I love ARM - <AUTHOR> https://www.20i.com/blog/i-love-arm/ <comment><USER3> This is my consideration.

1)ARM is good for phones/tablets/portable small devices which runs on battery because it saves much more power.

2)I think that x64 hardware of similar specs outperforms arm64 in performance.[Personal observance]

3) I love how I can boot Different linux distros/BSDs/HaikuOS/Windows/other x64-generic-OS.In my arm64 phone,I can't(OS must be especially crafted for that specific processor ,then it must be tweaked carefully for that device in order to boot).Also,there is very much diversity in arm64 space.This implies that some arm64 hardware can't boot/run some OSs which hasn't been crafted for that device.

For my use-case,(3) is very important.I am damn sure that,some manufacturers might manufacture hardware that can't boot other OS(say situation where most (arm) laptops can't run linux and only runs windows). I don't want that to happen.Also , booting up OS in arm64 is not standardized(there is lot of diversity in boot process in arm64 unlike x64).Also ,some components might not be upstreamed in Linux kernel(So,I need to patch my kernel everytime/My kernel will never get updated to new major version like many android phones).

Speaking of other architectures,I also don't think RISC-V will become major architecture anytime soon/will suffer the same disadvantages of arm64 I mentioned above.Maybe,pp64(openpower) might be good architecture but I haven't got a chance to deal with that hardware.

<comment><USER4> The thing about x64 is that it's really complex instruction decoding system is unavoidable overhead. Especially since every processor translates the x64 instructions into processor-specific micro-instructions. And then those are run by the processor.

It seems to me that a simpler instruction set that occurs much less overhead than the above will simply have a higher performance ceiling. The only advantage I see in x64 is that the complex instructions are a form of 'compression' for the micro-instructions. Maaaaybe the resultant bandwidth reduction in reading isntructions is worth the performance overhead of x64 instruction decoding.

<comment><USER5> Decode complexity is a real cost to x86-64 but it's not a huge one. Well, for medium devices in the Pentium range it can be pretty significant but for modern large cores it'll only end up costing 5% or so of the total power budget on x86. And there are some design effects where ARM cores will tend to make the decode unit big enough that it's never the limiting factor whereas x86 cores tend to balance the size of the decoder against the other stages more.

More significant than that, I think, is that modern 64 bit ARM is actually tend to produce denser code than modern 64 bit x86 - which is really weird when you consider that ARM-64 is fixed width and x86-64 is variable width but backwards compatibility can do that.

And more important than that, however, is that x86-64 has a very strict memory model and ARM a more relaxed one which can cause problems for programmers who aren't careful but has huge implications for the design of the memory backend.

<comment><USER6> > More significant than that, I think, is that modern 64 bit ARM is actually > tend to produce denser code than modern 64 bit x86

Do you have a citation for that? Everything I've seen says the opposite, including [http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/ll_document...](http://web.eece.maine.edu/~vweaver/papers/iccd09/ll_document.pdf)

The strongest wording I've seen is that aarch64 is 'competitive with' x86_64.

<comment><USER5> You know I think you're correct and I was mis-remembering. I think what I might have actually been confused by is instructions per task rather than bytes of instruction per task but given that my memory has already failed me once here who knows.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I love ARM too, that's why I'm sad to hear that SoftBank has put it on the block for sale and especially that Nvidia is eyeing it.

People say, it wouldn't get pass regulators; I doubt it, Qualcomm - <USER2> was blocked as US feared the latter might stall Qualcomm's telecom research giving advantage to China. But, it's the other way around for ARM Holdings - Nvidia deal; Why wouldn't US allow its company grabbing a future-proof computer architecture?

Sidenote/rant- Look what have you done WeWork, burning VC money with a nonsense company has led to a point that the future of computing democracy is now under threat. Well, SoftBank wasn't a good place for ARM Holdings in the first place but at least I thought they were in it for a long haul; I was wrong.

I feel RISC-V is the true future for open-source computing.

</comment><comment><USER8> > I think Apple moving towards entirely ARM compatible Macs and Macbooks will > drive the ARM SBC market forward for developers (it's difficult to develop > on architecture X for architecture Y).

I'd be very surprised if this was the case.

<comment><USER9> I'm surprised that Apple didn't buy ARM yet.

<comment> kalium-xyz Apple is one of the parties which founded ARM

<comment><USER10> Source? As far as I can see they only made a joint venture: [https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1990-11-28-fi-4993-s...](https://www.latimes.com/archives/la- xpm-1990-11-28-fi-4993-story.html)

<comment><USER11> According to that article the joint venture they co-founded was actually ARM.

<comment><USER10> True, however the joint venture was founded to "further develop" the technology. That means the ARM architecture itself seems to have originated at Acorn, without Apple.

<comment><USER12> The point is, originally, Apple were co-owners of Arm (together with Acorn and VLSI).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Every article I read about ARM64 doesn't really have any technical, concrete reason to love it. I think we're simply experiencing a sort of euphoria that comes with knowing there's competition in the space and big players are mixing things up. There's joy in anticipation.

<comment><USER14> The one big reason is, that ARM64 is a reasonably clean 64bit RISC CPU. That doesn't have so much historical baggage to carry as the x86-based CPUs. Which were never loved, at no time in their life cycle. But due to how history went, managed to kill all the nice RISC designs that once were around. SPARC, Alpha, MIPS, just to name some.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Servers next? Servers first! AWS released a _second generation_ of the Graviton before Apple announced the Mac transition. Also great stuff is coming from Ampere and Marvell (ex-Cavium).

<comment><USER7> I've been running one of my production applications[1] on Marvell (ex-Cavium) based ARM server on Scaleway which has had it for several years now; unfortunately they decided to pull the plug off their entire ARM line up suddenly citing stability issues which not many have faced[2].

[1][https://needgap.com](https://needgap.com)

[2][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22865925](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22865925)

<comment><USER15> Back in the pre-Graviton days I managed to boot FreeBSD on their ThunderX VM offering, wrote a guide on the forums, even received an email about that from staff… and a few months later they broke local boot completely and then, yeah, closed the whole offering for some reason. What a disaster. As much as I dislike the whole Bezos Empire thing, I'm glad AWS picked up the ARM VM world and pushed it to great heights.

<comment><USER7> I think main cause of issue with Scaleway's ARM offering could be their own custom Bios and not the actual hardware. I hope they had come clean with the actual technical details of the stability issues instead of just mentioning it in one line on their migration guide to x86 from ARM servers.

<comment><USER15> huh, they might be bringing ARM back:

[https://amperecomputing.com/ampere-altra-family-of-cloud- nat...](https://amperecomputing.com/ampere-altra-family-of-cloud-native- processors-expands-to-128-cores-with-altra-max/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> My reckless prediction: When Apple releases their first Apple Silicon Macs at the end of the year, one of them will be a rack-mount server.

<comment><USER17> Happy to bet against this.

<comment><USER18> The Mac Pro is rack mountable, and I would expect it to transition to ARM at some point

<comment><USER19> Lacking things like dual power supplies and out of band management, that probably isn't the context the GP meant.

<comment><USER20> This probably isn't a game changer for you, but Apple mentioned at WWDC that Lights Out Management is coming to Mac Pros in the next release of macOS. You need a Mac Mini somewhere on the network to manage commands from the MDM to the turned off Mac Pro, so I don't know what happens if that Mac Mini is turned off, but it's a move in the right direction I guess. (I suppose it's because they don't want network to be up before the firmware on the target Macs is validated, but I'm not sure).

[https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement/l...](https://developer.apple.com/documentation/devicemanagement/lightsoutmanagementlom)

<comment><USER19> If the Mac mini is capable of managing several servers, that's not a bad idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I personally hope to see more 64-bit only processors without the burden of AArch32 support.

<comment><USER22> You see that in, say, Cortex-A76, which only supports AArch32 at EL0. Supporting AArch32 at EL0 is quite cheap compared to also supporting it at the higher exception levels - EL0 can be done entirely in the instruction decoder.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> What's the reason behind companies adopting ARM instead of the open standard RISC-V? E.g. Apple designs its own chips, wouldn't it make more sense to use RISC-V instead of paying fees to ARM?

<comment><USER11> Apple helped found ARM back in 1990 and is a major shareholder, they have a massive investment in the architecture, including enormous experience with it. They can't just drop the massive experience, knowledge, investment and hardware and software ecosystem they have built up around ARM and switch to a completely different architecture.

Also Apple already hold a perpetual license for the ARM architecture, the major costs of their investment in it were spent years or even decades ago.

The obvious counter is the sunk cost fallacy, but what does RISC-V actually have to offer that Apple doesn't already have with ARM? Those sunk costs have bought Apple actual tangible benefits on ARM that RISC-V doesn't have, such as architectural features like the secure enclave, better device integration, better GPU options, more mature device driver support, a stronger development and testing tools ecosystem.

The opportunity for RISC-V is new use cases not already strongly addressed by ARM, or where ARMs more mature ecosystem offers weaker benefits, for companies not already strongly invested in ARM.

<comment><USER24> In this case, I think that the "sunk cost fallacy" counter is as specious as it is obvious. It completely misplaces the burden of evidence.

Apple has a platform with hundreds of millions of active users, perhaps over a billion actual devices in use. In a situation like that, conservatism is warranted. The guiding principle is simple: If it ain't broke, don't fix it. Meaning that the argument doesn't start with any sort of discussion about technical advantages that RISC-V might have over ARM, or challenging reasons to stay on ARM as if, having dismissed them, the obvious default plan of migrating to RISC-V would kick into action. It starts with trying to demonstrate that something about ARM is broken. Because, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. So. . . is it hindering Apple's strategic or operational priorities in any way?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> For the layperson, what is so special about ARM chip designs? Are they much more efficient in compute achieved per clock cycle or something?

Or as the author alludes to, have less power consuming non-useful overhead processes running in the background? Is it the equivalent of pipeline length that Apple pointed out when making the Intel transition back in the 2000s? (the "megahertz myth"?)

<comment><USER26> Basically the only advantage is simplified instruction decoding, which it has in common with other RISCs. It has some other nice properties too, I think it really shows that it has taken lessons learned from other RISC architectures and struck a good balance. But the reason for the switch isn't how nice ARM is, the reason is that Intel is struggling with its manufacturing process and Apple wants to be in control of its own destiny.

<comment><USER27> Apple also want to add their own narrow-purpose chips (like media encoders and what have you).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> _> Hopefully that will be in a way that will lead to there being releases/hybrids/OS projects of Apple's collections of OSes finding themselves running on boards like the RockPro64 (inside the Pinebook Pro)._

I am looking forward to seeing what they do with ARM. Probably the most interesting thing will be what kinds of custom SoCs will appear.

But don't get your hopes up for any "hackintoshes." At least, not commercial ones. You will probably be able to scare up homebrew devices (like they have nowadays, with Intel), but Apple has always been rather... _punitive_ towards corporations that produce Apple clones.

<comment><USER29> I find it unlikely that even the homebrew community will be able to install Mac OS 11 on any non-apple hardware without emulation for a good long while because Apple is likely going to lock down their software to only run on their hardware, much like how iOS can't be run on an Android device without an emulator.

<comment><USER28> I agree. I think the T2 (T3?) chip is going to end up being embedded in the Apple Silicon SoC.

<comment><USER30> Definitely, they will consolidate their T2 functionality and also functionality traditionally left to the chipset into one SoC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> I will be the dissenting voice and say I prefer MIPS.

Like the Wintel (Windows/Intel) monoculture, ARM brings the GoogleArm monoculture. The Apple/Arm monoculture that some people seem to hope for would be no different: heavily restricted, with fewer possibilities for free software.

MIPS64 offer us a good royaltie-free alternative, to be independent of the western companies (UK/US based)

If Nvidia gets ARM, I fully expect the same shenanigans Intel pulled on X86.

So I hope a third party alternative (MIPS, Sparc, anything) will be there, hopefully with a major fab like Samsung behind it.

<comment><USER32> MIPS64 is no longer royalty-free.

 _Wave Computing Closes Its MIPS Open Initiative with Immediate Effect, Zero Warning_

[https://www.hackster.io/news/wave-computing-closes-its- mips-...](https://www.hackster.io/news/wave-computing-closes-its-mips-open- initiative-with-immediate-effect-zero-warning-e88b0df9acd0)

<comment><USER33> So we're only left with RISCV? Sparc seams a dead end, and power too.

<comment><USER15> IBM is actively investing in POWER though

<comment><USER34> Would be nice if they brought that back into the laptop realm.

<comment><USER35> There is a project to make a power pc laptop [https://www.powerpc- notebook.org/en/](https://www.powerpc-notebook.org/en/) Though it does not use a IBM CPU.

<comment><USER36> They claim to be using a NXP T2080 CPU as the core of their laptop. This is doomed to failure.

The T2080 is a high-speed communications processor. It is not designed for energy efficiency. It can draw up to 20W at full power, and does not support the sorts of power-saving features that would be required for a mobile part. The datasheet doesn't even _specify_ the processor's idle power consumption! Some of the tables can be read to imply that it might be able to idle down to roughly 7W, but that's still completely unsuitable for a laptop.

<comment><USER32> Are there other Power processors that might be better suited for a laptop?

<comment><USER36> Somewhat not by much. NXP has a couple of other QorIQ parts which might fit a laptop application a little better; for instance, the T1040 series (4 cores, 1.5 GHz, 7W TDP) seems like a better fit. IBM's POWER parts are aimed squarely at supercomputing and are completely unsuitable for this use case.

But, quite frankly, none of these parts are really intended for mobile use. There hasn't been any real interest in mobile Power hardware since Apple got out of the business nearly 15 years ago -- ARM cores have utterly dominated that market.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I like that there is a real option to break away from x86/x64 now. It may not be the best for all use cases, but 10-15 years ago there was no viable personal computing option. I'm not wishing for Intel's downfall either, they seem to do better once there is real competition around. While AMD has made huge strides here, the real problem is there needs to be a high performance processor that doesn't consume power like x86/x64.

</comment><comment><USER38> Aren't we in fact just talking about the CPU architecture (a.k.a. the instruction set, ISA)? On the inside, all CPUs are (or can be made) the same regardless of the architecture - the differences dictated only by technical requirements such as desired performance, price, power consumption, etc.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's done wonders for embedded systems. I still have a Netwinder in my drawer, that was when I switched from various oddball micros to ARM - never looked back. Is ARM the best? Probably not, but that doesn't matter. The only one I kinda miss is the MSP430 - but not enough to keep working with it.

</comment><comment><USER40> I too am feeling somewhat optimistic about this direction in technology, and for approximately similar reasons, though I don't think I feel so strongly about it as to craft a blog post on the topic.

</comment><comment><USER41> I read the whole article expecting something programming-related to come (it didn't).</comment>


Ask HN: Did any book(s) change your life in 2016? - <AUTHOR> If so, I'd appreciate the details (title, author) and a few words about why.
Sunday curiosity, no ulterior motive.
Thanks very much in advance. <comment><USER2> I have been noticing my time towards podcasts and videos have been increasing and books decreasing.

However very proud of my dedicated bookcase towards an entire collection of billionaire books that I enjoy re-reading and strategically place by my desk so I can see them everyday as I work.

Have you seen the YCombinator booklist that just came out?google yc booklists for multiple years.

Besides those, How to fail at almost everything and still win big (scott adams) for chapter 23 about affirmations was a life changer for me - awesome.

Ask and it is Given by ester and jerry hicks.

Never split the difference by top FBI hostage negotiator. Chris Voss

Looking forward to Tim Ferris book which is compiled from his podcast interviews.

</comment><comment><USER3> The Law of Success by Napolean Hill Reasons Why: \- I learned that every thought you have is a vibration, every vibration you send out can be picked up by others. \- It breaks down alot of skills for success and how to develop them in a practical way -If you have read Think and Grow Rich by Napolean Hill this is a basically a better/more in depth version.</comment>


Why Fukushima Daiichi won't be another Chernobyl   - <AUTHOR> http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn20257-why-fukushima-daiichi-wont-be-another-chernobyl.html?full=true

<comment><USER2> I'm getting pretty tired of this meme.

Chernobyl was horrific! It happened at a time and in place that did not care much about safety or human lives. The technology was primitive. Safety mechanisms had been turned off. The response to the accident was to send people on a suicide mission while telling everyone else everything was hunky dory. It was a a horrific disaster.

How the hell could Fukushima be as bad?

And what is the point of all of this anyway?

Look, I think we should use a lot more nuclear power, yes despite the fact that I grew up down wind of Chernobyl and with Fukushima still happening, I STILL think we should all drive electric cars that get their electricity from nuclear power.

But I want those nuclear plants to as safe as technology can make them. And I welcome higher per kilowatt prices to make this happen. What I don't want is nukes on the cheap, as this particular GE model of reactor appears to have been marketed.

And I am really getting sick of the chorus of the last couple of days which I can summarize as:

1\. Fukushima is totally under control you guys! 2\. Fukushima is not going to melt down you guys! 3\. Fukushima is not going to have a total melt down, OK! 4\. Chernobyl didn't kill THAT many people. 5\. Chernobyl wasn't that bad. 6\. The area around Chernobyl is going to be peachy in like another 50 years! 7\. Well at least Fukushima can't be as bad Chernobyl!

For the love of God, if you want to promote nuclear power do it in a smart way! Explain just how bad and radioactive coal is. Explain all the ways in which modern nuclear can be made safer. And call for more oversight and investment in safety.

But please stop trying to downplay Fukushima! Not only does this not help anything, but it actively discredits advocacy for nuclear power!

<comment><AUTHOR> As long as people are comparing it to Chernobyl, we can't have a sane, realistic conversation about nuclear power.

<comment><USER3> Which is the whole point of the meme... destroy nuclear's credibility with FUD comparisons.

Both anti-nuke environmentalist groups and fossil fuel mega-corps can get cozy with this campaign.

<comment><USER2> The way to combat that campaign is not by defending an ancient reactor built on the cheap. It's not by defending the overly secrete save face first, save lives second approach by the authorities. Fukushima should not be played down. That is not the way to counter-act the FUD.

<comment><AUTHOR> Like I said before, we cannot have a sane, rational conversation about how terrible of a design the Mark I BWR is, or how necessary it is to decommission outdated reactors, until people know enough to stop making comparisons to Chernobyl.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Every time I see a "everything will be fine" article, things get worse a few hours later. Please, just sit on your hands, wait, and see.

Maybe Chernobyl wasn't actually as bad as it could have been. Maybe Fukushima is going to be a lot worse than expected. Maybe Chernobyl is in the middle of f*ing nowhere. Maybe Fukushima is in one of the most densely populated regions in the world.

Who knows?

All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history. Many of them are likely going to die within a few years because of it.

<comment><USER5> > All we know is that there are a few dozen people right now, fighting to > prevent what could become one of the biggest man-made disasters in history.

But how are they going to save the 26,000 people killed by the failure of the Banqiao Dam without time travel?

I'm kidding, but don't let anyone fool you: Fukushima Dai-ichi is still dangerous, but only to the people nearby. There's a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions and radiation spikes that are dangerous to the people nearby. They're very unlikely to affect anyone not in Japan. Cleanup will be a pain.

But hearing "OH GOD WE'RE ALL GOING TO DIE!" constantly in the media is pretty grating for anyone who understands the real, immediate concerns in Japan right now. Yes, the reactor needs cool and the workers are very brave. They probably do risk significant radiation exposure. But meanwhile, there are many people who got swept out to sea, people who are trapped behind blocked roads and who need supplies and people injured from the quake in remote areas who need care.

These logistical problems are the real disaster and they're being virtually ignored by anyone outside Japan while all eyes are on the continuing problems at Fukushima Dai-ichi.

One good thing, badly under-reported, is how helpful the US Military's logistical support is. And I don't mean just the stuff at Fukushima. Removing rubble from roads and clearing collapsed buildings is not at all glamorous, but a lot of such things need to be done right now.

<comment><USER6> 'still dangerous, but only to the people nearby'

Depending on what happens in the next week or two and depending on which way the wind blows, that could be 35m people nearby in the Tokyo metro area.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "However, the company operating Fukushima Daiichi has now said that, for the fuel pond at reactor 4, 'the risk of recriticality is not zero', meaning a nuclear chain reaction could restart in the rods. Quite how this has come about is unclear."

Whoops, looks like you invalidated half of your article.

</comment><comment><USER8> Nuclear power isn't pretty, but it's going to be pretty much a necessity in the coming years. This relatively minor accident has come at a very unfortunate time.

<comment><USER9> It's amazing that you can know the accident was minor when it's not even over yet. Seems like you are not really using reality to form your opinions.

<comment><USER5> The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting. How many have died from radiation poisoning or even the hydrogen explosions so far? I'm counting two people missing and some radiation poisoning.

We're looking at a substantial risk of further hydrogen explosions until the cooling is stable and a risk of radiation leakage to those nearby. There is a slight risk of radiation further out, but it's unlikely to cause significant harm. So the primary danger is to plant employees and those trying to cool it down or fight fires. It's unlikely to be able to kill large numbers of people, though it's likely that someone will calculate x% increase of cancer * 128M people (all of Japan) and publish that number.

But let's count the casualties and weigh them against the 5,000 or so who have died from the earthquake already:

[http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/11031710-e....](http://www.tepco.co.jp/en/press/corp- com/release/11031710-e.html)

Casualty

\- 2 workers of cooperative firm were injured at the occurrence of the earthquake, and were transported to the hospital.

\- 1 TEPCO employee who was not able to stand by his own with his hand holding left chest was transported to the hospital by an ambulance.

\- 1 subcontract worker at important earthquake-proof building was unconscious and transported to the hospital by an ambulance.

\- The radiation exposure of 1 TEPCO employee, who was working inside the reactor building, exceeded 100mSv and was transported to the hospital.

\- 2 TEPCO employees felt bad during their operation in the central control rooms of Unit 1 and 2 while wearing full masks, and were transferred to Fukushima Daini Power Station for consultation with a medical advisor.

\- 4 workers were injured and transported to the hospital after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 1.

\- 11 workers were injured and transported to Fukushima Daini Nuclear Power Station after explosive sound and white smoke were confirmed around the Unit 3.One of the injured workers got medical treatment on March 16th, but the worker reported a flank pain. We required to the offsite center that the worker should be transported to the hospital. After that, the helicopter of JSDF arrived and transported the worker to the FUKUSHIMA Medical University Hospital at 10:56AM

\- Presence of 2 TEPCO employees at the site is not confirmed.

<comment><USER2> _The earthquake + tsunami killed something like 5,000 people and counting._

The absolutely horrific results of the earthquake and tsunami in no way make Fukushima a minor deal. Yes, it has killed MANY fewer people then the tsunami, but that does not make it a minor deal!

<comment><USER5> (Edited for clarification.)

I never said it was a minor deal. My heart goes out to the families of the two workers missing at Fukushima Dai-ichi as well as to those injured.

But I don't get the panic. I mean a run on Potassium Iodide tablets on the US west coast? Seriously?? I don't know if I should be grateful that they at least found something that could be effective or sad that they expect significant amounts of radiation to get that far.

I need to figure out how to use actuarial tables to I can convert these exposure levels to something like "cigarette equivalent risk" by comparing cancer rates.

<comment><USER2> A run on potassium iodide tablets on the US west coast is just plain silly, but the way to combat that is to discuss exactly how radiation spreads, not to try and argue that Fukushima isn't that bad.

<comment><USER5> > A run on potassium iodide tablets on the US west coast is just plain silly, > but the way to combat that is to discuss exactly how radiation spreads, not > to try and argue that Fukushima isn't that bad.

How can I do one without doing the other, given the nice "radiation plume" graphics, in "arbitrary units" no less, going through the news?

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2335273>

I'm not trying to minimize the problems, I'm trying to be realistic about them. After the first hydrogen explosion, if you look through my HN comments, I warned that there were likely to be more. Those are very dangerous, but to the plant employees fixing this, but not to anyone who isn't nearby. Those people are heroes, putting themselves in danger to protect everyone else from further radiation leaks.

But I sincerely believe that nobody who isn't in Japan or in the sea nearby is at any serious risk.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I posted this before, but I feel it's worth re-iterating: There will never be another Chernobyl. It was a perfect intersection of criminally inadequate design, early-adopter naivete, incompetence, and Murphy's Law.

Not least of which was the fact that Chernobyl had no containment (!!), and was running at peak (3200MW) as opposed to Fukushima Daiichi's 5% capacity (25MW).

A comparison to Three Mile Island is totally valid, but Chernobyl is literally off the table.

<comment><USER7> I think we're way past TMI by now right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Yup, it won't be Chernobyl. It will always be Fukushima Daiichi.

How the nuclear accident will turn out to be is anyones guess right now though.</comment>


Send notes that will self-destruct after being read - <AUTHOR> https://safenote.co <comment><USER2> Funny thing - I wrote on google "about safe notes" not thinking too much, and this is what I found:

"What Are SAFE Notes? SAFE (simple agreement for future equity) notes are a simpler alternative to convertible notes. They were created in 2013 by Y Combinator, a Silicon Valley accelerator, and allow startups to structure seed investments without interest rates or maturity dates. SAFEs are short five- page documents. The valuation caps are the only negotiable detail.

A SAFE note is a convertible security that, like an option or warrant, allows the investor to buy shares in a future priced round. It addresses many of the drawbacks and challenges posed by convertible notes and can be an equitable option for investors and founders. Startups may prefer SAFE notes because, unlike convertible notes, they are not debt and therefore do not accrue interest."</comment>


Spotify shuts down direct music uploading for independent artists - <AUTHOR> https://www.altpress.com/news/spotify-independent-artists-upload-music-streaming/ <comment><USER2> The submitted article doesn't mention it but my guess at connecting the dots is that it's related to EU Article 13's stringent requirement of "upload filters"[0].

Yes, Spotify's direct uploading _" gave opportunity for small artists to share their talent"_ \-- but that same mechanism also made it too easy to upload copyright infringing content.

Since Spotify does not have a machine learning AI copyright filter like Youtube's ContentID[1], shutting down the direct upload was their best course of action. Restricting uploads to their distribution partners (record labels) is the human version of the "contentid" algorithm.

[0] [https://www.google.com/search?q=eu+"article+13"](https://www.google.com/search?q=eu+"article+13")

[1] [https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+"contentid"](https://www.google.com/search?q=youtube+"contentid")

<comment><USER3> Spotify has internal fingerprinting stuff that can handle this easily enough. The shutdown is entirely due to pressure from the record labels. It's a shame; this was a surprisingly difficult product to get off the ground, and a lot of folks put in heroic efforts to make it work.

<comment><USER4> Music labels are strangling culture in America. Please pirate music to avoid funding music industry lobbyists in their efforts.

<comment><USER5> This is uninformed and off-topic.

<comment><USER6> How so?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Most likely explanation - nobody was using it. They only introduced it as a beta feature recently, and you have to use a distributor like CDBaby or distrokid to get your music onto other streaming sites anyway, so unless you were _only_ interested in Spotify there was no point

<comment><USER8> +1. I'm a musician who has released albums and I'd never use something like this, because who wants to manage distribution for every platform?

DistroKid/CDBaby are a much better way to do this.

<comment> steve-benjamins As a fellow artist I disagree :)

I'd totally use this. Spotify and Apple Music are 99% of my plays. The other services don't matter.

(Youtube and Soundcloud are uploaded separate from Distrokid / CD Baby.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This sort of addresses a number of disparate issues related to quality control. I don't know how I feel about it, but they probably had to do it to prevent becoming the next YouTube. As long as they don't allow user ratings or user comments they should be fine.

[https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes- si...](https://www.theverge.com/2014/5/7/5690590/spotify-removes-silent-album- that-earned-indie-band-20000)

[https://qz.com/1212330/a-bulgarian-scheme-scammed-spotify- fo...](https://qz.com/1212330/a-bulgarian-scheme-scammed-spotify- for-1-million-without-breaking-a-single-law/)

[https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/streaming-music-cheat- codes....](https://www.vulture.com/2017/07/streaming-music-cheat-codes.html)

<comment><USER10> El-P has also raised similar issues:

"What I mean is I regularly have to send take down notices not only for people using my name for their music and it appearing on my artist page but for people uploading my albums to their page and assumedly having my money diverted to them until we catch it."

[https://exclaim.ca/music/article/el- p_rages_out_on_spotify_f...](https://exclaim.ca/music/article/el- p_rages_out_on_spotify_for_not_protecting_artists_from_fraud)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Soundrop and Amuse.io are 2 free alternatives that distribute to a range of platforms. And this is a pretty comprehensive and objective overview of them all: [https://aristake.com/post/cd-baby-tunecore-ditto- mondotunes-...](https://aristake.com/post/cd-baby-tunecore-ditto-mondotunes- zimbalam-or)

<comment><USER12> I've used Amuse for two tracks (easily findable if you like minimalist dark ambient noisescapes) and ... it's fiddly (lots of form fields and you need your tracks in Dropbox/iCloud) but , barring an approval snafu for track 2 which got sorted out after I bitched at them on Twitter and their insanely long 30 day release window, it's working ok.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> There are always the distribution broker services (DistroKid, CDBaby, TuneCore...) but they can go bad.

I've contemplated 1) writing some open source quality control software for scanning music distribution uploads, and 2) forming a collective (probably 501(c)(3) charity non-profit) which would serve in the distribution broker role and redistribute income.

I wonder if such things could ever come to pass. Any thoughts?

<comment><USER14> What problem are you trying to solve?

<comment><USER13> The unreliability of distribution brokers as artist allies.

<comment><USER14> Where has this come up? Not all distributors work direct with artists. Bandcamp is proprietary, for profit and seems to have strong artist allies.

<comment><USER13> TuneCore changing its pricing structure a number of years ago is probably the classic example.

An artist can jump ship to another distribution broker, but there are a lot of downsides such as losing play counts and breaking links.

Can any of the distribution brokers be trusted to act in an artist's interest indefinitely? There's just an inherent problem with that.

<comment><USER14> If you retain your ISRCs and UPCs when moving from one distributor to another, links and stream counts will remain as is.

Surely that's an issue solved by the market, if there is a distributor that is reliable & fairly priced then people will move to use and stay with them. I think the current issue is that a lot of the big name distributors are marketers first, distributors second.

<comment><USER13> Since when are non-profits not part of the market?

No commercial distributor can hold out forever against the temptation expanding into marketing. That's as hopeless as wishing that ISPs would stay as dumb pipes.

There should be _more_ competition: a non-profit which offers fewer features but which you aren't constantly wondering when it will flip and screw you over, versus more featureful and slicker commercial competition.

<comment><USER14> They're not, but I don't see how it being non-profit would make a difference to the problems you're suggesting. You can be for-profit and still have a sustainable, fair and innovative model.

By marketing I mean marketing themselves as a service, not marketing the music they handle.

<comment><USER13> > a sustainable, fair and innovative model

Until ownership or management changes. Or has a change of heart. Or gets squeezed by an aggressive competitor.

Long term relationships with companies are fraught. Establishing vendor lockin followed by exploitation is a proven-successful business stratagem.

Once it becomes expensive for customers to leave a service, it is perpetually tempting to dial up the cost of the service until just below the point where customers bolt. The more painful you can make it to leave, the more you can wring from them.

Even if the company you're doing business with isn't exploiting you today, you'd be well advised to check back tomorrow, and the day after that, and the day after that...

Or better, to avoid forming such long term relationships with entities that are perpetually at risk of going bad.

I worked in the music industry for 6 years. There are so many people in that space who want to do the right thing, who attempt to do something "sustainable, fair and innovative" — yet the marketplace sadly and stubbornly resists their efforts, corrupting them or crushing them. Where are all the benevolent record labels that ought to exist, by your logic?

By having this entity be a member-governed cooperative, you take on a different set of problems. (I've served on the board of a large 501(c)(3) so I'm well acquainted with the frustrations.) But at least you avoid the terrible misalignment of incentives that comes from relying on a profit-driven middleman over the long term.

<comment><USER14> A lot of the new players (~past decade) are VC funded and/or starting off in a highly saturated market, needing to landgrab as many artists & labels as possible to establish themselves. So they end up prioritising marketing their service via slick onboarding, PR campaigns, unsustainable offers (see Stem) and cash advances. A couple years down the line they usually fall short of their core model or pivot, as you say, dialling up the cost of the service.

Always enjoy seeing services tout the 'keep 100% of your royalties' when they pipe everything through a third party like CI who take a percentage upfront.

Yes I've seen a handful of services across the years with the "sustainable, fair and innovative" USP, often run by volunteers and withering out after a short time. I'm not too sure on the potential of these as they end up being top heavy, with more artists and labels onboard than paying customers / fans. The only people that seem to have got this balance right is Bandcamp, at the cost of 15% of your revenue.

I've dealt with a distributor who have been around for decades (physical & digital) and sit under the radar, not focussed on growth, soley relying on word of mouth referrals with high profile, revenue generating clients for years. They're not the cheapest on %age, but are reliable, transparent and are well respected for the curation of clients (no open door policy) so as with everything - you get what you pay for. So they do exist, but you won't hear them shouting their own name.

As for labels, I know of plenty who offer a fair deal for artists who end up staying with them in the long term. It's just the bad apples, usually the majors, who have the leverage to offer unscrupulous deals which all comes out in the press when the artists realise how bad the deal was years down the line and they're contracted in for another 10 years.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm not familiar with the process, but could there also have been a fraud aspect (not copyright) to this that wasn't worth the effort required to prevent? Upload "songs", generate lots of listens, get paid.

<comment><USER16> Yes, I hope so, because fraud is a huge issue with Spotify.

An older acquaintance of mine is a professional musician living in Nashville doing commissions.

He made a track for a trailer of a video game, but chose not to publish it on Spotify (for reasons I don't know). One of the fans ripped the song from the trailer, uploaded it to Spotify, and was collecting all the royalties.

Even though Spotify keeps taking it down, someone else uploads it again, ad nauseam.

<comment><USER15> Yeah, the uploading of copyright infringing content is one aspect, but I was also wondering about just uploading rubbish and somehow generating fake listens or tricking real users into listening to your track (game the ranking algorithms to get it into recommended playlists) to get royalties.

Something like the Amazon ebook scams:

[https://www.zdnet.com/article/exclusive-inside-a-million- dol...](https://www.zdnet.com/article/exclusive-inside-a-million-dollar- amazon-kindle-catfishing-scam/)

[https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/amazon-book-stuffing- author...](https://www.inc.com/minda-zetlin/amazon-book-stuffing-authors-scam- chance-carter-romance-kindle-unlimited.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Google did the same a couple of months back[1].

Is there a reason these companies are actively against independent artists being able to upload the music directly?

[1]([https://9to5google.com/2019/04/03/google-play-music- shutdown...](https://9to5google.com/2019/04/03/google-play-music-shutdown- starts/))

<comment><USER18> Perhaps pressure from record labels? I hope artists can flock to somewhere like Bandcamp, or alternatives.

<comment><USER19> This is pretty much the default answer to all such questions, unless directly proven to be otherwise.

The last thing they would want is for Spotify, or anyone else, to effectively become a record label in their own right.

<comment><USER20> Plenty of companies will mass upload your music to all of the streaming sites for like $20-30/year which sounds pretty cheap compared to the old days of needing a record label to do anything other than play in bars. Those companies aren't considered record labels, they are distributors which is almost what Spotify is doing. Some of those distributors offer engineering and marketing services too but it still doesn't make them record labels. There are so many record labels out there that there really isn't an issue with another smaller one popping up.

<comment><USER19> I'm sure they're fine with the small fish. But with Spotify, Apple, and others who might have the financial muscles to become a threat if given the chance? I'm not so sure.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Wasn't Spotify just complaining that Apple's App Store policies hurts consumers? The shoe seems to be on the other foot now. This policy hurts both independent artists and consumers. Not to mention this policy stems from unnecessary government regulations that benefit only large players in the music industry.

</comment><comment><USER22> Is this just a way to outsource quality control. Making sure meta data was correct, accurate, etc.

</comment><comment><USER23> If others are looking to move away from Spotify, here is a comparison of what streaming services pay artists per stream.

[https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming- music-...](https://www.digitalmusicnews.com/2018/12/25/streaming-music- services-pay-2019/)

</comment><comment><USER24> New mafia is merging with the old mafia... "Wonderful" end to dreams about technology enabling better world...

</comment><comment><USER25> If, for once, you can get of all the middlemen it allows you to create your own.

</comment><comment><USER26> Why do you guys speculate what the reasons are instead of just asking Spotify?

</comment><comment><USER27> I guess that means we cant upload tool anymore under other names

<comment><USER28> Really wish Spotify did the Google Play Music thing of letting you upload a few thousand songs to fill in the gaps in their library.

From what I can tell, they sorta do - they let you add songs on your device, but I haven't been able to find them in my app sooo :|

<comment><USER29> The way they impliment it is pretty bad. Basically you have to add a local music folder on your PC, then you have to use the search tool to find it (on PC) and add it to a playlist. Then you have to go onto your mobile while on the same network as the PC, and download the playlist.

Spotify doesn't store your song at all on their servers (unlike google) and if you want to re-download the files on a new device, the original pc that had it has to still be there or else you have to redo the whole thing.

<comment><USER30> It's clumsy but you can see why Spotify don't want anything to do with handling uploaded music on their servers. I wonder how Google treats it from a legal/copyright perspective. I suspect they are just too big to care.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Artists uploading directly would threaten the monopoly major labels have on distribution relationships.

</comment><comment><USER32> Too bad... That's one of the things I liked about Spotify

It gave opportunity for small artists to share their talent

<comment><USER33> There are still several services that "automagically" publish your music to several platforms at once.

Some are pretty affordable, like DITTOMUSIC

[https://www.dittomusic.com/pricing](https://www.dittomusic.com/pricing)

<comment><USER14> [https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.dittomusic.com](https://uk.trustpilot.com/review/www.dittomusic.com)

<comment><USER33> Thank you.

Any good alternatives?

<comment><USER34> Distrokid - [https://distrokid.com](https://distrokid.com)

Have used it for over a year, works well, simple upload process, gets out to all the stores quickly, and annual fees are very reasonable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> This is what happens when you rent your music.

I'm glad I never had a Spotify account. I always either buy CDs from shows or get them off Bandcamp. I prefer Bandcamp because they take a smaller cut (15%, as low as 10% if you have a label which high volume) and really hate it when an artist I like only has the option of Apple/Google/Amazon (all which take ~30% or more).

I just went from a 200GB microsd card to a 512gb, and can carry all my music in my phone, ready for offline playback, where ever I go.

<comment><USER36> A streaming service is _not_ just a collection of your favourite songs. Content discovery and auto-playlist are some of the not so easily irreplaceable featured offered by the likes of Spotify.

And anyway, the diss about ownership Vs rental is far too broad a swipe for the topic at hand.</comment></comment>


I'm the CTO of Reserve, Ask Me Anything During Codementor Office Hours- 9/4 - <AUTHOR> http:// https://www.codementor.io/ama/8352906341/craig-coffman?utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Craig%20Coffer

<comment><USER2> This is the (broken) link in this post:

[http://%20https://www.codementor.io/ama/8352906341/craig- cof...](http://%20https://www.codementor.io/ama/8352906341/craig- coffman?utm_source=hackernews&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=Craig%20Coffer)

and someone upvoted this too...</comment>


Amazon confirms it keeps your Alexa recordings basically forever - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2019/07/amazon-confirms-it-keeps-your-alexa-recordings-basically-forever/ <comment><USER2> We're moving from getting services for free that are taking all of our data to paying for services that are taking all of our data.

It's honestly ridiculous and only government intervention will prevent this from getting out of hand.

</comment><comment><USER3> Alexa feels like like one of those devices that everyone (tech & non-tech people alike) understand to be an always-on recording device, and a proof point that many people do, in fact, choose convenience over privacy.

<comment><USER4> Perhaps multiple categories:

1\. Non-tech people, who don't understand the immediate technical aspects of what's happening, and haven't had much occasion to think about the implications.

2\. Tech people, many of us who do understand a lot of what's happening in technical levels, but are conditioned by all the practices around us (and our paychecks/startups depending on it) to not think of this as bad for society.

<comment><USER5> I already have phone in my pocket with Google assistant (yes, you can switch it off, but is it truly off?) Thats why I decided that Alexa is not a big deal.

<comment><USER6> Phones have a security/privacy advantage, because being battery powered and (potentially) using metered data, the cost of recording everything and shipping interesting parts of the audio to the corporate mothership would be immediate, in customer complaints about battery life and data usage.

Wifi/ethernet and AC-connected devices change the risk/benefit calculation significantly.

Alexa or Google Assistant on a phone is therefore not really the same thing as Alexa or Google on a standalone plug-in device.

For example, a google phone (depending on model/setup) and Google mini might both listening all the time for "Hey google". Both respond by listening and recording the next collection of sounds. However, the bar for deciding when to ship that audio off to Google, or when it's confident enough it can handle processing on-device, could easily change depending on whether the device is battery-powered or whether it's on wifi/eth instead of mobile. A wall-powered device might opt to keep a running history in ram of the last N seconds of audio, so it has more context with which to answer questions if Google Assistant is addressed. If it's battery powered, there are obvious reasons not to do that unless the phone has a dedicated extremely low powered continuous recording loop circuit.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I get that there should be logs.. for debugging and feature tracking etc... I don't think its reasonable for the "voice" to be stored and available to 3rd parties. The system beyond speech to text doesn't respond to voice, it responds to text. So couldn't they just have the logs of the commands put into the system in text? And once the voice is converted + is processed to make the system better, automatically deleted? The voice should only be accessible by the amazon core service responsible for speech to text, the voice shouldn't leave that system, and again, once in text, the text, or commands, can be logged / shared with relevant "skills" providers, since they'd have logs of your interactions with their systems anyways.

</comment><comment><USER8> This is obviously bad, but I think the deeper problem is with Android that it's impossible to turn off the long-home-button press behavior. The wiretapping statutes really need to be updated to cover "negligent wiretapping" and require manufacturers to provide an opt-out toggle that prevents it.

Alexa speakers, of course, are surveillance devices and if you have it on it seems fair to say you have opted in.

<comment><USER9> > This is obviously bad, but I think the deeper problem is with Android that > it's impossible to turn off the long-home-button press behavior.

I set mine to search in Firefox: [https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how- replace-google-assi...](https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-replace- google-assistant-firefox-search)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In other words, they don't have a way for consumers to set a retention policy, like businesses typically do for email. You have to delete things manually.

It seems pretty clear that there are lots of people who want this and I'd be surprised if more companies don't start doing it. Snapchat made its name with auto-deleting videos.

</comment><comment><USER11> They have tons of people working full time to classify the recordings to use as training data. Of course they aren't going to delete them automatically and waste millions of dollars of work.

</comment><comment><USER12> Discussion from yesterday: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20342917](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20342917)

</comment><comment><USER13> What about Google and Nest videos? Are those kept forever as well?</comment>


Less is more: Simplify your products - <AUTHOR> http://fullstart.com/knowledge/less-is-more-simplify-your-products/

<comment><USER2> Simplifying is especially important in the early pre-release stage. It's easier to add features then to take them away from users.</comment>


GameStop instructs employees to ignore law enforcement and not shut down - <AUTHOR> https://www.vice.com/en_us/article/pkew4g/gamestop-instructs-employees-ignore-law-enforcement-not-shut-down-coronavirus <comment><USER2> That's both irresponsible and an upcoming PR disaster at once. What do they think to gain from fighting law enforcement to stay open a few extra days? Why not put a big sign on the door to promote ordering online?

<comment><USER3> Two games:

Doom Eternal

Animal Crossing

These are huge games, and being closed on their launch has the potential to be a deathblow to a weak company. Gamestop has nothing to offer for online sales compared with the console storefronts, Amazon, Steam or Epic.

Pitting its employees against law enforcement for a few potential fines wouldn't matter to a company that cares little (if at all) for its employees.

<comment><USER4> >This morning, GameStop announced it would start selling Doom Eternal today—a full day early—to try and separate the Doom and Animal Crossing Crowds.

I think releasing those two particular games on different days to separate their respective crowds would be a wise idea, regardless of Coronavirus.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Amazon has delayed my shipment of Animal Crossing to prioritize essentials.

From the email I got from them this morning: "As COVID-19 has spread, we've recently seen an increase in people shopping online which has had an impact on how we serve our customers. So in the short term, we made the decision to temporarily prioritize household staples, medical supplies and other high demand products coming into our fulfillment centers so we can more quickly receive, restock and ship these products to customers. As a result, your order may be delayed."

I'm going to cancel my order from Amazon and go pick up the game at GameStop. I suspect my behavior has something to do with the reason they're staying open.

<comment><USER6> If you are in the Bay Area, this is an illegal violation of the mandatory shelter in place order, and is punishable as a misdemeanor.

<comment><USER7> I wonder how likely this guess is. Not only specific to one country, not just a state in that country, but an area of a state. Wonder how the chance of successful guess looks like, compared to the total users here on HN.

<comment><USER5> He's right, haha I am in the Bay Area..

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> That is an interesting argument. They're basically saying its for the greater good that they stay open. There may be something to that, but their approach is tone deaf and irresponsible. Also, they're motivated by greed which is never a good look.

</comment><comment><USER9> "Due to the products we carry that enable and enhance our customers' experience in working from home"

For example they probably sell headsets and webcams which can be used for video conferencing. Seems legit enough. At least as legit as restaurants offering takeout. (How is takeout "essential" when you could just cook for yourself?) If you are in a high risk group or you have contact with someone in a high risk group, don't go into GameStop.

<comment><USER10> Not everyone is physically capable of cooking for themselves. Others are staying in rooms or hotels with no kitchens. And if fewer people buy takeout food from restaurants then that just means even more customers in grocery stores, which is no better from a disease transmission standpoint.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is GameStop CTD and pulling out the (game)stops to try and get a few sales out of the Animal Crossing / Doom releases?

</comment><comment><USER12> I suspect game Dev and sales companies may be worth investing in right now. Millions of people are about to be locked in their houses for months.

<comment><USER3> Given how tightly the game industry market is tied with the general market, it won't be a good bet until the market at large finishes its fall. And, since their studios will also close and impact the timelines on future games, they won't be a great medium-term investment.

That said, they'll probably be strong in the long term; videogames as entertainment is only growing.

<comment><USER12> >won't be a good bet until the market at large finishes its fall

Normally I'd agree with you but under these circumstances millions of people are going to have absolutely nothing to do sitting at home for months, both adult gamers and children. And everyone's about to get >=$1000 to spend on whatever...

<comment><USER7> Yeah, but everything will happen so fast the market won't have time to react as you think. The value of stocks et al are based on what people think will happen in the future, not what's happening right now.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Apple Just Killed the MacBook as We Know It: 'Don't Buy a Mac' Is Good Advice - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2020/06/27/apple-just-killed-the-macbook-as-we-know-it-dont-buy-a-mac-is-good-advice---macbook-pro-macbook-air-on-hold/#5cb0ff8446f3 <comment><USER2> Even at a fancypants place like where I work, where they can definitely afford to replace your machine early and often, we have 36 month lifespans for our laptops. I'd expect "universal" amd64+aarch64 binaries to be available for almost all relevant software for at least 5 years from now. This article is not thinking clearly

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Plus Apple is shipping new intel macs.

The thing to be critical of Apple for is the vague and mysterious guidance re roadmap. That's ante for playing with Macs. After years of defective laptops, it's ridiculous that we need to read tea leaves. As a commercial user, do I wait for broken 2018/19 keyboards, or replace with a potentially obsolete device? We wont know until Apple controls the CPU pipeline.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A few years from now, it is plausible that some developers won't bother with Catalyst and will release ARM-only apps.

Also, Apple has announced that iOS/iPad apps will run on ARM-based Macs without any developer intervention.

Buying an Intel-based Mac now means missing out on forwards compatibility.

</comment><comment><USER5> This is FUD. PPC universal binaries stayed around forever, and that was back when storage was much more expensive.

The big reason PPC seemed to die so fast was that Intel rocketed so far ahead of them in performance that everyone switched as soon as they could. A few years after the switch the speed difference was like 3-4X or more. It's very unlikely to be such a large speed difference today, though ARM Macs could see longer battery life and less heat.

<comment><USER6> I'm betting there will be a huge perceived speed boost simply because Apple will have full control over the device's stack. I'm sure they'll find ways to better optimize the OS for the hardware.

What I /am/ curious to see is if the CPU options shrink per device - i.e. will there be one A-series SoC for "pro-level" computers and one for "consumer", will there be different clock speeds, etc. We'll have to wait until they announce hardware - I'm assuming at their September/Fall event.

<comment><USER5> Intel may maintain a performance lead on certain tasks that take advantage of things like AVX, though Apple may be able to make up with more cores. AFAIK ARM has no equivalent to the more advanced vector instruction sets of X64 chips.

I do expect ARM to have an instant heat and battery life advantage. It may be sizable if you combine a more efficient chips with smaller process nodes. I expect a bigger gap here than in raw speed.

<comment><USER7> [https://developer.arm.com/docs/dui0801/latest/a64-simd- vecto...](https://developer.arm.com/docs/dui0801/latest/a64-simd-vector- instructions)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Jeepers Forbes really has a thing for Apple.

<comment><USER9> > Jeepers Forbes really has a thing for ~Apple~.

Clickbait *ftfy

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> I loved the switch to Intel, it made virtualization on par with Windows and Linux, and lately it's easy, for example, to load games from Steam. I'm glad I got a 2019 MacBook Pro, I hope to use it for many years, then I'll have some decisions to make.

</comment><comment><USER10> Clickbait.

<comment><USER11> A large portion of Forbes reporting on Apple can be classified as such.</comment></comment>


Libra White Paper - <AUTHOR> https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/ <comment><USER2> _> Libra's mission is to enable a simple global currency and financial infrastructure [...] This document outlines our plans for a new decentralized blockchain,_

The "decentralized" can be parsed different ways. Facebook Libra is decentralizing the _transactions_ but it does not decentralize the _currency creation_. (This partial decentralization happens because Facebook wants to peg Libra to stable asset reserves.) This is different from Bitcoin's idea of decentralizing both the currency creation _and_ the financial transactions.

We can see this distinction in its list of partners...

 _> Members of the Libra Association will consist of [...]_

The bulleted list includes:

\- _transaction processors_ such as Mastercard/Visa, PayPal, Stripe, etc

\- _ecommerce marketplaces_ such as ebay, Uber, etc

\- _telecomm_ such as Vodafone

We see the industry that's noticeably missing: no _banks_ mentioned such as JP Morgan Chase, Citi, HSBC, etc

That's because Facebook wants to be the "bank" in this new Libra economy. It wants to be the "Federal Reserve" that creates bank notes.

If I misunderstand Facebook's intentions and how it wants to position Libra in the financial world, please correct me.

<comment><USER3> > _This is different from Bitcoin 's idea of decentralizing_

Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it's attaching to, "cryptocurrency" being better at suspending consumers' scepticism.

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

<comment><USER2> _> Libra is Facebook Credits [1] rebooted. All that changed is the meme it's attaching to, "cryptocurrency"_

My posting history will show I'm skeptical of Facebook but setting my biases aside, I think there's still a real _technical_ difference here.

I believe the old Facebook Credits required the transactions to go through Facebook's centralized servers. (The programming api for processing Facebook Credits communicated with Facebook's servers.) This would be similar to a customer holding Marriott Hotel points and she wants to give them to a friend; she would have to call up Marriott customer service and have them transfer the credits/points from her account to someone else's. The transactions can't happen without Facebook and Marriott getting involved. That's fundamentally different from Libra since its transactions are validated by _external partner nodes_.

Therefore, the Libra isn't a cryptocurrency in just a "meme" bandwagon sense; it's actually _designed_ for decentralized transactions that don't require centralized Facebook servers.

Whether the public (and merchants accepting payments) finds that technical difference of any value and massively adopts it, I don't know.

<comment><USER4> >Initially, the association (and validators) will consist of a geographically distributed and diverse set of Founding Members. These members are organizations chosen according to objective participation criteria, including that they have a stake in bootstrapping the Libra ecosystem and investing resources toward its success. Over time, membership eligibility will shift to become completely open and based only on the member's holdings of Libra.

So it's not going to be Facebook's centralized servers, but Facebook + their friend's centralized servers. There are some vague promises, but this will start out just as centralized as Facebook Credits.

<comment><USER5> "Can't wait for a cryptocurrency with the ethics of Uber, the censorship resistance of Paypal, and the decentralization of Visa, all tied together with the proven privacy of Facebook."

[https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/11394299139229573...](https://twitter.com/SarahJamieLewis/status/1139429913922957312)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I think this coin is a really bad idea. Its just centralizing a crypto coin and then removing the laws around money because now a dollar has a libra coin wrapper on it so it's obviously totally different than a dollar.

It feels like a federal reserve moment where a bunch of rich folk get together and again dictate the future of currency. Crypto was supposed to change that trend. Unfortunately the want of convenience will probably win out over any sort moralistic/idealistic standing and unless government steps in, it will probably be widely adopted.

<comment><USER7> It's not pegged to a dollar. It's pegged to a blend of currencies and assets. So it's not a dollar wrapped like Tether or USDC.

I don't understand how they plan to make it work across jurisdictions. There are so many laws and rules when it comes to transmitting and storing money or derivatives.

Like I can transfer a billion dollars worth of BTC, no problem. But if I try to wire even $100K between two of my accounts in US and EU, all kinds of red flags go off and phone calls need to happen.

<comment> grey-area They plan to ignore regulations and grow quick enough so that they are too big to fail and thus too big to regulate.

<comment><USER8> If you made this proposition to me a year ago, I would probably shrug it off. But after having read about several successful companies from the late 90s and early 00s doing exactly this – PayPal being a prime example – I think you may very well be right. Heck, one could even say that the current legal/lobbying fights between the internet giants and major states is exactly this.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is seriously scary. The buy-in it's already received from some of the big financial players worries me that this might actually catch-on. Facebook is the last person I'd trust with any of my data, let alone a complete history of all my transactions.

I hope privacy is more important to the average Western Joe than it was to the Chinese. WeChat sounds like a dystopian nightmare.

</comment><comment><USER10> "it will be backed by a collection of low-volatility assets, such as bank deposits and short-term government securities in currencies from stable and reputable central banks." from the whitepaper: [https://libra.org/en-US/white- paper/#the-libra-currency-and-...](https://libra.org/en-US/white-paper/#the- libra-currency-and-reserve)

It's like one to one copy of the traditional monetary system with speed of transactions improved. Low volatile assets they rely on are not real and therefore not guaranteed to stay low volatile. It may be decentralized technically but not socially or ethically.

</comment><comment><USER11> Facebook can't keep people's phone numbers, pictures and sex life private and we trust them to invent a currency?

I'm not a crypto backer - in fact I'm skeptical of the long term usefulness, but this isn't crypto, it's shitty PayPal. It's not decentralized, not removed from fiat, not anonymous and not trustworthy.

<comment><USER3> > _it 's shitty PayPal_

Its introduction reads like a goading of antitrust activists. (Facebook's advantage as a cryptocurrency purveyor being its acumen with getting away with lawlessness.)

<comment><USER12> Could have been worse. Could have been Uber.

EDIT: Oh crap. It _is_ Uber.

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20211358](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20211358)

<comment><USER3> > _Could have been Uber_

Uber is a Libra Association voting member.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> More tech-y resources:

\- [https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra- bl...](https://developers.libra.org/docs/assets/papers/the-libra- blockchain.pdf)

\- [https://github.com/libra/libra](https://github.com/libra/libra)

\- [https://developers.libra.org](https://developers.libra.org)

\- [https://developers.libra.org/docs/move- paper](https://developers.libra.org/docs/move-paper)

<comment><USER14> From the Move programming language paper: "semantics inspired by linear logic". Any even more technical references? Anybody knows anybody who really work(ed) on Move? Academic? Otherwise? I'm interested because of my "poured only once" current project [http://imar.ro/~mbuliga/hapax.html](http://imar.ro/~mbuliga/hapax.html)

<comment><USER13> > Anybody knows anybody who really work(ed) on Move?

The authors are listed in the PDF

<comment><USER14> Thank you. I meant to ask for others than the authors. Probably the repository is the best resource...

... I notice now that it uses the gas mechanism from Ethereum. Less interesting than I thought.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting bits:

"target launch in the first half of 2020."

""Founding Members" upon its completion are, by industry:

Payments: Mastercard, PayPal, PayU (Naspers' fintech arm), Stripe, Visa Technology and marketplaces: Booking Holdings, eBay, Facebook/Calibra, Farfetch, Lyft, MercadoPago, Spotify AB, Uber Technologies, Inc. Telecommunications: Iliad, Vodafone Group Blockchain: Anchorage, Bison Trails, Coinbase, Inc., Xapo Holdings Limited Venture Capital: Andreessen Horowitz, Breakthrough Initiatives, Ribbit Capital, Thrive Capital, Union Square Ventures Nonprofit and multilateral organizations, and academic institutions: Creative Destruction Lab, Kiva, Mercy Corps, Women's World Banking"

<comment><USER16> Is this the face of technological liberation or domination?

<comment><USER17> Facebook is involved, so I don't think anything positive (for users) is being liberated here.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> > Interest on the reserve assets will be used to cover the costs of the > system, ensure low transaction fees, pay dividends to investors who provided > capital to jumpstart the ecosystem (read "The Libra Association" here), and > support further growth and adoption. The rules for allocating interest on > the reserve will be set in advance and will be overseen by the Libra > Association. Users of Libra do not receive a return from the reserve.

Forget about the cryptography and "blockchain" this system will use. The real innovation here is financial in nature. Only it's not really an innovation.

I doubt today's race to negative interest rates will be kind to Libra validators, who will be demanding a fat payout sooner or later for the loss of business on highly lucrative credit cards.

There's only one way to fund this beast: fractional reserve and ever more risky investments. The temptation will be enormous. The justifications true and well-intentioned. The outcome predictable to anyone who has paid attention.

Think Tether, but orders of magnitude larger.

<comment><USER19> So when you purchase Libra for cash it's like buying an index, only with no interest whatsoever. So all the risk and no reward. It's not for no reason that index funds pay dividends - to compensate for a very real risk of losses. Interesting to see if libra will be able to pull this trick and push risk on its users without compensation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> Sounds to me like Facebook is trying to become the Wechat of the West ... (as per an article 2 days ago explaining how Wechat could be central to every payment in a daily life )

<comment><USER21> Mark Zuckerberg is very impressed by WeChat as a platform. That's probably the best way to understand that effort. "Crypto" is less a technology and more a loose governance method because no Western company can have the authority that WeChat has in China.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> >The reserve allows users of the system to enjoy a relatively stable medium of exchange from the start. At the same time, it also represents a centralized function. For the network to be fully permissionless, the association will have to explore ways to further distribute and decentralize the reserve, including automating the verification of the assets in the basket and the process of minting and burning of coins. Increasing market competition in the custody and management of the reserve will also be explored to improve the efficiency of this service, and the costs it imposes on users and custodians over time.

So this coin will be backed by a centralized reserve, and you would have to trust Facebook that the coins you own are backed by real money, with no way of verifying this. Tether works the same way, and they are just creating money out of thin air without actual dollars backing them up. I'm curious how Facebook will decentralize this reserve, or if they will even do this in the first place.

</comment><comment><USER22> > simple global currency and financial infrastructure that empowers billions > of people.

This is the material anti-trust lawsuits are made of, there is no way that nation states will allow private enterprises to gain that much power.

<comment><USER23> Tell that to visa and mastercard or SWIFT

<comment><USER24> I don't believe either of those have introduced their own currency.

<comment><USER23> How is their platform different in practical terms than libra? Libra itself is not a new currency. I believe it's pegged to the US dollar. In the real world you really pay with visa/mastercard, paypal or swift, not with "real" money.

<comment><USER21> Libra is pegged to a basket of values. I suspect that this could lead companies to prefer to store liquidity and report on Libra as it could be more stable than any individual currency, including USD.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I just watched the official launch video for Libra and it's just disgusting how silicon valley is abusing the image of "poor" people or people from developing countries to sell a philanthropist idea while their true intentions are just more money and more power.

<comment><USER26> I do hope all those developing countries with a democratic government will ban this one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> As someone somewhat out of the crypto-loop, would someone be able to explain/posit/cite why Facebook are entering this market, and why traditional payment providers are also getting involved? On the face of it, this suggests it aims to essentially reduce transaction costs (which would be to the detriment of the status-quo)?

<comment><USER28> Put it differently, banks have failed to implement something more efficient and the "bitcoin" innovators have also failed on practical aspects. As a result we have a void and it's anyone's game right now. Facebook is throwing money at it. A small chance it works but public trust is a big factor in currency isn't it?

Here's what I think: any alternative currency tied to the USD (meaning a currency without intrinsic value) is DOA. The next generation currency cannot be tied to resource constraints.

<comment><USER29> _Put it differently, banks have failed to implement something more efficient and the "bitcoin" innovators have also failed on practical aspects._

That, once again, is a very America centric view. A place where banks must be even worse than taxis.

Within the Euro area (and associated coutries, like Switzerland), at least, SEPA transfers are quick and cheap, if not free.

Edit to add: Even the developing world has fast and efficient money transfer schemes. Look up M-PESA, for example.

<comment><USER3> > _SEPA transfers are quick and cheap, if not free_

FedWire transfers are instantaneous and cheap if not free at many institutions. The "bank transfers are slow and expensive" argument is financially illiterate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> You couldn't pay me to touch a crypto currency built by Facebook. They're the king of shifty behaviour, dark patterns and unscrupulously harvesting all the data they can get their hands on.

There'll be no privacy from overlord FB and everything will be more or less at their behest.

</comment><comment><USER30> "Libra". Clearly still has a beef with the Winklevoss twins (and their company "Gemini").

</comment><comment><USER31> Initial performance in the technical part: \- Throughput: 1000 transactions payment per second \- Latency: 10-second for validating a payment

<comment><USER32> 10 seconds sounds longer than current credit card payments? I could imagine that to be a barrier in some situations.

<comment><USER33> This will be the base layer. They expect custodial wallets and payment channels on top (in Bitcoin terms exchange wallets and lightning network).

See the Libra blockchain paper, section 8:

> We anticipate that many payment transactions will occur off-chain, for > example, within a custodial wallet or by using payment channels [45]

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> _We believe that a global currency and financial infrastructure should be designed and governed as a public good_

And social infrastructure?

</comment><comment><USER34> _A basket of bank deposits and short-term government securities will be held in the Libra Reserve for every Libra that is created, building trust in its intrinsic value._

A global federal reserve in the making

</comment><comment><USER35> A fair financial system is one which I am comfortable giving to my worst enemy to run.

This is not it.

<comment><USER36> If you don't feel comfortable letting the nsa run a node and not care, is it really secure?

I'm not sure we can push the envelope that far, but it's worth trying to get there.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> So... I've not had time to read the whole paper, but my initial impression is that this is not really worth consider as a "cryptocurrency" - instead, it's a limited application of "blockchain" to what amounts to a multi-party private currency.

That in and of itself isn't a terrible thing necessarily, but I guess I'm failing to see the utility it provides.

OTOH, Facebook is big enough to push this into much larger adoption than existing cryptocurrencies have managed. If they do that, and if Libra is eventually opened enough that it can be traded on the open market without a "trusted" intermediary, then we might at least see the infrastructure, public acceptance, and public understanding of what cryptocurrencies are significantly improve. That could lead to a stronger ecosystem in general.

Personally, I'm trying to figure out if I can have an "account" that is truly anonymous. If so, then I'll pay attention and study it more. If not... well, then I'll ignore this unless and until that is possible.

</comment><comment><USER38> I just skimmed through their documents and I saw they use BFT. BFT algorithms are slow (and slower when more nodes are added) so are they using another layer for gaining performance?

Currently the fastest BFT implementation is BFT-SMaRt: [https://github.com/bft-smart/library](https://github.com/bft-smart/library)

<comment><USER39> BTF is slow depending on how many nodes you're running. generally it can't support more than 100 validators

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I remember someone saying something along the lines of "Facebook will try and copy and crush us, but not this time- by the time they work out what's happening, it'll be too late". Facebook seem to have noticed what's happening and are moving like the wind to try and crush us. Are they too late or are we too late? Or neither?

<comment><USER41> Depends on who that someone was, doesn't it?

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> I'm super curious how the initial governance framework evolves over time.

From the looks of it, it's not anything completely new and relies on standard human voting and management structures.

>A Founding Member that does not comply with the Founding Member eligibility criteria can be removed by a supermajority vote of the council. The recording of this vote on the Libra Blockchain will remove the member's node from the consensus algorithm.

So given this, the things working in Libra's favor are an immediate, global social network for distribution.

Against it would be lack of innovation on the governing front (i.e. prone to internal politics) but this is probably more of a long term problem.

[1] [https://libra.org/en-US/association-council- principles/#asso...](https://libra.org/en-US/association-council- principles/#association_executive_team)

</comment><comment><USER43> The problem with the financial industry is not currency. Hyping cryptocurrency's benefits to actual humans is like criticizing Facebook for releasing personal data to Cambridge Analytica using tab delimited files instead of JSON. It's completely missing the point.

</comment><comment><USER44> I still think,that this coin could replace a lot of African ( unstable ) currencies ...

<comment><USER45> Definitely, I agree with you about this, given their high volatility.

</comment></comment><comment><USER46> I find it interesting that Facebook banned cryptocurrency ads last year, citing safety from "financial products and services frequently associated with misleading or deceptive promotional practices."

[https://www.vox.com/2018/1/30/16950926/facebook-mark- zuckerb...](https://www.vox.com/2018/1/30/16950926/facebook-mark-zuckerberg- bans-crypto-advertising-bitcoin-james-altucher)

<comment><USER23> The ban was a good thing because the currencies were promoted as investments which is not the case with stable coins/fb coin. Let's separate payment platforms from gambling-like investments, shall we?

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> So we've from government issued inflationary currencies to multinational scrip backed by government currencies. Sounds like bitcoin is a better hedge than ever against today's economic environment.

</comment><comment><USER48> So the only thing this has going for it over cash is that it may ease exchange online (to be seen). And this depends on how easy it will be to join this as a merchant or user, how nice APIs will be, and how well fraud will be handled, etc., etc.

And the value will fluctuate based on the trust in the ability to convert it reliably to cash/other currencies. So there's no real peg to anything, as described previously.

<comment><USER49> Stripe are involved so I expect they'll make it easy to be a merchant.

</comment></comment><comment><USER50> Anyone who still has doubts about the extent of Facebook's undemocratic power is clearly about to be fully convinced.

</comment><comment><USER34> _A basket of bank deposits and short-term government securities will be held in the Libra Reserve for every Libra that is created, building trust in its intrinsic value._

Soon 'The Libra Reserve' will hold only a 10th of the total Libra Coins in circulation (fractional reserve). A global federal reserve in the making.

</comment><comment><USER51> during the ICO era i used to read 2-3 whitepapers per day. It usually was all about decentralization and "how we are going to change the world", and then right after the sale it will be like "well the world is not ready and blockchain is not there yet so we are starting with centralization" ( in the few cases the product was not fraud). now, since all the fiat is coming in without a need for an ICO it looks like facebook is not even trying to hide their true intents. They are just saying it to my face, "We are trying to increase your dependency in our products and on the way creating a new financial device for the big guys to earn more money on your behalf". I truly hope this initiative will get blocked by the people who FB think they can fool again.

</comment><comment><USER52> I propose that a blockchain with mutually trusted gatekeepers is indistinguishable from a replicated RDBMS.

<comment><USER53> Agreed. Though it seems like the consensus protocol does protect against malicious or compromised gatekeepers.

It seems that by dialing up the trust in their validator nodes (to something significantly greater than the trust you might have in a bitcoin node, but also significantly less than 100% trust), they are able to decrease the work involved in the consensus protocol, reducing energy usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> The suggestion that this is a way to help the "global unbanned" is also disingenuous. If people don't have enough money to put any in a bank, making up a new centralized currency isn't going to change that.

<comment><USER53> Typically people are unbanked not because they are completely broke but because of one or more of the following:

1) They do not live near a bank 2) They don't meet some minimum threshold of money 3) Discrimination - The are part of some social or ethnic group that the banks won't touch

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Since Libra is secured via BFT PoS it'll be feasible to integrate it into Cosmos Hub, and thus you'll be able to communicate directly with Ethereum which is interesting.

</comment><comment><USER56> I just need to know all the "what's in it for FB" first, then I can tell if they are really opening it up, or just makes them a much bigger monopoly

</comment><comment><USER57> So this is it

Is there a German word for thinking something is trite and gross on one hand while investing with the other? I'm that German Word

<comment><USER53> I think that's just called "investing."

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> This shit may fail because of too many cooks in the kitchen issue. They have 30 members with equal say

</comment><comment><USER58> I can't find on white paper, transaction are immutable or are reversible?

<comment><USER11> This question is subject, like all others, to capricious changes to Libra Terms, Conditions and Implementation. Facebook values its bottom line and is taking that, and only that, into consideration determening actions to protect your privacy, the security of your wallet, the fiat it is based on, the value of its coin and which Trusted Partners™ to allow to control Libra.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> It is sad that Zuckerberg chose to squander all that capital on frivolous endeavors at Facebook. He could have done so much.

This is what gets me the most: "We believe that a global currency and financial infrastructure should be designed and governed as a public good." It's very rich coming from Facebook who could have made itself a public good a decade ago.

<comment><USER50> Yeah, that bit is bonkers. A huge privately-owned tech corporation talking about 'public good'. We truly are entering the era of global corporate despotism.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Witness the birth of a monster.

</comment><comment><USER60> Can anyone TLDR; the smart contract capabilities outlined in the first paragraph?

<comment><USER61> It is kind of confusing. They have their own language that will let you create various kinds of structured modules. Initially, they are going to limit it to their native modules. The modules have some properties that make the contracts safer and less prone to duplication bugs. They haven't finalized the syntactic sugar version of the language yet.</comment></comment>