Ask HN: Should I buy Mac book Pro now or wait for ARM? - <AUTHOR> Long story short, I've a mac of 2015 (8gb ram). I've been waiting for that keyboard update. Now that there's the new keyboard they decided to change processor.
Thus, should I wait 1 year and get a new mac with ARM or it's better to get the intel one that will last for 3/4 years more? what would be the problem with Intel based processor? that their life span is shorter since app will be compatible for a while, not for long. The problme that I see for ARM based mac book will be that the first sets are for betatester with money :D
a bit of ref: I develop, and the mac that I own is a bit aged and slow. PS: should I move to windows/linux and other manufaturer at this point? (I'm a bit skeptical due to the 10+ years on mac and all the apps/keystroke that I use) <comment><USER2> Considering that the 1st generation of each Apple device is a beta version (first Apple Watch, first iPhone, first iPad, ... but also first Mac Book Pro with Core Duo CPUs) and are abandonned quite quickly, the best bet would be to at least wait for the 2nd generation, so at best 2022. A regular mac can last 6 good years nowadays, and more depending on your use-cases, so if you can wait until 2022 you better wait. Otherwise renew now! (I'll likely renew my 2014 MBP this year)

<comment><USER3> I disagree that they are "beta" versions, although they do sometimes have issues. I got about 3 years out of the first Intel Macbook circa 2005. It ultimately failed due to the plastic yellowing/breaking issue, not anything to do with the CPU change.

The first-gen Apple Watch was also fine.

Personally I'd wait to see what comes out this fall, and buy then. They'll most likely release new Intel Macbooks in addition to any ARM offerings.

<comment><USER2> What I consider beta is: \- the Apple Watch 1 and iPhone 1 didn't have real apps (at least until the second year/generation) \- the physical design of iPhone 1/iPad 1/Apple Watch 1 was changed with the second generation \- the Core Duo MacBooks were the only Intel non-64 bit devices and there probably are quite a few other examples

So as far as I am concerned, the first Apple CPU in a mac will be a no-go beta device, that will be much better at the second generation.

Also, regarding the OS, we are not really yet aware of all the things that are going to break with the architecture change: it's not a switch to ARM but a switch to Apple. There's a huge lot of possible problems for a device I'll need running at 100% for my work.

<comment><USER4> agreed, every "new" implementation of apple hardware is cursed with bugs

list of recalls: [https://support.apple.com/en- asia/exchange_repair](https://support.apple.com/en-asia/exchange_repair)

and there is a lot of bugs that apple don't even admit. (ex, ghosting screen on some macbookpro retina ( first version )

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Should I wait for and buy an arm64 Mac in 2020?"

If you're developing for Mac, and macOS 11.0 _will_ run on your 2015 Mac, then you should wait and buy an arm64 Mac in 2020. You'll need both your 2015 x86_64 and your 2020 arm64 for release testing.

If you're developing for Mac, but macOS 11.0 will _not_ run on your 2015 Mac, then you need to purchase _both_ an x86_64 Mac _and_ an arm64 Mac in 2020.

If you're _not_ developing for Mac, _but_ you would like to help contribute to the Mac ecosystem by improving macOS/arm64 support for things, then you should wait and buy an arm64 Mac in 2020. You will be at the bleeding edge of Homebrew and CocoaPods and etc. and you will be required to make repairs to things that assume x86_64 or assume "stat DYLIB" or etc. You will be forced to use your old x86_64 device to get your actual task done sometimes, even though you'd like to use your new device. You will find bugs and issues with third- party toolkits that you depend on to get your job done. You will be expected to not only report issues but also to participate in fixing them.

If _none_ of the above apply, do _not_ buy an arm64 Mac in 2020. Either now _or_ later, buy either an x86_64 Mac or an x86_64 Windows. The Mac will be supported for several years. The Windows will be supported for however long PCs are supported.

(Footnote: "in 2020" really should be translated to "within 3-6 months of whenever arm64 Macs are first sold to the public", not including the devkits.)

<comment><USER6> > "in 2020" really should be translated to "within 3-6 months of whenever > arm64 Macs are first sold to the public"

And I didn't even get the impression that it will be 2020 for anything non- devkit? Can anybody cite some more exact information?

<comment><USER7> The keynote stated first silicon shipping in 2020.

<comment><USER6> > first silicon shipping in 2020

I've thought that's the Mac mini for devs?

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mac-mini-will-be-the- first...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/the-mac-mini-will-be-the-first-arm- mac-and-theres-a-chance-you-can-get-it-this-week/)

<comment><USER8> They said that they'd have something for sale by the end of the year. They separately talked about selling the dev kits now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you don't need the mobility, a linux desktop offers vastly, vastly improved performance for the money.

For less money than a MacBook Pro, I got a 24-core threadripper, 64g ram, top speed ssd. Test suite for work went from 45m on a 2017 macbook pro to 9m.

</comment><comment><USER10> I severely doubt apples arm processor will trouble an i7/i9 for a while.

Why buy a mac at all? Get a cheap ubuntu laptop and move back into mac once it's settled down.

I did this debate recently and went with the mac, but only because work are paying for it. Otherwise, I wouldn't have bothered.

<comment><USER11> Slightly off topic, but i7/i9 is in trouble right now against AMD Ryzen chips. Laptops with Ryzen 7 4000H series CPUs are faster and cheaper than top of the line Intel chips.

<comment><USER12> > Laptops with Ryzen 7 4000H series CPUs are faster and cheaper than top of > the line Intel chips.

Faster and cheaper - Ok. But what about power consumption and temperature?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I would buy the latest Intel Macbook Pro and wait for ARM later. After two years they would have upgraded the ARM processor to something better by that time.

Just don't buy the first version of any Apple product. It is the first to be obsolete like back in 2014, the first version of the Apple Watch for example, ran 32 bit and now 64 bit watches are here.

<comment><USER14> _"don 't buy the first version of any Apple product. It is the first to be obsolete"_

Not the strongest of arguments. The second version will be the second to be obsolete, etc. A valid question would be whether first versions see shorter support (presumably because teething problems in the new design made supporting the hardware harder)

<comment><USER15> Not always. The second iPad was supported far longer than the first. IOS 9 vs IOS 5.

<comment><USER15> Now that I've had coffee, I realise my comment makes no sense. Parent was saying exactly the same.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It depends on your use, you say you develop and so you likely have a number of tools that you rely on for your day to day productivity. While the new Arm processor may well be faster then the Intel it is going to cause incompatibilities for a while.

Going the Intel route now will give you a stable machine which still has a lot of performance (depending on what exactly you develop, web great, Linux kernel not so much ;o)

Getting the first Arm will lead to you spending time dealing with first adopter bugs and learning new tooling due to your existing stack having incompatibilities.

<comment><USER17> > cause incompatibilities for a while

That strikes me as a huge understatement. I previously used Ubuntu as my main work and home OS for 10+ years before a 'corporate requirement' to move to MacOS for any new laptops.

Suffice to say, there is a big enough developer community running on Mac that almost everything can be made to work but that doesn't mean it will be smooth or easy to do. And that is with fundamentally the same architecture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I am in the same boat. I think its time to finally make the switch to Windows and/or Linux. Lots of folks on HN recommend Thinkpads.

<comment><USER19> I don't see the logic of this. If you like PC laptops better than the current Mac offerings, then you should have switched already. Otherwise, best to wait and see what Apple come out with in a few months. If the x86 emulation is as fast as they say, and the laptop processors are significantly beefier than the A12, then the whole transition might turn out to be a total non-issue for developers. I'd hate to switch to a big clunky thinkpad and then find that Apple had, say, released a 12" MacBook with good performance.

<comment><USER18> > then you should have switched already.

Until late last year the option was terrible keyboards or PC. So I waited. Then it was GPU fan issues (16" MacBook Pro). So I waited. Now its a deprecated platform or wait or PC.

<comment><USER19> You're never going to buy any Apple product if you listen to people whining online. Every time Apple release anything, there is a contingent of people saying that it sucks, it's unusable, etc. etc.

The 4th gen butterfly keyboards work fine. I have two (personal MacBook Air and work MacBook Pro) and have had no reliability issues whatsoever over the past year. I also love the feel of the keyboards.

I don't have any personal experience with the fan noise issue, but I'd advise trying to get some first-hand data on it.

Whatever laptop you switch to is also going to have its issues and imperfections. There just isn't a contingent of people loudly complaining about them all over the internet. So for example, here is a comment elsewhere in this thread about using Linux on a thinkpad:

>If you feel that you don't need a 4k resolution screen, then I would recommend getting one with a regular HD or a Quad HD screen instead. Scaling is still not optimal on X11, and it seems to take at least some toll on the CPU as well (which will also result in your fans spinning up from time to time).

<comment><USER15> >contingent of people saying that it sucks

It's about the same size as the group of Apple apologists, neck deep in the reality distortion field, claiming that Apple is infallible and that you're holding it wrong.

<comment><USER19> What relevance does that have? I'm certainly not saying that Apple is infallible. And who cares what extremists on either side think if you're trying to make a reasonable decision about what product to buy?

<comment><USER20> The relevance is, PC and Apple have their fan-base, but one of them is often completely blind.

<comment><USER19> That is irrelevant, even if true. If you want to talk seriously about this issue, focus on criticising the products, not the people who buy them.

<comment><USER20> I would never criticize a apple buyer, always just the product's, i really dont care where you trow your money at.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Ignoring the transition stuff, iMacs are due a revamp at the moment, so if you need one of those I would wait for September. Laptops are nearing the end of their cycle too but I suspect they will come next year.

If you only care about the transition: Apple tends to support their hardware for about 10 years. Big Sur is the first OS to drop the 2012 models, and they support the previous OS version for 2 years from release of the new one, so a 2012 model will effectively stop getting security updates in 2022.

When they made the previous arch transition, they announced the switch in 2006 and dropped support for the last OS to run on the old chips 5 years later. I suspect they will be gentler this time around, tbh, since the current arch is easier to support in concert with the new one than PPC was with amd64.

That means anything you buy now will likely be "compatible" with MacOS for 5 years or so, probably more. Applications will likely be supported for longer (Rosetta was dropped 7 years from announcement).

So I wouldn't worry too much. If you need a new one now, buy it regardless of architecture.

</comment><comment><USER22> I just got a new 16" mbpro a few months ago and now am very glad since I'm not interested in being a beta tester for Apple or dealing with shit not working because of the new arch, which is absolutely inevitable as a developer, even as a web developer. That said, I only got this because Lenovo didn't ship me a Thinkpad 6 weeks after I had ordered it and at that point, 6 weeks in, they still didn't know when it would ship (their customer service is absolute shit). Dell has a refurbishing fee for returns and since I wanted to run Linux, those are the only major vendors of durable laptops that I see will be durable and run Linux smoothly (system 76 etc don't count as the hardware is shit). Linux does everything I need and is slightly cheaper (a few hundred dollars on a $4k machine). I did not pay for the laptop or Apple would not be a consideration at all. The only advantage it offers is stability at the expense of everything else (though for work that is a big deal).

ARM macs will not be a consideration at all unless there is heavy adoption of ARM in the industry and all the tools currently available get ported. That will take quite some time, I imagine, if it's even doable at all. I wouldn't be surprised if Apple starts locking down their OS and only allowing apps they approve. They've been doing it for years, tightening the restrictions every year. I'm just waiting for the 'allow apps to run from anywhere option' to be completely removed. It gets reset to 'allow apps from app store and certified developers' now as far as I can see on a constant basis, not even just upon OS upgrades.

Frankly, what it boils down to, is that the future of Apple laptops as general purpose computing devices is questionable (and has been for years) given the iOSization of the OS. And I'll be damned if I pay thousands of dollars to only run what Apple approves. But if others are paying, why not?

</comment><comment><USER6> > should I wait

When somebody asks the question like that I always answer: wait.

If somebody even asks something like this, it means to me that he/she doesn't need that _at the moment_. Otherwise he/she wouldn't even doubt, the need would be completely obvious.

So it's straightforward: once you need it, you'll know it and will not even have to ask.

<comment><USER23> I guess in this case it's a little different though, as the question is about either buying something now (which isn't really needed as you say), or being in a position that you need to buy a semi-experimental machine that could potentially break half your workflows.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> It depends on what exactly you develop.

If you develop macOS apps, wait to buy the ARM model because you'll have to test on both platforms anyway.

If you develop iOS apps, also wait to buy the ARM model because your apps will become available to macOS-on-ARM users through the App Store, and you want to be able to test on that platform in case users have issues.

However if you develop anything else cross-platform (web, Unix, open source whatever) — buy an Intel Mac (or switch platforms). x86-64 is the architecture that everybody else uses on both clients and servers. ARM hasn't been a priority in the development of any of your current software stack. Why spend your money to be a beta tester on the bleeding edge? There's no advantage to you in being the unlucky one to discover obscure only-on-ARM bugs in some open source tool. Let someone else sort out Apple's v1.

</comment><comment><USER25> Get the Intel one. At least then you can switch to Linux or even windows if they make a mess of the Intel support.

</comment><comment><USER26> I would buy the ARM one only if I was developing native apps for macOS. I don't believe there is any other scenario I would advice doing that.

As for the switching to Windows/Linux, I am in similar position (developing on Mac Pro for 8 years) and my next hardware will be definitely not made by Apple. I don't find new models/macOS changes really "pro"-friendly. The most positive thing that happened recently was that they restored a working keyboard (just wow). Otherwise it just gets worse with every generation (both hardware and software).

</comment><comment><USER27> If you develop apps for the Apple ecosystem, I'd suggest you wait a bit for some extra clarity. The next Apple event is in September, right? IIRC the first product will be an ARM 13 inch MBP.

Otherwise, I'd suggest you get a Mac beefy enough to carry you for a couple years. 32 GB of RAM should be enough for a while (remember you'll want to have space for emulators) and Apple will support Intel for a while. Remember they kept the 13 inch with optical drive selling for a good couple years after the first Retinas were launched.

</comment><comment><USER28> If your keep your next Macbook also for 5 years, I don't see a significant change in the ecosystem in this time due to the amount of existing Intel macs.

I'm guessing you're not a Mac-only developer if you're contemplating switching to Linux, so deploying to ARM is not enough of a concern that would necessitate an ARM Mac at launch.

The resale value after 5 years may be less than your current one due to people being less interested in Intel macs by then.

</comment><comment><USER29> I bought a 16" MBP a couple of months back and I'm confident that it will continue to do it's job for many years to come. Apple computers generally have excellent longevity on the software side. My last laptop was a 2010 Macbook Pro and that only stopped getting updates last year (and still functions perfectly today, sitting on a shelf above my desk with a big HD attached functioning as a server of sorts).

</comment><comment><USER30> I'm in the same boat (but with an ancient late-'13 13" MBP), and I'm going to purchase a new Macbook Pro in the coming weeks.

It's going to a better-specced model (32gb/i7 13") so it should allow me to ride out the ARM transition until the kinks are ironed out. I guess if there are compelling arguments to upgrade earlier, it should still have ok-ish resale value (there'll always be people who need to stick with Intel for a while longer, and there won't be any Intel big refreshes anymore, I guess...)

I'm not confident Apple will keep selling Intel Macs for long once they have an ARM replacement for a model; will there still be a 32GB Intel 13" once they have a 32/64GB ARM 13"? Or will they just keep offering the base models? Or none? Anyone's guess and not something I want to depend on.

Switching to Linux is not an option for me. "Linux is only free if your time has no value", as someone on this site recently put it, and I've found that to be true, plus, even in the best case, the "minor issues" that still remain are dealbreakers for me.

Switching to Windows is something I've looked at, but I just don't "get" Windows, and even with WSL2, while there now is a happy path to work with Linux that is quite comfortable, anything outside that happy path quickly gets painful. It's just nowhere near as versatile as macOS with its UNIX underpinnings or native Linux, maybe it'll get there eventually.

And besides, I'd hate to lose muscle memory and a ton of apps and workflows that I'd have to relearn and rebuild and that's quite an investment. I like the new keyboard a lot, so my main gripe with Apple laptops has disappeared.

<comment><USER21> _> "Linux is only free if your time has no value", as someone on this site recently put it_

Lol @ "recently", that line has been around for 15 years or more...

(as a line, it's a bit dim: by using and improving Linux you are basically helping humanity at large more than any given corporation, so the net result is not necessarily a loss)

<comment><USER30> I've read it for the first time recently, I was not aware this was such an old hat. It did resonate very much with me, though.

I have a bit of a problem with that "helping humanity" statement, though. What contribution can I realistically make, with what I'm able and willing to do, and is that worth it, considering it's frequently a very bad time for me?

Like, if I have to spend a weekend of spare time to fix a crazy dependency mess so that I have a working computer on Monday, that's a definite big net loss for me, because I'd rather spend my spare time doing things I enjoy. It's also a net loss if I can't properly do the presentation I need to do because I can't get scaling on this particular 4k projector to work right now; it's a net loss for me if I have to do a reboot and lose time, terminal state and state of running applications, because I forgot to do the USB-C unplug-wakeup- replug dance and now wifi is broken. I don't really see how humanity benefits when I struggle away my spare time without success on a sound chip that should really work, but maybe not with that exact kernel version, or maybe it's alsa? then give up and switch back to my Macbook. I'm definitely not going to learn C and systems programming and write my own drivers or do a deep dive into dependency resolution and make a better apt.

And I've spent evenings and weekends on such things, time and again, over almost 20 years now, with Suse, RedHat, CentOS, several Debians, X/K/Ubuntu, Knoppix, and a couple of smaller ones, because in principle I really like the idea of running this super customizable, secure, flexible, versatile, nerdy OS everywhere. I've spent a lot more time fixing Linux than I ever did for Windows or MacOS, and I got the least utility out of Linux by far, not counting servers and raspis and things like that router I built from a 200MHZ PC in the early 2000s, where I rarely run into issues.

And I'd like to think I'm not at the very bottom of the Linux learning curve by now, and I know my way around a Linux server well enough for most purposes. But seeing how coworkers who run Linux sink a lot of time in it because it's a bit of a hobby, really, and still struggle with things like the above, it does seem to be very expensive in terms of time if you don't enjoy this sort of thing – a huge lot more than, say, using a Macbook, if your needs aren't wildly incompatible with the defaults there. It might be really not for you if you need animations to be exactly 2.5 times as fast and can't live outside of i3; personally, I like the Windows and especially MacOS defaults more than anything I ever got put together myself in Gnome, KDE, Xfce, Fluxbox, Openbox, ... still have to give i3 a shot.

Might be that's all wrong now and there is a combination of distro and hardware that is really foolproof and straightforward and where the wifi never breaks, and the displays scale well (all windows uniformly, across multiple displays with different dpi, even!), and USB-C is a walk in the park, and dependencies never go to hell, and you never have to copy-paste unintelligible stuff into config files and pray, but based on coworker anecdata and my (frustrating) experience getting a HiFiBerry sound card to work under Debian recently, I don't feel like Linux is there yet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I recently decided for a refurbished MacBook Pro 2015. Fast, great display, great keyboard, lots of ports, and relatively affordable. I'm really happy with it. I'd wait for at least one iteration to invest a lot of money into an ARM machine… just to be sure.

<comment><USER20> Even when i am kind of a past-jobs apple hater, i love when people refurbish hardware and are happy with it.

I love my HP Z600 (10 or 11yo) buy d a second cpu (15$) and additional 32GB of ram (60$) a radeon rx580 and i really dont see any point of buying a new workstation (left out power-consumption), its just great!

<comment><USER31> Absolutely. A great read on the subject:

[https://drewdevault.com/2019/01/23/Why-I-use-old- hardware.ht...](https://drewdevault.com/2019/01/23/Why-I-use-old- hardware.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> hi,

i think this article sums it up quite good:

[https://www.pcworld.com/article/3563892/why-apples-move- from...](https://www.pcworld.com/article/3563892/why-apples-move-from-intel- to-arm-means-we-should-stop-buying-macs.html)

* don't buy a new/arm one - you will be some kind of a "beta-tester" for many years, lots of errors, low performance due to emulation etc. but with the steep apple pricetag attached to it...

* don't buy an old/intel one - you will loose software-maintenance (security!) faster than you are able to spell out the company-name ... :/

imho.

* keep your old system as long as possible

* if you need a new one, go hackintosh 8)

* buy something else - linux, winX, ...

<comment><USER33> The intel transition went very well and all indication is that this one will go better. Apple has been shipping lots of code for this architecture on the Apple TV, iPhones, and iPads. They've been sharing more code and frameworks between the platforms. It's quite mature I'd say.

Also, fewer people use native apps as the browser is a bigger focal point these days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> My advise would be; if you have the funds and the need now, then get it now. You've been going 5 years on 8GB RAM, and so for dev purposes you'll notice a good improvement going to a machine with 16 or 32GB RAM. If you can, get more RAM and make the machine last. I'm quite excited about ARM Macs, and I suspect they will be excellent in many ways, but there is always new hardware on the horizon. If you keep waiting for the next promise, you'll be suffering in the mean time. Get a decent Mac now, and get another one in 5 or 6 years time.

</comment><comment><USER35> I also have a question if someone could help me please, althought it might be a little off topic.

Currently I am developing mobile apps (or at least trying to) in Flutter, and I am using a Lenovo running Windows, and I love it, I cannot stand Linux or MacOS. The problem is, while I can make 1 codebase for Android and iOS on Windows, I still need XCode to deploy and test my app.

So does anyone have any recommendations or advice on what to do? I would like to avoid paying $2000 for a Mac which I will only use to use emulator and deploy. Thanks

<comment><USER36> In addition to sibling suggestion of Xcode on the cloud (which is the cheapest option to start with), you can also buy a refurbished/second-hand Mac, which goes for less than $1000, and you can definitely find some around $500.

You don't even need a powerful Mac to use as a build server: I got great use of a Late 2014 Mac mini (be careful to buy a somewhat recent Mac though, to avoid being locked out of next MacOS versions) as a build server. Full builds takes up to 2 hours, but who cares? It's running nightly.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thanks all for the answers, to summarize a bit:

\- I don't develop for mac/ios: so there's no need of arm for me \- Switching to windows/linux is an option that I consider. In the company there are some XPS that are fairly good. The thing that stops me are the tool and the habit i developed with mac, and the fact that i've part of the file made with keynote/pages.

In the end I'll make my mind of buying a XPS (or thinkpad) or go with the today's MBP

</comment><comment><USER37> I would wait a good few years to buy an ARM model. So I don't think you should wait to upgrade, the new keyboards are sweet and 8GB is super limiting (for me anyways).

</comment><comment><USER38> Wait until the first ARM Macs in the form factor that you want (which might be less than a year). At that point you can see if the features of the new models convince you that they are worth it. If not you should still be able to buy a nearly new Intel model for a good price.

That way you'll have no regret at possibly missing out on new features and have the maximum choice of options.

</comment><comment><USER39> My guess is only the lower end macs will move to ARM till atleast the Apple 14z or most likely Apple A15z. Macbook Pro will be as is for a while. This is about 2 years too far out.

Also intel should be supported for a couple of years once the new ARMs are out, and you wouldn't be obsolete till the lifetime of your laptop. At the end, you may even end up with a Apple memorabilia.

<comment><USER19> I'm not so sure about this. Apple have waited a long time to make this transition. I wouldn't be surprised if they've been waiting for pro-level chips to finish development. I doubt they'd risk doing this if they didn't already have most of their silicon ducks in a row.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I feel like right now is a good time to buy a new one, because you would still get the intel processors. I believe that Apple will do a great job with their ARM but usually the first versions of any product are not that good.

I would wait a few models before making the change so that most of the bugs are solved.

</comment><comment><USER41> I got a 2015 Air with 8 gigs of ram. I'm wondering whether to pull the trigger on the 16" or endure more pain for the next several months to see what else comes out.

Has anyone upgraded from an older Air to a 16"? Is the increase in performance more like a "OMG" or "Not bad"?

<comment><USER42> Not from the air... but I hate the 16". It's fan is noisy and always powers up under any load. The thermal throttling is horrible. It gets hot enough to be uncomfortable to touch. The cable has coil whine as does the Mac itself. Touchbar... I'm not a fan and generally never used it. The GPU seems flakey and the wifi hates connecting to 2.4 networks, although that could be a software issue. Battery life is far worse than expected.

The screen is wonderful and the new keyboard better than the old one. Touchpad is still good.

<comment><USER34> I have a MBP 16. 32GB RAM, i9 8-cores. Yes it's powerful, but it does generate a lot of heat, and the fans spin up easily. I run mine with Turbo Boost Switcher Pro, and that helps a lot to keep the fans off.

I do wish it was more power efficient, but I'm also glad to have upgraded from my dual core 2013 MacBook Pro 13".

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> I have mid 2012 MacBook Pro and I am about to change my workstation. I stopped looking at MacBooks - in my opinion nothing justifies such high price. In mid July new Thinkpads with Ryzens 4000 will be available, I'm going to get one.

</comment><comment><USER44> All depends on your disk tolerance. Several have mentioned first gen with signifigant new tech can be brittle.

I bought a new 16" MBP in January; it's FAST, does a much better job with heat dissipation than the previous version, and finally has a decent keyboard again.

</comment><comment><USER45> There's always something new next year. If you feel you need a new laptop buy it now. Not sure about moving to other system. Personally, I find them all ok and work with Linux, Apple and Windows machines equaly both for dev and business apps.

</comment><comment><USER46> The Macbook Pro 16 is a fantastic machine, I would buy it again in a heartbeat

<comment><USER47> Are you seeing any fan noise issues when using multiple displays?

<comment><USER48> My 16 does run the fan when connected to external displays but I wouldn't call it loud. You wouldn't notice it over any environmental background noise. Even in a completely quiet room, it's easily tuned out.

When the machine is idling, with no display connected, it is inaudible. I think people are freaking out On forums because no noise to a quiet noise is a more noticeable difference than some noise already to a bit more noise as is the case with many other machines.

That said, the 16" does have the capacity to run the fans very loud. I tried running a game (I'm no "big" gamer but was curious to test the discrete graphics card). Graphics were smooth and the FPS was relatively high. The machine sounded like it was really working hard though!

I guess if other 16s are running that loud all the time, I can understand why they are peeved. That just isn't the case with my workload though.

<comment><USER47> Thanks for the info, tbh you just validated my decision not to buy it. My 2015 iMac 5k has become really loud since the Catalina update when running an external display, even after replacing the fan and power unit. The fan noise is biggest reason I'm looking for an upgrade. It's a shame really because it is running otherwise flawlessly. I don't even mind a little noise, but when I can hear it with noise cancelling headphones it's problem!

<comment><USER48> Very happy to help :)

FWIW, I definitely can't hear the fan with headphones on in non-gaming usage.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER49> Keep in mind Apple will most certainly sell Intel based Macs for at least two years. The transition to ARM will take time. It's really not a different decision then it was last week - buy one if you need one.

</comment><comment><USER50> This is the place to find out: [https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro_16](https://buyersguide.macrumors.com/#MacBook_Pro_16)

</comment><comment><USER51> I have decided to get a second-hand Macbook Air. Hopefully it will last for 2-3 years, and by that time I can probably replace it with an ARM-powered Macbook of some kind.

</comment><comment><USER20> Yes please move.

And even when i say take Linux or FreeBSD, you should probably consider Windows with WSL2.

If you had no contact with windows for a longer time here you can test it out (virtual machine)

[https://developer.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/downloads/virt...](https://developer.microsoft.com/en- us/windows/downloads/virtual-machines/)

EDIT: The downvote shows that apple really is a fanboy-company and not the revolutionary Macintosh/Jobs era stuff anymore

<comment><USER52> I still don't understand why people would recommend going away from a true UNIX with a decent UI, to switch to Windows. Windows remains an abomination in my personal experience, and sprinkling a Linux subsystem on it doesn't sound like a truly great argument to switch.

<comment><USER20> I'm NOT a Windows Fan, in Fact i use BSD, but if you want "a no problem solution" where you can develop and everything else..windows is your goto.

That true Unix sentence is getting old...i really means nothing

<comment><USER21> _> "a no problem solution" where you can develop_

You'll have to jump through some hoops to develop web stuff on Windows (unless you do it The MS Way ™). The fact that WSL exists is testament to this fact.

<comment><USER53> In what way will you have trouble developing "web stuff" on Windows? I develop on Windows and deploy to Linux all of the time.

Admittedly, I stay away from the clusterf%%% that is the modern front end environment like the plague. But I code in Python, C# (.Net Core) and Node all of the time.

<comment><USER21> You said it yourself: you do _the part that actually matters_ NOT on Windows. That's a big hoop.

You do Python - so you likely have to do things like remembering venv/bin vs venv/Scripts, or you're using containers exclusively. Those are hoops.

The fact you got used to it and MS tried hard to lower that friction in recent years, is fundamentally irrelevant. The web stack is Linux-first.

<comment><USER53> As far as Python. I don't have to remember to do anything. I use pip install from the command line. I write and debug my code locally, push it and my CI/CD pipeline build either my Lambda zip file or Docker container and push it.

The same is true for .Net Core and Node.

When would I ever build directly from my computer and push to another computer? This is 2020. We have CI/CD pipelines.

If I did actually deploy to a VM, the only difference would be that pipeline would do that instead.

<comment><USER21> _> my CI/CD pipeline build either my Lambda zip file or Docker container_

I guess you've already forgotten how long Docker took to work decently under Windows.

Pretty much all those magic CI/CD tools you are effectively _forced_ to use, are written on (and for) Linux first. Linux/Mac/BSD users get first pickings and can always choose to ignore this or that tool if they feel like it. You don't.

<comment><USER53> My CI/CD pipeline doesn't run on Windows. When I'm writing my code in any of the three languages I mentioned, I am running them straight on my Windows box.

I push the code and my Linux based build server, pulls in the dependencies, builds the artifacts - either Docker container or Lambda - and deploys it.

I first played with Docker on Windows in 2014. I didn't really start using it for anything in production until 2019.

But talking about who did it first is about like Mac nerds bragging about having long file names before Windows. No one cares.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> > Thus, should I wait 1 year and get a new mac with ARM

I bet on a Macbook 12" with ARM processor at the Iphone event. (September/October 2020)

I would say wait for it if you can. It will be a game changer.

<comment><USER55> I would love to see that. The Macbook 12" is by far my favourite mac form factor. Needs a bit more under the hood though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I´m in the same position right now. But I think I will get the last Intel version. I´m not so confident about the 1st gen of the ARM version. Even the 2nd gen of the "butterfly" keyboard was a fail. On the other hand, Apple could do a lot better with their own silicon and have much better performance than the last Intel version.

TL;DR => Now to be safe and have a working Mac for the next 5+ years => Later to have the newest "thing" but maybe with 1st gen problems

<comment><USER34> Not sure why you are being downvoted. You are adding to the discussion with your optinion, and giving reasons for it.

I don't happen to agree. But I won't down vote for that.

I think the meme "all apple first gen products are bad" is old and tired. I was a reasonable mantra back in the mid-naughties, but these days it's not.

It's true that second gen products are usually improved. But there are not always second gen products.

Airpods were greate first gen. Second gen is a higher product tier.

Touch ID was good in first gen. First apple A-series processor was good, first T2-Mac was good. First Face-id was good.

So I would say no point in waiting for something you need now, but not because of 'first-gen' issues.</comment></comment>


JewelryBox v1.3 - <AUTHOR> http://jewelrybox.unfiniti.com

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to announce the release of JewelryBox v1.3. JewelryBox is the official OS X RVM GUI. Download it from <http://jewelrybox.unfiniti.com>

\</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>----- Changes in version 1.3: \</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>-----

Mountain Lion Compatible

Multi-User installation support

Black and white system menu bar icon. Thanks simoc!

Updated RVM URLs

Auto detect options for ruby arch and linking

Expire disk usage meter cache after RVM operations

Switch default ruby from main window

Reduced area header heights

New area icons

Add gemsets

Remove gemsets

Empty gemsets

Copy gemsets

Toggle gemset globalcache

Install gems

Remove gems

Remove old versions of gems

Spawn gem servers

Fixed duplicate first ruby in switch default ruby menu list

Fixed runtime crash on "continue" after RVM install (OS X 10.6)

Fixed crash when attempting to check for RVM update with no available internet connection

-

RVM users, enjoy. rbfu, ry, ruby-switch, and rbenv users, you can go about your business.

-

On a side note, if you're interested in seeing a Linux or Windows version, please ping @remear.</comment>


Show HN:Zoho Connect – Best Team Collaboration Tool - <AUTHOR> https://www.zoho.com/connect/ <comment><AUTHOR> Zoho Connect is a team collaboration software that brings your team and the resources they need to a single platform. With a host of in-built tools and integrations with other apps, Zoho Connect simplifies your team's work and increases productivity.

Your team can start discussions, share files, create a knowledge base, build their own app, and do a lot more in less time, with less effort.</comment>


"Display Widgets" WordPress Plugin (200,000+ Installs) Spam - <AUTHOR> https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/09/display-widgets-malware/ <comment><AUTHOR> The follow up [1] identified "Mason Soiza" as a spammer/malware distributor who did the same with many plugins on many sites for many years, and the author did a great job tracking everything down.

\--

[1] [https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/09/man-behind-plugin- spa...](https://www.wordfence.com/blog/2017/09/man-behind-plugin-spam-mason- soiza/)</comment>


Harvard's New File-Sharing Client - <AUTHOR> http://tv.seas.harvard.edu/

<comment><USER2> Interesting tech behind this. Two points that stuck me ... (though I shouldn't be surprised) ~ <http://tv.seas.harvard.edu/research.php>

\- Ubuntu download

\- all or most of the code is crisp python ~ <http://svn.tribler.org/abc/branches/mainbranch/>

</comment><comment><USER3> Of course the feature that publicity will pick up on is the recommendations. I though, am more concerned about how resistant this is to various attacks.

Youtube and bittorrent already have popular, legal stuff covered pretty well. What does that leave? Adult video?

That's all they'll have left unless they protect the users very well.

</comment><comment><USER4> It dumped core on me in around 8 minutes. I did get to see a nice "The Knife" video though.

<http://youtube.com/watch?v=ZatCZ1YWQeI>

</comment><comment><USER4> Miro (formerly the democracy player) has lots of these features, but this looks wonderful.

"Intelligent taste recognition" sounds good, but I wish I had more confidence in such services.

</comment><comment><USER5> This seems really out of sorts for higher education, Harvard in particular. Do their lawyers-in-training need more cases? I must admit, I would by tickets to MPAA v. Harvard. Or maybe by then I'll just watch it on "Harvard TV".

Looking through tech glasses, their give-to-get algorithm and "bartercast" algorithms could be fun to write, but they don't feel new or novel.

</comment><comment><USER6> Is facilitating the download of copyrighted content illegal?

<comment><USER3> The law is a transient thing. Simply asking the courts whether something is illegal can change its legality.

<comment><USER7> So the law is just like Shroedinger's cat?</comment></comment></comment>


GCC 9.3 - <AUTHOR> https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/info-gnu/2020-03/msg00006.html <comment><USER2> I hope one day we will be able to use C to implement efficient multiprecision arithmetic.

GCC codegen for add with carry, even with the addcarry_u64 intrinsics is a disgrace[1].

[1]: [https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/2h768y](https://gcc.godbolt.org/z/2h768y)

<comment><USER3> Seems like the type of thing that could be done with C++, expression templates and asm. Maybe even an expression JIT.

<comment><USER4> mratsim is right that the solution is to just improve the code-generation for the existing intrinsics. Given that the intrinsics already exist in GCC, optimising the code is the right way to handle it. (Intrinsics still have their usual obvious downsides, mainly non-portability.)

JIT seems a poor fit. JIT makes the most sense where the desired program behaviour is variable. Intrinsics fit perfectly here.

Templates don't help solve the problem, but they might be a good way to expose the functionality to C++ programmers.

Assembly is how you'd solve the problem efficiently in the absence of a compiler intrinsic. Intrinsics should be able to do an even better job.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> List of bugs fixed in 9.3:

[https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED...](https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/buglist.cgi?bug_status=RESOLVED&resolution=FIXED&target_milestone=9.3)

<comment><USER6> Are there changelogs for gcc point releases? gcc.gnu.org has a 'changes' link but it is actually a 8->9 changelog, rather than 9.2->9.3

<comment><USER7> Yup. If you look at the end of the 'changes' link[1] you'll see individual bugzilla links for issues (or PRs as they call them) that were resolved in a given point release.

[1] [https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/changes.html](https://gcc.gnu.org/gcc-9/changes.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I wonder which of my "pet" virtual machines will hit it first: slackware or voidlinux ?

<comment><USER9> Slackware... they still active? No new stable builds in 4 years but seems to get security updates curiously. Their store leads to an error page in what looks like Chinese, confusingly.

<comment><USER10> [http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?cpu=x86_64](http://www.slackware.com/changelog/current.php?cpu=x86_64)

The changelog seems to be, uhh, changing, so that's good I guess. I'm not sure they have many users left though.

<comment><USER11> We're around and it gained a bit more attention during a recent system wide change to many, more mainstream, distros that I'm sure most people here on HN don't really want to talk about (again).

I like it because it leans more closely to traditional BSD systems than System V variants like Red Hat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> a lot of fortran fixes!

</comment><comment><USER10> Honest question: what value does GCC have in 2020? It seems like llvm is the better designed compiler, more commercial support, more permissive license, etc. Pretty much everyone designing new languages today is using LLVM for backend codegen; and the people who aren't sure as hell are not using GCC.

<comment><USER13> It's still the "de facto" compiler on most flavors of Linux and still tends to produce faster binaries in practice than Clang. That gap, however, continues to narrow.

<comment><USER14> I always viewed Clang as faster, and perceived GCC as catching up.

<comment><USER4> As of May 2019, Phoronix showed them being roughly equal, with the winner depending on the application. [https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc9-cla...](https://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=article&item=gcc9-clang8-hedt&num=3)

We should expect them to both continue to improve. It's not a sure thing that Clang will end up the clear winner.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: What support solution do you use? - <AUTHOR>

I'm a solo owner, working in my spare time. I intend on brining on an outside contractor to help with "tier 1" support.
The support/customer interaction emails easily pile up in Gmail.
What customer support solution do you use, and what's the nature of your site? Zendesk? Google Apps? <comment><USER2> At <http://www.verelo.com> we use Zendesk.

Honestly i cant complain, its not cheap...but its pretty decent. My favorite part is the tab you can add to your page, 90% of our support requests come in on that tab...its very useful to know the page etc that the support request came in on. The Zendesk tool captures all that for you, pretty nice.</comment>


Integrate Mixpanel and Slack - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/toshipon/slack-mixpanel-integration

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi! I just made a simple slack integration for Mixpanel.

It's able to receive Mixpanel webhook notification and post user datas on a Slack channel.

Also it's pretty easy to set up using your heroku account.

I recommend to use "heroku deploy" button to set it up.

I hope it will make help for your work. (bow)</comment>


Canadian dial-up art is older than the internet - <AUTHOR> https://www.cbc.ca/arts/this-canadian-dial-up-art-is-older-than-the-internet-and-was-long-thought-to-be-lost-until-now-1.4662086 <comment><USER2> <insert your country here> dial-up art is older than the internet</comment>


Ask HN: How does your team celebrate launches? - <AUTHOR>

Also, how does your team or company recognize the leads for launches? <comment><USER2> 1\. I don't.

2\. I don't understand your second question.

Edit:

2\. Nil

<comment><USER3> Try "give recognition to" and see if that parses better.

<comment><USER2> Thanks for the translation. :)</comment></comment></comment>


What happens if Julian Assange is tried in the US? - <AUTHOR> https://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/julian-assange-battle-save-freedom-press-181121091032429.html <comment><USER2> Matt Taibbi did a pretty good write-up on why the indictment is big deal.[0]

Basically, there has been a long push towards a "leaks are criminal activity" mentality. If publishing leaked information gets classified as a crime, soon there will be no real reporting left.

The moneyshot of the article is about third of the way in: _" Reporters regularly publish stolen, hacked and illegally-obtained material. A case that defined such behavior as criminal conspiracy would be devastating. It would have every reporter in the country ripping national security sources out of their rolodexes and tossing them in the trash."_

So whatever you may think of Assange the person, his case can have far- reaching consequences.

0: [https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics- news/taibbi-j...](https://www.rollingstone.com/politics/politics-news/taibbi- julian-assange-case-wikileaks-758883/)

<comment><USER3> Matt Taibbi is a self-aggrandising conspiracy theorist and polemicist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> He'll be locked up in a secret prison where he wont be able to communicate with the outside world.

[https://www.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_...](https://www.ted.com/talks/will_potter_the_secret_us_prisons_you_ve_never_heard_of_before)

<comment><USER5> The whole point of secret prisons are they are extrajudicial and technically outside the realm of the US justice system.

You do that with a person as visible as Asange and the entire international treaty system breaks down

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Oh look, this post vanished off the front page. This community censors more than Stalin. It's a giant echo chamber and if you go against the grain you get shadow banned. Seriously, fuck this place.

</comment><comment><USER6> This is where hacker news pretends to be in favor of free speech and freedom of the press while screaming for Assange to be prosecuted for exposing Hillary.

<comment><USER7> There is where people understand that working with military intelligence services to receive hacked materials isn't "Free speech", it's clandestine espionage, and "journalism" isn't any more of a cover for espionage and spying and military intelligence operations than "diplomat" is.

Actually, diplomat is a far superior protection for spying than journalism.

If Julian was smart enough to ingratiate himself to his masters earlier instead of playing his megalomaniac NGO power-info-broker game, he might not have voluntarily locked himself in an Embassy for half a decade. He might have found himself with a sweet Snowden gig, a little quid pro quo here and there and you get quite the setup in Russia.

But no American who believes in LIBERTY (not freedom. Liberty is freedom with common sense limitations. Anarchy tempered with rules for society and enforcement of rules) will have any problem with a spy being prosecuted for attacking our elections on the behest of a foreign power whose military intelligence this past month used a defense against Mueller charges in American courts of "America is the enemy, we were committing an act of war, it doesn't fall under civilian law"[1]. Great company, Julian!

[1] [https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/russi...](https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national- security/russia-wants-dnc-election-hacking-lawsuit- tossed/2018/11/13/d28496e8-e784-11e8-a939-9469f1166f9d_story.html?utm_term=.a0aa1b321a5a)</comment></comment>


Get Facebook WiFi for your business - <AUTHOR> https://www.facebook.com/business/facebook-wifi <comment><USER2> Real conversation happened to me in an ice cream shop with a home-brewed facebook captive portal in Cambridge, MA.

me: Excuse me, is there a way to log into the wifi if you don't have a facebook account?

clerk: No, we've had a lots people doing illegal stuff on our wifi, so we need to verify their identity.

me: I understand, however I don't have a facebook account. Would you like to verify my identity with a photo id?

clerk: No, you'll need to get a facebook account.

me: I have serious concerns about my privacy. I will not make one just for the sake of getting online here.

clerk: Just make one with a fake name!

me: …

<comment><USER3> Why not make a fake Facebook account? I imagine it could be useful in a number of other similar situations.

(This is a serious question - I imagine there are real reasons _why_ not, I just can't think of any myself apart from inconvenience/general principle).

<comment><USER4> Fake names are contrary to Facebook's policy. Your account may get disabled.

[https://www.facebook.com/help/www/112146705538576](https://www.facebook.com/help/www/112146705538576)

<comment><USER5> It's a FAKE NAME. If it's disabled, just make a new one. Hell, you could make a new account every time you log on with a random bang-on-the-keyboard password, what's the difference?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This has been available for several months now. To answer a few questions I've seen, it uses a typical captive portal approach, so an unencrypted WiFi hotspot. Upon connection, you are redirected to an encrypted site with embedded Facebook account verification, at which point you can go wherever the Internet service lets you. The router typically has content filtering and also tracks Internet usage (bandwidth, visited sites, etc) as well as limits on visit length etc.

It is a useful option for merchants, as customers expect WiFi for free. Further, they expect it to be fast and that doesn't expose them to security risks. In other words, this gets expensive and difficult to manage. There are great solutions out there already, but they cost money - so the business case is based on marketing data. Email authentication would work, but it is difficult to gain much insight about customers, also you would need to give people access to their email server to setup their authentication. SMS doesn't work for people who don't have cell phones, or if there is poor coverage - also marketing data would be very difficult to gain. So, Social Media authentication (Facebook) turns out to be a really great option.

Obviously you have the choice not to use the service, but this isn't going away. Industry codes of conduct need to be set and I don't think they have. Privacy laws need to be understood and enforced. Retailer and coffee shop activities with this data haven't caused me much concern, but Facebook is another story.

<comment><USER7> If your business depends on WiFi (e.g. Coffee Shop), this could potentially hurt business. Only ~50-70% of US Internet users use Facebook and that is dropping.

As a business owner I'd be concerned about alienation. Facebook is far from universal and many avoid it (especially the younger crowd).

<comment><USER8> A hybrid approach would be nice for your example: check in on Facebook to get online yourself, or go ask the barista for the WiFi password

<comment><USER9> More likely: there will be no hybrid approach and you'll see a piece of paper tacked to the bulletin board: "House throwaway Facebook account login for those without an account."

<comment><USER10> Seriously? There IS a hybrid approach (read above comments). Ridiculous.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This is a pretty good idea. It solves the coordination problem of not wanting to just provide free wifi forever to anyone by requiring a token "payment". It solves the identification problem which (unfortunately) is a requirement in many jurisdictions. And it helps non-technical business owners provide decent wifi.

<comment><USER12> What sort of problem is this exactly solving? People seem to get at Wifi no problem at all. Just wander into any Starbucks around 4PM, especially in New York or any major metro and you'll see hordes of people accessing wifi. Is it crowded? Sure? But this doesn't solve that problem. This just eliminates some login steps and provides value to the provider of the wifi.

Do you feel that trading in your privacy to simplify the login problem (and allow you to avoid actually paying the people whose space you are occupying when you use their power and wifi and restroom and hvac) is worth it? It isn't for me, and so I ask, what problem is it solving?

<comment><USER13> Here in the UK most 'free' hotspot providers like BT or The Cloud already require you to register and give up your personal information to get access. When I've been travelling abroad I've encountered hotspots that require a (local) mobile phone number to get access. Today I accessed a wifi network that wouldn't let me get access unless I agreed to receive marketing material. I see this as an easier way to get access, if you must you could always set up a fake Facebook profile for this.

Also I haven't seen the terms, but I'm wondering if Facebook give out direct personal information. Assuming they don't, would you rather be seen as John Smith of 14 Main Street, DOB 1990-08-23 or 18 - 24 male who likes football?

<comment><USER14> Interesting. I've never seen that in the Nordic countries or the US. Typically either the wifi is just open entirely, or there's a WPA password written on a little card by the cash register. Helsinki even has open wifi across the whole downtown, and in Denmark all the Baresso locations have open wifi (no login or password). Does the UK have laws requiring the hotspot providers to collect that information, or are they doing it of their own accord for marketing or abuse-reduction reasons?

<comment><USER15> People in the UK seem strangely at peace with surveillance.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Forget about logging in for wifi. This is a direct competitor to Nomi.

Facebook will now know whenever your MAC Address walks by a storefront with one of these routers, regardless if you have an account. For those who have installed the app (the majority of the country) FB will be able to match the MAC ID to your account.

In addition to simply foot traffic walking by the store, the router will track information on when you are actually in the store, how long you stayed there, and how frequently you visit.

Eventually those with FB on their phone will have ads pushed to them when they pass one of these routers. I imagine it wouldn't just be for stores with the routers but those within the immediate vicinity.

Of course none of the data collected will be shared with the storeowners until they are sold the ads by facebook.

<comment><USER17> Fuck me, you've got an excellent point there sir/madam.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> First I thought that FB would provide the hardware and internet connection to the business in exchange for so much information about their customers...

But after reading their FAQ, I realize that no, FB does not provide anything. The deal is like "give me your customer info and your internet connection, I'll give you... maybe a few more likes on your page".

Eventually for consumers like me who don't use FB, it's going to be a loss of service. Some businesses who had open Wifi will now require FB check-in to provide access. Sad.

<comment><USER19> > _Some businesses who had open Wifi will now require FB check-in to provide > access._

Check-in isn't required to get access. My local coffee shop switched over to a Facebook WiFi point over the weekend (Phillz, who have a branch in Menlo Park so I assume must be piloting it). All that really changed for me as an end user was the old splash page got replaced with a Facebook page asking me if I'd like to check-in (along with a button to skip check in, which I used).

<comment><USER20> It's not _required_ but let's be honest - it'll be what happens.

Pretty sure the average person would rather "check in" via Facebook than using the current "click this checkbox and continue".

People trust and like Facebook. They don't trust or like GogoBoingo Wireless.

<comment><USER7> Actually I'd trust Boingo more than Facebook as a platform.

They've been around since 2001, Facebook since 2004.

<comment><USER21> That finally explains what that preinstalled crapware on my previous Asus laptop was. Never came across any hotspot with Boinggoboing though.

<comment><USER20> I see them in airports...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Absolutely disgusting. These type of things just give me the willies. Everyday I see that Mr. Stallman was right, it's incredible!

<comment><USER23> Why is this "absolutely disgusting"? It's good for Facebook, it's good for local businesses, and it completely optional for consumers. I don't see any problem here.

<comment><USER24> It is not optional for users who do not have Facebook.

<comment><USER25> I guess those users have the choice of signing up for Facebook, or not using the Free WiFi?

<comment><USER26> before, we could use the free wifi without a facebook account

<comment><USER27> No, before many shops would not even offer free wifi. This will enable more shops to have it.

<comment><USER28> We advise a lot of small businesses and are seriously considering recommending the adoption of this if it helps them get likes to their fb page. Capturing fb likes from existing and happiest customers is a challenge for every small business.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > Customers simply check in to your location on Facebook to connect to free > Wi-Fi

wow. not only do they get you to sign up for an account, they also get more insight into your movements/migrations by forcing you to use a feature that (for now) you can disable.

nobody says you have to use the service but we'll see how many more sell out for it.

edit: read more

How do I edit the Wi-Fi code my customers use to skip check-in?

To edit your Wi-Fi code:

Go to your Page and click Edit Page at the top of your admin panel.

Select Edit Settings from the dropdown menu.

Click on the More... tab and select Facebook Wi-Fi.

Select Require Wi-Fi code and edit your Wi-Fi code in the box.

You can also choose not to require a code by selecting Skip check-in link.

Click Save Settings.

<comment><USER30> If you don't like it, don't buy a Facebook WiFi router.

For our business use case, this is perfect.

<comment><USER29> ... or don't go to a business that has purchased a Facebook WiFi router.

<comment><USER31> Imagine hotels using this for their "free in room internet". I would seek lodging elsewhere.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> There are privacy concerns but overall I think it is a splendid idea, both for Facebook and for the businesses that choose to join.

Your run of the mill free wifi is neither secure nor private to begin with and I don't see Facebook Wifi encroaching on privacy any more than currently available free wifi.

<comment><USER33> Do you honestly believe facebook won't look for and find ways to encroach on privacy more than currently available free wifi does? Their entire mission is to encroach on privacy, and now they've got you connecting to their wifi hotspots at the gynecologist's office.

<comment><USER34> _now they 've got you connecting to their wifi hotspots at the gynecologist's office_

Nobody is forcing you to check in at your gynecologist's office, which is something you can already do, if you're into that kind of oversharing

<comment><USER35> Actually, it might very well happen that these Wifi networks all have the same SSID, which would likely make most devices automatically connect to them.

Even if they don't, they only ever need one connection to link your device's MAC to your username, and then detect it without ever connecting.

<comment><USER34> Yeah, I thought of that the moment I posted.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> If this becomes widespread, the phishing potential will be huge. Everybody is used to clicking through SSL warnings, or not having SSL at all when registering with hotspots. Rogue APs redux here we come.

<comment><USER11> Any moderately busy location is already abuzz with dodgy-looking access points. It appears you have to join using an app, presumably that app will check certs against a whitelist.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Coming soon: captive portals that pretend to be Facebook WiFi and ask for your Facebook username and password.

</comment><comment><USER38> Hell no. Business owners, please don't use this for wifi in your stores! I refuse to use Facebook to leave a trail of where I am physically just to use the wifi.

<comment><USER27> If you bother to read the page, you will see that owners still can set an "access token" (password) they can give users to log in.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> I'd consider advertising Facebook on a wifi hotspot as soon as they offer to pay for it by assuming liability for customers using that hotspot to share a bunch of film and TV show torrents. As long as courts keep pretending that an IP address is the same as a person, it doesn't make sense for small businesses with small pockets to offer free wifi.

<comment><USER40> Pretty much every coffee shop and at least half of the restaurants I walk into offer wifi, so I think the problem is smaller than you claim.

</comment></comment><comment><USER41> This is evil on so many levels

<comment><USER42> God save us from the evils of complentary free WiFi

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Jesus Christ, have we all learned nothing?

It's a swarm of lemmings being led by blind moles.

Fucking awful.

</comment><comment><USER43> They lost me at "Check in to Facebook". Anything that requires me to use Facebook is a non-starter.

</comment><comment><USER44> Other than Wifi, does the user get anything out of this deal?

Is another free hotspot worth giving up your data?

It would to me if they made wifi ubiquitous and drop dead easy to use.

That said, I don't think wifi is in the plans of the future. Eventually some other constant data connection will take its place.

</comment><comment><USER45> I am not really sure why so many people here are alarmed at the privacy implications. Google or Apple and your ISP / Telecom already know where you are at all times unless you are one of the very few people that don't carry a cell phone. Your ISP already knows every site that you look at from your home computer - how exactly is this different? Why is Facebook inherently any more or less trustworthy than any of these other companies? They are just happen to also know where you are when you optionally check in?

</comment><comment><USER46> Well that's an interesting one, dangling free wifi in exchange for joining/staying on Facebook. Personally, I'd just create a throwaway Facebook account to use for these.

<comment><USER47> Do you also have a regular Facebook account?

Because it sounds like this could be tied to your mobile device, which means it uses the account you've conveniently provided in your OS profile, which would make this difficult...

<comment><USER46> I do, but I wouldn't want to pollute it with silly carrot-and-stick-derived check-ins. I'd probably just de-link my FB account on my phone and use the dummy account, then re-link later, depending on how hard up I was for internet access and the expected wait time.

Most people will just click "accept" without reading anything and status feeds will be flooded with check-ins.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> So, since FB "owns" the user, I wonder if that means this service is compliant with CALEA [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALEA](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CALEA)] or whatever the most current version is. It was a mess to deal with back in the early 2000's while operating WiFi networks.

If FB is not compliant, maybe the government will make an example out of FB when they are unable to comply with wiretap requests. IIRC, the fines could be upwards of $20k/day of non-compliance after receiving a warrant for a specific user's data.

</comment><comment><USER49> Facebook WiFi doesn't take over HTTPS traffic, so I can continue to browse HN comments without Facebook signin. Actually following links doesn't work as well on average (even with HTTPS Everywhere).

</comment><comment><USER50> My friend owns a small tutoring business. They give out free wifi to all of their students. I think having this as an option would be a great way for them to build awareness of their local business.

</comment><comment><USER51> This could be genius if Facebook puts the right momentum behind it.

</comment><comment><USER52> I'm confused what the end user experience is. Do you need a special app that somehow goes into your iPhone settings and adds a network? How would it work on laptops?

<comment><USER19> I actually came across this in the wild last weekend (Phillz Coffee in Noe, SF, if anyone is interested).

On a laptop it's no different to any other landing page on a public WiFi network, except you see a Facebook branded page asking you to check-in to connect (or to skip check-in, which I did, and it connected me straight away). Putting privacy concerns aside, it was easy to use and pretty painless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> This is really cool. Wifi being unavailable "in the wild" is something that continues to be an annoyance; if this actually starts being adopted by businesses, I think it could have a massive impact on who patronizes which establishments.

Ironically, I also view this as potentially helping Google with Chromebook sales... the more prevalent WiFi becomes, the more useful a Chromebook becomes.

</comment><comment><USER54> I wonder if they're doing anything with MAC address correlation to track devices that do not join their net.

</comment><comment><USER55> [http://www.zoottle.com/](http://www.zoottle.com/) does this, but gives you more control and is not limited to facebook login of course. It also gives you detailed stats (I didn't see any mention of getting visitor stats by FB wifi).

<comment><USER56> The fact that their plans appear include a certain number of Facebook likes seems very sketchy. However, I'll give them the benefit of the doubt and just assume that this number is the number of users who are given the option to like your page.

</comment></comment><comment><USER57> Then use checkins as loyalty card?

<comment><USER21> And after that Facebook implements a feature so that supermarkets and other businesses don't need to give out cards anymore to track what you buy?

That sounds pretty brilliant. Then they have everything you like (or visit when there is a FB Like button) (probably also implies political views), probably your school background and places you worked and lived, places you've traveled to (FB WiFi!) or came by and your phone automatically connected with its known MAC address (more FB WiFi!), comments you posted, loads of private conversations with friends and family, and of course your entire social graph. And, if you cared to fill it out, your DoB, books you read, movies you've seen, photos of you and your friends (probably during various activities), and events you go/went to.

Lovely. Guys, the NSA can quit! All the FBI has to do is submit a data request and they're golden. Lots of laughs while they sift through your conversations, searching for what they are actually looking for.

On a more serious note, even if Facebook is not evil at all, and let's say for the moment that they aren't, that is a scary amount of information in one place. It would be a shame if anyone hacked it. Or legally obtained it. Or someone simply made a mistake and gave it out to someone impersonating law enforcement.

</comment></comment><comment><USER58> Does "Facebook WiFi" allow users to access any web content or just Facebook? The product page only describes how users and businesses can use a variety of Facebook features. For many people, Facebook access alone would be good enough.

</comment><comment><USER59> This is so cool. It lets Facebook amass a massive amount of data about customer whereabouts and whatabouts. The incentive for merchants is quite compelling. However, Facebook needs to do a damn good job to convince the customers to use it.

<comment><USER20> Really? I don't think they do at all. I know for certain that if my wife were at Starbucks and had the option of "sign onto wifi using Facebook" that she would happily do it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> Philz Coffee (at least the one at Golden Gate and Larkin) has this. Before you can access any non-HTTPS pages you get a Facebook page with a big "Check-In" button and a very small "Skip" button.

</comment><comment><USER61> Another way for facebook to datamine people's personal details. Wonderful.

</comment><comment><USER62> my 2 cents : people will create fake accounts and will use wifi for p2p

<comment><USER21> Psst, don't tip them off

</comment></comment><comment><USER63> Isn't there a direct relationship between bandwidth speeds and mobile tethering usage? Is it safe to assume that this (free wifi) will become obsolete within the next 5 years?

</comment><comment><USER64> Wow. Given that the default FB setting is "HTTPS off", you might as well just pass around a note with your FB login + password to everybody else in the business.

<comment><USER65> Facebook has been https by default since July 2013. [https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook- engineering/secure-b...](https://www.facebook.com/notes/facebook- engineering/secure-browsing-by-default/10151590414803920)

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> My reaction is "Brilliant, daring!" and "Why did it have to be Facebook? I'm trying to get away from Facebook."

Time to create a fake Facebook identity.

</comment><comment><USER67> Sounds like trouble for zoottle.com but I guess their product is a little different (connected to other networks as well, etc.)

</comment><comment><USER68> Free wifi would actually help Google more..

</comment><comment><USER69> So facebook has launched the next step in their attack on the internet, it's sad that they are succeeding where microsoft failed two decades ago with their attempt to replace the internet with their proprietary microsoft network.

</comment><comment><USER21> Well, good thing I have a few accounts handy.

</comment><comment><USER70> Yet more "Pay Toilet" WiFi.

</comment><comment><USER71> Up next: Facebook public toilets. "Like = dump"

</comment><comment><USER72> And so Facebook encroaches upon the physical world to anchor itself -- storefront businesses will come to rely on Facebook to sell personalized ads. I wouldn't be surprised if Facebook gets to access data about who purchases what and when.

If you don't think Google will be doing the same thing with LTE-enabled cars, think again. Their partnership with automakers is no small challenge, and the data gathering opportunity is _massive_.

Google can know that most Honda Civic drivers in Chicago (for example) park next to McDonald's, and that their phones traveled inside the restaurant -- Facebook will know only that people _checked into_ the restaurant. It stands to reason that Honda could use this information and market the Civic as "the best" car for eating at McDonald's. Maybe Honda Civic drivers get a special McDonald's discount?

Facebook pretty much beat Foursquare to the punch on this one, but (most interestingly) Foursquare relies on OpenStreetMaps -- what does Facebook use? Is it proprietary? What is "Places Nearby"?

<comment><USER73> _And so Facebook encroaches upon the physical world to anchor itself_

Not sure if you intended to sound so pessimistic but surely that's only a good thing? From a business perspective, this is an incredibly clever service. From a users perspective, this is an incredibly useful service.

Everyone seems to forget that Facebook users are not the consumer, they are the product being sold. If, by using this service, Facebook delivers me alarmingly specific adverts, then so be it. I've yet to be hurt by looking at an advert.

<comment><USER72> Oh, most definitely is it a good thing. Their initial foray into consumer products -- the HTC First -- was an absolute disaster. Strategically speaking I would not at all be surprised that this quells the fears surrounding Facebook's future, especially if it gains traction.

We're witnessing the end of anonymous free wifi, and nobody is better equipped for identifying users than Facebook.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's always interesting to me how, the more an entity has shown itself to disregard the privacy and rights of it's users/customers/citizens/etc in the past, the more people are willing to extend the benefit of the doubt that they won't continue to do so on new ventures.

This will be abused, they will overstep massively at some point, people will complain, then they'll take a cosmetic baby step backwards, and possibly provide their users with a pixelated cow icon to make up for it... then continue on their way.

I'm guessing everyone has already forgotten about the "we read your posts, even if you don't post them" thing recently? [http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn- facebook...](http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-facebook-can- track-users-unpublished-posts-20131217,0,7847582.story)

</comment><comment><USER33> I bet Zuckerberg's palms are already starting to sweat just imagining how easily he can use this feature to get creepy on people.

</comment><comment><USER74> No thanks! I still prefer to use my pocket wifi..

</comment><comment><USER75> I can see the conversations now: "..and they trust you with their wife data?"

"Dumbfucks".</comment>


Some musings on Scala and Clojure by a long time Scala dude - <AUTHOR> http://skillsmatter.com/podcast/java-jee/some-musings-on-scala-and-clojure-by-a-long-time-scala-dude

<comment><USER2> To anyone deciding between Scala and Clojure:

If you want a simple and concise syntax, hate long compile times, don't mind polish notation, want purer functional programming, don't need an IDE, and prefer dynamic typing, Clojure might be your cup of tea.

If you like using an IDE, autocompletion, refactoring and almost 1:1 Java interoperability, want a statically typed language with both functional programming and OO and still be able to do things you can't do in Java (like duck typing, "pimp my library", and dynamic method names), need a language that has high adoption chances in both Startups and Enterprise Java shops - and don't mind LONG COMPILATION TIMES, (and fine with never really fully understanding CanBuildFrom) Scala might be your better choice.

If you didn't choose Scala ONLY because of long compilation times, make sure to give Kotlin a look. If you didn't choose Clojure because it's dynamically typed or because (not (like you polish_notation)) then try Haskell

<comment><USER3> Clojure has _core.contracts_ now, which can be used to get some of the same correctness guarantees you can get from a strong type system.

[https://github.com/clojure/core.contracts](https://github.com/clojure/core.contracts)

<comment><USER4> Just for the records: strong != static typing && Runtime contracts != compile.time type checking

<comment><USER5> Also, there's [https://github.com/clojure/core.typed](https://github.com/clojure/core.typed).

I don't have much experience with static typing outside of basic Java interop, but I gave it a shot on a recent project and it was pretty cool once I got the ball rolling and it caught my first actual bug.

<comment><USER4> Yes (though I find it painfully slow) and there is more but making use of those would most often require you to duplicate type information.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Where the hell is the actual content on this website? Everything is an ad.

<comment><USER7> I stared to it for 10 minutes too! The real content is the podcast/presentation on the top right. It's a vimeo video that has a ship and a press.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I thought Pollak went on to Haskell after scala moved on without him. Hopefully the clojure community will learn from the mistakes of scala and not give him too big of a platform to try and monetize.

<comment><USER9> Could you say more about the background here? Scala's been on my "maybe" list for years, and I'm still trying to figure out how popular it's going to end up being.

<comment><USER4> David Pollak is the author of the lift framework. Typesafe chose Play as its web framework.

<comment><USER8> In addition he ran scala-tools.com which he opended up ( kindly) as a nexus host for lots of early scala tooling. However when Typesafe snubbed him he decided to divest himself of it, but not before asking someone to give him some money for the domain name ( we don't know how much he never said ). The community then needed to scramble for alternative hosting. Also on his way out he wrote some very negative posts about the language.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Scala and Clojure are built for two different purposes, both were made with different goals and problems in mind. This type of comparison is the same as comparing two different shop tools. On one hand you have a scrollsaw and on the other you have a tabletop saw. They are for two different purposes, and you won't find many people comparing the two. Programmers need to learn this, use a language for what its good with.

Language designers should also keep it in mind when describing their language. "I made this language with these problems in mind, and these goals in mind".

<comment><USER11> He actually touched on this towards the end of the presentation. To simplify, he states that Clojure is about data and Scala is about types. When accommodating dynamic data, it's easier to use Clojure because of the ubiquity of Maps as the primary data type and the nice handling if Null values via Clojure's Nil type. In Scala, dynamic data is dealt with using the Option Monad, and this adds layers of complication to your code.

<comment><USER10> Yeah but by and whole the talk was more about cons of Scala than pros. If your going to describe a language in terms of another you should list what both are good and bad for. It was a very biased talk that makes it sound like Clojure fixes just about everything, in reality Clojure works well in a band of problems that Scala is not well suited for.

This talk is actually better than most but in general when people compare two languages they bash one and praise the other excessively. I'd like to see an end to that trend and for speakers to start saying what a tool is meant for and what its not meant for.

<comment><USER11> Very true that this talk did seem to be bias to Clojure. As and Scala user myself, I think his critique of Scala was fair.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Anyone know if the "Programming with hand tools" Conj talk will be available somewhere?

Totally agree on Clojure's documentation problem (being used to Racket's amazing docs), but at the same time it's very easy to just read the source of the library you're trying to use. Especially with Emacs' quick source code navigation.

<comment><USER13> Agree what you're saying about reading the source. It's actually something I've become accustomed too, as well as just testing things out in the repl. This is a little daunting to new programmers though :/

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> And there I was hoping he was finally getting out of the way and letting Scala succeed with more... diplomatic people doing the advocacy.

<comment><USER9> Could you say more about this?

I went to a 1-day Scala unconference and generally liked it, but this guy was a giant dick to me when I asked what I thought was a pretty reasonable question.

The experience definitely made me wonder about the Scala community.

<comment><USER14> I get the impression he's a giant dick, yeah. He seems to be technically skilled and he wrote what used to be the only real web framework available for Scala, which gave him a certain amount of standing in the community (such as it was); IMO the negatives of his attitude outweigh the positives of his technical contributions and I think the community gradually came to feel the same way - at the same time, a better alternative web framework (Play, along with a number of more "microframework" type projects) was written, and Pollack had seemed to be fading from view in the last few years.

<comment><USER15> That's my impression, too. He seems to be one of those persons who never ever can't be wrong at all and if evidence is provided which shows that he's clearly wrong, he gets angry/insults people/threatens lawsuits¹.

I just hope he adopts another language and drops Scala, because his behavior seems to become an increasing burden to the community.

¹ The last one is only hearsay, the two others certainly not.

<comment><USER16> He isn't really relevant in the scala community any more, the burden is decreasing, not increasing. Nobody uses lift, nobody talks about lift, nobody cares about lift. Play is the scala framework now.

<comment><USER17> Is it really that bad? From what I remember of it, it is still one of the more interesting frameworks I have ever seen. I certainly like it more than I did Play.

<comment><USER16> Is what that bad, lift or its relevance? Lift is no worse than it ever was, I feel it was pretty much terrible outside of templates. Nobody uses it because the community around it is so terrible and the official scala people labeled play as the official scala framework.

<comment><USER17> I meant the community. Looking briefly at the mailing list, it isn't a wasteland. Certainly gets more traffic than many well regarded libraries. (Apache Shiro, for example, gets less traffic and is a well regarded library.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Video suddenly became private?</comment>


Coronavirus tracked: the latest figures as the pandemic spreads - <AUTHOR> https://www.ft.com/coronavirus-latest <comment><AUTHOR> I submitted this because FT took it out of their paywall. Their charts are visually appealing, and are updated daily as new data comes in.</comment>


How Junk Mail Is Helping to Prop Up the Postal Service (2011) - <AUTHOR> https://stateimpact.npr.org/new-hampshire/2011/09/27/how-junk-mail-is-helping-to-prop-up-the-postal-service/ <comment><USER2> Considering that roughly 90% of the mail I receive goes directly from the mailbox to the recycling bin, I think it's pretty obvious how important physical spam has become.</comment>