Coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.05.11.20086439v2.full.pdf <comment><USER2> Notice that this is for common coronaviruses, and doesn't mention SARS or MERS much: IIRC, the former elicited an IgG response years after exposure in an experiment. As far as I can tell, this preprint does not cite that work.

<comment><USER3> Indeed -- studies of SARS have something different to say. Here's one study that shows duration of antibody response to SARS is at least 3 years [1]. Here's a study that shows T cell response for at least 6 years [2].

MERS had a much, much higher fatality rate (~35%) and infected a small handful of people (~2500) so it's harder to get meaningful data.

[1] [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2851497/)

[2] [https://www.jimmunol.org/content/186/12/7264.short](https://www.jimmunol.org/content/186/12/7264.short)

<comment><USER4> And more:

>Two findings emerge: first, the T cells generated back then are still active 17 years on. And second, those old T cells offer protection against the new coronavirus. [https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/no- antibodie...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/health-fitness/body/no-antibodies- could-still-have-had-covid-fighting-t-cells/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It might be worth pointing out that this study is about coronaviruses in general, not the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 (SARS-CoV-2).

<comment><USER6> Also worth noting that strain is not controlled for in this study. The study acknowledges at the end that reinfection may be by different strains. Under the same parameters as this study it could be said that flu infection doesn't confer immunity. But, it does, just there are a lot of distinct strains of flu.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is for common coronavirus but something very important must be remembered: The reinfection is not the same.

The first time you face a new virus, you don't have antibodies. You also have no information to generate them. Generating this information takes a long time, which is dangerous.

If you reinfect again after 12 months, you don't have antibodies, but there are cells that contain the information to regenerate the antibodies much faster than the first time you faced the virus.

So reinfection is not as dangerous as the first time.

<comment><USER8> > The reinfection is not the same

As a parent of young kids who manages to catch the stomach flu at least once a year from them, this is something I've come to appreciate a ton.

The first time we caught it after neither me nor my wife having caught such a thing for over a decade, it knocked us out for two days. Just completely miserable.

Now, four years and half a dozen rounds later, it's still terrible, but only lasts twelve hours or so.

Gotta love the immune system.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> We already knew this about the general family of coronaviruses, but MERS and SARS both generated longer immune responses.

I imagine we're starting to look at people who had severe cases in March, and survived to see if their immune responses are still holding up 3-4ish months after and will be doing so for the months to come.

</comment><comment><USER10> T cells also play a big part in long term immunity.

[https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found- covid-...](https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/t-cells-found- covid-19-patients-bode-well-long-term-immunity)

</comment><comment><USER11> Mild reinfection without symptoms (& in all likelihood, decreased shedding) is functionally nearly the same as actual "immunity".

In a dynamic long-term analysis, such mild reinfections might even be for-the- best: it refreshes your immune response, and those around you in a similar situation, as if the virus itself had been turned into a naturally-circulating seasonal "booster shot".

What if the other four known 'common cold' coronaviruses were all just as challenging as Covid-19 when they emerged... but nowadays, everyone gets them 1st when young – & their immune system most able to adapt – thus rendering them relatively mild, or even undetectable, on all subsequent re-exposures over an entire lifetime?

</comment><comment><USER12> Is anyone else worried that there won't actually be a usable vaccine for C19? After all, we don't have a vaccine for any other coronavirus. What makes people think we'll have it for this one, let alone "within a year"?

<comment><USER13> We don't have a vaccine for any other coronavirus because it's not really worth it; most people with the common cold coronaviruses only have mild symptoms. A SARS 1.0 vaccine was in development at one point, but they stopped because the virus was eradicated.

<comment><USER12> > most people with the common cold coronaviruses only have mild symptoms

Pretty sure the same could be said of C19, depending on how you define "most". However, cursory googling shows that there are _1 billion_ cases of common cold in the US alone every year (lots of people have it more than once), so it'd still seem like it'd be worthwhile if it were doable. Common cold accounts for 40% of all time lost from jobs and 30% of lost school time.

<comment><USER8> Only a minority of colds are caused by Cornaviruses though. Something like 20%

<comment><USER12> That's still 200M in the US alone.

<comment><USER14> There are at least four coronaviruses that cause the common cold. And immunity lasts only 6-12 months. So, this would be 4-8 vaccinations per year, for life, to reduce colds by 20%.

I might do that myself, but I'm not sure it would sell well enough to fund the costs of developing the vaccine.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


There's a currency miner in the App Store, and Apple seems OK with it - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2018/03/theres-a-currency-miner-in-the-mac-app-store-and-apple-seems-ok-with-it/ <comment><AUTHOR> Followup: [https://9to5mac.com/2018/03/13/crypto-mining-calendar-app- io...](https://9to5mac.com/2018/03/13/crypto-mining-calendar-app-ios/)</comment>


Jack Dorsey and Other Twitter Insiders Make Show of Support - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/11/technology/jack-dorsey-twitter.html

<comment><USER2> It's a token gesture at best.

If he used all/most of the proceeds from his previous sales of the stock at its previous inflated prices and bought it all back at a this current low price then THAT would be a "show of support."

<comment><USER3> A $875,000 purchase leading to a $40mm increase in value in his overall holdings of TWTR.

Well played sir, well played.

<comment><USER4> Benefits of market movers.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> A few thousand share purchased to someone who owns millions of shares in a company is not what I would call a "Show of Support"

<comment><USER6> $875,000 in shares is a lot of money and something I'd consider "show of support"

<comment><USER7> The guy is a multi-billionaire. $900k would be like $100 for most of us here: nothing.

<comment><USER8> A billionaire on paper, mostly in Twitter stock (which means he has lost a lot of that paper wealth lately) and in Square which hasn't had an IPO yet. It's not a giant move, but a $900k insider purchase is fairly big.

<comment><USER9> Jack has probably half a billion dollars of non square, non twitter assets. Hell, merely post ipo he's sold almost 20m shares of twitter -- even at a stock price of just $30, that's $600e6 before taxes. And he's certainly had the ability to take cash before ipo in both twitter and square.

[https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=TWTR+Insider+Transactions](https://finance.yahoo.com/q/it?s=TWTR+Insider+Transactions)

<comment><USER8> I would imagine he sold a lot of stock to pay for taxes after the Twitter IPO.

<comment><USER9> I may have misinterpreted the above webpage; I'll try to update tonight.

Either way, he should have been taxed at ltcg, so at most 20%.

<comment><USER8> [http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own- disp?action=getowner&CIK=0001...](http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/own- disp?action=getowner&CIK=0001590945)

He started out with 22,203,018 shares and before the latest purchase had 21,888,416 shares, for a total of 314,602 sold shares (or a mere 1.4%). If anything that's a surprisingly little amount of shares sold considering it is the bulk of his net worth. Note that he's a billionaire if you count the equity in Square, his Twitter holdings come out to $645M (counting a cool $54 net gain on his TWTR holdings today!).

<comment><USER9> thanks

Though he almost certainly got cash before too -- DST bought $800m of shares in 2011: half new shares, half from founders and employees

[http://www.mercurynews.com/wiretap/ci_18596988?source=rss](http://www.mercurynews.com/wiretap/ci_18596988?source=rss)

plus he had 23.4mm shares pre-ipo

[http://www.businessinsider.com/the-folks-cash-flushed- from-t...](http://www.businessinsider.com/the-folks-cash-flushed-from- twitters-ipo-2013-10)

And why would he have to sell shares during the ipo? As far as I understand, he should have had virtually no expenses, assuming he (as all founders should) did an 83b election early on.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I've seen a lot of people dismissing this as insignificant. It's not when you realize that while Dorsey is a billionaire, the majority of his wealth is illiquid (tied up in Twitter and Square). He's clearly sold Twitter stock to get liquidity at various points and should not be faulted for that because it's logical. A quick scan of his sales (which are infrequent compared to other insiders) leads me to believe this was non-trivial portion of his liquid net worth.

<comment><USER7> I would be surprised if it was more than 1% of liquid net worth (i.e., trivial).

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Per Business Insider, Twitter's CFO is the only senior executive who has bought stock in 2015. Looks like they are trying to react to that story from Friday. Link: [http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-cfo-anthony-noto- buyi...](http://www.businessinsider.com/twitter-cfo-anthony-noto-buying- twitter-stock-2015-8?r=UK&IR=T)

</comment><comment><USER12> This is kinda weird. I mean what is the point of shaming people into not selling their stock?</comment>


Freebie: GanttPro for those who want to plan projects better and faster - <AUTHOR> http://ganttpro.com

<comment><USER2> This is Awesome, very neat !! I am guessing you built this one. If you don't mind, what all did you use to build the front end part ?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey, thank you so much! We were working hard and really pleased you enjoyed GanttPro :)

When building the app, we used Webix for the web interface and DHTMLX Gantt for the Gantt diagram.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very nice, but seems to consume a ton of memory on my Z30.

<comment><AUTHOR> Z30 has 2GB RAM, and I can assure you that it is more than enough to use GanttPro :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> would love to feature GanttPro at startuptabs.com! Please submit.

<comment><AUTHOR> Wow, thank you so much! I've submitted, waiting for approval :)</comment></comment>


Show HN: Free SSL in 5 Minutes with Lets Encrypt - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k0g21V4MPns <comment><USER2> Thanks!

Since you will probably have a lot of people learning from this video who have never done this before (like myself), it would be nice if you could explain why you were doing some of the steps (not all of them, some were self- explanatory).

Anyways. Thanks.

<comment><AUTHOR> Which steps in particular gave you trouble? I definitely skipped over some details. I was trying to balance keeping the video short but informative.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Thanks very much. I'd never heard of letsencrypt. Plus I happen to use nginx for websites these days. Great tutorial; simple.

<comment><AUTHOR> No problem! I'm glad you found some value from it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> like</comment>


Should Entrepreneurial College Students Go Big or Go Small After Graduation? - <AUTHOR> http://www.entrepreneur.com/article/252718 <comment><USER2> Go learn. It's always best to learn on the job and start something, but not everyone is in that position. Take a hard job where you will learn the most, and get to where you want to be in the future.</comment>


Nasa warns solar flares from 'huge space storm' will cause devastation - <AUTHOR> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/space/7819201/Nasa-warns-solar-flares-from-huge-space-storm-will-cause-devastation.html <comment><USER2> What effect would a Faraday cage have in this situation?

<comment><USER3> Devices within it would probably be safe.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> dvd backups of everything?</comment>


When Disney Got Adult and Trippy - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.com/culture/story/20151112-when-disney-got-adult-and-trippy <comment><USER2> Fantasia is incredible. I also still think it's an underutilized art form to have the music drive the picture rather than the other way around (three- minute music videos aside). For instance, I've always thought that Mahler's 3rd symphony could make an epic fantasy film - actors, battles, special effects, and no spoken dialogue.

<comment><USER3> Kubrick does something like this, in parts of his films. Long scenes in Barry Lyndon and 2001 strike me as driven by, or interpretations of, the music. Of course there is a kind of "plot" going on, but these films can be seen as stealth abstract art.

Also, in Tarantino the music is often one of the major characters.

<comment><USER4> The weird thing about _2001_ is that Kubrick actually commissioned an original score for the movie. The classical music was just intended to be used as a placeholder until the "real" music was ready.

After seeing how well it worked, Kubrick scrapped the original score and kept it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> "Industry pundits predicted that no one would sit still for a cartoon feature. Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs proved otherwise and blazed the trail for the industry."

Nobody knew how to make serious money on short animations, animated features, or theme parks before Walt Disney. He did it all though.

He also wanted to try out the utopia thing[1], and it's maybe the 20th century's greatest missed opportunity.

If you haven't read Walt Disney's World[2], it's my favorite biography on the great man.

[1][https://youtu.be/sLCHg9mUBag](https://youtu.be/sLCHg9mUBag) [2][http://amzn.to/1lnptm0](http://amzn.to/1lnptm0)

<comment><USER6> Not sure I want to live in Walt Disney's utopia. He was great at his business, the original Jobsian, but dialed it up a bit too far.

www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1623/was-walt-disney-a-fascist

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I recently went to the Walt Disney Family Museum in SF for the special exhibit "Disney and Dali" (still there until 1/3/16). It's an interesting look at their mutual admiration and brief professional collaboration.

The regular museum is also well worth a few hours of time, even if you don't consider yourself a huge Disney fan. Walt was an incredible innovator and risk-taker and I found it very inspiring.

<comment><USER8> Disney and Dalí's unmade _Destino_ short film was eventually recreated digitally by John Hench, the Disney artist who worked with Dalí back in the 1940s. It is on YouTube:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GFkN4deuZU](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GFkN4deuZU)

Also, a link to the exhibit at the Walt Disney Family Museum:

[http://www.waltdisney.org/dali](http://www.waltdisney.org/dali)

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> The movie was also responsible for a variant (HP 200B) of the very first Hewlett Packard product, the HP 200A audio frequency oscillator.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP200A](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HP200A)

[http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/TFTNB- Disne...](http://h20435.www2.hp.com/t5/The-Next-Bench-Blog/TFTNB-Disney- Bought-First-HP-Product/ba-p/58303Disney-Bought-First-HP-Product/td-p/347165)

</comment><comment><USER10> I tried to watch Fantasia as a child a few times, but was never able to make it all the way through. It remains sort of a misunderstood anomaly on the shelf of early Disney movies.

Haven't given it an honest try in a few years. Perhaps some 'adult substances' would help. I still enjoy most of the others.

<comment><USER11> I usually skip the Rite of Spring, but love every other piece. Probably because I was trying to watch the visuals too hard instead of listening.

But the important thing to remember about Fantasia is that it's not a coherent story, it's a set of shorts.

You can watch subsets, skip some, or really do what you want. Just watch Night on Bald Mountain/Ave Maria, or the Dance of the Hours, or whatever you want. And give Fantasia 2000 a shot. Not as good, but still fun. Firebird was great.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I've just realised that the dinosaur scene from Terrance Malick's Tree of Life is a hat tip/rip-off of the weird dinosaur battle set to Stravinsky's Rites of Spring in Fantasia.

</comment><comment><USER13> "People who insist on pigeonholing him as a purveyor of bland family entertainment ..."

Seriously, who has ever said that?

<comment><USER14> Go back and look at what Disney was putting out when the Baby Boomers were coming of age. The '60s and '70s -- the Dean Jones ([http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Dean_Jones](http://disney.wikia.com/wiki/Dean_Jones)) era. It's all stuff like _That Darn Cat!_ and _Son of Flubber_ and _The Shaggy D.A.,_ which is to say it's about as square as square can be. In an era when the boundaries of popular culture were being very aggressively stretched, Disney deliberately positioned itself as a producer of safe, conservative entertainment.

<comment><USER15> Even if you're a staunch ally of safe, conservative family entertainment for its own sake, Disney was pretty damn crappy for a while. Look at their animated stuff in particular for plenty of mediocre storylines and bland animation (e.g. _The Aristocats_ , _The Fox and the Hound_ , _Robin Hood_ ). Children deserved better!

Eventually some meaningful competition from the likes of Don Bluth started to push them in the right direction ( _Secret of NIMH_ , _Land before Time_ , _All Dogs Go to Heaven_ , etc.) and not too long afterward they were doing things like _Little Mermaid_ , _Beauty and the Beast_ , _Aladdin_. Quite an improvement, though I dare say the storylines have never quite caught up. (Of course, all of Bluth's stuff would later be undermined as it was sequel-ized to Hell and back, like _The Land Before Time XXIV: Teach Your Kids Roman Numerals Edition_...)

Right now, though, after seeing Pixar's homages to Ghibli, I'm anticipating the impact of recent works like _Puella Magi Madoka Magica_ , which really pushed some boundaries in Japan. (If you're not familiar with it, I'll just say... imagine if _Pan 's Labyrinth_ had been actively marketed to little children as a happy family film and an homage to _Alice in Wonderland_... and then translate that willful deception and the profound darkness onto _Sailor Moon_.) If it does make a splash in the youth entertainment industry at large, that will be quite interesting indeed.

<comment><USER16> I think it depends more on the intended target audience. The films you have issue with feel like they fit in well with the attention span, vibrant colors and little funny scenes for children in the 6 to 9 year old range to enjoy. I consider anything beyond that something added in to keep the parents awake and the animators sane (or functionally insane as the case might be).

The second list of films you mention have emotionally moving plots and I'd consider them a good fit for the next demographic bump, roughly 9-13. I think I might have cried to a film for the first time watching ADgtH as a kid.

Puella Magi Madoka Magica is definitely mature. It has intense situations, highly emotional plot, and story elements that younger humans would be less equipped to relate to. I still highly recommend watching at least the first 3 episodes. If you're still on the fence watch another 3 episodes. The third movie is new content... I couldn't resist it, but the series/first two movies are a complete story without it.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Cappuccino GitHub Issues App Update - <AUTHOR> http://cappuccino.org/discuss/2010/08/18/github-issues-update/

<comment><USER2> Thanks 280 North for open sourcing this app - has been a tremendous Objective-J learning resource.

<comment><USER3> No problem. I actually enjoyed writing this app quite a bit, and I think it's a good showcase for a lot of different technologies in Cappuccino.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Back button support appears to be broken in Chrome 5.0.375.99 on Linux :(

<comment><USER5> We're not listening to hash changes which is the issue. I'm not sure how I feel about adding a listener for the back button though… an app doesn't really have a concept of going "back" Feel free to file a bug and I'll look into it though.

<comment><USER6> Eclipse, XCode, iTunes, System Preferenes, et al beg to differ.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice! 2 questions:

      1. Are the keyboard shortcuts documented anywhere?
      2. Is there a way to reorder the issues in the main view?

<comment><USER3> You can sort by any column by clicking on its header. There is no way to reorder them manually right now (though it wouldn't be hard to add).</comment></comment>


Review my Startup Hathrup.com - <AUTHOR>

If you're interested, please visit the following site: http://hathrup.com/register/ Once there please sign up. Be sure to give us your feed back as it is highly valuable. <comment><USER2> Why would any one register without knowing what they are registering for?</comment>


Is someone making a remake of the film Hackers? - <AUTHOR> http://sydl.me/hackersfilm

<comment><USER2> _Hackers_ never really did it for me, but _Sneakers_ was an under-apprecciated hacker movie of the early '90s with Ben Kingsley, Robert Redford, River Phoenix, Sidney Poitier, and President Roslin from _BSG_.

<comment><AUTHOR> oooo, _Sneakers_ was pretty good... think I need to dig that out and watch it again!</comment></comment>


Luvit – Node.js-like Asynchronous I/O for Lua - <AUTHOR> http://luvit.io/

<comment><USER2> I love seeing other languages using Node.js's event loop.

Having spent too much time on Node.js, full async I/O is a concept I have a hard time living without. I know Node.js's execution process is special, yes, and I know that on threaded/forked environments, the exact same thing happens (looking at you mod_cgi), but I still cringe every time I have to make an I/O call in another language that would be considered as blocking in Node.js's context.

At the end of the day, languages are just languages, with their pros and their cons, but with projects like theses, some concepts we just love come to life in other languages and get us reconsider these languages in a new light.

Related projects:

\- (PHP) ReactPHP [http://reactphp.org/](http://reactphp.org/) \- (Ruby) Celluloid::IO [http://celluloid.io/](http://celluloid.io/) \- (C++) node.native [https://github.com/d5/node.native](https://github.com/d5/node.native)

Now who will make Node.js-like async libraries for Perl, ASP and Python?

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for sharing your these cool links Josh!</comment></comment>


The Year in Ideas (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/indexes/2007/12/08/magazine/index.html

<comment><USER2> I'm happy that the NYT has finally opened up, but I find the answers.com double-click "feature" incredibly irritating.

For full disclosure, I must admit that I highlight and click around computer text that I'm reading almost uncontrollably.

<comment><AUTHOR> Heh, yeah, I do that too. I'm not sure why, but yes, it makes reading nytimes.com frustrating at times.</comment></comment>


A giant crawling brain: the world of termites - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/sep/18/a-giant-crawling-brain-the-jaw-dropping-world-of-termites <comment><USER2> (Yeah, it's ants, anyway) I recently watched the 1974 movie _Phase IV_ , about...

 _Due to an unknown cosmic event...ants have undergone rapid evolution and developed a hive mind. A scientific team begins investigating strange towers and geometrically perfect designs that ants have built in the desert. Except for one family, the local human population flees the strangely acting ants. [Two scientists] set up a computerized lab in a sealed dome located in an area of significant ant activity in Arizona. The ant colony and the scientific team... fight each other, though the ants are the more effective aggressors._ (wikipedia)

It's actually intelligent and rather good, if low-budget. Lots of close-up footage of ants.

Unfortunately the producer removed the final 6 minutes of the movie, which seems crazy, as it's the best part, hallucinatory, a dreamlike vision of the future. It was thought lost but recently found again:

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

That ending is a must see - but not until after you see the movie. (The version of the movie I saw was the truncated official release one.) I don't want to give spoilers, but the lost ending contains themes very similar to some things in the article.

Also seeing the massive 1974 computer they had in their lab and its pen printouts was interesting. One of the scientists is a number theory expert, recruited to learn the ants' language and try to communicate with them, and the movie shows a lot of him doing that.

<comment><USER3> Sounds fun, Frank Herbert's "The Green Brain" is on very similar themes. Is also an excellent book. I suspect it would be much better known, if it wasn't so overshadowed by his Dune series.

<comment><USER4> Hofstaedter touches on it in "Godel Escher Bach" too.

<comment><USER2> Aunt Hilary xD</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why shaving dulls even the sharpest of razors - <AUTHOR> https://news.mit.edu/2020/why-shaving-dulls-razors-0806 <comment><USER2> 1\. I'm not super familiar with razors, but I am pretty familiar with knives. The chipping they describe is typical of a knife that is ground with an angle that is too acute. In knives made of hard material they fail by chipping, whereas in knives with a softer edge (think German kitchen knives) the edge rolls instead.

The classic solution to this problem is to grind the secondary bevel more obtusely so that there is more material to "support" the edge. This results in a knife that is less sharp, but more durable. That may be a tradeoff that razor manufacturers are not willing to make.

2\. There are already steel making processes that are designed to make more homogenous steel. The most famous one is probably CPM (Crucible Particle Metallurgy):

Instead of pouring an ingot (where the additives have a chance to settle into a non-homogenous state, they basically pour the steel through something similar to a shot tower - making lots of tiny homogenous micro-ingots that they later fuse together in what is essentially a sintering process. The end result is a much more homogenous ingot. Practical testing shows that steel made in this way is more performant, although it presumably increases the manufacturing cost.

<comment><USER3> >That may be a tradeoff that razor manufacturers are not willing to make.

Razors are so cheap ($0.10 each) that there is simply no reason to make them worse in order to last longer when virtually everyone would rather they work as well as possible and spend another 10 cents a week.

<comment><USER4> Unless you are buying gillette blades. Even at costco you can spend almost $50 on a bunch of refills.

Unfortunately I seem to have the best shaving experience with gillette blades. I tried Harry's and other brands, but then I tried gillette again and it was markedly better.

<comment><USER5> Just buy a good old safety razor. You can then buy some good razor blades for less than 10 cent a piece or buy the probably sharpest blades on the planet: "Feather". They are at slightly less than 30 cent a piece.

No matter what you can easily afford a 100 blade pack which will last forever, create less trash than modern razor blades and with a bit of pratice the shave will be at least as good.

Other blades I can recommend: Derby Premium (black). They are at about 5€-8€ for a 100 and of good quality and sharpness.

<comment><USER4> You know I have, but I have moles on my face and have to be SUPER careful. With the gillette blades it's always been not only a nice close shave, but I can do it fast.

<comment><USER5> Hehe, my father has a rather big mole on his cheek and I remember that from time to time he cut it while shaving.. bloody mess!

Take care! :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Cartridge razors are garbage, but they are idiot-proof. I use a straight razor (cuthroat) and hone it a few strokes with 8k diamond after every use, no leather strop. Even with the time spent sharpening it is faster than a cartridge razor because it cuts a wider swath and never clogs. It took me quite a few iterations to find a razor/sharpening tool combo that worked properly. A safety razor works almost as well with no fuss sharpening. The other downside of a straight razor is if you drop it could cut your d __* off so I always put on shorts before shaving.

<comment><USER7> I like the middle-ground; safety razors. They're exceptionally cheap and idiot proof. Mine really doesn't clog like cartridge razors either. Cartridge razors seem like a scam in nearly all respects, although I concede loading them is probably safer for the elderly or generally those with dexterity problems.

<comment><USER8> Safety razor requires more time to shave than cartridge razor because it requires more strokes. But I actually prefer it because usually I don't shave every day. Cartridge razor clogs up in this case. When I shave every day I use either cartridge razor (Dorco) or wet electrical (Braun 9000). Both work greatly for daily shaving, fail for shaving every few days.

<comment><USER3> You can get a razor that has 3 blades and uses the standard double edge blades. You just snap them in half inside the wrapping and then load the 1.5 full size razor halves in.

<comment><USER9> Like this one? [https://leafshave.com/](https://leafshave.com/)

I read that it is hard to shave the upper lip area with one of these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Not "even the sharpest" but "especially the sharpest". The sharper the edge the easier it is damaged.

Also - I've got a cheap beard trimming machine I bought 10 years ago. I use it every week or two, and I haven't replaced the blades even once (I don't think it's even replacable) - still works fine.

It seems the solution is to use blades that are almost dull?

<comment><USER11> Definitely not an expert here but I think the difference is that trimming machines "cut" by pinching the hair between two moving surfaces. That way you can have a 90 degree angle at the cutting edge that is much sturdier than a blade that is designed to cut.

<comment><USER12> This is my understanding as well.

I've tried every form of razor and - despite all the folklore - the best[0] shaves for me are to be had by _electric_ shavers, which operate on this principal. These have a foil which the hair can protrude past, then it is sheered off by either rotating or oscilating "blades" that push the hair against the foil.

It's like a pair of scissors, which can operate when "dull" \- because there's something to push against, they don't need to be nearly as sharp.

 _[0] "best" meaning a combination of least discomfort, time efficiency, and closeness - a safety razor against the grain can get closer, but it's a miserable experience_

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> I assume they mean crystalline domain heterogeneity. The best metals are single-domain so that there are no fissures along the boundaries. But that takes very pure material and very slow cooling. A good alternative is nanacrystalline or amorphous domains, which are fairly simple, just blast with microwave energy during cooling. This can make a very strong metal with great working properties, a bit softer, but doesn't fracture.

</comment><comment><USER14> Huh, I always thought that it was oxidation from getting wet that damaged the blade. I even remember getting a recommendation to clean the blade with alcohol to dry it of faster.

I always find myself falling for this sort of 'Well of course the answer is <simplified answer that is wrong>'

Edit: I've posted to /r/ImageStabilization/ for that first image - [https://www.reddit.com/r/ImageStabilization/comments/i54p9s/...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ImageStabilization/comments/i54p9s/could_someone_help_to_stabilize_this_gif_of_hair/)

<comment><USER15> I palm strop my safety razor, the idea is to smooth the microscopic bumps. No idea if it's scientific.

[https://www.bruceonshaving.com/2010/11/17/palm-stropping- raz...](https://www.bruceonshaving.com/2010/11/17/palm-stropping-razor- blades/)

[edit] Sorry, as Someone1234 points out I actually meant cartridge razor

<comment><USER16> Cooks use a knife straightener on their knives to keep them sharp longer. Well, I'm not a cook, but I do it too. It works really well. I was wondering if people could do this on razors. I think this is equivalent to palm stropping. For a cartridge, I think something with small metal teeth, at the right angle, ran back and forth over the blades, would do a good job of straightening the edges.

<comment><USER17> I suspect cartridge and safety razor blades are too hard (e.g. martensitic or carbide; see [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_blade_steel](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Razor_blade_steel)) and too sharp for stropping. That's probably why they're more prone to chip rather than deform. A good straight razor is made from a softer carbon steel that, while harder than most stainless steels, isn't quite so brittle. And the edge isn't as 'razor sharp' as safety and cartridge blades, but more rounded.

I shave with a straight razor, but I'm lazy and use a Feather with disposable blades. Before that I used aluminum hair shaper blades, like what the barber uses on the back of your neck (very sharp and thin, but an aluminum alloy). Such blades are far sharper than a real straight razor and cause razor burn more easily. I always sort of suspected as much. I tried using a traditional straight razor several times, but I couldn't get used to it. The feel is just too different. Several years ago I popped into a barbershop where the owner did a lot of traditional straight razor work (very rare these days), and he confirmed everything--a traditional straight razor has a softer, rounder edge --and disposable blades, like my Feather blades, are far too sharp in his opinion.

For similar reasons, thinner, harder blades are more likely to nick you because the microscopic chips tear into your skin more easily. By contrast, as a traditional straight razor gets dull it stops working as well but doesn't become more dangerous.

Same thing applies to chef knives. You can use a "steel" on Western knives because the metal is traditionally softer and has a blunter profile and edge. (If it's a cheap stainless pressed steel, not uncommon in typical commercial kitchens--neighborhood joint, not Michelin--you can literally feel the edge rolled over on a dull knife, which steeling rolls back.) A traditional Japanese knife is more like a straight razor blade--harder steel, thinner profile, sharper edge which you maintain with a strop and waterstone--but still softer and blunter than manufactured razor blades. A cleaver, Western or Asian, is supposed to be very hard (often a cheap but very high carbon steel) but also very blunt. You can't steel or strop it; when it gets too dull you have to grind it or, if you have time to kill, resharpen with a stone. (Confirmed with a Chinese butcher years ago.)

<comment><USER18> A steel doesn't roll back a folded over edge, it removes material and sets a micro-bevel. It's similar to stropping, but with a hard metal tool rather than a soft leather/denim fabric impregnated with paste. And it's easier to mess up and dull your knife instead, a knife in reasonable condition really shouldn't need more than a couple of light strokes on the steel on either side. Conversely it's almost impossible to over-strop a knife as long as you don't completely mess up the angle and use too much pressure.

In short, everything you do to work on a knife edge removes material. The difference is in how aggressively it does it, and to which angle.

If the edge on your knife keeps rolling over or creating a burr just from using it, you're sharpening it to an angle too acute for the steel to properly support.

In my experience, by far the most important tool is the strop. I can get dull knives shaving sharp with a 240-grit stone and a strop in a couple of minutes, though usually I take my knives to 3000, because it's easier on the strop.

<comment><USER17> Stropping definitely doesn't remove material. It heats the edge which aids in deforming it back into a more preferable shape as you press into the material (leather, canvas). If material was removed it'd embed in the strop and _damage_ your edge, either by chipping or just uneven action.

A strop with paste is a different beast, IMO. You didn't traditionally use a paste with stropping. I'd bet the rise of pastes, which seem kind of gimmicky, is related to a loss of traditional expertise and knowledge about the function of the strop. Relatedly, because of the rise of safety and cartridge razors, people are accustomed to extremely sharp edges. A _traditional_ straight razor shave feels harsher--more pressure and pulling--than people expect. Utterly unrealistic depictions on TV and film don't help, either. For years I thought I just really sucked at sharpening and honing my traditional straight razors (one of which is a very expensive Thiers Issard given as a gift), but after several traditional straight razor shaves at barbershops, which were _consistently_ harsher than the hairshaper and Feather I normally use, and the discussion with that one barber who was an expert on straight razors, I realized it wasn't my poor blade sharpening skills--well, not _just_ my poor skills. Traditional straight razors just were never meant to be as sharp as manufactured, disposable blades, and _can 't_ be unless you want to spend more time maintaining the blade than actually using it. Similarly, if you're constantly removing material the blade won't last very long as it depletes beyond a useful profile. Contrast that with wood planes and chisels, which tend to have very deep, thick profiles because of the need for more frequent sharpening and material removal; you need that depth so the angle of attack diminishes less as it shortens, otherwise you'd need to compensate with a more fragile bevel, which would just accelerate the process.

Steeling might remove some material, especially when used on harder steels, but in the particular case of pressed stainless I don't think so. (But would be happy to see evidence to the contrary.) Traditional stainless steels (not new alloys with, e.g., molybdenum) are _relatively_ soft. It's part of the reason why they're considered more resilient than traditional steels. They tend to have higher shear and tensile strength than non-hardened steels; they'll deform more before they break so they absorb energy better. So, for example, a stainless steel screw is closer to the resiliency of nails in terms of sheer strength than regular screws. Moreover, a _pressed_ knife almost by definition needs to be made of relatively soft metal. One of my first jobs was working in a kitchen where we used horribly cheap pressed stainless knives for preparing chicken strips. After slicing a bag of chicken breasts you could actually feel the edge rolled over, like a letter J. (EDIT: rolled over is a poor description; if it were completely rolled over deformation by steeling would never work given the direction of the stroke. Note that the letter J isn't upturned on my font.) We'd always have to steel the knifes at least once or twice a shift. If steeling removed that material you'd have metal burrs everywhere, including in your food.

Maybe steeling traditional Western chef knives does remove material. But if so I wouldn't be surprised if the benefit is in tearing the edge, effectively making a micro-serrated edge that works better than an otherwise dulled edge. Still, I'm dubious that's the primary function if it is at all. Everything I've read and experienced (as a home cook, at least) is that Western knifes traditionally use softer steel, and steeling is for deformation/reformation of the edge without removing material.[1] Steeling a traditional Japanese knife, or especially a straight razor, is verboten because of the potential for chipping, macro or micro. I'd never shave with a straight razor that had been steeled, though I confess I've never tried that specifically.

That said, I admit the purpose and mechanical action of steeling is debated. I see conflicting discussions (not formal material) all the time, including from professional chefs, and I try not to discount people's experiences. Plus, it's not uncommon for the reality of something to differ than the theory even when the same result (e.g. easier cutting) is obtained. And times have changed. Modern alloys have different properties than traditional steels, so it's entirely possible the steeling action is different on many newer knifes than older ones.

[1] Indeed, IIUC, the very conclusion of the research article suggests that if steeling worked by cutting material rather than deformation, you'd end up with significant microchipping and by definition a less sharp and uniform edge.

<comment><USER18> Abrasion absolutely happens when stropping, however it is very mild compared to other sharpening/honing processes.

This is by far the best resource I've found for explaining sharpening and the concepts of sharpness vs. keenness: [https://scienceofsharp.com/](https://scienceofsharp.com/)

I don't go _nearly_ to that level of effort in sharpening, as I only sharpen pocket knives, kitchen knives and various tools, I don't bother with straight razors (or any razors at all, but that's a different matter).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> > "We've learned how to make better blades, and now we want to do it."

Unfortunately this is at odds with the interests of blade manufacturers, so I doubt we'll see better blades anytime soon - at least from the current manufacturers.

<comment><USER20> Cartridge razors would surely make more money than safety razors, but people are still able to buy the latter.

As far as I understand the variety of safety razor blades, there's not a race to the bottom where the more-expensive blades don't sell.

Insofar as shaving can be a luxury activity, I think it's possible there's room for more higher price for more durable blades for safety razors.

e.g. The bestsellers here [https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Beauty-Mens- Replacement-...](https://www.amazon.com/Best-Sellers-Beauty-Mens-Replacement- Razor-Blade-Cartridges-Refills/zgbs/beauty/13271084011) lists a pack of 8 refills for cartridge razors for 24 USD. Searching for "safety razor blades" shows a pack of 100 for 7 USD - 11 USD, and I see a 50 pack for 15 USD.

<comment><USER21> > Searching for "safety razor blades" shows a pack of 100 for 7 USD - 11 USD, > and I see a 50 pack for 15 USD

I once got the Derby blades [0], $5.59 for 100. I still have around 90 of them left somewhere in the attic because I got what I paid for. Now, I use Feather blades, about the same price for only 10, but one blade lasts me multiple month and I get better results. But as you said, with safety razor blades you only pay a fraction compared to cartridges anyway ;)

[0]: [https://www.amazon.de/Shaving-Factory-Derby-Professional- Ras...](https://www.amazon.de/Shaving-Factory-Derby-Professional- Rasierklingen/dp/B00DIW3VHG)

<comment><USER19> Of the cheaper blades, I really like Astra. For a nicer blade, I prefer Polsilver over Feather, unfortunately I have had to buy Polsilver from Bulgaria based sellers via eBay.

Interestingly, the difference between Astra and Polsilver is not much to warrant the price difference. So, when I'm done with my 100+ Astra and 100+ Polsilver, I'll probably just get more Astra. :)

I pair those with Arko and my shaves have never been better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I have used straight razors, safety razors, electric razors, and various cartridges. A good multi-blade cartridge is vastly superior to anything the layman can do with the first three. They shave all kinds of growth in one pass, don't cut you, and get very close, without needing any foam. They really are the pinnacle of shaving technology. It's amazing how people ignore them for older tech which can only match them with a lot of extra work.

<comment><USER23> If you have especially curly facial hair, multi-blade razors have a tendency to yank out some hairs instead of cutting them, especially in places where some hairs grow in a different direction. This in turn causes irritation, razor bumps, ingrown hairs, etc.

After using multi-blade cartridges my entire adult life, I switched to a shavette (disposable blade straight razor) a few months ago and it pretty much immediately solved all of the skin irritation issues. Plus it's massively less expensive. The downsides are it's slower and more injury-prone, admittedly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Wow, amazing imagery. Personally I switched to straight razors recently and given the very low cost of blades I'm quite happy to use a new one every couple of shaves, which for me is only once a week.

Edit: sorry, I meant safety razor, not straight.

<comment><USER25> You mean double-edge, right? I thought straight edge was basically a shaving knife you can sharpen...

<comment><USER24> thanks, edited my comment

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I had always assumed based on what I'd heard that corrosion was the main factor in blades wearing out. Which may still be the case. But this suggests that there are still ways that soft materials can still chip very thin cutting surfaces.

<comment><USER27> Years ago there was some product, essentially a goo, that claimed to dramatically extend the life of blades. The rationale was that hair was too soft to dull a blade, and what was really dulling them was oxidation.

Don't know what became of the product, but would be interesting to know if corrosion plays a role in the chipping.

<comment><USER26> I vaguely remember way back when I was a Masters engineering grad student, one of the undergrads had a senior project that involved dipping razors in alcohol and it significantly increased their lifespan because of reduced corrosion. And that does seem to be a thing according to the Internet: [https://macgyverisms.wonderhowto.com/how-to/extend-life- your...](https://macgyverisms.wonderhowto.com/how-to/extend-life-your- disposable-razors-keep-them- sharp-0158954/#:~:text=Stay%20Sharp%20with%20Pure%20Alcohol,sharp%20and%20free%20of%20rust).

Doesn't mean you can't still chip thin edges of a (presumably) fairly brittler steel blade with something relatively soft of course.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> And yet I've been on the same razor for well over a year. Can't help but think I'm doing something terrible wrong. :(

<comment><USER29> Same here. I use them dozens/hundreds of times. Maybe our facial hair is softer or we aren't discriminating enough! I notice the difference with a new blade, but it doesn't bother me.

<comment><USER30> I think it's a structural difference in the hair itself, along the difference between diamonds and carbon. I have facial hair that is prone to fracturing and then giving me splinters that can easily go a few mm deep into my fingers.

<comment><USER31> I thought I was the only one that got painful beard splinters in my fingers. Can confirm my facial hair is coarse and wiry, individual hairs seem to unravel into many strands like a steel cable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> "When the hair was free to bend, however, chips were more likely to occur. These chips most commonly formed in places where the blade edge met the sides of the hair strands."

So the question is, in shaving, how do we ensure that all hairs are perpendicular to the blade edge and not free to bend?

I use Feather blades exclusively; the number of shaves I can get from one blade varies according to the shaving soap used.

<comment><USER21> Feather blades are great, but for anyone reading this who thinks about switching to a safety razor from cartridges or electrical ones: Don't start out with them, they are really unforgiving even for safety razor standards in how easy it is to cut yourself.

<comment><USER3> I started with feather blades. Cut myself a bunch the first few times. It doesn't really hurt but its just annoying because you don't want blood on your clothes. Eventually looked up a guide and found out I was doing it wrong and now I basically never have issues.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, that's what I meant. Feather aren't super hard to use, but they are not beginner-friendly. It's easier to learn with other blades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> The videos in there are oddly satisfying.

</comment><comment><USER34> Here is the actual article, with much more analysis:

[https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6504/689](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/369/6504/689)

</comment><comment><USER35> I does ring true that there's little financial incentive to create long lasting blades.

Even if you produce something that's cheaper over a year, I doubt there are many takers for the high up front cost.

</comment><comment><USER36> before gillete started to market multi-use, multi-blade razors. most folks, like me who have course curly hair would've only used disposable blades only once. n I find, single blade razors to be effective, no razor bumps etc. just wet with water, a light moisturizing oil such as almond n you're done.

<comment><USER37> If you like single-blade disposable razors, you'll love a safety razor ;)

<comment><USER38> I've been meaning to buy a decent safety razor setup for a while-any suggestions for brands or models?

<comment><USER39> Not the GP, but I'd recommend Merkur Classic Safety Razor 33C, or any of the Merkur models that are generally discussed as beginner friendly, and an sampler pack of blades.

The sampler pack is key. Every person is different, and every DE razor user I know uses something different. I won't even tell you what I use, because it's not relevant.

As a secondary recommendation, shaving brushes and a proper shaving cream / soap are incredibly worthwhile investments. I usually suggest Proraso as a cheaper, but still decent starter soap to use until you have a better idea of what works for you.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> I've heard a second hand story about some titanium razors made internally at <large razor company> which were given out to employees as gifts. They lasted for years, but could never be released as they simply wouldn't be able to turn a profit.

<comment><USER2> > I've heard a second hand story about some titanium razors made internally at > <large razor company> which were given out to employees as gifts. They > lasted for years, but could never be released as they simply wouldn't be > able to turn a profit.

That seems unlikely to me.

Properly heat treated steel is considerably harder than titanium. This is why titanium knife blades are generally limited to niche applications (like dive knives, although that market is being contested by modern rust-proof steels like H1).

Material hardness is one of the leading factors in edge retention.

<comment><USER29> Seems like a thread where people might be interested in [https://knifesteelnerds.com/](https://knifesteelnerds.com/), which has made the front page on HN on a couple of occasions. I have no relationship of any kind, beyond finding it interesting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> "I liked the scanning tunneling microscope so much.. I bought the company"

</comment><comment><USER42> Water dulls blades in my experience.

You need to ensure they are dried well after use, otherwise they dull far quicker. I have no idea why, so perhaps someone can test my hypothesis?

<comment><USER2> > Water dulls blades in my experience.

I've heard that corrosion can be particularly damaging to the very edge of blades. The idea is basically that all corrosion is generally limited to small surface patches (in the presence of good maintenance) however, the very edge of the blade has a very high surface area to mass ratio, so corrosion affects the edge more than anywhere else.

I'd expect any razor that is designed to be around water to be of stainless steel or some other corrosion resistant material, but I suppose it's possible that corrosion happens on the edge anyhow (albeit at a much slower rate).

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Not just human hair. I use razors to scar bread loves before baking them. Surprisingly, the razors get dull quite quickly after couple dozen loves.

</comment><comment><USER44> When manufacturers make more money by selling more blades, I don't think they're going to invest much into this technology anytime soon.

<comment><USER45> Unlike with mature tech platforms, successful entry into the market is not exceedingly difficult. A new company can offer everlasting razors. Then cleaning cartridges and other refills will become the new razors.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> Research probably funded with government grant.

They patent it, either start a company or collect royalties. MIT takes a cut. Standard MIT practice.

<comment><USER47> and everybody benefits.

<comment><USER46> Not if you're a taxpayer that would rather not fund such things.

In other words, the government grant should at least be refunded from the profits.

<comment><USER47> That is a reasonable opinion to hold, as long as you understand that direct financial profit not the purpose of nearly all government spending.

The intended return on investment is the knowledge generated by scientific research, as is maintaining the scientific research pipeline and subsidizing academics. More profit for MIT and corporations is also a positive outcome, as is better razors for US consumers.

If most voters believe this is a net positive, they can sign the rest up to pay for it in our democratic system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> I wonder if powder metallurgy blades last longer considering they tend to make more homogeneous alloys

</comment><comment><USER49> Isn't strain-hardening also a factor?

</comment><comment><USER50> Looking at the first photo - aren't you supposed to shave against the growth of hair?

I use hair clippers, clean shaving is for babies.

<comment><USER4> I shave with the hair at first, then against it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Pythagoras theorem in play;

</comment><comment><USER52> I would like to know this too.</comment>


Being a Software Architect - <AUTHOR> http://coderwall.com/p/lbda2q <comment><USER2> I don't like Software Architects.

What is implicit in the SA role is that the rest of the dev team is full of dummies that can't think strategically or architect big parts of the system.

This naturally leads to the SA producing ever higher and more complicated abstractions that the simian developer tries to implement, poorly, and the SA becomes an irreplaceable high priest -- inflating their salaries and prominence and depressing the salaries of the rest of the team.

Where I work, every developer is expected to be "architect-quality". Sure, more junior folks don't have the experience, but they're expected to have the _capacity_ for strategic, high-level thinking. As they mature, they take on more and more architectural decisions. If they can't do that, then we've hired the wrong person.

Ultimately, that's the only way I know how to scale dev teams and produce amazing software. The SA/Dev stratification is an anti-pattern.

<comment><USER3> Did you actually read the link before commenting? Honest question.

<comment><USER4> It's a clever list of aphorisms. None of the qualities you desire are actually defining features of the SA, though.

Who on your team is not a student? who is not a mentor? who should gloat when they are right? who does not understand the most precious parts of the system?

I think your list is less about A Software Architect and more about people who take pride in their work.

<comment><USER3> I think you're starting to understand my points then.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The "writes code" part is key to actually using software architects productively.

The times I have seen architects be productive additions it was essentially a job title for "a super-senior-developer who interacts with everyone." The times I have seen an architect be unproductive or a hinderance it was a job title for "someone who spends all their time telling other people how to code." I've even seen architects who were never coders: since I believe high- level design decisions are intimately linked to low-level design decisions the idea baffles me.

<comment><USER6> I agree. Reading through the comments I see that many people say that every develop should be an architect. Although I agree that developers should be able to think in terms of the larger picture, in my experience, certain developers either have more experience or are more capable of seeing how things fit together.

Some developers are better at the micro, others at the macro, and ideally you'll have one or two that can do both well. Personally I think it is good to have somebody who can work across teams and software areas to keep track of the bigger picture.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I don't like software architects.

I'd much rather have a team full of A-type engineers that will stop at nothing to force their individual vision into a project.

We can trust that every top-notch developer has the whole project's welfare at heart, and not just the part that they own and whose success impacts their performance evaluation. Ergo, a totally flat team of aggressive rock-star engineers is destined to build their constituent parts in a homogeneous and consistent fashion.

A team of engineering ninjas are bound by a higher power to perfectly coordinate their coding style, core patterns, API design, conventions vs configuration trade offs, third-party dependencies, feature preference, etc., in a way that resonates precisely with the needs of the business and the risks of the industry.

In short, all world-class engineers are business-savvy, have no conflicting interests, never have unresolved disagreements, and are also telepathic. And since all the engineers I work with are obviously world-class engineers, having a single point of accountability and a single vision of quality around is an insulting slap in the face!

<comment><USER8> This is brilliant sarcasm! I have worked with several of these A-List teams / "democracies". They are a perfect storm of nothing ever getting done because agreements cannot be made on a single issue.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> I've worked in places where "architect" was nothing more than a title given to senior developers to soothe their egos so they didn't notice they were underpaid. I've all seen architects who didn't code, preferring their ivory towers of UML diagrams. Neither of these types are effective.

A real software architect is a force multiplier: you help teams be more productive through your contributions, be it design, code, mentoring or leadership. Rather than being the team showboat, a good architect is the guy that helps everyone else be even better at their jobs.

</comment><comment><USER10> I see lots of vitriol here. I think there are a lot of bad experiences, probably I imagine from the ivory tower architects that you get from big consultancies and the like.

I am a _proper_ solution architect. I'm there to serve others with my extensive experience, nothing more. I am always there in the shadows to keep the cogs oiled, provide canned and well tested ideas, stop things that shouldn't happen, start things that should, make sure communication is made and most importantly spend time teaching and helping people. I'm also there to do the risky horrible jobs that no one else wants to be responsible for.

You're supposed to be more a spiritual guide than a facist dictator.

I will say that there is no place for me in an organisation with less than 10 hands on engineering staff.

</comment><comment><USER11> Reading throught the comments, it's amazing to see how much damage the cowboy culture of our community has produced. "Every engineer should be an architect." Ha, ha, ha...

This also goes hand-in-hand with "Everyone can be a programmer" mantra that everyone likes to repeat. Go teach pointers to 20-year olds and you'll realize how most people can't be programmers.

I don't understand where this culture is coming from. I definitely can't fix my car; when I see my mechanic, he doesn't tell me how I should go learn how to fix my car. I'm confident he's much better at fixing my car than I am. The same is true with other professions -- lawyers don't tell clients to go interpret laws on their own and dentists don't tell people to go remove teeth on their own. What is it about our community that we ingrained into our youth that "writing code" is the thing that everybody must do?

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't get the hate for software architects. Would you try to build a skyscraper without an architect? No? Then why is having one a problem for a large software system?

Sure, if you're building something small, one person can be architect and general contractor and electrician and painter, etc. But the idea of division of labor is usually seen as a good thing. Not sure why we hackers should see it any differently. If you're building enterprise software systems that span multiple divisions and locations of an enterprise with 30,000+ people in 100 countries, ya know... you probably do need somebody who's job is to look at the big picture, see that the pieces being assembled fit the needs of the firm, and that the pieces work together in a clean and elegant way.

Having an architect, where needed, doesn't denigrate or devalue the role of the developers at all. It really is a different role that needs to be filled.

<comment><USER13> Division of "labor" is counter productive in development, because in immortal words of Jack W. Reeves, "Code is Design." Say anything else (UML) and you're deluding yourself. So non-coding architects are effectively only HALF- designing the system.

Read this article and weep, for it was written in 1992 and 20 years later, is still rings true, even though there was no UML at the time: [http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves_design.h...](http://www.developerdotstar.com/mag/articles/reeves_design.html)

The problem with non-coding architects is that they are _isolated_ _from_ _learning_. They have an incomplete feedback loop, and are isolated from the repercussions of their decisions. This at first makes a non-coding architect useless and then makes him actively wrong. This is especially true in systems as complex as enterprise systems.

Because code is design and because building the design is free (in comparison to building a bridge), you need to actually translate your mental design into the real blueprint--the code. If you are isolated from that, then it's like sketching blueprints. You may be consistently wrong on some aspect of it, but you'll never know.

If skyscrapers could be built and torn down overnight, I bet you money architects would build the skyscrapers without the same rigor of blueprints, look at the result and say "Nah, move this a foot over!" and build again.

The correct equivalent for building construction workers is the _compiler_.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Anybody fairly handy can build a garden shed. If someone showed up calling themselves an "garden shed architect" and stood off to the side directing traffic I'm sure the "builders" would find it and them to be a complete waste of space. (wait cheesy pun alert?)

However, how many of us would like to get into an elevator ready to shot us to the 100th floor knowing that there was no architect on the project as all the builders decided that was an unnecessary title and those functions could easily be handled by the GC?

Amazon, Heroku etc has made it much easier to build garden sheds - there's a lot more garden sheds around per large building than there used to be. So I suspect if you believe the SA title to be completely unnecessary it's most likely because you're building sheds not buildings. Doesn't mean we still don't want and need them for those larger buildings.

<comment><USER15> Yes,

But there is a difference between software construction and building construction.

The difference is that for software, anything that would normally be "construction work" in another field is _or can be_ done in an automated fashion. Thus it can be argued that all programming is done at the "design" or the "architecture" level. That isn't to be say that the software architect position is alway illegitimate. But gives one an idea why, in contrast to sky- scraper construction, some people might legitimately want to dispense with architect as a distinct position.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I think of the role of Software Architect as almost a code accountant, keeping technical debt in check.

<comment><USER17> Good.

AND the SA holds an overall vision of what that accounting entails. An "obvious" change in module A may have severe repercussions in module B, which neither developers for A nor B may see in a timely manner. Without "code accounting" with a _vision_ \- and an informed experienced one at that - 'tis too easy for over-confident short-sighted developers to go crashing through other sections of code, leaving something which may work but degrades performance & maintenance, and which is so pervasive and hard to fix the team must just live with it.

AND the holder of that vision must be able to articulate it, in documentation & code & conversation, in a manner which keeps the team cohesive, informed, and upbeat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This sums it up nicely: [http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/...](http://dilbert.com/dyn/str_strip/000000000/00000000/0000000/000000/00000/1000/800/1890/1890.strip.gif)

<comment><USER19> This sums it up nicely too: <http://bredemeyer.com/>

<comment><USER20> From the site:

"Meta-architecture: the architectural vision, style, principles, key communication and control mechanisms, and concepts that guide the team of architects in the creation of the architecture"

I think poe's law applies here; I honestly can't tell if this site is a parody of the "software architecture" discipline.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> The definition of a software architect varies. In general, mainly refers to those that are responsible for the higher level design of systems.

In my opinion, a great system architect is a great developer, who also have an artistic flair. Those people that, when facing difficult design problems, can often come up with brilliant abstractions. That are so clever, that feel like art. Not only in development, but also in related aspects, like UI.

Those great abstractions will increase the productivity of everyone using the system, and in the end can accumulate to very high amounts of value.

<comment><USER22> You have described a skilled engineer. Why do we need to call her a silly name?

<comment><USER23> Why is "skilled engineer" better than "architect"? They are all just names - and it seems that the main reason people avoid the word "architect" is just because it has been abused in the past (and for some companies, the present). Maybe that's valid, because using the term may inadvertently make someone think that you're bought into the "no coding, but telling other people how to code" mindset.

However, I don't think "architect" is a silly name on it's own - it's just another piece of vocabulary we use to describe a certain role. It's no different to me than "VP" or "Janitor" or "Test automation engineer".

<comment><USER24> Architect, chief engineer, principal, fellow. These all mean 'put out to pasture'. These are supposed to be positions of leadership, but with no direct reports there is no one forced to follow. Developers who already have to deal with the business bureaucracy are not going to listen to someone because of a fancy title that does more politicking than development.

Plus architect gives the image of a scarf wearing drama queen who throws tantrums.

<comment><USER25> In my experience that architecture roles can definitely mean that at a lot of companies (the pasture part specifically, but I would like a scarf). To some degree it's natural to let the role end up like that, but as the person in the role, you have to work to make sure you're still involved with all teams even if you don't have any direct reports.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I met Grady Booch at the kickoff meeting for the Society of Software Architects (or some such). OOPSLA 1998 in Vancouver.

I asked Grady Booch "What is software architecture?"

He answered "Software architecture is what software architects 'do'."

At that point I stopped caring.

Until I found the book Design Rules: The Power of Modularity. [http://www.amazon.com/Design-Rules-Vol-Power- Modularity/dp/0...](http://www.amazon.com/Design-Rules-Vol-Power- Modularity/dp/0262024667)

It is the sole source I've ever encountered that had anything useful, actionable, insightful, informative, rigorous, etc.

Alas, I've never been able to synthesis Design Rules' methodology into any of my efforts.

Because what I do is _software craftsmanship_. I've designed some awesome stuff (and a lot of crap). But nothing rigorous, repeatable, explainable.

For a few years, I bought every software design book I could find. Some of them actually good. But the ones claiming to be about "software architecture" are really describing software craftsmanship. Describe as in descriptive, vs prescriptive.

From memory, Design Rules states that architecture is the set of visible design choices in a product. The entire thesis of the book, backed by oodles of case studies and data, is that deciding where the lines between subsystems, the interfaces, and the allowable parameters for those interfaces, is architecture.

PS- Just read the OP. Nothing actionable. Move along.

</comment><comment><USER27> The name plate on my desk says "Software Architect", and honestly I feel kind of silly repeating that when people ask what I do. I usually just tell them 'I write software'. That said, I've worked in a bunch of different C#/.Net/SQL Server shops (IT depts, educational, shrink wrap apps, advertising), and I can see in some of these places why the role can be necessary. Not because .Net demands these over-architected enterprise uber-solutions, but because a large amount of developers in those places just don't seem to care about what technology choices and design methodologies are out there. And there's nothing wrong with that, so long as there are some there who are thinking beyond the next sprint, regardless of what their job title is officially.

I'm also pretty sure the role itself means different things depending on the scale of what the company is doing. At my current job (a recruitment advertising company w/ some very large clients), we have a lot of traffic and only moderate development resources in-house, so you really need to depend on proven technologies to prevent the whole thing from falling apart. So part of my job is making sure we are using the right technology where we need to and only rolling our own when it makes sense.

</comment><comment><USER19> Agree with everything he says. Except for the part that I don't.

 _A software architect creates a vocabulary to enable efficient communication across an entire company._

That needs to be done with caution, because in a small team/organisation it's absolutely correct. In a large organisation it's just a non-confrontational way of saying "We need an enterprise architecture." That ends up becoming an IT dictionary whose value is to IT alone [1]. And IT serves the business. Not the other way 'round.

If you're doing this in a large organisation, do it for a project, and not for the organisation. It's right up there with the architect that sees an enterprise service bus as a silver bullet. Aka a unicorn.

Edit: [1] Unless you're HP Services, IBM, ATOS, Cap Gemini or some similar systems integrator, because if you're one of them you're in the business of selling billable hours, and an enterprise architecture is an awesome way of billing to eternity without even having to deliver business value.

</comment><comment><USER28> This is a nice ideal to have. Unfortunately I have never had the pleasure of working with the architect the OP described. I would say the ones I've dealt with have had some combination of: arrogance, stupidity, lack of technical knowledge, lack of creativity, and arrogance (did I say that already).

</comment><comment><USER29> A software architect job is about interfaces between modules. An architect job is to design interfaces that are aligned with the product direction and technical capabilities (both of the product and the people developing it) and tell a consistent story, both syntactically as well as semantically. Without such a person, each pair of developers, no matter how good an engineers they are, will have to develop their own language that is bound not to match those that are developed around it. This adds to the burden of each developer as he (or she) has to use APIs developed by different such teams. Consistency is key. Because the architect has to see the big picture to do his job, it makes sense that he's also the look-ahead guy. Because he defines interfaces and modules, it makes sense that he gets to evaluate new technologies - so playing with rabbitMQ really is part of the job description. This kind of job tend to require a working knowledge of the product internal, otherwise APIs can get completely incompatible with capabilities. As such, it attracts good developers that also think "strategically". Because many architect still love the code, you usually see such a person wearing two hats - the classic architect one but also the "lead developer" one - so code reviews, cleanup work and super important (but small) modules tend to be part the architect work, even if not in the job description. Lastly, the architect must have soft skills. The job requires a lot of human interaction, considerably more than a developer job does. It also requires a much closer interaction with "management", the architect understands the aforementioned big picture.

Is the architect "better" than any developer? No. It's a complimentary role. Is this role always needed? No, but as a project gets bigger and start having more modules, interfaces tend to get hairy without a guiding hand. So why do architects make more? Supply and demand. Not everyone has the ability or the will to think "big picture" all the time. It's tiring, it's complex and you tend to think about balances (how will this affect the future? How much risk? How many man-hours? What's the alternative? How to phase development?) instead of "code purity".

Disclaimer: I'm an architect but I also do a lot of "lead developer" parts. And while the definition tends to get fuzzy around the edges (and some interfaces are made ad-hoc, without that guiding hand), I see the best results when I follow the above recipe (which, sadly, means a lot less coding than I actually like to do).

TL;DR: architecture is about interfaces between modules, not content of each module. Usually architects also wear "lead dev" hat because they like it.

</comment><comment><USER30> A software architect I worked with before thought he was gods gift to programming, every time something worked out it was his work, when it failed he always blamed the 'process'.

You should change the title to 'Being a Good Software Architect'.

</comment><comment><USER31> s/Architect/Engineer/g

None of these characteristics should be stuffed in an architect role. Every engineer should possess them.

</comment><comment><USER32> Terrifying and silly to think that anyone cares this much about titles

<comment><USER33> True. But regardless of the official title, somebody still plays the SA role.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The same could be written of managers and leaders. They exist to serve those they work with, not the other way around. Our society just doesn't seem to understand this.

</comment><comment><USER35> "A software architect lives to serve the engineering team -- not the other way around."

I thought they are supposed to serve people who are going to use software.

</comment><comment><USER36> I liked the article. Forget about whether the word "architect" is used by some as a pretense--the author is suggesting essential qualities of a leader. Teams need direction; this seems to me like good advice for a person to provide direction to other peers effectively.

</comment><comment><USER37> Is it really bad to gloat when right? When people are right, let them gloat. Why does that matter? As long as they aren't trying to make the people who were wrong feel bad about it.

<comment><USER38> _As long as they aren't trying to make the people who were wrong feel bad about it._

But that's precisely what gloating implies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> this smacks of _noblesse oblige_.

("how to live safely in a science fiction universe", apart from being a pretty good book in its own right, really takes this apart)

</comment><comment><USER40> I liked the article.

I'd like to apologize with some liberty to the sentiment in this thread who deny someone has value because they can't see it. If I may go out on a limb, I'd like to try and apologize for what I feel is being trivialized, but to me, is non-trivial.

I'm sorry every piece of software looks like CRUD and Reports to SA's. Nothing's special like Pagerank special, no matter how many magical automating unicorn wands of libraries and frameworks and methodologies we try to make it seem magical with. Domain knowledge, and experience, on the other hand, seems generic, but it's understanding how the data works, plays, interacts, and exists in all it's states.

I'm sorry if some developers forget that software only answers one question, "Where is everything at?" in different ways for different users, and it's made to be more than it is. We're not out to trivialize anyone's work, however, this point is a rallying point, not something to feel insecure about on anyone's part.

I'm very sorry for all the failed software projects that are inherited for wanting to use the latest, greatest, untested, unhardened. They have compensated well for letting me teach customers how you shouldn't build a house without a blueprint just because you can build a shed without one. No agile mega global waterfall method will get around having to understand the world people face when they use computers in their day to day life. No one cares what we code in, or how we coded. It's up to us to do well, but most importantly, reach a goal for a wider audience without getting hung up on ourselves. I love the latest and greatest tools, but I know better than to put it into production somewhere to be kind to the future me.

I'm also really sorry to myself that I might have learnt some skills I may never use or enjoy using, like overseeing a full cycle ERP implementation.

It did help tremendously, though in being able to find and connect the dots in intricate relationships between data and be able to put a picture together that makes sense for everyone beyond me.

SA's existing do not mean anyone is a dummy, or smarter. It just is, what it is. Trivializing what anyone does is a pretty close minded, harsh judgement for the intelligence and open-mindedness here. Just because one person can't imagine a position having value, doesn't mean the value can't exist.

Architects get thrown down more wells than they deserve and smart developers are always open to learning from the rattlesnake biting the other person. It goes both ways. Great architects listen, listen, listen. They provide the foresight that today can't always show. Good architects code. Most I know thrive on Proof of concept coding things.

If there's SA's that don't stay current (meaning, they don't keep hacking with new stuff), that's something that can be faulted in anyone.

We can look at it the same way with developers.. having a legion of coders who have not yet had a relationship with a code base for more than a few years don't really learn the reality of being kind to your future self in code, thought, and trivialization of what anyone does.

Maybe some part of this is from having been online for almost 2 decades, and building web based software for over a decade. If I'm off, I apologize and ask for your tolerance.

Our coding isn't special. Frameworks come and go. All glorious languages worshipped today were made in the 90's. Any code that is 2 years old is legacy. So, what is your legacy?

Mine is writing code that can outlast and not need me anymore and can be well structured and maintained without me. Why? So I can go solve the next problem.

Connecting a need to technology and making ourselves invisible is what I really enjoy doing, but maybe it's just me.

</comment><comment><USER41> Read Cringley's Accidental Millioniares book for lots of background on the "Software Architect" idea, particularly at Microsoft.

</comment><comment><USER42> Huh.

Where I work, Software Architects are people who get paid lots of money to dick around with "new" technologies like RabbitMQ. Then after spending seemingly weeks implementing a trivial proof-of-concept app with the new thing, they present some slides and Visio diagrams at a brown bag nobody attends, and the rest of us ignore them so we can keep building things that actually provide value. Then they go on vacation to Aruba (probably).

<comment><USER43> How very cynical indeed. Speaking as a software architect, sometimes it's important to get people to lift their heads up from the day to day _adding value_ and look at new technologies. Many times developers are so focused on the bug/feature du jour, that they aren't aware there are other ways to do things, possibly better.

Having been a developer for a long time, the thing I have found is how much technology repeats itself, and how at its core, its all very much the same. The same algorithms I have used, like bloom filters or priority queues for example, have application in social networks and 3d rendering engines etc. Having done most software paradigms, an architect us supposed to know which ones work, and when they work.

I haven't written slides or visio in years. Nor have I been to Aruba :)

<comment><USER22> I would hesitate to hire a junior engineer who didn't understand basic subjects like bloom filters and priority queues and when to use them. I certainly wouldn't hire one who didn't know how to research alternative approaches on her own, without guidance from an "architect".

<comment><USER44> I'll bite. I consider myself a decent developer (but then, who doesn't?). I don't know what you mean by "bloom filters" or "priority queues" without Googling for them. I feel pretty confident that if they were the best solution to a problem I was having, I would find them through research.

Why did you pick those as "basic subjects" for a "junior engineer"? Are they important to your particular area of work?

<comment><USER22> I'm a micro-optimization and numerics guy by trade (mostly I write math libraries); they are almost completely irrelevant to my area of work.

Priority queues should be covered in a competent introductory data structures course. Bloom filters are marginally more obscure, but I still expect a good candidate to have come across them at some point. They're so widely used that it's pretty hard to avoid learning about them if you've done any significant amount of work or just spend time reading HN (they come up in someone's blog every month or so).

Note that I said "would hesitate to", not "wouldn't hire". If someone were otherwise a strong candidate, but happened to not be familiar with these, I would almost surely still hire them.

I should clarify that a typical candidate for a junior position on my team is either coming from graduate school or has 3-5 years experience in industry. I have correspondingly higher expectations for their background knowledge.

<comment><USER43> This is just not true.

 _Bloom filters are marginally more obscure, but I still expect a good candidate to have come across them at some point._

Possibly in your area the candidates you get may have come across them, but then they wouldn't be junior engineers, _by definition._ If you're advertising for "strong algorithms" candidates then sure, but I bet half the people reading this have never used or come across any probabilistic data structure!

<comment><USER45> > then they wouldn't be junior engineers, by definition

I don't think so. My impression is that junior/senior is defined by years of experience more than technical skills. Having been out of university for one year now, I know I sure as hell won't get a job as a "senior engineer" anywhere, even if I could easily implement both these structures.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple's Radical Approach to News: Humans Over Machines - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/25/technology/apple-news-humans-algorithms.html <comment><USER2> Apple's radical approach is to... report news like every news outlet has done since the beginning of time.

Only with Apple can this seem like a revolution.

<comment><USER3> The second sentence dealt with your objection. Additionally, not "every" news outlet is reporting in the fashion you describe, also pointed out in the article. I would argue that the refutation of your sentence to be the very reason the NYT published the article in the first place.</comment></comment>


BitCoin will be made illegal, but cryptocash is here to stay - <AUTHOR> http://dbasch.posterous.com/bitcoin-will-be-made-illegal-but-cryptocash-i

<comment><USER2> The problem with all of these e-currency schemes is that there's still a huge divide between the virtual e-cash world and the real "bills & change" world. I can't use Bitcoin to pay my rent or buy food. In order to do that, I have to go through a money transfer site. These sites are already pretty heavily regulated. I'm not even sure that any additional laws would have to be passed in order to make Bitcoin illegal; it might just take an administrative decision by the Treasury department.

<comment><USER3> More important, you can't use it to pay your taxes.

<comment><USER4> This looks like a plus :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't really think BitCoin will be made illegal, simply because there's no real reason to do so. As a concept, I find it interesting; however, I consider the execution to be flawed in several ways (namely the entire concept of mining).

In order to become a force which could get attention, BitCoins would need to be used en masse for nefarious or questionable purposes (the definition of those being whatever politicians decide they are). Right now the volume is extremely low and quite frankly you're not going to conduct large scale illicit activities in that system easily. If it hits $50bn in volume however, then something might happen.

</comment><comment><USER6> For me I see the seminal (forgive the pun) flashpoint being when pay-per-use pornographic web sites take BitCoins for services rendered.

The value proposition of anonymity is highly valued there I suspect.

Prior to that occuring, I expect there would need to be a service that pornographers would 'buy' as enabling this as a valued currency.

So once we see the emergence of a referral system or advertising system in which you can 'pay' for ads with Bitcoins I don't doubt we'll see sites that accept Bitcoins as payment.

<comment><USER7> We are considering enabling BitCoin in countries where Internet is now _owned_ by the government in same way as US, Russia, and China mainly. FIrst off: Sweden and Netherlands in such case - a safe card.

<comment><USER7> ...and to clearify (a bit at least): We have built a de-centralised e-commerce system that will work where web standards work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> _It reminds me quite a bit of mp3 files in 1997, when they were just a novelty and record companies didn't know what to make of them._

Despite those industries' efforts and help from various world governments, MP3 filesharing, still exists. Likewise, it seems possible that BitCoin exchanges will still happen despite it being illegal.

Is there a way to even shutdown BitCoin or would it turn into a pseudo-arms race like filesharing has become?

</comment><comment><USER9> I checked bitcoin's site a little, and I don't quite understand how do you get bitcoins in the first place... or more important, how the global amount of bitcoin currency evolves.

<comment><USER10> There are only three ways to get bitcoin:

1\. Create (discover) bitcoins using your own computer. This is slow and requires a lot of processing.

2\. Provide a good or service in exchange for bitcoins.

3\. Receive them as a gift.

That is all. I've ruled out theft, i.e. stealing someone's wallet from their computer.

That answers your first question. The second question, about how the supply evolves, is more complex. My understanding is cursory, but I'm pretty sure the bitcoin.org web site addresses it in depth.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> It will be interesting to if global inflation follows the usual pattern in bitcoin.

<comment><USER11> See <http://www.bitcoin.org/wiki/doku.php?id=inflation_controls></comment></comment>