More Older Couples Stay Together Because They Live Apart - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/more-older-couples-stay-together-because-they-live-apart-11564311602?mod=rsswn <comment><USER2> I think things get a bit harder once you have too much free time on your hands (like retired folks do) and live with a partner. I've been travelling for several months with my girlfriend now (after we quit our jobs), and it is not as easy as when the daily routine of work and other duties is in place. Not saying that it's not good, it is, but it sometimes creates weird tensions that I didn't think about before. Some serious travellers that I've met on the road had similar stories to tell, about themselves or their friends.

The root of the problem, I think, is that when you have a job you only really spend 20-50% of your awake time with a partner. When you don't it gets to a 90-100% range, and it is harder. No single person can fill 100% of your time.

<comment><USER3> This is well attested over the years with stay at home wives unhappy with the disruption of their routine when the husband retires (especially culturally prominent in the salaryman class of Japan).

Hou can also buy a yacht cheaply in Fiji because of the number of people who think it would be great to Sal together and, after a few months, realize it would be better to stay together than to live on a boat.

My wife and I married after traveling together and I think in retrospect that was smart/lucky....at least it worked for over 20 years.

<comment><USER4> I had a period of time where I had to stay with my folks because of a period of not quite making enough money following Hurricane Katrina, so because of the shift work, I got a first hand view of my mom's routine as a housewife. Basically, she'd mop, do some laundry, and start cooking about 4pm. Her overall labor took about 1 - 2.5 hours a day, maybe a bit more if she needed to go grocery shopping. Essentially, not much more than any single person would do anyway, with a bit maybe shifted toward the weekends.

So then my dad retired, and he expected to behave like a retiree. He helps out: mopping, washing clothes, even cooking occasionally. She's constantly trying to find him extra stuff to do outdoors.

Why?

Because she enjoyed the domestic side of the domestic life of a housewife: spending hours watching tv and / or gossiping with her friends in the comfort of her home. For 30 years, she had a routine, and was essentially married to the routine as much as the man.

<comment><USER5> To be fair, things were probably a bit different when she had kids at home.

<comment><USER4> Well, sure during the summer. But then the fall would happen and she would have the place to herself again. The neighborhood was full of single-paycheck households and the women were almost all the same age with similarly aged kids, so the families basically all bonded through the mothers first, then the kids, and finally the fathers.

The women largely learned how to get along, the kids all did, and the fathers did to a degree but they had the largest separation in personality and past times, probably because they had the least free time / most money and wanted to make it count.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> You know how people say you get less flexible as you get older? It's generally true, and not just because you have limitations on adaptability as you age. You also are wise enough to know some sacrifices just don't actually work, no matter how much you wish they did.

Now multiply that by two. Two inflexible people, both unwilling to shoot themselves in the foot for so-called _love_ , trying to find some means to meet in the middle.

Besides, a lot of our relationship expectations are rooted in the idea that a baby will or could be the result. When that stops being true, it gets a lot harder to cave to convention and a lot easier to negotiate whatever terms you two can privately agree upon.

Add in the fact that your parents may be dead. Who do you need to please or seek permission from? Possibly no one.

Your coworkers or what not may have no idea you have some kind of unconventional relationship. You may be well past the age where your social circle is going to actively butt into your romantic life. If they do, you may just dump them as friends rather than accept that.

<comment><USER7> On the note of expecting children - I suspect there's also a broader idea that the current state of affairs isn't permanent.

A lot of the petty frustrations of living together are transient. They change when you change towns, change jobs, have a baby, have that baby grow up into a kid, have your kid move out, and retire. But after all that, there's a long stretch where people's schedules and lives don't necessarily change very much beyond needing more support. That's not universal, people can make all kinds of big changes well past retirement, but it's common enough that people start asking "do I want to deal with this for the rest of my life?"

And that doesn't just mean younger people are putting up with bad relationships out of hope for the future. They could potentially be very compatible, making sound decisions like "your sleep schedule clashes with mine, but I'll deal with it for now and it'll be a positive down the line when we have to take care of kids at all hours of the day". It's just that the standard for a 'good' concession to make is different when you're weighing future circumstances against the present than it is when you're going to keep doing the same thing indefinitely.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> This is part of some cynical narrative on HN. Don't buy into it wholeheartedly. Plenty of couples stay together really long despite living in the same apartment. True love does exist, even though the internet loves to brainwash you into believing it doesn't.

<comment><USER9> Why do you believe co-habitating is a prerequisite of "true love" (good luck defining that).

Tangentially, you claim there's some narrative trying to brainwash people into believe "true love" doesn't exist, but we're just supposed to take your word for it that it does?

<comment><USER10> He said that "they stay together despite living in the same apartment". How would you conclude he thinks co-habitating is a prerequisite?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It seems regrettable that after having endless subsidies and encouragements to buy a family home, that people are insisting on keeping them long after there's any point in having a large house. Given the housing shortage in so many markets, this seems like another nifty way for the Boomers to pull the ladder up after them.

<comment><USER12> I don't have a strong opinion on the subject but I recently read an article [0] that tells another story. You might find it interesting.

[0] [https://www.businessinsider.de/millennials-vs-baby- boomers-b...](https://www.businessinsider.de/millennials-vs-baby-boomers-big- houses-real-estate-market-problems-2019-3?r=US&IR=T)

<comment><USER13> The article also says "Millennials buying their first home today are likely to pay 39% more than baby boomers who bought their first home in the 1980s".

Real estate inflation has been dramatic over the last several decades. If there were really a glut of old people attempting to offload their paid-off homes on the market, the prices might drop to more historically normal levels...

I'm not sure how the statistics actually work out but if single or married people are staying in oversized homes for longer without kids, it does seem like that could affect the supply of homes for families with children. I know the UK had a controversy over a "bedroom tax" that tried to address this issue.

<comment><USER14> There's a glut of homes for sale, in places with either no economic prospects or low desirability to live. More and more higher income people competing with each other in less and less land area = higher sale prices.

<comment><USER15> This. My Dad's home in a lagging industrial town in the Upper Midwest is probably only worth about 1.5x what he paid for it 40 years ago. He has well over an acre and the house is in great shape. No one wants to move there though, so housing prices are depressed.

He'd like to move, but would have to take on a mortgage in his 70s, so he'll stay put and my sibling and I will sell it for whatever we can get when he passes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> It's unfortunate the way that sexual relationships are intertwined with finances. Gone are the days where women have little/no earning opportunities.

People should be allowed to keep finances separated unless explicitly deciding otherwise.

<comment><USER17> It's almost like there were good reasons for strict legal and religious positions on monogamy and marriage for thousands of years all around the globe.

Not to say your statement is invalid or that it's time for a shift, just a reminder that this is a well trodden field.

<comment><USER18> These traditions developed around families with children.

The situation now is that divorce and childlessness are common and people are adapting accordingly.

Personally, I think it's sad. Long-distance relationships don't work. Yet, as I see it, short-distance relationships _do_ work, though a period of adjustment may be required.

Medium-distance relationships are stuck in the middle!

And, to put a cynical hat on for a moment, the powers-that-be may be just fine with this. They want people isolated in separate dwellings for purposes of taxation, property pricing, general conformity to their agendas, etc.

<comment><USER19> "Long-distance relationships don't work"

I don't think that holds as a blanket statement. (I have multiple counterexamples in my immediate circle, at least. Some of them on the decades scale)

Is there specific evidence, or is this simply an assumption you're making?

<comment><USER20> Although I disagree with the grandparent post, I'd be fine with saying that long term long distance relationships are harder to make work. Mostly this is because there's a lack of cultural guidelines for how to handle it; if you're living with or near someone there's a cultural script to follow which mostly- works, but in a LDR you can't count on that and you need to put the work in to build your own system.

Of course, relying on the default cultural script for local relationships often falls down as well when it turns out that you disagree about the details. But we accept that relationships fail all the time, and don't tend to say "local relationships don't work" just because many of them fail. :D

<comment><USER19> That (harder to make work) matches my anecdata :)

To be clear, I'm not saying "GP is wrong" \- I was genuinely curious if maybe they had some data/studies on the subject, since all I have are personal observations, and I'm curious about the issue. I.e. How _much_ harder are LDRs?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I wish that me and my wife could live apart. We get along well on a personal level but are terrible fucking roommates.

<comment><USER22> I sleep better alone. Wish I could at least most nights without it becoming an issue.

My dream house (kids aside—that makes an already infeasible dream even less realistic) would have my wife and me in separate bedrooms with our own separate bathroom _and kitchen_ and a living space, then one or two shared rooms in between us.

<comment> teshier-A Separate bedrooms are common enough, bathrooms I can somewhat understand, but kitchens ? Why does your dream have this ?

<comment><USER22> Very different ideas of what and how to cook, where and how to store foods (especially, what goes in the fridge and what doesn't), and so on. Instead of one kitchen with both our stuff in it and little shared, we could have much more orderly separate ones with only a little duplication.

It'd be fine if only one of us ever cooked, and if either of us didn't find the other's methods and tools frustrating to use at best, but that's not the case, so here we are.

Examples: my ideal kitchen would contain a rice cooker and zero crock pots. Hers would have zero rice cookers and at least two crock pots. Mine would have at most two non-stick pans of any kind—really, I could live with just one—but several cast iron pieces, and some steel. Hers would have exclusively non- stick. I'd be entirely content with a single short built-in oven to save space. She'd want a full-size double oven. That sort of thing.

[EDIT] also, whether it's OK to leave any small appliances on the counter full-time or they must all go in cabinets when not in use. We finally, after years, compromised on the stand mixer and we're up to a 4-slice toaster now so it's just too damn big to store, but the rest...

<comment><USER23> For some reason I'm really curious to hear about the difference in refrigeration preferences.

<comment><USER22> One of us thinks that pretty much everything that's not refrigerated at the store doesn't belong in the refrigerator at home (onions, apples). The other disagrees.

<comment><USER24> you shouldn't put apples or onions in the fridge, they go bad faster. Apples also release ethylene gas which makes other produce rot faster.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Sometimes I am amazed at the cognitive flexibility of a writer to turn something into a story. Couples that aren't married and live in different houses? So... dating? This is a story about old people dating? Where a lot of them are divorced so they're maybe a little hesitant to move in together and get married? And there are a few long distance relationships as well?

I know this is the kind of pessimism that attracts downvotes, but I can't hold my tongue. The WSJ not only paid someone to write this, but it actually made it into the print edition.

<comment><USER26> It's disingenuous to refer to their relationships as merely dating, when they have lasted for more than a decade. And when it's not dating, you don't really have a point.

<comment><USER27> What's disingenuous is the editor's hijacking our cultural assumption that the headline means couples who were happily married for decades have begun living separated in burgeoning numbers. If these are romances that only began in a later life stage, that should be transparent in the headline, not buried in attempted cleverness to get a page click.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I saw some articles somewhere that some people, despite living together in a relationship, sleep in different beds or even rooms.

<comment><USER29> I honestly can't imagine sleeping in the same bed as someone, personally. For a bunch of various reasons...

1) I need to be very cold to sleep and don't want to be disrupted by someone else's warmth

2) I'd be woken up when the other person shifts around, and vice versa

3) What if my partner snores, has sleep apnea, mutters in their sleep?

4) What if we just have different circadian rhythms? I like to be up at 6am, which means bedding at 10pm. But my partner(s) have historically been night owls.

<comment><USER30> Agreed. I've been keeping a 3:30am-9:30pm schedule for a couple years now and I don't see it working if I had to share a bed, or even a house with a partner. I suppose people have to make certain adjustments if the relationship is worth to them, and most people end up doing so.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> > _Many couples who begin relationships later in life are keeping separate > homes because they cherish private space and financial independence_

Where by "many" the author means "some in my affluent circles of the 10 percenters and up".

<comment><USER7> > * Mr. Demetre, a 63-year-old retired draftsman who spends several nights a > week at her apartment because it's bigger.*

> _A roofing contractor, he had repaired her roof a few times... He lives in > the big house that he built on 60 acres in the country, with tractors and a > satellite TV for watching sports. She lives in a brightly decorated home > with no satellite TV in the college town of Columbia, Missouri._

> _Mr. Pastoret moved from his family home to an apartment 250 steps from > hers. He comes over every evening for a supper of fruit and sandwiches. He > washes the dishes. She dries and puts them away. They watch the news and > "Wheel of Fortune," holding hands, then go out to the front porch._

Do those really seem like stories restricted to the upper crust?

These people aren't broke, to be sure, and it's worth recognizing that pressure to live together to save money is part of how income affects divorce rates. But most of the people in this story are widowed or divorced with kids - they have property and maybe savings, but not enormous incomes. A house in Columbia, MO is $200k, and several of the other people have apartments.

<comment><USER32> > Do those really seem like stories restricted to the upper crust?

Yes, most people can barely afford to maintain a single modest home, let alone 2 or 3.

<comment><USER7> And these people are each maintaining a single modest home or none at all.

By my count, the story has four renters, three homeowners, and one unknown. One of the renters even sold his home to make this arrangement more viable. This is an age bracket with an 80% homeownership rate. (That's not the same as % owning homes, but most people mentioned were divorced or widowed, which shrinks the difference.) All of them appear to be either working or retired; no one here is a stay-at-home spouse whose partner bought them a second house for comfort. No _couple_ here even has three houses, so I don't see where that enters in.

If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look at pairs of them as "owning two homes"? This is just a story about people who are staying 'dating' instead of remarrying and moving in together, which is viable for any demographic that isn't living with strangers to save money while single - and that includes most of the middle class.

<comment><USER32> In the comments I replied to, there was no usage of the word 'sold' just 'left' their family home. So, that implies to me, they still have it, and now the couple have at least 3 homes across them. I realize journalists are exceptionally bad at being explicit, and editors were all fired because nobody can afford to pay them, but it doesn't excuse a basic ability to convey an idea with a minimum level of precision.

> If these people were single, or just starting a relationship, would we look > at pairs of them as "owning two homes"?

Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can't afford to have their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory towers.

<comment><USER7> The article itself doesn't have anyone who left their home for a new house. The part I quoted references a single person who "moved from" his home into an apartment; that generally implies sold, but even if he is renting it out, he's in an apartment now, as is his partner. Each of the people in the article have 0-1 home.

> _Expand your circle. How many people do you know living completely singly vs > having room mates? Most of the people living in the US can 't afford to have > their own place, and many couples in the US can't afford to have a place for > both of them, let alone children. Life is much different outside the ivory > towers._

I promise you I'm not surrounded by rich young Harvard grads buying houses. Most of the people I know have roommates, a live-in partner, or both. But looking at high-cost cities is every bit as misleading as looking at rich people; most of the US spent decades subsidizing sprawl and single-family homeownership, with predictable results.

Only 30% of American adults live with roommates (including family) outside romantic relationships. For the 55+ demographic in question, who largely grew up in an era of lower housing prices, that number is 10% (and skewed higher by those who need family care). Meanwhile, 65% of American households and 80% of over-55 households are owner-occupied, so the median American over 55 lives in a home that they or their partner own. 4/3 renters to 3/4 homeowners, none with roommates, is almost exactly what you'd expect for 7 Americans over 55.

[https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/31/more- adults...](https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/01/31/more-adults-now- share-their-living-space-driven-in-part-by-parents-living-with-their-adult- children/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is undoubtedly contributory to the housing shortage. People wastefully living by themselves in space which could house 2 or more individuals are selfishly hurting both the younger generation and the environment.

I'd expect nothing less from the Boomers and Gen X.

And I'm only somewhat joking.

</comment><comment><USER33> >> _Rather than marry or live together, many of them have separate homes and see each other several times a week, or three times a month; they often say they are highly committed to each other but want personal space and independence._

In other words, they are not couples, just people that date sometimes. Next story please :)

<comment><USER34> "she spent weeks [living] with him after he had surgery"

That's what you do with someone that you date sometimes? My dating life was quite different than yours, I guess!

Also, why so dismissive of how other people structure their lives? _They_ don't describe it as "someone I date sometimes" so why do you?

<comment><USER33> >> _Also, why so dismissive of how other people structure their lives? They don 't describe it as "someone I date sometimes" so why do you?_

do whatever you want, I just disagree with the label.</comment></comment></comment>


Qualcomm axes Mirasol screens - <AUTHOR> http://www.engadget.com/2012/07/23/qualcomm-axes-its-own-mirasol-production/ <comment><USER2> I wasn't surprised when I heard this. I've played with them - they just don't look very good. That's pretty important when the customer is looking at them all day long.

<comment><USER3> You wouldn't happen to have experience to compare them to the Pixel Qi products, by chance?

Still waiting for my high framerate, low power, color, reflective display, here.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: Why is my iPhone connecting to TikTok, Amazon and Aliexpress? - <AUTHOR> After a HN post two days ago, I've installed NextDNS on my iPhone and started noticing random connection requests to *.aliexpress.com, live.musical.ly, amazon.sa and others.
What made me wonder is that a) I don't have "background app refresh" enabled, b) No app from TikTok, AliExpress or Amazon is installed and c) I had the phone locked ("standby") during the whole time.
Does anyone know what might be happening here? <comment><USER2> It could be another app making these requests.

<comment><AUTHOR> But with "background app refresh disabled", other apps (except maybe the ones from Apple) shouldn't be able to make any requests?</comment></comment>


Doomsday Prep for the Super-Rich (2017) - <AUTHOR> https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/01/30/doomsday-prep-for-the-super-rich <comment><USER3> Back in 2016 I followed Justin Kan on Snapchat and he used to hang out with Steve Huffman on his stories.

I recall a few particular snap stories where they went out to Justin's new house and were shooting guns, throwing axes and generally doing fun outdoor stuff. I do seem to recall at some point there was talk about survivalist stuff in those snaps.

I've done quite a lot of survival training with the US Government and have been in places where people lived by those skills daily. I have to say that the majority of what these guys are doing, and what most "rich guy" survivalists do, as indicated by this story, is mostly worthless. Especially long term.

There's a hat tip to the most important part, forming groups and all the rest of the community building work, which is not inappropriate, but it's missing the point where you basically do that now with a diverse set of people - <USER2> just your rich friends - which is actually a sustainable strategy.

There's a lot to nitpick here but I guess the most interesting thing to me is that, for all their wealth, access and smarts, none of these people seem to actually be trying to solve the systematic and endemic problems which would soften the blow of a major existential risk.

In that sense Levchin and Johnson are 100% on the money here with investing in structural improvement, not some temporary escape plan that doesn't survive first contact with a handful of real actual killers.

<comment><USER4> _There 's a lot to nitpick here but I guess the most interesting thing to me is that, for all their wealth, access and smarts, none of these people seem to actually be trying to solve the systematic and endemic problems which would soften the blow of a major existential risk._

When the best and brightest of a society are heading for the hills, that's a sign problems are coming. It's not that just they may have concrete reasons to do this but it seems like the society itself by this fact has lost the cohesion that would prevent disaster. And if powerful people don't imagine themselves are the protectors of the common good, who does? etc.

Of course, this situation is a bit of a self-fulling prophecy.

<comment><USER5> You could also ask the question what they are protecting themselves from.

Maybe they expect at some point that the masses will no longer want to keep paying taxes an lose money, while the rich have all the means to circumvent taxes and leverage their wealth.

I don't see the breaking point yet, but there is definitely a breaking point.

<comment><USER6> the top 10% of taxpayers paid 70.87% of federal income taxes in 2014 [0].

and did you know that the bottom 50% paid 2.75%?

would dropping that 2.75% down to zero (which sounds fine to me) avert the breaking point?

[0] [https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170201145744/FF540-1.png](https://files.taxfoundation.org/20170201145744/FF540-1.png)

<comment><USER5> Top 10% of tax payers =/= top 10% of wealthiest people.

If you know how taxes work, and know how multinationals do taxes, you know enough.

<comment><USER6> capital gains taxes represent less than 10% of total revenue [0] raised by the IRS. sure the rates can be raised, but is that going to make a meaningful dent?

[0] [https://pocketsense.com/percent-irs-revenue-comes-capital- ga...](https://pocketsense.com/percent-irs-revenue-comes-capital-gains- tax-1105.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> These guys (and Women?) are at the extreme end of the economic and social hierarchy. The only thing that might endanger their position is if society collapses. Prepping is sort of an insurance policy against the long odds of society collapsing. All societies have collapsed and once the process starts it can happen quickly. They can devote the resources to guard against rare events, because they are already protected against other concerns (they mostly have plenty of money).

IMO, this type of behavior is the same as the bio-hacking crowd trying to beat aging / maximize health. They have everything else covered, so they move out further-and-further on the tail of their perceived threat.

<comment><USER8> It's convenient when they advertise this in the media, for the roving bands to target them and their stuff.

<comment><USER7> They already anticipate maximum violence and chaos, I don't think they fear non-prepped mobs hunting them based on an old news article from the non- existent internet. I am not a prepper, but I get the allure. I just need the money :)

<comment><USER8> I'm thinking more that doomsday preppers who are not vastly wealthy might keep an eye on which wealthy preppers might have well-stocked bunkers to raid in the event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Why would a wealthy person trust something like the Survival Condo Project? Once SHTF and society collapses and rule of law goes away, what's to keep the armed guards from taking over and eliminating their formerly wealthy clients (or just locking the place down and refusing to let anyone in)?

Why bother keeping a bunch of old (formerly) rich men around when the guards can just get rid of them and take their share of the supplies to help ensure the survival of their own families and friends?

<comment><USER10> > Why bother keeping a bunch of old (formerly) rich men around when the guards > can just get rid of them and take their share of the supplies to help ensure > the survival of their own families and friends?

Nothing, really. Back when Western society was in a state of feudal anarchy (mostly after the dissolution of the Carolingian empire and up to the late 1100s) the monied people (which meant mostly the traders) had no power at all, in the words of Adalberon, bishop of Laon [1], "the whole edifice of mankind" was supported by "oratores, bellatores, laboratores", that is by the clergy ("oratores"), by the "warriors", i.e. nobles who could go to war at any one moment, and by the common people, the peasants, the people doing the actual work. The monied people were nowhere to be seen and treated quote contemptuously by the "oratores" and the "bellatores".

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_(bishop_of_Laon)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adalberon_\(bishop_of_Laon\))

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> A couple of years ago I applied for a job at Hipmunk and ended interviewing with Steve, then the CTO. I don't remember everything but at some point he did ask me to write a program that prints out a spiral.

Reading this article, and remembering that interview, made me realize that no one can really know what the collapse of civilization will look like, but it is always good to be prepared with a two dimensional array or a good GUI library.

<comment><USER12> Clearly the spiral algorithm is useful when you forgot where you buried your survival cache.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> anecdotally, it feels like the tech elite are trying to outsmart the system (such as prepping for doomsday scenarios), rather than trying to improve the system to prevent, or lower the probability of the doomsday scenario in the first place

<comment><USER14> You definitely get more bang for your buck spending on yourself vs trying to change society.

<comment><USER15> That is true if you play within the tragedy of the commons scenario instead of trying to break out of it.

<comment><USER14> Correct, if everyone in society didn't graze the metaphorical commons, then your happiness would be even higher still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> First thing I notice in the article...(prob) an ex-military man with automatic weapons serving as a guard. In a doomsday scenario he will, eventually, kill or enslave all those nerdy guys that paid a fortune to seeking shelter there.

But then you have everything else and buying these things are a drop in the bucket. Makes sense even if it has a very small chance of happening. What's an extra billion going to do to Steve Ballmer life? Nothing. Money after a while loses value, living is another matter.

<comment><USER17> Douglas Rushkoff had a podcast where he talked about being paid by these guys to come up with ways to keep their armed guards from turning on them. The billionaires suggested shocker collars (maybe even with explosives) and controlling the food supply by a combination lock.

[https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the- richest-9ef...](https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the- richest-9ef6cddd0cc1)

<comment><USER16> >> _and controlling the food supply by a combination lock._

And who will have the keys? Probably better dying once than dying every day for a year or two :). These "friends" will turn on each other and plot to exclude x today and then team with x to exclude z. Back millions of years ago! All layers of civilization stripped away, killing your ex-co founder so food lasts a little longer.

You're better off, IMO, buying land somewhere far, far away in USA, and stock it with weapons and food. Weapons might be an issue (state laws) but with pocket change they can buy freeze dried food for 30 years. You have plenty of land and why not stock it with some seeds. Don't tell anyone, have plans to go there with no one but family. Stay low for a while, then peek out little by little. Gold, silver, food, weapons, water supplies /plans and live under the radar. No sign of life.

<comment><USER17> Gold and silver are just shiny metals.

Guns for hunting are fine. Guns for protection from people are not nearly as useful as gun sellers say. In a crisis, people don't turn into ravenous hordes, instead they ban together and help each other. Again, and again this shows up across times and cultures.

<comment><USER16> OK, I understand the angry, hungry hordes. But if you're far away in NM or Idaho you might not experience that.

Still, better to have the guns than not have them. If you have them, you get to decide. If they're a 200 people rushing you're toast, but if it's a small group you have a chance. Plus you decide the hiding place /bunker, if it's seen from far away or not.

Gold and silver...the idea is that people might start trade eventually and other than tools /guns gold and silver it is.

<comment><USER17> My point is that that angry hungry hordes don't occur anywhere.

The galaxy brain trading commodity from the prepper forums is "balistic wampum", which is just a fancy way of saying "bullets", specifically bullets in common calibers. It's galaxy brain because these same forums are talking about how you need 5 different guns to protect yourself from the ravenous cannibal that used to be your neighbor. So who are you going to trade with? That's right, the ravenous cannibal that used to be your neighbor!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> People love to think that they're independent from the huge society they float on top of, but at the top of the pyramid there's just further to fall.

Mixing metaphors has never been my strong suit though...

</comment><comment><USER19> Their cover photo is a joke if you have even the slightest idea of what you're looking at.

Double stacked D&H mags with no pulls, an Anderson "poverty pony" AR, BUIS behind a 1.5x ACOG on an 18" with a cheap non-QD Mount (iron sights with a magnified optic in between doesn't work)... I'm sure there is more.

But... for the Steve Huffman and similar types, they'll just see what they want. The real joke would be Randy and his $999 AR (with optic) will just rob Steve-types blind the second there is a without rule of law scenario.

<comment><USER20> > The real joke would be Randy and his $999 AR (with optic) will just rob > Steve-types blind the second there is a without rule of law scenario.

I've always wondered how they'd prevent that. How does Randy not shoot Steve or take him hostage and then bring his own family into the compound.

I am sure there are a few schemes, ranging from benign like promise a huge payday at the end, lots of land, resources, power whatever to more sinister ones, like hire another Randy (possible a lot more than one) to watch the first one if he (she) tries to do something.

<comment><USER21> what about some kind of heart attack implant that could be triggered remotely? I would think someone out there might just sign up for that for $5 mil.

<comment><USER22> And for a cool $1 mil. that someone can probably find someone to remove it. Though a foil lining under your Kevlar might work well enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It is amazing and amusing to observe how money trampoline one's feeling of self importance to unimaginable heights.

</comment><comment><USER24> When society falls apart the rich won't have anything that the poor won't. The people who built these bunkers for the super rich are going to put a 9mm in the back of their head and invite their brother Steve to take the owners spot. "Combination locks on the food supply?" Waterboard the guy till he gives us the combo, then kill him.

<comment><USER25> This could be solved with resource access requiring multiparty agreement, like the Bitcoin multisignature wallets: the location that contains the food and water for a week requires permission from 2 parties that are located in 2 separate geographical locations

<comment><USER26> Apologies for the snark, but only on HN would anyone seriously suggest blockchain as a solution to having a gun pointed at your head.

<comment><USER25> Why would anyone assume the risk to put a gun to your head when they know you can't give them what they want just by yourself? With blockchain you can prove them that's the case. They would have to also put a gun to the head of the cosigner(s) in order to get it.

I am not aware of any other mechanism similar to BTCs multisig that doesn't require a trusted third party.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I wish more people understood Doomsday prepping is really more of a hobby than an actual concern over the total collapse of all civilization.

It's fun to prepare, and to think of every scenario no matter how outlandish, and it's fun to make people think you are super serious about something that seems ridiculous to them.

It is like a game where you collect as many resources and skills to increase your survival score as much as possible.

<comment><USER22> I'm literally a national champion at a ridiculous hobby, so I feel pretty confident that many of these people are actually super serious. People get way invested in stupid shit all the time.

<comment><USER28> Please share the ridiculous hobby!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> > But in recent years survivalism has expanded to more affluent quarters, > taking root in Silicon Valley and New York City, among technology > executives, hedge-fund managers, and others in their economic cohort.

Rich people being paranoid and preparing for disasters is not exactly a new thing. I guess we are supposed to believe that the affluent are somehow more sane than the rest of us.

</comment><comment><USER17> Perhaps YC's Sam can chime in with his reasoning of prepping a loaded gun, and private jet to New Zealand.[0]

Also, if he could chime in with any advice he has to make sure that the hired armed guards don't turn on him. Perhaps disciplinary collars or controlling the food supply?[1]

[0] [https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon- val...](https://www.theguardian.com/news/2018/feb/15/why-silicon-valley- billionaires-are-prepping-for-the-apocalypse-in-new-zealand)

[1] [https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the- richest-9ef...](https://medium.com/s/futurehuman/survival-of-the- richest-9ef6cddd0cc1)

</comment><comment><USER30> And then there's "doomsday prepping for less crazy folk": [http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/](http://lcamtuf.coredump.cx/prep/)

It's a guide written by the author of american fuzzy lop (afl), and while it touches on end-of-civilization, guns-n-ammo prep, much of it is about practical preparedness for more likely disasters, such as a prolonged and widespread power outage; and how to reduce the risk of financial ruin or serious injury.

</comment><comment><USER31> You can't prepare for the complete collapse of civilization.

Even the Survivalists who go out with "nothing" and build their shelters, start their own fires, hunt their food, they still need backpacks to carry their gear. They still need gear to carry, like saws, axes, fishing poles, knives. They still need clothes to wear. They still depend on the infrastructure of society in myriad ways.

</comment><comment><USER32> It tells you about how super rich people think.

The fact that they share these doomsday beliefs implies that they understand that something is wrong with the system and maybe that they are responsible for it to begin with.

I don't understand the motivation for them to leak these stories to the news though. Do they expect regular people to feel sorry for them and that this will prevent or delay the doomsday?

</comment><comment><USER33> Related: The Surprisingly Solid Mathematical Case of the Tin Foil Hat Gun Prepper

[https://medium.com/s/story/the-surprisingly-solid- mathematic...](https://medium.com/s/story/the-surprisingly-solid-mathematical- case-of-the-tin-foil-hat-gun-prepper-15fce7d10437)

</comment><comment><USER34> Discussed at the time:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13482107](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13482107)

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=13462865)

</comment><comment><USER35> I cannot fathom the logic here. Movers and shakers who shape the world pissing away resources on some kind of personal "insurance" if everything goes to hell instead of investing in making sure things don't go to hell.

If they put half as much time, money, thought and effort into fixing some of the glaring boils on the butt of the world, they could stop metaphorically sucking their billion dollar thumbs this way.

There is plenty of evidence that a lot of the financial distress in the US of the masses is rooted in a lack of genuinely affordable housing -- and, no, I don't mean poverty housing. In 2010, an architect coined the term "missing middle housing" to describe middle class housing historically widely available in walkable urban neighborhoods that we have largely zoned out of existence. In the last roughly fifty years, we've torn down a million SRO's in this country.

Health care. We need a single payer system. The ACA is not a great solution. It was just the most politically viable. Frankly, that sucks.

This country already has a system where you flash an ID and get care and there is minimal paperwork and almost no billing. It's well-established and well- developed, but it only serves military members, retirees and their dependents. We don't need to look to other countries and wonder how they do "free" medical care. We have a system on US soil doing that.

Research shows that proper medical coverage helps reduce homelessness. If you provide proper medical coverage and make appropriate housing available to the masses at a reasonable cost, then we can stop living in dread of the collapse of civilization.

I blog, but I have no audience and can get no traction. If rich guys in SV propose ridiculous solutions, like UBI, they get interviews and yadda and everyone takes it seriously, though they aren't actually particularly qualified to propose some solution and it looks to me like BS preening. I feel like if I say too much on such subjects, I risk being banned from HN because I'm just a woman, I'm quite poor and I was homeless for years and yadda. If rich people who haven't actually studied it say something, it's charity or kindness of some nonsense like that. I've actually studied this stuff, but if I say something, it's "political" because I'm not the right kind of people and Hacker News eschews politics.

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

[https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/12/the- missing...](https://streetlifesolutions.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-missing- middle.html)

I've redacted multiple paragraphs of "Doreen is finally snapping after 9.5 years of being essentially shunned and yadda."

Could someone kindly tell me where and how I can successfully get an audience and some kind of engagement, in spite of being the wrong gender and the wrong socioeconomic class? I would be happy to just go the fuck away and leave you folks alone who clearly want nothing to do with me if I could find some means to get engagement elsewhere.

Thanks.

<comment><USER36> I find your argument compelling, and IMO you should not be scared to get banned from HN for that kind of comment. It's actually in line with many other comments here.

I too feel that there are not enough women commenting here. The discussions would be more complete and interesting if that wasn't the case. We obviously only get a half of the picture without female participation.

It's offtopic, but since you asked for it. Being highly controversial/polarizing does often help growing an audience, I've seen this time and again. I don't know how long you have been doing what you are doing now, but I heard growing an audience for a YT channel/blog/etc takes a couple of years of continuous effort, posting as much as possible. I mean, pewdiepie (whatever one thinks about him) uploads every single day.

<comment><USER35> _Being highly controversial /polarizing does often help growing an audience,_

Yeah, I keep hearing that. That hasn't worked for me. I get three things out of it:

1\. Banned from multiple forums.

2\. All the utter and complete loonies who think I can fix them or will be their one true love cyberstalk me but won't fucking admit it, so it doesn't even get my stuff promoted.

3\. I've spent years living in fear of being literally locked up in an insane asylum and thereby killed, like Semmelweis, because the most controversial detail about me is that I have atypical cystic fibrosis and I'm drug free. It's managed with diet and lifestyle, so _obviously_ , I'm insane and making shit up. A former homemaker can't possibly have solved a problem that all the fucking elite MALE doctors and scientist of the planet can't solve, no. Clearly.

Among other things, I've spent a lot of years trying to figure out how to stop being a train wreck waiting to happen.

I'm really not interested in growing an audience of people getting out the popcorn to watch the lunatic entertain them with her nutty tirades. We can listen to billionaires do that. I'd like a fucking middle class life and to be taken seriously, which is obviously just asking way the fuck too much of the goddamn world.

Anyway, I know that doesn't sound like gratitude. I do actually appreciate you replying. But, unfortunately, no, _being controversial_ is not some means for me, personally, to grow an audience and make money. It's just not.

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

<comment><USER36> Well, as Audioslave said, be yourself is all that you can do. Everybody has talents that bring value to society. Have you considered that the type of job you are trying to create for yourself is not the right one for you?

<comment><USER35> The world is going to hell in a hand basket. Millionaires and billionaires are taking up the thumb sucking hobby of prepping for the apocalypse.

No one else seems to have answers. I'm supposed to say _not my problem_ and go wait tables or look for a rich husband to support me because the world doesn't want to hear solutions from a woman or something?

<comment><USER36> Sounds a bit grandiose, don't you think?

<comment><USER35> So what are you trying to say here? Only men are allowed to dream big? Women should just plan to remain barefoot and pregnant and not get all uppity and imagine they can do anything of real value in the world?

Or are you going to say only currently rich people can dream big. Currently poor people should just stay "humble" and accept their lot in life and not complain too loudly?

Or some other dismissive justification as to why I should just accept that no one should listen to me, never mind that I have six years of college and have spent a lot of time studying such issues?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> For the non U.S. readers: worry not, my friends. Doomsday apparently only means "heavy social unrest or natural disaster in the coastal United States of America".

</comment><comment><USER38> _Huffman, who lives in San Francisco_

 _I have a bunch of guns and ammo_

Rules for thee, not for me.

</comment><comment><USER39> January 2017 article.

That said, Ted Nugent called and he _still_ wants his shirt back.

</comment><comment><USER40> If you can spend enough money to say "well, that's not my problem", then you yourself are the problem.

</comment><comment><USER41> This article is from 2017.

</comment><comment><USER42> Only socialism can save the rich from themselves.

</comment><comment><USER43> I find it laughable that the rich think they can hide away forever in some bunker.

If they are in that position it means the rule of law has eroded and anarchy is in place.

The first thing pissed off people do is hang their leaders and the children of the rich.

Rightfully so, nothing more than parasites on our human race, take their wealth and redistribute it to those in need.

<comment><USER9> If society really does collapse, if they can survive for the first 6 months, there will be a lot fewer people to deal with, and they may be able to gain some power through trade, assuming they have enough manpower to protect their supplies.

It wouldn't be hard for a wealthy person to stockpile years worth of food so as long as they can stay out of site, they could stay holed up for years until the big die-off is over and some semblance of order is restored. Of course, finding a place in the new order is not guaranteed.</comment></comment>


San Francisco Has a Plan to Hit Its New IPO Millionaires Where It Counts - <AUTHOR> https://gizmodo.com/san-francisco-has-a-plan-to-hit-its-new-ipo-millionaire-1834306853 <comment><USER2> Politicians waging war against finance and the private sector is the origins story to venezuela's impressive economy today. What could go wrong?</comment>


GTA V – Graphics Study (2015) - christoph-heiss http://www.adriancourreges.com/blog/2015/11/02/gta-v-graphics-study/ <comment> Const-me Previous discussion:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10492876](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10492876)

<comment><AUTHOR> I love how HN doesn't cry repost, and instead just treats the previous thread as background to the current one. It's refreshing, because the reality is that most of us don't see every single post. Barring a topic from being discussed ever again, simply because it's been here before is ridiculous.

<comment><USER2> You only get the cries of repost here when it's a short time (hours or days).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Having been pressured to install GTA V onto my PS4 so I could play online with friend (it's really not my preferred type of game), I was simply blown away by the environment. Nothing else on the PS4 comes close, as far as seamless expansiveness goes.

To be honest, it's so immersive that in my opinion, GTA VI (or VII) should definitely support VR when they are released.

<comment><USER4> Watch_Dogs 2 looks much better, try it! I also installed GTA V recently as my cousin pressured me to it, ended up in "FAST" team in stunt races; overall it's too repetitive, only stunt races seem to be fun and all the stuff I had to do to earn money (Doomsday Heist loops, Super car warehouse sales etc.) is just to buy best cars for those races. Comparing to Watch_Dogs 2 it was a significant downgrade in almost everything, unless you treat GTA V as a "psychopath simulator", then it has no competition.

<comment><USER5> I still find Red Dead Redemption to do a better job at being immersive.

It's obviously much less pretty than WD2 and GTA5 (heard there was a fancy re- release though?), but it _feels_ much more alive. And I suppose the 'wild west' environment being less demanding than a modern city helps too.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> And in another couple years we'll have real-time ray tracing!

<mind blown>

Amazing how far and fast we've come since Wolfenstein.

<comment><USER7> Nevermind those years, it's already here: [https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2018/03/19/announci...](https://blogs.msdn.microsoft.com/directx/2018/03/19/announcing- microsoft-directx-raytracing/)

From the looks of it, the major engines are on route to supporting it, remains to be seen though if any actual games get on board.

<comment><USER8> It's a strange message that one. On one hand, we can totally do raytracing now without any specialized API. Screen space reflection is raytracing, but only on what's visible on screen. On the other, you can't possibly use raytracing as your only rendering technique for the amount of details in AAA video games. There's a reason we are not doing that now. New hardware more tailored for that kind of work will help, but don't expect the next GTA (or whatever) to have a full raytracing rendering like you see in those demo. Noticed the tiny size of the scenes? We'll see what the next generation of consoles brings us - especially since current gen are using AMD hardware and they've been really silent about this DXR announcement.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> What level of graphics programming and/or reverse engineering expertise do you need in order to dissect a frame like this? I wouldn't even know where to begin, but I'd love to be able to do stuff like this!

<comment><USER10> If you specifically want to do something like this you can use RenderDoc ([https://renderdoc.org/](https://renderdoc.org/)) and simply run a game through it. You should get a result that's pretty similar. The deferred shading technique used in GTA V is now pretty much the standard way of doing things in most AAA engines I know of and is pretty well documented. Mozilla has a great article about using it in WebGL : [https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/01/webgl-deferred- shading/](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2014/01/webgl-deferred-shading/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a good article that's why I remember it, but it's from 2015 so it would be nice to update the title.

<comment><USER12> Updated.</comment></comment>


Linux from Scratch Version 8.2 released - <AUTHOR> http://lists.linuxfromscratch.org/pipermail/lfs-support/2018-March/051866.html <comment><USER2> I'm amazed that this still exists.

I'm not really sure how viable this is, in 2018, but I remember back a long time ago reading LFS docs on TLDP being quite instrumental in figuring out how things _actually worked_.

While I never actually ran a full LFS system, there were fewer things that were packaged "back in the day" and sometimes you just had to roll your own a lot more than you do in 2018. Reading LFS docs was, personally, instrumental, in figuring out how to make stuff work.

<comment><AUTHOR> Personally, I've built the whole thing a month ago to understand all the moving parts of a Linux install.

I think it's super-useful.</comment></comment>


Review: Touch Bar MacBook Pros give an expensive glimpse at the Mac's future - <AUTHOR> http://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch-touch-bar-macbook-pros-reviewed/ <comment><USER2> People bitch about dongles but if you think about it, who would make this progress if Apple doesn't?

Apple is probably the only consumer tech hardware company out there that can do this. I almost think it's their responsibility to push the boundary.

People make fun of the term "Courage" and I thought that was funny at first too. But the more I think about it the more I get what he's trying to say. Right now NO ONE other than Apple has the "courage" to make this decision. Do you think Dell would do it? Samsung? Only Apple has enough influence in the industry to be able to do something like this and NOT lose all their users. If Samsung got rid of all their ports, people would probably ditch them and buy a Lenovo or something. So Samsung cant' do it. Coming back to Apple, I'm an apple user and I have to buy it because it's just much better for me as a developer. And honestly speaking, I don't care about all these dongles arguments and "it's not for a pro" arguments. I'm not buying a device whose primary purpose is to stick in my USB cable. And pros don't complain about their tools.

Anyway Apple knows that if nobody makes this decision, laptops will just stay as some stagnant genre of devices that are only able to do things that people used to do in the 2000s.

In other words, if Apple didn't do this, I think the entire laptop category will just stagnate and be cannibalized by other platforms. See TV as an example.

<comment><USER3> PC Laptop world is actually really competitive. Check out Razer, Alienware, Yoga line, and Microsoft Surface.

They're innovating like crazy. Touch screens, OLED displays, external GPUs, different form factors, VR capable performance, etc. And many of those laptops integrated Thunderbolt 3 a while ago.

Regrettably, Apple has us all locked into their ecosystem via software so it feels like they are the only ones innovating.

<comment><USER4> See I don't see this as "innovating like crazy". I see it as "adding bullet- list features like crazy", which isn't quite the same thing.

This is always where Apple has excelled eg not adding touch screens to laptops cos it's ergonomically terrible (as Steve Jobs IMHO rightly said).

Apple has also historically taken technologies that have been in the market for awhile and made them not suck. Wireless is a prime example. Anyone else remember the days where you had to setup a wifi connection by specifying encryption type and trying to figure out if you were WEP, WPA1, WPA2 or WPA2-Enterprise? Apple came long and simply let you enter a password. OSX will figure out the rest.

The problem with the new Macbooks (IMHO) is that it represents a change in philosophy. As one review said "USB-C is the future but we're living unfortunately still living in the present" (paraphrased from The Verge IIRC).

How much would it have hurt to have 2 A and 2 C ports?

This rush to market has also led to some compatibility issues between TB3 devices.

A comment I read online (on HN IIRC) went something like "we've moved from a world where if the cable fits, it works to where the cable fits and nothing works". It's a salient point: the cost of a universal connector is putting us in cable hell.

PCs have long been a case of marketing pinheads building incoherent bullet lists (ie throwing stuff at the wall and seeing what sticks). You're seeing negative reaction because people expect more from Apple.

<comment><USER5> It would have hurt to have the USB-A ports because that would have led to slower adoption of USB-C. All USB-C means that device manufacturers can't ignore it for as long, esp. for manufacturers that want to have their products featured in Apple stores.

So it is a bit painful for the end user, but in the long run everyone benefits from quicker adoption.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Correct URL:

[http://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch...](http://arstechnica.com/video/2016/11/the-2016-13-and-15-inch- touch-bar-macbook-pros-reviewed/)

</comment><comment><USER7> Many of us just want the 15" display preferring longer battery life and smaller size/weight to using a discrete GPU. I am at a university and the 15" rMBPs are popular with students as well as researchers. I currently have the 2015 rMBP 15".

Thus, it is disappointing that there is not replacement for the version that uses only the integrated graphics. Also, the Intel 530 graphics of the 2016 rMBP 15" appears to be lower performing than the 2015 rMBP 15" integrated graphics. While there were benchmarks for the battery life of the iGPU, there were no performance benchmarks comparing the rMBP 15" 2016 iGPU vs. the 2015 iGPU.

I've looked online and it appears that the 530 is about 20% slower than the 2015 rMBP 15" iGPU.

EDIT: Source for Iris Pro 5200 vs. HD 530: 5200 about 20% faster than 530 for same resolution.

[http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Iris-Pro- HD-5200-...](http://gpu.userbenchmark.com/Compare/Intel-Iris-Pro- HD-5200-V2-Mobile-12-GHz-vs-Intel-HD-530-Desktop-Skylake/m8190vsm33102)

<comment><USER8> > I've looked online and it appears that the 530 is about 20% slower than the > 2015 rMBP 15" iGPU.

This is probably due to the increased screen resolution. If you make the resolutions of both models the same I _suspect_ it will be comparable or faster in benchmarks.

(2015 MBP default resolution of 2880×1800 vs new, 3360×2100)

Something similar happened with iPads came out with retina displays. Pushing lots of pixels consumes more performance.

<comment><USER9> a little bit akward that they raised the resolution. 2880x1800 was just fine, having 3360x2100 also means that you again needs to tweak everything if you might use linux.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> They also reviewed the new Lenovo Yoga 910, which seems to be a good alternative for people that don't rely on MacOS:

[http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/11/lenovo- yoga-910-revie...](http://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2016/11/lenovo- yoga-910-review-an-elegant-upgrade-with-minor-compromises/)

It even has a 4K touch-enabled display.

<comment><USER11> I sort of feel like anytime someone reviews a Lenovo laptop, they have a responsibility to mention in the review whether there's any of Lenovo's EFI dickery like self-reinstalling windows drivers, expunged options, or SSL- interposing malware included. Right now the guidance seems to be that if you get a Yoga you'll get the dickery, if you get a thinkpad you'll be ok. But I'd really like to see reviewers call this out explicitly.

It's also worth pointing out that the 910 can't be a MacBook replacement with that nonstandard keyboard layout.

<comment><USER12> Third option is to buy a "Signature Edition" [1][2] from the Microsoft Store (or participating retail stores such as some Best Buys and Staples, I think, if you ask nicely to someone that has the right sort of a clue). Microsoft's Signature Edition program expressly forbids selling the machine with anything more than a clean Windows install. It's definitely what I've started recommending anytime anyone mentions to me to be thinking about a new Windows computer.

[1] [https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/categor...](https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/cat/categoryID.69916600)

[2] The Yoga, for example: [https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Lenovo-...](https://www.microsoftstore.com/store/msusa/en_US/pdp/Lenovo- Yoga-910-13IKB-80VF-Signature-Edition-2-in-1-PC/productID.5072380300)

<comment><USER11> Interesting - so they would actually use a different/clean EFI image on those?

If so, then I agree - that's by far the best way to get a Windows laptop. I'll pass on the recommendation next time someone asks me.

It does seem to be a bit more expensive, though; at least for Canadians. I'm seeing a $700 delta between what I'm seeing there and on the Dell store. Is that usual?

<comment><USER12> That's typical PC par for the course of different stores selling roughly the same machine at different prices. Just like some of the bad old days some of the OEM's Signature Edition PCs aren't ever quite one-for-one comparable models to their website/direct sales (or even to some of the other stores they sell in). It has long been the case that manufacturers have slightly different model numbers and subtly different configurations for every single retail channel they interact with so you can't always tell if you are getting a good deal or not.

There also is a case that some of the manufacturers do get enough advertising kickbacks from the junk they bundle with the computer that you do see some of that "savings" passed back to you as a consumer with the premium added to the Signature Editions.

So far as I'm aware (merely as a consumer) Signature Edition does seem to require a clean EFI image as well. I've seen reports that things like Lenovo's EFI problems are things the Signature Edition team screens for (for instance this PC Mag article specifically mentioning Superfish [1]), but I can't tell you how thoroughly they check, just that I feel sure they try.

[1] [http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887213/microsofts- signature-...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/2887213/microsofts-signature- edition-laptops-deliver-the-clean-pc-experience-you-really-want.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Does Xcode come with touch bar support? Custom debugging controls could be cool.

<comment><USER14> Yes, 8.1 and later[1]

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/Dev...](https://developer.apple.com/library/content/releasenotes/DeveloperTools/RN- Xcode/Introduction.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> The comment "15-inch Pros have enough thermal headroom to fit in quad-core Skylake processors..."

is interesting.

While the current offerings don't meet expectations set for the MBP... maybe this is a long play by Apple?

How quickly will the disappointment be forgotten when 32 gig / quadcore / nvidia GPU's are released?

<comment><USER16> Apple's definitely playing the long game here. When the retinas came out, the absence of an ethernet port was a bit inconvenient for me, but now I don't miss it at all. It's possible that in a few years, when this model matures and goes down in price, the touch bar gets more wide support, and everything uses USB-C, then it will make a lot more sense to get one.

<comment><USER17> Yeah I'm very convinced this is going to happen. At the same time, at least for me, I can't afford to wait for this utopia of single-connectors. I need to be able to plug in my daily cords and the last time I had to deal with dongles I lost them all over the place.

I do think it was a big misstep that their flagship, brand new phone can't connect to their flagship, brand new laptop without an adapter that has to be bought separately. I also think they could have done it in a more phased approach without losing anything. But ultimately it will turn out to be a good decision.

<comment><USER18> When was the last time you plugged your iPhone in to your computer? I don't think I've ever plugged my current phone in to my computer since syncs and backs up to the cloud anyway for me.

<comment><USER17> I haven't in years but everyone who isn't technically savvy in my family still does. I don't know if that's indicative of anything larger than my anecdote but I work with people who are very involved with technology who still sync all of their stuff, with a cord, using iTunes and their iPhone 6s / 7.

No idea how common this is but I feel like it's common enough that it should have been handled better.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Weird that I can't find a review anywhere that compares the battery life of the 2013 macbook air with the new $1499 macbook pro. Anyone know of one?

<comment><USER20> The 2013 Air has a the same size battery as the non-touchbar model, a lower power GPU, the same TDP CPU. The display is possibly more efficient on the new pro compared to the older display, but it's got many more pixels, so, I'd give the nod to the Air, but they ought to be close.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Classic Cunningham...

</comment><comment><USER22> > I use 13-inch laptops almost exclusively these days

Stopped reading the review at this point.

<comment><USER23> Why ? Most office workers for example only untether their laptops when going to meetings. They are every bit as "power user" as those who use a 15 inch laptop.

<comment><USER22> Interesting. I guess my workflow and concerns are a little different since I often work without benefit of an attached monitor, and my meetings start by logging into whatever computer is in the conference room. If I'm at my desk, I'm working on hardware that's well beyond what I'd expect from any laptop.

The 'thinner, lighter' perspective just doesn't fit well with my particular requirements.</comment></comment></comment>


Play, Scala, and Iteratees vs. Node.js, JavaScript, and Socket.io - <AUTHOR> http://brikis98.blogspot.com/2013/11/play-scala-and-iteratees-vs-nodejs.html

<comment><USER2> The play API is far less clear and doesn't seem to add any value. It's like they've created a bunch of special classes to do things that could have just been written in scala. Formatting the message is a good example, with socket.io it's just a plain old function call. With play you have to create an "adaptor", which appears to be a function but is wrapped in some special case wrapper called an Enumeratee. As for the names, if you have to explain what every class is actually for you've done a pretty poor job in choosing the names. The socket.io API seems vastly superior, it allows you to do exactly the same thing is smaller and clearer whilst having all the power and perhaps, less restrictions. Sorry for the rant but with so many good examples of APIs (particularly for web interactions) the play API really should be better.

<comment><USER3> In fact it's the opposite - the reason that 'Enumeratees' and their ilk look slightly unusual is that they are abstractions over general input and output, and are not specific at all to Play or WebSockets.

If you are used to functional programming, Iteratees, Enumerators and Enumeratees are very easy to pick up, and what you end up with is simple building blocks that you can compose together to build powerful systems.

I am currently building a system using Play for real-time interaction with a server and the interface is extremely clean.</comment></comment>