Ask YC: Why do you recommend a Macbook? - <AUTHOR> I started my programming love life with Apple //c. After that, I've mostly used relatively inexpensive laptops running Linux / school PCs.
But I am seeing almost all 'budding hackers' nowadays coding on a Macbook/pro. Startup School is full of Macs!
pg said that Mac lets him drag and drop code from vim to repl - and he was very happy about it. Is it little things like that or is there a cumulative reduction in friction everywhere that justifies the bigger price tag? Is customizing a Mac easy or do they throw arbitrary hurdles at you like with the iPod/iPhone?
I currently run Gutsy on Lenovo T61 for dev. I don't want to miss out on the Mac if there are significant advantages. <comment><USER2> I switch between Macbook and Thinkpad/Ubuntu almost daily. Why? Because I get bored on either of them fairly quickly :-)

I love both of them, but my vote goes towards Ubuntu/Linux (and I mainly code on ThinkPad) for three reasons:

1\. Most hackers' software is native on Linux, although nearly all of it exists for OS X. But nothing beats Debian/Ubuntu's aptitude: nearly everything imaginable is a few keystrokes away: can installed and pre-configured in seconds. And guaranteed to "just work".

2\. Apple's hardware is no match to IBM's. UltraNav combo kicks ass, and I feel crippled and slowed down when using a touchpad of other laptops, including Apple's.

3\. Linux is more flexible. It's not the "sysadmin carp" that some people from the 90s complain about, it's genuine flexibility that comes with choice. There are many more different terminal apps, different ways to manage workspaces, various window management plug-ins, screensavers even! OS X is more commercialized.

Besides, I dislike some of Apple's software. iTunes is number one on my hate- list. :-)

<comment><USER3> "3. Linux is more flexible. It's not the "sysadmin carp" that some people from the 90s complain about, it's genuine flexibility that comes with choice. There are many more different terminal apps, different ways to manage workspaces, various window management plug-ins, screensavers even! OS X is more commercialized."

Agreed. It'd be nice if there's an up-to-date binary repo of MacPorts packages. Flint has apt-get for binary packages, but a lot of them are pretty outdated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I speak from limited experience with Macs, but I'd think that a lot of it has to do with the 'out of the box' experience. I'm running Gutsty right now too and I have it tweaked just the way I like it, but it can take some time / effort to get everything set up "your way". Of course, none of this applies if you're running the stock Gutsy config, but why would you want to do that? Essentially OSX is for people who want the benefits of *nix but don't enjoy, or can't spend the time, hacking their OS as much as hacking their code.

@robmnl: Expose functionality is built into compiz-fusion, and Linux users have been enjoying virtual desktops for god knows how long.

</comment><comment><USER5> Because it's the best desktop unix machine available. Where else can you find true unix with a great user experience and full hardware and software support?

I don't use Linux because I no longer enjoy doing sysadmin crap. I also like the MacOS UI.

<comment><USER6> I don't think it's as good a desktop experience as OSX, but for a hacker, Ubuntu isn't half bad, and continues to improve by leaps and bounds. Less and less 'sysadmin crap' is necessary these days.

And you can get an Ubuntu machine from Dell that is very well supported.

I wouldn't recommend it to my parents, just yet (they're happy with OSX), but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend Dell+Ubuntu to people here. It might not be as sexy, but it's a setup that works pretty well. I had a tibook a number of years ago, and while it was certainly a beautiful machine that got lots of looks, in the end, I'm just as happy with my ugly clunky (but cheap and well supported) Dell.

<comment><USER5> Yeah, if I was optimizing on price I would just get a Dell laptop and throw Ubuntu on it. (Although I would make sure that all the hardware is well- supported first. I have spent far too many hours patching kernels and adjusting parameters when using Linux with brand new hardware.)

<comment><USER6> You can buy Dells with Ubuntu on them:

<http://www.dell.com/ubuntu>

It was pretty cool to get it, open it up, and see it boot Ubuntu. I admit I did have to tweak it just a bit (about 15 minutes of googling and config files), but I think it was one of the first ones, hopefully they've gotten even better. I chatted with some of the guys working on it at OSCON last year, and they wrote down a few of the bugs I had found.

<comment><USER7> I got one of these right after they came out, too. Having had no experience with Linux before then, I've spent more than 15 minutes at a time figuring out how to get things to work. Right away, it was a couple nights on nvidia driver and wpa support. And since then, about once a month, I'll have to spend a whole night or two figuring something else out... last weekend it was something with generic vs rt kernels for ubuntustudio. Anyhoo, looking back, I wouldn't suggest it to any relative novices (like me) who really just want to use their computer to accomplish normal tasks, and who aren't into tinkering for the sake of it. Gnome/KDE in K/Ubuntu are really convenient and slick 29/30 days, but to be honest, I'm getting tired of fighting my computer and I'll likely pick up a Mac when I get a new desktop this summer.

<comment><USER8> Ditto. I also acquired a Dell+Ubuntu in 6/07. Switched to a Macbook in 10/07. If you are making decent contract money it just isn't worth the hassle to, for instance, try and get a decent music playing software w/ the appropriate codec support.

<comment><USER6> Well, if what you want out of a computer is simply and exclusively tool, then some proprietary system might well be better, although Ubuntu is getting close.

If, on the other hand, you relish the ability to open things up and hack on them if needs be (whence "Hacker News"), then the extra effort 'fighting' with Linux is often time well spent. It's a good feeling to know a system from the ground up, or (as is the case for most of us), at least be able to figure out bits and pieces from time to time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I tried to switch over to a mac a year ago. It didn't work, so I switched back after three months. I found that a lot of little things were annoying, and made me spend more time than I needed on doing trivial things sucha as resizing of windows. On mac it can only be done from one corner, on windows from all four. There are lots of these little things that mean you have to spend three clicks instead of two. I see why they make sense if you're a beginner - it's almost impossible to do anything wrong. Other things that annoy me the fact that it is impossible to find a lot of the little shareware programs I use under windows, and that their equivalent of Outlook really sucks. And I simply don't understand why there is only one mousebutton. That alone was enough to switch back.

Overall my opinion of macs is that they are excellent for beginners, and for looking cool in the cafes but for me it simply didn't make the cut for serious work.

I don't code, but work in outlook, excel, word and a browser. This might make make a difference.

<comment><USER10> I code. I had the exact same experience.

This is two years ago and things might have improved. But the ports system did not have that much software, I didn't like the feel of the keyboard, it's a huge heat sink (and then in cold NY mornings it would be cold to the touch when I started it), I didn't like the anti-alising, I didn't like the default terminal program (and couldn't be bothered to get a new one ... that was the point of getting a powerbook in the first place - all the supposedly annoying sysadmin things I wouldn't have to do). java support was horrible too (that might be better - and besides this is not a java crowd)

I didn't like all the proprietary formats for iphoto, and itunes either.

oh and yeah. I have a lot of mail. The import into Mail.app took days. It was ok after that. But once again, the mail files use a proprietary tagging system to know when mail is read and what not. It wasn't fun porting that back to maildir.

try ubuntu. you might like.

<comment><USER9> It's interesting to hear a coder having some of the same experiences. And btw I had the exact same problem with porting mails, except it took me around three days to get working.

I'm actually dual booting w. windows and Ubuntu to try it out. And I like it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm generally a person that values function more than form, but I have to say it is a real daily joy to work on gorgeous hardware like a Macbook Pro. The reason Macs are more expensive because they only offer high-end hardware specs. A similar spec'ed Dell comes roughly at the same price. If you are hacker, always use the best tools there are. This is an invest in yourself.

Hardware aside, the real reason you should switch is OSX and the applications around it. Stuff just works. Sounds like a marketing message but its true. You can focus on accomplishing the task rather than wrestling with shortcomings and crutches of the environment. Application developers on the Mac also have the philosophy to integrate with existing services as much as possible, which makes a huge difference, because most of the stuff you use is able to talk to each other. Compare that to Windows where every application/service is its own island.

Imho, OSX is by far the best platform out there right now bar none. It's amazing to see how even non-hackers are blown away once they switch.

You should too.

<comment><USER12> >A similar spec'ed Dell comes roughly at the same price.

I believe that Macs are awesome. I want one! But the same price argument doesn't fly. When I bought a new laptop about a year ago, I ended up with a Dell 'cause the same spec'd MBP was double the price, and I couldn't justify the expense. Having a quick look on the respective web sites, that is still roughly the case today. That makes for a pretty expensive OS.

<comment><USER10> don't drink the cool aid and save your money. the last straw for me was a bsd socket problem that used to cause crashes on clisp (if you google it you'll find it. circa 2005) -- went back to debian, and i don't even know whatever became of that problem.

your dell is fine.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Devices always work on Windows first, and then drivers are eventually made for UNIX. Software that make hackers productive are always first in UNIX, and then eventually ported to Windows. A hacker who had to use one system for everything is faced with either the horror of having to use XFree86 or the horror of having to build an executable in Windows. Traditionally people got around the problem by having a Windows PC for the devices and a UNIX server for getting work done. With a Mac, you often get the best of both systems in one machine: devices just work, and compiling UNIX software is easy.

</comment><comment><USER14> i almost bought a macbook pro for the screen. mac makes it easy for you to get a non glossy high def display. you can now even get LED backlit which should give brighter whites, better contrast, and longer backlight life.

the rest of the manufactures are behind mac in display tech.

i ended up going with a dell precision because of dells support for ubuntu, and i could get better hardware than the mac for $1000 less, with a 3 accident warranty. So basically for $2500 i have a machine that is faster, and will be replaced for free in the 3 years of its useful life, for $1k less than a mac book pro. in the end i could not justify spending $1k for an operating system. $250 maybe.

<comment><USER15> "the rest of the manufactures are behind mac in display tech."

I was looking at macbooks, but did not see one that had a 15" screen that ran 1920x1200.

I went with a Dell D830, for the 15" WUXGA screen and for the clit mouse (since I find trackpads distracting and less precise than the TrakPoint thingie).

I'm (more or less) happily running Kubuntu on it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I have a macbook which I run linux on. I get the best of both worlds having a great laptop with lots of 3rd party hardware(and now x86). And all the fun of recompiling my kernel.

<comment><USER10> well there you go. although i don't know how much fun anyone can have recompiling kernels ;)

cheers.

<comment><AUTHOR> My friends and I used to drink cold beer while the kernel recompiled in the background. Happy times. Almost 10 years ago! (Kingfisher (Indian beer))

<comment><USER17> I can see it now: "Dude! New kernel is out!", "I'll get the beer... Psssh, crack, glug glug glug"

Never before were nerds _that_ excited about recompiling the kernel.

<comment><AUTHOR> Us = geeks.

( geeks are nerds who can get laid ;) )

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Is there a cumulative reduction in friction everywhere? I'd say yes. I've used Unix, PC and Mac for years and have always found I get more done and am happier when it's on a Mac.

<comment><USER19> Agreed, I feel the same way about my MBP. Basically, I've used all sorts of things for years (going back to CP/M machines, via DOS and every flavor of Windows, SuSE, Fedora, Ubuntu, ... ) and the Mac is the right combination:

1\. Stuff that I need to get done just works (e.g. sync my Bluetooth phone to address book, hook up to wireless networks, do backups)

2\. Aesthetically pleasing. Don't discount this when it comes to hackers... we like elegant code and machines.

3\. Unix underneath... no loss of power.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> I run Arch Linux on my Macbook Pro. I don't like the hardware at all, it feels cheap in comparison to the Thinkpad it replaced.

</comment><comment><USER17> I think many of you are missing the number 1, in my book, best part about mac laptops: Sleep! It works brilliantly. I close the lid and it sleeps, keeping the RAM alive for up to a week. When I wanna use my computer again I just open it up and within a couple of seconds I'm back at it. I know windows laptops can do something similar, but its not implemented anywhere nearly as well and is a deal breaker for me. I don't have experience with linux laptops, but I imagine its at best as good as windows laptops.

I cannot emphasize enough how useful sleep is. I go to the library, open it up, start working, close it. Move to another desk. Open it up, start working, close it. Go to the coffee shop with friend. Have a tea, then open it up to show him a plot from the hw, bring up the plot (without waiting for it to restore...), show buddy, and close the lid again. All this happens with minimal battery loss.

That is the biggest reason i love my powerbook. If I _was_ going to get a "windows" laptop, I'd get a thinkpad and put ubuntu on it.

</comment><comment><USER10> You're not missing out on anything, there are no significant advantages (specially not over a t61) I sold my powerbook on ebay, and I'm still happy with my t42 running gutsy as well.

<comment><USER21> Almost all of my coworkers use Thinkpads. I started off on a T43, and have recently been upagraded to T60. Would never trade it in for a mac.

<comment><USER10> Good for you. I started out on a T20 (I'm old). Still have it. Still love it. One of these days I'll move up to a T60 or whatever. For now, T42 still kicks a$$.

<comment><USER22> I started out with a Powerbook 140, and I don't think 26 counts as old here. I have a T20 too - 6th laptop I've owned. I've rebuilt it 3 or 4 times and replaced everything but the screen at some point. It's a good machine aside from having an annoying tendency to corrupt the contents of its CMOS chip.

I've noticed both Apple and IBM/Lenovo dropping in quality over the past 10 years or so. I have a Thinkpad 600X from 1998 or so - it's made mostly of carbon fiber, with a rubber coating. My Z61m is made mostly of cheap plastic, though it does have a metal frame and titanium lid. Apple uses either polycarbonate or aluminum, but seems to have a high rate of logic board failures. I'm not a huge fan of metal on the surfaces of a laptop that come in to contact with my body during use either - it transmits heat.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I was a mac user when macs weren't cool. Mac OS 9 was like that edgy indie band that suddenly became an overnight success. Sellouts! :-)

<comment><USER24> Hey, I remember upgrading from my thoroughly cool //e to my first Mac -- they were VERY cool at the start. Macs were more like a cool band that has a huge first album, kind of loses their way for a couple of records and then gets the mojo back with a monster record that leaves everybody nodding, "I love these guys!"

<comment><USER25> I got one of the first mac plus machines. A full 1MB of RAM.

People said, "you'll never run out of memory!"

Great machine, though. Hacked some assembly for the 86000.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> You shouldn't make decisions like this based on hype or other people's opinions. It's personal thing. You are the one who has to be happy and productive on the platform -- no one else -- so why let someone else determine what you use?

<comment><USER27> Uh, he's asking for advice now before he spends $2000 or so on a MBP. Of course, if he buys it and hates it, he'll go back to what he is using now.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I use a MBP at home, because there's nothing within a light-year of Lightroom (or Aperture, which is pretty much an equivalent package) for RAW photo workflow. If it weren't for that single piece of software, I could switch to Ubuntu/Debian full-time and be quite happy.

When I'm at work writing code, it's 98% Linux, with occasional compatibility testing on a Mac or Windows system. Apache, Vim, Ruby, and PostgreSQL all run just as well on Debian as they do on a Mac, and a lot of other packages work much, much better -- plus, they're just an 'apt-get' away.

</comment><comment><USER29> Yes, there is a huge advantage to using Macs:

<http://www.news.com/8301-13580_3-9849949-39.html>

</comment><comment><USER30> When Linux can get it's GUI in shape, I will gladly move to it. I will miss TextMate dearly, but I will use Linux when the GUI (Gnome and KDE) people can get this one thing correct:

Separation between line editing commands, and GUI commands.

It is very simple. What happens on Linux when you are in Thunderbird and you do "^a"? It selects all! What happens when you do that on the command line? It takes you to the beginning of the line! Why a different experience for the exact same _universal_ command?

On a Mac, "^a" _always_ brings you to the beginning of the line, whether you are in Terminal, a Safari text edit box, a Mail email message, etc. "command a" _always_ selects all, whether you are in Terminal, a Safari text edit box, a Mail email message, etc. The same goes for "^k", "^y", "^e", etc.

Cocoa uses basic Emacs bindings, and the user experience because of it is hands down better. I drove myself nuts on Windows for 3 months, then Linux for 8 until I told my employer that I either get a Mac or I leave. They gave me a Mac. My hands, brain, productivity, and my employer are all better off as a result.

</comment><comment><USER31> I am speaking from hard customization aspect. I like MacBook better than MacBook Pro in this domain. It is relatively painless to replace hard drive and memory inside a MacBook. Of course I need to do some research to know the power consumption of hard drive and memory before I ordered replacement, so I can avoid overheat inside my MacBook. MacBook pro is great in its dedicated graphic chip and better range of view angle of its TFT display. But to replace a hard drive, it takes pain to remove all screws and lift up cables around the disk. And from what I read from Guy Kawasaki's blog, you can't return a beefed up MacBook back to Apple if you feel it is not what you want.

I went for MacBook because it is painless to add memory and upgrade disk. And I don't mind its less than perfect graphic performance and display because I use external LCD monitor when I can. It is smaller in size and light in weight so it is easier to carry around and it is 50% cheaper than MacBook Pro. I get what I paid for but also a little bit less hassle to mod it.

</comment><comment><USER32> Aqua looks nicer than any windows manager has to offer. I run Ubuntu for my work desktop, and Debian for servers, but at home I have a macbook and a mac mini running 10.5. Before that I had a powerbook for 4 years. They are all awesome machines. I didn't have to spend time tweaking config settings to try to get the sound card working, or deal with updating and breaking everything. On OS X I've never had to fix something after an update, and sound always works. I'm not dissing any linux distros, but they are truly for hackers that want to spend time tweaking on things getting them to work and dealing with problems. OS X allows me to get more work done because I'm not dealing with those hassles yet I still have vim/emacs/whatever other unix app I want to install. The only complaint I have is that the packaging doesn't seem to be as good as Debian/FreeBSD/Gentoo. Maybe this has changed in the last couple years, but Macports and fink never really worked out all that well for me.

</comment><comment><USER33> Once you have started working with a trackpoint, you will never want to go back to a touchpad. It feels like making a step backwards.

</comment><comment><USER34> \- A solid UNIX underneath. I don't care in the trademark sense. I care in the "beats Cygwin" sense. Real terminals. Most things you need from Linux will build.

\- A solid GUI on top. Everything is largely cohesive. No half the apps running KDE themes and the other half of the apps running Gnome themes.

\- Better supported by hardware and software vendors than Linux.

No need to mess figure out wireless, Bluetooth, power management, sleep/hibernate multi-button mice, free vs non-free drivers, multi-monitor mirroring/spanning etc issues. It all pretty much just works.

Someone said since this is "Hacker News", you shouldn't mind spending some time figuring it out. Bullshit. I don't have enough time to hack the stuff I want to hack, let alone the minutiae I don't want to hack.

I work with Linux all day. I don't feel particularly enlightened by knowing how to config X by hand (I am quite excited that we're past that point now) and how to use multiple mouse buttons with imwheel.

</comment><comment><USER35> Funny how when you are about to buy something expensive as a Macbook Pro you do a lot of research and then you see other people asking a question like this for you.

I'm about to buy a Macbook Pro last-gen and I just thought that was weird!

</comment><comment><USER36> If I'd never used Linux I wouldn't know as much as I so know about OS's, if I'd used a Mac all these years I'd probably know naught (or a lot less). But, that's part of the value of using a Mac, you don't need to know about the OS which is probably a good point for non-techie or non-geekie users.

I don't have a Mac but do think they're cool, hardware that works, OS that works, but I'd be concerned about the lock-in that comes from using proprietary software that comes with it; such as managing my 12GB photograph collection.

</comment><comment><USER37>
      pg said that Mac lets him drag and drop code from vi to repl - and he was very happy about it

you can do that on any OS with the GUI shell for Vim (with Vim running in Vi compatible mode if that matters) [edit]: actually it doesn't look like it's possible. i could have sworn it was though <.< my bad

i'm guessing the iPod has something to do with macs becoming more popular

<comment><AUTHOR> I tried this now but it didn't work for me. I must be missing something. Please help.

I am running GVIM (I am at work so I am on Windows). I am trying to drag and drop a block of code to Python REPL. It is not happening.

<comment><USER26> Ummm... copy and paste?

<comment><USER38> Ctrl-C, Ctrl-V isn't exactly the same thing as drag 'n' drop...

<comment><USER26> On my Macbook, my windows often always overlap because the resolution just isn't high enough to "stretch out." So, I find that dragging and dropping is actually more difficult due to having to switch windows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> stable, affordable, good user interface. expose and spaces are time savers.

big no is battery time.

I don't think you're missing out on too much if you primarily code.

</comment><comment><USER40> 1) Productivity. I get a lot more done.

2) Great UNIX implementation.

3) Great file/user/permission organization.

4) Super-easy backups, with no command line switches to remember.

5) Since I have a Mac, my boss steers me toward fun projects like getting started with iPhone development.

6) Feeling of investing in myself, making a commitment to getting a lot done. Turns out the Mac helps a LOT with that.

</comment><comment><USER41> I find a macbook with 2 virtual machines (linux/windows) gives me the power I need, the operating system I love, and the flexibility to develop in any and all environments.

Plus, the size of the macbook is perfect when it's not your primary computer. It's the best piece of hardware I've ever owned.

</comment><comment><USER42> It is physically well made. I beat the crap out of my macbook and it puts up with the abuse without problem.

It is fast and reliable. It is portable. I would pay double the price for how great it is.

</comment><comment><USER43> The keyboard feels great on the macbook pros. The downside is the lame insistence on a single mouse button.

<comment><USER44> I would have agreed once upon a time, but now I either use my mighty mouse, or else the two finger tap.

<comment><USER45> The two finger tap is easier to use than a right mouse button, IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> OS X is often easier than Windows and powerful like *Nix/BSD.

The plastic case on the MacBook isn't the strongest, though.

</comment><comment><USER47> Synergy of ...

\- An apple interface (streamlined and beautiful).

\- Awesome performance/security/organization of unix.

<comment><USER10> is this too old to still be considered valid?

<http://www.techworld.com/security/news/index.cfm?newsid=1798>

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> There are some things about Macs that drive me a little nuts, same as any other system, but they do have the very most awesomest terminal program in existence. I can spend ten hours straight in ssh terminals on those things, and that makes 'em almost worth the price tag for me.

</comment><comment><USER49> Not everything I do with a computer is programming. For everything else I do, a Mac is perfect. And it's a pretty good dev machine.

</comment><comment><USER50> I don't recommend. I don't really. I tried, but I don't.

Coming from a long Linux history dating back to mid-nineties, I have used Macs for about three years. My first was a Powerbook P4 and now I've had my MacBookPro for about two years. Now my next laptop is going to be a Linux friendly non-Mac for running Ubuntu exclusively.

I liked the smoothness of OS X and how it all fits together. Then little irks surfaced: there's no decent system for installing/uninstalling applications, and absolutely nothing compared to apt in Ubuntu/Debian. Back to manual installations and manual upgrades. Ok, it was the Mac way and I adapted. Though, I started to avoid large software installations because upgrading turned out to be a real hassle. Uninstallation was different every time: it wasn't even as straight-forward as the ad hoc uninstaller mess in Windows. At least you can invoke that from one single place which helps in trying out applications.

DarwinPorts was easy but took forever to source-compile even the first installations of some essential applications, so I never upgraded them unless I had to. And I couldn't find everything I wanted from DarwinPorts. And it conflicted with some existing unix system software.

Luckily, I could build Emacs locally with --enable-carbon-app from CVS and at least the most important item in my toolchain worked pretty well, and looked nice.

Then various other limitations started to kick in. No decent terminal that could use the left Apple key as meta. Nothing major, but it really killed my thumb. Luckily I could configure carbon-Emacs to work like that so I started using terminals inside Emacs buffers... In a way I was in no way against that.

Eventually crappy window management started to stress me. I couldn't get my highly desired focus-follows-mouse from anywhere (or by installing any 3rd party utility!), or even keep certain windows on top while typing into a lower window. But I adapted and changed my working habits, trying to compromise with tricky virtual desktop configuration (with VirtuaDesktop or something).

Then utf-8 filenames between Linux and OS X turned out incompatible: Mac normalizes them and Linux doesn't. Boom, lots of problems with my version control running on a Linux server when filenames changed by themselves. I ended up renaming some of my essential files to plain ASCII, but I really didn't like the way where I was going.

And I don't even want to start with FileVault whose only purpose seemed to be corrupting my files and making logins take like half an hour after reboots. It may work for a few dozen Word documents and some configuration files but putting a heavy home directory of several gigabytes on it just doesn't work.

Eventually, the best desktop Unix didn't do unix for me well enough. I was basically having a huge hassle trying to run on OS X the applications I'd run on a Linux system. There was the desktop which was pretty worthless given that I couldn't run my stuff as easily as on Linux/X11. And try compile ogg123 on OS X! It worked on the P4 (Panther) but I never found a good binary nor working source code for MBP (Tiger). How's that relevant? The answer is cplay, the ultimate mp3+ogg+mod+sid player for any decent unix. Cplay is compatible with my directory-rather-than-id3-tag based music collection and it supports these exotic like playsid and mikmod players. I never got it fully working on OS X.

There was a pivotal issue, which I can't remember now, but which caused OS X to start sucking so badly that I installed Refit and put Ubuntu Dapper on my MBP at once. It had something to do with some bizarre software restrictions imposed by the OS X.

I had the usual hassle of configuring the Linux to work on the relatively alien Apple hardware but it took a day or two and then I had a Linux system that could hibernate and sleep just like OS X. I didn't compile a kernel for that, FYI. And at the same time I had all my good old applications working out of the box from Ubuntu's apt repositories. Installing the essential packages was a breeze and I got mostly the same desktop back that I had abandoned 2-3 years ago. System maintenance and hassle went immediately to zero. Filenames started working again, cross-installations. The unix had returned. Funnily enough, the same hardware has worked flawlessly for almost half a year now, running Linux. Sure, some parts don't work. Webcam - I don't need it. Most notably the fglrx driver sucks, failing at suspend/hibernate. I have to run Xorg with vesa and that doesn't give me 1440x900 but 1152x864, but it's still good enough.

As a reply to the OP: I don't know. Your mileage will vary: you won't miss out on the Mac unless you try it first. Then decide.

</comment><comment><USER51> > 'budding hackers' nowadays coding on a Macbook

Why hack on a laptop? Why not use a desktop that's much cheaper, much more powerful, much more reliable, and easy to fix in one day? You can get two for the price of a new laptop.

If you're on the road with sufficient frequency that you actually need a laptop to work then you're probably a salesman or manager, not a hacker.

I can get to all my data from any machine: everything is on the web or accessible by ssh. I don't need to lug one with me. Paper works fine for the occasional six hour period away from a machine.

I do have an old laptop I sync to my desktop with unison to use on the road when need be, but that's just not very often.

<comment><USER41> To work with other people wherever they end up. We're not working in some cubicle day in and day out, we need to go to our co-workers and sit there next to them hacking on problems. I prefer hacking on my desktop too, but I could not operate without the ability to take my work with me.

<comment><USER51> > sit there next to them hacking on problems

This is high level design, no? It works fine on paper/white-board. You sit alone to refine it and do any implementation. You pair program on one machine if someone is clueless and being ramped up.

<comment><USER41> I find that it can be useful to just be in the same room when working on dependent, if separate tasks. It's often necessary to nail down details as you're thinking through every possible different situation, which really only occurs once you're coding every possible situation.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER52> I used a PowerBook Ti 3.5 1Ghz for 4 years and I loved it. But since most of my programming is in java (whatever), I _had_ to switch. The last year I simply run ubuntu-ppc.

IMO:

The best of apple laptops: (1) long battery life, (2) bright screens, (3) very comfortable keyboards -if you remap the apple keys to control.

The worst of apple laptops: (1) they get burning hot -even new macbook pros; (2) the spinning beachball (of death) can get to your nerves -too much swapping; (3) their sharp edge will hurt your wrists -as opposed to a smoothened, curvy Thinkpad T60 (my current).

</comment><comment><USER53> Personally, I got a macbook for the amazing hardware design. It is one of the few laptops I have seen which is sleek, beautiful, and very very effective. The laptop is very well designed. OS X is also well designed but for a different demographic. Thats why I use Linux for the software. Still, the hardware design is amazing.

</comment><comment><USER54> for the GUI, macs are the best, it's not close

for the unixy stuff, macs do a good job, but they don't blow linux away

macs make lots of stuff more convenient. customizing is no problem for anything especially important. you can also download stuff to change, say, the builtin Dock, if you want.

i strongly recommend a mac. but consider a macbook (not pro) if you're worried about price. pro only has a certain limited set of advantages you might not need.</comment>


Show HN: Star Ratings for Shopify Products - <AUTHOR> http://rating-widget.com/blog/success-story-meet-our-awesome-shopify-app-customer/

<comment><USER2> A small widget that solves a big pain so easily. nice.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We also have a WP, Blogger & WiX plugins/apps, and plan to go for Magento soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Nice!</comment>


Asset Managers with $74T on Brink of Historic Shakeout - <AUTHOR> https://ritholtz.com/2019/08/asset-managers-with-74-trillion-on-brink-of-historic-shakeout/ <comment><USER2> Interesting story but it's just a link to [https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-asset-management- in-...](https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-asset-management-in-decline/)</comment>


Nextcloud Box – a private cloud and IoT solution for home users - <AUTHOR> http://insights.ubuntu.com/2016/09/16/nextcloud-box-a-private-cloud-and-iot-solution-for-home-users/ <comment><USER2> There's nothing cloudy about this. I was doing the exact same thing 10 years ago with NAS setup and I'm confident there are many here who greatly predate me on this.

cmd+f backup (0 of 0).

Cloud as a buzzword is driving me nuts.</comment>


Neanderthal now on Nvidia, AMD, and Intel GPUs (Clojure matrix library) - <AUTHOR> http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/news/release-0.6.0.html <comment><AUTHOR> This is a major release of Neanderthal, a fast native & GPU matrix library: In this release, spotlight is on the new GPU engine, that: Works on all three major hardware platforms: AMD, Nvidia, and Intel Works on all three major operating systems: Linux, Windows, and OS X Is even faster, so it is now more than 1000x faster than the optimized Java libraries for 8192x8192 matrix multiplication. Version 0.6.0 is in clojars Documentation and the tutorials can be found at the usual place: [http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org](http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org)

<comment><USER2> It finally works on Nvidia, so I can try it :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Very interesting, but [http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/news/articles/t...](http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/news/articles/tutorial_opencl.html) link leads to 404, I believe right link is [http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/tutorial_opencl...](http://neanderthal.uncomplicate.org/articles/tutorial_opencl.html)</comment>


Ask HN: Why are brute force attacks allowed to work? - <AUTHOR> I am a terrible sysadmin, so I'm sure I'm missing something obvious. But why are brute force attacks allowed to work? Why not just set a timer to double (or even merely increment) the number of seconds the attacker must wait after each failed attempt?<p>My only guess is that an IP address is not in fact a machine address, but a network address, which means that if someone at BigCo HQ is trying to log in from the same IP address that a virus-infected machine on the same network or subnet they aren't supposed to get penalized. But I think MAC address, which are machine-specific, are available in the TCP/IP packets, so why not use them? <comment><USER2> MAC addresses of the source machine aren't available beyond the local network.

Many systems do have velocity limits. They're somewhat difficult to implement and can have false positives, as you mention, for corporate gateways. An article about an industrial-strength rate limiting system is at [https://brandur.org/redis-cluster](https://brandur.org/redis-cluster).

</comment><comment><USER3> A pretty common policy is to lock out an account after a few consecutive failed login attempts.</comment>


The Market for Stolen Account Credentials - <AUTHOR> https://krebsonsecurity.com/2017/12/the-market-for-stolen-account-credentials/ <comment><USER2> _Plenty of people began freaking out earlier this year after a breach at big- three credit bureau Equifax jeopardized the Social Security Numbers, dates of birth and other sensitive date on more than 145 million Americans. But as I have been trying to tell readers for many years, this data is broadly available for sale in the cybercrime underground on a significant portion of the American populace._

So I can rest easy now, knowing I've been fucked since forever.

<comment><USER3> I know this is sarcastic but the answer is that this system is complete broken and should be replaced by something that is made for authentication. Maybe something that is somewhat secure and allows you to change your "secret number" ones it has been compromised.

<comment><USER4> Others already did it

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_ID_card#Cryptographic...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonian_ID_card#Cryptographic_use)

Granted it's not foolproof but it's definitely a step forward compared to the SSN bullshit.

<comment><USER5> In the end its not the crypto that makes it more secure. Estonia still has a national identifier number, just like US has the SSN. The difference is that while I can know your name, DOB and the identifier (which actually contains your DOB in it), I cant easily pretend to be you. And this is because the process itself is different - when I got to open a bank account, I present my ID card, the bank can plug it in and pull up my profile from the central authority (ran by the government), and I need to pass the checks of being there in person, with a matching ID, which also checks out from the central system (including picture).

Combine this with for example strong proof via blockchain about who used to check your info and from where, and you are at a pretty good spot. Note that Estonia does not do that last part just yet.

As for the US, the chances of having a national ID card along with similar infrastructure are slim to none. So don't hold your breath about major changes any time soon. The best best would be to get closer to something like the above solution via private companies or maybe the credit bureaus themselves (once they are force to change their business model from aggregating and selling data without your consent).

<comment><USER6> One crazy thing was when I got my mortgage and was transferring my down payment to the mortgage company, my bank didn't require me to even show my ID. There is probably a reason for it, as the documents all matched up on the name and I had to submit a lot of information to the mortgage company. I still found it very strange making that kind of transfer of tens of thousands of dollars that I didn't have to show any kind of proof of ID.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I want a word for the type of anti-scale problem you see in identity. Most people who don't work for Equifax can agree that ideally everybody should own their own identity, control it, and be able to monetize it if and when they chose to. The problem is the crypto doesn't scale up from a UX perspective, and the economics don't scale down. So it makes sense to build Orwellian centralized services from an economic perspective.

One of my hopes for the Bitcoin bubble is that someone figures out how to get a 100x improvement on private key management, including the messy forgotten password / lost 2FA device problems where crypto meets meatspace.

</comment><comment><USER8> > The most expensive credentials for sale via this service are those for the > electronics store frys.com ($190). I'm not sure why these credentials are so > much.

Anyone have any information on why these would be so expensive?

<comment><USER9> one way scammers make $$ is by using stolen accounts to purchase goods and then re-sell them, but in general they have pretty much one shot before they are found out and the credentials go stale (for their purposes). electronics can be small in size, have high re-sale value and there's already a solid gray market for them, so it's a particularly valuable credential.

i'd also venture a guess that fry's has less effective anti-fraud software/defenses vs. amazon or ebay or other platforms where you can buy electronics - would not be surprised if amazon was good at catching a fraudulent iphone purchase on the first try, whereas fry's might let a lot more slip through.

source: I've been involved with reducing fraud at various marketplace companies.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In the credit report screenshot, all the addresses are Georgia or Minnesota. I wonder if that's just dumb luck or some specific system has been compromised?</comment>


Finland to end basic income trial after two years - <AUTHOR> https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/apr/23/finland-to-end-basic-income-trial-after-two-years <comment><USER3> Other recent discussions about Finlands basic income:

[https://hn.algolia.com/?query=basic%20income&sort=byDate&pre...](https://hn.algolia.com/?query=basic%20income&sort=byDate&prefix&page=0&dateRange=all&type=story)

</comment><comment><USER4> Basic income for some is not basic income. No country has tried this yet.

Most countries actually do have a form of basic income where they are subsidizing food, shelter, healthcare in some form or another for essentially all people falling outside of the safety net of income, pensions, social security & welfare, charity, etc. I tend to think of basic income as the former without the absolutely massive bureaucratic overhead. An enormous cost saving in other words. To put this in perspective: many European countries spend almost as much on unemployment programs and related bureaucracy as they do on the actual benefits payed to the unemployed.

With a basic income you could abolish minimum wage, make labor cheaper for companies and less risky, make it easier for people to take multiple small jobs to supplement their basic income and reduce their risk, stop forcing people to retire or forcing them to work until they are allowed to retire (both are bad), make all forms of income insurance opt in (pensions, disability benefits, unemployment insurance), etc. It just simplifies things a lot.

The reason this is not happening is that dismantling the existing bureaucracy is highly disruptive and will be hugely unpopular.

<comment><USER5> Bureaucracy is also some type of basic income.

Disrupting bureaucracy means also higher unemployment, because that means, that those people have either to find another job or the will live on welfare as well.

<comment><USER4> I see this as a form of hidden unemployment that we just happen to favor sponsoring collectively for whatever reason. These people would fall back to basic income and be free to take jobs just like everybody else; depending on ability and willingness.

But I take your point and this is why I pointed out that dismantling this will be highly disruptive and unpopular. Ironically, the problem is bigger in countries that are more likely to otherwise be in favor of a form of basic income. I.e. countries with extensive existing social security systems.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Finn here. The trial has been criticized from the get-go as being a poorly- designed compromise; those of us with a more cynical outlook suspect that it was intentionally nerfed so as to discredit the idea of basic income in general. But I guess it's just politics as usual; the current government as a whole is not exactly sympathetic with the idea of free money to "lazy people". Everyone does seem to agree, though, that welfare traps are a problem with the current system.

<comment><USER7> > Everyone does seem to agree, though, that welfare traps are a problem

Do you have any programs like the EITC, where benefits fall on a curve and slowly phase out as you make more, so there's no hard cliff?

Wiki: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_income_tax_credit)

Graph: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earned_IncomeTaxCreditW...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earned_IncomeTaxCreditWithOneQualifyingChild.PNG)

<comment><USER8> We have the opposite, it's more of a skyline graph. If you receive subsidies, a lot of the time, working or studying will yield large and unexpected decreases to your total amount of income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> It's hard to find much about why, BBC has a link to a study by an OECD think tank criticising the program, but no idea if that study specifically motivated decisionmakers in Finland.

[http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-43866700](http://www.bbc.com/news/world- europe-43866700)

Study: [https://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Finland-2018-OECD- economic-...](https://www.oecd.org/eco/surveys/Finland-2018-OECD-economic- survey-overview.pdf)

</comment><comment><USER9> Basic income is an admittance that hundreds of millions of people are no longer necessary. Governments and corporations will not pay billions of dollars per year to people who do nothing. It will result in a strange situation where companies like Apple will be giving people money so that they can buy the iPhones they make.

Eventually, these people will somehow have to disappear. This means there will also be less demand for the robots to make things. This would then end with a small population with robots occupying the planet.

Welfare is essentially a way to kill a human's soul. If the choice is to go out slowly like this, then I would say "it is better to die on your feet, then live on your knees".

<comment><USER10> Necessary for what? Maybe not optimizing iPhones. But somebody has to make the music that goes on the iPhones, and it's pretty hard to do that if you're working on their hardware full-time. There are already plenty of "necessary" people who consume the cultural output of the "unnecessary".

As for their eventual disappearance, they'll be neglected, but they won't be slaughtered -- if nothing else, that doesn't look good for the cameras. And if war breaks out in Elbonia between its "necessary" and its "unnecessary", Elbonia's enemies will probably provide military aid to the "unnecessary". It's worth remembering here that America lost in Vietnam.

That said, I think a lot of the support for basic income around here is connected to the demise of academia as a viable career track. Personally, I'd like UBI, but mostly because I'd use it to free up 40 hours a week (plus my commute, time outside of work invested in a career) for research in fields I'm interested in.

<comment><USER9> >Necessary for what?

For whatever the people who provide the money need.

>There are already plenty of "necessary" people who consume the cultural output of the "unnecessary".

I don't think the corporations/governments will just have a few hundred million people around to add some culture to the place.

>It's worth remembering here that America lost in Vietnam.

Yes but the infrastructure of modern society is extremely fragile. The occupying force (the governments/corporations) already have control of it at the start of the war. The only reason we have so many people is due to this infrastructure. If it was a war where the population was not as fully industrialized, it would be different.

That is not to say the robot owners will win the war, but lots of people would die before then.

>Personally, I'd like UBI, but mostly because I'd use it to free up 40 hours a week (plus my commute, time outside of work invested in a career) for research in fields I'm interested in.

That is what people think they will do, but it is not what they will do. It is not the utopia that they think it will be because there are fundamentals about human nature that mean we don't really just sit around thinking up theories and playing guitar. The people on welfare now do not have that life. They are mostly depressed and subdued, which is the point of welfare.

Humans in general need things like self-determination, the feeling of being valued, the ability to maybe have hobbies that cost more than a basic income. Getting a job won't be easy to make more money, as there will not be many jobs.

<comment><USER10> >That is what people think they will do, but it is not what they will do. It is not the utopia that they think it will be because there are fundamentals about human nature that mean we don't really just sit around thinking up theories and playing guitar.

We already have a sample population for this: retirees. Empirically, some people do need jobs, and some don't. I work with a guy who retired, couldn't stand it, and rejoined the workforce. On the other hand, my mother retired early to go into astrophysics.

I'm about to quit my job and work on improving my coding skills (and networking, and so on) until I get hired in tech. A few of my friends are doing the same. (Independently - I'd already decided to do this when they started telling me about their plans.) They seem to be doing better than they were before they quit.

Maybe that's a mistake, and I'll end up depressed and subdued if I'm not on someone's payroll. But I don't think so. I'm working a physically exhausting job with hours that aren't very compatible with having a life outside work - <USER2> don't think I have to worry about becoming _more_ depressed and subdued.

> The people on welfare now do not have that life. They are mostly depressed > and subdued, which is the point of welfare.

I think there are some important differences between welfare and UBI. If you're on welfare, it means you've failed at the grind - if you're on UBI, it might just mean you've opted out of it.

I don't know much about the welfare system, but I'd be surprised if it's possible for someone to live indefinitely on welfare alone. With UBI, that may end up being a possibility.

Another possibility with UBI is to use it to free up resources for investing in your future. I worked with a guy who was holding down three different jobs, working seven days a week, because that's what he had to do to make ends meet. Maybe he should just learn to code, but where's he going to find the time?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I'm interested to see what the final report on this program will say. My only concern with UBI programs is that if a company, landlord, etc. knows someone is receiving an additional amount of money for free each month, then they can raise their prices by that much.</comment>


Brain Functions That Improve with Age - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.hbr.org/cs/2010/02/brain_functions_that_improve_w.html <comment><USER2> As a 20-something programmer today, I believe that my prime as a programmer will be when I am in my 50s, because programmers seem to get better as they solve more problems, becomes more experienced, as well as more knowledgeable. That will only happen when you're constantly pushing yourself toward new horizon, though.

Today, silicon valley seems to age discriminate in favor of the young, just out of college. I think they're missing out.

<comment><USER3> I get the reasoning, I just don't think it works. By the time you're 50 only a fraction of your knowledge is still relevant. Sure the fundamentals are the same, but the tech you're working with is probably fairly new. I've worked with a few 50+ guys who have been in the business for almost as long as i've been alive. One of the common traits i've seen is they've learned to not trust certain levels of abstraction, or techniques. Which is fine, but tech has progressed, and now many of the original reasons are no longer valid yet they're still resistant to using them.

The good guys are up to date in the state, they've learned the new features, they trust them, and they use them.. but staying up to date for 20 years is an exhausting race.

Personally I hope i'm only writing code as a hobby at 50.

<comment><USER4> I solve problems. My experience in problem solving will never become irrelevant. It happens that I solve problems with code. With my experience in problem solving, I can pick up "new tech" quickly-- primarily because there's really nothing new. Things get smaller and faster; the real technological advancements are in the physics of storage and processing. The "advances" in software seem to follow what The Graybeards Of Antiquity dreamed up in the 1960s, now with a slicker, graphically enhanced user interface.

I see so many less experienced software creators going nuts over something "new" when it's just repackaged from a decade (or three decades) ago. It's interesting to see reactions when asked "how's that different from Q?" or "but what about problem J?" and even "ah, that's over here in TAOCP ... you know Knuth, right?"

EDIT: relevant quote from another headline on HN-- 'Calling a hierarchical directory a "folder" doesn't change its nature any more than calling a prison guard a "counselor".'

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This is a typical blog post, lots of factual assertions with no back-up in actual cited research studies. As an earlier top-level comment put it,

 _The article doesn't give much information_

so maybe some readers here will appreciate more information. A recent book that goes into great detail about what the subtest scores of IQ tests show about what happens to people as they age is Are We Getting Smarter?: Rising IQ in the Twenty-First Century by James R. Flynn,

<http://www.amazon.com/dp/1107609178/learninfreed>

a scholar who has been researching IQ test raw score trends and what they mean for more than thirty years. Flynn has discovered that people who were the brightest (highest in IQ) at younger ages grow old with a pattern of decline that is more steep for their strongest abilities than people who are nearer the average in IQ, a phenomenon he calls the "bright tax." Commentary on that observation

[http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/28/are-we- getting-s...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2012/sep/28/are-we-getting- smarter-review)

<http://www.jasoncollins.org/2012/12/the-bright-tax/>

will get you started in thinking about the issue, but I think any Hacker News reader interested in research on human intelligence really owes it to himself or herself to read Flynn's latest book in full, as I finished doing last weekend.

All of James R. Flynn's books are readable and thought-provoking, full of information you can't find anywhere else. Here is what the late Arthur Jensen said about Flynn back in the 1980s: "Now and then I am asked . . . who, in my opinion, are the most respectable critics of my position on the race-IQ issue? The name James R. Flynn is by far the first that comes to mind." Modgil, Sohan & Modgil, Celia (Eds.) (1987) Arthur Jensen: Concensus and Controversy New York: Falmer. Here's what Charles Murray says in his back cover blurb for Flynn's book What Is Intelligence?: "This book is a gold mine of pointers to interesting work, much of which was new to me. All of us who wrestle with the extraordinarily difficult questions about intelligence that Flynn discusses are in his debt." As N. J. Mackintosh (IQ and Human Intelligence 1998, p. 104) writes about the data Flynn found: "the data are surprising, demolish some long-cherished beliefs, and raise a number of other interesting issues along the way." Flynn has earned the respect and praise of any honest researcher who takes time to read the scholarly literature on human intelligence. Robert Sternberg, Ian Deary, Stephen Pinker, Stephen Ceci, Sir Michael Rutter, and plenty of other eminent psychologists recommend Flynn's research.

Another comment I can make about this blog post is that right now the Baby Boom has aged fully into middle age, and is beginning to age into old age, so the largest population cohort in American history until recently will increasingly demand attention to the issues of aging. The Baby Boom, because it is a numerous population cohort, has much influence on United States society, and that's why "classic rock" has never ceased to have radio airplay since that genre of music was first released as top 40 hits. Since millions of Americans are aging, but still think of themselves as young people belonging to a generation of young people, we can expect more blog posts and other popular writings on the topic of changes in individual intelligence in the aging process, and we may as well read sound research on the topic. Another good popular book with a lot of information on human intelligence over the course of the lifespan is IQ Testing 101 by Alan S. Kaufman.

[http://www.amazon.com/IQ- Testing-101-Psych/dp/0826106293/lea...](http://www.amazon.com/IQ- Testing-101-Psych/dp/0826106293/learninfreed)

<comment><USER6> And your post reads like a by-the-numbers homework answer or someone who is plugging Flynn's book. Merely citing references doesn't give you a coherent argument.

IQ is meaningless as a predictor of effectiveness in life. Practical intelligence relates to all sorts of attributes, of which I think the most important is experience (or possibly the ability to just get down and work). IQ is an abstract measure of problem solving ability, valued only by people who think they have a high number to brag about. Experience and age confers judgement, this helps you know which are the right problems to solve and how to solve those problems effectively.

<comment><USER7> While I get where you're coming from, I don't think you've come very far. IQ is not meaningless as a predictor at all - it correlates with income, and income correlates with some measures of impact.

Stating that the rate of IQ change is associated with the measured IQ is very relevant to the topic of brain functions and age, though not directly to improvement with age. That said, I too found the aside on Flynn's reputation to be distracting.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I always think of it a bit like the arc of Michael Jordan's career. At 23 he could fly and was very fast, but he couldn't shoot very well, and his game was unpolished. At 33 he was far wiser, understood the game a lot better, needed to exert less energy to accomplish as much or more, and he could shoot far better and had developed a lot of useful moves to get off a shot.

I feel like our mental capabilities follow an arc of that sorts.

<comment><USER9> I believe it's the same in every field of work. Even working in the garden or doing some fixing around the house. I'm now approaching 40 and find myself much more physically able than I was 10 years ago, mainly because I'm more patient and know better how to use my body.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> The article doesn't give much information although I believe (believe, not know) that our brain deals with middle age in a smart way.

What is interesting to me is that one factor of brain ageing is the way our society is organized: we can't spend a lot of time learning after the university or when we don't have a lot of time to write code obsessively.

</comment><comment><USER11> As with all heuristic building there are benefits and drawbacks, but my main criterion for judgement is: Are these heuristics going to help you get better in the future?

In general I find the answer is no, for the same reasons the author points out: Slower to adapt to a new environment. With faster rates of technology adoption older brains will be left in the dust as we start to capture their long term heuristics into models of social behavior that we can integrate into our decision models through our new technologies.

</comment><comment><USER12> I have to agree that self-control does dramatically improve with age for most people.

From what I've seen, my own father and grandfather is still sharp as a razor, easily faster than most guys my age and far wiser.

For now, eat a few kg of blueberries everyday and take some alpha lipoic acid. Also, donate to anti-aging research if you have the money.

<comment><USER13> A few _kg_ of blueberries a day? All my food for one day together weighs less than that. Did you mean grams? That seems low, but kg/week is still way too high.

<comment><USER14> Blueberries consist mostly of water(proteins, carbs and fat make total of 7.5 grams per 100 grams, more or less rest is water), so they aren't very rich in calories(44 kcal per 100 grams). Of course all sorts of berries would rather be an supplement than a primary energy source in the first place.

But indeed, kilograms per day? Sounds too much to be optimal, and relevancy for aging or combating it from perspective of brain development is totally left out, which makes the whole claim even more astounding. Sources or gtfo! :)

<comment><USER15> It's quite easy to eat a lot of berries in one go - I can manage 454g of strawberries in a sitting, no problem - but I still think more than kilo or two of blueberries would be a tall order.

Besides, think of the cost! Here are some US prices, as best I can tell. Anywhere from $20/72oz - i.e., $9.80/kg!

[http://marketnews.usda.gov/portal/fv;jsessionid=PU352BENXFFU...](http://marketnews.usda.gov/portal/fv;jsessionid=PU352BENXFFUSCQKAFOSFEQ?paf_dm=full&paf_gear_id=1200002&startIndex=1&dr=1&rowDisplayMax=25&repType=termPriceDaily&dr=1&locName=&commAbr=BLUBY&commName=BLUEBERRIES)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was particularly struck by this line:

"Younger brains, predictably, are set up to focus on the negative and potential trouble."

Could this have some relevance on the excessive negativity HN comments have been accused of recently? What are the age demographics of this site's most active users?

</comment><comment><USER17> In one word: Experience

I see some correlation with what Malcolm Gladwell talked about in his book 'Blink'.

The article is weak in citing facts/research though. (May be I should read the author's book which I imagine was the intent for the post!).

</comment><comment><USER18> That's interesting, but does the software industry agree or disagree?

<comment><USER2> Does it matter if the software industry agree or not? Reality decides if older people are better programmers.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lol... Whatever makes you sleep better at night, you old farts.

<comment><USER20> Better an old fart than a young shit, eh? ;)</comment></comment>


The Startup Paradox - <AUTHOR> http://shsceo.com/2015/02/10/the-startup-paradox-why-startups-turn-into-companies-turn-into-startups/

<comment><AUTHOR> A blog post about why Startups turn into Companies turn into Startups. Playing on some observations on why so many startups that turn into company lose their rank.</comment>


Heirs of Infocom: Where interactive fiction authors and games stand today - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2013/06/heirs-of-infocom-where-interactive-fiction-authors-and-games-stand-today/ <comment><USER2> I expected to see more about Twine.[1] It's _really_ simple, but it lets you build a "Choose Your Own Adventure" story easily. People who haven't programmed before have picked it up and done interesting things with it. I like the HyperCard analogy.[2]

[1] [http://gimcrackd.com/etc/src/](http://gimcrackd.com/etc/src/)

[2] [http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/twine-and-the-art-of- person...](http://motherboard.vice.com/blog/twine-and-the-art-of-personal- games)

</comment><comment><USER3> So if you're interested I recommend Emily Short: [https://emshort.wordpress.com/](https://emshort.wordpress.com/) as a general guide/jumping off point to the modern scene

<comment><USER4> And anything that Zarf writes or recommends.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Plotkin](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Plotkin) [http://www.eblong.com/zarf/if.html](http://www.eblong.com/zarf/if.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I have a soft spot for interactive fiction. The only game I ever finished writing was an IF game that took place on my college campus (I created it using AGT[1], and was impressed that I could keep track of time to have locations behave differently when visited.)

I was super proud of myself for about a half a day before my roommate showed me that he had created our dorm as a level in Duke Nukem 3D, which proceeded to occupy all of us over a local IPX network for weeks.

It seems like smartphones and tablets definitely represent an opportunity for a resurgence, You could even utilize the platforms built-in text-to-speech and whatnot.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_Game_Toolkit](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adventure_Game_Toolkit)

</comment><comment><USER6> Big fan of Frotz on iOS. I've played a few z-machine games over the last couple of years.

Funny thing is, my primary "in bed" reading device is also my iphone -- light, good screen, and easy to shut down when I am done.

<comment><USER7> How does Frotz deal with the "no interpreters" rule in App Store?

<comment><USER8> Technically, the rule is "no interpreters that download code". To get around it, it bundles a decent chunk of the if-archive in the app and then registers as something that can open z-machine game files (so you can use Frotz to open a game from Dropbox, after downloading in Mobile Safari, etc.).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If you haven't played Spider and Web, you need to! One of the undisputed classics: [http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=2xyccw3pe0uovfad](http://ifdb.tads.org/viewgame?id=2xyccw3pe0uovfad)

</comment><comment><USER10> I thought all the AAA publishers switched to interactive films after they gave up on making video games.

</comment><comment><USER11> I recommend Anchorhead (1998). Inspired by Lovecraft, very well written. Puzzles are either simple or very logical, the biggest danger is that you miss an item or don't map properly. Atmosphere is at least as good as in Lovecraft books. And it's free.

</comment><comment><USER12> YES! It never occurred to me, but the limited interfaces of smartphones are a perfect arena for interactive fiction without the grossly expensive visual collateral of so many modern PC and game station games.

<comment><USER8> For the most part, with the exception of keyboards. Without a physical keyboard, you're either giving up screen real estate (i.e. text you can read) or the keyboard is appearing and disappearing (which I find breaks my immersion in the game). Games are still playable, but there are also interface annoyances, sadly.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> I was curious to see if I could get my hands on the documentary but the order page says "US Only". Is there a way for us Europeans to get a hold of a copy?

</comment><comment><USER14> I'm not ashamed to say that I still play Hamurabi/Sumer after all these years...

</comment><comment><USER15> Heh. Reminds me of the days when I used to run a Z-code interpreter on my Palm V.

</comment><comment><USER16> FYI, Reconstructing Remy does appear to be available for iOS now.</comment>


Python 2.7.15 released – the last 2.7 release - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/991170064417153025 <comment><USER2> Guido van Rossum just tweeted:

I misread the original post -- it's the _latest_ , not the _last_. Maybe I was _hoping_ it's the last, but the intention of the team is not to stop supporting it now. Apologies!

<comment><USER3> Yep [https://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/991325420141228032](https://twitter.com/gvanrossum/status/991325420141228032)</comment></comment>


Twitter Raises $35 Million Series C From Benchmark and IVP, Others - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/02/13/twitter-raises-third-round-of-funding-from-benchmark-and-ivp/ <comment><USER2> I thought VC money was funding to build your idea before you had enough revenue from your users. Twitter is built, has millions of users and still need funding to continue? When is the honeymoon over?

Apparently never for the chosen few.

<comment><USER3> You can't really rely on VC money forever, at some point someone will actually want a business model.

IMHO I'd be really surprised if anyone buys twitter, but who knows. If someone does, it'll probably be another VC backed site with no business model either.

<comment><USER4> You understand that with a 250M valuation, the sale is going to have to be at 500M minimum. What "VC backed site with no business model either" is going to be able to afford that?

<comment><USER5> Don't know where do you get that understanding from. Google's current market cap is 112B, its total revenue (2008) is 21B. It used to be that price/sale ratio is 10 for startups, which means they need 25M revenue to be valued at 250M. Even if P/S is massively compressed these days, they still only need about 50M to worth that valuation. 50M sale for twitter given the usage is definitely feasible.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wonder how much equity the founders have now.

<comment><USER7> About 15% less than they had before this round.

<comment><USER8> But still enough to get rich...again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> just goes to show, that its much easier raising cash when you don't need it

<comment><USER10> When you're spending money like there is no tomorrow and you still have to really find your business model I don't think that qualifies as being in a state where you don't need external cash. Twitter needs it worse than a junkie needs a fix, without external money flowing in they would probably not last another 6 months.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> BREAKING: Twitter files to become a bank holding company, in line to receive TARP funds. MORE TO COME /siren

</comment><comment><USER12> Just when I thought it couldn't become any more ludicrous...

<comment><USER13> What are they going to spend this money on?

<comment><USER14> My guess is that they aren't, by and large. This is a recession-insurance round, to make sure they have all the runway they need even if things get so fucked that their first shots at revenue generation don't take.

<comment><USER13> Fair enough... But what have they spent any money on thus far? They have a small team and a bunch of servers. I'm having trouble placing the need for this amount of money plus the other rounds.

<comment><USER13> To follow up... According to their crunchbase page they have raised $55M. Their website says they have 33 employees (more then I thought).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> For all the comments about twitter being a money burning machine, you have to admit they are in many ways "upstream of revenue" (<http://www.paulgraham.com/good.html> \- second paragraph under examples). They have a lot of users. That's only half the equation, but it's one more half than most companies have.

<comment><USER10> second that. I personally don't even 'get' twitter but I'm happy they got their investment and I'm sure that if they play their cards wisely they'll do just fine.

Everybody that is second guessing them here should go and prove that they can do a better job, for now the twitter folk are doing a better job than 99% of anybody bitching about them. You _wished_ you were in the possession of even a small share of that money burning machine. They've been very selective about the rate at which they dillute which is showing quite a bit of restraint, they've already rebuffed several buy out offers so it looks like they know what they're doing and they are playing their cards very close to their chest.

Watch and learn.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> So it's somewhere between $7-35 per active user?

</comment><comment><USER17> Is Twitter actually just money burning machine?

<comment><USER18> No! It also allows you to tell the world what you're doing - in 140 characters or less..

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Twitter is in the news a lot. At the Davos summit it seemed to be the only positive story in the entire world (twitter being used by legit journalists). It just works for a whole lot of folks. I suspect the new investors current opinion is that they just got the best deal of 09.

</comment><comment><USER20> Twitter's blog entry on this news:

<http://blog.twitter.com/2009/02/opportunity-knocks.html>

</comment><comment><USER21> This twitter business is a joke. Over-hyped much?</comment>


TechStars Debuts Nine Startups In Boston  - <AUTHOR> http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/09/10/techstars-debuts-nine-startups-in-boston/ <comment><USER2> On the surface TempMine seems like it has potential, but I can't imagine why a temp agency would donate its industry contacts and its "best" temp contacts to TempMine and pay 1% for the privilege.

I don't think they're fooling anyone about their plans to compete as a what is effectively just another temp agency.

Why not be straight about it and start connecting temps with companies straightaway? This plan also has the virtue of being plausibly profitable.

 _edit_ Apparently, this is what manpower.com does.

</comment><comment><USER3> I'm working on a project similar to HaveMyShift. Interesting.

<comment><USER4> Their pickup in Chicago-area Starbucks is _insane_. I've known about it for a while, and on the rare occasions I deign to go into a Starbucks, I ask the staff there about HMS. Every single Starbucks has been a hit. It's crazy. If I were ADP or Paychex, I'd offer whatever it took to buy them out now, before it becomes huge.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> As someone working from Portland, Maine (for a company back in SF), it's cool to see start ups out here. Best of luck to the folks at AccelGolf in Portland!

</comment><comment><USER6> I wish all these startups the best of luck.. I personally don't find anything too thrilling from this group, but the golf application looks very cool.</comment>


Responding to Firefox 0-days in the wild - <AUTHOR> https://blog.coinbase.com/responding-to-firefox-0-days-in-the-wild-d9c85a57f15b <comment><USER2> One of the people referenced in this account wrote their own summary of events:

[https://robertheaton.com/2019/06/24/i-was-7-words-away- from-...](https://robertheaton.com/2019/06/24/i-was-7-words-away-from-being- spear-phished/)</comment>


Ask HN: Do non-English speaking countries need localized CodeAcademy? - <AUTHOR>

<comment><USER2> As a non-native English speaker, I'd say, that those aspiring developers need to learn English.

In all other technical fields English is a priority. It shouldn't and indeed isn't any different in the realms of programming.</comment>


The 'deeper why' of open source - <AUTHOR> http://thoughts.unicoder.io/the-deeper-why-of-open-source

<comment><USER2> My switch from Microsoft to the world of open source 8 years ago was like taking the red pill — absolutely transformation in how I thought about and now build software.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, good point, I didn't even mention Microsoft. I've used open source to live without them for decades, I guess.

</comment></comment><comment> vezzy-fnord I wonder why some people are so insistent on ignoring the words "free software", or less ambiguously, "free and open source software".

Is it because they have this incorrect strawman notion of radical Stallmanism embedded in their minds when these words appear in their head, or because they're simply unaware?

Absolutely nothing against open source projects, but speaking about the betterment of society through open source software is puerile, given that open source is a purely pragmatic issue.

<comment><USER3> "Open Source" is the software equivalent of Robert Boyle's modern experimental scientific method which rests on the open publication of what you did so that anyone else can do it too. This is the foundation of the Industrial Revolution and the modern world. Note that Boyle died in 1691.

Given the betterment of society that has been created since that time, I think that your "puerile" comment is both too extreme and ill-informed. Yes, a lot of people out there are channeling Stallman, and maybe many of them are puerile hero worshipers, but Open Source does not rest on a foundation of Stallmanism. He was just one of many proponents of open publication, and groups which preceded him like IBM's SHARE followed the same well-established principles.

<comment><USER4> Thats just plain wrong and revisionism. The creation of "open source" is well documented by Eric S. Raymond - its creator.

We do live in the age of perfectly kept records. The emails are there. The 1998 announcement of a source code release for Navigator, the described need for a more business friendly term for _free software_ , and the creation of the open source initiative.

To be precise, Open Source rest on the creation made by Raymond, which in turn rest on the foundation of Free software, which in turn rest on Stallman, which in turn rest on the hacker culture of the MIT lab, which in turn rest on ... and so on and so on. Somewhere down there, IBM SHARE could be mentioned, and further down, Robert Boyle, and even further down, the medieval guilds, and before that, the library of Alexandria.

So instead of arguing the absurd argument that the Industrial Revolution somehow created "open source", use the perfectly kept record that its inventor made. Everything else will just sound as advocacy for your faith and revisionism.</comment></comment></comment>


Make Your Own Celluloid Ruby Gem - <AUTHOR> http://verboselogging.com/2013/02/11/make-your-own-celluloid

<comment><USER2> Disappointed that this is about ruby something or other, and not about homebrew kodachrome.

(<http://hackaday.com/2009/12/08/homebrew-kodachrome/>)

([http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919...](http://www.flickr.com/photos/dark_orange/sets/72157603226919391/))

> _In this set you will find random photos and information on a project a > friend has undertaken - a machine to make his own camera film._

> _Plastic and goop go in one end, and camera film comes out the other end. > This is not a trivial undertaking._

([http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/45479-film-coating- machi...](http://www.apug.org/forums/forum205/45479-film-coating-machine- homemade-flickr.html))

<comment><USER3> Those links are far more fascinating than "yet another ruby lib". I too was hoping the original submission was about homebrew film or plastic. The earliest plastic goods were made from celluloid.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I must be the only person who thought this was about the gem using Actor pattern. Great write-up. I really appreciated it as concurrency was something I've been looking into and was about to start toying with the Celluloid gem. This was a really good, clear example with useful code. Thanks!

Of course, adding the word "gem" to the title might indeed help. Now, an article on creating the material celluloid would indeed be awesome... volunteers?

<comment><USER5> I'm really glad to see more folks discussing Celluloid and actor-model based concurrency in Ruby, too!

If you liked this article, you may also enjoy "A gentle introduction to actor- based concurrency"(*), which shows how to solve the dining philosopher's problem using Ruby threading primitives, celluloid, and a made-from-scratch actor model similar to what is shown in this article:

<https://practicingruby.com/articles/shared/plgjjonrkggl>

Disclaimer: I am the editor for practicingruby.com, and this is one of our contributed articles (from Alberto Fernandez-Capel).

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I guess the hard part is getting a good supply of guncotton:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guncotton#Uses>

</tongueincheek>

<comment><USER7> Despite using ruby, I was immensely disappointed this article wasn't about materials science. Misleading title, guys

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Sorry, didn't realize "celluloid" meant something else. Changed the title.</comment>


Hidden Features of JavaScript - <AUTHOR> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/61088/hidden-features-of-javascript <comment><USER2> It's rather silly how SO closes relevant interesting questions if they don't fit their narrowly defined QA "format"</comment>


Trump team considers nationalizing 5G network - <AUTHOR> https://www.axios.com/trump-team-debates-nationalizing-5g-network-f1e92a49-60f2-4e3e-acd4-f3eb03d910ff.html <comment><USER2> Perhaps it's the Trump name in the headline, but this seems worthy of much more attention/debate than it has received, given the potential impact.

</comment><comment><USER3> Also confirmed by Reuters: [https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- trump-5g/trump-securi...](https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- trump-5g/trump-security-team-sees-building-u-s-5g-network-as-option- idUSKBN1FH103)

First sentence of the Reuters article:

"President Donald Trump's national security team is looking at options to counter the threat of China spying on U.S. phone calls that include the government building a super-fast 5G wireless network, a senior administration official said on Sunday"

<comment><USER4> It's interesting how in most previous administrations, newspapers would simply say "The Whitehouse." After all, it's more than just Trump. Really it's all the lobbyist, advisers and special interest groups that really run the country.

Second, the China thing is just so stupid on so many levels. Exactly where are we going to get all the infrastructure to build a 5G network? It all gets manufactured in China. So whatever intentional and unintentional security holes are in that hardware, it's going to come over here anyway.

<comment><USER5> It sounds a lot like the effort to push Apple to build iPhone in US. End of day, consumers pay for it. It's hard to see how it could work economically.

<comment><USER6> I think electronics could work in the US. Lead times are very important. It takes a very long time for a component to arrive from Shenzen. If you have a domestic electronics industry, even a bad one, it's always at a huge advantage - since they're just a phonecall away. If you have an acceptable one, you can have really low inventory, make phones as people buy them, and cut a corner on your competitors that way.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19 Delirium (Distorted Reality): Its Roots and Aftermaths - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/microbial-instincts/covid-19-delirium-its-roots-and-aftermaths-59f92c58d2b <comment><USER2> The flu also also causes significant delirium in hospitalized patients:

[https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12177](https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/irv.12177)

Brain swelling caused by the flu is more dangerous than swelling caused by SARS, this research was done in 2013. We don't know if applies to SARV COV2, but it is a positive sign.

At this time the "discovery" that COVID-19 causes delirium in hospitalized patients should not cause anyone to panic, as it is a well known side effect of SARS like viruses.

Why it is being presented so sensationally I cannot say, it has been known for three months that patients with severe symptoms that originate in the nose (not chest) are in danger of a mild encephalopathy.</comment>