Ask HN: Looking for co-founders - <AUTHOR>

I was wondering if anyone would like to meet up this weekend near SF or Mountain View, CA area?
I would still like to do something in the social media space and although I have a number of ideas, I think it really depends on what kinda team can be pulled together.
So I would like to find a few people interested in co-founding a new company.
I am a particularly creative person who is able to find indirect solutions to problems.  I am currently living in LA, although I have lived in SF before and I am expecting to move back before the spring.  I have been interviewing for CTO and Architect jobs in the LA and SF areas, but I would much rather start a company.
twitter.com/jdavid <comment><USER3> do you code? and if so what languages?

<comment><AUTHOR>
       i have recently been proficient in

* javascript - jQuery, OpenID, OpenSocial, mootools, prototype

* php - MySpaceID SDK, php5.2, Drupal

       in the past i have been proficient in

* c# - anything but asp.net; directx, memory marshelling, desktop, server

* java - <USER2>

* c++ - visual studio MFC

* c embeded code, signal processing, etc...

* visual basic 5-.net2

<comment><USER4> You have an excellent and diverse programming toolbox, you should be an asset to anyone.</comment></comment></comment>


AWS Service Catalog - <AUTHOR> https://aws.amazon.com/servicecatalog/

<comment><AUTHOR> I assume this is new as well given the 2015 release date...</comment>


Optical Telegraphs: An Early Internet (2018) - <AUTHOR> http://www.douglas-self.com/MUSEUM/COMMS/telegraf/telegraf.htm <comment><USER2> Here's an interesting story of how some traders hacked the telgraph system in France, to get advance knowledge of market movements...

[https://www.1843magazine.com/technology/rewind/the- crooked-t...](https://www.1843magazine.com/technology/rewind/the-crooked- timber-of-humanity)

<comment><USER3> There is a good book called The Victorian Internet that covers the development of long distance communication up to the electric telegraph. People did all the same stuff with it. Front running trades and horse races, hooking up with other telegraphers. I can't remember all the details but it was fascinating how much of it paralleled the early internet.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Are US politics off topic? - <AUTHOR> It looks like all political posts are being flagged  — even ones having to do with the tech community. For example: "Lyft Is Donating $1M to the American Civil Liberties Union (theverge.com)" which has no comments and isn't by a new user / throw away account.<p>Did I miss something? <comment><USER2> Yes, you missed that dozens of these stories have been spending significant time on HN's front page, including the story you mentioned: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13514802](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13514802), which has 500 points and 300 comments.

People tend to form conclusions about HN more by the strength of their passion on a topic than by the actual data. In other words, there's usually sample bias at work. There's a lot more politics on HN right now than there usually is, which is appropriate since it reflects what's going on right now. But obviously we're not going to let the politics dominate, because that would kill the site.

I wrote more about this here if anyone's interested: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13516969).

</comment><comment><USER3> I saw your last submission ( [https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon- for-a-coup-e...](https://medium.com/@yonatanzunger/trial-balloon-for-a- coup-e024990891d5) ) and thought it was quite interesting (being from a South American country, that m.o. is quite standard).

My guess, following CaliforniaKarl, is that a some users are really intent on flagging everything anti-Trump, and others want to flag everything that is not in their own bubble, which is why every politics post gets banned here.

A shame, as I would have liked to see the perspective of HN users on this topic (and not just the perspective of the 3 users required to flag a post)

</comment><comment><USER4> What you're seeing is, I believe, a combination of other users flagging posts, and maybe also a moderator placing additional down-weights on a particular post.

The former (user flagging) is described in the Guidelines ([https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html](https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html)), near the bottom. Since your account is so new (that's why your username is showing up in green text), you probably don't see the "flag" option. The flag option appears after your karma passes some threshold, but that threshold isn't disclosed.

As for the latter (a moderator adding a down-weight on a post), when searching through old comments I found a comment saying that there was an additional downweight placed on the parent post ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12715222#12715332](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12715222#12715332)). I didn't know that was possible, although in hindsight I guess it was obvious.

I have to admit, while I do like the sparse-ness of the site (in that it gives you the content with minimal adornment), I think it sometimes goes too far in terms of how the guidelines are presented. For example, there's no mention at all of vouching.

As another example, when 'no politics for a week' was announced, it was via a "Tell HN" post ([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13108404)). IIRC, that was lifted not too long after, but that lifting was noted in a comment on a post, not as a separate post. I found that interesting, but problematic: Things like "Show HN" and "Ask HN" have their own feeds, in addition to the main and "new" feeds; I think it's very important that "Tell HN" (or some other feed conveying site updates) also have some sort of feed.

</comment><comment><USER5> Substitute Brad Pitt for Lyft and it looks like what it is: celebrity gossip. And all people can say about it is "Yay" or "Boo" or some combination thereof depending on how they feel about the politics, the company, the ACLU and money.

There are many places on the internet where yays and boos are the most interesting class of comments. Hacker News is not typically among them.

</comment><comment><USER6> I prefer to read my political and business news on Bloomberg, CNN etc. I don't find it useful to have the same stories linked on HN as well.

Unfortunately the present news climate has a lot of bias in the reporting. People should be able to choose their flavouring of news, just like their ice cream or pizza toppings. Keeps the noise level down by sticking to technical topics on HN.

</comment><comment><USER7> Given all the hacking of US politics lately, I'd say they are very much _on_ topic. Even sama is submitting political posts.

Shit's been hitting the fan since October, as far as I can tell. I think we've all missed quite a lot.

</comment><comment><USER8> Those express political views do they not?</comment>


Inefficiencies are what make you special - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/2038-inefficiencies-are-what-make-you-special

<comment><USER2> The prime example of inefficiencies helping business is elBulli? _Really?_

Somehow I doubt that all, or even most, of elBulli's inefficiencies are helping it "succeed" - according to Wikipedia, it has operated at a loss for the last decade. The only reason it stays afloat is that Ferran Adrià leverages his status in the culinary world to bring in income from other sources. The restaurant is not a business, by any stretch of the imagination; it's a playground, maintained only as a labor of love, managed more for the pleasure of the owner than to make money. It's easy to create something fantastic if you don't have to think about costs or profit...

If you're one of the most highly respected Xs in the world, and can make a good living writing books and giving lectures, sure, go ahead, follow suit, create a fantasy world for yourself that you can finance based on your fame, and run it without fussing yourself over any difficult tradeoffs. Who knows, it might even help your real business by giving you more credentials in the industry, so it could be a net win.

That doesn't make it a business model for everyone else, though.

If you _can't_ leverage your fame into a substantial paycheck, please don't try to emulate "businesses" that survive only based on cash infusions from the owners..

<comment><AUTHOR> But on a larger scale, it helps Ferran Adrià make money, even thought the restaurant loses cash, he ends up making money by being highly respected, in part for elBulli.

It's kind of like the New York Yankees. I've heard they lose money as a team because they rather inefficiently just throw large sums of money at top players to win the World Series. So much money even sell-out crowds and post season ticket sales don't cover costs. But the owner of the team ends up making money off of other Yankees-related properties.

<comment><USER2> _But on a larger scale, it helps Ferran Adrià make money, even thought the restaurant loses cash, he ends up making money by being highly respected, in part for elBulli._

I totally agree that the restaurant's _existence_ probably helps Adrià make money, even if on the books it's a loss.

But I have no idea whether all of the strange things about it contribute to the success - it's only open a few months a year, only takes reservations on one day per year, doesn't try to push down the costs of supplies, etc. The simple fact that they book an entire _season_ of reservations in one day indicates to me that regardless of the cost structure, they are not charging anywhere near what the market would be happy to support, and that's a business change that could be made without any reflection whatsoever on Adrià's talent, so it shouldn't have any impact on the second order benefits.

Artists of all sorts tend to be poor at running businesses because of an inability to figure out which inefficiencies actually help and which ones hurt. They stubbornly assume that all of them are important, and F-U if you don't like it. I don't see any particular business genius happening at elBulli, what I see is an artist that in this case can get away with being a diva because of a truly extreme case of talent that pays off in other ways. And again, that's fine, _great_ , even, if you can do it. PG couldn't work on Arc at such a leisurely pace and with such a perfectionist attitude without other successes to support him while he "burns money" on it, and when everything finally comes out the other end, we may all be far better off for the fact that he is able to do it that way.

My main point, however, was that there's no lesson to be learned here unless you're already an industry unto yourself without your business. Very few people are lucky enough to be in that situation, and once you're there, you probably don't need any advice from anyone, as long as you don't really mess up, you'll always be able to pay the bills one way or another.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> that's a pretty narrow definition of inefficient. i would say efficient practices are the ones that add the most value, but i suppose that wouldn't make as interesting a title for an article..

</comment><comment><USER4> And efficiencies are what make you big and profitable. El Bulli may be the #1 restaurant in the world, but it runs in the red every year. In contrast, the predictable, efficient, and unquirky McDonalds does $4bn in the black every year.

</comment><comment><USER5> Or more accurately, the minimum requirement isn't always best for business. You could say that cheap packaging and presentation is an inefficient use of a marketing opportunity.</comment>


Ask HN: Should I be looking for an internship or a job? - <AUTHOR>

The question is should I be looking for an Fall internship or a job in the fall? I'm a CS major with mass transit access to NYC who is graduating in December of 2014. I currently am looking for an internship in the summer, hopefully not in vain as it seems to late for many companies. <comment><USER2> Absolutely look for an internship. What would a job offer you, other than money (which you say you need) and experience (which you absolutely will need if you ever want to get hired)?

In the business world, you are judged on one thing: WHAT DO YOU COST? How much money do I have to spend to get you?

Some people (whom you mostly do not want to work for) will only want people who cost very little. These people love interns because they are slaves.

Most others assume that really good people always know they are good and act like it. These people consider anyone who can be had cheaply as marginally competent.

You can see the attitude in some of the advice you're getting. If you're any good, why don't you open your own startup and produce something that suckers Marissa Mayer into giving you $14 million?

If you haven't done that-- and you're willing to work for free-- how good can you be? Not very, obviously, ESPECIALLY if you live in NYC, where people in power still like to refer to themselves as "Masters of the Universe" or "Big Swinging Dicks."

There is only one exception to the rule, and that is the Roger Corman rule. Roger Corman was a low-budget filmmaker who hired a ridiculously high number of good directors early in his career. The list starts alphabetically with Peter Bogdanovich and includes James Cameron, Francis Ford Coppola, Joe Dante, Jonathan Demme, Curtis Hanson, Ron Howard, Jonathan Kaplan, Nicolas Roeg, John Sayles, Martin Scorsese and Robert Towne. Corman's pitch was very simple; "I won't pay you squat, but I will let you make a movie, so you learn how to do it."

There are companies (JSeymourATL mentions the type) who do the same thing for technology. They'll can't get people who are destined to work for Booz, Allen-- unless they get them for the first or second job. They'll hire you, give you tons to do and work your butt off until you outgrow them.

But even then, DO NOT VOLUNTEER OR INTERN. And only go with them if you can see that you will work a lot and learn a lot. Don't take a job that drops you on password resets at a bank call center.

Remember, everything you do from now on will be judged. DO NOT, unless you work on open source, WORK FOR FREE.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm assuming both positions would be SDE positions correct? The requirements to get an internship would be less than trying to secure a regular position and therefore the "easier" route, plus the regular positions are usually full time so they may not consider you while you are in school whereas the internship should be more accommodating of your schedule.

<comment><AUTHOR> I have set up my scheduled to fit into a 35ish hour work week. A full 8 hours for 3 days and about 5 hours 2 days per week. Which gets me pretty close to full time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pitch IT leaders with an idea that you're a college student looking for part- time/contract work in sys admin or business analyst roles. Look for small to mid-size companies, outfits you haven't heard of with less than 500 people. You'll find them more flexible, welcoming, and easier to work with than Big Firms.

</comment><comment><USER5> The question for me is whether you're in it for the earning or the learning? See this for more: [http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time- for...](http://www.bothsidesofthetable.com/2009/11/04/is-it-time-for..).

</comment><comment><USER6> If I were you, I'd be launching my startup. But then you'd be me, and you wouldn't know what to do about the monkeys, and what would be the point of anything, then?

<comment><AUTHOR> Id rather have the security of having some sort of job placement or something that puts me leaps and bounds above other job applicants to any company I wish to work for. There's always time for side projects on the weekend.

<comment><USER7> This is one of the perfect times to try something on your own (the other being when you have sufficient funds to fall back on) when you have little to no obligations. Even if you fail, it will look good on your resume assuming you actually try. You'll learn more than in any single position and will have a story to tell during your interviews.You have the rest of your life to work for a company.

But with the mindset you seem to be portraying, you may not be the best candidate to try something like this.

<comment><AUTHOR> Well between rent and car insurance I need some money, as I don't want to go an ask for help from my parents(I'm 22).</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Intel 9th Gen Review - <AUTHOR> https://www.anandtech.com/print/13400/intel-9th-gen-core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review <comment><USER2> 140 Comments, and not s single word mentioned about TDP.

It seems people are OK with Intel stating a 95W TDP when its max could be 225W. We knew TDP wasn't a reliable figure for a long time and had sort of expect 20 - 30% variant, but now we are looking at ~2.4x difference....

After all the lies Intel have told, after all the disappointment and anger that Intel has been sitting there not innovating, cost cutting in the simplest thermal measures, their near irresponsible sales pitch to enterprise, the cries for AMD to bring competition.

And they still buy an Intel Chip.

The lesson here is brand building and stickies. I could only wish AMD best of luck. I am waiting for Zen 2.

<comment><USER3> Anandtech noticed error in power measurements and tested with another motherboard that provided better results [https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1053427417052798977](https://twitter.com/IanCutress/status/1053427417052798977)

<comment> dis-sys 166w when fully loaded on a 95 TDP processor, for me, that is the textbook definition of dishonesty.

<comment><USER4> It's pretty annoying... but in lot of Intel marketing and spec sheets you'll find small print language that TDP is measured at base clock speed. The base clock has fallen from the 6700k where it was 4.0Ghz.

In the end, it seams to me like the intent is to deceive.

<comment><USER5> I don't think so, Turbo Clocks are Turbo since they're meant for burst usage. Getting above TDP for a few moments is fine, however keeping those clocks are the problem.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'm comparing the i7 here to the i7 in my current computer, built in April 2011(!)

[https://ark.intel.com/compare/186604,52214](https://ark.intel.com/compare/186604,52214)

Kinda though I would see a lot bigger differences. There was a time in my life when I expected I would have to build a new computer every two years. Weird.

<comment><USER7> The i7-2600k doesn't even have 256-bit busses on the inside. The i7-2600k barely begun to implement AVX (and doesn't even implement AVX2).

The i9-9900k is way better. 3x 256-bit execution ports, 64-byte (512-bit) messages going around the Ringbus, DDR4 RAM (double memory bandwidth).

The raw clocks ignore the huge advancements in IPC that exist between Sandy Bridge and Coffee Lake. And even then, the 5GHz clock on the i9-9900k makes it completely incomparable to compare the ancient Sandy Bridge with the modern Coffee Lake.

<comment><USER8> > _The i9-9900k is way better. 3x 256-bit execution ports, 64-byte (512-bit) > messages going around the Ringbus, DDR4 RAM (double memory bandwidth)._

All those don't matter if they hardly make a 10-15% difference in everyday use, and require specialized code to take advantage of.

<comment><USER7> If you're running anything CPU-intensive these days, you are definitely going to use those AVX cores.

Video Editing, Video Games, Graphics, 3d Modeling, Photoshop. Even Stockfish Chess uses new instructions (not SIMD: but the Bit-board popcnt and pext / pdep instructions) to accelerate chess computations.

At a bare minimum, AVX grossly accelerates memcpy and memset operations. (Setting 256-bits per assembly instruction instead of 64-bits per operation is a big improvement). And virtually every program can benefit from faster memcpy and faster memsets.

"Standard Software" isn't written to be very fast. But anything that's even close to CPU-bound is being upgraded to use more and more SIMD instructions.

<comment><USER9> _> At a bare minimum, AVX grossly accelerates memcpy and memset operations._

Not necessarily, for large operations and depending on processor generation a simple rep stos/movsb will be simpler (no alignment requirements) and saturate your memory bandwidth just as well as any AVX sequence will with less icache pressure.

<comment><USER7> I wasn't aware of ERMSB "Enhanced Rep MOVSB". Thanks for the tip.

Seems to be a feature in Ivy Bridge and later, which happens to be around the time AVX2 started.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's worth noting this is largely a paper launch thus far:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9pidjh/any_9900k_ama...](https://www.reddit.com/r/intel/comments/9pidjh/any_9900k_amazon_orders_shipped_yet/)

The October 19th date that everyone was given thus far seems to be a fantasy. The new processors aren't in stock anywhere, and as of yesterday every single retailer said they were shipping today. After waiting weeks for the 19th to arrive, it's rather infuriating.

<comment><USER11> I saw some 9700k in stock at Microcenter in Brooklyn this morning

<comment><USER12> 9700k is in stock everywhere. 9900k (the i9 with hyperthreading) is still nowhere to be found.

<comment><USER10> Amazon doesn't even have the 9700k right now. Newegg does, however if memory serves they didn't earlier today.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > When Intel's own i5-9600K is under half the cost with only two fewer cores,

> or AMD's R7 2700X is very competitive in almost every test, while they might > not be the best, they're more cost-effective.

<comment><USER14> It all depends on what you're doing with it. For gaming alone, current games are barely using 6 threads, so a 2700X is complete overkill with 16 threads. It's always a bit revealing that people leap to recommending AMD's _flagship_ processor as some sort of a value king for gaming. You really should save $100 and go with the 2600X instead, there's virtually no difference in gaming benchmarks.

The 9600K, 9700K or 2600X are really what gamers should be looking at. The only thing that's going to make use of a 2700X or a 9900K right now is productivity tasks (video encoding, 3D modelling, etc).

Intel still has a lead in high-refresh gaming (which is a coded way of saying they have better gaming performance that is currently bottlenecked by GPU performance), so if you're primarily a gamer it's still worth leaning to the 9600K/9700K. And the 9900K, while expensive, combines that gaming performance with a ~20-25% lead in productivity tasks. Expensive, but hands-down the fastest thing on the market for at least a year.

Threadripper is great for productivity stuff, but since it's NUMA it really doesn't perform any different than a 2700X for gaming. Also, the 2990WX has an even weirder configuration where half the dies don't have access to RAM, so it's hard to recommend except as a specialty product. 2950X is the generalist recommendation there.

Next year the Zen2 upgrade will hopefully bring AMD up to parity with Intel in gaming, and probably beat them in productivity. But it's hard to recommend _planning_ on buying two different processors to "save money", so if that's your cup of tea, just wait until next year.

So, the recommendations look like:

60 Hz gaming => buy a 2600X

high-refresh gaming => buy a 9700K

60 Hz gaming+productivity or productivity only => buy a 2700X

high refresh gaming and productivity => 9900K

really heavy productivity stuff => 1950X/2950X/wait for 3800X/3950X next year

<comment><USER15> Are you saying that when you start a game, you are closing all the programs you have opened and disable all the services/background processes? If a game uses 6 cores, you can have 2 more for your office, browser and god knows what else running without slowing you down.

<comment><USER16> Just because the program is running doesn't mean it's using any appreciable amount of CPU. Most applications spend their time waiting for IO, and when you're not interacting with them, there isn't any.

<comment><USER15> Sure, but are you checking that every single application you have opened does "nothing" before you start a game? The point is to not being worried about such things.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Are there any games nowadays that are CPU bound to the extent that you'd see a big performance improvement by using a high-end processor?

<comment><USER18> Games with many different objects interacting with each other tend to stress the CPU. I know Factorio likes having very fast memory and CPU clock speed despite not being too graphically intensive.

<comment><USER19> Also particularly the fact that Factorio runs a complex sim in "real-time" which means it has something like 17 or 33 ms to calculate every tick.

Games like X-COM have the luxury of only having to advance the simulation every so often. The rest is just rendering the game's view.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Print link loads about 700 graphs and images and lacks internal navigation...

Alt: [https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen- core-i9-9...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/13400/intel-9th-gen- core-i9-9900k-i7-9700k-i5-9600k-review)

</comment><comment><USER21> Why aren't they benchmarking it against the latest Threadrippers? They've got a i9-7900X up there which costs the same as the 2950x.

<comment><USER22> I think to give you perspective against previous HEDT Intel chips that had more than 4 cores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> > _The other angle is one of the recently discovered side-channel attacks that > can occur when hyper-threading is in action. By disabling hyper-threading on > the volume production chips, this security issue is no longer present._

This line of reasoning feels unconvincing. If there were really worried about this they should disable it everywhere.

<comment><USER24> There's no conceptual vulnerability if the system the chip is being integrated into isn't multi-tenant (where a "tenant" can be a literal time-share user, or something like a website's Javascript code executing in a web browser.)

So: cloud computing, and consumers that might be running dumb code from the internet (= i{3,5,7} and Xeon = volume production) should get chips with no hyperthreading; while HPC, locked-down workstations, and gaming PCs that probably don't have any important data on them (= i9 = low-batch-size production) should get chips with hyperthreading.

<comment><USER25> Unfortunately, it's the multi-tenant applications that tend to gain the most from hyperthreading.

For HPC it's usually turned off, and I think for gaming and workstations it also has little if any use.

<comment><USER24> I think I've seen either Intel or AMD explain hyperthreads as being useful in the case of a gamer who is also using a software encoder to stream their gameplay.

Also, HPC doesn't necessarily imply a uniform workload; it just implies that all workloads are trusted. Really, modern HPC clusters are still "multi- tenant"; they're just tenants who are all e.g. employees of the same company, or researchers at the same university. So you can describe them, from a security perspective, as one "tenant." None of them would have anything to gain by doing a side-channel attack against one-another.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> _> Intel is also forgoing hyper-threading on most of its processors. The only Core processors to get hyper-threading will be the Core i9 parts, and perhaps the Pentiums as well ... The other angle is one of the recently discovered side-channel attacks that can occur when hyper-threading is in action. By disabling hyper-threading on the volume production chips, this security issue is no longer present._

Does this give AMD an advantage with Ryzen and Threadripper, since AMD supports hyperthreads?

<comment><USER7> AMD has a cost/performance advantage. The Ryzen 2700x sells under $280 with a free cooler for 8c/16 threads.

The Intel i9-9900k sells for $550+ to $580+, requires an added cooler, and 8c/16 threads.

The difference is that the i9-9900k can single-thread turbo to 5GHz, which makes a big difference in single-threaded situations. The i9-9900k also has 256-bit AVX pipelines, while AMD Ryzen is 128-bit based AVX pipelines.

So any AVX-heavy code (H264 rendering, Blender benchmarks, etc. etc.) will be hugely beneficial on the Intel platform.

\</comment></comment><comment>-----

AMD still wins price/performance. I'd personally still take a Threadripper 2950x for example. But the i9-9900k is impressive because of that 5GHz clock, even if its a bit restrictive to use.

Anyone who cares about maximum single-threaded speeds is looking at the 5GHz clock. That's huge.

<comment><USER27> > The difference is that the i9-9900k can single-thread turbo to 5GHz

minor nitpick: the 9900k can actually turbo to 5GHz on two cores simultaneously.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> For server usage, where you have multiple processes involved, I seem to find that memory bandwidth is very important. If the CPU can not get the data it cannot work with it...

<comment><USER29> Probably that's why the Skylake Xeon CPUs have 6 channels.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> I can't wait for the Skylake-X refresh. I use my computer for real-time audio and although the processing scales to multiple cores the "real-timeness" is limited by the speed of the single-core. Sadly AMD still is nowhere near Intel in this regard. I was hoping 2990WX could be an upgrade to 1800X, but sadly it won't be as the single core can also be limited by not having access to local memory. It is Intel this year.

</comment><comment> dis-sys I really like that Die Sizes from Wikichip chart. For a quad core processor, Die Size went down from almost 275mm2 (Nehalem) to 125mm2 (Kaby Lake) over the last decade, but that didn't translate to cheaper price or much better performance, Intel worked so hard to prevent any of these to happen in their mainstream desktop processor product line.

</comment><comment><USER30> Would rather save the bucks and go with a Ryzen 2700 unless I was doing avx512 work but who's doing that these days?

<comment><USER7> The i9-9900k does NOT support AVX512.

The i9-9900x does. (x, not k). Confusing? Yeah. Blame Intel's marketing.

Still, the i9-9900k is faster at AVX2 (256-bit), which is useful in H264, Photoshop, and a number of graphical productivity applications. And you can see the benefits of it: the i9-9900k gets close to Threadripper performance on Handbrake due to the AVX2 support, even with half the cores.

<comment><USER30> The Ryzen chips do AVX2 as well though for some reason the Intel parts often do better.

Media applications makes sense to use such cpu features.

<comment><USER31> Form other parts of this thread AMD implementation is only 128b, while the lower i9...k is 256, and x also has 512.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Disappointing that it's still only 2 memory channels. Would have loved for quad channel to become the norm.

<comment><USER7> 4-sticks of RAM is cost-prohibitive for a lot of builds. Heck, a lot of laptops still ship with only 1-stick of RAM for cost-saving purposes.

2-memory channels is what is expected on a normal, consumer platform. Especially since DDR4 effectively doubled the bandwidth from DDR3 anyway.

In effect: DDR4 2-channels is roughly the same speed as DDR3 4-channels. So that's how RAM scales: it gets faster without necessarily needing more sticks.

In two or so years, DDR5 is going to double-bandwidth again. So 2-channel DDR5 will be the same bandwidth as 4-channel DDR4.

Latencies are all going to be the same though, but that's the nature of the technology.

\</comment></comment><comment>----

If you need 4-channels of RAM, x299 exists (and x399 for AMD Threadripper). If you need 6-channels, you got Xeon Scalable, 8-channels got EPYC, 12-channels (or more) for higher-end Xeons. So these high-end systems exist for people who need them.

But most consumers are fine with the ~40GB/s speeds that 2-sticks of modern DDR4 get you today.

<comment><USER25> True enough, but I personally hit bandwidth limits on occasion for my most heavy processing jobs (data analysis, wouldn't be surprised if the same applied to people doing media editing or working with databases).

Threadripper or cheap EPYC are looking quite attractive to me because of the high bandwidth per core and price-point. I just wish Intel would also compute on this point.

<comment><USER7> I agree that Threadripper / EPYC look good on that.

Intel's main price/performance competition are Dual Xeon Silvers. Its not talked about very much, but 2x Silver 4114 ([https://www.amazon.com/Intel- Xeon-4114-Deca-core-Processor/d...](https://www.amazon.com/Intel- Xeon-4114-Deca-core-Processor/dp/B074G22N14)) isn't really that bad. 10-cores x2 == 20 cores at $1500 total.

That's 12-memory channels too (6-channels per socket). You'd have to buy an expensive dual-socket motherboard, but its relatively high-end / server-class for a reason.

Xeon Gold and Xeon Platinum are just WTF with the pricing though. I guess those are for people who stopped caring about price/performance.

AMD EPYC still seems better on a price/performance front than Dual Xeon Silvers, if only because you can get a single-socket EPYC with 8-channel RAM. But Xeon Silvers aren't really that far away.

<comment><USER32> > 10-cores x2 == 20 cores at $1500 total.

Isn't the Epyc 7281 basically the same price with 32 cores and 16 memory channels (16 cores and 8 channels per socket)?

<comment><USER7> Yes, but you have to consider the NUMA-nodes and how good threading is on the two systems.

10-cores x2 == 20-cores on 2x NUMA nodes.

2x EPYC 7281 basically gives you 8x NUMA nodes. Your threads are really spread out, so its bad for major workloads like Databases (which may communicate heavily, and also benefit from the "combined" L3 caches on the Intel Xeon Silver setup)

In many ways, I'd argue that the "real" competitor to the Dual-Xeon Silver 4114 setup is the single-socket EPYC 7401P for $1200ish.

The EPYC 7401P gives you 4x NUMA nodes with 24-cores / 48-threads total, fits into a single-socket motherboard (way cheaper). This minimizes the NUMA crosstalk issue, still gets you a respectable 8-channel memory system and a large core-count.

The EPYC 7401P is the price/performance champ. Still, AVX512 or Database purposes may keep dual-Xeon Silvers in the running.

<comment><USER32> > Your threads are really spread out, so its bad for major workloads like > Databases (which may communicate heavily, and also benefit from the > "combined" L3 caches on the Intel Xeon Silver setup)

As soon as you add the second node for a workload with poor locality like that, half your accesses are on the wrong node. No matter how many more nodes you add, the worst it can cost is that much again.

The unified L3 is also probably immaterial when you have a large database like that which exceeds the L3 by hundreds of gigabytes and it's ~100% cache misses either way.

On the other hand, you have 60% more cores to make up for it.

I'm not saying there are no circumstances or workloads where the Intel system makes sense, but it's kind of telling that it's a matter of finding them as exceptions to the rule.

For the general purpose things like running a bunch of unrelated VMs that aren't affected by number of nodes much if at all (or _benefit_ from them because one misbehaving guest or process thrashing all the caches and flooding memory bandwidth only impacts a single CCX/node), it seems like an obvious choice.

It's also going to be interesting to see how databases optimize for multiple NUMA nodes now that they're common. There should be ways to determine which parts of the database are on which node and then prefer to dispatch queries to cores on the same node, or keep copies of the highest hit rate data on multiple nodes etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> At first I thought this was super unimpressive, not much faster than previous gen, often slower. Then I realized my own cpu is already 3 generations old! And it is quite a huge jump from mine to the new i9! It has only been a few years!

</comment><comment><USER34> How those 8 cores communicate? I remember that AMD uses NUMA architecture that can bite in rare cases. Does Intel uses something similar too?

<comment><USER35> Only the Threadripper has to worry about NUMA and that's because it has two physical dies with 8 cores each. The regular Ryzen 8-core only has a single physical die and thus NUMA isn't an issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> so it looks like intel is having the same issues as amd where more cores means not necesarily better gaming. i5 is still the best it looks like lol. this puts amd in a better position because they are at least cheaper for their cores.

</comment><comment><USER37> Threadripper or Core i9 for my next Linux desktop build?

<comment><USER33> i7 8700K may be the most sensible choice overall really.

<comment><USER31> Not sure that I agree.. if you have truly multithreaded workloads, the R7-2700X is probably a better option... in the end, it depends on your use and how much you want to spend. System cost is also a consideration.

<comment><USER38> On one hand I agree for "truly multithreaded workloads" \- on the other hand having strong single-threaded performance is still a nice feature to have (e.g. when writing prototypes or simply when using simple SW).

I did evaluate about 2 months ago if to go for a 2700X or the usual Intel, and based on the benchmarks I saw, the 2700X is still a bit too weak when running single-threaded SW => I then bought an i7-8700 (no "k") just to be "safe" when running semi-single threaded SW (e.g. my current prototype uses 10 threads but has a single coordination bottleneck).

Let's see what happens in ~January (I think that's when AMD is supposed to present the new CPUs that are supposed to be the "real" next-gen with higher IPC?)

<comment><USER31> A lot of the time I'm working multi-tier software so will have VM and/or docker containers running in support of what I'm specifically working on. And even then it's mostly node/js based, so the NVME is the single biggest boost to my productivity. In any case, it's often browser + app server + backend services running... so I notice the single-thread performance less. TBH my current CPU (i7-4790k) keeps up reasonably well, though I wouldn't mind more threads and more RAM.

When the GTX 1080 came out, I bumped up to that with a 1TB NVME drive (Samsung) which has been fantastic in limited use. Mostly notice the difference in my npm scripts (ci and build). I'm mostly just itching to upgrade more than feeling pain at this point. I'm pretty sure the Ryzen 2 CPUs (not 2xxx) will be sufficient, as will the mid-upper Intel. However, unless Intel brings their pricing into better competitive range, I may go AMD on my next build.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Top 10 Signs You Might Be A Brogrammer - <AUTHOR> http://blog.pluralsight.com/2012/04/04/top-10-signs-you-might-be-a-brogrammer/

<comment><USER2> Can the term "brogrammer" just die already?</comment>


A Place to Start for the Future Programmer - <AUTHOR> http://pine.fm/LearnToProgram/

<comment><USER2> Fun fact: Chris Pine's children are called Ruby, Apl and..C! :)</comment>


Ask HN: My lawyer has asked for 5% equity. Is that fair? - <AUTHOR> I'm about to launch our site for my funded startup.
I've worked with a senior lawyer on a previous project. Now he's asking for 5% and $1k per month retainer. We need some facilitation in negotiating with the investor, shareholder agreement, founder agreement, site terms, site privacy policy, single contract for all suppliers. He's also offered to give off the cuff thoughts on matters as they arise. We don't need per-supplier or per-client contracts.
He's indicated he's open to a lower %. What's fair? What do other startups give and what do they get in return? <comment><USER2> No, this is lunacy. Unless he's also providing a serious discount.

If the lawyer is also going to be an advisor, a typical advisor grant is 0.1% - 2% (depending on stage of company). Even then it would vest over typically 2 years.

I would find a new lawyer. As in, I wouldn't trust this lawyer, since he asked for this.

<comment><USER2> To reassure yourself that this is true, there's a dollar amount he's asking for here. If your company has $1m valuation, that amount is $50k. So he's asking for $50k as a signing bonus, in an arrangement in which he'll give you maybe 50 hours of advice over the year. In addition to fees. (And your valuation is likely higher, in which case his "fee" is too).

Run, dont walk, away from this dude.

Also, I heard advice somewhere to never ever give equity to vendors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> He's open to a lower %? How nice for him. I'm open to taking 1-5% too for this comment. Seriously though, if you don't treat your company's equity as precious, who else is going to?

As pbiggar said, this is lunacy. Taking a lawyer on as an investor in any early stage company is extremely risky. You have no idea the trouble they can stir up as a shareholder if they feel like it. The fact that he wants cash on top? This guy should be offering you his first born son for you to even consider it.

Read this (they got off cheap): [https://battlehardened.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/a-5000-chair...](https://battlehardened.wordpress.com/2012/02/07/a-5000-chair/)

<comment><USER4> _> Those words "without prejudice" are lawyer speak for "I'm not going to do anything now, but I retain my right to sue you at any time in the future for any amount"._

Learn something new everyday.

However, he had given the chair as a gift of his departure by saying they could keep it. It doesn't sound like he'd be able to sue for the chair. In fact, under what grounds did Bill have the right to sue at all or ask for any amount of money or be required to sign papers if he was never officially signed in to the CEO position?

I feel a lot of information from that story is missing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> A top law firm took 0.25% pre-funding with no retainer in a previous startup I launched, and with that they agreed to delay all bills until a funding event so they took on risk for that price. His ask is way too high and it would in my opinion be irresponsible for you to commit 5% + 12k/year as a retainer.

<comment><USER2> I was under the impression most top law firms would defer all bills for free.

<comment><USER5> I am sure that depends on your leverage and the terms. The equity can be used as leverage to avoid personal liability in the case where your track record is not strong enough to defer bills for free.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> No. Don't do it. He is asking for money - which shortens your runway AND a significant chunk of equity. In other words, he is extracting money from the business and asking for equity for the privilege of doing so.

The items you listed are not worth having a lawyer at all.

Look on places like docstoc for standard boilerplate agreements that will work just fine.

Look at wordpress.com's TOS [https://en.wordpress.com/tos/](https://en.wordpress.com/tos/) which they have made available under CC license.

If you really feel like you need a lawyer to draft a document or two. Pay for it with cash and get it free and clear.

Ask yourself this: Which is more valuable, a lawyer which will not build the business or a sales person or a marketing person or.. or a developer.

A lawyer is the least valuable profession to bring on board. An accountant would be better. But a lawyer for standard legal agreements, examples of which are freely available? No.

But if you feel inclined to pass out money foolishly let me know; I could use some.

</comment><comment><USER7> Don't give any equity to your lawyer. If you do, you'll have a shareholder with a huge conflict, and with the power to self-deal. Remember this is the person who's going to actually read the stuff you sign. I got burned by this. Your lawyer is the one person you want to pay in cash. And that's all.

</comment><comment><USER8> Unless you are getting into a business that would require constant specialist legal/compliance consultancy, and assuming it is for regular start-up type legal advice along the lines of what you've listed, that's absolutely outrageous - stay clear of the shyster.

A good way to think about may be this: if you were to raise an angel round of $100,000, how much of a stake would you be selling: is that in proportion to what the lawyer is asking for?

When answering that question, I would also keep in mind: (1) is the lawyer's advice going to open up as much opportunity value as the angel coming on board ($1 != $1), and how much of a stake it would indirectly cost you if you were to simply raise an angel round and pay the lawyer money instead (which shouldn't be a huge amount; the kind of work you cited sounds like junior level work not much more than tailoring off the shelf agreements).

</comment><comment><USER9> Unless the site has deep legal ramifications, the fact that someone just think about giving equities to a lawyer is a symbol of how rotten to the core the legal system is in the US.

The whole patents mess plus a huge culture of suing people and companies would make me want to think twice before creating a business there.

</comment><comment><USER10> Ask how much he wants per month with no equity. If you give him equity, you have a strong incentive not fire him. Well, that sucks if down the road you want to fire him. Also, retainers usually cover billing by the hour and are not paid as a salary. There's more than one red flag here.

</comment><comment><USER11> 5% _AND_ $1k/month?

Doesn't make sense. I also envision if you refused - he'll retaliate with exhorbitant fee for past, unpaid services to make you "change your mind".

Let him know that you need to think about, clear all bills with him and then fire him.

Someone needs to go back to school to learn a few lessons.

</comment><comment><USER12> If this lawyer is in the south-bay area, I might even know to whom you are referring. Unlikely though that might be, I wish to repeat the tone in the many comments you have received and strongly advice you retain different representation!

All the best with your venture! Frank

</comment><comment><USER13> if you're looking for another data point, when I raised funding for my 1st startup in the valley I believe the lawyer (this was from a top-tier firm), offered to defer the first $60,000 in fees (until we raised funding) and they asked for a 1% equity stake. It seemed like this was the policy for most of the firms I spoke with.

</comment><comment><USER14> It's quite common for a banker to have a % success fee tied to raising a round of funding. Retainers are also quite common during these proceedings. You have to way the options of taking him on as a shareholder vs. paying him an up front % for the success of raising a round with his help (if he's involved with this).

5% equity does sound like a lot, but then again it might be cheaper in the long run if you get a solid contract stipulating exactly what services (hours per month/for how long..) this will include. Beware of the 'I'll help you out every now and then" type of agreements.

</comment><comment><USER15> Just find a different lawyer. How are you even gonna sell this to the shareholder?

</comment><comment><USER16> I've never heard to lawyers take equity for their services - is this common?

</comment><comment><USER17> As many others already said, this is just crazy. Don't do it. Also, Equity should be like children. Protect them with everything you got and only let very important people access to it who make a core difference

</comment><comment><USER18> In negotiating it's always about BNA. Best Negotiable Alternative. Get a competing offer from 2 more lawyers, pick the best one.

</comment><comment><USER19> No skin in the game = no equity. No exceptions.

</comment><comment><USER20> Wilson Sonsini took 1% back in the heyday of the dot-com bubble.

Things might be different now, but it's a Silicon Valley data-point.

</comment><comment><USER21> I don't see how all this 'advice' is less than hypocritical.

I keep hearing 'overshoot' your salary range when negotating by X... and then when this lawyer does it OP should suddenly "run, dont walk, away from this dude"?

Strange crowd ...

<comment><USER22> There's overshooting and there's asking over an order of magnitude the going rate. That suggests a lack of moral fibre to me.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> 0 is fair. Pay him with money.

</comment><comment><USER24> If you do go this way, don't forget registering your trade mark and employment contracts.

If he will be available for a certain number of hours per month during the time that he is a shareholder, that could be quite valuable.

</comment><comment><USER25> These terms seem absurd to me. 1k/month retainer for a startup alone seems awfully high. 5% equity is absurd. Get a new lawyer. If in SF, there are some great tech lawyers who won't rip you off.

</comment><comment><USER26> Are you starting a patent troll company and need a lot of lawyering? If not, then that's too much lawyer you're paying for.

</comment><comment><USER27> What's his name? I feel like he should be outed to the HN community so no one else uses him. I can recommend my lawyer if you need one, though he's based in the midwest, not SF.

A deal like this would up your risk by an order of magnitude compared to whatever legal services he can offer to lower your risks. The reason being was stated by others here that he'll shorten your runway and also have say over what you do as a company owner because he's a shareholder.

Keep in mind that legal agreements and compliance are just formalized ways of humans coming to an agreement to manage risks. Risks are not things that are actually going to happen, but most often have a very small chance of happening. Of those things that have a chance of happening, most won't actually kill your start up (though they could be expensive). If you haven't launched yet, your biggest risk is finding product-market fit, not legal compliance.

While I'm not at all advocating to break the law or be reckless in the area of legal requirements for your start up, keep in mind that what's more important is the quality (read: character) of the people you choose to work with, not the formality of legal agreements. This is most important with your first investor. If you need a lawyer to negotiate with your investor, this may not be the right partner, but I may be reading too much into that.

Your lawyer though sounds like a real piece of work...he's asking for 5% equity and a $1K/month retainer for legal services. The problem here is first, he's proven his 'off the cuff' business advice is useless because his $1K/month retainer is going to drain cash from your start up lowering the odds of long-term success, but he's asking for a 5% equity cut hoping to cash in on the long-term success of your company. Sorry, but this guy is a f __in idiot.

The second problem is lawyers are hired to offer legal counsel, not business advice. I don't know what the laws are in this area, and I know many lawyers offer 'business advice' as an extra selling point to win clients, but offering business advice to a client who is paying you for legal advice and not clearly defining which is which seems like a good way to get yourself sued for malpractice. The odds of this actually happening may be small because most people who take bad business advice from lawyers would go out of business and then not have money to sue, but I can't see malpractice insurance companies liking the fact that lawyers do this. Maybe it's legal to do this, but it sure seems like the practice is muddying boundaries in a domain that specializes in setting limitations and boundaries, clarifying expectations, and crystalizing the unclear.

If your lawyer is mixing legal and business advice, I would take it as a sign that he's a bad lawyer as well. In my experience, this has proven to play itself out in real life many times.

I know I had a hard time figuring out what makes a good lawyer when I was first getting started, but here are a few things I figured out along the way: -Obviously recommendations and awards for the firm, but only as one data point. -He/she can offer up templates for just about every contract you listed above. If his firm doesn't have a standard one on hand, he can reach out to his network or recommend someone for you instead of charging you to write a new one. Obviously this is cheaper and will save you money. -He/she refers you to others for knowledge outside of their area of expertise. -The standard contracts the firm has on file have been proven to stand up in court. Also, the lawyer knows how the local courts will rule on situations not covered in their standard contracts. -The lawyer is straight forward in his answers and doesn't pontificate on legal theory. This is a waste of your time and his, and what matters is if a judge is going to rule you owe someone $100,000, not legal theories. -The lawyer doesn't try to sell you on extra services, most especially 'business advice' bs. -The lawyer is more interested in building long term relationships, and shows it by undercharging you for the first few bills you receive from him. In the early stages of trying out any lawyer, keep a very close eye on the time he spends with you and audit his bills. I had one accountant try to charge me triple the time we actually spent with him. This holds true for any professional consultant you hire.

Good luck!

</comment><comment><USER28> 5% equity is high and unusual for a lawyer.

</comment><comment><USER29> F __* this scumbag and run away fast.

</comment><comment><USER30> Depends What are you getting out of it?

</comment><comment><USER31> What would be appropriate for taking care of incorporation, pre-funding?

</comment><comment><USER32> No this isn't fair. Get a professional.

</comment><comment><USER33> I wouldn't give more than 2% personally

</comment><comment><USER34> Can't blame him for asking. He has obviously sized you up correctly, given you didn't say no to him straight off the bat. Unless you expect lawyer cannons to be fired broadside at your startup on an hourly basis, how much involvement would you really need? There is your answer. Now, about my ten percent equity for the above advice...</comment>


Learning Rust - <AUTHOR> https://learning-rust.github.io <comment><USER2> Exercises, I want Exercises, no I need Exercises.

In order for me to learn anything, I need some form of "homework". If you want to teach me a new language, a new framework, I need to "get my hands dirty".

Working through exercises makes sure I actually understand what I am reading, and sometimes it even shows me I don't understand what I thought I did.

<comment><USER3> How about Advent of Code? They start out easy, but after a while the difficulty is all over the place, and it'll force you to seek out new features of the language. It's a somewhat "realistic" way to learn the language, instead of having a set of more contrived set of exercises that only make you look at a particular part of the language.

The first day, for example, will kind of force you to figure out how to parse arguments, how to loop, how to convert strings into ASCII... all basic, practical tools that you will need sooner or later anyway. Now it's your job to pick up a Rust reference, look around for the tools that you need, and use them to solve an actual problem.

That's how I got very comfortable with D.

[http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/advent- of-d/](http://jordi.inversethought.com/blog/advent-of-d/)

If you do this for Rust, I'd love to see a blog post like the above.

<comment><USER4> 100% agree with this! I used Advent of Code this year to explore Common Lisp. If you have any programming experience it becomes a fun hunt of "ok, I need to loop over an array. How do I do that in X lang?".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> From the github readme

> I am a Sri Lankan Web Developer who lives in Vietnam. So I am not a native > English speaker and just learning Rust

This guide is so well done, props to you. I haven't worked with Rust yet but your docs make it seem so easy to work with.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks, glad it helped :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I love those succinct introductions to languages, I find it easier to understand when you don't have to read lots of text and languages possibilities are written as a series of quick examples.

What I miss from Rust learning material is a series of exercises that focus on reference, lifetime, ownership where you have to fix some code to make it compile.

<comment><USER7> You may be interested in Rustlings:

> Small exercises to get you used to reading and writing Rust code. Includes > practice reading and responding to compiler messages!

[https://github.com/carols10cents/rustlings](https://github.com/carols10cents/rustlings)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Looks really nicely written and laid out.

One note on borrowing/ownership that really made it click for me was that to move from &mut T to &T you have to transition through owning the value type, so:

&mut T -> T <\- &T

Whichever scope holds the actual value-type is the only scope that can make that transition(absent cases like RefMut)

<comment><USER9> Could you clarify you mean here? Something like this is perfectly valid:

      fn no_mut(a: &mut usize) {
        *a = 10;
        let b: &usize = a;
        println!("a: {}, b: {}", a, b);
      }

      fn main() {
        let mut foo = 42usize;
        no_mut(&mut foo);
      }

If such pointer weakening was not possible, how would you be able to call a method that takes _& self_ on binding of type _& mut self_? Of course, you can't use _a_ mutably while _b_ is in scope. So, something like the following results in a compiler error:

      fn no_mut(a: &mut usize) {
        let b: &usize = a;
        *a = 10;
        println!("a: {}, b: {}", a, b);
      }

<comment><USER8> Actually you're right, I didn't realize that the compiler treated a single &mut references like that.

I wonder if what I'm thinking of involved &mut self captures that were happening as part of an impl on a struct. There's definitely some cases there where I was getting tripped up on it.

<comment><USER8> Ah, now I remember why I tend to use this model:

      use std::thread;

      fn no_mut(a: &mut usize) {
        *a = 10;
        {
            let b: &usize = a;
            println!("a: {}, b: {}", a, b);
        }

        let b: &usize = a;
        thread::spawn(|| {
            println!("b: {}", b);
        });
      }

      fn main() {
        let mut foo = 42usize;
        no_mut(&mut foo);
      }

Similar code but the move throws an error(as it should).

If you don't have the value type then you're constrained by the parent mut lifetime here so it's not just as simple as a conversion that you can then pass around. Otherwise you need to consider all the lifetime scopes which can get a bit unwieldy.

<comment><USER9> _If you don 't have the value type then you're constrained by the parent mut lifetime here so it's not just as simple as a conversion that you can then pass around._

You cannot move any closure to _spawn_ that captures a non-static reference, since there is no guarantee that the value will live during the lifetime of the thread. (The closure is required to be _Send + 'static_.) E.g., you can't do (moving to a non-Copy type :)):

      let foo = String::new();

      let t = thread::spawn(|| {
        println!("foo: {}", &foo);
      });

You could move the captures, including _foo_ , but then _foo_ cannot be used in its original scope anymore:

      let foo = String::new();

      let t = thread::spawn(move || {
        println!("foo: {}", &foo);
      });

      // This will give an error, because foo is moved.
      println!("{}", foo);

Note that only moving values works, this does not compile (for the same reasons as the first example):

      let foo = String::new();
      let bar = &foo;

      let t = thread::spawn(move || {
        println!("bar: {}", &bar);
      });

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> For devs, equally familiar in rust and python and ignoring libraries, would you say development speed in both languages is almost the same?

<comment><USER11> I really don't think that I could code any faster of what I code in rust. Especially if you consider the overall quality of the work.

In my humble opinion python give the impression to move fast, but when you need to maintain the code base the rust compiler is simply too wonderful.

<comment><USER12> I suspect people probably can do it a bit faster in Python, but like you say, you wouldn't necessarily end up with the same quality of work. The Rust code is likely to be quite fast and very solid, whereas the Python code is likely to be "eh, fast enough" and "stable as long as nobody says the word 'thread' within a 10-block radius."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I really want to learn and use Rust, but just lack the motivation, especially when APIs turn out to be incomplete - I think the last one I saw was multicast not allowing me to set the send interface.

I guess the main draw for me to any given language is great libraries with great APIs. Python has those, Javascript has those, C++ has those, Rust... not so much yet.

<comment><USER14> > I guess the main draw for me to any given language is great libraries with > great APIs. Python has those, Javascript has those, C++ has those, Rust... > not so much yet.

Well... what makes (especially) Rust libraries great is the relative absence of bugs. I can use a Rust library and have great confidence some ugly bug won't bite me later on. The developers of the libraries you (don't) mention continuously struggle to achieve the same property.

So in a sense those libs are not at all great in the same sense that a Rust library is!

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> This looks like a fairly nice website. For someone coming from a background of C and D, but familiar with quite a few others, I have to ask: what makes rust different and better? Aside from memory safety, what reason do I have to choose rust over another language?

<comment><USER16> Resource safety and expressiveness on level of Python (or close) combined with speed of C.

That said, while I love the idea of Rust I find the language itself offputting somehow. I don't know, maybe I just need to give it another try.

<comment><USER17> For me it's a love hate thing. I love the way it stops me from doing dumb shit, and really makes you think hard about how to architect properly.

I hate annoying little nitpicky stuff like it won't auto-upcast a u8 to an i32, for example. There should at least be a compiler flag to allow that.

I mostly love it though. The stuff that bothers me is relatively minor and I think will go away as I get more fluent with the language.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> How does this compare to the Rust Programming book?

<comment><USER19> Programming Rust has 21 chapters and is 583 pages long. I've read it, and I've also read the online Rust Book (both several times). Most chapters are in the order of 20 to 30 pages long. Programming Rust is one of the best programming books I've ever read, and I've been coding professionally since 1997. If you want to get an A+ in Rust read Programming Rust a few times. You can see the entire Contents section of the book on Amazon. Below is a list of chapter titles from Programming Rust that get little to zero coverage in this Learning Rust website.

Ownership. References. Expressions. Error Handling. Enums & Patterns. Operator Overloading. Closures. Iterators. Collections. Strings & Text. Input & Output. Concurrency. Macros. Unsafe Code/FFI - the coolest part, they show you how to create a safe wrapper around libgit2.

<comment><USER20> There are two books with similar titles and I'm under the impression that you don't talk about the one the OP had in mind:

[https://www.amazon.com/Rust-Programming-Language-Steve- Klabn...](https://www.amazon.com/Rust-Programming-Language-Steve- Klabnik/dp/1593278284/)

[https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Rust-Fast-Systems- Develop...](https://www.amazon.com/Programming-Rust-Fast-Systems- Development/dp/1491927283/)

I think both are good books, I already have the second one and preordered the first.

<comment><USER19> I assumed he'd misnamed the book, switched the words around, as your first link points out ("The Rust Programming Language"), there isn't actually a book called "Rust Programming", and "Programming Rust" seemed like the closest approximation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> This is very readable. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER22> Duplicate?

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16048065](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16048065)

<comment><AUTHOR> At that time search was not working, had bit ugly ui, no indicator for current page and etc. Even it's duplicate, this time people actually saw it correctly. So sometimes trying things again is a good thing :) Have a nice weekend!

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> I trying use rust, but I don't know why sometimes cargo is like hanging to retrieve from github.

<comment><USER24> Please file bugs! We'd like to track it down.

<comment><USER25> It's probably a git/libgit issue. I reported a similar issue(Cloning/Pulling commits from github took forever, Transfer speeds going as low as 1 kbps when my connection was 50mbps).

They asked me to run some commands and log output to measure packet loss/speed etc. and then told me that my connection had 2-5% packet loss which was causing all the problem and I need to talk to my ISP or get a better connection.

I switched my ISP after that and its not a problem anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I used to know Rust, but I got tired of the churn and went back to Go.

<comment><USER24> What churn, specifically?

Anything you learned since May 2015 should still be very relevant. That's almost three years ago.</comment></comment>


Can you share your concise morning routines? - <AUTHOR> I love the idea of a consistent morning routine prior to the workday. I don't love the idea of spending my whole morning on that routine.  For those that have a short, effective morning routine, would you mind sharing?<p>I'll start with myself.  Currently I wake up, drink a cup of water, jog a single mile (always outdoors), do yoga for 5 minutes (from a saved set of Youtube videos), meditate for 5 minutes, take a minute-long cold shower, and drink a hot cup of coffee. <comment><USER2> wake up, grab some comfy clothes, go outside into the cold and smoke a roll up, get back in and make a coffee, get into bed and check notifications and read stuff on my phone for an hour then go to work

</comment><comment><USER3> Wake up, drink cappuccino + porridge with joghurt, prepare to go to work</comment>


10 Words You Don't Know - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@robinbloor/10-words-you-dont-know-263b571c8940 <comment><USER2> My favorite 'word you don't know'... or at least the word most commonly affecting many of us... Xenobombulation as in 'should be working but really surfing, facebooking, instagramming or whatever useless past-time activity that gets in the way of actually earning a living and/or getting down to the business of life'. Not that I'm a fan of Xenobombulation (slacking on work/duty), just seems it's a cultural mind-set these days affecting young and old.</comment>


Cash flow crisis - Lawyers, prostitutes, and architects - <AUTHOR> http://www.woobius.com/scribbles/posts/0011-cash-flow-crisis.html

<comment><USER2> Cash flow is definitely an issue these days. My policy now is to stop all work earlier rather than later. If the client has the ability to pay, they will to keep the project moving. If not, they can't, so stopping makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER3> Isn't it also a matter of ego? There probably are not many competitions for designing small family houses, but they don't add much to an architect's fame, so instead they compete for the big, prestigious projects.

I don't think there are different economic rules for architects than for the rest of the world.

<comment><USER2> I've never seen a competition for a small family house. The competitions are usually for larger projects as organizing and running a competition is not inexpensive and requires jurors, marketing and prizes.

I try to never do competitions as you are right on point 2, the economic rules are the same.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> My experience at my university; there are simply too many architects. It's fun to study it and in essence it's a fun job, but the needed skills are not very sophisticated (although they will tell you otherwise).

A good recipe for a poor job market.

<comment><USER2> As far as the skill argument, you are quite wrong. Most architects don't really get good until they're about 50 years old, as there is an insane amount to learn.

I tend to try very hard not to hire people right out of school as they are so unable to add value to a project because of an intense lack of needed knowledge. In fact, the usual experience when I waver and take an intern is that we spend more time fixing the mistakes than the time made making them.

<comment><USER5> sounds like there's something wrong with the relationship between architecture schools and real-world practices, if they aren't graduating with needed knowledge.

<comment><USER6> I'll second that. Having dropped out of an undergraduate architecture program a few years ago (for unrelated reasons) and having worked (until recently, laid off) at an architecture firm, I can attest to the gap between education and professional competence. I felt the program I was in focused almost entirely on things that were subjective (aesthetics), and prided itself on driving students into the ground by rewarding those students who were there in the wee hours of the morning. (I knew a professor who'd stroll through the studio at 3am just to see who was there toiling away).

In the US, The Intern Development Program (IDP) is the industry's attempt to 'educate' architecture graduates, but the training you get depends entirely on the nature of the firm you work for out of school. Graduates can either get real experience working on and solving architectural problems, or they can become CAD monkeys, becoming the stenographer for another architect; draftsmen gaining little in their professional development. The difference in assignment is obviously decided by the guys at the top of the firm, so you're essentially at their mercy.

<comment><USER2> The mandated IDP program is yet another reason not to hire and take a chance on beginners. It really is a sad situation, especially for those students unlucky enough to get stuck in Architecture programs that are truly useless.

A good program mush have very solid engineering in addition to everything else. Students should be able to do the structural engineering for their own projects coming out of school (I did on my second house in the mountains), and have solid knowledge of mechanical and electrical engineering as well. This is a distant and impossible dream, it seems, for most programs these days.

And it makes perfect sense: the standard trendy philosophy in most schools is deconstructivism. And one of the tenets of that philosophy is that the real world is in flux and nothing really is knowable, etc etc. My experience is that Reality wins every argument put up against it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Developers (in consultancies) usually charge by the hour too, but thankfully we don't tend to get screwed over that often.

My GF works in advertising/design, and things are pretty much the same there; work on pitches for free, then get paid to do the actual work if you win the pitch (pitches happen more often than architectural competitions, and involve less work and less competition, and as such are less risky to do, but the basic principle of working for nothing to get a job is still there.)

In any case, lawyers, architects and prostitutes are definitely not the only professionals with clients :-)</comment>


Overturned polygons: shapes with less than two sides - <AUTHOR> http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/overturned-polygons/ <comment><USER2> The entire system is really cool!

Polygons with a negative number of sides: [http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/thinking-outside- box](http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/thinking-outside-box)

Polygons with a fractional number of sides: [http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/fractional- polygons](http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/fractional-polygons) (hint: the pentacle you may summon a demon with is a fractional-sided polygon)

Polygons with -2 to 2 sides: [http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/overturned- polygons](http://chalkdustmagazine.com/blog/overturned-polygons)

I think the analysis of [-2..2] (including the boundaries, 2-sided 'polygons' that he calls 'digons') is questionable. Polygons consist of straight lines, so bending lines and introducing loops seems unjustifiable until you can tell me how to distinguish a bent line from a curve. Until then, polygons with -2 to 2 sides are just lines, at least the parts we can see in our mathematical universe. I can understand the temptation to fill in the number line, but perhaps we should just accept that some of the shapes are singularities, hidden within a mathematical event horizon.

<comment><USER3> The loops are just notation. They still have sharp angles.

<comment><USER2> I guess I'm not persuaded by the whole thread through the articles of angles and polygons having direction, clockwise vs counter-clockwise and whatnot. If the loops are just sharp angles, then every polygon within [-2, 2] is identical to some polygon outside [-2, 2].

This disconnect is perhaps most obvious at a couple of ends of the spectrum.

a) The digon (2-sided polygon). Euclidean geometry assumes lines are atomic and have no inner structure. So a digon would be just a line segment.

b) The monagon (1-sided polygon). If the loops are just points then this is just a line (extending to infinity).

Perhaps polygons made of directional lines (rays but also distinguishing loops from non-loops) are a distinct, internally consistent non-euclidean geometry.

<comment><USER4> It is often useful to have polygon edges be directional, that is, identify them with either of the two equal-but-opposite vectors between two vertices. In 3D computer graphics you usually want to have either "clockwise" or "anticlockwise" polygons, but not a mixture. This is because the handedness of a polygon determines which way the surface normal points. In addition to shading this is used to determine whether a polygon is a "backface" (that is, faces away from the camera and need not be rendered assuming it's a part of a solid shape).

Re: the digon, as the article mentions, some digons have nonzero area in elliptic geometry (such as on the surface of a sphere). Yes, it's non- Euclidean, but not too unfamiliar.

<comment><USER2> Yeah, I'm familiar with basic computer graphics. It's perfectly reasonable to adopt a _convention_ about handedness as a way to distinguish inside from outside. But that's all it is. What seems real to me is the inside-outside distinction, not the handedness. When you make a loop, inside/outside doesn't change relative to the no-loop case. So it's not clear what a loop _is_. Is it just a convention for distinguishing between polygons that are otherwise identical? That would be fine, but it wasn't clear that that's what the author thinks.

<comment><USER5> The inside/out distinction is the whole point. The author of the article was indeed reasoning whether the antipolygon is the hole left from the cutout of the corresponding positive polygon or even the rest of the space outside of the cutout

<comment><USER2> Are you disagreeing with me? I'm not sure where, since I've said:

 _" What seems real to me is the inside-outside distinction..."_

 _"...the analysis of [-2..2] is questionable."_ [So the rest of the negative number line swapping inside and outside is not questionable.]

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I remember playing with LOGO (MicroWorlds, specifically) in 2nd or 3rd grade, and I was given code that would draw a n-sided polygon. I got the idea to draw polygons with weird numbers of sides (like a 0-sized polygon, or a polygon with a non-integer number of sides) and at one point I got a circle made with a dashed line (I'm pretty sure this was the 0-sided polygon).

It was (and still is) super confusing since it had no pen up commands at all, so everything should have been connected. I guess it couldn't handle the weird angles and distances it was being asked to draw.

</comment><comment><USER7> On a related note, I discovered yesterday that AutoCAD won't let you draw a closed "polyline" object with two sides.

One of the features of the polyline object is that you can turn edges into arcs when you need a curve, and I was trying to make a "D" shape. Had to add a third vertex in the middle of the flat side before it would let me.

<comment><USER8> That's weird. I remember learning AutoCAD back in the release 10 and 11 days. They used to have this "donut" command that would draw a 2D donut shape using a polyline with thickness, and just two points joined by arcs.

Now I think of it, I think I remember: it used two points, with arcs instead of line segments, and "closed" to get the second arc. I'm not sure if you could force the closing segment back to a straight one, but that could have probably got your "D" shape, if so.

<comment><USER7> I tried it again today and it worked, so there must have been some other reason it was failing. Maybe one of my lines was out of plane? But then I'm not sure why adding a midpoint on the straight edge fixed it. I must have accidentally fixed some other problem at the same time.

Here's another odd note though, if you have a polyline with a single arc and use properties to set it to closed, it adds a straight edge and you get a D shape. If you use PEDIT CLOSE it adds another arc to close it instead, and it tries to continue tangent at the end, completing a whole circle.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Shapes with _fewer_ than two sides.

<comment><USER10> TL;DR Nuh-uh.

But that's not how most people talk, is it? Maybe in your circles, but not in mine. Is that a useful grammatical point to insist on? Why? "Less" is shorter and easier to say, everyone knows what it means. I guess that why it's universally used nowadays.

ps Often, maybe most of the time that I see "its" on here it's spelt wrongly, and it seems very soon that - e.g. "The dog wagged it's tail" \- will be correct. I even frequently see plurals made with apostrophes, even on HN, and fear that may be an acceptable plural form one day.. But language isn't a fixed thing, as some people seem to think. However everyone speaks/writes, is correct. Where else did - or could - the first grammar books come from but writing down rules abstracted from how people actually spoke/wrote?

<comment><USER9> If people like me didn't resist change, slogF ripsni() s'nork.

<comment><USER10> Hahaha thanks for the laugh. Hmm well, Spanish has the RAE, (Royal Spanish Academy) which I at first thought a silly idea - an academy to control spelling. But over the years (of learning Spanish) I came to appreciate them. They did most of their work in the 18th and 19th C, changing Spanish spelling to be much less like French (e.g. getting rid of 'gn' in words) and reverting a lot of words to their 'proper' Latin consonants (like making sure 'b' and 'v' weren't swapped).

There's this lovely story - _How an eight-year-old boy invented the new word 'petaloso'_ \- thanks to RAE's Italian equivalent.

[https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs- trending-35653871](https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-35653871)</comment></comment></comment></comment>


The Downside of Net Neutrality - <AUTHOR> https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/the-downside-of-net-neutrality/ <comment><USER2> This whole fallacious argument is riddled with strawmen and fallacious arguments. They attempt to equate wireless access with internet access. They talk about "the expectations that we have as consumers" when it comes to the internet as if "consumers" are some sort of monolith. Worst of all, they describe net neutrality solely as a bandwith issue and not one of access. Without net neutrality laws Comcast and other ISPs are under no obligation to make all of the "internet" available to you, at any price. Then will be free to simply block access to websites and other internet services they don't like, for any reason at all, no matter how much you are willing to pay. Net neutrality isn't just about bandwith and packet prioritization - its about access. There is simply no "free market" argument to be made about any ISP or cable company that doesn't own all its infrastructure (including all the land that its wires and cables run through) or one that uses the public spectrum. The only reason that the cable company is able to put a pole in my backyard or run a wire over my property is government regulation. You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business" depends on government regulation to operate.

<comment><USER3> > You can't credibly decry net neutrality (ie government regulation of your > "private business"), when the very existence of your "private business" > depends on government regulation to operate.

Not sure what is meant by this. Maybe this holds true for some moral arguments, but I'm not sure on that either, as fundamental institutions like property rights and contract law are often provided by governments as well.

Most arguments in favor of market based solutions are not moral but practical (efficiency etc.) And of course, you would frequently argue in favor of market mechanisms in highly regulated and/or government rich fields. (Look at banking, healthcare, research, etc.)

There's even a lot of practical benefits in competition between bureaucracies which (at least in the EU) are completely government determined.

Long story short: in the academic discourse, market and government are no opposites, complements, enemies or anything necessarily averse.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> The former net neutrality laws did not apply to wireless. I personally believe they should but there is a strong technical argument why they shouldn't, as presented here. Additionally there's for more competition for wireless networks. Most US residents have a choice between 2-4 networks, thus keeping the worst practices in check.

</comment><comment><USER5> > When we apply net neutrality principles of the 2015 regulatory framework to > wireless networks, such proposed equal treatment of all network traffic > could have the unintended effect of interfering with the quality of our > communications

Choosing to bash an imaginary law instead of a real one, but not being particularly clear about that.

</comment><comment><USER6> This seems like a false-dilemma.

The real value in network neutrality is that companies cannot discriminate based on the human-understood message of the data (e.g. political censorship) or to use it anti-competitively.

Now, QoS is not _entirely_ orthogonal to that, but most of the worrisome overlap involves the case where the ISP's _motive_ isn't too maximize customer experience, but instead to impede a competitor.

The line may not be super-sharp, but it does exist.

</comment><comment><USER7> Packet prioritization for "phone" communications is actually an obvious example of a conflict of interest for ISPs, since they are the ones benefitting from that. VOIP services can't compete because the ISPs don't allow them to.</comment>


Why Gen-Y Johnny Can't Read Nonverbal Cues - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203863204574348493483201758.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

<comment><USER2> This is an opinion piece that manages to go from start to finish without offering the slightest grain of evidence that its claim is true.

<comment><USER3> The WSJ op-eds seems to be full of articles like this lately. Writers like this forget that these patterns repeat themselves.

Grammophones, swing, big band music, rock and roll, TV, rap music, and now iPhones.

Who's next in line to suck up all the potential of our youth?

<comment> c-m The adult generations have complained of the lack of virtue in their 1-2 successor generations probably for the past few millennia (in European history, going back at least to ancient Greek/Roman times) - enough written evidence has survived the times. What is qualitatively different from the "usual" stereotypes with this complaint here is the alleged deficits in face- to-face communication. But I agree with the caveat of lacking evidence.

OTOH, among (supposed?) adults, with the widespread use of email and "digital media" I have been observing an apparent decline in the quality of written work and correspondence (and I'm not (just) talking about rudeness and lack of etiquette in email), and also a lack of attention to refinement in oral communication, at least in business. But maybe this is just an instance of the stereotyped perception of a general decline in standards of excellence (and aspiration).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> "The next time they face a twenty-something who doesn't look them in the eye, who slouches and sighs for no apparent reason, who seems distracted and unaware of the rising frustration of the other people in the room, and who turns aside to answer a text message with glee and facility"

It seems to me that any intelligent (aspergers aside) capable young person would be able to establish the cause and effect relationship between their actions and other people - REGARDLESS of how many days of their lives they've spent communicating through a computer. The point is whether they care enough about their effect, not whether they are ignorant of it.</comment>


White nationalists are openly operating on Facebook. The company won't act - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2019/nov/21/facebook-white-nationalists-ban-vdare-red-ice <comment><USER2> VDARE, one of the sites mentioned in the article, does favor cutting legal and illegal immigration in order to preserve a white majority in the U.S. It does not advocate violence and is not the KKK. I don't think the goal of immigration policy should be to maintain a white majority in the U.S., but I also don't think that people who have that view should be banished from social media.

</comment><comment><USER3> The author has a history of calling people she disagrees with "racist" or "white people". For example:

[https://mobile.twitter.com/juliacarriew/status/1188522396132...](https://mobile.twitter.com/juliacarriew/status/1188522396132638721)

The SPLC, has had some pretty big gaffes, such as this one, where they ended up paying out a few million $:

[https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid-...](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/06/maajid- nawaz-v-splc/562646/)

They also pay out very large salaries while stashing money in offshore accounts

[https://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-poverty-law-center- tr...](https://freebeacon.com/issues/southern-poverty-law-center-transfers- millions-in-cash-to-offshore-entities/)

</comment><comment><USER4> Can we dissolve Facebook and put Zuckerberg and his cronies in jail now? Federal antitrust law says we can, so let's stop fucking around and do it.

<comment><USER2> Federal antitrust law could be used to break up a company, but that would not result in its CEO being imprisoned.</comment></comment>


Let Your Nerd Flag Fly – Your Career Will Thank You - <AUTHOR> http://www.diaryofaninja.com/blog/2012/06/12/let-your-nerd-flag-fly-ndash-your-career-will-thank-you#.T9cyhb8ZS6Q.hackernews <comment><USER2> I'm confused, how has this helped your career? Has it helped because your nerd passion is trying out new technologies on the weekend? How would publicly embracing a non-work related hobby help one's career?</comment>