:2)
Thanks, folks!
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
The facts we know are that Zuckerberg has made his fortune on selling Facebook users up the marketing river. That speaks to his character, and many people will conclude from his actions--not without some justification--that he lacks credibility in matters of truth.
I realise it may come as a shock to some, but just because you've done nothing legally wrong doesn't mean people will be inclined to think you're very trustworthy. PR will only take you so (very) far before people start connecting the dots.
Re: (Score:2)
Here's the thing about making lots of money...you don't do it accidentally. It is impossible to do so without a lot of drive, a lot of work, and a lot of moral flexibility. Hell, even if you win the lottery, it turns out 80% of lottery winners end up filing for bankruptcy
I disagree that you can't do it accidentally. You still can't discount the idea that he made the system just for use by his fellow Harvard students, and only once it became popular did he realise that he might have stumbled onto a winner. None of us other than the people involved at the time can really say for sure.
But I have no argument with you when you say he is a fucker!
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.
Your simply dismissing somebody because he has a potential bias and, from the sounds of your post, runs a website you don't like isn't exactly the smartest thing in t
Re: (Score:2)
He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something. It's up to the readers to decide if they prefer first-hand information from a biased source or second-hand information, guesses and suppositions from other, potentially also biased sources, or better yet, a mix of both.
People rewrite their own history all the time. Either consciously or though some rationalization process.
As the old saying goes there is what people said happened and then what really happened. Add to that now what Hollywood said happened.
Re: (Score:2)
He is a biased source, yes. He's also the only source capable of 100% knowing the truth of why he decided to do something.
That's actually not true. Observe...
movie-makers “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”
So it follows that Zuckerberg is claiming that he built Facebook because he likes building things. Okay. So what has he built since? He likes building things, so the profit, the fame, the success, etc, isn't driving him, it's the building of things. Reminds me of Leonardo da Vinci. The difference, though, is that da Vinci's notebook was filled with things he started and never completed. He loved working for the work, it would seem. Where's this in Zuckerberg's beh
Re: (Score:2)
If you believe what the multi-billion dollar worth guy who owns the company which is making cash hand-over-fist while violating your privacy says about the roots of the website. You couldn't get a more biased source.
Sure you could just go to a news site discussion forum filled with underachieving idealistic tech people who are jealous of the billionaire's success with a seemingly pointless piece of software that violates some of their core principles.
Re: (Score:2)
That sounds like a plan to make money as well. do a search for "nude pictures of girls"... I hear it's a real cash cow.
Re: (Score:2)
He built it because he wanted to make money.
Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.
So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't mind that people make companies to make money. I just find it sad that he has to get up and lie about his own motivations. He's attempting to put a positive spin on his motivations when all his recent actions suggest just the opposite.
I don't think that points the original motivation to be a lie, focuses change all the time, he may very well have been motivated differently at first and became motivated by money and evolve into a corporate douchebag over time.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I guess that I was thinking more on the likes of Jon Postel: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jon_Postel [wikipedia.org]
But no one on Slashdot is old enough to know who he was :-)
Re: (Score:2)
Take a look at the current Slashdot poll: most folks would like to travel back in time to invest in something.
So Zuckerberg has good company, even among Slashdot folks. Pretty sad, actually.
Yeah, but you don't see them spewing shit like Zuckerberg, in front of a camera, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
There is nothing wrong with wanting to make money and that desire isn't exclusive with wanting to build things. My problem with Zuckerberg is that in addition to those desires he has had nearly complete disrespect for Facebook users and their prerogative to make decisions about the distribution of their private information.
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Insightful)
I completely agree.
First, some claim Zuckerberg didn’t build Facebook. Zuckerberg was actually hired by fellow Harvard undergraduates to build a website similar to Facebook. The more accurate accusation as that he stole the idea of Facebook. All articles on the inception of the website clearly state that Zuckerberg wrote the code himself. No one is going to claim that Zuckerberg was the next Don Knuth, Facebook was mainly hacked together using PHP over a couple of nights.
Second, some claim Zuckerberg is just in it for the money. If that were true he could have sold out a LONG time ago for around $1 billion. I think the subtext about building things just because you like to build things is that Zuckerberg is building his company not just for the money. I seriously doubt most of the posters on Slashdot, at the age of 22 would not have taken $1billion for a side project they worked on at school. It takes a special kind of person to have that resolve. Those are the people we should venerate in this country not vilify.
Third, some claim Zuckerberg is a douche. This is largely irrelevant. Most of us geeks aren’t the nicest guys in the world, let’s be real. Borderline Asperger’s/autism is rampant as is narcissism and a complete lack of humility. Find me a geek without a major personality flaw and you haven’t found a geek.
Moreover, I find it ironic that men like Bill Gates and Zuckerberg are constantly shat on here, but Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ. If you read about the early history of Apple, you could make perfect parallels between the criticisms leveled at Zuckerberg and Jobs’s rise and fall and rise. Steve Jobs is megalomaniac clearly demonstrated sociopathic tendencies, has questionable tech credentials and could not give two shits about his customers’ opinions. And Apple is all the better for it.
So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much? I think it is largely a generational divide. Many of you come from the gold old days of tech (command lines, walking five miles in the snow to get your code to compile, etc) and don’t really understand that just because something wasn’t challenging in a technical sense it is still HUGELY useful to millions of people. I was basically part of the first generation to use Facebook in college. It has been a great service for keeping track of friends from high school and family on the other side of the country/world. I can share pictures, stories, articles, links, lolcats and memories on one unified platform. The interface has always been super user friendly and clean. For the vast majority of college students (and increasingly everyone else) Facebook is as essential and important as Wikipedia or YouTube (the latter’s founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you). So let’s chill with the hating on Zuckerberg’s success. It’s all just a bit tacky and hypocritical.
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Interesting)
So why does /. hate Zuckerberg so much?
Perhaps because the boy doesn't believe that privacy is a good thing? He is on the record as saying that anyone who wants privacy must be unethical. He uses Facebook to try to undermine the very concept of privacy in our society, and he is doing that at a time when the 4th amendment is being attacked by the government.
Or maybe we were all perfectly content with communicating with our friends and families using interoperable systems that are not designed to lock us in. Everything about Facebook is designed like the Hotel California, and Zuckerberg knows that but refuses to make any meaningful changes.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook also has a very accessible API for grabbing information. You are absolutely not locked in--the data is all there for you to access and download, if you want it. If you want to get off of Facebook, use API calls to grab everything, or use the "download profile" option, and move your shit elsewhere.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Why should we venerate him because he didn't sold? I'd understand if he hadn't sold to prevent an "evil company" from taking over, but Facebook is already data mining people's private data. Selling wouldn't make it worse.
Re: (Score:2)
Steve Jobs is lauded as the second coming of Christ.
ROFL, wow... you *really* don't spend a lot of time around here, do you?
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook came out just a short while after I finished college. Back when registrations were restricted to .edu addresses, there was no check for "@alumni.xxxxxx.edu" so I got in early.
Does anyone remember Friendster? Shortly before Facebook and MySpace there was a thing called Friendster t
Re: (Score:2)
the latter's founders sold out for around $165million to Google, I should remind you
You're missing a zero at the end there.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'd guess the reasons why people hate Zuckerberg here so much, are indeed due to an age difference, and experience. The current generation who grew up
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe if
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:4, Interesting)
it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool
Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?
The way I see things, he saw how profitable social networking websites were becoming, and thought he would give it a shot. I doubt he knew that it would become so popular, but he certainly knew the concept was popular (or should I say, the people who thought up ConnectU saw the concept was popular, then Zuckerberg ran with the idea).
Re: (Score:2)
You're kidding, right? If you're the #1 gorilla, who cares about interoperability? The only thing interoperability does is make it easier for people not-you to take parts of the market that aren't or soon won't be yours.
I'm not saying interoperability is bad. I'm just saying, from the perspective of the one in power, there seems to be no local benefit at all. Why would anyone consider that.
Re: (Score:2)
it started out as just an application he was building that he thought was cool
Perhaps, but I have to wonder why, then, did he ignore calls for interoperability, even early on before he was a billionaire. Perhaps he didn't think interoperability was cool?
Yea, I know when I first start working on a cool project the thing that really gets my blood pumping is working on an export feature to satisfy people who don't want to use my project.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Sufficient to stop there, I think. Can't say more. Lawyers have ears like bats. Fangs, too.
Re: (Score:2)
Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?
Re: (Score:3)
I disagree. If he wanted to make money, the site would have been crawling with ads, and would have imploded. In the absense of other believable data, I believe he wanted to build it because he liked to build things, and that he wanted to make something successful.
Off topic, what is with all the Zuckerberg hate on Slashdot? He is a techie made good. He is living most coder's dreams. Is it that he invented it, and you didn't?
Here's a question: How did he make billions without the site crawling with ads?
Answer: Selling your personal information without your consent.
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe he wanted to make money and he's not stupid? "Making money" doesn't have to mean a fast buck - it may mean making money on a longer run.
And btw, many techies live the coder's dream and they're well regarded here - Sid Maier, Wozniak, Carmack, etc - that "jealousy excuse" doesn't stick.
Re: (Score:2)
Whether he did it just because he wanted to build something, or he was looking for social notoriety (or both) I can't say but I don't really see his initial
Re:Zuckerberg is so full of shit. (Score:5, Funny)
Oh thank you good sir, how can we ever repay your generosity?
Really? (Score:2)
I guess now I have to see the movie just to see them get something about computers right for once.
No shock there. (Score:3, Interesting)
[the movie-makers] “can’t wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.”
No kidding. We've seen evidence of that from lots of big corporations - particularly in the entertainment business - for ten years or more.
It wouldn't surprise me if someone replies to this post with some sort of evidence of that mindset being so heavily entrenched that goes back much further - decades or even centuries.
Re: (Score:2)
It's called drama and yes, it does go back centuries. Characters with unorthodox motivations aren't very compelling and are difficult to make the audience care about. That's why you see a pallet of similar motivations in most films: greed, lust, love, vengeance, survival, and justice. Characters who lack these motivations usually aren't motivated by anything, they're just driven forward by circumstance.
poor guy (Score:2, Funny)
I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
I really feel for these poor misunderstood billionaires.
We should set up some form of charity fund for them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I still can't understand how this all came to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
http://profiles.friendster.com/950378
Re:I still can't understand how this all came to p (Score:5, Insightful)
It's extremely simple. Before Facebook, it was still considered weird to use your real name on a website. Most names on MySpace were like "johnnys123" rather than "John Smith". Obviously using real names is much more desirable, and one of the main reasons Facebook became popular. And the reason people were willing to use real names on Facebook was because you needed a .ac.uk or .edu email address to get an account, and only people from your uni could see your profile.
In a nutshell:
1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
2. So people felt ok using real names and details, and allowing other people to see their profiles (because only people from the same uni could).
3. The use of real details made it much more friendly and useful.
There were other reasons too:
1. It didn't look like shit like MySpace. .ac.uk/.edu requirement it wasn't filled with idiots.
2. Due to the
3. Luck.
Re: (Score:2)
1. It was much more secure than the alternatives.
Hmm...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldnews/article-1255888/Facebook-founder-Mark-Zuckerberg-hacked-emails-rivals-journalists.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Not that I disagree with you, but I think Zuckerberg, like most tech. billionaires, played on a general ignorance about technology.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure that link is relevant. It is about Zuckerberg hacking into *email* accounts, not Facebook accounts (which of course he doesn't need to hack into).
Also, not a good idea to back anything up with a link to the Daily Mail! :-)
Re: (Score:2)
http://therumpus.net/2010/01/conversations-about-the-internet-5-anonymous-facebook-employee/ [therumpus.net]
By then, though, network effects had taken over.
As for the choice of sources...well, I just grabbe
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It's still weird to use real names on websites.
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook was the pioneer in making people 'open up' and reveal all their personal information, attributing it to their real name.
Especially for the advertisers.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Facebook was nothing new or revolutionary.
There's a hell of a lot more to success than simply being new or revolutionary.
There was Friendster way before it came along,
And others.
Granted, FB was a lot better than MySpace (it's biggest competitor at the time), but that was more due to a failing on the part of MySpace than on the merits of FB.
Facebook also had a bit of exclusivity going for it, since you initially had to be a college student. Folks like exclusivity.
Social networking sites are not really complicated..
Nope, they aren't. Which is why there are so many different variations on the theme.
Why so much worship, hatred, and jealousy over this?
Facebook is the de-facto standard. It's the one that caught on. It's the one that pretty much everyone uses. It's the 800lb gorilla in the room.
Re: (Score:2)
That's where all the others failed
Wrong answer (Score:2)
Yes, I understand that people build things because they like building things (I'm one of those).
But the question is why did he, Zuckerberg, create facebooks. Because there is no evidence that shows that he actually built anything, it was all made by others. Sure, he made some drawings on a napkin of something that sort of resembles facebook. But calling that building facebook is just ludicrous.
Re: (Score:2)
To expand on my own post, building things because you like the build things still isn't an answer to why you decided to build that thing, you could have made some other thing. Why did he decide to "build" facebook, and not youtube, or flickr.
Impressing girls (Score:2, Funny)
This is a silly idea anyway to think that writing some PHP code will get you laid.
Re:Impressing girls (Score:4, Funny)
Yes, everyone knows you need python for that.
Re: (Score:2)
I think they they meant a different snake, I think it was a trouser snake.
But you can also fallback to jewelery, perl and ruby spring to mind.
Otherwise you can try your luck over a hot cup of java.
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, everyone knows you need python for that.
Indeed, you just need to import wife
... wait, that's actually possible [russianbrides.com] o_O
Re: (Score:2)
It's also a silly idea to think that much done by a male that age is done for any other reason.
Re: (Score:2)
It's worked in the past. Just look for a local female musician, photographer, make up artist, etc - and offer to build them a website over the weekend.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I think Zuckerberg managed to do exactly that... though that doesn't mean it is good idea.
I thought he wasn't going to see it? (Score:2)
I remember Zuckerberg stating that he felt that he expected the movie to portray him unfairly and that he would not see it. I guess he changed his mind. I'm glad, because now he knows that many other people see that some of the things he does are scummy.
Re: (Score:2)
We can't say for sure if Mr Zuckerberg did or didn't say that, but [...] excuse me, I misspoke. I meant that we are 100% absolutely sure that he didn't, and we can and will prove it in court.
Re: (Score:2)
He probably didn't see it. He had a secretary see it and give him notes, which his PR person then turned into some witticisms so he could spin it in his favor during interviews.
Re: (Score:2)
I heard that comment too, from a completely non tech, non-materialistically orientated friend. She thought the film made him look good, showing him to be someone full of drive.
HACK the power! (Score:2, Interesting)
Is he trying to be ironic or cool or something?
Is noone here aware of the actual history of Fb? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. Napster NEVER had a financial model.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
This is a fallacy.
What part? All he is trying to convey is that the claims of Zuckerberg being in it for the money from the start are not true. If that's the case for every website out there, it still makes the parents claim true.
And I think you are a little confused about it. Facebook wasn't designed with a "Let's be free to grow as fast as possible" scheme in mind. It didn't have financial incentive UNTIL it got big, but Amazon had financial incentive all along, but didn't invoke any of its plans until it got big. There is
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Jeez, that is actually what they show in The S.N. movie! Even, the way they paint it, Zuckerberg stopped his friends ambitions of putting advertising for a long time!
Re: (Score:2)
What everything points to is this: around 2003, it was clear that social networking websites were taking off and that we might have a new way to make money with websites. Two brothers at Harvard thought they would get in on the action with ConnectU. Zuckerberg may or may not have agreed to work for them, but somehow he also
Re: (Score:2)
Two supporting points:
1) Facebook didn't even have a positive cash flow until 2009. That's an awfully long time to wait around for your financial model to really kick in if you had lofty financial goals in the beginning. That was back when Facebook had about 300 Million users. Passing the 100 Million user mark (Hell, the 10 million user mark) without implementing a strong financial model makes it pretty clear to me that they were a) playing it by ear and b) weren't that eager about making ton
Lapdogs (Score:2, Interesting)
I never understand why society is so ready to suck the cock of someone who invented a new way to waste time, while failing to recognize the people who actually contribute to progress. Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.
What a fucking coincidence. And people never realize how easy it is to buy a little publicity, especially with all the Bad Things (tm) Facebook has been doing lately, and especially when you have a lot of money. Nope
Re:Lapdogs (Score:5, Interesting)
A few years ago people were batshit insane about Second Life... and now it's disappeared from the headlines. Hopefully this will be the Year of Facebook, i.e. next year it'll be yet another niche company.
Re:Lapdogs (Score:4, Insightful)
We never had "Second Life: The Movie"... I think only nerds and pedophiles actually played second life, whereas facebook is full of middle-aged divorcees suffering from empty nest syndrome.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, there was lot of hype about Second Life...but Facebook differs from that with fact that people actually uses it for every day communication with friends. Horror, isn't it.
In fact, I don't dig that social networks hate floating around these days. Geeks use them. Common crowd use them. Some overdose them heavily. Some have their social necessities fulfilled. Some try to use it to replace something they don't have in life. Some use them just for fun - and get it plenty. Go figure.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know it just seems really unlikely to me that second life was nearly as big as media decided it was for those few months.
Re: (Score:2)
And isn't Minecraft the new Second Life?
Facebook has been around for quite a few years and has a huge user base. The entire MySpace crowd jumped ship and went to Facebook because anybody who is anybody is on Facebook now. If yo
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Turn on CNN - Facebook stories. Read slashdot - Facebook stories. Go to the movies - Facebook the fucking movie.
What a fucking coincidence...... Zuckerberg is a GOD! Put him on an altar!
Seems you are obsessed with Facebook... You watch it on TV, read about it on forums and go see movies about it? Wow man, you must be hella-good friend-stock
Re: (Score:2)
I get that you're trying to be funny, but Jobs is almost the exact opposite as Zuckerberg. Like the parent said, Facebook is an invented "waste of time." Jobs has always prioritized Macs as tools rather than toys. Even the iPod/iPhone/iPad aren't designed to be a waste of time: the iPod compliments what you would already be doing (exercising, driving, ect.), the iPhone has plenty of useless apps (like Facebook) but is primarily designed to be a more productive phone. The iPad is the closest thing to a point
That doesn't really jive... (Score:3, Insightful)
cant wrap their head around the idea that someone might build something because they like building things.
If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?
Whats the difference? Seems to me he built a money-making machine... seems pretty useful to me,,,
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?
Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.
Of course, now that I think about it, the answer is quite simple: subliminal brainwashing and an alien conspiracy.
Re: (Score:2)
If someone just wanted to build something, why wouldn't they build something useful, instead of just profitable?
Yeah, you're right! Obviously those millions and millions of people on Facebook are just, I dunno... dups or something. I mean, it can't *possibly* be useful, 'cuz a Slashbot said so.
I don't pretend that slashdot is useful; most of the time it is just a massive time-suck for me. Facebook is much the same for those who are so inclined; it is just a way to waste a lot of time (ask any number of employers in this country). Much like slashdot, very little of what is on facebook is of any value whatsoever. Also much like slashdot there are better ways to get at the miniscule amount of meaningful information that is presented there.
Define "useful" (Score:2)
And define it in a way that does not apply exclusively to you.
The 1400 people who work there might disagree, along with anyone they buy things from, or the people who make all those ads, or the hundreds of million of users, and so on and so forth.
We really need to start teaching some basic economics at the grade school level.
Next he'll be saying computers don't go beboop (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
who cares why? he's still a douche (Score:2, Insightful)
Who cares why he does anything? He's not a remarkable person. Why do you think the book was called Accidental Billionaires?
More notable is his lack of character. He got where he did by screwing over friends, breaking contracts, and treating FB users with contempt.
Despite some other posts here, not all geeks are like that. The Google guys actually invented something incredible, revolutionized the world, created whole industries, and seem to still have a bright future ahead. Fyodor of NMap created a to
Really? (Score:2)
...and show screenshots that were all more or less exactly how we were doing things back then.
I haven't seen the flick yet, so forgive me, but I find it hard to believe that Hollywood couldn't resist making the computer monitors go "zzzzzzzzz" every time something changes on the screen.
Re:No matter what he says... (Score:4, Interesting)