Our Part of the Milky Way Is Bigger Than Previously Thought - <AUTHOR> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/milky-way-local-arm-four-times-bigger-than-expected/ <comment><USER2> Well, I suppose we're still at the unfashionable end of the western spiral arm of the Galaxy...

[http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54481-far-out-in-the- unchart...](http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/54481-far-out-in-the-uncharted- backwaters-of-the-unfashionable-end)

</comment><comment><USER3> What does it mean by saying "our section of the Milky Way galaxy"? If the section is somehow larger, does that mean that the Milky Way galaxy is also larger?

<comment><USER4> The Milky Way is a spiral galaxy and Earth is located on one of the arms of the spiral.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%27s_impression_of_...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Artist%27s_impression_of_the_Milky_Way_\(updated_- _annotated\).jpg)

The Earth is on that little strip at the bottom center of that picture, which looks like it's crossing between two of the larger arms.

Because the galaxy is disc-like and Earth is located about halfway between the center of the disc and it's edge, we're not in a great place to get a good perspective of how the galaxy actually looks. We basically watch stuff spin around us and try to estimate what it looks like from a top-down view.

The study concludes that parts of what we previously attributed to other arms actually belong to the arm that Earth is located on, making the arm longer than previously estimated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> the answer here has more background:

[http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10175/how- many-...](http://astronomy.stackexchange.com/questions/10175/how-many-arms- does-the-milky-way-galaxy-have)

<comment><USER6> Thanks! It also has some pictures, which more commenters expected to see.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Here's what they're talking about, for those who want a picture:

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

</comment><comment><USER8> This article really needed illustrations.

</comment><comment><USER9> Noob here - how do they know what the Milk Way looks like?

<comment><USER6> The starting principle is simple, then the scientists build a lot of clever stuff, the telescopes on Earth, the telescopes on the satellites and the remote controlled radio telescopes...

Parallax. Telescopes.

[https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-do-we-know-the- dis...](https://medium.com/starts-with-a-bang/how-do-we-know-the-distance-to- the-stars-c7af9035a866)

"the same math that enables you to hold your thumb at arm's length, close one eye and then switch eyes and watch your thumb appear to shift, allowed us to measure the distances to the stars."

"Known as parallax, the fact that our planet's orbit is some 300 million kilometers in diameter around the Sun means that if we view the stars today versus six months from now, we'll see the closest stars appear to shift position in the sky relative to the other, more distant stars."

There's more in the link above. Then...

Satellites.

[http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/gaia-milky-way- ma...](http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/09/gaia-milky-way-maps-billion- stars-atlas-space-science/)

"For thousands of years, astronomers from the ancient Babylonians to Tycho Brahe had preoccupied themselves with noting the stars' precise locations, a crucial foundation to understanding the cosmos. But the field sputtered in the 1960s, when scientists reached the smallest parallaxes that Earth-based telescopes could measure, stymied by interference from our rippling atmosphere.

It wasn't until the 1980s and 1990s that the ESA satellite Hipparcos took astrometry to space, where it ultimately measured the precise distances of more than 100,000 stars. Gaia is even better: Hipparcos's gaze reached only as far as 1,600 light-years away, barely leaving our celestial backyard, but Gaia is able to spy on stars up to 30,000 light-years away."

Remote controlled radio telescopes across the Earth, as in the article we comment to:

[https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vlba](https://science.nrao.edu/facilities/vlba)

"The Very Long Baseline Array (VLBA) is an interferometer consisting of 10 identical antennas on transcontinental baselines up to 8000 km (Mauna Kea, Hawaii to St. Croix, Virgin Islands). The VLBA is controlled remotely from the Science Operations Center in Socorro, New Mexico. Each VLBA station consists of a 25 m antenna and an adjacent control building. The received signals are amplified, digitized, and recorded on fast, high capacity recorders. The recorded data are sent from the individual VLBA stations to the correlator in Socorro."

"Precision astrometry is a VLBA science centerpiece. The relative astrometric accuracy of ~ 10 micro-arcseconds achievable with the VLBA is better than what the Gaia satellite is designed to achieve for most stars in its catalog (scheduled for release after 2015"

<comment><USER10> >"math that enables you to hold your thumb at arm's length"

This person seems to be using a non-standard definition of "math".

<comment><USER6> The clearer formulation would probably be: the same effect that we see by closing one then another eye is seen from the Earth when we look at the stars months apart, and the formulas that could be derived using the distance of your eyes and your arm can also be applied to the cosmic distances.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> When it comes to the Universe/Multiverse, everything is always bigger than we think.

</comment><comment><USER12> great article</comment>


Karpathy: "Computer Vision: we are far away" (2012) - <AUTHOR> https://karpathy.github.io/2012/10/22/state-of-computer-vision/ <comment><AUTHOR> Interesting to review this post 7 years later in light of Tesla's update yesterday.

> I've seen some arguments that all we need is lots more data from images, > video, maybe text and run some clever learning algorithm: maybe a better > objective function, run SGD, maybe anneal the step size, use adagrad, or > slap an L1 here and there and everything will just pop out. If we only had a > few more tricks up our sleeves! But to me, examples like this illustrate > that __we are missing many crucial pieces of the puzzle and that a central > problem will be as much about obtaining the right training data in the right > form __to support these inferences as it will be about making them.

Really echoes his answer about how much data they gather (his answer: it's not about _how much data_ we gather, it's about _which data_ ).</comment>


T-Mobile G2 by HTC spotted in wild: no QWERTY, coming May | Android Community - <AUTHOR> http://androidcommunity.com/t-mobile-g2-by-htc-spotted-in-wild-no-qwerty-coming-may-20090121/ <comment><USER2> Hopefully without the slide-out keyboard it is at least significantly thinner than the G1. An actual headphone jack would be nice too.</comment>


Ask HN: How to pull off an early acquisition for several million? - <AUTHOR>

Companies like socialmedian or socialthing have sold really early in their lifecycle, sometimes pre-funding.  How did they pull that off?  Was it just luck and running into the right person, or did they plan for it?
Here's why I'm asking:
We spent the last year building out a b2b platform that we launched this year and we've gotten a lot of interest, people are signing up, we have revenue, etc.  We're not profitable, but we think we could be by end of 2009.  We haven't raised any capital yet.  Our long-term goal would be to sell the company to one of our larger potential customers.  However, things are moving faster in this space than we anticipated, and a lot of the big customers are doing buy vs. build analysis now, so we're wondering if we can pull off a sale now for somewhere in the $2-5m range.  The platform is solid and the founders have a lot of experience in this market, and we would go with the sale.  A large company would probably buy us to use in house or offer to their clients, not for our revenue stream or customers, so the fact that we don't have a huge customer base may not hurt us.
We're identifying several hundred potential acquirers, but I guess the hard part is figuring out how to approach them and make the right connections.  Do I start cold-emailing their corp. dev. folks?  Do we try and hire a boutique investment bank?  My sense is that this size transaction is too small for that.  Just would be interesting to know how this has been done in the past.
Does anyone have any advice or experience in this area? <comment><USER2> Number one... 2 bidders, bro. 2 bidders. remember that.

Number two... they got to know you. got to know you. so w/ your top 5 targets... approach for some sort of partnership. NOT ACQuisition! make some stuff up about how their product could work w/ yours, etc. white label. anything.... then, most co's that are bought for the small single digit millions are bought for the team. So make sure that your "new partners" know how kickass you are and how much all of you are exactly lined up on this opportunity, and how you'd die to make sure you captured this market. Do that with 2 bidders (2!) you;'re golden.

how many people>?

</comment><comment><USER3> Good question. I wish more people responded to this.

</comment><comment><USER4> I have advice, but no experience. And I'm afraid I can't give you life changing advice based on something my mind jumped on.</comment>


When OCR goes wrong: man settles discrimination lawsuit, bank won't cash check - <AUTHOR> https://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/detroit/2020/01/23/tcf-bank-race-discrimination-case-sauntore-thomas/4546199002/ <comment><USER2> There's nothing about OCR in the article.

The closest is: "He said the checks Thomas presented displayed a watermark that read VOID when they were scanned in a web viewer."

This is a feature of some security paper - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_pantograph](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Void_pantograph) says "In security printing, void pantograph refers to a method of making copy- evident and tamper-resistant patterns in the background of a document. Normally these are invisible to the eye, but become obvious when the document is photocopied. Typically they spell out "void", "copy", "invalid" or some other indicator message"

What it means is their system wasn't at high enough resolution. Which should be expected. Which means they are either extremely poorly trained, or they are looking for an excuse.

Note the following from the freep article:

> According to TCF's Wennerberg ... Thomas wanted to deposit the two larger > checks in his bank account, which, Wennerberg said, had only 52 cents in it. > And he wanted to cash the $13,000 check,

Does your bank generally tell people how much is in your account, and what your bank transactions are?

<comment><AUTHOR> they were using organic OCR embedded in the skulls of their employees.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "They couldn't verify that those checks were due to a settlement," said Wennerberg, adding the bank contacted Enterprise to verify that the checks were part of a lawsuit, but were unable to do so"

He tried to cash three different large checks and the bank was unable to verify that these were actually legitimate. Calling the police was the correct thing tod do here.

It was sorted out, but he is now launching another lawsuit (most likely for large sums of money). This tells me more about the person trying to cash the check than the bank here.

"Wennerberg said the assistant manager who waited on Thomas was African American, and felt that something didn't "look right," so she called police."

More proof that this wasn't racial and more to do with the suspicious nature of trying to cash 3 large checks and being unable to verify.

<comment><AUTHOR> i am not accusing this fellow of wrongdoing: but a truly cynical person could identify banks that have the worst OCR, glitch it, and create a litigable event.

if we can turn stop signs into pandas, i think we can cause a paper check to make OCR go kablooie.

<comment><USER2> Why are you so insistent that OCR has anything to do with this news event?

What litigable event are you even considering?

Checks use MICR, not OCR - [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recogni...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_ink_character_recognition) .

Elsewhere you tried to say it was the "organic OCR embedded in the skulls of [...] employees", so now you think people's _brains_ will go kablooie?</comment></comment></comment>


EverythingMe open and out - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@joeysim/everythingme-open-and-out-6ed94b436e4c#.6br53kv8l <comment><AUTHOR> I always liked the way EverythingMe approached open source.

Now that they are shutting down they are doing the same, open sourcing everything they can and being generally open with the plans and intentions for the future (of the code/product etc)

More companies should behave this way, just because the business didn't work, doesn't mean a lot of people can't benefit from the work you put in.

Kudos to the EverythingMe team for this.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, as a member of the team I'm glad we got the opportunity to do this, if only for the selfish motive of reusing some of this code on my next job ;)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yup.

If you an use it in your next job, think of how many people can use it in their current job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> If someone from EverythingMe team is here, your homepage is hijacked [https://i.imgur.com/YAtJjnK.png](https://i.imgur.com/YAtJjnK.png)

<comment><USER2> the DNS record was changed. Someone just claimed the S3 bucket associated with the domain.

</comment></comment><comment> michael-go Thank you!

I actually just discovered [http://redash.io/](http://redash.io/) thanks to this announcement, it looks really useful - will try it ASAP

Good luck with your future endeavours!

<comment><USER2> it's an amazing tool, used by many many companies. the author is actually working on spinning it into a standalone company (with no connection to EverythingMe)</comment></comment>


Measuring Brainwaves to Make a New Kind of Bike Map for NYC - <AUTHOR> http://www.wired.com/2015/01/mindrider-manhattan-bike-map

<comment><USER2> This isn't cool. The idea that you can 'measure' attention using a Neurosky device is fairly close to being an outright lie. To measure EEG from someone riding a bike in a controlled environment isn't an easy task. To claim that you can measure EEG using a Neurosky device as someone cycles a bike around NYC is simply lying.

This is EEG / BCI clickbait and it doesn't do people working in the field any good at all.

<comment><USER3> Came here to express something like this. Some neuroscientists I talked to recently for an article I wrote who specialize in brain-computer interfaces and neural decoding told me the mass market EEG headsets are basically trash. I don't trust any work done with them as the primary source, this project included.

The article, if you're interested: [http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/wishful-thinking- can-...](http://www.nbcnews.com/tech/innovation/wishful-thinking-can- scientists-really-read-your-brain-n246311)

<comment><USER4> I'm a neuroscientist with a decade in fMRI and that criticism is unwarranted. Scalp based EEG is inherently noisy but if hundreds toward thousands of people are using these, there's a real chance the signal could overwhelm the noise.

What's the alternative? A bunch of lab-based studies? Those have their own severe problems. Research isn't zero sum. Every little bit counts.

<comment><USER5> I'm also work in (applied) cognitive neuroscience and disagree with respect to the utility of these studies (ie "every little bit counts"). Pop-neuroscience articles that make large claims have the potential to poison the well in terms of the public's interest in, and the reputation of, neuroscience. Too much hype in a field has the potential to create a backlash, as in the "AI Winter" of the 1980s.

<comment><USER4> I've watched fMRI (the God region of the brain!) studies poison the well. Pop- science is an endless, multimedia beast. Research that replicates is truth winning out. Everything else, including many high profile journal articles, is just noise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> The map contained in this article may not represent the most scientific measurement, given that each street was mapped once by one person, but they had to start somewhere. This is a brilliant idea, though.

I've always been interested in the idea of collecting additional layers of information. Places are associated with emotions and we don't have any good ways of capturing that right now. I can think of several interesting future applications of this concept, given advances in technology and cultural adoption. It would be interesting to look at a map of the city and see where people where most happy, inspired or awed so that you could go there if you're feeling down. You could also get an idea of places to avoid, other than the obvious dark alleys. Law enforcement could map the emotional states of victims and suspects in space to better understand the course of events in a crime, or people could map their daily feelings of anxiety to better understand what triggers their own happiness. Employers could find out what areas of their office cause the most unhappiness (meeting rooms?) and the most relaxation, and potential employees could get an overall gauge of the stress level of a given work environment. It almost seems like something out of Star Trek. Someone pulls out their tricorder and says "We don't know what happened to the last people who beamed down here, but it says they were very anxious and afraid. Set phasers to stun."

There are questions about the general efficacy of measuring brainwaves, but receiving more information is generally a good thing. Biking seems like a good place to start, if only because people are already wearing bulky helmets so recording equipment won't look or feel too out of place. This concept obviously as a long way to go, but there's a lot of potential. Anything that allows people to see the world in a new way can have a big impact, even if it isn't immediately clear how.

<comment><USER3> _There are questions about the general efficacy of measuring brainwaves_

I'm afraid this underestimates the case somewhat. As I wrote in another comment, people in the field have been very frank with me in their total distrust of toy systems like Neurosky. Anyone claiming to track moods or mind states right now is hugely overstating their capabilities. I like the idea as much as the next guy, but at the present it's not questionable, it's simply impossible. We don't have the tools or the data with which to adequately apply them.

<comment><USER4> You are greatly overstating the complaints. It's not impossible at all. These efforts trade precision and control for quantity and real world conditions. That's a very fair trade off and the results remain to be seen and improved upon, not dismissed out of hand.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This reminds me of the DUMBO Neural Cartography by a team at the Architecture School at Columbia: [http://www.thecloudlab.org/dumbo_neural_cartography.html](http://www.thecloudlab.org/dumbo_neural_cartography.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> This is really cool, if they can get a decent sample size I bet this will become quite enlightening. Until then, just cool.

</comment><comment><USER4> I really love this work by Arlene and her team but the graphic here is each street mapped on one ride by one rider.

<comment><USER8> Yeah, but they have a concept. I really hope they follow through with it.</comment></comment>


Airbus is ready for pilotless jets – are you? - <AUTHOR> https://japantoday.com/category/tech/ap-interview-airbus-is-ready-for-pilotless-jets-are-you <comment><USER2> In the grand scheme of things, is a pilot that expensive? I understand the reasons for driverless taxis but for an airplane carrying hundreds of people that's hard to justify.</comment>


World's Most Innovative Companies by Region - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/table/08/0415_in_geographic.htm

<comment><USER2> How did _McDonald's_ make it onto that list?! Do they do something in special in Asia that's different from the decades-old business model they (successfully) apply in Europe?

</comment><comment><USER3> The thing that jumped out at me is that Facebook is not on the North America list at all and is at the very bottom of the Europe and Asia lists. Also weird how RIMM is not on the Europe/Asia lists.</comment>


Radioactive ruthenium from an undeclared major nuclear release in 2017 - <AUTHOR> https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2019/07/25/1907571116 <comment><USER2> A few years ago a professor from the Miami University in Ohio came to our institution to give a talk about her students accidentally found high levels of radiation in a valley nearby. After some investigation they tracked down the source of radiation to a factory that prepared nuclear raw materials during the cold war. Some of the radiating dusts got carried by the wind and affected a region of tens of miles down in the valley. Apparently the locals in the valley town are not informed and the cancer rate is relatively high in the town. For some reason their papers on this are rejected, and calls for a public investigation were buried. I am not sure what the situation is now, but it would not be too difficult to contact some faculties of environmental sciences in that university if anyone is interested.

<comment><USER3> On Hacker News there are relatively many people arguing for nuclear fission, I wonder if they ever factor in societial factors like these.

In an ideal society it still would be a challenge to deal with the unprocessable wastes of nuclear fission (some extremely poisonous and with half lifes well beyond thousand years). But we are far from ideal and the incentives to not just offload it onto future generations are simply not there.

<comment><USER4> >I wonder if they ever factor in societial factors like these.

Radioactive releases like this are endemic to every coal-burning power station, which while a problem for public health certainly isn't publicized like this is.

Remember, carbon emissions will also destroy the planet if the current projections are anything to go by; I think the chance (certainly less likely with modern reactor designs) that a few local areas are rendered uninhabitable is a tradeoff society will need to be willing to make when the alternative is that _the entire planet_ be rendered uninhabitable over a significantly longer timeframe.

Any other answer just isn't taking climate change seriously enough. Reactors are ready (with the proper funding) for construction today; solar/wind designs capable of supplying the quantity of baseload power nuclear can do not currently exist and neither does power storage- and they aren't nearly as scalable as building another reactor is (mainly due to land and raw materials usage) when power demands jump because everyone needs an air conditioning to survive the summer and a local desalinization plant (or water pipeline) because the rivers and aquifers no longer provide enough water. Additionally, if an energy-intensive carbon capture technology becomes available, the only energy source capable of powering such a device at the scale required is nuclear.

We've already offloaded our waste onto future generations. Might as well use the most effective technology we know how to create to stem the bleeding a bit.

<comment><USER5> I'm in favour of nuclear, but what you say of renewables is only half right. PV is currently around 0.5 terawatts and 2018's _relatively slow_ growth was 27%, and at these rates it is likely to solve most of our problems before any nuclear plant not yet commissioned gets finished.

As for land usage, if the USA did this it would be smaller than the road network, rising to "about the same" if you want to replace all ICE cars with battery cars.

CO2 capture, and desalination, don't need to be run 24 hours per day, so there's no reason to care if they don't have energy storage to run at night. Likewise, AC is most important when, and just after, the sun is shining, so the storage need is low.

Storage does have a long way to go before we're out of trouble, but even if I wasn't fairly optimistic about it, PV knocks out the worst carbon sources first, giving us more time to build — for example — your preferred nuclear reactors.

<comment><USER6> Reverse osmosis desalination needs to operate 24/7 as the capital costs are extreme.

Storage backed solar power is significantly lower than nuclear across most of the world. Further as a base load production Nuclear can't cheaply follow demand which makes it a poor fit in a world with occasionally negative wholesale prices. That is what is stopping significantly increased Nuclear adoption.

<comment><USER7> Please don't confuse finance and physics. Taxes and incentives can change financials overnight.

<comment><USER6> It's cheaper for a reverse osmosis plant to buy batteries to operate at night than shut down 1/2 the tome. Stupid incentives can change what people do, but the economy pays for the inefficiency.

<comment><USER7> It all depends on what you don't count as costs. When you take environmental impact of running a desalination plant off non-renewables, it might be more efficient to not run it at night if the wind isn't blowing. Thinking in terms of current prices doesn't make sense in the environment context.

(I agree that a lot of batteries may be a very good solution.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The ability to walk back up a half-life and radionucleotide chain, and also map to wind, water flows, and so triangulate to a source at a given time.. Amazing stuff.

Is it too much to hope, somebody is going to do some open declaration? In times past, people felt a compulsion to report. It feels like we have had a cultural shift, and whoever has information, feels no obligation to report.

I wonder what life closer to the facility was like when this happened? How much did they get told about their exposure?

<comment><USER9> If they declined when they did it, why should they back down now? This would mean that not only they polluted the environment, but also are liars (and cowards). There is no way they'd admit that.

<comment><USER10> I don't see why this has been downvoted so far. Inconvenient truth?

People hate whistleblowers. "Shoot the messenger. It's the easiest solution."

<comment><USER8> HN won't let you downvote comments on your own posts so I assure you, I didn't and do not think this comment was downvote-worthy. I might not agree, but it's a valid, if cynical point.

I just think that at a level where a peer review paper says "you did this" failure to respond is a fail in two dimensions: Its asocial and fundamentally stupid politically despite the "deny everything" posture every government takes, and its un-scientific: It makes it harder for other people to take your own science seriously, if you refuse to participate full-cycle in the process.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The most interesting thing I find here is that these results seem pretty conclusive that ruthenium couldn't have come from a breach in an active reactor.

There was a submission on HN a while ago (I can't find it right now) that speculated that this release was related to Russia testing a nuclear jet- powered missile. A crash after a test flight would release radioactive materials from its reactor.

This report seems to strongly point against that theory.

<comment><USER9> The event happened in October 2017. Putin presented a new arsenal of nuclear weapons in March 2018. Some kind of indirect relationship is not impossible.

<comment><USER12> Their nuclear rocket is a development effort, not an operational weapon, and they haven't claimed to have achieved the central technical goal of making a reactor small enough to put in a missile.

<comment><USER13> It's certainly a work in progress but it seems that they have been testing at least marginally functional versions of the missile complete with nuclear powered propulsion[1].

[1][https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been- sec...](https://www.thedrive.com/the-war-zone/18948/u-s-has-been-secretly- watching-russias-nuclear-powered-cruise-missiles-crash-and-burn)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> The EPA has a website that displays a network of radiation sensors in the US:

[https://www.epa.gov/radnet](https://www.epa.gov/radnet)

Hope you never need that information.

<comment><USER15> In the immediate aftermath of the 2011 incident at Fukushima Daiichi, a hobbyist network formed around Tokyo monitoring radiation levels and publishing it online. While the act itself was heartwarming, I can very much attest that I never wish a situation where you occasionally refresh an online radiation heat map upon anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Mankind can not handle the responsabilities that come with nuclear technologies. Aging and literally crumbeling reactors are kept running on extended permits granted by cabinets where the revolving door with the energy industry is well oiled. Fukushima thaught the cynical lesson that a nuclear operator can profit even more from the post-accident cleanup than from simply running the facility. Meanwhile the nuclear lobby thankfuly jumped onto the passing 'CO2 posterchild' train for a free greenwash. But hey, it is so more trendy, edgy and suave to be pro-nuke these days than to be a tired old hippie pointing out that nuclear is no free lunch.

<comment><USER17> Nuclear energy is not a free but it kills a lot less the coal, so closing nuclear plants and using coal plants like Germany did is stupid(the decision was pure political and forced by the Green party, ironic)

<comment><USER16> Acutally, On 26 January 2019, a group of federal and state leaders as well as industry representatives, environmentalists, and scientists made an agreement to close all 84 coal plants in the country by 2038.

It is especially Solar and Wind that are on the rise in Germany

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

<comment><USER18> Germany has always had a good environmental track record, which is why their bad decisions are interesting. It tells us about communication problems between researchers who study the impacts of energy generation and voters who are concerned about protecting the environment.

<comment><USER19> And politicians who were happy to simply outsource CO₂ emissions by closing their nuclear plants and buying electricity from other countries, which generate it from coal.

<comment><USER20> Yep - it's not in their electoral backyard. Another angle is that it seems Germany is becoming a giant in renewable tech. I mean, it looks like their big bet on that is paying off in pure economical terms. So the voters are unlikely to punish politicians for a move that seems to spell a lot of export money for Germany.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> It looks weird to me that apparently nothing was detected in South Germany. It looks like this data is missing in figure 4.

</comment><comment><USER22> Why would anyone still try to hide a nuclear accident in this day and age when the fallout is traceable?</comment>


Ask HN: Is Thinkpad X1 Carbon an Alternative to MacBook Pro? - <AUTHOR> I have been using Macbook for a long time. However, now I am thinking of shifting out of it. Thinkpad X1 Carbon seems interesting, has anyone made this shift? How's the experience? <comment><USER3> I've had several MBP 15 inchers and just bought an X1 Carbon, Gen 7. I knew I was going to run linux on it.

The X1 is probably less hardware, but it's also less goop. Touchbar? The whole experience is quieter, more minimalist, and in some important ways more refined. I would say the main reason to get a mac is the OS, if that's what you want. For me, though, Mac OS is same story w/r/t to goop. Much worse, actually. With Mac OS I increasingly felt like Apple had forgotten that it was my computer. That I owned it and they didn't get to say what I did with it and when I did it. I was an interloper lucky enough to be a user of _their_ system.

The carbon is also suuuper light and has great battery life if you get the dumbed-down screen (which I have and which is great, imo). So far, I'm very happy with it.

</comment><comment><USER4> Had a 6th gen for nearly 2 years running Fedora. Typing on it now, love it. A couple of points.

1\. There's a couple of things to make it Linux friendly - TLP, plus the throttling fix. Even though I use Fedora the Arch Linux wiki is superb for this.

2\. BIOS updates are done via software update which is superb.

3\. The FN/action keys are the wrong way round, just change it in the BIOS.

4\. Same goes for Fn/Ctrl keys - they can be swapped too in the BIOS.

5\. Screen is beautiful. I've got the HDR one and it's brighter than any Macbook i've been sat next to on the train.

6\. Never got the fingerprint reader or NFC to work, but i've not tried for a year tbf - this may be fixed.

7\. Speakers are complete shite.

8\. Keyboard is the best you'll get on a laptop this size, it's wonderful.

9\. 2x USB-C/Thunderbolt is awesome. Only thing about the XPS 13 I use for work is that the USB-C is on both sides unlike the Lenovo, makes it easier to get a charge cable round.

I honestly love this laptop, even after 2 years I don't see the need for a upgrade.

AMA btw.

<comment><USER5> What sort of battery life do you get on Linux, and how fast are you expecting the battery (batteries?) to degrade?

I tend to always try and find laptops with easily replaceable batteries (I've a t440s right now that I'm looking to upgrade), but the ultraslim things like the X1 look like it's a bit of a challenge, which puts me off somewhat.

<comment><USER4> I think around 8 hours from 100% to turn off. Bear in mind the battery is 2 years old.

I don't tend to have the screen too bright (live in the UK), Bluetooth disabled etc. Also I spend most of my life in Firefox / SSH / VSCode in that order.

<comment><USER5> Interesting, thanks. I've apparently got "1:47 (53%)" remaining right now, and that's with a 6-cell slice and 3-cell built-in battery. That's just with Firefox and Citrix open.

I seem to suffer pretty badly from battery anxiety, so 8 hours is a bit of a dream :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> Const-me Both are equally bad. Search for a laptop with user upgradeable RAM and SSD. There're many thin and light models on the market.

For RAM, laptops manufacturers overcharge a lot. E.g. HP asks $660 for 32GB RAM option. The market price for that amount of RAM is $120 for the equivalent of what HP offers (DDR4 2400), or $230 for much faster one (DDR4 3200).

For SSD, laptops manufacturers overcharge a lot as well (HP asks $762 for 1TB SSD option, Intel asks $100 for their 1TB 660P M.2 2280 NVMe), but it's worse than just the cost. You're unable to recover your data from a broken laptop. Also, unlike RAM, SSD technology advances very fast, they release new models which are both faster, larger and cheaper. I'm upgrading SSDs in my computers once in a year, even more frequently than GPUs.

</comment><comment><USER6> I have been using a 5th gen X1 carbon 1080p with Linux for work for over a year. I would say it's slightly inferior to the mbp except in the weight category.

The screen is dimmer (maybe the 4k is better), the webcam/mic/speakers are worse, the battery is slightly worse, and the trackpad is much worse. The trackpoint is nice, and the proper keyboard is nice (though karabiner on Mac os enabled me to get productive with fewer keys). The USB-A ports are nice, and the HDMI is nice. The build quality is great.

Software is great. I just miss the trackpad gestures.

It's a different form factor. Slightly lighter, smaller screen.

</comment><comment><USER7> I've been using an X1 Carbon running Ubuntu (18.04 until 19.04 came out, then upgraded) with Gnome 3 for about a year and some change as my primary development machine.

Hardware-wise I have no complaints. It's incredibly light, excellent battery life (no specifics, but I made it though an 8hr work day in a coffee shop), the keyboard is fantastic, and the multiple USB type-C ports are super handy. I did grab a sleeve for it as it isn't aluminum like the macbooks.

My only gripes are linux related and relatively small. I never got the fingerprint reader working, and with the company being attached to Outlook/Teams/Excel, I sometimes find myself wishing I had desktop apps as opposed to web-based ones.

Regardless, it's the best work machine I've ever had. I've used plenty, and this edges out the XPS 13 just slightly, as the keyboard is superior and the screen is about an inch larger.

edit: I do only have the 1920x1080 screen, which I'm sure contributes to the excellent battery life.

</comment><comment><USER8> I cannot comment on the Mac replacement angle as I've been die-hard on Linux since the 1990s.

I recently got a Thinkpad T495 with AMD Ryzen and it is fantastic with Fedora. I am very impressed, comparing to my older quad-core Thinkpad T440p and its anemic NVIDIA GPU. I suspect the T495s will be almost the same software/driver experience, with a lighter package. I believe mine came with an LTE modem that does not appear in Linux. (I didn't even want it, but it was forced along with the low-power 400 nit display that I demanded.)

It is fantastically cool and quiet out of the box, unlike my prior hit-and- miss experiences with power management on recent Intel chipsets. Idle power usage is the lowest I have ever seen on an x86 computer (<3 watts screen off, 3-5 watts screen on and lightly using Firefox).

I haven't yet done anything that really pushes its limits.

</comment><comment><USER9> Probably not the answer you are looking for but I don't understand why these two machines get so much love from developers.

In my opinion Asus is underrated if it comes to great Linux laptops. Some models have stellar Linux support, are lightweight while still having battery, disk and memory upgradable.

<comment><USER10> You should actually suggest some of them then not just the whole brand. As to why these are so popular there's a lot of theorizing out there about just why Macbooks are so popular (eg: good design [1], brand cachet and clean looking software) and why they're secretly terrible (eg: overpriced from a spec perspective and thermal throttling issues)

[1] ignoring recurring internal design issues the outside build is still some of the best out there, though a lot of brands are catching up.

<comment><USER11> My 2cents: My absolutely favorite thing about the MacBooks are the aluminium unibody. I can drop it, abuse it, put my suitcase on it and at worse the metal may bend or scratch a bit. No cracks, no wearing smooth, no discoloration.

I don't care much for osx, but jeez it's a robust laptop.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> No, I have both, the problem on the Thinkpad is the OS. Simply nothing will come close to the productivity of macOS. I've tried Windows 10, FreeBSD, OpenBSD, multiple Linux distros (Gentoo, Fedora, OpenSuSE, KDE Neon, etc - <USER2> am not new to Linux) and even Haiku on the Thinkpad and I think its going on eBay next.

macOS has steadily been going down hill in innovation and its feature loss and constant addition of useless features (Sidecar? SwiftUI? Catalyst?). Apple's obsession with control and Apple's lack of focus are real problems too. However, other operating systems are so far behind in usability it is hard to even consider them instead.

The keyboard on the Thinkpad is far better though.

<comment><USER13> Owning both a Thinkpad P1 and the latest XPS 15, I agree. Productivity on a Mac is in a different league than Linux. OSS partisans, high schoolers, and bearded gnomes, feel free to downvote my experience.

<comment><USER14> I guess I just don't get it. On my Linux desktop at home I'm ludicrously more productive than with my MBP. It just seems like every little thing gets in the way. Docker is significantly slower, package distribution is terrible (in speed, availability, and consistency), and finder has to be one of the worst ways to browse a filesystem. I could go on but it doesn't even matter because I can't be productive with that awful keyboard anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> My issue with most non-Macs including the X1 is that they mostly choose 16x9 screens.

I'm carrying the weight, give me the real estate. I'm not one to run many full screens and swipe between them.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have an answer for you but I also had a question for anyone that might be knowledgable. Why are Mac mouse drivers so bad? I've used the magic mouse, logitech and Microsoft mice and they are all terrible. I did this on multiple MBPs. I even did a bunch of research and tried multiple methods of disabling acceleration and it is still choppy and unpredictable in comparison to any other pointing device I've ever used. The best I can manage is to make it tolerable, but if there's a way to make it as smooth and dependable as Windows please let me know. The touchpads are truly amazing compared to their pc counterparts, but sometimes a mouse is the right tool for the job.

A few years ago I'd say get a MBP. Now, having used a 2017 for a while, I wouldn't even consider it unless you are completely in love with Mac OS, or you don't intend to ever use the build-in keyboard. Or, you could try out one of the new keyboards because some people actually like them.

Most of the the X, T, and P series, business class laptops from Lenovo are going to be pretty nice. Depending on which model you choose, it will have options for making it more powerful than a MBP.

<comment><USER17> I wish I had a solution for you. My Tracking speed is set on Fast, all the way to the right (unlike Windows, where you generally want it centered).

I use a Razer DeathAdder w/ a Mac Pro, no issues. There's a bit of acceleration (no 360 noscopes?) but nothing choppy. I also use a SteelSeries Rival that works well.

Logitech mice, I've actually not had great results. I remember installing the OS X preference pane, and it still sucked. It might've just been the mouse. I have not owned a MS mouse in years.

Try a DeathAdder, next time you have a chance to experiment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am planning on making the shift soon (as soon as my MBP 2014 gives up) and the choice for me will most likely be between the X1 Carbon or the XPS 15. My wife bought a last generation MBP and it crashes every time she uses the webcam and is already experiencing issues with the butterfly keyboard.

<comment><AUTHOR> I am concerned with the butterfly keyboard.

<comment><USER19> In the office we have had to replace about 25% of all MBP butterfly keyboards. They wear down easily. The trackpads though... nothing better out there.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I just bought Lenovo Thinkpad p52s. Bigger battery and all physical ports (HDMI, ethernet) including USB-C charging.

I'm running Pop_OS (built on Ubuntu), and it's been my daily driver for 6 months.

I was using macOS for 5 years (mbp 2012) and then Lubuntu for a bit. This setup has been as smooth as a macbook.

Installation was smoooooooth. Pop_Os distro has built-in Nvidia drivers, so wifi, bluetooth, nvidia card worked out of the box. The p52s also has a SIM card slot, which is the only thing I need to mess with.

Usability is comparable to macOS. It has the cmd+space shortcut built in. It has multiple workspaces with keyboard shortcuts for moving between them as well as moving windows to different spaces.

Carbon X1 would run the same, but has less physical ports -- depends on your use case. Can vouch for this setup though.

<comment><USER21> HDMI 2.0+?

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm looking to switch to either a P1 or X1 Extreme. I think those would be better equivalents with even better hardware: more max RAM (64gb), 2 SSD up to 2tb each, OLED screens on the 2nd gen versions (on X1E currently and soon on the P1 I understand), better keyboards etc. My company will be buying me one soon. As far as software, for me, after almost a dozen years on OS X, using Linux is superior in almost every single way mainly because of jumpapp [1] and customization (I prefer KDE). Some rough times when first installing with crashes / having to reinstall but it's been stable more or less for months.

[1] [https://github.com/mkropat/jumpapp](https://github.com/mkropat/jumpapp)

<comment><USER23> I'm running Manjaro on a 1st gen X1E and it generally works really well. Installing took a bit of trial and error.

The Nvidia graphics card is still a bit of a pain; I usually open another TTL session and start up a new desktop with the Nvidia graphics card running when I need it, but I think it's possible to configure it better than that.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I've gone through a couple X1 Carbons. The first one (2012) had a fan failure, but I got a replacement cooler on ebay for $20 and it was easy enough to replace. Eventually it died when a drink spilled on it.

The second one (2014) had _awful_ soft-touch function keys. They were so bad that the softkey to change the F-number to brightness/volume sometimes didn't work, so I'd get stuck in one mode or the other. Eventually, the down-arrow and Delete keys stopped working. It also had the mouse buttons integrated into the trackpad, which was terrible.

I love the form factor otherwise. Thankfully they've moved away from the softkeys and integrated mouse buttons, so I'm comfortable recommending it again.

</comment><comment><USER25> As an engineer who needs to deal with multiple platforms, I use an hybrid approach, connecting my personal X1 carbon to one of these latest macbook pro with the special keyboard. I definitely dislike the keyboards on these modern Apple laptops, I do a lot of terminal typing and not having the press feedback on the escape key kills the experience of typing fast. I fell the macbooks were made for home users and lost contact with the IBM PC. Besides the pros get really hot when under heavy load. On the TP I have a very customized version of Arch installed and it works fairly well.

</comment><comment><USER26> IMO the most perfect laptop made for road-warriors like myself was the Lenovo X270. I bought the 6-cell spare. Nothing is touching it on battery life and it had great specs.

The two-battery system is something I long for in other laptops.

</comment><comment><USER27> I switched from a Macbook Pro around 2015 or so. Since then I've used a few Thinkpads (T470, X1C, P50). Currently I'm on a X1C7. They're great machines, work perfectly with Linux, high build quality, etc.

</comment><comment><USER28> I had an X1 Carbon (6th gen) from Costco (which is a great deal) between MacBooks a few months back. I returned it within the 90 days because the speakers, trackpad, and display all felt several generations behind MacBooks in terms of usability. I'm not happy with lots of the MBP changes like most HN users but I can't believe the rest of the industry hasn't caught up. The Microsoft Surface trackpads are only slightly better than the X1. I'm not even a big trackpad user, but it's just so annoying to have one that I dread using.

<comment><USER29> OP: do this. If you love it, great, and if you're on the fence, you've got 90 days to decide.

<comment><USER28> Also, I made it sound like it's a bad machine, but the keyboard is fantastic and so was the cooling, battery life etc. Probably your best bet for linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> We've got like 200+ of them in the office (current and last gen mix). Mine's a 6th gen & spec'd pretty heavy judging by feel but haven't checked tbh.

They seem very good on failure rates compared to previous fleet of laptops (Dell latitudes - jikes).

Need for a eth dongle is a little meh. And Ctrl and FN is switched which is stupid (think BIOS can swap it). Otherwise seems solid.

No idea about nix compatibility.

Works well for a Excel road warrior - can't comment as to creative types.

</comment><comment><USER21> my list of MBP 15" pre-touchbar features I most like was durability: it survived multiple bicycle wipeouts and drops like a champ.

That + battery life + width + an 4k barely-usable HDMI 1.4b was just a great combo.

Why the industry could not replicate that after 4-5 years (HDMI still stuck at 1.2, cheap cases, iffy battery life, etc) is beyond me.

I'd also like a bezel-less 15" OLED display, a 16-17" option, SSD storage and large RAM that is only 2x time going rate on newegg rather than 10x, and a combo of USB-C and USB-3.x (aka no dongles). So tons of room for improvement on the basic model.

But Apple regressed their hardware, and the rest of industry just sat around. Chromebooks regressed into sub-200 categories and are so annoyingly google. Windows continues to suck in dumbfounding ways.

And this is compounded by the fact that processors are basically at a standstill efficiency wise, so the only way to get people to upgrade is... decent design/hardware?

Mystifying.

</comment><comment><USER31> I have a Carbon X1 6th ed. running Xubuntu. Even though I came from a Macbook Pro, I've been pretty happy with it. I opted to upgrade the CPU to the i7 8650u. It's fast and very portable. It did feel a bit frail coming from the MBP's aluminum body, so I just bought a sleeve for it.

</comment><comment><USER32> I have both a 2018 15" MBP and an X1C6 running Arch.

The X1C6 is a fine Linux laptop but it's significantly slower than the 15" MBP. The keyboard is better though.

I still prefer the MBP, and if/when Apple fixes the keyboards on them it will be even more tilted in favor of the MBP.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm using a 6th gen with FreeBSD. Only tweaks needed that I recall were installing Intel X drivers from pkg, and loading acpi_video and acpi_ibm drivers. After that, good X performance and working suspend/resume.

</comment><comment><USER34> I went from a MBP (2015?) -> Dell XPS 15 -> X1 Extreme (not carbon), all windows.

For Linux I went to an X1 Carbon with Ubuntu. I am not a Linux power user but it does everything for me fine.

</comment><comment><USER35> I'm running Fedora on a maxed out X1 5th and it's the best Linux laptop I've ever had. The T series would work fine too (sometimes I miss one extra USB port).

</comment><comment><USER36> Does anyone know a physical brick and mortar retailer that sells high end Thinkpad devices? I would like to try a more modern one in person.

<comment><USER23> MicroCenter if you have on near you.

I think I've maybe seen them in a Costco before too.

<comment><USER36> I think I saw them at Costco too... but for whatever reason there weren't demo machines? I saw the inventory but couldn't play with them. And/or they were fully neutered or couldn't get logged-in to.

I have a Fry's and a MicroCenter not too far away. Will give it a shot.

I don't think I could ever abandon OS X because so many of my tooling depends on it... but I've always wanted to try daily driving a Linux machine. Haven't done it since high school.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I love this laptop (I own one). But the screen quality and its size (16/9) are not very optimal for work productivity.

</comment><comment><USER38> install macOS on thinkpad ;)

</comment><comment><USER39> Windows or Linux?

<comment><AUTHOR> I am thinking of Linux

<comment><USER18> as far as I know thinkpads have the smoothest linux experience

<comment><USER40> That blanket statement is either _not_ true or incredibly sad: certain ThinkPads might have a great Linux experience (I still don't know which exactly, I am guessing the ones certified by Ubuntu should be alright), but random ThinkPads (even trusty T-series, nevermind random hipster tablets and cheap models branded with the same name) still have major issues like suspend/hibernate and dealing with external displays and docking stations. Then that "smooth" Linux experience includes the common issues, like dealing with Bluetooth, that are common to all manufacturers and distributions.

Do your research before deciding on an _exact_ model.

<comment><USER41> The only Thinkpads that I would ever consider are the T, X, and P (used to be W) models. Other so called Thinkpads are not worth the trouble.

With regards to hardware issues, most of those are due to propriety drivers. Ubuntu has an edge here but unfortunately, there is no way to know it for sure. You have to wait for a while and follow the Thinkpad message boards.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I haven't made the shift from a Mac to a Windows laptop. I've been a Windows/Linux user since forever but most of my workplace uses the newer MacBook with the touch bar, so I had the time to make a fair comparison. Here's my take:

\- If you haven't used Windows before, that's going to be the biggest hit. Bigger than the hardware itself. But if you're okay with it, then you're good to go. Windows 10 in its current version is the best I have used; I haven't seen any security issues and the updates are a breeze and do not take a noticeable time to install. If you want a bash or a full Linux env, you can just run a VM or use WSL which is close (but not exactly Linux). WSL2 should close that loophole too and you'll get a decent integration with Windows user- space as well.

\- The MacBook looks better than most laptops out there. But I wouldn't dismiss X1 Carbon so soon. I've got a Silver X1 Carbon Gen 6. This was a happy accident; I didn't realize there are other colors available beside Black while I was ordering. But the metallic look and color are fantastic along with the small red dot light on the back of the screen. The ThinkPad logo on the back of the screen looks dated though, probably due to the font.

\- One thing you'll note instantly is that the laptop is much lighter than the MacBook. However, it still feels durable. You can easily hold it up with one hand while giving an in-person demo/presentation to someone. This is the lightest laptop I have used, and it has increased my portability in the office.

\- X1 Carbon uses the ThinkPad's legendary keyboard; it has the perfect key travel distance and key spacing. The overall experience is just perfect and makes you feel that you're using a product that's been perfected over a long period of time. Plus, it has got real physical keys for the function keys with all the cool shortcuts to sound and settings that you need. All of this is a stark contract to MacBook's keyboard which so many have already written about to be the worst keyboard MacBook has ever had. Overall, you'll get used to the keyboard and will never look back after that.

\- One point I should note is that MacBook's keyboard has better backlighting compared to X1 Carbon's which leaks around the keys a lot. I rarely ever need backlighting so it's not a concern for me. There's also the unique TrackPoint in the middle of the keyboard but it never gets in the way of using the keyboard.

\- One of the very few downsides to the X1 Carbon is its smaller trackpad compared to the MacBook. It is accurate and sensitive. You can tap (not press) to register a click. There are three physical buttons on the top for the left, right and the middle click. And the bottom of the trackpad can be pressed for the left and the right clicks as well. Overall, a larger trackpad would have been nicer and the physical keys on top of the trackpad just feels like legacy and is the only ugly part of the laptop when it's open.

\- There's a fingerprint scanner right beside the trackpad. I've gotten used to playing nice with it. Otherwise, it misses recognition frequently, perhaps due to its small size.

\- MacBook have arguably the best screens out there. X1 Carbon's screen is close though; I can't tell the difference between mine and my colleague's screen. X1 Carbon supports HDR mode so that's a big plus if you stream HDR content from Netflix. I avoided the more expensive 4k Dolby screen option and went for a full-HD one to save battery during work. The verdict is a pretty close one on this and I couldn't decide.

\- Ports on this laptop are much better than the new MacBook: two USB Type-A (3.1), two USB-C Lightening and a full-sized HDMI port. I've never needed an additional USB hub or connector but if you have that, you'll be able to connect two external screens to your X1 Carbon. One USB-C port is used for charging as well. There's a propriety port as well for connecting a ThinkPad dock as well (yes, they're cool but pricey). You can use this to add an ethernet port through an addon. The ports are again a sharp contract to the MacBook; every dev at my company has a USB hub attached to the side of their MacBook when they're working which is a shame.

\- Dual-array mic are pretty good and noise cancellation is stellar. But the speakers on the other side are quite bad. They're placed below the laptop, just underneath the trackpad. These have been moved to the sides of the laptop in Gen 7 but I am not familiar with the sound quality of Gen 7. Dolby Atmos comes preinstalled; if you attach a headphone to the headphone jack (yup, there's one), Atmos kicks in and improves the sound quality of whatever you're playing. There's an Atmos app that comes preinstalled and it allows some level of control over the enhancement.

\- Battery life is stellar; a 100% charge lasts throughout a day of development work (about 7-10 hours). There's a feature you can use to limit max charging level to 70-80% if you frequently work with the charger plugged in. This improves your battery life. Also, charging is fast for the first 50% so that's a bonus if you like your portability and like to avoid carrying a charger.

\- There's no audible noise from the CPU fan during normal usage. It's pretty tough to write about the heat dissipation of the laptop; I'm from a hot country so laptop heat dissipation for most laptops is fairly lacking for me. The metal body and the fan on the side are supposed to keep the laptop cool and it should work okay if you don't live in Pakistan :)

Overall, I'd say the X1 Carbon Gen 6 is one of the best laptops out there. They beat MacBook at making you feel productive (precondition being that you're comfortable with Windows or Linux). With the X1 Carbon Gen 7 already available with the latest Intel processors, I would recommend a buy.

<comment><USER43> > There are three physical buttons on the top for the left, right and the > middle click. And the bottom of the trackpad can be pressed for the left and > the right clicks as well. Overall, a larger trackpad would have been nicer > and the physical keys on top of the trackpad just feels like legacy and is > the only ugly part of the laptop when it's open.

Regarding the physical keys on top of the trackpad, these are actually for use together with the Trackpoint. I recommend giving it a chance for a couple days, you might like it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Are all laptops not alternatives to MacBook pro? If you mean is it comparable spec wise then more or less.

</comment><comment><USER45> I got a suggestion. Pick up a late model MacBook Pro, then go down to your local used PC shop and pick up two PC laptops (300 bux each), and install Linux and Windows. At that point, you have all 3 platforms covered and don't have to choose sides.</comment>


Ask HN: I don't like competitive coding. Won't you hire me as a fresh graduate? - <AUTHOR> <comment><USER2> I haven't heard of a single place that requires a candidate to be active as a "competitive coder" \-- they just require that the candidate know what the hell they're doing. Don't project hyperbole onto the companies you're applying to, and don't be such a defeatist. Are you a good programmer? Do you understand core concepts of computer science? Are you capable of working with people?

2/3 of those will get you an interview. 3/3 will get you a job.

</comment><comment><USER3> TLDR: Leverage the other things you know. Maybe they are the reason you didn't had time to learn "competitive coding" algorithms.

I had the same problem years ago. You must have a good "excuse" to not know these simple things. You studied it for the last 4-5 years and still don't know?!

It is a flaw in your CV. When I graduated (2011), I failed _every_ algorithm interview. Passed in some that asked me other things, like Python / Bottle / Flask. At that time, I was a Bottle core contributor and had several Flask projects available.

I was too busy working on real projects (internships, startups, open source) and passed all the exams with low grades. My fault. It was a choice and I had to handle the consequences for some time. I don't regret this.

Being a "competitive coder" helps a lot, you have in your head every algorithm they'll ask. Some companies don't hire you without this knowledge. You have less options.

</comment><comment><USER4> What's the question?</comment>


Google Rolls Out Two-Factor Authentication For Everyone. - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2011/02/10/google-rolls-out-two-factor-authentication-for-everyone-you-should-use-it/ <comment><USER2> Tried it, and now regretting it. I log in with 6 devices, and the idea that I'll have to go through re-authenticating them each month isn't fun.

Each re-auth requires a fresh code from the app.

I access google apps via Safari because Apple's mail app has no real search function. Since the codes expire in 60 seconds, I'm on a timer for writing it down, launching safari, refreshing to get the "login failed" screen, entering in my username and password without errors and then entering in my code. Totally doable, but irritating. Imagine you're in a hurry, and checking your email as you walk down the street. You open your client and instead of your email you get an error. The error doesn't tell you what's wrong, it just says there's a problem with your login. Hopefully you remember that 30 days ago you reset your token, and that's the problem. Now you can pause everything else, and setup your email.

Don't have a pen to write down your code while you switch apps? How's your memory?

I totally get that good security involves expiration dates, but I want things that "just work", not that "usually work".

In principle it's a great idea, and if I could choose how often it expires I'd be a happy camper.

</rant>

<comment><USER3> I'm able to start the login process in Safari on my iPhone and when I get to the prompt for the one-time code, switch to the Authenticator app, double click on the number to get the copy icon, then switch back to Safari and paste it.

<comment><USER2> Thanks, that'll help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My largest worry is that coupled with Google's infamous lack of customer support, it might be very difficult to get into your account should something happen to your phone. I know it's something of a pain to have an authenticator removed in World of Warcraft if you lose it or it breaks, but at least there you have a phone number you can call that will let you eventually talk to a human being.

Does anyone know what Google's plan is for lost/broken authenticators?

<comment><USER5> You can print out a set of one-time codes and put them in your wallet, plus you can specify a backup phone number. That's what I did.

<comment><USER6> Hey Matt, seeing your comments on this post reminded me I wanted to say thanks for making so many comments here on HN. It's awesome to hear from someone directly at Google in your role. Very cool. I'm sure a lot of us think very highly of the work you all do at Google. You and Apple, really, kick ass in this industry.

<comment><USER5> I really appreciate that--thank you. HN is a pretty fun place to hang out. :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I've been using this on my Gmail account for a couple months in beta. (It was also available for Google Apps Premier/Education/Gov).

Surprisingly it hasn't been a hassle at all-- anyone who uses their Gmail for "everything" should start using it.

It takes 15 minutes to set up (you have to / should generate tokens for each of your mobile and desktop apps, e.g. Apple Mail, iCal, Adium, Meebo, Voice, Latitude) but after that, it's super easy as long as you always have your smartphone+authenticator with you.

Spending 30 seconds extra/month/device to enter a 6-digit keycode isn't a huge price to pay for better security (at least for me-- I have one phone and one computer.)

</comment><comment><USER8> I've been doing this with PayPal and their free security token fob for three years and I couldn't be happier. This kind of thing should be the standard for any 'critical' accounts like banking and email. If you don't have a token you probably have a cell phone anyway.

<comment><USER9> Is that the PayPal fob shown here for $5:

[https://cms.paypal.com/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render- cont...](https://cms.paypal.com/cgi-bin/marketingweb?cmd=_render- content&content_ID=security/hardware_software_protection)

Or is there a free one available by other means?

<comment><USER10> You can use Verisign's Identity Protection iphone app for free:

<https://idprotect.verisign.com/wheretouse.v>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> How does two-factor cut down on phishing again?

Instead of a fake login page with 2 boxes, a phisher could just create a fake login page with 3 boxes and pass the keycode along with everything else.

The only increased difficulty in phishing, is if the user notes they're seeing a keycode prompt, decides that they probably _shouldn't_ have to enter that again _and_ doesn't just key it in anyway.

When we're talking about people who fall for phishing scams, does that sound all that likely? I mean, these people have a history of ignoring red flags and being blissfully ignorant to what should even _raise_ a red flag.

Now, what two-factor _will_ help mitigate, is casual sniffing, keylogging, shoulder-surfing and saved password cracking.

<comment><USER12> The keycode is unique to each log-in attempt.

<comment><USER11> Is this a stand-alone fob-style system, where the keycode is unique to _a point in time_ with no knowledge of the connection? Or is this some sort of second-channel verification, where the requesting connection is hashed into the one-time-pad?

<comment><USER13> Both Paypal and WoW use standalone FOB, keycode unique to a point in time.

Of course, paypal's "I lost my authenticator, log me in anyways" button is kind of defeating the purpose...

<comment><USER11> Ok, but what is Google offering?

Unless I'm missing something, RFC 4226 sounds like the RSA SecurID system I've worked with before; which is essentially equivalent to Blizzard's system for World of Warcraft.

In which case, my criticism stands. It's trivially more difficult to phish a keycode and the limited window of opportunity is simply a non-issue.[1]

Unless Google is calculating a one-time pad based on the individual login attempt and sending it along a second channel to the registered user, there'll be almost no reduction in phishing.

[1] The tens of seconds a keycode is valid are more than enough to establish a connection.

<comment><USER13> Which means you phished it _once_. Which means you need to take drastic actions to exploit it, a slow buildup over time is not an option.

Which in turn means you're more likely to get detected. It's not full protection - you'd still need a second channel for that - but it's better than nothing.

<comment><USER11> It is certainly better than nothing. I just took issue with the article's repeated insistence that it'd make phishing harder/impossible.

It does many good things. That is not one of them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Google should publish a good API for this, and allow everyone to use it. I'd love to have opt-in TFA for all of my sites.

<comment><USER15> OpenID?

<comment><USER13> You did read the part about "good API", right? ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Great going, google! Banks have been using those RSA dongle thingies for a long time. Now with mobile phones that isolate one app from another, who needs em! And you get OTP codes just in case. Nice.

Now I wish my bank would do this.

</comment><comment><USER17> Looks like it's currently broken. The article says "You can activate it by hitting the 'two-step verification' link on this page[1].", but it's definitely not there.

However, if you go into "Authorizing applications & sites" it has a warning box which says "An application-specific password can only be created when you are signed up for 2-step verification.", with no mention of where or how that can be done.

It'd be nice if this feature allowed me to have secondary passwords for eg google talk. I don't much care for having to hand out my full credentials just to use things like bitlbee/meebo.

[1] <https://www.google.com/accounts/ManageAccount>

<comment><USER18> It's being rolled out over the next few days. Hopefully it will be enabled for you soon.

[http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in- secu...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in-security-for- your.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> This would seem to be a good thing to offer if you were a company that had any form of customer service.

If I were to lose the little thingy that lets me into my bank account, I can walk into a bank, verify myself, and get another one sent out. Simple and effective.

Can you imagine the process that you'll have to go through to get back into your GMail account after losing your phone?

Considering that you can be an AdWords customer giving them ten thousand dollars a year and still receive nothing but computer-generated form letters in response to questions about your account, I think I'll pass on this one.

</comment><comment><USER20> It'd be nice if i could use my own 2 factor, e.g. if i had a securid or something similar to do. I'm not all that excited to have to open my phone to get to an app to get my passcode out.

<comment><USER18> The algorithm is RFC4226+TOTP: <http://code.google.com/p/google- authenticator/> If you have a TOTP device that lets you set the key, then you can use that instead of your phone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> I haven't tried it, but I don't like being bothered with extra stuff, I can't even imagine my mother dealing with this stuff.

If we can't simplify our users lives, we have failed. Is security hard? Hell it is. But we can do better and we MUST do better, for the love of science.

<comment><USER22> First, this is optional, so no one who doesn't want it has to worry about it. If you aren't worried about your google account being hacked, then don't enable it.

Second, can you really think of a better option? Two factor authentication like this has been used by high security institutions for years and it works quite well. Personally, it has bothered me for years that my bank does not use 2-factor identification to log in... I am certain there is plenty of room for improvement, but it is certainly non-trivial.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> This wouldn't work for me. I own a mobile phone, but I only use it for specific purposes and don't carry it around with me routinely. Mobile phones are not something that I care about to any significant extent.

<comment><USER24> Me either, and I work on (a different) mobile phone authentication product!

I did finally give in the other day and got a Nexus S. I've even talked on it a few times.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> Where exactly is the option to enable this? I can't seem to find it in my google accounts page - is it being rolled out gradually?

<comment><USER26> According to the official blog post ( [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in- secu...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2011/02/advanced-sign-in-security-for- your.html) ), this will be rolled out over the next two days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Does this mean that I can't use the build in email on my (Google) Android to use my account?

Because if not, this is pretty awesome.

<comment><USER18> You can still use applications, such as email clients built-in to Android, to access your account. Typically you'll need to use an application-specific password as described here: [http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/static.py?page=gu...](http://www.google.com/support/accounts/bin/static.py?page=guide.cs&guide=1056283&topic=1056286)

(Disclaimer: I worked on the Android app.)

<comment><USER10> It's not clear from that page, is there any limitation on the powers of the application-specific password? While it's less likely, if one of those passwords gets stolen can your entire account still be accessed including your account settings?

<comment><USER28> On Android, the device specific password is used for your phone's Google Account. Which means once you set it up, all Google apps like Gmail, GReader, Talk, Market, etc. will work as usual.

If you suspect your device password is compromised, you can revoke it from your Google account settings in a regular browser.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> This is very good for activists.

</comment><comment><USER30> Also, apparently HN is having a reading problem today.

>Over the next few days, you'll see a new link on your Account Settings page that looks like this:

Yes, it's not available yet. And the second password page is very clear about what it's used for. Reading people, it helps a lot.

<comment><USER31> As usual they will roll out incrementally. They always do, but yet others always will jump up and down because it's not instant available for them.

<comment> brown9-2 I'm not sure what you are addressing, no one is debating the merit of this. drivebyacct is referring to other posts in this thread questioning "Where is this option? I don't see it in my account!"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Why does the Android app "Google Authenticator" require ZX Barcode Scanner when Google Goggles has a faster barcode scanner built in? Sometimes I just don't understand Google's inability to be consistent. For example, why do Goggles and the Gallery hide the notification bar. Attention to details Google...

<comment><USER32> What do you mean "built-in"? I had to download a barcode scanner app from the Market since Android didn't ship with one.

Do you mean it's built into something like the Camera app?

<comment><USER30> "Google Goggles has a faster barcode scanner built in"

Not sure how to make that sentence more straight forward.

<comment><USER32> Google Goggles is not "built-in", so it's plenty unclear.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> do they still have the dreadful "security question"?

</comment><comment><USER34> I have no phone. Not at all, not a cell, not a work phone, not a home phone.

I suppose this is what I get for being both a hacker and a luddite.

But this definitely will NOT work for me.

<comment><USER35> So... don't use it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Some people are going to find this to be awesome (mostly the paranoid), while others will just be frustrated they now have to remember two passwords.

<comment><USER37> There is no "remembering" involved -- you get the second password from an app on your phone. And you only have to enter this second password once per month (per computer that you access your account from).

<comment><USER38> I assume you enter the second password once per browser session, not once "per computer." For people who use incognito mode heavily or clear their cookies on shutdown this will mean using the second password every time, but something tells me those people are of the type who want to be using two-factor auth all the time anyway.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> I can see why everyone is so happy, but something to note is the erosion of privacy. You you wont be able to use a gmail account without a phone.

In countries(China) where you need your id to get even a prepay phone there will no longer be any anominity.

Top this off with the fact that google doesn't say how often or if at all whether they give information to the chinese government because its against the law in China for them to say so.

State secrecy and all.

I personally think this should be optional and not mandatory. Otherwise I will stop using all of googles account services.

<comment><USER40> It _is_ optional! Personally I'd rather the second factor was a little more dependable, the 2nd factor for my LastPass account is a lookup grid. That piece of paper in my wallet is unlikely to run out of battery power or otherwise malfunction, and doesn't have the potential privacy issues you highlighted.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is anyone else concerned that Google is now basically forcing this on us, so it can build a database of not only our online history, contact info, etc... but now linking it to a real-life phone number? Think of what the NSA could do with data like that.

Not to mention the whole MAC address collection they did with the Streetview cams as well (allowing them to tie a MAC address and/or IP with a GPS coordinate)

I'm prepared for the down-votes on this one, but it's something to think about.

<comment><USER5> If you don't want this feature, don't opt in--it's not required. I love that I don't need to worry as much about people trying to hack my Gmail account.

<comment><USER41> Sure but they're going to ask me about it every time I log in until kingdom come. And there are a lot of users who will do it blindly unaware of the consequences that come with linking your online persona to a phone number.

<comment><USER10> I use Google Voice, so I imagine Google already knows all my numbers.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


WePay just built a new feature inspired by and for redditors - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_antipaypal_raised_9mm_and_now_want/ <comment><USER2> Every time I see WePay claiming to be an anti-paypal I let out such a sigh. Instead of building a business (well, the marketing side) on what they offer, they're building it on how shitty a _competitor_ is, except they're _not_ a competitor.

WePay is to paypal what... Myspace is to Facebook? I have no idea what to compare them to, but WePay offer 1/3rd the functionality of what Paypal offer and are building their business on everyone "hating" Paypal except they _don't_ face the same challenges Paypal do.

Even this comment is ridiculous, everyone is praising them for their "honesty" when this is _exactly_ what companies like Mastercard did, so because they're big businesses they're not allowed to make sensible decisions, but because they're a startup they are? [http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_an...](http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_antipaypal_raised_9mm_and_now_want/c1difi2)

It's stupid. They mentioned Paypal 17 times in their post, more than they mentioned their own business.

<comment><USER3> Positioning yourself as "the anti-big-evil-guy" can work really well when you're the little guy. It would be stupid of them _not_ to run with it when it's resonating so well. It doesn't really matter what challenges they face, the story for users is what matters.

The Myspace to Facebook example is funny, because Facebook was the anti Myspace. Not only that, they were the anti Myspace specifically because they stripped out features.

Many successful companies were the anti-something or another when they were small:

* Google was the anti-Yahoo

* 37 Signals was the anti-enterprise (and lately, the anti-funded startup)

* Southwest Airlines is the anti-American Airlines, don't you love their free baggage commercials?

* Reddit is the anti-digg

<comment><USER2> I commented below with a proper answer (or my attempt at it) but basically, in each of those situations they are _actual_ competitiors. You could replace Yahoo with google, Reddit with Digg, but you can't replace Paypal with WePay. To me at least it seems like they're school yard bullies, identified a "weak" target, one that everyone dislikes and then using that dislike to improve their own position without _actually_ competing. It's the cheats way and for me at least, I wouldn't be happy running a business that way. If I'm going to spend my time bitching about a competitor, I'd make damn sure that I was _actually_ a competitor.

<comment><USER3> I dunno, I don't think that's true. You can replace the search function of Yahoo with Google, but that was only one of a bunch of things Yahoo was doing. You can't fly Southwest Airlines to Tokyo, but you can on American.

As a matter of fact, Southwest Airlines limited service reach makes many of the things they tout possible. AA could never, for instance, operate with only one kind of airplane.

People love the underdog. You might think of big bad Paypal as being the weak target, but I don't think anyone else does.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My favourite part:

" _Quick question, though: did you or Bill have any programming or web development experience before founding Wepay? A buddy of mine (an investment banker) and I (ex-Army officer, MBA) throw around business ideas all the time while drinking at the pub, but we always are forced to bring ourselves back to earth when we realize we both have no programming experience whatsoever. Is it even worth it to start something tech-related when both founders aren't your typical tech guys? How did you do it?_

> I love this question. Bill had a CS degree from BC, but he wasn't a talented > web developer or anything like that. His background was helpful, though, > since it was good to have least some technical knowledge before starting the > company; we weren't operating completely in the dark. I had zero technical > background. You could probably get to Bill's pre-WePay level with a bunch of > books, long conversations with your programmer friends (you can make some of > these friends online - try hacker news), and persistence.

>

> If you are "relentlessly resourceful" you can find a way to build what you > need to build (usually by finding the right person and convincing them that > you and your idea are worth their time). It's definitely harder to start a > tech/internet company without being technical, but it's not impossible. You > just need to be a lot scrappier in the beginning. I have a ton of non- > technical friends starting technical companies. Some of them will succeed > and some will fail. The smarter, more resourceful, harder working ones will > have the best chance of succeeding."

[http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_an...](http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_antipaypal_raised_9mm_and_now_want/c1dimd6)

</comment><comment><USER5> While this is all well and good, they need to start...

1\. Allowing people to make payments from outside the US. 2\. Allowing for people from outside the US to accept payments.

Until that happens, PayPal will continue to reign supreme.

Awesome feature though. Just disheartened that I cannot use it. =(

<comment><USER6> It's not like Paypal is great outside the US either, though; I have a Japanese account hooked up to my Japanese bank account and it's completely useless. It can't use funds from my Japanese bank, only put them in. What I'd really like to be able to do is use it to quickly facilitate transfers from my Japanese bank account to American services, or to my own account... but I can't.

<comment><USER5> I'm not even talking about bank accounts. I'm talking about credit cards. I'm not expecting WePay to link up to banks around the world over night.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is excellent. Not only is this going to roll out a great feature, but they're tailoring it in a way that's going to get great press coverage. Excellent job WePay guys, this was a wonderful move on their part.

<comment><USER8> Agreed. It sounds like a very useful feature.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Just noticed the awesome thread after my quick comment. Pretty funny :) [http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_an...](http://www.reddit.com/r/self/comments/f5vh1/i_founded_the_antipaypal_raised_9mm_and_now_want/c1difza)

</comment><comment><USER10> I like their energy in targeting Paypal, but is there any statistics out there that shows how many % of Paypal business users are actually unhappy ? I use Paypal quite extensively for business and it seems pretty good.

I suspect that we tend to read/hear the noisy disgruntled Paypal users. My suspicion is that this portion is probably a small % of their user base.</comment>