Australia's top researchers urge politicians: "Listen to the science" - <AUTHOR> https://australiascience.tv/80-of-australias-top-researchers-urge-politicians-listen-to-the-science/ <comment><USER2> Maybe it's people need to listen to the science first?

Australia deserves everything it has gone through after purposely voting in PMs to 'scrap the carbon tax' and recently the guy bringing coal into parliament saying there is nothing to fear.

<comment><USER3> 'the guy' is our prime minister. Australian's are too easily manipulated by the Murdoch media.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's demonstrating naivety to think that inaction on climate change is driven by not "listening to the science".

Reactionary politicians are well aware of what the science thinks - they're just prioritizing their class interests.

The economic transformation necessary to properly fight climate is a threat to their status quo power, and so they resist it.

"The science" is very much beside the point here.

<comment><USER5> I don't know why you're getting down-voted. This is basically the answer. In general, politicians tend to be very smart people - you have to be smart to convince people to vote for you (or even in dictatorships be your enforcers). However, the economic incentives are by and large not aligned and therefore decisions poor in the long term get taken.

<comment><USER6> > I don't know why you're getting down-voted.

It seems HN has stopped the usual astro-turfing these posts attract and it's been replaced by down votes and flagging.

Normally a comment or two is enough to kill the thread.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Political party elected for money reasons that ignores science is a symptom of the problem, it is not the problem itself. Outdated laws and electoral two- party system is the problem.

Why no "top researcher" ever urges to look at the root of the problem? Why researchers of political science do not sound the alarm to change outdated laws that were written 100 years ago when they couldn't imagine shameless lobbying, mega corporations, manipulated social networks, and climate emergency that clearly requires different political system to manage it.

<comment><USER8> We don't have a 2 party system though?

<comment><USER9> Australia (as well as the US, UK, NZ, and I'm sure many other countries) have a two-party system as defined by [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two- party_system](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system)

In Australia, in recent times that's the Liberal Party and the Australian Labour Party.

While there have been influential minor parties, and even independent persons who hold the balance of power on occasion, the executive leadership is always from one of two major parties. Those parties may change over time, fwiw.

<comment><USER8> That isn't really what that Wikipedia page is saying - although the interpretation is ambiguous.

"In contrast, in Canada, the United Kingdom and Australia and in other parliamentary systems and elsewhere, the term two-party system is sometimes used to indicate an arrangement in which two major parties dominate elections but in which there are viable third parties which do win seats in the legislature, and in which the two major parties exert proportionately greater influence than their percentage of votes would suggest."

The important weasel word there is "sometimes" and in those cases it would be incorrect. To form Government one has to have a majority. To gain this majority, the current Government is formed by a "coalition" \- which is a combination of parties - Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party is Labor. So here you have 3 parties. Not to mention that the structure of the Australian elections is such that we have one of the most democratic systems using compulsory, preferential voting - meaning that everybody has to vote, and all votes convey some power in decision making. The only case where this isn't try is in a recent edge case caused by rule changes allowing you to number above the line (and not to completion).

It is about as close as you could get to a fair democratic system that is not systemically bound to be a two party system, and in practice, has not resulted in a two party system, but one of a coalition, a majority opposition and a decent growing minor party. (With many others in the senate).

<comment><USER9> > Nationals and Liberals. The opposing majority party is Labor. So here you > have 3 parties

The Nationals are really only a separate party from the Liberals in name only. They don't (by and large) ever compete with the Liberals for seats, and where policies differ - it's because the Nationals have a view that's more representative of their regional constituent's views.

<comment><USER8> Yes, but the more important distinction is the election structure which is not systematically designed to result in a two party system. "System" being the important word here, not "outcome".

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Australian here, its not that we don't care about the climate (same for our politicians), its that we realise that we contribute to under 1% of the problem. However to reduce that 1% we would effectively have to kill off industries in which around half our workforce is employed. Thats a big re- skilling project.

But then you look at China who is the main problem (also 1 billion people to our 26 million), and they are doing nothing.

<comment><USER11> > also 1 billion people to our 26 million

Do you understand the notion of per-capita emissions? Australia has higher per capita emissions than China, and thus must act accordingly.

NSW has a hosepipe ban. Is my household exempt from this, simply because there's only 2 of us, and 2 is such a small number in comparison to NSW's population? No, everyone must do their part. Australia is not.

<comment><USER10> I didn't in fact think of that being a factor, although being that we are where China mines their fuel I would say the economic cost would be terrible either way

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is a good, 11 tweet summary of why the science _really is testable, falsifiable science_ [https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/121788547450272972...](https://twitter.com/ClimateOfGavin/status/1217885474502729728)

<comment><USER13> That is good, but it is besides the point.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends on his not understanding it."

\- Upton Sinclair

<comment><USER14> The inverse is also true.

"It is easy to get men to claim something, when their salary depends on them making the claim."

As supporting evidence: Statistics.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Should politicians treat psychological research as "science" ... and if so, what p-value should be considered politically acceptable?

<comment><USER16> Are you interested in talking about this article? Because it isn't about psychology.

<comment><USER15> Let's remember that sometimes one man's science can be another's religion.

Applying the label "science" doesn't remove any of the uncertainty associated with many so-called "scientific conclusions."

In this regard, psychology is not all that different from climate change.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> In a democracy politicians listen to voters, not to "the science". So those researchers perhaps should focus on convincing voters? Having actual scientists being the public face of global warming would be a welcome change from having spokesmen being TV people or high-school dropouts.

<comment><USER18> The people voting for this party are poorly educated, and derive almost all information from "mainstream" media, which is largely owned by Murdoch.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The chasm between politicians and science is staggering. For a truly terrifying example, there's the 2018 IPCC report. It's under 600 pages. The summary for policymakers is 25 pages, with the following 5 chapters each with an executive summary of about 2 pages. So let's say a 35 page read for politicians.

For 170K a year, plus an expense account, plus a nice pension, we should expect each of the representatives of the United States Congress to slog through those 35 pages, right?

If you want the terrifying truth, watch this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0ZsHtpk0XII&t=217s)

Greta Thunberg, providing the United States Congress with a roughly 3 paragraph TLDR of the IPCC report, and even this is news to probably most of them.

CP Snow's essay The Two Cultures is all too true.

<comment><USER11> I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in a prisoners dilemma sense.

The high capita emitters (AU/US/CA/NZ) are refusing to slow down economic growth (each country has to slow down to different degrees, depending on their existing energy mix), and are relying on other nations to make progress.

Rich countries will adapt. Poor country may not have the resources to do this, and thus climate inaction is an inequality issue, not just a scientific issue.

Politicians respond to votes and slowing economic growth is not popular.

Either rich countries will willingly sacrifice growth to help the poor of the world (not going to happen), or we encourage international cooperation. This is what's happening (Paris, Kyoto), albeit with defectors who need to be punished.

<comment><USER19> > I interpret climate inaction not as science ineptitude, but as defecting in > a prisoners dilemma sense.

I interpret politicians not doing the reading as politicians not doing the reading.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Respect for science and clear evidence are becoming primo commodities these days - it seems all over the world.

Get ready to live in a world of a LOT of stupid in it, and keep your wits about you.

It's all a simulation nothing is real NOTHING MATTERS.</comment>


Apple is evaluating new keyboard mechanisms to make thinner MacBooks - <AUTHOR> https://appleinsider.com/articles/19/09/24/apple-is-evaluating-new-keyboard-mechanisms-to-make-thinner-macbooks <comment><USER2> I'm honestly the biggest Apple fanboy — I have all the newest gadgets and I use literally every one of their products, and have been for the past several years. However, this is one thing that upsets me. The MacBook doesn't need less ports, it doesn't need to be thinner.

I understand the thinning of the MacBook Pro from the 2012 model to the 2015 model (which is what I currently own, and in my opinion is the best Mac). But I definitely don't think it needed to get any thinner or lighter than that, especially if it's sacrificing ports or a good keyboard.

IMO the 2015 MacBook Pro is the best Mac out there, mainly because of its beautiful retina display, perfect weight, and most importantly, a good keyboard.

<comment><USER3> While I understand the reticence towards thinness, I'm going to withhold judgment until I'm holding the new laptop. Thinness isn't just about aesthetic (although that is an aspect that HN commenters severely underestimate). It's also about the act of physically using the device.

I know that going from a 2015 Macbook Pro to a 2017 one made a gigantic difference in how I used the device. The 2015 one I had to decide if I wanted to put in my backpack. It added a non significant weight to my bag and therefore my back. I wouldn't open it while standing or outside, simply because it wasn't comfortable to hold in one hand, or to type in a password.

The 2017 Macbook Pro, while flawed in many ways, is very different. I carry it everywhere without a thought. I can easily carry it open in one hand or closed like a book. I can pop it open for a second, type some stuff in while holding it, then put it back (TouchID is great for this too).

This may sound like Ive-esque purple prose, but truly, a lighter laptop lowers the barriers between the physical object and what I want to accomplish. I don't have to think about the physical weight of the laptop. I can just bring it. I don't have to think about putting the laptop down and using it. I can just palm it.

<comment><USER4> You've made a great argument for a _lighter_ laptop. Your 2017 laptop is a whopping _36% thinner_ than your 2015 laptop but only _11% lighter_.

This modest difference in weight is mostly due to the reduced battery size that a more efficient chipset allows the newer laptop to have. The total weight of the 0.8mm thin ribbons of plastic and aluminium shaved off the plastic keys and edge of the aluminium case (the difference in key travel), is negligible compared to the weight of the laptop.

Apple could have made a laptop that was within 1% of the weight of your 2017 laptop, had a normal keyboard with good travel, and was just about 0.8mm thicker.

<comment><USER3> There's the problem of feeling cheap however. If you make a laptop that's thicker but lighter, you run the risk of having a laptop that feels weirdly light and cheap.

Also thickness does matter! If you're gripping a laptop in one hand, a thinner body is easier to hold. And it's just plain beautiful. It feels futuristic. Which, yes, is nonsense. But it's also how you make a product that people want.

<comment><USER5> Has the product not been thin enough to easily hold one handed for years? We're talking about shaving millimeters off a 1.5 cm thick product. Not inches off something a foot thick

<comment><USER6> There's a difference between thin/light and holdability. My prior Asus[0] actually had a part sticking out the back (where the battery was attached) that provided an amazing grip. Flat macbooks, like my current Asus, I'm more afraid will slip out of my grip (or, held from the side, flex and damage something), especially pushing against it with the other hand while using the keyboard.

[0] [https://www.asus.com/Laptops/U46E/](https://www.asus.com/Laptops/U46E/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I really wish they would move focus back to being more expandable. The way they weld stuff to the mainboard is hot trash. There is no upgrade path for these newer macs. My old 17"? That got a 16G RAM/SSD upgrade with the CD swapped out for a second drive. Added years to its life. I suspect the new 16" version will only have four USB-C port.

I got lucky and ended up with a 32G work laptop. I've got enough headroom to run a couple docker containers at the same time. My co-workers stuck with the 16G laptops are really in a tough place. As things stand, I end up stuffing a pile of dongles into my bag as I transition from work to home and back again.

It is unfortunate the person who keeps demanding 'thinner' over 'professional' keeps getting listened to. Wish I could find a 16:10 laptop that had expandability.

<comment><USER8> No need to beg Apple for expandability anymore on their laptops or desktops. Windows has gotten good enough especially with WSL2. Developers have more options now. I just got tired of waiting for Apple, and gave up when a Mac Pro starts at 6k. People want a headless, expandable iMac that's affordable, kind of like the old cheese grater Mac Pros. Apple isn't budging.

<comment><USER9> "Windows has gotten good enough"

As someone who took a job using Windows after 4.5 years away from it, I completely disagree.

I hate windows with a passion, and it's part of the reason I'm looking for a new job.

I'm not saying it's not good enough for some, a lot of things in it still suck.

<comment><USER10> Windows needs a bunch of utility programs that nobody tells you which they are. After those are installed things are much more smooth.

Directory management: 'Directory Opus'

Fast search: 'Everything' and 'Agent Ransack'

Powershell is actually pretty neat once you get past the odd syntax.

But yeah, you can't turn it into a native unix env.

<comment><USER11> 10 years on Mac and I'm still missing the Windows Explorer. One feature only: The directory tree in the left handside.

<comment><USER12> No worries, MS is actively trying to get rid of it (by hiding some folders, by mangling some shortcuts, by putting libraries and stupid things like that first so that you rarely actually have access to the tree).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Are people really demanding thinner laptops? Who is demanding that a laptop or phone be thinner?

MAKE THEM THICKER, I want more battery life and better performance! I am a fat out of shape need and I can carry 40lbs on my back, no sweat. MAKE THEM THICKER.

<comment><USER14> _Are people really demanding thinner laptops? Who is demanding that a laptop or phone be thinner?_

Yes. Anyone who carries them around demands thinner, where possible. I could have bought a MBP and am typing this on a MBA. The latter has various advantages but the latter is fast enough and also lighter. PG uses (used?) 11" MBAs. [https://twitter.com/paulg/status/740739637572997120?lang=en](https://twitter.com/paulg/status/740739637572997120?lang=en)

<comment><USER15> I carry my laptop everywhere, and whenever there is a trade-off I demand performance and quality over thin/light.

I use my machine to do work. Better performance makes we work better and faster. It's my bread and butter. Less weight... is a slight convenience while commuting, I guess?

<comment><USER16> When you travel, especially internationally where you're probably carrying the laptop in a hand bag then the extra weight starts to be an annoyance. A lot of walking around and 0.5kg savings makes a difference.

<comment><USER15> I do a LOT of traveling, as I'm a consultant. I fly 2-3 times a month, often internationally. Seriously it is not a concern for me.

<comment><USER16> Good for you. You are not everyone. Some people have sore shoulders.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Dear Sweet Baby Jesus I want a thicker MacBook Pro that WORKS. I literally do not care about millimeter or two. I care very seriously about a quality keyboard I can type on.

My 2016 MBP is the worst Mac I've owned, and my first Mac was bought in 1989. And I don't feel like I can upgrade because I'm unwilling to pay for more of the same crappy design. It's embarrassing.

</comment><comment><USER18> Linux has gotten to the point that it is no longer necessary to look at MacOS for a stable Unix environment. I don't need much from a laptop just decent keyboard, performance, battery life and for it to not thermal throttle, but unfortunately this seems to be incompatible with Apple's vision of the perfect MacBook. If this is the direction Apple is taking I cannot see myself buying a MacBook in the foreseeable future.

<comment><USER19> Sorry, but Linux hasn't gotten anywhere in a long while. They were trying something that may have worked (Ubuntu + Unity), but this just looks and feels like a toy still. When it comes to GUI and user experience, let's face it, there is a very very TINY market left for Linux. I am a software developer for a very long time and had been running QubesOS as well as most popular distros. Of those QubesOS is the clear winner, since it looks pretty much as sad as any other Linux but at least it gives you something you can't get anywhere else: Security.

As much as I hate Windows and MacOS, they just both run circles around Linux when it comes to graphics, GUI design and user experience and that is why they have such a big market share. It's this old delusion of some Linux fanboys that Linux would spread around the globe if the evil Apple and Microsoft would just allow them. There are few people who CAN use it and much fewer still that are willing to use it as a desktop system.

<comment><USER20> Agreed. I recently gave every Linux DE an honest test drive and... it's clear that nobody really has the resources to perfect them. They all get annoying after a while. I'd be happy with something as polished as Windows 95, but even XFCE has the exact same bugs as when I used it 15 years ago.

<comment><USER21> Not to be _that guy_ , but what bugs have you experienced in XFCE? I've been using XFCE since Fedora 14. With the recent upgrade to Fedora 30 (from 28), I noticed they addressed my only beef with the environment by adding a greatly- improved GUI for managing multiple displays. It can save profiles for work vs home displays and (almost always) toggles between them correctly.

That was the only Linux pain point for me, having to manually toggle out of multi-screen mode after unplugging an HDMI cable. Obviously, that was some kind of kernel thing and not an XFCE-specific bug (I think?), but even the native XFCE tooling has improved in the last few years, despite the lack of a newsworthy major version release.

Fedora has been my daily driver for 8 years now. It keeps getting better. The last flaky distribution, for me, was Fedora 19, released in the summer of 2013! (Here, flaky is described as "difficult to get working the way I wanted" and "occasionally would do something weird and force me to reboot it to fix the problem")

<comment><USER22> I don't even think it's bugs that Linux desktops have a problem with. The Linux desktop is really only good if you are a hacker and don't give any thought to tasteful design or coherent usability.

<comment><USER23> > The Linux desktop is really only good if you are a hacker and don't give any > thought to tasteful design or coherent usability.

That's funny because it's exactly the way I feel about macOS where they obviously design things based on the way things look and sell over how usable they are. This is actually part of Apple's DNA as we've read in the past: The only reason they stuck with the Dock was because of how well it marketed. You can read about it from the guy who developed Apple's first HIG - [https://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html](https://www.asktog.com/columns/044top10docksucks.html)

Meanwhile my preferred Linux DE (XFCE) gives me perfectly tasteful design and coherent usability. Instead of having things look or work the way Apple wants, I am able to do things the way I want to, which means that things fit into my opinion of what is tasteful or usable. It's a ton of little things you know? Like being able to quit an app with a single gesture (a middle click on its pane icon, similar to how you close a tab in your browser) - built into XFCE and not even available in macOS unless you're Apple and you have some access to their private API.

That's because most Linux desktop environments take after Windows, which has by far a better system of usability than macOS. To point out just one small thing: In macOS the keyboard shortcuts are an insane jumble of incoherence with no pattern which is why you simply cannot navigate the entirety of macOS with just the keyboard, something that I can do all day long on Windows and Linux.

If you think you can, I'll challenge you: Open the About this mac dialog, then switch to another program. Now try to switch back to that window with just your keyboard, without using one of your special usability-fixing programs that you have to install to fix such things on your Mac, like Witch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Does anyone want a thinner computer? The I9s have thermal issues, the butterfly keyboard break in 12 months. Why don't they focus on real innovation like adding faceId or Oled HDR screens. Apple is going to spite us all and replace the keyboard with an oled magic bar.

<comment><USER25> I mean, if I could have a magical fairy computer that was as thin as a piece of paper but had the keyboard of a 2015 MBP, and decent performance and battery life, yeah, I'd think that was pretty great.

What I'm _not_ willing to do is make any drastic usability sacrifices in exchange for more thinness.

<comment><USER26> That fairy would need to use some seriously arcane magic to make such a device not bend and tear like paper too. Although I don't think that would bother Apple much at this point.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> This fetish for thinness is how we end up with 2100 dollar laptops whose keyboards start acting up in 2 months of purchase, and simply can't be cleaned or easily replaced because the whole thing is frigging glued shut with barely any clearance.

There is a lot of mythos about Steve Jobs but I feel confident in saying that the hot garbage that is post-2015 Macbook 'Pros' would not have shipped (or at least been promptly brought back to the drawing board) in his realm.

</comment><comment><USER28> Note that the patent's Publication Date is listed as November 17, 2016. So we shouldn't read into this that Apple _still thinks_ that they should keep going thinner and thinner. Hopefully they have heard loud and clear that people want a keyboard that has adequate travel, and this tech will therefore never see the light of day.

For the record, I have a 2017 MBP and agree with all the anti-butterfly sentiment voiced here.

</comment><comment><USER29> Steve was mocking xerox for being run by people who have no idea how to develop a product. Jobs would mention that those people can only do marketing and sales and would drive the design to the point of uselessness.

Wish he would be still alive, none of this self destructive bullshit would have continued. The touchbar would have been binned and the butterfly keyboard slapped on the wall of shame with the title

"think before you build"

<comment><USER30> The touchbar is the reason I switched to Linux using XPS.

<comment><USER31> I really wish I could switch back to Linux but not being able to use Adobe tools is what's stopping me. I am now considering dual boot of Linux + Windows for only when Adobe is needed (which is not an ideal Solution).

Just want to see how bad they screw up with the next MacBook before I make the switch. Currently running a 2015 MBP.

<comment><USER32> Do the adobe tools really not run in wine?

I haven't had a good reason to use it lately but modern wine (not the one in the debian repos) is pretty good once you have the 32 bit GNU userspace installed for it.

<comment><USER31> Is it? Honestly, I've played around with wine a long time back and realized I can't use it for serious stuff and still sorta carried that thinking. Might have to give it a try again.

<comment><USER32> The last time I used it to run labview. I don't remember having any problems with it.

Do note that wine is about implementing the win32/win64 runtime. WPF and other .net stuff don't really work well.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> I don't understand Apple's obsession with thin devices. What's the point in making something so thin that it detracts from their primary function ? Ipad Pros that bend, Macs with problematic keyboards and overheating...

Please, stop. Make things functional first, thin if possible, not the other way around.

<comment><USER34> Credit due, newer generations of iPhones have been successively thicker with increased battery capacity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> So far only one other comment seems to have pointed out that this is a patent filing -- from 2016, no less -- not a commitment. Apple has filed many, many patents over the years that haven't gone anywhere. Meanwhile, there's been several rumors from the supply chain that the next keyboard design from Apple that's actually _going into production_ goes back to scissor switches.

I think it might be worth waiting to see what the next new keyboard design -- which may not be the next _laptop_ that they ship, depending on how far their infamously long pipeline stretches -- actually is before bringing out the tar and feathers.

</comment><comment><USER25> No. FFS stop it.

I am a huge fan of thin and small laptops, even at the expense of things like connectivity. However, 90% of what I do with a laptop is type. If there's no key travel, I can't type.

<comment><USER36> I switched to a budget lenovo ideapad because i needed a windows machine. It turns out its way more comfortable to use than my mac and i keep coming back to it.

<comment><USER37> Just bear in mind the build quality of Ideapad and other budget Lenovo brands aren't great. The ThinkPad (X, T or P series) really is in a class of its own in terms of build quality, upgradability and repairability.

<comment><USER36> Do you know the common failure mode for ideapads? Two aspects of the design concerned me. The heat vents on the back are open when the lid is closed (presumably for ventilation while docked), and the power plug is barrel style, which i know handles stress poorly and can break the socket over time. It is cheap, probably for a reason. Performance in the short term is up to par.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> How thin does it have to get before everyone says "this feels shitty"? I have a few mechanical keyboards at home and at work and I can't imagine always having to use one of these new keyboards with zero throw. It makes me feel like I'm mimicking typing rather than actually doing it.

<comment><USER39> I would not be surprised if Apple releases a solid state keyboard with chiseled glass keys, haptic feedback for key presses, and an oled screen underneath.

It seems like the conclusion to their "Taptic" engine, touchbar, and pressure sensitive touchscreens R&D.

<comment><USER40> Even if it felt like garbage, that would at least be reliable ...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> MacBook Pro 2025: The entire keyboard/touchpad area is now a screen with configurable controls. The touchbar was a tease of what's to come. People rejoice over the ability to swipe rather than type out a word.

<comment><USER42> Hmm. Sounds like an iPad then. So is the plan really:

Macbook Pro 2020, newest even thinner than butterfly keyboard.

iPad Pro keyboard cover now the most travel, best typing keyboard among Apple portables.

2022: iPad OS on iPad Pro now the professional portable, MBP discontinued.

<comment><USER25> If Apple truly wanted to kill the Macbook line, they wouldn't do it by spending millions of dollars over several years purposefully producing crappy products they don't believe in. They'd just announce they were killing the Macbook line.

That hasn't happened, so presumably, Apples believe that laptops fill a niche which tablets don't.

Well, what is that niche? The primary difference between a tablet and laptop is that the latter has a keyboard. If you're buying a laptop instead of a tablet, you probably want a good keyboard!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Apple making thin laptops was great, it moved us away from these giant thick things we had for so long. But this obsession with thinness is crazy now. They are chasing tooo thin.

I used to love my old Macbook Pro Retina, great keyboard, great laptop.

I'm on Lenovo's team now, it's keyboard is superior in everyway. I do miss the trackpad but I use the keyboard 99% of the time, and I like the nipple.

</comment><comment><USER44> Not sure I'm the only one, but I'm at a conference with my 2019 MBP and when I see someone with an old MBP I think "that must be a new model.... I definitely could use all those ports and that nice keyboard". Then I remember it was tthe one I replaced with this definitely inferior machine (repeated letters left unedited)

<comment> d-d I feel your pain. The literal, actual pain of typing on a post-2015 MBP keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm dying to switch to a good Linux laptop. Any suggestions for one that could replace my MacBook pro?

Every previous time I've done this, I've been disappointed with something basic: wifi, battery management, video card support, using external projectors. Have these issues been worked out?

<comment><USER46> Just get a Thinkpad and (mostly) stop worrying.

I bought a Macbook Pro in 2009 and used it until 2017 when I switched to a T470. Haven't regretted it one second. Debian works flawlessly, as does OpenBSD.

<comment><USER47> I was considering getting a Thinkpad and running Debian or Manjaro to replace my MBP. I know historically thinkpads have been good machines, but do the new X or T series laptops still live up to the reputation?

<comment><USER46> I have a T470 and I love it. Some say the keyboards aren't what they used to be, but overall, I absolutely love the machine. While I think it looks good, I consider it a tool, not a fashion statement. I just need it to work, all the time, and have a great keyboard. It has everything I personally need.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> NO! That's the wrong way. Go the other way!

</comment><comment><USER49> Look at the Dell XPS 13. It has a really good keyboard, and it's very thin. It's not that hard.

<comment><USER50> The XPS 13 is the worst keyboard I've ever used. It brings me great physical pain to type on it. I had to quit using it as a laptop and exclusively use it with an external keyboard because the finger pain was so great. I know many people (like yourself) don't feel that way, but it was absolutely not acceptable for me.

Thanks to the XPS when I picked out my new laptop keyboard quality/travel was my #1 requirement by a tremendous margin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> _"...the keys are positioned much closer to the circuit board, reducing the amount of travel and materials required to register a key press and to actuate."_

If the goal is to _minimize_ travel, why have _any_ travel at all? Why not just glue on the keys? Why not just paint on the keys?

<comment><USER15> Wtf why is that a selling point? Thinner keyboards cause physical pain as your fingers strike hard surfaces. NO THANKS!

<comment><USER52> It feels like they are getting people used to the thinner keys to make it more like touching surface. Once people adapt to this, they will most likely swap out the entire physical keyboard with a touch keyboard (the touch bar seems like an incremental step).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Please no. I want the 2015 or earlier MBP keyboard back.

<comment><USER54> IBM 5150 keyboard or papyrus!

<comment><USER55> [https://www.pckeyboard.com/](https://www.pckeyboard.com/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER56> Who the hell needs a thinner MacBook? Are you gonna cut your bread with it? Give me back my MagSafe, useful keyboard and extra ports you idiots!

</comment><comment><USER57> At this point their products are thin enough. There really isn't a need to go any further.

The quest for thinness at the expense of more important features is supremely annoying, and I say that as someone that uses a number of Apple products daily.

<comment><USER58> I mean ... When was the last time thickness was a limiting factor to you in any way?

Why not focus on weight or size, which really do make a difference in everyday activities?

Edit: Most replies here in favor of thinness write something akin to "I want a thinner MacBook because the current one is to heavy." But you're confusing two aspects of the product, right? I agree that they probably go hand in hand most of the time, but there might be occasions where thinner does not equal lighter or thicker does not equal heavier and I guess most of us would be happier if Apple focused on the weight aspect, not the thickness aspect ...

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I'm in the process of switching to a 2015 MacBook Air at work because the keyboard on my 2019 MacBook Pro is just unusable. I love the Mac external keyboards. I don't understand why they can't put them in their laptops.

<comment><USER60> I'm so glad I kept my 2013 Air around for when my 2017 Pro became unusable without an external keyboard.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> ... I have a 2016 MBP and I'm on my third keyboard/topcase (all repairs covered by Apple, so thumbsup). But both times they also decided to replace the logic board even though the computer was working fine and passed their initial diagnostics.

I'm wondering if this isn't just a "dust and junk gets into the butterfly mechanisms" and maybe these machines have thermal issues which is causing mechanisms to get soft or melt.

Steve Jobs said PCs were "trucks", but current MBP seems way more of an Italian sportacar which always has to be in the shop than a true truck.

</comment><comment><USER62> They need to fix the thermal mess of the current MBPs. The fans spin up all the time LOUD and it sounds horrible. My 2009 MBP was silent unless it was at 100% CPU for minutes with the vents blocked (on the bed).

<comment><USER63> If the fan spins even when the system is idle, you might want to reset the SMC

<comment><USER62> Not when idle but a minimal amount of usage spikes, like 10-20% CPU for a minute or so. IMO the fan really shouldn't be spinning up unless the CPU is really under stress for several minutes.

<comment><USER63> Do you hear the fan right after you start the laptop? That's usually an indication that you need to reset the SMC.

I'd do it anyway. It doesn't affect the system at all and usually takes care of most power and fan issues

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> This is 100% the opposite of what I actually want.

I want a _thicker_ laptop, and even more important: greater key travel.

</comment><comment><USER65> It's interesting how posts about polarising "hardware choices" collect so many comments. This really brings out the passion in people :)

I am not a mac user but I appreciate the thin design as it's something that can go in my bag without thinking about it (as someone mentioned here). My problem with Macs is that terrible keyboard. I can tell how many people are using a new Mac in a noisy train carriage just by that furious clicking sound of the keys (followed sometimes by moans and curses due to mistypes).

</comment><comment><USER66> As someone who gave up on Apple in the late 1990s, I experience schadenfreude when they are having these totally unnecessary issues... Year after year after year after year.

</comment><comment><USER67> They need to bring back the 2013 Mac Pro with upgraded silicon. The thing is a beast in a good tradeoff between portability and power.

</comment><comment><USER68> Dell has created a maglev keyboard it uses in some of the XPS line. They've kept these thin, but apparently the feel is quite good.

I've been wondering, couldn't a keyboard use magnetic levitation to increase the key travel when the laptop is in use, but then turn off the magnets when folded so they sit flat?

<comment><USER69> Providing key resistance with an electromagnet would cost battery. That said, it'd be fun to be able to turn key resistance up or down.

<comment><USER68> I would think the battery drain would be negligible compared to your screen. But hey, maybe you could turn it down when not plugged in!?

<comment><USER69> > I would think the battery drain would be negligible compared to your screen.

I don't know how much battery it would require, but you'd want to provide enough resistance to make a keypress feel substantive and satisfying.

That said, with a careful and _fast_ feedback system, the keys could start out with just enough force to hold up the keycap, detect a finger starting to press them, and ramp up the force to that key to provide enough resistance, then stop again when the key has traveled back up. That could reduce the energy usage compared to always providing force comparable to a spring or scissor switch.

That same feedback system could theoretically mimic the resistance curve of various other keyboard technologies.

<comment><USER68> That's a really good point Josh, I was reading something about a month ago about one of the gaming keyboard companies which has an adjustable magnetic switch which lets the user change the key travel, which I believe was also done via electromagnets.

Hopefully none of this is too far off. I'm not sure how the industry got itself into its current condition of poor experiences due to a desire for the great thinness.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER70> I really hoped their focus would be on making an even better keyboard than the one in MBP 2015, and of course the return of at least the physical escape key.. But to be honest, I gave up all hope on that. They destroyed the MBP, making it a more classy thing for the upper class maybe? At least, the latter seems to become more and more their market.

For now I stick to my 2015 MBP, keeping it alive as long as possible. I refuse to go to Windows. Although it's a solid OS, it feels like it's infected by multiple viruses to me. They can go F* their selves with all their add-ware rubbish, forced auto updates(silently adding even more sophisticated viruses), sending home heaps of private data(including my keystrokes), etc, etc.. And although I love Linux, as on OS it's just not good enough yet compared to OSX IMHO.

</comment><comment><USER71> I want a mobile workstation, not this weird obsession with making it thinner, lighter, etc. It's cool that it's thin and light, but function needs to come over form. The keyboard is trash (literally causes me knuckle pain compared to the old chiclet keyboards), the loss of magsafe has caused some pretty severe damage to my last macbook (somebody wasn't looking where they were going in a coffee shop and tripped over the cable -- took the entire laptop with it, dented the case where it hit the ground, and screwed up the USB C port), and the touchbar gets _hot_.

Give me a 2016 Macbook Pro with a retina display with an upgraded proc + ram + user servicable parts. Or even better, open up macOS to other hardware so that I can choose the system that works the best for me.

I don't need an appliance, but damn, I miss macOS.

</comment><comment><USER72> I don't need a thinner MBP; I need ports, a reliable keyboard and a large battery. I'm still using my old early '11 because I don't want to buy a new laptop only to have to send it off for repairs or have to buy a bunch of dongles to get the usability I need out of it.

</comment><comment><USER73> Fun fact: I have the MacBook Air 11" Core i7 from 2013 and Apple does not produce that small, light and powerful laptops anymore. If I want an i7 15 Watt CPU in a 2019 refreshment (it was nearly as fast as MacBook Pro 13" in 2013) it has to be larger and heavier nowadays, haha

</comment><comment><USER74> Something tells me that they pretty much believe that PRO users should use external keyboard. Which sounds really wrong to me. I don't care if macbookPRO gets thinner. I like it to be lighter for sure but the thickness is not a priority for me over keyboard.

</comment><comment><USER75> I guess I won't getting this mac either. Anyone at apple who values a thinner laptop over a ergonomic keyboard and longer battery life should be tared and feathered. It's embarrassing that I have to say this out loud.

</comment><comment><USER76> I just want an ultra-low-profile mechanical switch. Something like a kailh low-profile, but with apple genius applied. I'm sure it's possible, and I would go buy a new mac right now if they did that.

</comment><comment><USER77> I love my 2015 mbp like the next guy but if this can make the design more reliable and less prone to wear or failures due to liquid spills (if it's sealed off) then I'd say this is a good thing

</comment><comment><USER78> At this point, I don't want a thinner MacBook. One with a usable keyboard that doesn't force dongle hell upon me would already be fantastic progress from the status quo.

</comment><comment><USER79> Lots of free money to be made by a company that can ship a reasonably priced (eg 500-1000 cheaper) mbp clone running Linux. Sounds like something YC should fund.

</comment><comment><USER80> Just what I was looking for - a thinner computer. /s

</comment><comment><USER81> OK folks, I'm with you that I prefer phat juicy travel on my keyboards and don't mind a thick laptop.

But guess what, that's not the only target audience for laptops. The Macbook Air and recently-deceased Macbook are awesome because they're stylish and fit in a purse. Let that sink in. There are many use-cases for extremely thin devices that still have dedicated keyboards.

<comment><USER82> "You are not the target audience" is not an universal escape hatch in every Apple discussion. It's perfectly okay if Apple is targeting users that care more about aesthetics. What's not okay is that basic functionality is being lost — namely typing reliably and predictably on your keyboard.

They went too far and the rumours that the upcoming 16" MacBook will not have the type of keyboard that has been around ever since 2016 support the theory that they realised that their idea sucked and it's time for putting more reliable keyboards in their laptops.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> I see they've given up on any semblance of ergonomics. Each idea listed in this article seems less ergonomic than the previous. Glass panel. It even sounds painful. Clearly these patents and their resulting products are aimed at laypersons who do casual computing rather than power users. Seems on par with every product they've released in the last four years or so.

</comment><comment><USER84> And this attitude convinces me to never consider move off my beefy Dell precision with its onboard CUDA GPU and Xeon processors :-)

</comment><comment><USER85> What's the ergonomics for a thin keyboard?

Must have a very short key travel distance causing one to bottom out on every keystroke.

<comment><USER86> I could only find the first edition online sans $$$, but ISO 9241-4 _Keyboard Requirements_ said "The key displacement shall be between 1.5 mm and 6.0 mm. The preferred key displacement should be between 2.0 mm and 6.0 mm."

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> The last paragraph in this article is the most concerning. Surely, this would never happen?

"There has also been the suggestion of using glass panel keyboards with force detection for each key, the addition of touch-sensitive keys, and replacing the keyboard section of a MacBook entirely with a touchscreen."

</comment><comment><USER88> Isn't thinness in a laptop the epitome of diminishing returns at this point? The high end ones are already at a pretty ideal level of thin, anything thinner is overkill and barely adds anything to the product.

If anything, they should be focusing on battery life, 4k webcam, OLED/HDR displays, etc.

</comment><comment><USER89> It seems that everybody in this thread is equating thin and light, but I don't see why they should be so closely coupled.

After using a Chromebook for a while, my 2013 rMBP feels really heavy. Seems like they could get some of the weight out but keep enough thickness for a decent keyboard and airflow.

<comment><USER90> Agreed, my t480s weighs the same (even a bit less) as the 2016 macbook pro, but it's chunkier and has all the ports.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> If they instead used the extra space to include more battery capacity, people would appreciate that more.

</comment><comment><USER92> No one cares about thinness... I want a keyboard that either doesn't break or doesn't cost me 700 to fix.

</comment><comment><USER93> Hold on. This patent was filed in May 2016, so presumably this concept was being worked on around the same that the oft-unloved keyboards were being developed/released. I may be missing something, but this sounds like old news and not a signal of current thinking within Apple.

</comment><comment><USER94> I guess we will end up with this again [https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair...](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/8a/Sinclair- ZX81.png)

</comment><comment><USER6> You can't get much thinner than a photon: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq6-2_mk0CI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zq6-2_mk0CI)

Just integrated the projector/sensor into a tablet and add a way to stand it on edge.

</comment><comment><USER95> > The most recent attempt in August suggested the use of light in an "Optical > Keyboard" to replace switches entirely, with key presses obscuring a light > source and triggering a press.

Please no. I like key travel. This would virtually have none. Ok, a fraction.

</comment><comment><USER96> Here we go again. I thought they were going to bring back scissor switch? I guess this is going to be an endless cycle of Apple fucking up new laptops, deciding to switch back to a sane keyboard, and then suddenly forgetting about the whole deal.

</comment><comment><USER97> Does anyone have thoughts on the 15-inch versus the 13-inch MacBook Pro these days?

Particularly anybody who has used both for an extended period of time. Is the 13 screen size impractical small? Is it worth the tradeoff in weight for being easier to carry around?

<comment><USER98> I downsized from a 2016 15" to a 2017 13" a year and regret it. The screen and dual core processor are really insufficient if you're doing dev work. I recently hopped on a 15" again and was blown away by how much more real estate I had to work with. I don't think the 1lb difference in weight is worth it at all.

<comment><USER97> Thanks! Do you carry it around daily on a commute?

<comment><USER98> Yes, I will admit that the 13" is crazy light and easy to carry, but not worth the 1lb you save from the 15", per my reasons above.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER99> Has anyone here had any experience with moving to Linux? [https://puri.sm/products/librem-15/](https://puri.sm/products/librem-15/)

</comment><comment><USER100> Of course I want a thinner laptop, and so do you. You just don't want a thinner laptop that compromises on other things.

I've seen the new Galaxy Book S and I want one. Thin is sexy. Apple has to keep up.

</comment><comment><USER101> They're not going to stop, until we are all typing on a flat glass panel with our fingers, just like I'm doing with my thumbs on this iPhone. They already did it with my beloved ESC key...

</comment><comment><USER102> The iPhone 5 and the 2012 MBP were the zenith of Apple design.

</comment><comment><USER103> They should just remove the keyboard entirely. At this point its a public health risk, endangering millions of people's hands and wrists in the name of chic

</comment><comment><USER104> How about evaluating new keyboard mechanisms to make them work as well as the pre 2015 models in a dusty environment?

Apple needs to fire more designers, it seems...

</comment><comment><USER105> It seems Apple no longer asks their customers what they want. They just tell customers they want thinner while the customers groan

<comment><USER106> I'm not a fan of their thin-first addiction, but when in the history of Apple have they asked customers what they want? Steve Jobs:

"Some people say, "Give the customers what they want." But that's not my approach. Our job is to figure out what they're going to want before they do."

<comment><USER107> Well, sure, but that only works when the leader has a product vision.

<comment><USER20> He/she has to be a total design nazi to get it implemented, too, or else it will be ruined by the bean counters, "experts", and committees.

"Sure, by using a crappy keyboard/display/_______ we only save 89 cents per unit - but multiply that by 100,000 units!" (99% of laptop manufacturers)

<comment><USER107> It doesn't seem like that is the problem with Apple's keyboards. It's Tim Cook not knowing the difference between aesthetics and the qualities that give a product an overall "high end design" feel. You know, like, how it is to actually use it.

The bean counter issue is causing them to leave out the extender part of the power cord and the basically required USB hub with all the ports that "Pros" need.

<comment><USER20> "organizations which design systems ... are constrained to produce designs which are copies of the communication structures of these organizations." \- Conway's law

I mean that a perfectionist dictator must be in charge of design if a company is to make truly differentiated and tasteful hardware, instead of trending towards the mediocrity pumped out by typical corporations. It's riskier, of course, but that's how you make a $1T company, and it's the only way to overrule the bean counters. It's like making art as an individual instead of handing everyone a paintbrush.

Apple's design is (or was) completely under the control of Jony Ive, due to the leadership of Steve Jobs. He is an opinionated, controlling industrial designer and, although you may not like his designs, he sticks to his principles. It is much easier to lead the way - and screw up - as an individual. You can't please everybody, but you can at least have a cohesive whole. Same kind of thing with Tesla vs every other major car company.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER108> Acoustic keyboard would not only be water proof but also provide whatever layout one wants. I hope they do that.

<comment><USER26> You don't need to get fancy to make a laptop keyboard that tanks an errant glass of beer poured into it. Thinkpads have had this figured out for years. I accidentally put it to the test once and the result was a very sticky but perfectly functional laptop. Took about an hour with a screwdriver set and some rubbing alcohol on q-tips to make it good as new.

I shudder to think what a glass of beer would do to my MBA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> Solid state keys with force feedback on each key like the key(s) on the trackpad would do the trick.

</comment><comment><USER110> Totally shameless: currently selling a 2015 13" Retina display MBP if anyone is interested.

</comment><comment><USER111> I think Apple's primary demographic now is people sitting in Starbucks.

<comment><USER26> Evidently not people _typing_ in Starbucks..

</comment></comment><comment><USER112> I just want the keyboard to last longer than a year without breaking.

</comment><comment><USER113> I simply don't understand the obsession with this at Apple.

</comment><comment><USER114> They want the keyboard to be a touchscreen.

<comment><USER115> Habituating your user base on the way there is just something MS could never pull off, too, the flip is the start menu never going away until all the baby boomers are gone

</comment></comment><comment><USER116> I got used to the keyboard if they removed TouchBar I would be fine with current gen. :)

</comment><comment><USER117> thermal throttling is already a problem. lets go thinner.

</comment><comment><USER118> we don't need thinner macbooks

</comment><comment><USER119> stop, key travel distance matters!

</comment><comment><USER120> I

<comment><USER121> I want the left and right arrow keys to be small again, it drives me crazy that I can't get used to it and always misclick. The empty space above the left and right keys was a great referral point

</comment></comment><comment><USER122> When is enough just enough? Do the costumers really care about reducing a further 1mm from the thickness of a laptop sacrificing: keyboard usability, battery life and number of ports?

</comment><comment><USER123> What if they flattened the keyboard completely? Replaced it with smooth glass? It could also be the display. It would be a computer, but the size of a pad of paper.</comment>


Raspberry Pi interview: Eben Upton reveals all - <AUTHOR> http://www.linuxuser.co.uk/features/raspberry-pi-interview-eban-upton-reveals-all/ <comment><USER2> > Ubuntu got in touch with us to say 'how can we stop you saying that Ubuntu > runs on Raspberry Pi?' Which I thought was pretty brutal, actually. So, > yeah: they don't support our chip, they're not interested in supporting our > chip, they've been quite vocal about trying to stop us from saying Ubuntu, > so we stopped saying Ubuntu.

Way to go, Canonical...

You want to make Ubuntu _the_ Linux desktop, yet you can't be arsed to support one of the cheapest and easiest solutions to run it on? The Raspberry Pi is a _brilliant_ way to introduce children and adults alike to linux, and Ubuntu doesn't deem it worthy of supporting that effort...

<comment><USER3> In their defense, ARM11 _is_ a 10 year old chip. I don't think they want to support such an old legacy. Does Windows 7 support Pentium 2?

Still, I'm hoping Raspberry Pi moves to Cortex A7 as soon as it's available, which is based on the ARMv7 architecture, and Canonical might support it then.

<comment><USER4> The PII is 15 years old at this point, 10 years ago was Northwood p4 and the Athlon XP for AMD

Those chips _started_ at 1.6 and 1.33GHz respectively, and Windows 7 requirements start at 1GHz. RAM might be a dicier issue (W7 requires 1GB) and I don't know the state of the chipset drivers, but technically W7 probably supports x86 chips from 10 years ago.

<comment><USER5> i586 has stayed backwards-compatible (although performance isn't the same if you don't know what you're targeting), ARM hasn't. The raspberry pi's ARMv6 is very different from a Cortex's ARMv7. The kernel also needs patches to know how to initialise an ARM device, and those patches need to be forward-ported.

<comment><USER4> I'm not denying that, I'm just saying nextparadigms's argument of chip age does not hold any water.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> What's Canonical playing at? Surely the Raspberry Pi represents a golden opportunity to steal massive amounts of mind share. They could establish themselves as the computing environment amongst the next generation of computer users.

<comment><USER7> "Ubuntu got in touch with us to say 'how can we stop you saying that Ubuntu runs on Raspberry Pi?' Which I thought was pretty brutal, actually."

As a HW engineer he overlooked hidden software complications with ARMv6 chipset. The ARMv6 chipset is old, its virtually tagged/indexed caches have a plethora of cache aliasing issues that reflect to workarounds in linux kernel and shared libraries in userspace. You have to maintain an entire ARMv6 distro for this arch. I would personally not use anything non ARMv7, because all these issues are resolved in ARMv7.

So its quite natural Ubuntu did not want to allocate a team of 100k/year engineers for raspberry pi, and protect its brand also.

For the curious, if you map the same physical address to 2 virtual addresses, and both happen to be in the cache, you have 2 virtual entries in the cache for the same address, so which one to flush back to RAM is ambiguous. Its a problem specific to virtually addressed caches. Solution: a lot of restrictions to avoid aliasing and you flush the caches too often to avoid aliasing etc.

<comment><USER8> Thanks for explaining. Ubuntu's approach makes sense then. Wonder how much more expense v7 would have been.

I see the problem with Raspberry Pi being the software and the SDK. It is a very elegant and appealing piece of hardware but that only gets them there half way. The other is the manuals, the sdk, some kind of recipe exchange or cookbook for basic things.

Also, it looks like Arch Linux has stepped up to replace Ubuntu.

<http://www.raspberrypi.org/> (March 4th, post)

<comment><USER9> It sounds like that's the reason for the Pi in the first place? A simple piece of hardware hobbyists can target software to.

<comment><USER8> Once it has USB, Ethernet, and HDMI it is not your uncle's bare 8 bit micro- controller anymore. Yeah developers could sit and each write a different version of HDMI driver, but wouldn't be too much fun. One would expect there to be a nice SDK and libraries to access and make use of all those hardware features.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> So what was the technical problem that caused the ship date to be pushed into late February?

<comment><USER11> If I remember correctly, one of the chips they had in mind when designing the board was no longer in production, or the price had gone up.

Actually, I looked it up and yes, one of their components had been replaced and they had to design for the new version. <http://www.raspberrypi.org/archives/615>

-edit: sorry, after re-reading it, it doesn't seem like they designed for the new one, they just had to wait while the factory found enough of the old version. But that's why it was delayed.

<comment><USER12> Par for the course in the hardware world, one of the reasons why I'm very happy my soldering iron has retired.

The probability of a chip being eol'd for <insert random reason here> is inversely proportional to the number of pin compatible replacements made by alternate sources.

<comment><USER13> And that makes perfect sense: If something is essentially guaranteed to sell well, competitors would produce it as well. If something is not selling well enough to produce compatible replacement, then it is likely marginally profitable to produce or not at all.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Greek Exit Would Shake, but Most Likely Not Shatter, Eurozone - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/18/business/dealbook/greek-exit-would-shake-but-most-likely-not-shatter-eurozone.html

<comment><USER2> Grexit would be the beginning of the end of the Eurozone.

Once you set the precedent that a country can leave the Eurozone there will be a day that things get tight and then Spain will leave or Italy will leave -- somebody who is big enough to bring the whole thing down. It might take 10 years or 30 years but it will be inevitable.

Also Grexit will sour Europeans on the idea of any expansion so there will be no possibility of the Euro zone pushing further east which would be a great counter against Russian aggression.</comment>


Show HN: Incoin.io – Bitcoin and Distributed Payroll - <AUTHOR> https://www.incoin.io/

<comment><USER3> It seems like this is solving the easy part of payroll. The actual "moving dollars between accounts" bit I just assume works fine with all payroll providers. It's getting taxes and deductions and bonuses and multiple states correct, and getting good reporting.

This product might be cheaper than what we do now, but the landing page does not convince me it's better.

(Disclaimer: HR & payroll is not my department.)

<comment><USER4> Hey! Tony here from Incoin. You're right in that taxes are the hardest part. We're only launching in California and are working hard in compliance for this state to get this working.

The biggest and newest part about Incoin, though, is payroll distribution. You can split your wages up amongst any of your savings, checkings, and bitcoin accounts for free.

Say you want 80% in checking, 10% in savings, and 10% in bitcoin — that's possible for you to configure as an employee. And the employer doesn't have to touch a thing; we handle the entire distribution and BTC aspect (and trust me, running BTC payroll manually is horrible).

We're hoping this is great for both increasing the amount of money that people save and increasing the uptake of BTC.

<comment><USER5> Rather than having this tied to my employer, and requiring reconfiguring if I ever leave them, wouldn't it be a better idea to just get the money in one lump sum from my employer, and handle this kind of detail myself?

<comment><USER4> We had exactly the same thought. We're working on a new feature so you can sign up independently from your employer, too. It's not quite ready and there's more legal matters to consider, though it's in the pipeline.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> There are Bitcoin related startups which are run by people with no experience in either finance, cryptography, or security. Hopefully you guys are very strong in this background. I don't see any personal profiles on the site. Codelitt Incubator has no names either which is even more concerning.

<comment><USER7> I see a total lack of understanding of currencies in most of BTC-related startups.

For example a bitcoin based payroll is like giving away shares (less volatility of course, but you get the point). If someone would work for shares, he probably will (think about) accepting bitcoin as payment.

In Silicon Valley people takes risks easily, but in Europe I think no one in their right minds will wanna do this.

Payrol automation on the other hand, especially for software companies makes a lot of sense.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't know quite what you are referring to. Giving away shares of stock in any public company could possibly be compared to it because they're liquid like BTC is. BUT I don't see it as being similar to giving away shares of a private company which are not very liquid.

The risk of getting paid in BTC does exist as far as price volatility, but it's not a far cry away from being paid in cash being as it's liquid and many merchants accept it as payment.

<comment><USER7> Nope, but while a currency is designed to devalue BTC if doesn't crash IMHO is highly unlikely to devalue since it's a finite non-controlled currency.

USD on the other hand devalues over time by design. So these two currencies are designed in totally different style and both wouldn't exist if they hadn't been designed that way (USD to devalue over time and BTC to increase value over time).

<comment><AUTHOR> Right. But with our system, the employee's wage/salary is entered as USD. We purchase BTC at the time that payroll is ran at the current price.

So assuming that the employee isn't going to spend it and that BTC is forever increasing in value over time - the employer isn't giving away a valuing asset because they purchased it and gave it away within a few moments while the employee gets the benefit of a valuing asset. I don't think anyone would complain about that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> First of all, this is an awesome idea, and I can tell you from personal experience that payroll automation is still gaining momentum in the California small business community.

I noticed you chose ZenPayroll's pricing model, without having all the features of ZenPayroll. The most important ZP features are automating tax filings, both quarterly and yearly. Also, contractor payments and integration to FreshBooks. These are all the essential ingredients of a payroll solution- the bitcoin aspect is cool but I don't really care much about it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for the support! And thank you for your feedback.

We do have some stuff that ZenPayroll currently doesn't have such as the btc (which you mentioned) and our paycheck distribution which allows for employees to automatically take their paycheck into any number of bank accounts/bitcoin wallets.

RE integration: Yes. We realize that the taxes is a huge part. Currently we're offering a free month and plan to have tax deductions integrated before actually charging customers. You'll notice now, there isn't even a spot to enter your billing details for using the service. It's currently free.

The other stuff you mentioned is in our roadmap. We're just getting started and plan to add much more.

<comment><USER9> Hey there! Just to give some context from a ZenPayroll engineer:

ZenPayroll does have splits between multiple bank accounts[1]. You can split your net pay by amount ($100 in Account1, $200 in Account2, the rest in Account3) or by percentage.

Employees can even chose to donate a portion of their paycheck to any 501c3 in the United States[2].

Regarding BTC payouts, that's an interesting area, though currently runs into a number of wage laws. Many states necessitate that employees be paid in cash or cash equivalent. Bitcoin is not a cash equivalent (nor are more traditional value stores like gold.) Even ACH direct deposit had to be carved out as an exemption, to give some context on how strict these laws are.

It's great to see others diving into the payroll space. There is a great opportunity to help millions of small businesses.

[1] [http://help.zenpayroll.com/customer/portal/articles/972807-e...](http://help.zenpayroll.com/customer/portal/articles/972807-employee- direct-deposit) [2] [https://zenpayroll.com/blog/zenpayroll- giving/](https://zenpayroll.com/blog/zenpayroll-giving/) [3] [https://zenpayroll.com/api/v1/states](https://zenpayroll.com/api/v1/states)

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey! I didn't know that you guys had splits! I stand corrected on that account. And apologies for the misrepresentation. We even signed up for your service when we were doing our research. Was this recent?

You're right about some states having certain laws around this. One of the biggest challenges of working in the US is that every state has a different money transmitting policy and every state has different labour laws.

We hope that even if we step on some toes, that we can move this forward. There are some incredibly cool concepts in how people get paid that Bitcoin could enable. We talked a bit about areas in the Bitcoin ecosystem and payroll in general we think we can push things forward in our launch post: [http://blog.incoin.io/introducing-incoin-bitcoin- distributed...](http://blog.incoin.io/introducing-incoin-bitcoin-distributed- payroll/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Nice to see some more people in the payroll space.

Very interested to hear how you are handling fraud/risk with bitcoin and with split payments (what happens when you need to clawback a payment half of which was made through USD/ACH and half through BTC?).

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks! We're not nearly where you are though. :)

We have a couple of things in place. When an employer is running payroll: they have 2 points to review (both employee and their payroll as a whole) the totals in USD, 2FA step, and then there's a countdown before payroll begins to run (which they can opt to rush if they so decide).

We have policies and tech in place to make sure that when we're distributing we can guarantee that payouts happen as we expect.

Fraud/risk - Bitcoin itself doesn't increase our fraud/risk. We follow a KYC process for all of the companies and employees on our platform. These are companies paying employees. These companies and employees are liable for their payroll taxes and income taxes and keep records of this for them. The employees themselves are responsible for maintaining their Bitcoin wallets. We verify that a wallet has a real address, but the risk for losing money forever if they enter the wrong address is the same as if they were transferring from one of their wallets to another using any other Bitcoin service.

<comment><USER10> > Bitcoin itself doesn't increase our fraud/risk

Yikes, I disagree highly. You are operating a service that allows people to transfer USD from bank accounts into a relatively untraceable, irreversible currency. You will absolutely become, if you are not already, a big target for fraud.

The most common pattern we see is people trying to pay other bank accounts using a stolen bank account number. I don't think your ACH provider will care if the money is in bitcoin if you did not have authorization to pull that money in the first place.

All I'm saying is, your KYC process can and will fail, make sure you know your liability to your ACH provider/bank.

<comment><USER4> Thanks for the note, and the concern. It is an issue.

The risk I think you're saying is: if we charge a company with a stolen bank account and pay in bitcoin, it's irreversible. That's true. We're mitigating this — that's why there's an ACH chargeback period that we wait out. And why we verify bank account ownership before charging. These are standard KYC rules that we have to comply with before accepting a company on payroll, and charging bank accounts is all done on the company side. I hear that they might fail, but we're not allowing anyone to run payroll and pay out in high volumes (eg. 80+%) of BTC to start with until they've been manually verified.

We've checked this through our lawyers and via Fincen, and we're mitigating risks every way we can.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, sorry, I definitely don't mean to imply legal liability so much as financial liability. No one will really care legally (about you), you'll just be on the hook for the money.

As I said before, it's not a matter of whether or not your KYC process will fail, it's simply when and what happens after that. It sounds like you have your head in the right place, but I can tell you from experience that verifying bank account ownership and expecting the ACH chargeback period to be sufficient to protect you is not enough (for one thing a lot of banks are simply not great adherents of the ACH rules). You're essentially on your own, and you'll need to protect yourself, not just "follow the rules," if that makes sense.

> and charging bank accounts is all done on the company side.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

Anyway, my contact info is in my profile and I'd love to chat more off-HN about this and compare notes against what you guys are doing.

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll get in touch to discuss further for sure!

We do have measures in place to protect ourselves and we appreciate your comments. There's always more that we can do.

It's also worth noting that an employer and employee have given all of the normal KYC information and have connected bank accounts so while the BTC wallet is "anonymous" on the network, we can link it to a specific person. The danger is near the same level as someone getting the money via ACH and immediately withdrawing in cash. (Many banks immediately mark the deposit as not-pending).

I'm not saying that there's not risk. Just that the risks are fairly similar even though the network is different.

Also I think what Tony was saying about debits only company side, is that we're only debiting company accounts which does decrease the fraud level vs a situation where we allowed an a personal account to be debited and money sent somewhere.

<comment><USER10> Sounds good look forward to it. Btw I think I found a typo on your site:

[http://www.codelitt.com/technologies](http://www.codelitt.com/technologies) A successful product requires lorem ipsum dolor sit amet in tenebris.

<comment><AUTHOR> Awesome and thanks for the heads up. We noticed it a while back and it got lost in the shuffle. We really should get that fixed though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It would be rad to be able to pay in Bitcoin as the employer. Any thoughts there? It would help your model as you'd get to save trade fees by having an internal trading desk essentially.

<comment><USER12> Wouldn't it be an accounting nightmare for both employer and employee to pay with property instead of currency? I think the IRS declared that Bitcoin is property.

<comment><USER13> At some point the IRS may have to change their tune. The tax code is malleable even though it does require Herculean effort to change. Cryptocurrency and more generalized blockchain platforms such as ethereum could provide leverage to change minds if they could begin to demonstrate their value on the fraud prevention front to regulatory agencies. I work at a nonprofit startup focused on creating systems for pooling and streamlining the administrative overhead for nonprofits, and we consistently find that the regulatory obstacle course nonprofits are faced with is related to a fundamental problem of trust created by a few bad actors. A "triple entry" linked accounting platform built on the blockchain as described at [https://medium.com/the-block-chain/creating-the- everything-l...](https://medium.com/the-block-chain/creating-the-everything- ledger-a0471c3424e) could radically alter the nonprofit sector by making fraud much harder to do, though getting a critical mass to adopt it would be challenging. Not to mention the underlying engineering challenge.

<comment><AUTHOR> Amazing answer and awesome link. That would be a massive boon. What startup do you work for?

<comment><USER13> The company is called ArtsPool ([http://artspool.co](http://artspool.co)). I use the term startup rather loosely, though. We have modeled ourselves on startups because we admire how startups operate and want to inspire nonprofits to learn from some of the efficiencies in other sectors, but our goal is not to make a profit. We are organized as a member-owned LLC where any surpluses from cost savings return to the members, so essentially we are a more like a co-op designed to separate certain administrative concerns from mission- related activities.

<comment><AUTHOR> I get what you mean.

Impressive. What kind of tools do you guys have in the works? How is the compliance toolkit working out?

<comment><USER13> The compliance toolkit is going well though as I'm sure you know from working on payroll, it isn't easy to get users to embrace something related to an area that they usually associate with pain (even if it reduces that pain). For now it's just focused on New York but we plan to open source it for other states later in the year. We are also looking at some of the trouble spots in accounting and payroll such as automating the allocation of expenses/payroll across programs and projects, which is essential for nonprofits but time consuming and error prone. I'd be interested to see you expand your idea of allocation-based payroll to the employer side as well. No one does this but every nonprofit needs it.

<comment><AUTHOR> That's interesting. You'd be interested in seeing employers receive payment from customers that's allocated/split? Or can you expand on that a bit? Feel free to email me at cody [at] incoin.io if you'd like to discuss more.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> So is this like [http://wagepoint.com/](http://wagepoint.com/) that does bitcoin too?

<comment><AUTHOR> It does have some similarities, but we put the majority of the control in the employees' hands. This not only makes the employer's lives easier, but also allows the employee to update how their paid at any point in time.

This is of course empty until it's fulfilled, but for what it's worth - <USER2> have a lot in our roadmap that will also set this apart in a lot of ways.

<comment><USER15> Just a quick check in from Wagepoint. We also allow the employee to split their pay between multiple accounts via percentages - checking, savings, bitcoin. Just as an interesting point of fact, 80% of the employees using the bitcoin feature in our app take a 100% of their net pay in bitcoin. So it's definitely gaining popularity.

The biggest benefit in the way we do it is that we take out all the Fed/ Sate and Local taxes first and then only allow people to take home a % of their net pay in bitcoin. This way we get to avoid questions from Uncle Sam :)

Always happy to see the bitcoin payroll community expanding - props!

<comment><AUTHOR> Hey guys! We saw that the other day when we checked out your platform. I was referring more to how the settings are updated. It just felt like it was all up to the employer. Where everything is controlled by employee only on Incoin. Personal preference I guess.

Also great little tidbit of information!

We don't have taxes quite yet, but we do the same with only handling Bitcoin/ACH deposits post tax.

Thanks for dropping in and the support.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> How is this different than Bitwage.co?

<comment><AUTHOR> We've chatted with the Bitwage guys. Good guys. We respect what they're doing.

Well there are a few differences currently, and even more coming over the next month - 2 months. But the ones that are currently available:

1\. Interface. If you use the two product side by side, I think you'll see the difference.

2\. Automation. Currently Bitwage (as I understand it. I could be wrong) handles ACH and Bitcoin transactions manually. Our platform is a little further along. Although they did get their MVP out before ours because of this so props to them!

3\. Employee control. Our platform relies on employees to control the majority of their information which provides several benefits but mostly ease of use for the employer and freedom for the employee to update their settings and how they're paid right up to the moment that the distribution daemon fires up.

4\. Wage splitting. Employees can get their paycheck into several checking accounts, savings accounts, investment accounts, and Bitcoin wallets.

5\. Reporting. Our reporting for both an employer and employee is a bit more robust in our minds and takes into account that people getting paid in BTC will now have capital gains considerations.

<comment><USER17> I think Bitwage might already allow employers to pay for the payroll order in Bitcoin.</comment></comment></comment>


Hackers targeting election networks across country prior to midterms - <AUTHOR> https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2018/11/04/hackers-targeting-election-networks-across-country-lead-midterms/d0EzG4Cmh2jeMqllhXo4WP/story.html <comment><USER2> [Computerphile - Why electric voting is a bad idea]([https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w3_0x6oaDmI)). No hacker can hack paper.

Don't be triggered, but I still haven't seen any real evidence of "Russian Hacking" of the Election. Until now it has only been a political game to discredit Wikileaks. You can find some reasonable neutral info on [https://original.antiwar.com/](https://original.antiwar.com/)

But there were some actual hacking reports like plugging USB-sticks in voting machines. The most recent one I found is an [alleged failed hack in Georgia]([http://archive.is/d9d4a](http://archive.is/d9d4a)). These are all cases that I want to be looked at, but I do not see that in the news.

There are plans by Homelands security to take over the election infrastructure. If you trust them it is ok. If they start to plant their own votes, we may never know. That makes some people afraid that it is the patriot act for elections.

The simple and cheap solution is to have no computer voting without a clear paper backlog and registration. Let's make recounts standard (and put those pensioners to work). No computers, no hackers, no cheaters, no problem.

A more direct problem is corruption due to too much power and money in politics. Organisations like [http://represent.us](http://represent.us) may stop that.

Anyway be friendly to humans that think differently than you, and vote for what you think is best.

<comment><USER3> <tinfoil hat> I think domestic criminal "Political Interest Groups" may be attempting to hack US elections and are fanning flames on Russia Hacking stories because it makes for useful cover </tinfoil>

<comment><USER4> It's neither of the above. The goal is not to actually hack a system and change votes(and thus leave a trace) but to cast doubt onto the integrity of the vote as a whole. Thus cuing <tinfoil> any reason to throw out results of an election. I'm not going to speculate on the actors or their motives behind this though, and it could be many layers deep... But I promise you, that's the long play currently underway.

<comment><USER3> We may both be correct. I think there is likely a diverse set of nefarious actors constantly taking often-conflicting self-serving actions.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the lesson from 2016 is that it's easier and cheaper to use social media advertising and posting to manipulate than actually penetrating digital voting infrastructure.

<comment><USER6> Not meta enough. The lesson from 2016 is a bullshit social media campaign in Russia is enough to whip US media into spending billions of dollars of air time sowing doubt and confusion about an election result.

Not only were no votes changed by anything Russia did, it is highly dubious that any _opinions_ were changed by what Russia did.

Trolls on the Internet are not, in fact, the most persuasive advertising force by orders of magnitude that the world has ever seen.

<comment><USER7> I'm sorry to break it to you, but you've been living under a rock: [https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download](https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download)

Russian operations stretched far beyond a social media campaign.

<comment><USER8> So some russians conspired to go on a phishing expedition and ended up finding that hillary clinton broke the law and tried to cover it up?

Where does it show the votes that were changed?

<comment><USER9> Where is the comment in this thread that said votes were changed?

If you want to punch straw men, go find yourself a farm.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Some of us have the benefit of using 80's era Sequoia AVC Advantages to vote on. No touchscreen and no network.

<comment><USER11> Van eck radiation though.

I use wax tablets for all sensitive communication, and ensure any wax scrapings are incinerated to prevent the wax displacement hash being brute forced.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Ok so we have a state actor with unlimited resources attempting to manipulate our elections. Our defense consists of programmers and sysadmins working for the local county making sub-40s per year in salary (no offense). The election software is written on Windows 95 running with an Access database backend. I am not kidding.

Of course we've already been hacked. I personally think the 2016 had to be hacked given that no one, even Trump, thought he would get close to winning. I know it sounds like conspiracy theory bullshit, but come on, they already got Hillary's emails from the DNC. How hard could it be to target a certain number of counties in key states?

Certainly there are other techies out there who agree with me?

<comment><USER13> I'm somewhat of the opinion that something that overt was unnecessary, and so while it definitely could have been, I'm not sure it was.

"<Nation X> directly manipulated votes" is one thing, and very blatantly illegal. "<Nation X> convinced a bunch of people to vote against their interests and divide the US" is another, and while unethical, dishonest, and certainly not good, it's not clear to me that it's actually illegal. Besides, if you convince them once, they'll probably stick with the flawed information and voting pattern, which is a better return on investment.

I'm not from the US though, so... maybe I'm not clear on how easy it would be for people to collaborate and cover something like that up.

<comment><USER7> Maybe read the indictments?

[https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download](https://www.justice.gov/file/1080281/download)

<comment><USER13> Well, nothing in there suggests direct manipulation of voting machines, which was the core point.

I think that somewhat proves my point - it's not clear to me that 'posting comments online' or 'paying news outlets to write specific stories' are or should actually be crimes. More directly stealing documents from election networks is - and was caught.</comment></comment></comment></comment>