Why Does Music Feel So Good? - <AUTHOR> http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2013/04/11/why-does-music-feel-so-good/ <comment><USER2> Somewhat tangential, somewhat related: people listen to music a lot, and yet the great majority of people do so with their stock iPod earbuds - or cheap alternatives.

I don't like to consider myself an Audiophile (and I really don't think I would classify as one anyways) but I don't understand why people are okay with paying hundreds of dollars (sometimes over $1,000) on HD TVs and yet stick with free headphones or cheap speakers. I personally think I listen to music more than I watch TV shows or movies - and I reckon this is true for many others as well. Why don't other people spend money on good sound equipment to have a better listening experience?

For example, I have a pair of Sennheiser HD600s which MSRP at about $400 I think. My friends find this ridiculous. I also have a $100 amp and a $70 DAC. So I've spend almost $600 on this audio equipment. I bought these 2.5 years ago and don't plan on replacing them any time soon (definitely content with what I have).

I don't really expect my friends to immediately plunge into what I have ($600) but they could try out a more 'beginner' pair like Sennheiser HD 555s which cost like $120.

$120 is, I think, more than reasonable for the sound difference you'd get using those headphones. Those are what I had prior to my HD 600s for close to five years and then decided I wanted to try something even better.

I suppose some of my friends HAVE spent ~$100 on Beats headphones, though this just makes me sad as they're complete crap compared to other headphones you could get for $100.

I dunno. I'm not trying to sound like I'm ranting but I do find it interesting that so many people find it wasteful to spend money on audio equipment when they spend so much time listening to music.

<comment><USER3> > _I don't like to consider myself an Audiophile (and I really don't think I > would classify as one anyways) but I don't understand why people are okay > with paying hundreds of dollars (sometimes over $1,000) on HD TVs and yet > stick with free headphones or cheap speakers._

I cannot understand this myself. I mean, why pay thousands of dollars for HD TVs, period.

As for the cheap headphones part, who cares. They like the beat and the feeling of the music, not the details and the subtlety of the recording.

That's why they don't listen to jazz or classical that much.

What exactly musical subtlety do you miss on Justin Bieber, Metallica, Hip Hop, Skillrex, 99% of what passes for R&B today etc, by using cheap headphones? You'll miss some low-fi sampled, bit-crushed drum loops? Two-note synth motifs?

<comment><USER4> > _I mean, why pay hundreds of dollars for HD TVs, period._

Can you get a good HD TV for less than "hundreds of dollars" (not sure where the limit is, $199?) that is any good, though?

Sure, there are cheap TVs. The cheapest LED TV in the 40-44 range on Amazon is $349, and it's some cheap no-name brand I have never heard of. It's probably not very good.

Of course, most people probably don't know much about what differentiates TV quality. I frequently see people watch horribly badly calibrated TVs (with things like motion smoothing turned on), and I frequently see people watch non-widescreen broadcasts stretched to 16:9. Whenever I ask, they say they don't see any difference, and some people even get upset when I offer to fix the settings.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> My largely uninformed guess: Music is so massively rewarding because it trains/fuzzes our pattern matching engines, in a particularly effective and advantageous way that cannot be found "in nature". This is the same reason why jokes/humour are so enormously valued by the brain.

It also explains why only nerds like listening to breakcore.

<comment><USER6> Or it might be because the beats and repetition help synchronize brain sectors. Allowing refined, less fuzzy, thinking.

<comment><USER7> Sorry for my potential utter ignorance, but this sounds a lot like woowoo.

Do you have any source that refers to such a thing as "synchronization of brain sectors" that leads to "refined, less fuzzy thinking"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I recently read a piece that I feel explains the phenomenon quite well [1]. In short: we evolved rhythmic music as a defense mechanism, to unify the tribe into acting a large meta-organism for the purpose of aggression displays against predators and other tribes. As with a lot of other social behavior, it feels good to be part of something larger than yourself, and music connects us emotionally, physically and rhythmically to one another.

This may not tell the whole story, but I believe it's a strong component, particularly given the historical relationship between religion and music.

[1]: <http://www.meltingasphalt.com/music-in-human-evolution/>

</comment><comment><USER9> There have been several pieces (from classical to classic rock) that have actually caused me to break out in tears. Not teary eyes mind you; gushing waterworks at specific resolution points. Amazingly, this is reproducible, but the severity of the effect depends on my mood. After reading this, my best guess is that this is tied to an especially intense release of dopamine. My maternal grandfather shared this peculiarity and both of us have had awkward moments where we try to explain that we are quite OK -- "it was just the music" (an explanation often met with puzzled expressions).

<comment><USER10> It's called Frisson (I have it also)

There used to be a great Wikipedia page on it, but the deletionists got to it at some point and turned it into this content free page <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cold_chill>

There's a slowly growing body of studies into it.

There's also a reddit devoted to it <http://www.reddit.com/r/frisson> but I've found that what causes one person to frisson doesn't necessarily cause another.

This book has a bit on it [http://books.google.com/books?id=uyI_Cb8olkMC&lpg=PR5...](http://books.google.com/books?id=uyI_Cb8olkMC&lpg=PR5&ots=ig7ydC48uK&dq=frisson%20music&lr&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=false)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> The question that has always puzzled me is why do we feel compelled to _sing along_ to music?

I mean, we are invariably worse singers so it surely makes it sound worse and this is besides the fact that signing ourselves drowns out much of the original sound anyway!

(Note: this is not to say I'm a silent listener, i'm a big fan of singing to myself ! :)

<comment><USER5> In terms of my little framework, you're exercising the pattern engine by making predictions and immediately having them validated. Notice how some people will try to sing along to a song even when they've never heard it before, and how the best pop songs make this very easy to do.

<comment><USER12> This fits in with an observation (internally, of myself, so probably not scientifically valid) that when I dance to music, it starts to feel like I'm creating the music with my movements. Of course I'm just moving to what I know the music is going to do, but it feels good when you feel like you're doing the opposite.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I like how an undergraduate neuroscientist takes the same approach I would to learning about the brain. Throw that fucker in Google.

<comment><USER14> No! Please don't waste yet another super genius on an advertising company.

<comment><USER15> The fucker being referred to here is the research topic, not the neuroscientist:

> After Salimpoor had the car epiphany, she rushed home to her computer and > Googled "music and the brain."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Read "This Is Your Brain On Music" by Daniel Levitin.

Some interesting points/arguments that I remember from reading it several years ago:

\- In many languages, the word "sing" is the same as the word "dance".

\- It's relatively recently in our history that the majority of people have become only listeners of music, instead of creators.

\- As humans evolved, one's ability to sing, dance, and play instruments well displayed good physical, intellectual, and emotional health to the opposite sex, and so gave you an evolutionary edge.

\- Something about how even the most non-musically-inclined people can extract the beat from a song better than a computer and repeat it later perfectly (memory is hazy on this one...I'm probably saying something stupid here).

That's all I remember for now...references are in the book of course. Very good read.

</comment><comment><USER17> People like to guess a pattern (i.e. "from the first 5 secs I think the song will go like this and I'll like it") and like when they're right. That's also why we tend to like more songs we've already heard several times (even though we didn't like them a lot in the beginning).

Summary of the article: [http://tldr.io/tldrs/516bfd54649fcf9e0a000de0/why- does-music...](http://tldr.io/tldrs/516bfd54649fcf9e0a000de0/why-does-music- feel-so-good-phenomena)

</comment><comment><USER18> Interesting reading. I have always loved music, pretty much anything. I just wonder if our genetics and DNA plays a large part in this. I often observe my little daughter's reaction to music, and its truly amazing to see how she will spontaneously smile and dance when a really good piece of music comes on. First time I really noticed big time was when the opening bars of Bruce Hornsby's "The way it is" came on the radio, she just loved it :-)

I wonder if we all get beginners templates of what we will like via our gene pool :-)

</comment><comment><USER19> Someone needs to put together a Spotify playlist of these 60 songs.

<comment><USER20> I put a Spotify playlist together but only found 56 songs.

There were more than one version of a few songs, and I couldn't cross- reference the audio on the researcher's site. I'll do it tonight, unless anyone gets to it before I.

<comment><USER19> Link to playlist? :)

<comment><USER20> [http://open.spotify.com/user/573v3n/playlist/4Fd7kTb26UIs7GY...](http://open.spotify.com/user/573v3n/playlist/4Fd7kTb26UIs7GYo0QDCIj)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Thank you! Updating my Spotify list now. I was looking for tips from SXSW but am tired of whiny indie rock, this works much better.

Just noticed #4 swapped artist and title.

</comment><comment><USER22> I thought this was a closely related article that got more into the actual science behind our predilection for music <http://www.mcgill.ca/channels/news/why-we-buy-music-225868>

</comment><comment><USER23> While there may be no scientific basis, I do like the explanation I read on another site: Mating calls. While we can certainly form relationships without music, music does often seem to play a large role in our mating processes.

</comment><comment><USER24> playing music also makes you feel a lot better</comment>


For the Unemployed Over 50, Fears of Never Working Again - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/20/business/economy/20older.html?_r=2&partner=rss&emc=rss&pagewanted=print

<comment><USER3> I would agree with d2viant; the most threatening element of a resume is the conception of longevity we inherited from the 20th century social compact of loyalty between eager beavers and large corporations.

My work history is peppered mostly with companies of less than 20 people, and a good chunk of it at companies under 10. However, the job or two I have had -- and the interactions I've had with comparable consulting clients -- in places structurally describable as "enterprise" left me with an enormous appreciation of how differently a lot of the labour force there operates. Most of the people I worked with were strict 9-to-5ers of average intelligence who, over time, became highly knowledgeable, deeply entrenched maintenance experts in various legacy systems the company had, which in many cases dated back to the late 1980s; ROI is ROI. They were quite valuable to those companies, operationally.

However, they had been there 9, 10, 15, 20 years; they had virtually no transferrable skill sets whatsoever. When that technology does (did) go, so will their jobs, and they will (do) have an extremely difficult time finding another job in a competitive technology market at any place that does not specifically use those systems. Even the folks who played more generally applicable roles like accounts payable analysis, audits, marketing, etc. often became idiosyncratic domain specialists in _that very company_ 's very particular business process and very particular product and customer domain in ways that seemed to call into doubt their ability to shift into an analogous role in another place in time and space.

The zeitgeist of 1950-1990 at General Electric or Ford Motor Co. has passed; it's not coming back, I fear. If there's any advice I can give to people today so that they don't end up in this situation when they're 50, it's that you have to embrace this "up or out" approach we talk about so much here. Unless you're willingly headed toward management and significant increases in compensation, preferably short-term and relatively liquid, you _need_ to get out after a few years. When I say management, I really do mean management; one of the pathologies I have seen a lot is to give people of the above specimen doing the same kind of grunt work year-on-year managerial-sounding titles to justify further salary increases, but whose jobs still consist of procedures and processes that suffer from the above-mentioned liabilities.

But anyway, the company will not take care of you. Company does not care. Probably will not be around forever anyway, at least not in the present form that has any relevance to you whatsoever.

<comment><USER4> My experience is similar to yours, and your observations are absolutely spot on.

I'm always a little suspicious of anyone who has the job title "Project Manager".

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Unless you're on the fast track through management, working within the same company for two decades guarantees that you will have difficulty finding a job at another company should the need arise. Especially in companies like Boeing, where titles such as Internal Auditor and Analyst mean you are essentially a drone doing tasks that do not require critical thinking (I speak from experience).

People need to rethink this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years. At some point you need to look out for yourself, your skills and your future employability outside of the company. Perform well at your job, demand the upfront compensation you deserve and take responsibility for your own career...don't leave it in the hands of a large company bureaucracy.

<comment><USER6> >this undue loyalty they have been giving to companies in exchange for a meager pension after 30 years.

I don't know about the private sector, but public sector pensions seem generous to me. Especially if you take the first 'early retirement' plan you can get on, if you live for an above-average period of time, it's really quite a lot of cash. Did you know that after you retire and start drawing a government pension you can go back to work in a different department (while drawing your first pension and a paycheck) and if you stay in that new department for a specified number of years, you can retire again, and draw two pensions? Also, your pension is a percentage of your salary... your salary when you retire, not an average of your salary.

That's always been my backup plan, anyhow... if it didn't look like I was going to do ok as a business person by the time I was 30 or so (we're down to a month, and I'd say it looks like I'm doing okay. Not great, but okay.) the plan was to get a government job with a pension.

Really, it makes little sense to work for the government when you are young. your pension is calculated based on your age _and_ your years of service, so as far as pension contributions go, years you put in while older earn more pension, and entry-level salaries for most government jobs usually suck compared to the same position in the private sector. so it makes sense to work in the private sector, gain experience and take advantage of the quicker ramp- up in wages while you are young, then at some point switch to a public sector job with a pension as you get older.

Now, personally I'm relieved that it looks like I'll be able to make it on my own. I don't really think I have the temperament for public-sector work. But economically speaking, it looks like my backup plan, which is to say, working in the private sector while young and the public sector while old is basically sound.

but you do have a good point that staying in one place for 20 years is going to, uh, limit your options when it comes time to move around. I'm just saying, the pensions the public sector kicks out, at least here in California, and assuming you live for a while after you retire, make their total compensation packages look pretty attractive for people capable of that sort of work.

<comment><USER7> Well, you're betting that government pensions will stay the same (or get better) over the next 20 or so years. That seems to me like a very bad bet to take. California is basically bankrupt from paying government worker pensions (among other reasons). What makes you think those programs will continue?

Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.

<comment><USER6> >Private industry is pretty much devoid of pensions for new workers now and my best guess is that government isn't very far away from that.

You may very well be correct. I think it depends on how long and deep this recession is, and how much debt we are willing to take on to support the public sector workers and unions.

My point was just that, at least for people retiring now, the pension doesn't seem 'meager' - if you can get the deal the people retiring now are getting, it seems like pretty good deal. (Though yes, I don't know if if that will be possible in the future.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> This story reminds me a bit of my girlfriend's dad.

He worked for a defense contractor as a designer. At the time, everything was done freehand. He got laid off in the early 90's and these jobs pretty much dried up, then started to return 5 or so years later. However, everything was now being done with computers and he couldn't get a job in the field.

He has worked minimum wage jobs ever since.

I feel lucky that in software development I can keep on top of technology trends even if I were unemployed. That is how it has played out so far at least, but will it always? When will the next breakthrough, that which turns the working world on its head, arrive? Hopefully long after I retire, lest I miss the boat like so many did in the past.

So far this field generally produces the things that which drive its own productivity, which means by nature I have had an advantage of understanding new tools moreso than other fields may. I have a hard time callously telling these people they must adapt or die because I recognize that adaptation is being pressured upon them by a field foreign to their practice. Its like your boss coming in tomorrow and telling you that your future employability is based upon your ability to understand why 14 year olds are all ga-ga over Robert Pattinson.

And if you're reading this and don't know who that is, I expect your resignation by the end of the day.

<comment><USER9> I worked in that field thru the 1990 downturn. Before 1990 draftsman/designer job postings would ask for a lettering sample. I was laid off from an ink on vellum design shop but luckily had a buddy who was still at college and had access to a machine with AutoCad ($5000 in hardware and software in 1990). I visited him for a weekend and worked thru a teach yourself book and was then able to pass simple interview tests.

I was lucky to have access to a machine to train myself and young enough that I was still looking for an entry level position.

<comment><USER10> And that's the best reason why tech schools/retraining should be offered as a part of unemployment. (See Clinton's "The Daily Show"'s interview.

If I can go and get very specific training to get my skills up to snuff - <USER2> consider that valuable and a benefit to society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> "Of the 14.9 million unemployed, more than 2.2 million are 55 or older."

So 15% of all unemployed are over 55. That doesn't seem that excessive. If we assumed that the labor force is uniformly distributed (which it probably isn't) from 20 to 65, the expected number is 3.3 million.

<comment><USER12> And the unemployment rate for that group is 2% lower than the overall rate. This story hams up the emotional manipulation, but the statistics it presents make it look like this group is _better off_.

<comment><USER13> I wonder if it's because this group is over-represented in the deciding-who- gets-hired-or-fired group.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basic_income_guarantee>

<comment><USER15> I'd much prefer a basic job guarantee. Instead of just giving out free money, taken from the productive, the government is obligated to give a basic job to all comers.

That job could take many forms - cleaning courthouses and prisons for the unskilled, DMV clerk for the skilled. But it is important that the job be unpleasant and low paid, so that people have an incentive to seek more useful jobs in the private sector.

Basic jobs fulfills the same goals as basic income (no one is destitute) while reducing the disincentives to work that basic income creates.

<comment><USER16> (1) Being payed is not equivalent with being productive

There is a whole lot of work being done by the so called unemployed which really needs to be done but for which no-one is going to pay them. If anything open source should have proven is that while there is a lot of valuable work to be done, no-one is willing to pay for it being done, especially not in the startup phase when it's not even clear what you are working on. Fundamental work is often overlooked because it only becomes clear how to make it profitable after it is made.

Many people are payed while they are totally unproductive, while many of the most productive people are not payed any more, often even a lot less, then the unproductive people. Crap often sells better then quality work.

(2) Full employment is an illusion

There will never be 100% employment, more and more people will find themselves unable to find employment. Currently there is no safety net for the self- employed.

(3) An unconditional basic income is about basic freedom and what this means in the 21th century.

With an unconditional basic income we take worrying about survival of the table. Survival is something that should not be a worry in the civilized world. A basic income is a general safety net for any mishap, misfortune and plain bad luck than could happen to anyone.

(4) An unconditional basic income is about human dignity.

Giving people options that they don't have today: The freedom to quite an unhealthy, low paying, dead-end job and to look for something worth doing. Even if this is something like developing open source software, or some other creative endeavor.In the end more value is created even if no-one was told to do it.

<comment><USER15> Regarding 2) and 3), my proposed "Basic Job" provides that. Everyone will be eligible for the Basic Job, including the formerly self employed and the unlucky, and no one needs to worry about survival.

As for 1) and 4), you seem to believe that there are a huge number of budding Linus Torvald's out in the world, being held down by their corporate 9-5 job. I think that's bunk.

If you think I'm wrong, you should be able to prove it easily. Many people do have some variant on basic income: NYC teachers in the rubber rooms, auto workers in the no-job banks, not to mention the vast European welfare class. Could you point out to me some contributions to the open source world from such people?

<comment><USER16> No, not everyone does things that makes them famous. To be productive does not require one to either get payed or be famous, one can be quite productive and still not get payed enough and at the same time remain nearly anonymous.

Still, people like to do stuff they are passionate about?

The only thing that kills passion is struggling to survive. Scarcity eliminates options, reduces freedom, and it forces people to go into a survival mode, leaning powerlessness. Nothing good can come from this. People who struggle to survive will not have the time or energy to look for better employment or to build their own business.

To have a purpose without resources does not realize much. And if all your time is wasted to survive nothing gets done. People often confuse scarcity with necessity? Something might be very necessary but without sufficient resources innovation is impossible. Necessity is the _father_ of invention and _abundance_ is her mother?

History shows that shared abundance gives peace, freedom, and individual autonomy Abundance with purpose gave us enlightenment, abundance with necessity gave us innovation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> We ought to have a basic income, or at least retraining and job placement that's actually effective. When the country has a surplus of housing stock, threatening her with homelessness is a ridiculously cruel penalty for her inability to personally deduce what our wacky economy wants more of.

<comment><USER15> You know, if she wants to postpone homelessness, she could also sell her "breathtaking piece of property overlooking the sound" with a "lighthouse garret atop the house" and move into a studio apt near a bigger city.

<comment><USER18> I'm not sure she and her husband would make it past a credit/employment check to satisfy a landlord.

<comment><USER15> On a 12 month lease, landlords tend to accept a bank statement showing $18x monthly rent in lieu of good credit/employment. Assuming the Seattle area is just as expensive as the NY area, she would only need to have $18k equity in the house to meet that bar.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I can sympathize with the fact that times are difficult but at the same time what does this prototypical worker expect? It sounds like they've been plugging away at an essentially entry level job for 20 years and now they are shocked it's hard to find new work.

I think people's problem is that they are refusing to adjust to the reality of the times. Namely that they need to live more frugally and be more proactive about finding a job instead of just submitting a few resumes online or taking an online computer skills course. As if that is some kind of herculean task.

<comment><USER20> I found it funny when reading the article that the lady took two trips overseas after getting laid off, amongst other things. She didn't spend 4-years looking for a job like the article suggest ("For Ms. Reid, it has been four years of hunting"). No. She's been unemployed for 4-years.

"Stunned and depressed, she sent out résumés, but figured she had a little time to recover. So she took vacations to Turkey and Thailand with her husband, who is a home repairman. She sought chiropractic treatments for a neck injury and helped nurse a priest dying of cancer."

This also caught me by surprise: "And now, her $500-a-week unemployment benefits have been exhausted."

That has to be wrong. Almost 4-years of unemployment? Of course...

"She has since cut back, forgoing Nordstrom shopping sprees and theater subscriptions, but also cutting out red meat at home and putting off home repairs."

I don't mean to sound harsh. I realize that finding a good job is nice. However, I can only hope to learn from this and remember that it's important to always be learning. Never rest.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Older people are worried they'll be pushed aside for younger, cheaper people with better computer skills. Younger people worry with little experience they'll be pushed aside for older, more knowledgeable people. It's interesting reading both sides of the aisle.

Of course this, "In four years of job hunting, Ms. Reid has discovered that she is no longer technologically proficient." is a true telling of why it's taking so long for some people to find work.

</comment><comment><USER22> I'm not certain that her issue is age related rather than geography. I find it hard to believe that nowhere in the world in the past 4 years is there a job opening she could fill with a MIS and 20 years of experience in audit.

767 jobs on Monster for: audit "masters degree" "information systems"

2 of those jobs are within 20 miles of Seattle, WA (Vashon is an island where you catch a ferry and make it to your job in an hour or so in town).

We live in a global labor pool now and people have a hard time accepting that. You may need to go to the work rather than having the option of choosing from a number of jobs right by where you choose to live.

<comment><USER23> sure there are...but do you think a company would want to interview someone from 500 miles away? How much must they suck...that they have to be desperate enough to seek a job that far away?

<comment><USER22> It isn't about "sucking" or not, it is about having a specialized versus generalized skill set. Both candidates and companies have to look outside of their local markets to make a match the more specialized they make their search.

We're (I work for Rackspace Hosting) constantly flying people out for interviews from all over as we look to find the ideal person for a role. For a company it is much more expensive to settle and hire a non-ideal candidate over time than it is to spend some money on the interview and selection process. The same applies even for valley based companies -- do you think Google or Facebook have a policy of "local candidates only"?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I find it really offensive that the Times describes 50-60 as a "vulnerable" time in these people's lives. That's the age of your _peak_ prosperity, when you have the _most_ assets to liquidate for here-and-now expenses.

The centerpiece of the story was a 57 year old female from Boeing. If her financial planning or outcomes were so poor as to leave her near-penniless at 57, she was going to be a bag lady sooner or later. It was just a matter of time. Imagining she could save for an adequate retirement in the ten remaining years of her career was delusional.

<comment><USER25> I don't think this piece is about a woman who is near penniless at the age of 57, but rather a woman and her husband who might be forced into retirement 10+ years sooner than they anticipated. I think most financially responsible families would be hard pressed to make their retirement stretch an extra 10 years.

<comment><USER24> That's an equally terrible excuse. At the very least, you have to plan for the possibility that your health will force you into retirement. As you move into your 50s, your risk of catastrophic illness shoots upwards.

That's not to say that there aren't a lot of hale, hearty 60 year old women in the world. It's just that one can no longer _count on_ good health. It's important to realize this ahead of time. (In this case, this woman and her husband are really in pretty good shape. Sure, she's not working, but at least she is still capable of working!)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> For those in the telecom industry, this has been a pervasive fear since the early 2000's. My mother has a Ph.D. from MIT, has worked at Bell Labs, and is generally productive as hell. After the telecom bust, it took her years to find a job. When she did, it was in another country.

She eventually did make it back here and got a job. But only after getting another Master's degree in analytics (her 5th degree!)

</comment><comment><USER27> I think she shouldn't expect a _white collar_ job. Better to move to Manufacturing Industry or Agriculture sector.

</comment><comment><USER28> Paywall

<comment><USER29> Actually a free registration. If you don't want to register you can go to www.bugmenot.com and find a login that someone else has already made.

<comment><USER28> Too much effort - the last thing I need is more newspaper spam begging me to pay up for something I need, with no escape in sight. Maybe if I lived in NY.

<comment><USER30> They won't email you unless you want them to. I have been registered for years and haven't gotten one email. I've also only had to sign in once this year, when I got a new computer. It's well worth the effort.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I've recently been contemplating two separate problems we have in this country, and I think I've come up with a partial solution to both.

Problem 1: Illegal immigrants.

Problem 2: Americans who can't find a job.

This seems like a matching problem. I propose that DHS crack down hard on employers of illegal immigrants. To solve problem 2, they must coordinate with local unemployment agencies. DHS will arrest and deport illegal immigrants. For each illegal thus deported, the unemployment benefits of an American (maybe whoever has been on unemployment the longest) will be terminated and they will be ordered to report to work at the former employer of the illegal. Employing a formerly unemployed American will be part of the penalty for the employer of the illegal immigrant.

To induce cooperation among employers, we could create an amnesty program. Employers can report their illegal workers to DHS and avoid paying fines. Maybe DHS/Unemployment Office will even give extra help to minimize disruption to your business (i.e., no deportation until the day replacements are available).

[edit: to those downmodding, just curious. Is there an obvious flaw in my plan that I'm missing?]

<comment><USER31> I didn't downmod you, but a couple potential issues are:

\- The job market isn't always a zero-sum game, so immigrants aren't always "stealing" jobs from citizens.

\- Illegal immigrants are often in low-paying jobs involving manual labor, jobs that many citizens wouldn't consider even if they were available. (Anecdotally, I know one landscaping company that offers all their jobs to legal immigrants/citizens first, and if no one takes them they go to H-1B visas, and if those run out they start looking at illegal immigrants.)

<comment><USER15> In the short term, it is zero sum. In the long run, I agree with you. Therefore, such a scheme would be best used only for people who have been unemployed for a reasonably long period of time (say, 6 weeks).

As for citizens being unwilling to accept available jobs, why should the taxpayer be forced to pay unemployment benefits to people who are unwilling to work?</comment></comment></comment>


This new site keeps track of failed startups and why they flopped - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessinsider.in/This-new-site-keeps-track-of-failed-startups-and-why-they-flopped/articleshow/47578301.cms

<comment><USER2> Yay.

I am deeply concerned by the wild enthusiasm for startups these days. Just because a company has venture funding doesn't mean it's still going to be in business five years from now.

While there are some VCs that I have quite a lot of respect for, I regard the vast majority of them as idiots if not downright criminal. Consider that Knowmed Systems, an electronic records startup, was required by its VC to change its name to "iKnowmed" so wall street would get the idea that it had something to do with the internet.

Based on my own personal experience with venture-funded startups I wrote "The Valley is a Harsh Mistress" at [http://www.warplife.com/tips/business/stock/venture/capital/...](http://www.warplife.com/tips/business/stock/venture/capital/misery.html)

The richest people I have ever personally met made their own fortunes without obtaining investment from anyone else.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, you're right. It seems we are very close to the bursting of a tech bubble. The 2000 internet bubble left numerous established companies in ruins and I don't think this would be any different. Valuations of companies with absolutely no revenue are at the zenith.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Extensive discussion of autopsy.io, 3 days ago:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666013](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9666013)</comment>


Comscore, Calacanis, Quantcast, etc - <AUTHOR> http://vcmike.wordpress.com/2010/01/24/comscore-calacanis-quantcast-etc/

<comment><USER2> "Unless you've been asleep or unconscious the last few days, you no doubt have been following the brouhaha kicked off by Jason Calacanis's angry rant against Comscore and its business practices."

Another example of living in an echo chamber. I doubt more than a few thousand people care anything about the "brouhaha."

<comment><USER3> Yes, but I also bet that the people who read is blog are almost exclusively a subset of the people who know about the 'brouhaha.'

It seems perfectly reasonable for him to assume people reading his blog know about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> for those of us that know about it, its a pretty big thing. comscore can really affect how advertisers look at you and your product. i've seen this happen with several notable clients, and the difference between paying to have more realistic numbers published can be night and day.</comment>


How a 3D printer clone was stopped from launching on Kickstarter - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@Kodama3D/the-art-of-copying-how-a-3d-printer-clone-was-stopped-from-launching-on-kickstarter-and-failed-on-bb63e68cf273 <comment><USER2> The problem I have with copyright, patents etc. is what if tweaking the design makes sense? or Maybe not even to the larger market, but some subsection. To me 3d printers are cool because they make 3d printer parts. Don't get me wrong I get the reason for patents and copyrights. But, to me I think ARM had it right in patenting the design and building an ecosystem around it.</comment>


The Google+ project and exec team - <AUTHOR> https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1049523067506966529.html <comment><USER2> This is a dupe of an article from yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212682](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18212682)

</comment><comment><USER3> I've only read for 5 minutes so far but this is a really interesting read.

</comment><comment><USER4> Just another drop in the bucket of "well achieving people can still be piece of shit". This whole article was embarassing to read from start to finish, and I'd never hire this guy if I were a CEO anytime if this came up on search result.

No matter if there is some truth behind the laundry list, the hateful and down-looking words sprinkled in ("They were one level below me") just smudges it all. He may have worked at high level places, this article shows he didn't learn much at all.

<comment><USER5> The "one level below me" remark was in reference to Google's employee classification system/hierachy. Should've been obvious from the context (the author mentioned he himself was classified as "UI Designer Level II").

And sure, hiring this guy would be a bad idea if your company was a complete shitshow, like Google apparently was at the time Knutson worked there. In any competently run company, he'd be an asset.</comment></comment>


Eighteen Is Too Young to Vote - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/eighteen-is-too-young-to-vote-11595977239 <comment><USER2> And 65 is too old to vote. Mental flexibility decreases, and senility sets in, as do degenerative diseases like Alzheimer's. You no longer have children in school and you're no longer working for a living, leaving you dangerously out of touch with the needs of the majority of the country.

So tell ya what, Dr. Gelertner. I'll accept raising the lower bound when you agree to establish an upper bound. Because otherwise all I'm seeing is a call to exclude your ideological opponents rather than a rational consideration of who should be allowed to make decisions.

</comment><comment><USER3> > Today's adolescent voters aren't allowed to drink and aren't drafted to > fight a war.

History shows the draft part changes quickly once the shooting starts.

How about a law that says the minimum military service age can't be less than the minimum voting age?

</comment><comment><USER4> Gelertner, jfengel, and blacksqr all make good points.

But I think the most helpful metaphor is that of obtaining a driver's license. Everyone knows that 16-year-old drivers are not quite there in terms of competence and judgment. But you have to start somewhere.

As a conservative I sympathize with Gelertner, but I think he's wrong.</comment>


Yahoo investors rankle at spin-off plan, one suggests laying off 9,000 - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/business/2015/12/yahoo-investors-rankle-at-spin-off-plan-one-suggests-laying-off-9000/ <comment><USER2> I'm really sick of "investors" thinking that trimming every little cost here and there is going to somehow fix things. As if they didn't have dozens of historic examples to show them what penny-pinching will do? Employees will be pissed off! The ones that stay will basically reduce their enthusiasm and valuable work output to 0%, if not actively sabotaging you by aggravating your remaining customer base with incompetence. The rest (probably the most talented ones) will leave, dooming all projects so that in 3-6 months the company will want exactly the same cuts again.

Here's a different approach: cut at least one big idea or product line that isn't going anywhere, that your competitors have long since dominated. Then, aggressively refocus the company on making the remaining products great. And that doesn't mean being cheap; indeed, they may want to _hire dozens or hundreds_ to help the focus areas become as unique and valuable as they possibly can be. It may even be necessary to make some pitches to attract new investors around those products. And yes, keep giving those people iPhones and free food; don't be ridiculous, you _need_ that to offset the fact that there's a dozen other places they could be.

It also sure wouldn't hurt if they could at least try to get back into the public eye. When's the last time you saw a commercial for Yahoo, or could even name what it is that they _do_?

<comment><USER3> I think investors could rightfully say that they "are sick of 'online commenters' thinking they know what Yahoo should do without having any skin in the game."

You cannot "aggressively refocus" without cutting something. For a company like Yahoo, resource allocation is a zero sum game. Moreover, if Yahoo sees iPhones and free food as the only things keeping an employee from leaving, aren't they doing themselves a favor by letting those employees quit at will?

<comment><USER4> > Moreover, if Yahoo sees iPhones and free food as the only things keeping an > employee from leaving, aren't they doing themselves a favor by letting those > employees quit at will?

It's not that iPhones and free food keep people, it's the signal that even the little expenses are going to be penny pinched with no regard for employee morale. Which seems like a pretty good reason to get out IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Employee morale must be terrible. Even worse is the idea that a significant improvement will come from "eliminating employee perks like free food and company iPhones", which are a tiny fraction of the total cost of an employee, but the cutting of which sends a strong negative signal and may result in further loss of productivity and morale.

<comment><USER6> Not to say there aren't issues with this, but I think there is also something to be said around expectations. If your company is not healthy, perks tend to suffer because at the end of the day, they don't matter if you have to fire everyone. There's a certain type of individual who picks a company based on perks, and when a company is in trouble, you'd much rather have employees that are there for the business and the mission.

Now, that said, this is Silicon Valley. Free food and company phones are table stakes for any company wanting to hire and retain top tech talent. Combined with the fact that these two perks in particular enable improvements in employee productivity, and I think that would be a very dumb move.

<comment><USER7> Free food is also a great way to transfer value to the employee without it being taxed multiple times over. It's an under-the-counter method of payment.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> [http://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle- eart...](http://steveblank.com/2009/12/21/the-elves-leave-middle- earth-%E2%80%93-soda%E2%80%99s-are-no-longer-free/)

</comment><comment><USER9> From the article it seems like one institutional investor wants to lay off 9000 people.

Im not sure whats worse. The layoffs or the story circulating in the media. Would love to hear what morale is like right now, over at Yahoo.

<comment><USER10> They are not real people for "institutional investor", they are just numbers that costs money, money that could be /in their own pocket/ instead of wasted buying food and other perks.

Clearly what he means is that she's not a Carly grade of CEO, firing 10k+ employees [0] and deeming the whole episode a resounding success.

[0]: [http://carlyfiorina.org/](http://carlyfiorina.org/)

<comment><USER11> I agree, but the sad thing is that I think doing a mass cutting of middle management would probably actually be a good idea.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Could someone explain the tax situation to me?

If putting the Alibaba holdings into a separate company would incur tax, why can't they just put everything else into a separate company, called say "Yahoo Media", and leave YHOO with just the Alibaba ownership?

<comment><USER13> I don't get it. Why shouldn't Yahoo pay the taxes? They invested in Alibaba, and have made HUGE gains, and if they want to realize those gains, they need to pay the taxes.

<comment><USER14> The shareholders of YHOO will pay taxes regardless. If YHOO wants to spend the money from Alibaba, it will (and has already done so) pay taxes. The question is whether YHOO should pay taxes before returning the gains to the shareholders, who will then pay taxes.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why are there so many new job boards - <AUTHOR> Hi there!
Today I was just doing some research and noticed that right now there is a huge number of new "niche" job boards.
Especially within the "remote work niche" I found a couple of sites like:
- https://remoteok.io/
- https://weworkremotely.com/
- https://remote.co/remote-jobs/
They are basically all of the same scrappy type and design and are nothing special, but they seem to be thriving.
My questions:
Why is there suddenly a huge number of these boards? I mean nothing has changed technology wise, but somehow these businesses must make sense now.
What is the business model of these sites? The traffic potential for these sites is not that great and the job board niche itself is a tough nut to crack - is there still enough money in it to make it work?
And additionally, if you are an employer: What would you make use some of these sites instead of the entrenched brands? <comment><USER2> It's seen as a relatively easy way to make money (if you make it work, hard to get good traffic without a community, etc).

It's a web page with a form and they charge from $99 to $399 per submission.

</comment><comment><USER3> Sometimes I wonder if recruiting and head-hunting companies encourage all of these niche job boards in order to make their "simpler" business model more attractive.

</comment><comment><USER4> Copycat Innovation Strategy > [http://www.innovationmanagement.se/imtool- articles/copycat-i...](http://www.innovationmanagement.se/imtool- articles/copycat-innovation-a-practical-route-to-profitable-innovation/)

Combined with the trends of high demand/low supply of talent. Plus, hiring execs growing comfort level working with distributed contractors.</comment>


Poorly Secured IoT Devices a Risk to Life and Property, Experts Warn Congress - <AUTHOR> https://www.technologyreview.com/s/603015/security-experts-warn-congress-that-the-internet-of-things-could-kill-people/ <comment><USER3> I think Schneier is right when he says part of the problem is market failure.

Shipping every device with a different default password costs more than not doing it - you have to take care to put the right password label with the right device, for example - and it's the consumers with the /least/ security knowledge who /most/ need this feature.

Somebody who knows to check whether the device has default passwords before buying knows to change them after buying - while the consumer who doesn't know the dangers of fixed default passwords doesn't know to shop for a device without fixed default passwords.

There are other problems too, of course. Even if you legislate security standards, cheap products drop-shipped from China by ebay sellers can ignore the standards with impunity.

<comment><USER4> Well for electronics there is UL in the US and there is no rule that your product has to be UL listed but if you want your house insured (many insurance companies require plugged-in electronics be UL listed) and as a vendor you want your product sold in retail stores, you need the listing.

It's a great example of the market solving the problem. You can make your product not pass UL testing but Home Depot won't sell it.

Now if there was a similar standard for security it could work. Just the industry is young.

As an aside, I think UL listing is prohibitively expensive. I wish there was competition.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Actually there are standards for electrical devices too, so it doesn't accidentally burn your house down. IoT needs robust security and update mechanisms.

I just fear that some IoT device also has to burn a house down until something happens. Right now it's just webcams, soon it's ovens which can be exploited easily. This needs to be pushed right now, the stuff is already on the market.

<comment><USER4> It's noteworthy that in the US at least this problem was solved by the market without legislation. UL listing was voluntarily adopted by retailers and insurance companies. I see no reason why there couldn't be a similar option for IoT.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> So does this involve banning the sale of foreign (or particularly, chinese) computers/IoT/whatever where the creator did not seek or did not obtain a sort of certification?

Because best realistic case scenario, after spending a shitload of money, you're only going to get development to improve within the US but you aren't gonna touch the crapware doing the bulk of the damage.

<comment><USER7> I don't think it matters where the device was built, as long as the US distributor can be sued for damages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> The article bashes together two different topics related to devices on the internet in a way that doesn't really help. All the articles I have seen so far have done this.

The first is about devices connected to the net used to cause problems on the net such as DOS. Devices have a tiny attack surface as they are usually protected by a password for access. The fix there is easy, just stop shipping devices with default passwords.

The second is about attacks against devices that could create a "Risk to Life and Property". The fix there is harder in that it involves knowledge of whatever process is being controlled. Ideally systems would be safe in the face of _any_ software failure, no matter what the cause.

<comment><USER9> Yep, and the NHS references the Ukraine power grid episode, which was caused through phishing via e-mail. Having SCADA's connected to the Internet is not a good idea anyway, but has nothing to do with having an el-cheapo - say - <USER2> camera with admin/admin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Neat how a term as 'IoT' can get all previous, historical security discussions and articles repeated as if its a new finding or a new risk we should think of. I am _almost tempted_ to call all these articles clickbait.

Secure everything, not only your puters your car, chainsaw, and internet connected nas, don't use same logins at for all your internet accounts, and YES also secure your tiny computers that are connected to the internet.

</comment><comment><USER11> _insert Fight Club recall-calculation scene here_

</comment><comment><USER12> Why do we need to wait for the government to get their act together? Why isn't there an independent organization yet that can provide this guidance, like Consumer Reports but specifically for IoT?

<comment><USER13> There is.

The problem is that the manufacturers aren't listening and don't care.

<comment><USER12> Which organization? As a consumer, I don't even know where to go to look for security ratings, and that's why manufacturers don't have to care about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Buying an internet enabled device for your home is like giving your house keys to the internet.</comment>


Ask HN: Sites, options, tax issues for remote working - <AUTHOR>

Hi all. I'm an EU med/senior DevOps developer. I currently have a stable job in UKI but I've been considering the possibility of remote working. Reason for this is that for various family reasons I need to relocate for some years on a back-of-beyond place (still in EU though) where there is virtually no job market.
Yet there seem to be a lot of details in it that baffle me (how would I be paid for example and what to do with my residence country tax office). More importantly where is the best place to look for such job ads? I checked some sites that supposedly offer such job ads but they seem more like scum sites (and require payment). Also most jobs I find are US based and seem to apply to US citizens only - I can find very little for EU citizens. Can you point me somewhere to begin with ?
Thanks a million in advance!
PS: I'm not interested in sites like elance. I'm trying to land a normal(ish) job not a peanuts per hour contractor deal. I cannot make a living in EU with the rates going on these sites. <comment><USER2> Check out [http://letsworkshop.com/](http://letsworkshop.com/) for jobs.I discovered the site here on Hackernews about a year ago. A freelancer called Robert has been running the site. He also sends out weekly emails with some great content relevant to people working remote.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER3> The whoishiring thread here on HN has a few legit offers for remote work in EU but unfortunately I can't give you any tips on taxes/payments/etc...</comment>


Show HN: Sidedoor – College acceptances made easy - <AUTHOR> https://www.kapwing.com/sidedoor <comment><AUTHOR> One of the biggest problems that I've faced in my life has been getting admitted to a top university. At some top schools, the acceptance rate can be as low as 4 or 5% of applicants. It's way too competitive. So, I set out to solve this pain point and the result is Sidedoor.

Sidedoor partners with coaches at the nation's top university to guarantee your admission at colleges including Yale, USC, and many more.

In just a few clicks, you'll be able to reserve a spot at the school of your choice. No legacy status required. And don't worry, you don't need to be athletic - just wealthy!

Hope you enjoy the service, and please let me know your thoughts!</comment>


North American Object Storage Service Impact - <AUTHOR> https://documentation.meraki.com/zGeneral_Administration/Support/North_American_Object_Storage_Service_Impact_(8-4-2017) <comment><USER2> I designed/deployed a decent sized Meraki network about 4 years ago - at the time it was one of the larger full-stack Meraki networks that exists. An 11 site school district with the edge, all idfs, ap's, phones and at a a later point some of their cameras.

Meraki still thinks of themselves a startup, but they have these "uh-oh's" all the time. Random bad firmware that turns off the 5g channel on the MR42's. A DPI "upgrade" that blocked ALL SSL traffic (which at this point is basically all traffic). Their solution was always to try "beta" firmware... in production... in the middle of state-mandated online testing.

I was a huge advocate for them but at some point it's gonna be hard for me to keep recommending them. They're so excited about new features but really fail about 1) fixing bugs and 2) ensuring robustness. The "fail fast fail often" mentality really shouldn't work with critical infrastructure

<comment><USER3> Ubiquiti (unifi) was very much like this back then too, and to this day still breaks stuff every update. They're getting better now but running a large site or multiple large sites was a constant game if whack a mole trying to figure out which firmware works best on which equipment.

I have heard similar stories to yours about meraki and that's what swayed the decision to just go ubiquiti since it's less expensive.

<comment><USER4> We removed almost every piece of Ubiquiti equipment from our network because of the quantity and severity of bugs in their products. For example: Disabling a port on Edgerouters will grey out the port in the UI, but it doesn't actually stop traffic from passing through the port.

I also have no love for how some features are only available via command line while others are only available in the UI. This also differs depending on what product line you're using. Pick one strategy and stick to it.

<comment><USER3> What are you using instead now? Genuinely curious.

<comment><USER4> We're nearly 100% Juniper on the network side. The PtP and PtMP equipment we were using from Ubiquiti is now 95% Mimosa. The only Ubiquiti products that I like are Airfiber 24's and that's only because no one else offers an alternative.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Whenever people say they don't need backups because they are 'cloud based' I always wonder what they'll do when their precious cloud provider messes up. The chances of this happening to Amazon, Google or Microsoft are small but they're not 0, if it can happen to Cisco it likely could happen anywhere.

<comment><USER6> Do you think you will do a better job of backing up stuff compared to google, msft, etc.? They have dedicated engineers and spend lots of money on this stuff.

Think of it from a statistical perspective what is probability of you setting up this back up system vs them?

<comment><USER7> They may have better engineering, but they also have extra risks. My home server will never ban me because it thinks I've violated its TOS, for example.

<comment><USER8> Nor will your own storage lock you out because you've annoyed a state actor, while a cloud provider will roll over.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Not surprised to see this, I've run into many issues with Meraki devices over the past 2+ years.

Their support team is amateur at best; at one point I had 6 Meraki engineers working on a DHCP problem (yeah...DHCP) and their recommendation after several weeks of troubleshooting - do a factory reset.

I have dozens of stories...don't even get me started.

</comment><comment><USER10> >"The issue has since been remediated and is no longer occurring."

I would think that if you lost your data, unless they have restored your deleted data the "issue" is still very much occurring for you as a customer.

Wouldn't remediation be that they have recovered your lost data?

<comment><USER11> That would certainly be my understanding of remediation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> FTA: "Your network configuration data is not lost or impacted - this issue is limited to user-uploaded data."

Errrrrrr... so the issue was limited only to _data I would actually care about_ then? Or did I misread?

That is a frankly extraordinary use of weasel words.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, you misread. Configuration data is what makes the network actually work and that was preserved.

<comment><USER11> Fair enough. And I suppose that release was meant for people with an understanding of the product, in which case that makes more sense. Still... interesting choice of words. "Oh, it's only the user-uploaded data that we've lost."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Only losing user-uploaded data seems pretty mild, in this case. Meraki sells cloud-managed network hardware, so you don't interact with it that often. Network configurations, logs, traffic data -- any of those would've been much worse to lose. The custom bits like voicemail greetings and IVR will likely be the hardest to replace.

</comment><comment><USER14> Does anyone familiar with their marketing language know how many "nines" they had on their resiliency number ?

<comment><USER15> As many extra as were punched into that command that permanently wiped out a bunch of AWS EBS data a while back.

It haunts me to think about how many people are using these services as their single source of data. Fat fingers melt through 9s.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> And this is why outsourcing 100% of your stuff isn't the greatest idea. Sure, the 'managing servers is not your core business'-story holds up most of the time, but when you have no control of anything anymore, you no longer control your services.

<comment><USER17> I would think "business continuity" is a core function of, you know, business.

<comment><USER16> As do I, but that's not what marketing teams advertise for ;-) I suppose doing something like specific offloading makes for a great cloud case, but being able to run the baseline at home will at least guarantee a degree of control that will keep you going.</comment></comment></comment>


Aaron Swartz on illness and depression - <AUTHOR> http://www.aaronsw.com/weblog/verysick <comment><USER2> A really good talk on Major Depression, what it is (a terrible, paralyzing biological attack on the mind) and what it is not:

Robert Sapolsky (Stanford) : <http://youtu.be/NOAgplgTxfc>

</comment><comment><USER3> It can be super tough to deal with a combination of symptoms that can seem unrelated, or miniscule on their own. I suffered similarly for most of my life - turned out I had a celiac disease and just had to eat Gluten Free. Lack of nutritional absorption, effects of dehydration from diarrhea. And yet to

<comment><USER4> My dad was diagnosed with celiac disease several years ago but (mostly) refused to go on the diet because he's strong willed about things like that. He's in a rather bad way now, so if anyone here gets diagnosed with it, please follow the diet.

<comment><USER5> \-- and if the gluten-free diet does not work, please try the more restrictive, "specific carbohydrate" diet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> For those who have experience with dealing with depression, what are your thoughts on how suicides like Aaron's can be prevented? He seems like a particularly unusual case, just because he had so many outlets and was so well accomplished. I know that depression is very much related to physiological factors, but some of those factors can be mitigated by behavior, and Aaron had all the opportunities to at least distract his mind. Even the DOJ case can't be considered a direct factor...such David vs Goliath cases spark people and give them purpose, or at least a schedule of milestones to reach, which are at least given meaning when activism is involved.

Beyond the tragedy of Aaron's death, it strikes me how difficult it must be to treat such depression if it wasn't effectively treated in his case...

<comment><USER7> To prevent it has undertones that he can't freely choose what he wants. That to me, is more depressing than being jailed with depression.

I keep seeing the same retorts, here, on Reddit, Gawker, and whatever outlet treating this as if it's Kurt Cobain.

That if only someone had talked him down, or that if he had opened up more, that the DOJ was bullying him, so on, so forth. The most egregious offense I keep seeing is how selfish suicide is.

That, to me, is a very intimate and personal thing to say. That's something he shares with him, his family, and close friends.

But my conclusion is this... emotional guilt tripping someone to say their suicide creates pain for others thereby he should never choose to commit suicide doesn't perpetuate healthy growth.

Moreover I think it's interesting as to how a community responds. The first thing people are doing is to find a solution, to problem solve depression which has many variables, vectors, causes, and results.

I believe this is our challenge oriented engineering brain at work. But maybe that's not the right approach, maybe like dealing with your girlfriend in a the relationship, the point isn't to immediately jump to rescue, just listen.

Just say hi.

Having spent some time on and off the past few years on suicidewatch boards I keep seeing the same pattern over and over again. The majority of people just want to talk, a sign, and they'll take anything, that they are worth it. There's a minority of people, though, that just wants the pain and suffering to stop. Death is incidental.

To those people, I don't wish it, but if it is what they want, I don't want to ever be further trapped than I would already feel.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Most people who have celiac do not know it. It requires a special blood test. It is an auto immune disease and causes depression, fatigue, and stomach pains. Your body literally attacks the villi in your intestines which absorb nutrients. Not sure this is what Aaron had celiac, but he does have the symptons. This is why so many people are eating gluten free, not to lose weight. One out of 100 have celiac, and the numbers are growing.

</comment><comment><USER9> I have the exact same issues with my health; Constant sinusitis, constant chronic burning sensation in my stomach and constant headaches. Been to so many doctors but no treatment so far. Somedays I just lay in bed and do nothing out of the pain. It's not crippling enough that I can't get up but it is enough from keeping me coding or concentrating. Maybe the path he took isn't bad afterall.

</comment><comment><USER10> Very pathetic to hear the pain he has gone through. Rest in peace, kid!! We all love you for the work we did.

</comment><comment><USER11> People need to talk about their struggles with depression so that others can be educated. It is a very hard illness to understand. It is incredibly important.

<http://youcantmakelemonadeoutofthisshit.wordpress.com/>

</comment><comment><USER12> I created a facebook cover, tribute to Aaron : <http://i.imgur.com/Cl7ME.jpg>

His articles inspired me and helped me get out of my depressed times, Can't believe he helped thousands "get better at life" then he lost his own .. so sad

<comment><USER13> Thank you. I am using this as my cover photo to bring awareness to Aaron's work. Strangely enough, I celebrated the death of my best friend, who killed himself 13 years ago, yesterday. Another brilliant mind taken too soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Painfully reminds me of David Foster Wallace describing depression in Infinite Jest. Rest in peace, both of you.

</comment><comment><USER15> That's so strange. Such a smart person, who been able to figure out the fixed- set-mentality (which has another name - Learned Helplessness) should be aware that all those symptoms are going together in feed-back loops, and that individually crafted cognitive behavior therapy - slow-but-steady, iterative, but radical changes in ones behavior, ones _habits_ is the only way out. He also figured out those fallbacks-to-default-mood, which is, again, a mere habituation. Sadly, being smart is not enough. Self-control and "emotional intelligence" are required.

As any bookish kid will eventually realize - no excess of theory could compensate for the lack of practice. This is a very unpleasant realization after half of life was spent reading.

<comment><USER16> Modern medicine has a habit of attributing unknown physical ailments to a sketchy diagnosis of mental illness. The thinking goes "well we don't know what's wrong with you, so it's probably anxiety or depression". The symptoms he states could be allergies, Lyme Disease, a brain tumor for all we know, or something else. The quickness with which some doctors rush to a diagnosis of anxiety or depression is scary, sometimes doing so before running any tests.

Your post kind of comes off as blaming the patient. This is the quickest way to get people to avoid seeking help, because they will be told they are at fault for all their symptoms, which makes them want to seek treatment even less.</comment></comment>


Alexa, be my friend: Children talk to technology, but how does it respond? - <AUTHOR> http://www.washington.edu/news/2018/08/06/alexa-be-my-friend-children-talk-to-technology-but-how-does-it-respond/ <comment><USER2> I heard of a boy who had learned to repeat, slowly, a command when Alexa didn't do what he wanted - often a voice recognition issue.

Soon, he started to apply that scheme also to talking to their parents:

"Mom, I want vanilla ice cream."

"No, you had enough."

"Mom - I - want - va - nil - la - ice - cream."

<comment><USER3> "Make me a sandwich"

"No"

"Sudo make me a sandwich"

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I put an Echo Dot in my son's room a couple months after he was born to play music/white noise for him to fall asleep easier and to make the mornings easier when getting him ready (so that, for instance, I can use it to ascertain news/weather/daily travel info). Over the past year and a half since I put it in his room, he has of course been developing rapidly in his cognitive abilities, and he's finally at the point now where he can wake the device on his own. It's been several months of trying to talk to it, mostly by mimicking the simpler commands that he hears me say.

It's interesting to me that he has grown up speaking at the Echo and slowly learning how to communicate with it in much the same way that he is learning to communicate with other people. His communicative learning progress is definitely a lot slower with the Echo than with me, but that makes sense since he spends a lot more time with people than with the Echo. Even still, I was very impressed the other day when he woke the Echo (and then promptly told it to "stop", which has been in his vocabulary for a while now).

I'm not sure there's any real point to this outside of just an interesting (to me) anecdote. And I guess it's probably time I take the Echo out of his room, or at least figure out how to lock it down, so he doesn't get into anything age-inappropriate or buy 500 cans of tomato sauce or something.

Anybody else have any interesting experiences with their little ones learning to communicate with smart devices?

<comment><USER5> I think your tale begs the question: How will your son's (or any other child's for that matter) notion of personal privacy be shaped by the use of technology from a very early age? I think we'll have to wait and see, as this will be highly interesting.

<comment><USER6> Fair question. I wonder if it might change much thought, depending on the frame of reference.

I think a lot of us grew up with siblings in the same room. Rooms didn't lock. Parents not looking but knowing all too well what's going on. Schools reporting on behavior by phone or by letter that as a kid you didn't get to see.

I think for me the notion of 'privacy' was just being left alone with no one bothering me. It's only as an adult that I have a clear perimeter where no one should be able to step in. In that regard having a lot of your doings leaked to parents might not be that impacting.

<comment><USER7> ...I think a lot of us grew up with siblings in the same room. Rooms didn't lock.

Indeed, but those were your family members. You knew them well and there was context, for good or ill.

But in this case the device is a bunch of strangers. Perhaps no one stranger listening in, but everything being processed off site and added to the profile Amazon or Google is building about you.

<comment><USER8> The device is not a bunch of strangers. There's no humans listening to "your" conversation. Though they may be listening to anonymized clips. The activity stored is also your own to control.

I think such privacy concepts are too abstract for a child to be concerned about. You'd be hurting their view of technology and enforcing an idea of Big Brother if you were to teach them a voice assistant is a bunch of strangers listening to you.

<comment><USER7> I think facebook+cabridge analytica et al, and google's collection of location data even when the user opts out (just to name two), shows that it really is a bunch of strangers listening to you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Alexa should be treated as a different kind of stranger. I think it's a huge mistake for children to talk to computers. It's inherently dishonest for a single voice to represent something so manipulative and fluid as if it's a person.

Amusing example: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECcIJW67-M](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MECcIJW67-M)

<comment><USER10> It's not amusing at all. It's incredibly spot on. Alexa has very limited knowledge and 0 interpretation skills, but, worse than all, behaves as if it does.

(note that, in a sense, a book has very limited knowledge and 0 interpretation skills, but its behaviour is passive).

<comment><USER11> Indeed, I hate that AI is such a buzzword when what we have are a fraction of where we need to be. We have jigsaw puzzle pieces, really tiny ones in what feels like an infinitely large (or who knows how many pieces) jigsaw puzzle.

I don't mind them being called "Voice Assistants" though, but don't tell me it's AI or ML, since it doesn't truly learn, it calibrates your voice if anything. It doesn't do a darn thing on it's own, someone has to tell it to do that thing, like in some cases the very human communicating. When they are fully autonomous... THEN I'll be happy, and creeped out at the same time.

The real change with AI will be if the masses are allowed to build their own relatively easily enough. When even kids are allowed to be creative with different AI's it will get interesting enough.

Sadly some megacorp will buy it out and lock it up is more likely to happen.

<comment><USER12> > ... but don't tell me it's AI or ML, since it doesn't truly learn

Give it time and it'll be like in the movies. I'm a tinfoil hat, vpns, adblockers, but that youtube made me want one, it's funny :)

<comment><USER11> Maybe Mycroft?

[https://mycroft.ai/](https://mycroft.ai/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is what happens when children talk to Alexa: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epyWW2e43UU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epyWW2e43UU)

<comment><USER10> The question of the father (I guess) is : "Bobby what were you doing ?". That is an issue to me.

People are not choosing Alexa/siri/whatever, they dream about it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Don't we have a general problem where voice interaction is primitive on all devices?

I use Siri and Alexa almost daily. I feel like we have a very long way to go.

<comment><USER15> It's funny watching Leo Laporte's podcasts on twit.tv. He surrounds himself with those assistants. And despite having a crystal clear, radio voice all the devices either are triggered by mistake or ask him to repeat half of the time.

Now if you are doing a tech radio show, this has a high entertainment value. If you are busy, in the middle of something and need a task done, these repeated failed interactions are a complete non starter. Imagine a smartphone where the screen wouldn't register a tap half of the time, it would end up in a bin very quickly.

Plus I am not sold on non self-discoverable UIs. Like I don't remember the name of all the operas I have on my phone. It takes seconds to browse with a screen. Same things for the commands. If forcing users to learn by heart dozens of commands was commercially viable, we would still be using MS DOS! But GUIs are way more powerfull.

<comment><USER16> GUI's are faster when you're near the device and don't have your hands full or when the command is complicated. But I have Echo's in various forms in most rooms now because while I also find discoverability an annoying issue there are plenty of commands that are obvious enough to learn quickly that work for the easy cases that you do all the time. A dozen or so commands covers maybe 90% of what I want it for.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Random story: my niece was visiting shortly after we got an echo, and we showed it to her and told her to ask it a question. She held something up and asked, "Alexa, what color is this?" Cue trying to explain to her that Alexa doesn't have eyes.

<comment><USER18> We had a similar experience - my 4 year old asked her what the password was. Luckly Alexa was confidential :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> It's not very scientific to set up an experiment to test a hypothesis, then mess up in some way (they forgot to turn voice recognition on) and fix it by changing the hypothesis afterwards. However, I understand they couldn't let all the effort they put into it go to waste...

</comment><comment><USER20> According to a study reported in this article in Motherboard, children are easily peer pressured by robots.

[https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3qqep/children-a...](https://motherboard.vice.com/en_us/article/a3qqep/children- are-easily-peer-pressured-by-robots-study-finds)

When you add in the idea of their constant childhood pal being a device designed to sell them items from Amazon, it's quite worrying.

If you wanted to take a positive spin on it, you could see it as the possible beginnings of a form of digital post-scarcity centrally controlled economy communism, I suppose.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've seen my kids try this. Very weird. They want to just talk to Google assistant, rather than get anything done. Google assistant does not work very well for this use case.

</comment><comment><USER9> Interesting asymmetry: [https://i.redd.it/rnoc8y7fjxg11.jpg](https://i.redd.it/rnoc8y7fjxg11.jpg)

</comment><comment><USER22> "Your daughter pauses, stammers, mispronounces a few words. She's a beginner, after all."

give her some real toys or let her play outside if she's not of the age to even speak normal. don't put little children to have some internet bot as a friend because you're lazy parent/.

</comment><comment><USER23> Would you let your kids socialize with a used car salesman?

</comment><comment><USER24> You should ask Alexa once or twice a day for whom she works. To remind yourself what you have in your home.

<comment><USER25> Please don't post unsubstantive comments here, and especially not the flamey kind.

<comment><USER26> You're wrong on this one. The comment was substantive.

<comment><USER25> People seem to agree. Perhaps I read it wrong!

<comment><USER27> Probably not, given that nobody has managed to explain its supposed insight or wit.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HMqZ2PPOLik)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> [https://themighty.com/2017/11/amazon-alexa-helping-child- dis...](https://themighty.com/2017/11/amazon-alexa-helping-child-disability/)

[https://growingupbilingual.com/2018/tech-and- gadgets/8-ways-...](https://growingupbilingual.com/2018/tech-and- gadgets/8-ways-amazons-echo-kids-edition-is-a-great-tool-for-kids-with- special-needs/)

There are tons of examples on the net

<comment><USER29> I clicked on the growingupbilingual link. About every third word is a highlighted brand. I have trouble reading it as a personal account when it looks so much like advertising.

<comment><USER30> They are linking to the things being discussed. God forbid people use hyperlinks on a website.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> It responds by profiling, grooming and manipulating them from a very young age.

"Aww look, my 3 year old is having a conversation with a massive advertising corporation, and has begun talking to human beings the same way he talks to an inanimate object. How cute!"</comment>


2020 Police Brutality – Rapidly growing subreddit doubled in day to 25k members - <AUTHOR> https://www.reddit.com/r/2020PoliceBrutality/ <comment><AUTHOR> [https://github.com/freezman14/Floyd-Protests-Police- Accounta...](https://github.com/freezman14/Floyd-Protests-Police- Accountability-Links)</comment>


Show HN: Not sure what to read next? Here's a list of most mentioned books on HN - <AUTHOR> http://www.hntopbooks.com

<comment><AUTHOR> The site was inspired by a thread a few months ago on what books HN recommend. I'm a self-taught programmer and I would also like to know if the skill set in creating a site like this would be enough to qualify me for an entry level position at a web company for more learning experiences. Thank you.

</comment><comment><USER2> I'm kind of surprised the Skiena "The Algorithm Design Manual" didn't make it. [http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steven- Skiena/...](http://www.amazon.com/Algorithm-Design-Manual-Steven- Skiena/dp/1848000693/ref=dp_ob_title_bk)</comment>


Jsbench.me JavaScript benchmarking playground release v1.0 - <AUTHOR> https://jsbench.me/ <comment><AUTHOR> v1 live. After over 2 years in beta. Complete rewrite and bunch of new features, but with familiar interface.</comment>


How to Beat a Patent Troll - <AUTHOR> https://avc.com/2019/11/how-to-beat-a-patent-troll/ <comment><USER2> Previous discussion: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21447215](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21447215)

</comment><comment><USER3> I am a fan of Fred's work/blog but I'm not sure how this is a "how to" AKA a guide, rather than a regurgitation of someone else's guide, meant only for well-financed companies.

For those of us bootstrapping, this will unfortunately not work. We are stuck settling with these parasites.

</comment><comment><USER4> This is probably not a viable strategy for any startup without significant financial resources and time to dedicate to it.

From the post itself:

> It is tempting to settle with patent trolls if you can settle for less than > litigation costs. Our portfolio companies do it all the time and it is > rational behavior.

That precisely is the trolls' business model - make settling with them the rational way to go. The system is broken and needs to be fixed so that this business model is no longer viable.

<comment><USER5> Exactly, we need legal changes. The changes aren't even hard, just require enough political will.

<comment><USER6> The patent system is broken but SV is full of goons who made billions off of "do it on a computer" patents and they will never allow their cash cows to be legislated away. Patent trolls are really bad but they are just one symptom of a system that is built on huge patent portfolios. The big companies are just as bad IMHO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> In the original cloudflare posting, they said this - _" As we have explained previously, patent trolls benefit from a problematic incentive structure that allows them to take vague or abstract patents that they have no intention of developing and assert them as broadly as possible."_

It seems to me that the real problem is patents being issues for "vague and abstract" things in the first place. You're not even supposed to be able to patent a mere idea anyway. It is supposed to be something specific and well- defined (and also usually pretty narrow). The patent office sounds like the real source of the problem, not the system/structure surrounding the legality of patent application and ownership.

</comment><comment><USER8> As a patent creator that can't get any message returned from potential licensees, what options are there aside from selling the patent to a troll or sending letters with my own lawyers

The market can't seem to distinguish validity of claims, but a letter from Esq. LLP seems to change that notion quickly.

These discussions don't factor in that companies never want to willingly exchange value for a royalty. There is no IP acquisition department. Everyone just wants to skirt around litigation, and lawyers fix that.

There's also a conception of thinking it's viable to create everything you've considered patenting

<comment><USER9> What you can do is just focus on building your own product instead trying to seek rent from others.

If it's not something you create, it's not something you should be patenting.

<comment><USER8> Can you expand on that thought?

So if I receive a patent for something financial I should spend the next decade acquiring licenses in 50 states and multiple countries, some of which have multimillion dollar bond requirements, getting product market fit for my new financial service just to prove that the "locked down IP" has legs? Ignoring any other pursuit I might imagine in the mean time?

Or just letting the market stay in its current unimproved state just in case _maybe_ someone else independently comes up with the idea

did you have something more practical in mind that fits your criteria which I didn't consider?

just disclosing the idea publicly as loud so others can build from it?

<comment><USER10> Patents, at their best, are for IP that requires significant capital investment like drug development or wireless modem chips or things like that. You have to pay a bunch of talented and expensive people a bunch of money for a long time how to figure out how to make the thing.

But once they figure it out, replicating the thing is fairly easy and cheap. In this case patent licensing is great because it allows for there to be some companies that do the invention and others that do the manufacturing. The patent license is the bridge between these two things.

Patents are at their worst for IP that is just "I had an idea." Because, honestly, ideas are easy. Lots of people have ideas. Most ideas aren't original. When patents get issued for this sort of thing they mostly just cause problems. The lawsuit in the original link here is a good example of that. Someone had an idea to "provide an internet third party data channel" which is....kind of silly. A bunch of people had that idea. The idea had so little value it got sold for $1 but then it got turned into a series of annoying lawsuits that just cost a bunch of people a bunch of money with no good outcome for anyone.

Based on your comments, it kinda sounds like the patent you have falls into the latter category and not the former which is why other commenters are skeptical of you. Maybe they're wrong though, but unless you are willing to talk about your patent (or link to it!) it's hard to really judge.

<comment><USER11> > The idea had so little value it got sold for $1

Public assignment records often state that a thing was sold for "$1 plus other good and valuable consideration" to keep the actual sale price confidential. The $1 is there to ensure the contract is enforceable and there's no rule that says the other good and valuable consideration isn't a whole lot of additional dollars.

<comment><USER10> Ah, interesting. I stand corrected on that subpoint. Thank you.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


DjangoCon Europe 2016: Call for Sponsors - <AUTHOR> https://www.djangoproject.com/weblog/2016/feb/09/djangocon-europe-2016-call-sponsors/ <comment><USER2> I want to say this carefully and respectfully, not least because I believe in the guidelines here on HN.

But, my last experience (2011) with Django was not encouraging. It's not that it doesn't do what it says on the tin, I believe that it does. It's that it's just so darn complex to work with. Installation was very, very difficult. And, once built, it felt like there were a number of layers of 'magic' between me and getting something done.

I know there are tradeoffs in content management systems; I launched and sold two companies based on content management tools, the later one based on the ArsDigita Community System in 1998, and so I would say I have at least 10 years of CMS experience in a variety of different environments and languages.

I have a bias against magic, and maybe magic is what's needed for most CMSes. But I still have a little shudder when I think about dealing with install and configuration, backup and datamodel changes in a very small site.

Can anyone offer a counterpoint? I'd like to be able to change my mind if it should be changed.

<comment><USER3> Hello! I have been writing Django for more than 3 years now and I think I qualify to give a counterpoint. First, I would agree that Django's documentation could be more beginner friendly. But you know providing excellent cutting edge tool and providing excellent documentation is a very difficult task and it does require some more love.

Django as a framework is very different form traditional CMSes like wordpress, Drupal etc. It is mostly meant to write scalable web services with great speed and has batteries included for example a good ORM, migration assistant, good admin etc.

If CMS is your usecase, you should have tried Django CMS(it is built on top of Django and support great features. ([http://www.django- cms.org/en/](http://www.django-cms.org/en/))

I think you need to understand that every framework or library in the world requires you to read the documentation. There is not shortcut.

However, Django CMS also comes up with a very nice installer([http://docs.django- cms.org/en/develop/introduction/install.h...](http://docs.django- cms.org/en/develop/introduction/install.html)). It automates almost everything. Whenever you change your model, you generate migrations and run it. python manage.py makemigrations python manage.py migrate

I think coming from other framework/language, just be a little patient and give it another try. If you still feel any issues, feel free to jump in the IRC (#django, #django-cms) and ask your questions. The community is nice and kind enough and you will probably never hit a roadblock.

<comment><USER2> Clearly the community is a huge asset! This is some of the politest advocacy I've seen in an Open Source project. Thank you!</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Macbook Air or Pro for Visual Studio dev machine? - <AUTHOR> I'm going to be commuting to London soon and am looking into replacing my iMac with either a Macbook Air or Pro Retina.
For the most part I'll just be using it for casual web browsing etc. nothing intensive. My second use for it will be as a windows development machine, I work primarily in Visual Studio so want a machine that's going to handle it nicely.
What's your experience/thoughts on using the 13" Air as a VS machine? Does it perform well or should I look into the Pro? My plan is to go high end on the Air, potentially pushing memory to 8GB. <comment><USER2> Why get a Mac at all if you're going to be running Visual Studio? Running Windows in a VM and then a chunky piece of software under that is not exactly the most ideal runtime environment.

I'd get the Thinkpad T440 with the 9 cell battery. It will cost you roughly the same as a MBA and less than a MBP.

The Thinkpad T440 is 4.0 lbs, 1 lbs heavier than a 13" MBA and between the 13" and 15" MBP in terms of weight (as you'd expect from a 14" machine).

I will say that the Thinkpad's touchpad isn't as good as the one found on Apple's machines (but those are industry leading). The display is also worse (although Windows doesn't take very good advantage of the "Retina" display anyway). However you gain more port options, battery options, you can upgrade it, it is cheaper, and less "showy" (so less likely to get robbed, etc).

If you REALLY want to get a Mac I'd definitely get the Pro just to somewhat counteract the VM performance loss.

<comment><USER3> Definitely agree with T440 (I have the T440s) w/ 9 cell battery especially if your commute to and from work is large. Macbook Pro + VMFusion + VS results in < 2 hours battery life. It's much better to do native Windows 8.1 and then VMware OSX.

You'll get 8-10 hours battery life (under load, else 16 hours), touch screen Windows 8, touch screen OSX/iOS simulator, touch screen Android simulator and touch screen Windows 8 Phone simulator - concurrently all at the same time.

This is my setup for cross-platform mobile dev using Xamarin. There's something special about commuting on the train, doing iOS/Droid/WP8 development in Visual Studio without being chained to a physical mac-mini or multiple computers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> New models are expected to come out soon, so if possible I would wait for a bit: [http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac](http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#Mac)

I was in a similar situation last year (coming form an old MBA) and I decided to go with the Pro. The weight difference is not huge but noticeable. In terms of performance you don't need to worry about the Air, it'll be able to handle everything just fine. What really sold me on the Pro was the retina display. Beautiful. Once used to it it's really hard to go back to non-retina. What the Macbook Air has going for it is slightly longer battery life. So, I'd look at it as tradeoff between retina display and battery life. Don't even worry about performance.

</comment><comment><USER5> Pro has more power. The big projects will need it. I chose a pro when I was doing my iOS stuff as my mate has an air and Xcode just killed his resources when running the app simulator.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting to know, does the Pro perform well with XCode or is it so- so? I'm interested in looking into iOS dev with the release of Swift so XCode is something else I'll need to keep in mind.

<comment><USER5> Yeah the pro performs very well for me. If you are wanting to get into Swift there are some awesome beginner tutorials here: [http://ios-blog.co.uk/swift- tutorials/](http://ios-blog.co.uk/swift-tutorials/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My current development machine is a MBPR utilizing the 2.3 GHz processor & 16 GB of ram with Parallel, Windows 8.1 64 Bit, and VS 2013 Professional without issue.

We chose the MBPR displays because we could pick them up the next day and didn't have to wait on the build time for the T440s. I cannot say I didn't really look at those, but I did and would have probably purchased those if we weren't on such a time crunch.

</comment><comment><USER7> I was in the exact situation before, and landed with an Air (top spec).

It really depends on what things you wanna run on it. A VS, even inside a VM, the Air can handle the job easily. But if you want to run more programs on it, it will burn!

The upside of Air is the battery is awesome endless, giving that you don't have a lot programs running. On the other hand, and is the reason why I'd choose a Pro in the future, the retina screen!

<comment><AUTHOR> Generally if I'm in my dev environment then it'll be Visual Studio, SQL Server and a web browser that's typically open.

The battery is a definite win for the Air, do you know if it gets similar battery life in Bootcamp? I know there are optimizations in OS X designed to improve battery..

I originally thought that weight might give the Air an advantage since I'll be carrying it every day but it seemed like a non-issue when I went into Stormfront so I'm tied!

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I was in a similar situation last year - but after visiting the apple store and trying the different variations I ended up going for the 15" pro, i7 quad- core, 16GB RAM, 512SSD and the retina display with 2880 x 1800 resolution.

It does cost more than the other 2 options but if you are a developer, it might be worth it.

</comment><comment><USER9> I'd get a Pro and use OSX BootCamp to dual boot.

My i5 Air, however, has a turbo boost option that up the processor speed from 1.7ghz to 3.7ghz when it's needed, and it's very fast comparing to my i5 lenovo running anything because of SSD.

</comment><comment><USER10> I use a pro retina 15" as my windows Dev machine.I boot to Windows (boot camp). There is no need to run parallels or VM if you don't need OSx simultaneously.

</comment><comment><USER11> You'll want the 16GB ram on the bigger one if you are running any databases locally. Otherwise, 8GB will work.

Did you consider the Yoga? It looks pretty competitive.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'll be looking at running it as OS X primarily since I'm heavily in that ecosystem and prefer it to Windows, I'll just be bootcamping from time-to-time for my .NET development :)</comment></comment>


FBI Director tells Senate he doesn't understand demand for strong encryption - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailydot.com/politics/encryption-backdoors-james-comey-fbi-doj-senate-judiciary-hearing/ <comment><USER2> _> "I don't understand the demand for people who would want encryption that couldn't be decrypted at the order of an American judge."_

This quote strikes me as strange. Handing over communication logs and private files should be covered by self-incrimination laws [0]. It's being compelled to provide statements (made in the past) that could be self-incriminating. I have the right to remain silent and that should include communications made digitally in the past and not only at the time of arrest.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self- incrimination](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-incrimination)

<comment><USER3> Apparently, only in the 11th circuit. Prior to that ruling, other precedent was on the side of forcing a defendant to reveal an encryption key.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Key_disclosure_law)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps some people at Sony or the Office of Personnel Management could explain...</comment>