MSBuild is going cross-platform with .NET Core - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.msdn.com/b/dotnet/archive/2015/09/03/msbuild-is-going-cross-platform-with-net-core.aspx <comment><USER2> I know MSBuild gets a lot of hate but this is still great news. The end goal of having a .Net project be compile-able on Windows, Linux and Mac is going to be awesome. I'm curious, when everything is finally done, what the adoption rates will be like. Will hard-core Linux users who used Java migrate when it makes sense? Will they avoid it because "M$"?

All good stuff.

<comment><USER3> 1 year ago, yes. C# is awesome as a language but I don't see a reason to switch to .net when the JVM has Kotlin, which is nicer than C#, but still super lightweight and thoroughly pragmatic.

<comment><USER4> Cool! How would you build an app for iOS and WinPhone using Kotlin?

<comment><USER5> Don't know about Windows Phone, but for iOS you could use RoboVM.

[http://robovm.com/](http://robovm.com/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Now I can hate every moment of its existence on more than one platform!

Having dealt with it for years, it's unadulterated pain and bad performance and nothing else.

<comment><USER7> I used to work at a mostly-Microsoft shop and I cannot fathom why anyone would want to deal with MSBuild for other platforms. There are so many better alternatives. And as bad as MSBuild is for building .NET stuff, at least it's the right tool for that job. Trying to shoehorn it into some other stack entirely, which you know is just going to cause even more pain? No. Just no.

<comment><USER6> What's even worse is that I recently jumped into asp.net 5 and tripped over three build systems and a pile of cack just trying to get it off the ground. Now msbuild as well!?!

Also its not even the right tool to build .net stuff. Add the shoddy dependency resolution steps plus the shitty performance of NTFS on lots of small files (MFT contention) we have to wait 8 minutes for a build. I wrote my own system in powershell and we're down to two minutes. Also, powershell sucks awfully too but that's another story.

Frustratingly I've played around with golang on and off for around two years now. I've not written anything significant in it yet (lack of opportunity more than anything else). You know what's cool about it?

I mastered the entire build system in about an hour and its the same on all platforms and it _just works_ and works quickly.

MS: go look there for some inspiration. Building stuff for the CLR is horrible.

<comment><USER8> Something like Cake ([http://cakebuild.net/](http://cakebuild.net/)), Bau ([https://github.com/bau-build/bau](https://github.com/bau-build/bau)) or Psake ([https://github.com/psake/psake](https://github.com/psake/psake)) are much better than using MSBuild.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Hoo boy, MSBuild was always by far my least-favorite part of being a .NET developer. I would like to flippantly say they should just throw it away and replace it, but probably much too late for that.

<comment><USER10> I have no strong opinions for or against MSBuild. What is it that you dislike about it? Or what is it that other tools do that MSBuild fails to do?

PS - I have done a lot of .Net development, but rarely did anything beyond the basics with MSBuild directly (mostly via Visual Studio, or took the pre- generated command line and stuck in a script).

<comment><USER9> I really hated the language you use to describe build tasks. It is a very frustrating mix of declarative and imperative syntax. And of course, who _wouldn 't_ want to write code in XML?! (XML, the markup language, the one we use for marking up information like documents and records.)

I was doing fairly complicated tasks with it years ago, and it's just one of those technologies that feels like it is fighting you at every turn. This was for continuous integration stuff and developer-productivity tools, not "open up Visual Studio and click the button". Thankfully much of that has been obviated over the years by things like NuGet and Octopus coming around.

<comment><USER11> > I really hated the language you use to describe build tasks.

Yup. For some reason that escapes rationality, MS chose to control the build through Workflow Foundation. And they build a horribly complicated WF "script". Pretty much universally hated.

But you may be pleased to know that they have now abandoned that, and each build task can now be described pretty much by the scripting language of your choosing.

<comment><USER9> Ah, that is nice. .NET seems to have a wonderful property where even if they start out with something dumb, they eventually come to their senses and do the right thing. Sure can take a while to get there, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> While at Microsoft in early 2000s when MsBuild was first seen (I helped with the initial integration into CoreXT) I attempted to find the person responsible for <Output TaskParameter="Y" PropertyName="X" /> to scream at them. Unfortunately the repo doesn't have pre-open-source history :(

</comment><comment><USER13> This is just a part of MS larger new open source initiative for legacy systems. ASP.net 5+ projects will be using DNX [https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/DNX- utility](https://github.com/aspnet/Home/wiki/DNX-utility) which is already open sourced.

</comment><comment><USER14> The talk about first-class support for packages and dependency comprehension is interesting. At a minimum, having a native NuGet task - or have it be default behavior of the MSBuild task - vs. having to run restore/install via Exec would be very nice.

MSBuild is not a great tool, but it's not awful either. I would not be depressed or angry at having to use it to build something on Linux.

</comment><comment><USER15>
        MSBuild has a long history: It started out
        in 2005 as a part of the .NET Framework
        itself, and became an integral component
        of Visual Studio over time. Most recently,
        Microsoft's build engine found a new home
        in the Tools for Software Engineers (TSE)
        team in Microsoft's Cloud and Enterprise group.

What's funny, though, is that the MSBuild team was originally part of Visual Studio Core, which also owned devenv.exe, the Visual Studio SDK, Projects and Solutions, the editor, and—perversely—Visual SourceSafe.

</comment><comment><USER16> One can only hope this effort improves the miserable MSBuild documentation. Exposure to the .Net ecosystem and MSBuild are recently events for me, and I can't say I've had a day where I've not cursed out either the documentation for Azure or MSBuild. Thank god I found a single reference in a single engineering blog post to the very very beta at the time ARM Resource explorer many months ago (resources.azure.com). It was the only way I was able to reverse engineer the ARM provisioning templates since _nothing_ was documented.

Now if the people responsible for all this awesome effort in cross platform tools and open sourcing products could go down to the licensing and support divisions and bust some heads, I might be willing to continue working on the platform. But as it is, I've been playing 10 hour Bangalore ping-pong for almost a month now trying to get them to acknowledge the Azure support contract that was paid for a month before that! Ultimately, if Microsoft doesn't fix their baroque and Kafkaesque licensing and support process, all this work is going to be for naught.

</comment><comment><USER17> This is good news but little bit too late. Microsoft strategy of sticking with windows to slow down Linux and Mac back fired . If they opened up .Net few years back cross platform app development landscape would have been totally different today.

<comment><USER18> I don't know why you think it is too late? Do you think people aren't going to embrace cross-platform .NET?

<comment><USER19> Probably because it just has to do with something related to microsoft. For some reason, people just hate Microsoft. Even though they produce some of the best development tools... people still hate them. In the words of taylor swift, "And the haters gonna hate, hate, hate, hate, hate"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In my opinion, Microsoft should think about making their compilers/linkers make-friendly, e.g providing cross-compilers ("cl.exe", separated compiler and linker).

</comment><comment><USER21> what's the core advantage over make/rake?

<comment><USER22> Historically the project files in C# apps included msbuild configuration. Also a lot of nuget packages include a.targets file, which also contains msbuild configuration. For compatibility reasons if you are using the .net ecosystem you need msbuild.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why would I want to deal with MS on any other platform? I want nothing to do with that company out of principal and I hope we can do a equally harmful shut out of MS in the future, they deserve their own medicine.

No, into the trash it goes.

<comment><USER24> >Why would I want to deal with MS on any other platform?

Because C# is a great language.

<comment><USER25> Sure. But when you are looking cross platform there are much better languages than C#.

<comment><USER26> IMO, not with anything approaching the install base/jobs/tooling/etc. of C#, and you get the ability to practically use F# when appropriate.

Also, how many big "enterprise" shops are doing interop between a C-Style language and an ML-style language? Probably not many, and almost certainly more are doing it with C#/F# than anything else.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Medical study finally puts parachutes to randomized controlled trial - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2018/12/22/679083038/researchers-show-parachutes-dont-work-but-there-s-a-catch <comment><USER2> excellent</comment>


What's the Point If We Can't Have Fun? (Why the Universe Plays) - <AUTHOR> http://thebaffler.com/past/whats_the_point_if_we_cant_have_fun/

<comment><USER2> Nice article. The last part of the article is just like supposing that everybody want to be happy. I had ever argued with a friend for whatever humans do is just for happiness, and he finally referred to determinism.</comment>


Pittsburgh Hacker News Meetup: Saturday, March 28th at 9PM at Church Brew Works - <AUTHOR> http://www.churchbrew.com/

<comment><USER2> It's good to see a Hacker News meetup starting in Pittsburgh. People interested in this event may also be interested in attending DevHouse Pittsburgh 8, which is happening this Thursday (March 19). <http://devhousepgh.org/>

<comment><USER3> there are more important things happening on march 19th:

[http://stackin.hauntedshit.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/20...](http://stackin.hauntedshit.com/wp- content/uploads/2009/03/2009-03_lazercrunk_web_final.jpg)

:)

<comment><AUTHOR> Have you listened to The Glitch Mob's most recent mixtape? It's the pinnacle of this genre. I wish they would come to Pittsburgh.

[http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/101698/The%20Glitch%20Mob%20-%20C...](http://dl.getdropbox.com/u/101698/The%20Glitch%20Mob%20-%20Crush%20Mode.mp3)

<comment><USER3> had not, thanks for the link

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> CBW is amazing. unique atmosphere and some really good beer. if only I still lived in pittsburgh :(

</comment><comment><USER5> A tech meetup in Pittsburgh that /isnt/ on a Thursday night? Shocking. :)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Send me an email if you're interested in coming to this or future Pittsburgh events and I will add you to our email list.

</comment><comment><USER6> Other people live in Pittsburgh?

<comment><AUTHOR> If you listen to the NY Times, maybe the better question is "who wouldn't want to live in Pittsburgh?" (it is a rhetorical question, it should not be answered)

<http://travel.nytimes.com/2008/07/06/travel/06hours.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does anybody else wonder if the concept of that restaurant is a bit sacrilegious?

</comment><comment><USER8> Damn, I'm stuck at another party that night, keep me posted on future meetups.

</comment><comment><USER9> Awesome! A Pittsburgh Hacker News meetup, count me in.

</comment><comment><USER10> Wish I was in town then.

</comment><comment><USER11> Looking forward to seeing you all, the tech and business talk, and the random beer sampler (without placemat index).</comment>


What's wrong with Twitter? - <AUTHOR>

I'm curious to get some feedback here.  Sorry for the loaded question but I'm hoping to gain a sense for what this group thinks about Twitter and their partner ecosystem.  To begin with if you use Twitter (or identi.ca) are there limitations that should be explored via the platform or third party?  If you did try it but don't anymore what happened? <comment><USER2> I think if you're a social "hub" yourself, such as an Arrington or a Gruber, it's ideal.

If you're a techie who needs to actually get work done on hard technical problems, it's a total disaster, time- and distraction-wise.

One analogy would be the tech pundit (forget whom it was) who said reading the NYT at breakfast would send him into a mental maelstrom for the rest of the day, on overload. Twitter is like 100 micro-NYTs. ;-)

At least that's my (admittedly short stabs of, now and then) experience.

[Edit:] I suppose if you had a reasonably-sized close group of associates who only twittered a few times a day, you could keep it under control as a 'water cooler' experience.

<comment><AUTHOR> So in your case....dealing with a hard technical problem the current establishment of forums for richer discussions and interaction could leverage the power of community, no? Would a microblog version of what is now specific forums be enough of an experience to handle the majority of what needs to be covered? Would you be willing to participate in this manner if there was an extra step to finding the specific conversation home (within the platform) for the request, question, or dialogue?

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> for me, signal < noise.

<comment><USER4> Doesn't that just mean you're following the wrong people? It's not like Twitter forces you to listen to (or continue to listen to) people when you're not getting value from them.

<comment><AUTHOR> Glad you brought that up....what is valuable in twitter? The tangential ramblings of a handpicked group? I would argue that only a small subset of even the very best lists actually equates to value for most users.

<comment><USER4> I've used Twitter to poll peers, learn new things, coordinate meetups, find out breaking news, discover useful resources, and more. All of those are valuable to me.

In the end, it's what's valuable to you. If you can't (or don't want to) find a group of people to follow that you find interesting, helpful, or whatever, that's fine. Just because you (or sharpn, or my wife) don't find the service valuable doesn't mean that there's no value in it for anyone, though.

<comment><USER3> Good point - I can't find anything twitter does better _for me_ than my current behaviour, but if others do then that's great; I might find a use for it in future.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: html5 Motivation Calendar, my weekend project - <AUTHOR>

www.powermotivate.me
This is an MVProject I'd like share with you all. It's a very simple Seinfeld calendar, inspired by a certain comment on HN[1]. It's built using Raphael.js and Backbone.js. The website is 100% static (it's hosted on Amazon S3), and the X marks are saved in your browser's local storage.
The source is on github[2], along with a TODO list if you so feel inclined to improve it :)
[1] http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2331650
[2] http://github.com/mindeavor/powermotivate.me <comment><AUTHOR> Click a date to mark an X: <http://www.powermotivate.me>

</comment><comment><USER2> that really is an mvp</comment>


A review of Thomas Piketty's "Capital and Ideology" - <AUTHOR> http://bostonreview.net/class-inequality/marshall-steinbaum-thomas-piketty-takes-ideology-inequality <comment><USER3> I am reading Capital & Idelogy currently. I find interesting how Piketty challenges the view of property rights. Many think it is something completely natural, sacred. But he shows it is actually ideology. It is not "the nature of things".

As I understand it in the book, property is not, and should not be seen as, a 100% inalienable human right. If it was so, it would be completely fair that slave-owners in Haiti and Santo Domingo were paid to forego slavery, when slavery was abolished. It was seen as a compensation for this new law that reduced the value of their property: slaves. Of course, slaves themselves were not compensated. Since they were the main beneficiaries of this new law, they actually had to pay for it in some cases. This is actually what happened.

In the USA, there were discussions about a similar outcome, but the sheer enormity of the needed compensation made it impossible This was one big reason that lead to the civil war.

This is the kind of weird, morally unacceptable reasoning about property rights that you will run into if you accept property as a all-powerful, unconstestable principle.

<comment><USER4> Of course property rights are ideology. Anything to do with society and how it's organized is ideological.

I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons).

<comment><USER3> >I think we ended up with private property because the alternatives have been tried and they are worse (e.g. tragedy of the commons)

I don't thinl it is all or nothing. Private property is overall a very good idea and principle, and Piketty says that too. But when someone sees property it as inalienable right, at any level, is a problem.

For example, if one person talks about a tax based on wealth, two people can have a healthy disagreement, and discuss how to implement.

But when someone does not event want to consider it... because it would supposedly bring us back to communism dark ages, that is basic ideology in action, not rational thinking.

<comment><USER5> I think that the idea of private property as an inalienable right is rooted in the enlightenment and on the same level as human rights.

It is to protect individuals against spoliation by the state or powerful, and even to assert an even more basic right to own property at all. It obviously does not mean that property cannot be taken away from its owner but that this must follow a fair and lawful process.

<comment><USER6> The Enlightenment never really worked this through. In fact modern economics hijacks a lot of humanist rhetoric (including the idea of rationality and human rights) and glues it rather awkwardly onto concepts that are actually derived from monarchy - specifically individual sovereignty, and a kind of individualised version of divine right which elevates unlimited individual economic freedom-to-profit as the highest possible good.

It's actually a bit of a mess, conceptually and practically.

Property is really not a simple concept. Most people think of it as "Stuff I own" which reduces the argument to "I don't want the government stealing my house or my furniture," which sounds trivially obvious.

In fact _all_ claims on property are complex - see also IP, stocks, and so on - and personal ownership is always a trade-off between individual benefits and socialised/externalised costs. This doesn't just apply to extreme situations like a war economy, or impounding the proceeds of crime - it's inherent in the practice itself.

You won't find much about that in orthodox economics.

<comment><USER7> Taxes are derived from monarchy as well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> " "the Democratic Party in the United States transitioned over half a century from the workers' party to the party of the highly educated." Elites' distance from working-class interest, he contends, led the Democratic party and its ideological counterparts abroad to accede to a policy program betraying the values of social democracy: regressive taxation, elite domination of higher education systems, and forms of globalization that enabled the wealthy to hide their assets from tax authorities and trade agreements that facilitated outsourcing. "

This is great point. I see this on social media commentary all the time and wonder if educated elites being merely oblivious or totally asshole about working class concerns.

<comment><USER9> One thing to remember is that everyone thinks they're "middle class".

Even the corporate VP making half a million dollars thinks she's middle class.

<comment> frant-hartm If you stop working an can't live off your savings indefinitely you are middle class by definition.

<comment><USER4> So if I'm clearing $750K per year but spending it all on my home in Manhattan, private school for my kids and 4 weeks of international vacations per year I'm middle class?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Paul Krugman's review:

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/books/review/capital-and-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/08/books/review/capital-and-ideology-thomas-piketty.html)

Krugman liked Piketty's previous book ( _Captail-21C_ ), but concluded this one needed some more editing:

> _The bottom line: I really wanted to like "Capital and Ideology," but have > to acknowledge that it's something of a letdown. There are interesting ideas > and analyses scattered through the book, but they get lost in the sheer > volume of dubiously related material. In the end, I'm not even sure what the > book's message is. That can't be a good thing._

<comment><USER11> I once went to a talk by Nassim Nicholas Taleb after the publication of his "Skin in the Game". He said the way to make a book last is to stuff it full of ideas, stories, and wander around. A focused book doesn't last. Take it as you will.

<comment><USER12> Well, that is certainly Taleb's approach. His books do contain some good ideas, but they are wildly unfocused and borderline unreadable.

<comment><USER13> Taleb is a horrible writer, plain and simple.

Attempted to read antifragile and was hit with a wall of incomprehensible jargon. The thesis of the book seemed appealing but he's too abstract, smells like a hack.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think Piketty makes some good points.

But I still think any account of the woeful separation between the Democratic Party and the common people which ignores the rise of the pro-life movement has to be incomplete. Piketty thus misrepresents those who are concerned about the prevalence of destructive beliefs among the working class:

>"The problem" with the story of a bottom-up defection "is not just that it depends on the notion that the disadvantaged classes are by their very essence permanently racist..."

But racism, while extant, is _not_ the most significant ideological issue that separates the elites from the working class, nor can it reasonably explain their disagreements with Democrat policy -- current anti-racist policy is laughably weak, and elites are not consistently anti-racist. That award must certainly go to _religion_ , not racism.

That an elite who bemoans the disconnection between the elites and the working class could write a book about ideology which largely ignores the _predominant_ ideology among the working class in Western countries is painfully ironic. Ignore this correlation at your peril:

[https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18...](https://www.pewresearch.org/wp- content/uploads/2018/11/FT_18.11.07_howFaithfulVoted_vote-for-House2.png)

One could argue, of course, that the pro-life movement has been cultivated and manipulated for the benefit of capital. But it would be better to _actually write_ the argument. Such a key step should not be left as an exercise to the reader.

<comment><USER15> It has always been hard to reconcile the rhetoric that labels the "Democrats" as "elites" who are against the "working class" or "under class". Especially as the grandson of sharecroppers and "maids" and a relative of many other Black folk who would, in terms of wealth and household income, be in the "underclass". As an exercise, started reading the French edition — I guess even poor Black folk can be "elites"

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I was watching a documentary[1] about Sweden's shift away from social democracy in the 70's/80's time-frame that Piketty talks about.

From the way it sounds, the program of social democracy nearly destroyed the country. I would take Piketty's nostalgia for those times with a grain of salt.

[1][https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QcX6BUZlEw4)

<comment><USER17> Tl;dw documentary, but that's not a very common interpretation. That was the time when the nordic countries built their succesful system that's in place today and is widely held in high regard.

<comment><USER18> There can be too much of everything and there was too much of "social democracy" in the 70s. Author Astrid Lindgren had to pay more than 100 % tax and wrote the "childrens story" / opinion piece "Pomperipossa in Monismania"

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

Next election the social democrats lost it for the first time in 40 years.

<comment><USER19> That doesn't sound like "too much Social Democracy" so much as a badly designed law that had a weird edge case.

<comment><USER18> It is not proof in itself, far from it, but it was very debated at the time as indication of social democracy having gone to far. The fact remains, social democrats lost power at this time. However the new ruling parties were unable to reform properly. True reform only started to happen about 10 years later, in the mid 1980s or so. Johan Norberg in the documentary mentions the (social democratic) finance minister Kjell-Olof Feldt as influencal in bringing change about. I agree with that.

Sweden today is very different from the 70s, politically.

<comment><USER20> AFAIU Norberg is pretty far right [1] in Sweden, so not exactly how people there generally think.

[1] Not far right as in Nazism, but as in pro capitalism, state intervention is communism (boo hiss!).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> If anyone enjoys reading about income inequality, I also recommend Joseph Stiglitz' book called "The Price of Inequality". He speaks of inequality more from an American perspective and he's one of the thought leaders I personally like to hear from.

I am a staunch Capitalist and I'd like to see another great era of America ingenuity and invention. I think the path to solve inequality comes from creating wealth and solving big global issues in energy, health and transportation.

</comment><comment><USER22> Although I haven't read _Captial and Ideology_ , Piketty seems to be situated in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous book. He isn't critical of capitalism _as such_ [0] - as economists like Sen, Roemer, Kliman and Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the transparent ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and capital. The content of this book, between social, historical and economic axes seems closer to Marx than Samuelson - and it's refreshing in a climate that seems to take the concepts under investigation for granted. I look forward to reading it.

[0] There is a debate between Piketty and Marx-leaning philosopher/economist Frederic Lordon in French: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDY3aczWOd0](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDY3aczWOd0)

<comment><USER23> > Piketty seems to be situated in a weird place, as I gathered by his previous > book. He isn't critical of capitalism as such[0] - as economists like Sen, > Roemer, Kliman and Veneziani are, but on the other hand he is aware of the > transparent ideological forces which shape the way we view the economy and > capital.

That weird place is simply social democracy. It seems to be unpopular because it is essentially the "centrism" of the capitalism/socialism debate, and everyone hates centrists these days.

<comment><USER22> I think that's an overly generous characterization of social democracy - <USER2> only dodges the critique from right-libertarians concerning property, taxes and the role of government, and it dodges the critique from left-libertarians on capital, alienation and social domination.

It's much easier (and more historically accurate) to see social democracy, socialism and capitalism on the same axis, and not to think that social democracy transcends all hitherto established political and economic thought by The Right Choice as if by default.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Sounds like a call for the emperors new monarchy. Robin Hood "stole" back money that the monarchy had excessively taxed and "gave" it to the poor.

</comment><comment><USER24> I'm currently working my way through _Capital in the Twenty-First Century_. It's been really eye-opening about how bad inequality actually is. I suggest everyone read it, and I'm excited to read his new one soon after.

<comment><USER25> The thing I took away from Capital in the Twenty-First Century was his conjecture that the post-WWII (until about 1990) period was one of the few times in history that prosperity was widely shared with workers. The era that I consider to be normal (since I lived it) is in fact very abnormal.

<comment><USER26> Yeah, I realised that too at some point. And I immediately formed a (maybe obvious) hypothesis about the timing.

<comment><USER23> I'm assuming you don't mean communism? Because even in the book he is fairly down on communism/socialism. It seemed to me the more likely (and unpleasant) hypothesis is that war/nationalism generates growth like nothing else. When the threat of war looms and patriotism is high, government investment in technology and society is also high, and corporations are more likely to be invested in their home country rather than spreading across international boundaries looking for the best ROI. And the rapid succession of WWI/WWII/Cold War basically ensured that environment existed for decades.

<comment><USER26> Somewhat. The hypothesis was that the end of the cold war meant that a big incentive to make the common people in the west feel good about their affiliation suddenly vanished. Competition is good for the customer, after all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> We need only believe in the possibility of a better, different future to act. We need only act to manifest it.

Go vote. Go work on things that truly matter.

Edit: If you have ideological differences please consider posting a reply rather than just downvoting.

<comment><USER28> Good advice.

But in the face of power imbalances ineffective.

<comment><USER27> Sadly true. Guess it's war then?

<comment><USER29> I've been very interested lately in dual power as an alternative to both voting in a system where governments are captured agencies and also bloody revolution.

In effect, forming a network that _bypasses_ the current powers until they disappear.

<comment><USER30> You don't have to bypass the current powers, you just have to dilute them sufficiently. Currency is just a coupon you spend to redeem on human productive output (goods and services). Since the wealthy have most of the currency, they decide to "spend" human productive output on making them wealthier.

Billionaires shouldn't unilaterally decide how society spends its human productive output, that should be a decision society as a whole gets to make. How do you accomplish this? Universal basic income would dilute billionaire's ability to control how human productive output is spent, and instead, society as a whole would get to make that decision.

Inflation caused by UBI only hurts one class of people -- billionaires. Everyone else ends up better off, and has more of a say on the direction of human civilization.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> What is your definition of capitalism?

</comment><comment><USER31> > "[hyper-capitalism] is defined by unlimited international capital mobility > to evade regulation and taxation at the national level, alongside definite > limits on the ability of labor to act in the same autonomous way."

such inequities imbalance the power between labor and capital, which then destabilizes the social structures resting on these economic (and political) foundations. power is a highly dynamic, and as a result, a highly destabilizing force. no (static) socioeconomic idealogy (that we've come up with so far) can dominate it, not even capitalism.

and that means we can never truly rest in our vigilence to create and retain the properity, peace and stability that we enjoy only fleetingly.

the balance between labor and capital has tipped wildly and we need to enact measures--progressive and dynamic taxes/tariffs, both removing and enacting regulations, de-monopolizing markets, etc.--to bring it back into balance.

<comment><USER32> I'd like all belligerants to pick a target Gini Coefficient number. Then we manage to that number. Whoever is in power will push the balance towards their number.

I'm just so exhausted by all the rhetoric, kabuki, ideology, dogma, propaganda. Arguing about the placement of the deck chairs as the Titanic sinks.

<comment><USER4> Gini coefficient is a very blunt measure of inequality. You could have two countries, one with more equality, but a lower standard of living for the middle class and one country with higher inequality, but a much better standard of living for the middle class.

The 2nd (with higher inequality) is obviously preferred.

<comment><USER32> Krugman agrees with you. What's a better measure?

<comment><USER4> That's a tough question. Like most things that are complex, there is probably no one measure that accurately captures inequality.

What would make sense to me would be measuring the wealth of the majority of the population (3 middle quintiles) and then bringing up the bottom quintile to an acceptable level with transfer payments.

That reminds me as well, a lot of the inequality measures that you see _ignore_ government transfers. So yes, the Gini would measure employment income, but it's not an accurate picture of actual income at the end of the year.

<comment><USER32> FWIW, geek me would be ok with a basket of measures. Life expectancy, average weight & height, purchasing power, savings rate. I'm just hoping to find reasonably simple metrics which are least wrong proxies for larger concerns.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty disappointing.

"What I mean," Piketty says, explaining his differences with Marx, "is that your class position is not enough to determine your view of what's the best system of property, education, taxation. We need ideas and ideologies and we need to take them seriously." (Guardian in Feb). However, that is a trivially wrong mischaracterization. Marx himself was from a relatively privileged background and he, Engels, Lenin, etc have never argued for a mechanical determination of ideology.

In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political- economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place - why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and liberals ignore it at their peril.

<comment><USER34> > It's worth noting that Piketty has an astonishingly basic > misunderstanding/non-understanding of the marxist analysis of capitalism > despite the titles of his books. He hasn't even read Capital. I like his > politics relatively well as far as most liberals go but that is still pretty > disappointing.

Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since Adam Smith (and maybe before).

I think the rest of your post is wrong too. Marx does argue for a "mechanical determination of ideology". For Marx, man is the animal that labors, not a rational animal or a political animal. What matters is what you make with your body. If you labor with your body then you're a proletarian, and you will experience class consciousness from that perspective. If you make money from other people's labor, you're bourgeois, and you will experience bourgeois class consciousness.

I don't know if Marx talks about bourgeois who consider themselves Marxists (like Engels -- Marx was not bourgeois).

> In general I think his analysis is that "capitalism should just change some > specific things to reduce inequality" without any materialist, political- > economic understanding of why inequality is so rampant in the first place - > why capital's dominance comes from the structure of the economy. That is why > marxism is interesting, marxism makes a very compelling argument for it, and > liberals ignore it at their peril.

This is also bizarre. Piketty _does_ have a theory about "why inequality is so rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix it!

<comment><USER35> > Economists use the word "capital" without making reference to Marx. Marx > didn't come up with that word, it had a meaning in classical economics since > Adam Smith (and maybe before).

How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence.

> This is also bizarre. Piketty does have a theory about "why inequality is so > rampant in the first place". He just thinks we can change the laws and fix > it!

OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is not enough. The state is dependent on the bourgeoisie for its survival (see [0]), and will thus bend to their demands. So long as we have no organized and militant labor movements (and labor parties to represent them), the working class will have neither leverage over the state nor the means to enact their demands.

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#T...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marx%27s_theory_of_the_state#The_Communist_Manifesto_and_The_German_Ideology)

<comment><USER34> > How does this refute OP's point? They're really just pointing out how absurd > it is that a study on wealth inequality and class fails to even consider the > Marxist perspective. Genuine scholarly negligence.

I don't know how to break this to you...but you not everyone accepts the Marxian viewpoint. It's utterly bizarre to speak of "genuine scholarly negligence" when you mean "difference of opinion".

> OP isn't arguing that Piketty has no theory -- just that it's a pretty naive > one. A Marxist perspective understands that "changing the laws to fix it" is > not enough.

Right, and Piketty says it is. You (and the original poster) have a serious problem distinguishing between _disagreement_ and _being wrong_.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Java 14 / JDK 14: General Availability - <AUTHOR> https://mail.openjdk.java.net/pipermail/announce/2020-March/000282.html <comment><USER2> They deprecated the Solaris and SPARC ports, and some of the new features only exist on Linux. RIP platform diversity.</comment>


In-App Purchases now available for free iPhone apps - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/iphone/appstore/inapppurchase.html

<comment><AUTHOR> I think the link might require an ADC account, here's the text from the mail:

In App Purchase is being rapidly adopted by developers in their paid apps. Now you can use In App Purchase in your free apps to sell content, subscriptions, and digital services.

You can also simplify your development by creating a single version of your app that uses In App Purchase to unlock additional functionality, eliminating the need to create Lite versions of your app. Using In App Purchase in your app can also help combat some of the problems of software piracy by allowing you to verify In App Purchases.

Visit the App Store Resource Center for more details about how you can add In App Purchases to your free apps.

</comment><comment><USER2> I will be happy to see the clutter of all the "Lite" apps disappear from the App Store.

With the race-to-the-bottom economy of the App Store, though, I have to wonder if Free will be the new $.99 and every app will have a screen that says, "Oh, you want wheels with this car?"

Edit: This also makes the Top Sellers list much less relevant. Maybe that will _increase_ what people can actually charge for their apps? I hope so.

<comment><USER3> I think the "race to the bottom" was due to the initial confusion of the marketplace and lack of discipline. I am noticing many more apps charging greater than one dollar (usually 2-5) now than before and I expect the trend to continue.

I also think that apps that pull the trick you're referencing will probably get hit hard in the reviews section -- people get annoyed at that, and it tends to spark negative comments.

<comment><USER4> Yep - consider the flow. Sally installs Cool App, only to find out it asks her to pay to get the feature she wanted/was advertised/etc . She quits and goes to delete it, and the rating popup comes up - easy 1-star rating.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Interesting. I am getting slammed in reviews for having ads in my game but I have 900K unique users since June and make $150/day net (for doing nothing).

Perhaps I could integrate in-app purchases and disable the annoying ads per user once they purchase anything. That could get users invested in the possible stream of purchases, would remove complaints about ads, and could be lucrative.

<comment><USER6> Yet again I wonder who pays all these money for iPhone ads. That is something on the order of a $15 CPM for showing ads to whining anti-commercial (if fairly affluent) users.

Anyhow, I think you'll find that pathological users (i.e. ones who complain about ads) will not be improved by being told they have to pay money to play. They hate that notion, too, almost more than they hate your ads. If you switch to a free trial model, they'll hate that, too. They're unwilling to pay any price for your application.

This is one reason why I don't write software for these people.

<comment><USER7> iphone eCPM is around 0.50-0.70, and the typical demographic of an iphone user is an early 20 something.

<comment><USER5> I get a net ecpm of around $1.80 with Quattro.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> I have a hypothesis about this change: that in-app purchases were not, in fact, being adopted as rapidly as Apple hoped, and this is their response.

Adding free apps opens up a lot of new uses for in-app purchases, and should drive more usage.

<comment><USER9> +1 with some proof: [http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/21/in-app-purchases-not-so- hot-f...](http://www.tuaw.com/2009/09/21/in-app-purchases-not-so-hot-for-some- developers)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Hopefully it will lead to all of the obnoxious "Mafia Wars 10 Respect Points" apps getting out of the top listings for every games category.

</comment><comment><USER11> Good move in some respects. It will help users try out the app before paying any money and it may help developers drive more sales.

OTH we need to see whether (as mrshoe said) whether "Free" becomes the new $0.99 and if this has adverse consequences (for developers in terms of sales and for users in terms of app quality). If the app is free, it will be easier for people to write fake reviews critical of the app. I don't see any risk of "bait and switch" apps because no one is going to take the upsell if they are unhappy with the app.

</comment><comment><USER12> I paid AUS$9 this morning for a game, and I'm much happier to do that (pay upfront) than to keep being asked for $1 every few levels

</comment><comment><USER13> I wonder how this will play out marketing-wise. It's already hard to find good applications, and this will make it harder. I never look at the 'free' section, as there's mostly just crap in there, and only look at the 'top 25'. If everybody starts using in-app purchases to sell the full versions, you can't separate the free crap from the useful stuff.

<comment><USER14> I'm curious, too. Will free apps that allow you to upgrade to the "Pro" version only be listed as a "Free" app? I see that as a definite disadvantage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Quick question

Currently, if I buy an app it's available for use on both my iPod and my wife's iPhone. With in-app purchasing, will purchases be reflected across both devices? If I upgrade from demo to full on one device, do I need to pay again on the other device?

</comment><comment><USER15> This was very interesting news for us. Especially since we have had a 'lite' version of our app (comicstrips) in review for a month. Now only if we could change our paid app to free!

<comment><USER16> You can. Once you agree to the developer agreement, the "Free" option opens up on iTunes Connect. I spent a few hours tonight retrofitting my server to basically rejigger my app into a "trial mode" -- complete with no code changes in the app :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Can you actually charge customers in-app if the app is free?

I thought Jobs said that free apps would "stay free" and would only be relevant for paid apps.

<comment><USER18> Now you can. And Steve Jobs talks a lot. Most of what he says is true, but only for the moment. Nothing wrong with that, just good to know.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Interesting. This will make it possible to have servicing revenue models, with apps that are distributed for free.

</comment><comment><USER20> So anyone has looked into how exactly In App purchases work and how they could help combat piracy?

</comment><comment><USER21> has it been determined if purchase virtual currencies are allowed? the terms where a little confusing? have zynga, sgn etc reacted?

<comment><USER8> Virtual currencies are explicitly not allowed.

<comment><USER21> It's not that explicit. The terms talks about different kind of virtual currencies, my understanding is that "consumables" are allowed, as long as your currency isn't trad-able back to real money

<comment><USER22> No, it's not consumables. Virtual currency is anything which you can then trade for something else in-game. And that's not allowed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The fact that you have to have a login to see this information further highlights Apple's lack of transparency.</comment>


Why Hackers Love Cryptocurrency Miner Coinhive - <AUTHOR> https://www.pcmag.com/news/357535/why-hackers-love-cryptocurrency-miner-coinhive <comment><USER2> Great post, thanks for the information</comment>


France wants to arm satellites with guns and lasers by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://www.theverge.com/2019/7/28/8934164/france-military-space-command-satellites-guns-lasers-2030 <comment><USER2> Sure looks like we're heading towards an inevitable kessler syndrome, nobody seems to be in charge or care that much anymore.

I have a hunch that we're about two months away from news of the first satellite control hack, it's just a matter of time before that or some malfunction starts blowing things up.

</comment><comment><USER3> if you shoot for a satellite you best not miss or make a mess.

Using a submachine gun in space is ww3 territory.

</comment><comment><USER4> Guns? Why not arm them with EMP weapons? It's not beneficial to blow things in orbit to smithereens. Just keep'em in one piece if your country wants to be able to operate satellites in the future.

Also, good luck cooling a gun barrel in space.

<comment><USER5> Maybe bring back water-cooled machineguns, and pump the coolant to radiators. Shouldn't be hard really, just has some secondary consequences, such as lighting up your own satellite on every IR sensor in orbit.</comment></comment>


A year on, Ultrabooks are a worse disaster than most expected - <AUTHOR> http://semiaccurate.com/2012/10/02/a-year-on-ultrabooks-are-a-worse-disaster-than-most-expected/ <comment><USER2> For those that aren't familiar, SemiAccurate is more of a tabloid rumors site than a hardcore technology site. Sort of like The Sun for silicon.

They love to blow failures well out of proportion. BumpGate (nVidia's packaging recall problem), Fermi (nVidia's late and hot GPGPU), Tegra (nVidia's... are we seeing a pattern?)

Sort of like the drunk and bitter (but frankly more knowledgeable) uncle of ExtremeTech.

I'm a regular reader, and enjoy it, so this isn't an attack... I'm just recommending, along with the articles, an additional dose of a large grain of salt.

Especially if it's a nVidia article.

<comment><USER3> Yes, it's a pretty biased article, but I don't mind. You know why? Because he's been pretty spot on. Anyone who's been watching Intel knows how misleading Intel can be (before anyone accuses me of being an AMD fanboi or something, I own a quad core i7 SNB laptop), and it's obvious ultrabooks will not get to the magical $700 price-point anytime soon (I'm thinking 3-4 years here).

Why not? Well, because while Intel keeps promising that, they have no intention of being themselves part of that price reduction. They have no intention of reducing their prices. So they want to put the whole responsibility on manufacturers. Unfortunately for them, manufacturers have to worry about more than just CPU's to be competitive with ultrabooks. They have to worry about having a quality and high-resolution display. They have to worry about having a fast and large amount SSD, and so on.

Why is it that the laptop/PC market has been considered non-innovative in the past compared to the smartphone/tablet market? Because all the focus has been on CPU's and that has helped Intel. But now people are starting to prioritize more than the CPU in their laptops. In fact the CPU may not even be their #1 or #2 priority anymore. A good display or a good SSD or high quality materials might be.

This sucks for Intel, as the their processors are becoming _more_ than "good enough". ARM devices are "good enough" for most people in terms of performance (iPad's success is proof of that), and an Intel chip that is 10x more expensive will soon become irrelevant for most people. That price gap will just not be worth it to them.

<comment><USER4> Intel's CPU prices (like all semiconductor products) have been going steadily downward for... basically forever. I don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I guess you're saying that Intel gets a higher margin for its parts per-die- area than fabless SoC vendors do, which is undeniably true. But generally that's considered a good thing for the company, not a bad one. Intel has competing parts in the market for almost everything they sell, and _still_ manages to make a product that people are willing to pay significantly more money for.

It won't last forever, obviously. Eventually the desktop market will dissolve and servers and mobile SoCs will be all that's left. And Intel certainly seems to be aware of this, c.f. all the marketing effort being pushed into the various low-margin Atom lines.

<comment><USER3> I'm not talking about old CPU's going down in price. I'm talking about the "new" CPU's, which is what Intel will be pushing. Not like anyone still wants a cheap $20 Intel Pentium M in their laptops anymore. My point is they are overshooting in performance, and that means they are overshooting in price, too. And most consumers simply won't care. People pay $1000 or more for Macbooks because they are from Apple. They are buying the brand. It doesn't really have anything to do with pricing there. I mean, it's not like you can just say "Hey, if Apple can sell 20 million $1000+ Macbooks per year, then so can HP, or Dell!". Far from it.

<comment><USER4> I understand that you think Intel CPUs are overpriced. I'm just saying that the market is _paying_ those prices. So you're wrong, simply by definition.

Compared to essentially everyone else in the industry, Intel is printing money with their silicon. The only product area that comes close in price per die area that I can think of off-hand are high end FPGAs. And it's not as simple as saying they should just drop the price to sell more -- last I remember reading Intel's 22nm fabs are at capacity. They can only sell more Ultrabooks by cannibalizing sales of other parts.

Now, that will change in the future, but it hasn't happened yet.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> The author is dead on for one thing - an ultrabook needs to be cheaper than the comparable MacBook Air, or the average consumer will buy a Mac, because most people think Apple products are better, but "too expensive", even PC people.

Intel and Microsoft spent the last decade making PC's cheap for the masses, but they cheapened the brand experience in the process with bloatware and lazy hardware design.

Microsoft seems to get this and is willing to make their own bloatware free hardware. They're even partnering with companies like Vizio to get rid of bloatware while doing some nicer hardware design, even for relatively cheap.

Even still, most consumers at the same price will buy a Mac because it's seen as a better computer. Ultrabooks need to hit say $500-700 to be interesting, but then they're competing with the iPad 3, which is pretty popular and very nice.

<comment><USER6> I agree the problem of ultrabooks is price.. they are far more expensive than the previous generation of ultra-portables. I see this as just like the tablet market was; trying not to knock down the high price apple had set.

But an iPad does not compare to an ultrabook. There is an argument that they compare to a netbook, but not even close to an ultrabook. I wish people would stop trying to compare an iPad to high end laptops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This article seems particularly biased against Intel - it gets down to what are almost character attacks at points.

I'd love to see a more level-headed analysis of the Ultrabook space. There's over a hundred different ones now (which may in itself be a problem), and some have replaceable RAM/hard drives, some have full-height Ethernet, and it's at least made the OEMs think about decent industrial design (and in the case of Asus and Lenovo, I think that's worked).

It's not some massive panacea, but I for one welcome the new boon of lighter, thinner and better-built laptops.

</comment><comment><USER8> What exactly is the problem? My next notebook would probably be an Ultrabook, and the reviews of some of the models didn't sound so bad. Some look good, too - that alone is a huge improvement, given that until recently all notebooks except Macs were extremely ugly (in huge part owed to the tasteless use of "piano lacquer").

My only gripe at the moment is the screen formats. Once again Apple seems to be the only one that gets it right. Those widescreens are just too tiny (all 13'' are not the same).

What other computer besides an Ultrabook would you buy (Apple excluded)? I praise lightness above most other features.

<comment><USER9> I don't think you can exclude Apple when looking for the problem. Last time I compared Macbook Airs with Ultrabooks, the Macbooks were better computers for the price. The so-called "Apple tax" doesn't seem to apply to this category like it does to regular laptops/desktops. (Or, as the article suggests, perhaps the Intel Tax is equally taxing)

<comment><USER10> I run on Apple kit because I like the design and build quality, but being reliant on one control-freak supplier brings me out in hives. So I periodically look around to see if there's another supplier I can alternate with.

Nope. Lenovo's thinkpads are nice, but by the time they're spec'd out like a Macbook they cost about 10-20% more. (Better keyboard, though, and that lovely anti-coffee-spill drain to save your ass from the once-in-five-years oops.) Some of Dell's premium laptops look nice and are cheaper ... except the specs are lower end and by the time you add all the extras back in you're paying as much for a Dell as for a Macbook Pro.

It's frustrating! Why can't anyone else build laptops as good as Apple that don't cost even more than a Mac?

<comment><USER11> > Lenovo's thinkpads are nice, but by the time they're spec'd out like a > Macbook they cost about 10-20% more.

This baffled me, so I did a comparison:

The low end (2.3ghz i7, non-retina) 15" MBP with the 8gb RAM upgrade and the hi-res screen upgrade costs $2000 even.

The Thinkpad T430 configured with similar specs (different video card -- nvs 5200m vs gt 650m, worse screen resolution -- 1600x900 vs 1680x1050, better processor -- 2.6ghz) came to $1464.

The Thinkpad W530 configured with similar specs (different video card -- k1000m vs gt 650m, better screen resolution -- 1920x1080 vs 1680x1050) came to $1419.

Maybe you were comparing different things though?

<comment><USER12> He was probably comparing the MBA against the X1 Carbon.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Charlie fails to mention something he knows very well - that the ultrabook program was born during hardball negotiations with apple in which (supposedly) they were very close to using an AMD APU part due to the poor intel gpus. Without a credible threat in the form factor Apple had much more latitude in choosing a lower performing cpu from amd or even a different isa. Did ultrabook fail? Look at it this way - Intel is selling more ULV chips than they ever have - and while I'm sure they'd like to have the volume less lopsided, it's obviously way better than not selling them.

Meanwhile, 2 years later the ivy gpu is really pretty good for mobile workloads, and haswell appears to continue their overweight focus on it to keep apple happy.

</comment><comment><USER14> I got an 11-inch Asus UX21E to replace my heavy, battery-hog 17-inch HP monster. I chose it for two reasons:

1\. It's really, really light, I can carry it in one hand or in my Muji manbag. And it's a PC.

2\. It's an i5, so while it's fast enough for web and email, the limitations of CPU and GPU power keep me honest as a client-side coder.

Six months on, I can't fault it. I'll upgrade when DX11 GPU's become available, but for now it's perfect. If I needed a Mac, I'd get an Air, but I need a PC: I can't imagine ever going back to a full-fat laptop, and tablets are simply not _for_ C++ coders, end of story.

<comment><USER15> >It's an i5, so . . . the limitations of CPU and GPU power keep me honest as a client-side coder.

Off-topic, but I wish Google's client-side coders had your attitude! Most of the (annoying) "this web page is not responding," alertboxes I get on my Sandy Bridge i5 are from Gmail, Google SERPs and Google Reader.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> My main issue with ultrabook is that they combine the issues of tablets and laptop with very little advantage than "this is a thin pc". I would really like to see some ARM laptop that could last days ( dual/quad core and 2-4 GB of RAM)

</comment><comment><USER17> Ah, I hadn't realized Ultrabook was some Intel thing, and was going to make a snarky comment about how my MacBook Air is the nicest computer I've ever owned... I guess this means the category has huge potential not to suck

</comment><comment><USER18> > _In the mean time, the real problems still remain. The form factor is > abjectly broken, mainly too thin for the purpose ... until they find a way > to update the laws of physics, don't hold your breath ... Want a realistic > number of ports? Nope, VGA for a projector or monitor? Nope, too thin. Full > height Ethernet? Not possible. Removable battery? Not a chance. Keyboard > with actual travel? Guess why that isn't on the cards? Any chance for > expansion? Yeah right. Luckily, if you have a dongle fetish, Ultrabooks are > for you, some even have a mini-VGA port that no one else does, how > convenient. The entire form factor is simply dumb._

And yet Apple is selling millions of Ultrabooks under the name MacBook Air. Guess what they don't have: VGA ports, ethernet ports, removable batteries, a "keyboard with actual travel" (surprisingly comfortable to type on, actually). They're just as thin as other Ultrabooks. How is the form factor "abjectly broken" or "simply dumb" if Apple can sell so many?

If customers are unwilling to buy Ultrabooks, then obviously something is wrong, but it doesn't seem to fundamentally be a form factor issue. Maybe the high-end market has settled on Apple as the premium producer, and they're not even looking at PCs anymore. (I hope not. I work for Microsoft.) Maybe the Ultrabooks that are hitting the market are still just not that good. (Most of the ones I've tried felt like cheap crap, or had obvious deficiencies like big fan vents on the bottom....) Maybe there's something else holding them back. It's not simply a problem of lack of consumer interest in the form factor, though.

<comment><USER4> Looks like, by that defintion, Airs (5M/yr per cnet) make up about 1/3 of the "Ultrabook" market (10M/yr per linked article, not including Apple products). That would probably make them the most successful model, but I don't think that it really validates what you're saying. If the Air was clearly "what people want" it would be doing better than a smallish fraction, no?

<comment><USER18> The source I was looking at claimed 2.8 million Airs in (fiscal) Q2 of FY12, but digging in, it looks like that is the total for all MacBooks. So you're right that these stats don't indicate that the Air is necessarily what customers want.

Still, 10M/year for a category that launched only a year ago? Obviously not what Intel hoped for, but that doesn't seem so shabby to me. It certainly doesn't tell me that customers are completely uninterested.

<comment><USER4> Yeah. The news is that the earlier projection from the same analyst was 20M. I guess the notion was that Ultrabooks would cannibalize existing netbook and "cheap laptop" sales in a way that they didn't. Instead, manufacturers are chasing the "Macbook Air" market instead, which is at a different price point. And they're not even doing it badly per those numbers. But they aren't hitting what had been expected in the market as a whole.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I completely disagree with the point of view in this article. I recently purchased an ultrabook because I realised that is exactly what I wanted. Reason: weight and size.

I do agree that the current incarnation of ultrabooks isn't there yet. I always find that one or more of the following are wanting: they either have a limited 128 GB SSD hard drive or they have a tiny 32 GB hard drive plus large conventional drive, but the boot up speeds are slow (25-40s instead of 3-12s), or the screens are dull and flat with inaccurate colours lacking vibrance, or the touch pad keys are integrated with the rest of the pad and operate intermittently, or the cursor keys are too small (seemingly for no reason whatsoever), or the performance is jerky due to slow AMD or first generation Intel 1.7GHz processors, or they don't have enough RAM, or the battery life is terrible, or the machines just look really awful or are too heavy for an ultrabook, etc. And if they do have everything right, they are still way too expensive and/or don't support flash.

Nevertheless, I am utterly convinced ultrabooks will be a huge hit when they finally get them right. DVD drives will disappear and people will use SD cards and wireless peripherals for everything.

<comment><USER20> So you are agreeing then that they aren't there yet, but you think they might...

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Might be a disaster for the manufacturers in general, but it's been great for me. My Samsung N900X1B has completely replaced my ASUS Transformer - it's as light or lighter, can play 10-bit video, and can play windows games; I can and do use it as my main computer (except when I want to watch 1080p video). Of course it's twice the price, but it's worth it.

</comment><comment><USER22> A bit melodramatic. I would buy an ultrabook if they were priced better, but for now I'm just sticking with my clunky 17" laptop.

<comment><USER23> > _I would buy an ultrabook if they were priced better_

Hmmm, wasn't that sort of their point...?

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Building a lightweight notebook is all about balance and sacrifice. You can't have it all. The reason that the MacBook Air is so popular is that Apple managed to hit the sweet spot, balancing weight, battery life, performance, and design. The MacBook Air is defined as much by what it leaves in as what has been left out. Part of the reason the Ultrabook is such a disaster is that getting the right balance is extremely difficult, and there's no indication that they're going to get it right in the future. The OEMs are told, "You must include these features," and when you're trying to maximize the feature checklist, you're almost always going to fail in this product category.

</comment><comment><USER25> Am I missing something about all this price talk? The first 17 results for ultrabooks on newegg are under 800(with a couple < 600$) and the first 40 or so are under the 1200 that the 13" Air starts at...

</comment><comment><USER26> I got a Zenbook and i dont wanne get back to my old notebook...

yeah they arent cheap but this arent mainstream products in 1 or 2 years ther will be cheaper ultrabooks but they will have bad screen resolution and cheap ssds

i dont get why it is a disaster... a disaster is that many manifacturs put bad screens in ther laptops or other things that must get better...

</comment><comment><USER27> Does a anyone else get the feeling that between Intel, OEM's, and MS promising the revolutionary they have too many cooks in the kitchen? Not every company in the chain can be at the pinnacle of their creativity all the time. All of them promising it means one of them will always be missing their own mark.

</comment><comment><USER28> It really amuses me that so few tech sites bother to mention the MacBook Air when talking about "Ultrabooks". It's not like one can exactly deny that Intel/PC manfcs were "inspired". I wonder if its genesis is part of the reason that they fail so hard when it's not Apple making them.

</comment><comment><USER29> OK here one for the HN cowed! What light wait laptop would you get for $800?

Would it be an ultra book?

<comment><USER30> Just sneaks over at $829, but I'd get an 11" Macbook Air (2011, 4gb ram, 128gb SSD) from Apple's outlet:

<http://store.apple.com/us/product/FC969LL/A>

I love my 11" Air, best laptop I've ever owned.

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> A better article than this agenda driven Charlie Demerjian rant.

[http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/02/lets-take- another-l...](http://thenextweb.com/insider/2012/10/02/lets-take-another-look- ultrabook-numbers/)</comment>


Fedora 16 To Use "Btrfs" Filesystem By Default - <AUTHOR> http://digitizor.com/2011/06/09/fedora-16-btrfs/

<comment><USER2> This is not definite. The feature has to go through a bunch of hoops first[1][2]. It was only conditionally approved in the meeting yesterday, assuming everything works by the time F16 comes around. Previous big features have been pulled at the last minute (notably systemd in F14 was pulled right before release[3], and only made it into F15).

[1] [http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/F16BtrfsDefaultF...](http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Talk:Features/F16BtrfsDefaultFs)

[2] [https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=689509...](https://bugzilla.redhat.com/showdependencytree.cgi?id=689509&hide_resolved=1)

[3] [http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/139...](http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/139851)

</comment><comment><USER3> brtfs doesn't have an fsck yet. I've been waiting for it before I try it. Is it really safe to go ahead without this, or will it be ready by release?

[https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#When_will_Btrfs_...](https://btrfs.wiki.kernel.org/index.php/FAQ#When_will_Btrfs_have_a_fsck_like_tool)

<comment><USER4> as someone with a btrfs partition containing a handful of broken inodes (according to btrfsck), I'd say wait. btrfsck takes ages during each boot AND cannot fix problems. I'll switch back to ext4 when I find the time (and a plug compatible for my external drive.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Last time I checked, btrfs had a read-only fsck implementation, i.e. it could find errors but not fix them. I hope fsck is finished and stable now (the project page still says fsck is not available).

Edit: this also means Fedora doesn't use LVM by default anymore

<comment><USER6> >this also means Fedora doesn't use LVM by default anymore

Uh, that's pretty big. How will I resize partitions on the fly?

<comment><USER7> It's the "by default" that's important. You can still use lvm to resize your partitions. But resizing volumes within the btrfs partition will be done by the btrfs tools.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Cool we can have reflinks by default.

<http://www.pixelbeat.org/docs/unix_links.html>

Fedora changes seem to go in cycles. F11 and F14 were good stabilization releases. F17 should be of the same ilk I think.

</comment><comment><USER9> The comments, so far, seem to perceive this change as negative. I, myself, think it is something really good for the overall innovation int the FOSS ecology to have a distro comited to testing new features.

<comment><USER10> Good point. The flipside of that is that such a distro is less suitable for production servers.

That said, a savvy sysadmin would be picky about the filesystem to use in production anyway and could easily use a non-default filesystem.

<comment><USER9> Well the thing is that Fedora is the testing platform for RedHat.

Fedora is for the desktop users, it is used to test new features, and what RH finds interesting, they add it to their server oriented distro, Red Hat Linux.

So, the fact that Fedora is not server oriented is by design.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Well I guess this is one way to speed up development and testing. I don't think the disk format is even finalized yet.

</comment><comment><USER12> "It will probably not be known until August or September whether Fedora 16, which is planned for the end of October, will actually use Btrfs as the standard, because testers and developers need time to gain additional experience with the upcoming alpha and beta versions."

</comment><comment><USER13> I can't wait. Btrfs has been lingering in "almost ready" state for a while and it seems like the only thing that will kick things to the next level is the threat of it actually being used.

</comment><comment><USER14> Filesystems lose on a big opportunity by supporting hardlinks. If every file had only one name, files on the same directory could be stored closely, much improving locality.

<comment><USER15> That'd only really be true if a significant portion files were hardlinked. My root filesystem (Debian GNU/Linux testing) has 393,410 files, of which 825 have more than one link. My /home has 0 out of 156,273 files hardlinked.

Having 0.2% (or less) of files hardlinked shouldn't prevent storing files in the same directory near each other.

<comment><USER16> The point is that just the possibility of having more than one link kills your ability to assume that there is only one. It has nothing to do with whether or not they actually have more than one link.

<comment><USER17> Right, but this bumps into a spatial-locality analogue of Amdahl's law. If you optimise case that shows up 1% of the time, then you can only get a total gain of 1%.

<comment><USER18> No, the point is that you can't optimise the other 99% because that optimisation only works if hardlinks aren't allowed.

<comment><USER19> Why not? Choose parent at random and place the file near children of that parent. In 99% of cases it's the only parent, so you get the result you aimed for. Why would it be prevented by possible other names?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> ouch... i'm conservative when it comes to filesystems; i had to revert from ext4 to ext3 on Amazon's EC2 because ext4 had more trouble with EBS... every other time I've tried a new filesystem i've had trouble with wrecks and data corruption... making a whizzy new filesystem the default will cause a lot of pain

<comment><USER21> Hey, I'd really appreciate it if you could send a report of your experiences to email@example.com. This is the first I've heard of issues with ext4 with EBS, and I'd love to know more. (Also, please mention the kernel version you are using; one possibility is that EC2 kernels tend to lag upstream kernels, and ext4 has had a lot of bug fixes since a RHEL or SLES kernel of 2.6.32/2.6.34 --- upstream is at 2.6.39, and we're about to release version 3.0. :-)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Does it support raid5/6 yet?

<comment><USER23> This is not a filesystem's job.</comment></comment>


Dropbox dropping support for anything other than unencrypted ext4 on Linux - <AUTHOR> https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Syncing-and-uploads/Dropbox-client-warns-me-that-it-ll-stop-syncing-in-Nov-why/m-p/290058 <comment><USER2> Create a sparse file on your unencrypted ext4 volume. Mount it as a loopback. Encrypt it. Write data to it. Sync the disks and dismount it.

To find the next available loop device:

        LOOP=$(losetup -f)

Make a sparse file, size being how big you want it.

        truncate -s"${SIZE}" /path/to/dropbox_disk/file

Add your new file to the loopback device.

        losetup "${LOOP}" /path/to/dropbox_disk/file

Optional: See what ciphers give you what speed on your hardware. AES (rijndael) may be fastest due to hardware offloading. Serpent may be strongest.

        cryptsetup benchmark

Set up encryption for the loop device, CIPHER being what cipher you want. Avoid defaults unless you only care about speed.

        cryptsetup -c "${CIPHER}" create MyCrap "${LOOP}"

Then format your encrypted loopback with whatever filesystem suites your fancy.

        mkfs -t xfs -f -d su=64k,sw=3 -l version=2 /dev/mapper/MyCrap

Mount your shiny new filesystem

        mount -t xfs -o defaults,noatime,allocsize=64k,inode64 /dev/mapper/MyCrap /home/username/MyCrap

Write data to your new filesystem, then sync and dismount.

        echo "I know you dont need sync, this is not why you think."
        sync && umount /home/username/MyCrap
        cryptsetup remove /dev/mapper/MyCrap
        losetup -d "${LOOP}" # maybe save this in a lockfile / pidfile.</comment>


An iphone app that could change the way you get to work - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2008/11/an-iphone-app-t.html

<comment><USER2> This won't work like Seth wants. The problem is the following:

\- Few users have the iPhone hooked up to a car charger when in their cars.

\- The GPS receiver sucks up power like mad when it's on. A constant connection will drain the battery very quickly.

\- The iPhone is also incapable of passively uploading GPS data to a remote source, nor is it capable of running an app in the background. This is to say, your users must keep their iPhone unlocked (disabling auto-sleep) and your app open _at all times_. This is similarly a large drain on your battery.

The amount of work (buying a car charger, making sure to hook it up, unlock the phone, and open your app, and disable auto-lock) every time the user needs to use the service is just absurd. This has no chance of working as it is.

It's a cool idea, and if we all had devices in our pockets that can, without excessive hackery, sustain a continuous GPS feed to a 3rd-party source, this would actually work. Sadly, the iPhone is not it.

<comment><USER3> I want something passively uploading my GPS data. What should I get?

<comment><USER4> A Windows Mobile phone, such as Samsung BlackJack 2.

<comment><USER5> or an s60 phone such as the nokia e71

<comment><USER3> Thanks! Something running s60 is interesting to me since it seems like it would be easier to program. My current phone is a treo 650 (palm), and I am disappointed at how high the barrier to programming it is.

I want to be writing blog entries like this one: <http://blog.danielwinter.de/archives/13>

<comment><USER4> I have spoken to a member of google maps mobile team (they program for _all_ platforms) and asked him how blackberry compares in difficulty to android or windows. He said that blackaberry is pretty bad, but the most painful ever is Symbian. 2 cents here.

<comment><USER3> Interesting. My goals are to write home automation and GPS tracking apps, ideally in python. Stuff like that open-garage-door-when-phone-gets-home project. Any UI work would be web pages, so I guess I want a good web browser.

I'd suspect that problems with implementing gmaps wouldn't affect me. My issues are more like "can I code and deploy from linux?" and "do I get access to the camera, network, speaker, etc?"

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is called TrafficMaster in the UK ( <http://www.trafficmaster.co.uk/home.php> ). It uses detectors placed at regular intervals along all major and a lot of minor roads and you can receive basic traffic data over the cellphone network without a subscription.Been operational for ten years or so. It's not quite as described here as it does not require the active participation of it's users.

</comment><comment><USER7> Hmmm.... I've tried looking but I can't find anything to back up the existence of 'RadaR'. I don't remember hearing about anything in this regard

I'm tempted to call BS, especially given the content of <http://web.archive.org/web/20011130151150/http://radar.com/>

Anyone else ever see or hear of this invention?

<comment><USER8> It was probably a concept. A lot of marketers say, "I developed this product", when really they should've said, "I thought it up on a Sunday afternoon, wrote it down, showed it to about 10 people on IM, and thought about working on it later this week."

<comment><USER2> ... Yet another reason why I wonder by Seth Godin gets on HN so often. I think I've only ever read a single post by him that's been insightful in a significant way.

And it also goes to show that anybody can think of a good idea - it takes someone with real talent to execute it in a successful way.

I too have many good ideas. Wouldn't the world be better off if we could just, like, replicate our food? Starvation would become nonexistent! Quick! Somebody give me all the credit and post my blog everywhere!

<comment><USER9> (spoken like Jon Lovitz' Master Thespian): but he was only _mmmmarketing!_

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I think the "bonus" idea that Seth gives, the automatic sending of recorded reminders, is a feature that is available from www.traqmonkey.com. It is called "callback reminder", and you have to know to make the reminder go to a "distribution group" instead of just yourself.

On his main idea, I have one comment: why don't people who live where the primary impediment to their getting around just move ? In theory, the internet and modern communications should allow a much more dispersed population and economy, without the costs that come from overcrowding. In practice, everyone in that traffic jam has an economic reason to be there. I think that any services or business ideas that allow a more "free range" type of economy instead of the "factory farm" overcrowded cities will have a strong demand.

</comment><comment><USER11> I think you could get something almost as good by convincing Google to take traffic data into account when finding the least-cost route between two points. I know that in Chicago the freeways have speed sensors spaced pretty closely together, so it is possible to look at that data and immediately know how long you are going to spend on the freeway. If you use that data to determine your route, then you should avoid traffic jams.

Obviously conditions can change pretty quickly, but most of the time they don't. So this could be a good 90% solution without requiring people to broadcast their location to you.

</comment><comment><USER12> Nokia and Berkeley are piloting software which monitors traffic via mobile devices that have GPS - they say they are working on an iphone version. <http://www.traffic.berkeley.edu/>

Some stand-alone GPS, if given traffic data, will take that into account when trip planning. <http://www.gpsreview.net/traffic/>

All he's saying to do is combine the two into a single application. Not that interesting IMO.

</comment><comment><USER13> Dash navigator?

<comment><USER9> Yes. To clarify for everyone else, he means this:

<http://www.dash.net/>

and it works exactly the way that Seth describes, even down to Dash users participating to provide real-time traffic updates.

It's an in-car device like a Garmin but internet-oriented. Personally, I'm not sure if it's a viable niche -- it's somewhere in between the Garmin and the iPhone. And the idea of Dash users providing real-time data is obviously a chicken and egg problem.

In any case, maybe Seth's idea was an improvement over radio reports in 2000 but is already behind what Dash, Google Maps or Yahoo maps does today.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> what about privacy? will the location data that is uploaded by the iPhone be stored on the server side? Can guarantees on privacy be provided? Clearly the govt can get access to this info with warrants (or may be even without depending on where you are)...</comment>


Magnetic Bearings Might Keep Motor Spinning for Millennia - <AUTHOR> https://hackaday.com/2019/03/25/magnetic-bearings-might-keep-this-motor-spinning-for-millennia/ <comment><USER3> Arguing about how many millions of years it will run for seems to be missing the forest for the trees. IMO the real message here is, holy crap magnetic bearings are amazing, now how do we get them into everything else? _

<comment><USER4> By making significant improvements in the material science and manufacturing of paramagnetic and diamagnetic materials. Magnetic bearings are limited by Earnshaw's theorem [1] which states (roughly) that you can't stabilize some regular magnets using only their charge - they have to dynamically respond ti each other or they'll all just fly off. Usually this is done with electromagnets and a control system like in jet engines but its expensive and difficult. The alternative is passive para/diamagnetic materials whose magnetic fields change based on the other fields around them but those are usually rather exotic and have to be precisely engineered. Without that stabilization, the bearings would be worse that useless since they would never be able to prevent the rotor from touching the stator.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earnshaw%27s_theorem)

<comment><USER5> There're so many loopholes:

> Spinning ferromagnets (such as the Levitron) can—while spinning—magnetically > levitate using only permanent ferromagnets

> Pseudo-levitation constrains the movement of the magnets usually using some > form of a tether or wall. This works because the theorem shows only that > there is some direction in which there will be an instability. Limiting > movement in that direction allows levitation with fewer than the full 3 > dimensions available for movement (note that the theorem is proven for 3 > dimensions, not 1D or 2D).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> When talking times like that, lots of 2nd-, 3rd- and 4th-order effects become important. Like flexing of the mechanism due to Coriolis forces, or coupling between the magnet and the earth's magnetic field. Heat losses that will stop the motor in years, not millennia.

<comment><USER7> he's measuring the actual current draw of the running system with a meter.

Are you saying that Coriolis forces and the earth's magnetic field will have a greater effect on the system in a few years as opposed to now?

<comment><USER6> The idea was, it could run forever in an evacuated chamber? Else the idea is meaningless; the battery would decay to dust.

<comment><USER8> > _it could run forever in an evacuated chamber?_

Space?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> It's a cool project, but (as many other commenters noticed) most of the battery's energy is being dissipated through the resistors, so it's not going to last for millennia as built.

Still very cool, though.

<comment><USER10> Actually, I think it could last for millennia as built. Just not the full 89,000,000 years as mentioned. Even if you ditch the theory, there's a good chance this will keep running as built for several decades and that's pretty crazy. Makes me want to build one and let it run.

<comment><USER11> They are only claiming 89,000 years, not 89 million. But yeah, probably a few decades is plausible, the battery isn't going to last thousands of years.

<comment><USER12> I do wonder how long you could engineer a capacitor to last, though - <USER2> you have little constraint on its physical size.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This motor needs to put into a vacuum chamber pronto!

<comment><USER14> Funny you should mention that. Hi-vac turbo-molecular pumps often use maglev bearings. This is the pump that takes a chamber from low vacuum (like 1 torr) to high vacuum (like 1e-6 torr). It's a turbine that resembles a small jet engine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Another long-lasting cool experiment: [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitch_drop_experiment)

"The pitch drop experiment is a long-term experiment which measures the flow of a piece of pitch over many years. 'Pitch' is the name for any of a number of highly viscous liquids which appear solid; most commonly bitumen. At room temperature, tar pitch flows at a very low rate, taking several years to form a single drop."

</comment><comment><USER16> After pumping out the air and adding a small solar panel I guess it could spin basically forever?

<comment><USER17> Solar panels wear out pretty quickly, actually - within decades. UV light's nasty stuff.

<comment><USER18> How quickly would a protective coating on the glass wear out? Or the green/brown colouring that gets added to beer bottle glass.

<comment><USER19> How much would such a coating reduce the efficiency of the panel though? I'm seriously asking btw, I don't know the answer or very much about PV panels.

<comment><USER20> That seems to be the fantastic part of this motor. Even if you traded off almost all efficiency in order for protectiveness of the material instead, this machine runs on such a low power you could make those trade offs. What you could use this motor for I am unsure.

<comment><USER19> Too cool. Hey, could these bearings be used in something like a water wheel or windmill? I realize the technology isn't there yet, but if it could then really you'd could have lowered maintenance costs, slightly increased efficiency, and probably a lot less noise.

<comment><USER17> >technology isn't there yet

In what sense?

>lowered maintenance costs

Not really, actually - hydrodynamic bearings _already_ work on the "zero wear due to zero surface contact" principle. The reason this is using magnetic bearings is just because it needs super-super low friction, under super-tiny loads, in order to work.

>Probably a lot less noise

Bearings aren't generally noisy. If they were, they wouldn't be very good bearings!

<comment><USER19> I stand massively corrected on all fronts, thanks!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> What about those devices that harvest radio (wifi a.o.?) waves? What do they generate?

</comment><comment><USER22> Reminds me of the Long Now project 10,000 Year Clock[1].

If you just wanted a simple stable multi-millennia clock you could make a large water clock[2] with pitch[3].

[1] [http://longnow.org/clock/](http://longnow.org/clock/)

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

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

</comment><comment><USER23> No, diamagnetics will be receiving rotational momentum from the spinning magnet, microscopic, but still non-zero.

<comment><USER24> It's a shame when comments like these are downvoted. You're spot on, magnetic bearings certainly have a very small drag, but it's not zero. Going over that reed switch will also produce a tiny amount of drag, it's miniscule by any measure, but it's still additional drag. Even just the fact that it's a spinning magnet passing by that conductive copper is going to induce a tiny drag force.

What would be cool is a version of this but instead of permanent magnets in the rotor make it an induction motor or an electrostatic motor.

<comment><USER17> He's being downvoted because that's _completely irrelevant_ \- the thing isn't relying on just _coasting_ for millennia. That figure's based on the _actual, measured power draw_ of the motor, which includes the bearing friction and other drag, and dividing by the energy stored in the battery.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Are there super capacitors with expected lifetimes measured in centuries / millennia?

Making a device that could keep running long enough for civilization to fall into the dark ages, and then grow again from scratch does something funny to my brain.

<comment><USER26> > Are there super capacitors with expected lifetimes measured in centuries / > millennia?

No, certainly not. Supercapacitors self-discharge significantly faster than batteries do. Capacitance is proportional to the surface area of the electrodes and inversely proportional to the distance between them. Resistance is the opposite, so roughly speaking higher capacitance means higher self- discharge.

The current go-to for long lasting batteries is lithium thionyl chloried, used in remote areas, embedded electronics and things like portable defibrillators. Those are some of the most energy-dense batteries available (though not rechargeable) and can hold most of their charge for over a half century.

The Oxford Electric Bell[1] was linked in the comments under the post, and it has been ringing since 1840. It's not known what kind of battery it has, but its some kind of dry pile. Dry piles generate voltage via corrosion of metal (eg zinc) and have extremely high resistances between plates since there is no liquid electrolyte. As long as they are kept relatively dry they have incredibly long lifespans, although their power output is miniscule- orders of magnitude smaller than even this motor.

It might make more sense to tap into an extremely long-lived source of power, such as geothermal. Over millennia tectonic shift is only a problem across a fault. As long as you can set up a thermal gradient (eg by pushing a stainless steel wire deep into a hole), you can run a Peltier (Seebeck) generator. Some semiconductors have meaningfully limited lifespans and eventually fail under normal use, but many are effectively inert and last as near to forever as we can figure. I'm pretty sure most thermoelectric junctions are the latter, with exceptions for radiation. They have a standard MTBF of just under 23 years with frequent thermal cycling, which is the most damaging thing you can do. It wouldn't be hard to imagine it lasting millennia in a sufficiently stable environment.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> might be useful for those "flywheel" based energy storage devices.

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

(My favorite part of the article where it talks about trying to use in vehicles...)

</comment><comment><USER28> Page needs a Buy Now button

</comment><comment><USER29> Cool project -- sort of like an electromagnetic radiometer.

</comment><comment><USER30> multimeters of this sort cannot accurately measure such low voltages and amps since they by design inject low amounts of their own battery power into the system and measure what comes back.

<comment><USER31> _multimeters of this sort cannot accurately measure such low voltages and amps_

That's an interesting point. I've used similar multimeters for many years and was not aware of that limitation.

But for this particular design it would be trivial to determine both the voltage and the current to within about 1% accuracy.

V = I * R

Most of the voltage drop is across the 24 megohm resistor string. Measure the voltage across that, and you get the current flow, since you know the resistance is nominally 24,000,000 ohms. Most voltmeters have an impedance in the 1000+ megohm range, so measuring across the resistors won't introduce much inaccuracy.

The resistors themselves appear to be 5% tolerance. But by measuring the resistance of the string (open circuit) with the multimeter you should be able to determine their actual value to better than 1%.</comment></comment>