I had a lot of fun building this marketing website for Debug back when I worked at Verily in 2016.

Crazy that despite their progress behind the scenes, they appear to have not touched this website since.

I probably spent a little too much time tweaking the CSS to get the mosquitoes to not overlap the text on various viewport sizes :)

Why does the website have Google branding at the bottom? Is it a Google project or associated with Google somehow?

That's kind of out of character for Google. Their motto is to organize world's information, not cure diseases.

Google has a number of passion projects typically run by people who established credibility/value to Google a long time ago. Not surprisingly, some of those are medical/biological in nature, because that's an area that tech people like to contribute in after they've reached tenure.

I was a computational biologist and specifically went to work at Google to get access to their world-information-organizing technology to apply it to medical/biological problems. I was convinced at the time (mid-to-late 2000s) that AI was going to transform medicine, especially drug discovery, and that huge amounts of (organized) data was going to be key to achieving this goal. While there, we worked on protein folding and design and drug discovery, as part of a team that eventually was called Google Accelerated Sciences. It was mostly made up of people who had some level of scientific background, then had made $$$ for Google, and made good friends with the leadership and could use some of the research budget.

Of course, the protein folding and design work ended up being replaced by DeepMind's work on protein structure prediction, which led to protein design and drug discovery, mainly in DM spinoffs.

Many people at Google who work on CS stuff would absolutely love to see Google's resources applied to curing diseases. I know that Jeff Dean has been angel investor in this space.

The domain name reminds me of the venerable DOS "debug.com" command, which managed to combine an interactive and scriptable debugger, assembler, and disassembler into a program weighing a few kilobytes. I spent many long hours in my youth using it to reverse engineering copy protection on games. I really wish we had a similar tool for the modern era.

    The DEBUG utility was originally named DEBUG.COM in early versions
    of MS-DOS, but it was renamed to DEBUG.EXE starting with MS-DOS 3.2

Shoutout to the 12 of us who remember debug> g=c800:5

Sure I remember, but since I purchased Spinrite doing lowlevel was needed just once while changing ST-506 controller to a different type or for a new disk, former was quite much rarer needed.

Then even after std lowlevel it was worth using Spinrite to check if interleave value was proper. And if it wasn't it was worth letting it first before anything else. Same when changing a faster CPU as it could speed up IO so much that no interleave would not needed any more and get faster IO.

Spinrite was such a great tool and time saver fixing or making preventive periodic maintenance to customers disks, even though it chugged hours even 30M disks. And just because not to take absolutely any risk it was necessary to make full backup first, which that took quote long also. LapLink was a great tool for that, before LAN became more common.

I had Spinrite III; Gibson made good stuff. But I was often in situations where all I had was a WD, etc MFM controller.

Sigh. How the times change. Right now I'm looking at 2 days to rebuild my NAS array after adding another 10TB disk.

True, that's some things have changed.

But it's when you consider taking first full drive backup times. It still takes 'forever' when you'd rather like to get on with fixing single disk issues. Or like when you wait RAID rebuilds too.

We did plan our maintenance tasks so, that there was something else useful we could do while obligatory backup and Spinrite was running. Upgraded another devices EPROM's, PC BIOS or dot matrix printer EPROM, cleaned printer heads, chaff and dust from chassis, changed colour ribbon to it. Ran updates to software we had sold etc. And went lunch with the customer:)

It turned into 5 days. After realising I'd forgotten to change the block size to 4096 and it was horribly slow, I yanked the drive out, tried with my utility to set it to 4096 bytes and failed, found another utility that did the job, put the drive back in, wait 3 days for it to rebuild the array without the new disk, and then another two days to add the disk back in. Sigh.

Still, with 4k block sizes, it goes like shit off a shovel.

I'm glad I wasn't the only one who immediately thought of this.

And yes, some of us are either old enough that we remember DEBUG.COM, or we got started way too young.

Oh wow. I remember doing this as well... with little to no success.

The debug.com binary only showed one measly ASM instruction at a time as I recall. Shudder.

Thus making it "a similar tool for the modern era" as you were asking for, IMO.

My favorite thing about WinDbg is that many people pronounce it "Windbag".

WinDbg is just a debugger: it does not assemble or disassemble. It can't patch running programs in memory. Moreover, I don't consider Windows to be part of the modern era, as I haven't used a Windows machine for 20 years.

So, no, WinDbg has nothing to do with debug.com.

> I don't consider Windows to be part of the modern era, as I haven't used a Windows machine for 20 years.

I don't consider France to be part of the modern world, since I haven't visited Europe lately.

A more apt analogy: I don't consider North Sentinel Island to be part of the modern world, since there is no relevant innovation going on there, it has no influence on the rest of the world, and there is nothing to be learned there.

You miss debug.com, wish there was an equivalent for the modern era, find out that windbg does almost all these things today, and say there's nothing of value there.

I say this as something who does all the things you described debug.com as doing, in this modern era.

Maybe so, but that's not what you claimed. You claimed that WinDbg "does not assemble or disassemble", when of course it does. Try to be more accurate with your claims if you want serious people to take you seriously.

I'm not sure what you think a (native) debugger that can't disassemble would look like; I assure you it disassembles the instructions you debug.

Its assembler is sadly stuck in the pre-x86_64 era (and refuses to do arm at all), however it disassembles all of those fine.

Signed: someone who does pronounce it wind bag

Actually, I didn't even get to this part of your message, windbg absolutely can patch currently running programs. It does all the things you think it can't do.

Okay, but is it not what you wished for, "a similar tool for the modern era"?

edit: I see I simul-posted with u/modeless, but I can't remove it now that there's a (duplicate) reply. Maybe mods can remove or at least collapse mine (their ID is one lower so they were first)

WinDbg is just a debugger: it does not assemble or disassemble. It can't patch running programs in memory. Moreover, I don't consider Windows to be part of the modern era, as I haven't used a Windows machine for 20 years.

So, no, WinDbg has nothing to do with debug.com.

Fun! So how was OP supposed to know your very personal and weird definition of what is part of the modern era?

My understanding (very informal armchair) is that someone could relatively easily wipe out aedes aegypti using a gene drive with a sort of sex-selective infertility:

Release a few thousand females carrying a gene drive that produces all infertile males, and all fertile females (who all also have the same gene due to it being a gene drive). Every generation, there are more and more infertile males, and more and more fertile females carrying this extinction gene. After several generations (a.k.a. a few years), the population collapses completely.

I vote yes.

Gene drives are such amazing and such frightening technology. No one puts them in the same conversation as nukes or engineered pandemics, but they share the same pattern of "technology improvements giving smaller and smaller actors globally reaching powers", and have even more potential for consequences not intended by those actors. It's pretty scary to imagine a world where one lab or one rich farmer has the power to (after a few dozen generations) globally make arbitrary edits the DNA of entire species. Even smart and goodhearted people can screw up that world.

So from this armchair, I'm glad to see that at least for aedes aegypti (which seems like the clearest case for deploying a gene drive), there's an alternative like debug.

You'd want fertile males and infertile females (it's different from the idea on the article), so you could contaminate the population faster.

But any claim of completely wiping out a thriving species with a single action is doubtful. I'm all for trying this one, but I'm not bullish on its long-term success.

I'm hoping that at some point someone just disregards all the "safety" debate, does it, and succeeds. There is something deeply upsetting about being in the position humanity is on earth and still being expected to tolerate being eaten alive.

I wonder why we don't just try it on some remote island that has had mosquitoes introduced to it, but is otherwise considered isolated from the rest of the ecosystem (at least as far as mosquitoes are concerned).

A less high-tech way to reduce mosquitoes in your own back yard is to set up an attractive nesting location, such as a bucket filled with plant cuttings and water with protection from the rain, and putting Bti(Bacillus thuringiensis subspecies israelensis) in it. Bti will kill the larvae after they hatch. You can buy Bti pretty easily, usually in a dehydrated form called mosquitoes bits or mosquito dunks. Make sure to remove other potential nesting locations or add Bti to them too.

I am not an expert, but the last time I looked at this kind of thing what I took away from it was that you're not really doing anything to negatively impact the total mosquito population, you're just creating a new nesting site that won't produce adults. My understanding was that while it might feel good, it is not actually doing much to impact the population.

Apparently mosquitos don't really migrate. They get migrated by wind, but otherwise they stick to a relatively small radius. The idea with these is that you can reduce the hyperlocal population, like in a patio area. I use them on my property. It's not a silver bullet, but I can spend most nights outside without being overwhelmed as long as I maintain them.

The FAQ on the website says their first study was completed in 2018 and results published in 2020.

Glad to see movement here!

It's been so long since I've heard about Debug that I was afraid it was cancelled.

More generally, it's known as the sterile insect technique and you'll find plenty of campaigns with some googling.

Heh after reading that title card I thought this was going to be a mosquito based software bug analogy. I expected a description of how to write software that resulted in more "good bugs" that might facilitate finding other bugs somehow. Now I'm a little disappointed

Is this safe? I hope it doesn't affect the ecology in worse ways we won't foresee, it has happened before

Principal Skinner: Well, I was wrong. The lizards are a godsend.

Lisa: But isn't that a bit short-sighted? What happens when we're overrun by lizards?

Principal Skinner: No problem. We simply unleash wave after wave of Chinese needle snakes. They'll wipe out the lizards.

Lisa: But aren't the snakes even worse?

Principal Skinner: Yes, but we're prepared for that. We've lined up a fabulous type of gorilla that thrives on snake meat.

Lisa: Then we're stuck with gorillas!

Principal Skinner: No, that's the beautiful part. When wintertime rolls around, the gorillas simply freeze to death.

This was tested in Singapore 10 years ago and successfully reduced the spread of Dengue fever by 77% and has not negatively impacted the ecosystem.

This isn't a project to eliminate all mosquitos. There are over 3600 species of mosquito - this project is only targeting one: Aedes aegypti, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see an Aedes aegypti outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place. This project is just trying to undo that.

> Aedes aegypti, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see an Aedes aegypti outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place.

My twisted brain spun out a version of this paragraph from some kind of parallel universe Hacker News (presumably where humans aren't the dominant species on the planet) that said:

> Homo sapiens, which spreads many diseases, and is in fact an invasive species. Anywhere you see a Homo sapiens outside of North Africa, it was humans who brought it there in the first place.

I think it's fun that my brain decided to come up spin the accepted African origin of humans and their proliferation around the world into this fun paragraph. No value judgement about humanity is implied.

It's impossible to prove this (or really anything in human health/global ecology) is safe. We cannot reliably predict what the true short and long term outcomes will be, but by and large, this seems like one of the less unsafe ecological modification projects based on the underlying technology.

In the FAQ they discuss how in most of its range this particular species is invasive, feeds almost exclusively on humans, and is not believed to be a major food source for predators.

This must have been inspired by Mass Effect :)

(probably the other way around, but what's the fun in that)

The Krogans got punitively infected with the genophage to drastically reduce successful births after their rebellion.

I don't understand non-breedable part, mosquitoes are a part of a food chain as everything else, surely you don't think eliminating them will have no consequences?

Ae. aegypti is not native to California. We won't miss it.

This is addressed in their FAQ as well: "The general consensus among scientists is that the ecological impact of removing Aedes aegypti mosquitoes from urban environment would be small. They are not a significant food source for other animals and are invasive to many areas. The main ecological impact would be to restore the ecosystem to how it was before the mosquitoes invaded. Debug team is committed to working with communities and regulators to ensure the safety and acceptability of our field trials and releases."

> They are not a significant food source for other animals

In Indonesia for one they are. Every night, countless geckos come out, both indoors and outdoors, and start hunting for mosquitoes. Even lullabies sing about it [1].

The above song is so popular that it got an AI parody [2].

I'm curious what food chain reaction this will start if successful.

[1]: https://youtu.be/dOhHiwWwXFw

[2]: https://youtu.be/c6Ad8WAigdQ

The geckos can eat other insects, they are not obligated to eat aedes aegypti. You would need to identify a creature that can't eat anything else, and then justify why humans have to die in order to support that creature's extremely selective diet.

What's the worst that can happen?

  The extermination of sparrows – also known as the Eliminate Sparrows campaign – resulted in severe ecological imbalance, and was one of the causes of the Great Chinese Famine which lasted from 1959 to 1961, with an estimated death toll due to starvation ranging in the tens of millions (15 to 55 million).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Pests_campaign

Though that's unlikely to follow on from simply reducing mosquitoes in urban areas ... it absolutely warrants a close eye being kept on roll out and knock on effects.

The choice is not between making one species of mosquito extinct or doing nothing.

The choice is between making one species of mosquito extinct or using traditional mosquito control methods such as removing standing water. The traditional methods affect many different insects not just mosquitoes. Attacking specifically the species that are vectors for disease is the more ecologically sound method.

If we could remove the insects that carry disease then the outcome could be more insects overall, because people will be more willing to have ponds, etc.

it is unlikely that other mosquitos (that don’t carry disease) will fail to fill the niche

Cool project! And, surely, absolutely not what I expected to see when I clicked the domain "debug.com".

The critics have valid concerns. Verily / Google would be deploying 10-15x the local mosquito population (enough to black out the sun). The deployments are contaminated with females, as any natural product would be. And it’s possible that the mosquitos could develop Wolbachia tolerance, since mosquitos are quick to develop tolerance due to their breeding patterns and lifecycle.

Don’t be so quick to rush to a verdict. We are still living with invasives we introduced with the same good intentions.

I think supporting the predators of mosquitos is the better solution.

We should go out of our way to avoid spraying insecticides in our lawns and other spaces. The lifecycle of the mosquito is much more rapid than that of fish, spiders, dragonflies, bats, etc. If you regularly nuke an area with insecticides, the mosquito population will have a lot less pressure to deal with.

This organization is going out of the way to avoid spraying insecticides. It seems far more effective than increasing predators because ecosystems tend to adapt to predation.

No thanks. I’m very concerned some short term thinking behind a plan to alter the biology of our environment will have various side effects no one anticipated. It has happened many, many times before. Same with geo engineering in general - hard to trust the incentives, competency, and long term side effects.

The species is not native. Surely we can agree that eradicating non-native species is a good thing?

Yes but you’re assuming that whatever they put into our environment will target that perfectly. I’m concerned there’ll be other effects and that such releases aren’t reversible.

They are releasing sterile males of one specific species, infected with a naturally occurring bacteria that naturally infects them in the wild as well. It's hard to imagine a more targeted or less objectionable method than this. If you won't accept this method then you're essentially arguing we should never attempt to reduce the invasive mosquito population by any means, which I will have to respectfully but strongly disagree with.

I can imagine many ways this can backfire. The simplest is - the targeting you’re assuming may not be actually what happens. It may be that some number of bugs released are different and have an unintended side effect. What gives this private organization the right to run this experiment on all of us? Will they assume liability?

> Surely we can agree that eradicating non-native species is a good thing?

So...which areas is humanity native to?

If you mean that seriously: homo sapiens came into existence in Africa, existed solely there for a long time (generating lots of genetic diversity) and then spread throughout the world in multiple waves. It's complicated by the fact that there was no single location and population that became homo sapiens- it was more like a network of locations and populations that evolved concurrently (there was genetic exchange between them as they evolved from their predecessor species).

Depending on how you define it, I could see "parts of Africa" as being "native" but that doesn't really help this discussion.

> that doesn't really help this discussion

It's the clearest possible example of the fact that simply "eradicating non-native species" is anything _but_ simple, and will have unforeseen implications and consequences. I doubt that modeless intended to advocate for the culling of the majority of humanity, but that was technically what they did. Similarly, SilverElfin correctly points out the high probability of unforeseen consequences of "just" changing the species make-up of a large component of the food web.

The past 2 years in CA have been brutal for these invasive mosquitos. They bite all day and literally swarm around my house. It'll be 1pm on a hot day and they are all over.

I know this isn't attainable for most of the world but sharing in case someone else is similarly frustrated. I ended up spending $500 on a trap w/ co2 tank and it has been a life changer. I don't even see mosquitos anymore. Refilling the co2 is quite annoying and expensive ($20 every other week) and you have to clean out the 100s of bugs from the trap net but I can literally sit in my backyard all day again.

I wonder if a cheaper trap could be designed to give everyone little bubbles of safety.

I was about to ask how the mosquitos survive long enough to make an impact if they can't "bite". I looked it up, and apparently male mosquitos survive off of nectar and are actually pollinators.

Eliminating mosquitoes sounds great to me on the surface, but I wonder if it will have any adverse effects on any plants that rely on them for pollination, or if it's expected that there are plenty of other insects ready to fill any void they leave.

It's more the latter - as far as I am aware, eliminating specifically the human pathogenic mosquitoes will still leave plenty of other mosquito-adjacent species that can't or don't bite humans, or can't / don't transmit the critical diseases.

I think for the releasing-sterile-mosquitoes angle, it's actually more interesting to me to use some kind of molecular clock, I think I read about a genetic modification that resulted in a generation or two of fertile males, but then the Nth generation is sterile as a result of the molecular clock unwinding.

Interestingly, many other insects need blood to reproduce because they cannot produce some of the required proteins on their own. Some common flies do this too, including horseflies, black flies, sand flies, and others. Some famously transmit disease, like the tsetse fly.

It makes me wonder if this kind of technology is deployed, where should the stop line be? And I don't think it's a trivial question.

This is cool, but wasn't this a "Verily" project about 10 years ago? What is new here and what has happened since then?

It looks like the project has been decoupled from Verily (based on my poking about on the website) and is hosted within Google (the project lead, Linus Upson, worked for both Google and Verily simultaneously; he was mainly an eng manager/project lead, but had some historical experience with biology in school). Linus played a critical role at Google and built an awful lot of goodwill with the leadership.

Linus's LinkedIn indicates debug moved from verily to google in Dec 2024 (I missed this at the time). Debug was always a passion project (unlikely to make a huge amount of money compared to ads, AI, and cloud) and Verily's transition to something that lost less money probably required them to move Debug back to Google.

Linus was my boss at Google for nearly 10 years. His main contribution was one of the key people behind Chrome. He's as good as they come.

Why does releasing infertile males prevent the fertile males from reproducing? Are mosquitoes pair-bonding??

I had the same question when reading website - really poorly explained. Not sure why they also advertise that those genetically modified males are non biting and harmless - all males mosquitos are like that.

Maybe a dumb question, but why release them back? Why separate and raise sterile males when you could kill off both male and female and be done? Is the idea that introducing sterile males back into the population has a compounding effect?

Every time a wild female mates with a sterile male, that's one less time they've mated with a viable male. It greatly reduces the number of successful females and therefore the size of the following generation.

The symmetry is amusing. This is really fighting fire with fire.

Mosquitoes are a vector that spreads disease-causing germs to a population. The proposed solution is to use different mosquitoes as different vector that spreads a different disease-causing germ to a different population.

> raise sterile males and release them into wild insect populations. When a wild female mates with a sterile male, her eggs won’t hatch. The population gets smaller with each generation.

They won't harm then it sounds like, but they'll not fertilize the eggs.

OK, you bring up a very good point. If the eggs fail to hatch because they are never fertilized, then the mosquitoes are not acting as a vector because they do not transmit the disease. I didn't even consider that possibility.

However, it turns out the eggs are fertilized. Note that the FAQ says the males are effectively sterile and links here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cytoplasmic_incompatibility

That wikipedia article says that there are embryos, but the embryos die.

However, the real question to ask, I guess, is whether the embryo is infected. As I read that article, it sounds like it isn't. Instead, the male parent is infected and this creates sperm which can fertilize the egg but in a way that creates an embryo that can't survive. In other words, the male parent has an infectious disease which causes the embryo to have a fatal genetic disease.

So this also brings up another question: what exactly is a vector? In this scenario, the embryo has a disease it would not otherwise have gotten, if it weren't for this germ. However, the embryo doesn't have the germ itself. Is being a vector defined by whether some disease is caused, or is it defined by whether the germ is spread? I don't know.

Interesting. What is the long term effect? Do the bad mosquitoes breed back to a sizeable population after some time and again good mosquitoes have to be injected in the target environment to keep the growth of bad mosquitoes in check?

Large scale geo and bio engineering projects like these always worry me because of the potential for second order effects: is there wildlife that depends on these mosquitoes? Will a worse bug fill the resource void? Will a random mutation in the bacteria have adverse effects? What keeps the bad bugs from coming back from tiny populations in relatively short order because we can’t keep releasing new sterile males forever?

Hopefully all of these concerns have satisfactory answers, but the reference to it being a 1950s idea isn’t inspiring. Nuclear powered cars, widespread asbestos use, leaded gasoline, Freon… environmental impact wasn’t as big of a concern back then to put it mildly.

COVID proved that we can produce safe and effective vaccines extremely quickly if we actually try: so why not focus on that?

heh, i almost upvoted your comment, but then you contradicted the main reasoning at the end.

(intervention in a complex system, and without proper testing at that... even if the covid vaccines were safe, that was by luck)

I love this idea but I feel scared as well; who knows what we discover when we wipe these bugs out...

The main concern was that animal who feed on mosquitoes (birds) might be affected but most mosquitoes don't bite and the animals who eat them also eat a lot of other insects. I would worry much more about pesticides that may be the reason for the great insect population collapse.

When I read the heading I thought it was about software bugs and really wondered for a microsecond how can we stop bad software bugs with good software bugs. :)

For too many seconds I really did think this was an initiative using the metaphor of good/bad mosquitos to make the case that they were going to release "good" malware (bonware?) into the internet ecosystem in order to disable bad malware or install security patches, or something.

I might be an idiot.