Ask HN: Which laptop for development? - <AUTHOR> Moved across the country for a startup and had to put my desktop in the office (the only machine I own) since they don't give you a computer. I feel like I'm missing out since the other devs take their shiny MacBook pros and sit around a table and work (and chat) while I'm tucked away in an obscure corner. Also, driving to the office everytime time something breaks on a holiday could be a major inconvenience. Still gonna keep my desktop in the office so looking for a cheap laptop. I work on python Django so as long as it can run PyCharm and slack and a few chrome tabs, I should be fine (no need to run VMs or anything fancy). I live in India so my options are  somewhat limited since many models are  either  unavailable or simply more expensive than in the  US. These are the models I narrowed down on to:
1. Refurbished Lenovo T420. 2nd gen i5, 16 gigs of RAM. Really cheap for 250$. Just concerned since the cpu is old
2. [A cheap 6th gen core i3 laptop](https://www.amazon.in/dp/B074DYBT2K/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_apa_i_W290zbRF005PZ). Brand new. 450$. At least the battery would last a couple of hours and since it's new it might not break down for another 2 years.
3. A MacBook air. 1000USD. Pretty expensive for me. But willing to Shell out the money if it is absolutely worth it. Concerned about learning the weird shortcuts (and force forgetting them when working on my desktop). It's 'nix but it's really not Linux. I've heard that getting some libraries to work on Mac is a pain - if at all possible. Still worth it? Battery life would be liberating but not sure if it is relevant for me
Thanks in advance.
PS: My desktop has an SSD so I am planning to take it out and put it on the laptop I end up buying. <comment><USER3> T420.

But to go off your list here a bit I'd say bump up to the T430. i7 versions can be had on eBay for $250.

If you have an attachment to the keyboard on the T420[1] you can easily buy the keyboard and put it on the T430 (I did this on my x230 from a x220).

Also if you become interested you can neutralize the Intel Management Engine and install something like coreboot and sea bios.

[1] [http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Install_Classic_Keyboard_on_xx...](http://www.thinkwiki.org/wiki/Install_Classic_Keyboard_on_xx30_Series_ThinkPads#A_compatible_ThinkPad)

EDIT: To take it further you could even upgrade the CPU to a i7-3632QM which is a quad core.

<comment><USER4> I have an older ThinkPad, and can't get over the Ctrl and Fn keys being in the wrong place. I think you can swap this in the BIOS in the newer ones, but not on mine. Even if you do though, your Ctrl key is now smaller than your Fn key. I hate to say it, but it's a deal-breaker for me. It ruined an otherwise near- perfect laptop keyboard.

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes the fn key is annoying. A friend got a modern think pad from his work and he still uses a is keyboard to this day

<comment><USER4> The microsoft bluetooth mobile keyboard 6000 is about the most awesome keyboard I've found for overlaying a laptop's default keyboard (if you can find one). I still use it to this day at home. I got tired of carrying a lot around, which is why the swapped keys on the ThinkPad would annoy me still.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > MacBook air.

Still on my first 13" 2012, i5 cpu, 4 gb mem, 128 gb ssd model. The battery is shot, but otherwise it took a beating and is still running like a champ.

Hopefully next year they will still be selling these puppies. Because I can not find something with similar price, spec and build quality. Air is really one of your best priced ultrabooks.

Otherwise I recommend you don't settle for a i3, you are going to regret it. Had to give my brother-in-law advice on buying a notebook for writing docs and surfing, etc. Said a i3 should be fine for his needs... did I regret that at our next "free technical support session" :/ get a i5 atleast!

> It's 'nix but it's really not Linux.

Also, macOS is a Unix[0]. gnu/linux is the 'nix like os around here ;)

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#macO...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single_UNIX_Specification#macOS)

<comment><USER6> > Also, macOS is a Unix[0]. gnu/linux is the 'nix like os around here ;)

That's technically correct, but in practice, a Linux-compatible OS is much more valuable than a Unix-compatible OS, if just because Linux is what runs in production.

MS acknowledges this with WSL.

<comment><USER7> With the BSDs and even Windows now offering Linux "kernel personalities", can Apple hold out without caving for long?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Buy a really cheap laptop and remote desktop (assuming it's Windows) into your your PC. Desktop PCs are way way way way more powerful than those shiny MacBook Pros. I have 2 desktops (3930k, Threadripper), a 13 macbook pro, a 15" XPS (2017) and the original retina iMac 27" and hands down the desktop machines (even the 3930k which is from 2011) beat the laptops in performance (yes they all have SSDs, save the macbook pro, they all have 32gb of RAM.)

I don't get the appeal of doing development on hardware that's optimized for mobility, especially if you spend 99% of the time working in the same place (like me.)

<comment><USER9> I develop on a macbook and the good thing is that it forces you to develop efficient software, so when it runs on a desktop it runs oh so nice :)

<comment><USER8> I guess it depends on the tooling you're using to develop said efficient software. I use Visual Studio + Resharper all day long and it's a hog. I've used Xcode & Android Studio on my iMac and it's just a better, faster experience than on a MacBook Pro.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I would recommend the T420/T430 . Thinkpads T series have excellent keyboards, build quality and reliability. They usually last many years. I would just suggest you get a FullHD one, it will really help with your coding. On top of that, the T series , being an old generation laptop can still have its CPU upgraded further down the line.

The MacBook air is really expensive for what it offers. It's basically a 2015 model, with an old generation processor and low resolution display: [https://noteb.com/?model/model.php?conf=4423208233512210891&...](https://noteb.com/?model/model.php?conf=4423208233512210891&ex=USD)

The Ideapad is not bad either for the price. It might get the job done but it's a low build quality laptop not meant to last. If you could get a Thinkpad T420 for $250, that's probably a better deal than $450 on a new IdeaPad.

<comment><USER11> There is no FullHD one. That came on the T440s, maybe the T440.

<comment><USER10> I think you are right. The best was 1600x900 , forgot about that. Anyway , the idea is to get the one with the 1600x900 screen, not the 1366x768 one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The best tool is the closest one to what other devs are using. Why? If you have a problem, other devs won't be trying to separate the difference of the system against the problem.

(Do all your other devs really use Macintoshes? Maybe you could buy one a few generations old, to save money.)

<comment><USER13> This is the right answer. If you'll be working on similar things/running the same code as the other developers, just get a Mac (can be old/refurbished to save money). You'll save a ton of headache over trying to figure out where the inevitable incompatibilities are coming from.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Soon to be former Apple (13" MBP A1278 16 GiB 2x2 TiB SSDs) owner here:

Lenovo X270

\- 20-ish hour battery life

\- Awesome water-resistant keyboard. Did I mention it's one of the best laptop keyboards IMHO?

\- Lightweight

\- Portable size for train, plane, automobile use

\- Choice of displays

\- Kensington lock port, headphone jack, USBs and SD card slot

Do not buy an Apple any longer: unrepairable, $750 LB repairs, glued in batteries, soldered-in RAM and SSDs, unupgradeable and new terrible, feedbackless keyboards. Watch Louis Rossmann's channel if you need any more convincing that Apple's are often overpriced money-pits.

<comment><USER15> I second this as a owner of a bricked 2013 MBA with a dead logic board. Bought a Lenovo T430S for $450 a few years back and couldn't be happier with it. Never buying Macbook again.

<comment><USER14> That Louis Rossman guy does component level repair and you might be able to squeeze some coin out of repairing and selling it. I'm considering just gifting an 2010 water-damaged MBP 13 as support for his great content.

Lenovo's are sturdy as heck too. That, standard upgradable parts and the industry best keyboard make them the most practical for both coding and corporate work. She may not be the prettiest date, but she has a great personality and is amazing at her vocation.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Apple's weird shortcuts are definitely weird but Karabiner (now Karabiner- Elements) can make things almost bearable[1]. However, I recently sold my Macbook Pro for a Thinkpad and went back to Linux so I'm very glad to not have to think about weird shortcut issues ever again.

A 2nd gen i5 will almost be certainly fine for what you're using it for, but potential concerns here are 1. battery life and 2. feeling left out for not having a shiny Memebook Pro, although I personally prefer the Thinkpad aesthetic.

[1][https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14741749](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=14741749)

</comment><comment><USER17> I would probably go with the Lenovo T420 to get the best bang for your buck. An i5, 16gb of memory and an SSD will be more than enough. My home gaming PC used a 3rd gen processor until about 3 months ago, I was not limited by the CPU at all (I wanted an nvme SSD and the new AMD Ryzen processor)

Your #2 isn't ideal as you'd undoubtedly struggle with 4gb of ram. Chrome and Slack can be a huge memory hog, on top of what PyCharm and your actual application use. You could upgrade the ram, but you're already spending $450.

My primary work machine is a MacBook pro (2014), but it is by no means necessary. My next laptop will run linux.

</comment><comment><USER18> T420 with an SSD no doubt.

Unless you're mostly a native iOS developer, in which case the Macbook will obviously come in handy.

</comment><comment><USER19> Owned ThinkPads for more than ten years. Started using a MacBook pro in 2015 as my main machine and never looked back.

The good things about ThinkPads: Their keyboards are excellent. Also, I love the fact that I could replace almost every part of if. Other than that I can't say too many good things about them. Mainly I was using the x2.... line. The x2...t models (tablets) were pretty sturdy. The non-tablet version wasn't (x220, x230...). Constantly some part would break. Just by being carried in a messenger bag. Now that's the hardware. (Lenovo advertises them as super sturdy, military spec or something.) Comparing that to my MacBook Pro Retina 2015: Been using my MBP daily. It goes with me everywhere. Never failed.

I won't say much about the OS. Only so much: Windows was terrible for open source development. I heavily rely on a terminal and bash. I was using Cygwin and PuTTY. This combo gave me a decent terminal and shell. But it was far from perfect. Then I installled Ubuntu on one of my ThinkPads. Loved that. But I was missing so many tools (Evernote, OmniGraffle and so much more.) macOS gives me all the proprietary software I love. Plus a Unix environment and an awesome terminal (iTerm).

I'd go with a MacBook (Air/Pro).

</comment><comment><USER20> You're working for cheap in a company that expects you to provide your own computer and, I assume, do your own maintenance and support for it. Do you pay for your own PyCharm license as well?

Don't let the perceived social pressure of being left out make you spend even more of your own money. If it helps any, change the context. For example, slap a Tux sticker on it, and argue that since the application runs on Linux, you feel it's best to immerse yourself in that environment.

If you have to get a laptop, go for something low-end. Either your #1 or #2. It isn't worthwhile to get a MacBook Air at 2x the cost. It does have more pixels than your #2, but if that's important you can get it without doubling the cost.

While it's sometimes hard to get things working on a Mac, Homebrew and Conda have pretty much made those problems disappear. Conda is not Mac specific.

With your #1 you'll likely have to get a new battery, so include that in your pricing. You aren't doing anything that really involves CPU.

OTOH, your #2 has only 4GB RAM, which is 1/2 the Air and 1/4 your #1.

On your desktop, how much memory do you use now, and how loaded is your CPU?

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, I do my own maintenance. That's ok since I kinda love doing things like that. Yes, I have to get my own pycharm license. Almost all startups give a computer and licensed software, I know. Still sticking with these guys since the engineering culture is good and the product is interesting and the people even more so. See [http://squadrun.co](http://squadrun.co)

<comment><AUTHOR> Also, the tux idea is brilliant. Thanks :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I've been using used Thinkpad and Thinkpad competitors (Dell Latitude) forever. There always seems to be a big supply of used corporate computers. I just upgraded to a T450s and it's fantastic.

</comment><comment><USER22> I don't see the advantage of the MB Air based on your requirements. Now, I haven't run into what you're saying regarding libraries on OSX. Personally it sounds like option #1 is your best bet for compatibility. Option #2 means you many run into headaches in terms of getting all your hardware to work 100% with your distro. (Assuming Linux)

</comment><comment><USER23> [https://www.flipkart.com/lenovo-ideapad-core-i5-7th- gen-8-gb...](https://www.flipkart.com/lenovo-ideapad-core-i5-7th- gen-8-gb-1-tb-hdd-windows-10-home-2-gb-graphics- ip-320-laptop/p/itmew6qp3hfm28tu?pid=COMEW6QPC5HDQAFK&srno=s_1_2&otracker=search&lid=LSTCOMEW6QPC5HDQAFKRN9E0C&fm=SEARCH&iid=5416e21d-e7b4-47a5-b1a6-f436769132ae.COMEW6QPC5HDQAFK.SEARCH&qH=312f91285e048e09), Has a GPU, while [https://www.flipkart.com/lenovo-ideapad-core-i5-7th- gen-4-gb...](https://www.flipkart.com/lenovo-ideapad-core-i5-7th- gen-4-gb-1-tb-hdd-windows-10-home- ip-320s-laptop/p/itmewhvungfvb9zx?pid=COMEWHVUVXR5YTTC&srno=s_1_18&otracker=search&lid=LSTCOMEWHVUVXR5YTTCNTMFXO&fm=SEARCH&iid=abf0bcd4-ecc9-4a38-889e-c88b415b180a.COMEWHVUVXR5YTTC.SEARCH&qH=312f91285e048e09) is too light !!

</comment><comment><USER24> Go macbook air.

For development I've always had issues with windows machines. When learning rails I tried countless tutorials on windows, would get stuck, something isn't working, spend time trouble shooting.

After a frustrating time one night I grabbed my Wife's macbook. The tutorials worked flawlessly and I accomplished so much. I always recommend using a macbook for development.

The air is more than capable for rails/laravel/python development.

Looks like your are in India, in the states you can pick up an air at best buy on sale for around $800 to $900. Check the apple refurbished site too.

You won't be sorry, you'll fall in love with the trackpad and keyboard, and they come with an SSD.

Good luck with the startup.

Sounds like you already envy others 'Shiny Macbooks' so save up for one and go for it.

My macbook air is still going strong, it's about three years old and I plan on purchasing a new MBair over going with a MBpro when it's time for a new one.

<comment><AUTHOR> I so development on a Linux. Windows is just slow agony when it comes to setting up a development environment. I don't 'envy' the shiny MBP s, I'm just curious. I'm just perplexed by their sense of value proposition. I've always said that buying a Mac is like buying a Mercedes (rare in India) - <USER2> sturdy and fast (fast enough at least) and shiny - but not exactly value for money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> I got the t450s recently off eBay. I would not make the same purchase again. Instead I would go for the x series models. This is because the keys on the t450s size laptop (which is larger) are too far apart for coding. Then there's the tn panel screen, the viewing angles are so bad that at 14" you have to choose whether you want the top or the bottom of the screen to be clearly visible -the other side will appear washed out. I never noticed this on the X230 which probably has an equally shitty screen, because its size is just right to never be an issue.

If I could return the t450s I would go for x240 or x230. Upgrade the battery, and toss in SSD if it doesn't already have one.

Also, check out mini PCs like the gigabyte brix. I use them as headless dev boxes on the local network. Run 24/7 without issue for months now.

<comment><AUTHOR> I already work on a full size keyboard. So I guess keys being spaced out won't be an issue. Also, a refurbished t450 would be too expensive for me anyways. Sticking with t420 or t430

<comment><USER25> X230 sounds to be up your alley then which you can find for as low as 200$. If you're a hardened emacs user, your fingers will thank you.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> If you find a machine under 400 bucks with 16 gigs of RAM, and the machine doesn't have to be portable, and it has a core i5 or better, you should probably get it. CPU is arguably not as important as ram + ssd.

But availability makes for much better buys: MicroCenter occasionally has display units or refurbs at a couple hundred lower than retail. I got a 6th gen core i7 8gb ram 256gb ssd 14" lenovo for 400 bucks, and bought a 16gb ram stick for $100, and a 1tb hdd for $35. The retail price was still closer to $850 for the same configuration (and that laptop supposedly only supports 8gb, but lenovo liiiiies!!).

Howver, if it's a relatively new machine, skip putting Linux on it. I've gone through setup hell three times this year and i'm just done with Linux on a modern laptop. It sucks.

</comment><comment><USER27> As someone who owns a T420, I can recommend it for that price. The CPU might be a bit slower and battery life might not be as good as a modern notebook but the keyboard is extremely nice and the overall performance with an SSD is good even for modern workflows. Just be sure to not use a Samsung 840 Evo SSD, I had bad experiences with stutter during heavy I/O that didn't happen with an HDD or Samsung 950 Pro. You can also upgrade the memory by yourself, if you need to.

Remember to check if the T420 has an Nvidia Quadro card inside. If it does, the Display Port is wired to the Nvidia card and works badly under Linux and sucks the battery dry quite fast.

</comment><comment><USER28> I am typing this on a T420 although I just have 12gb not 16gb. No complaints. I like being able to swap the hard drives really quickly instead of messing with partition and the keyboard IMO is better then the new lenovo keyboards. If you are concerned about battery remember they are removable on the T420. In fact I often carry around an extra to double the battery life.

I also on a Macbook Pro and frankly it is nicer in many ways but if you money strapped it probably isn't worth the price.

</comment><comment><USER29> Be aware, you are not going to be able to put a generic SSD into any kind of MacBook. They all use special custom Apple SSDs and third-party replacements are few and far between.

MacBooks are fantastic but if you're not already an OS X user and you have a tight budget, it may not be a good choice for you. A second-hand Air should be way less than $1000, though (but maybe not in India).

</comment><comment><USER30> <rant>

I tend to prefer Macs these days over Linux. The library problem is real when upgrading things like Xcode (which is a problem that just bit me trying to `pip install lxml`).

`brew` is not as good as `apt-get`/`pacman`/`yum` but it's almost always more up to date since it's like an AUR for macOS.

My issue with the Air is that they rarely update/improve it. It's a great laptop though.

</rant>

<comment><USER31> Don't buy the MacBook Air, it is a dead product. They're only still selling it because the margins are really good and people don't know they're buying old hardware. The 2017 model still uses Broadwell CPUs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> Go for the ThinkPad. For browser and Web stuff, your bottleneck is going to be memory (and I/O throughput, i.e., get an SSD), not CPU speed. For $250 you'd be getting a durable machine that runs Linux beautifully and has enough memory to handle your dev tasks.

</comment><comment><USER32> T420 would be ok if you can check that it should run docker. That would allow you to use or test many stacks without installs and deploy them to a bigger machine if needed. For a cheap option I recommend the Dell Inspiron 15 3000 Series with Ubuntu preinstalled instead of Windows. It is a Celeron processor and the 14.04 version of Ubuntu but it runs docker great. Also Ubuntu really looks better at the lower resolution which it most of been originally designed for. I got one new for €200.

</comment><comment><USER33> I did Django dev work for 6 years... I'd lean towards the Lenovo, but it depends on a few things:

1\. Are you going to do any photoshop work, or other design tasks?

2\. Do you want to use an external monitor? If so, does the T420 have good specs?

One final thought: We've been moving towards using docker for most development, and Apple is behind the curve on this one, mainly due to the crazy workaround required to get adequate filesystem support. If that's at all in your future, stick with linux.

<comment><AUTHOR> No Photoshop or design. Yeah I might plug it into an external monitor. I think any laptop can handle that. Right?

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> The T420 has better specs, especially on that RAM, but I'd expect the 6th Gen i3 to have superior battery life and also better single-threaded performance.

Lenovo's T-line of laptops used to be pretty good. I hear that recently they've cheapened up the production line. So I don't think you can go wrong as long as you're willing to put up with subpar battery life (Sandy Bridge, 2nd Gen Intel, has much worse battery life than modern processors)

</comment><comment><USER35> About 3. I switch between a mac at work and a PC at home and the shortcuts are really not a problem, your brain gets used to it pretty quickly.

</comment><comment><USER36> I see a lot of you recommending Lenovo. Only 2 years and all is forgiven[1]. Y'all should be ashamed of yourselves.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_inci...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfish#Lenovo_security_incident)

</comment><comment><USER37> I'm on a 2014 11" MB Air. I love it. Best laptop I've ever owned. Yeah, I wish it had 16 GB RAM, and a hires display. But it works, and works well for me.

I run IntelliJ on mine, the basically feature rich version of PyCharm.

You can find older Air's for around $500 used.

</comment><comment><USER38> The T420s are great, definitely recommend. If you need more compute power, grab something suitably sized in the cloud for a couple of hours. If you need more battery, grab a spare :).

</comment><comment><USER39> Any PC will do the job, the Windows subsystem for Linux is legit. Docker, Vagrant, all of it just works. No reason to buy a Mac if you're not neck deep in the ecosystem already.

</comment><comment><USER40> I'd lean toward the Lenovo. Anecdotally, I've had a 2nd gen i5 in my desktop since I built it in 2011 and still have no complaints with its performance.

</comment><comment><USER41> Just get a Mac. The time you'll save by not tinkering with Windows or Linux issues will pay for it in a matter of weeks.

</comment><comment><USER42> Do check out Dell Precisions on Dell refurbished. They are Quadcore and have lots of memory. 4900HQ is pretty powerful.

</comment><comment><USER43> Can you remote into your desktop from a lightweight laptop or a decent tablet?

</comment><comment> some-guy I have a T420s and it's held up very well, and is very repairable.

</comment><comment><USER44> Refurb corporate laptop I'd say

</comment><comment><USER45> Macbook Pro without emoji keyboard

</comment><comment><USER46> consider a gaming laptop with a desktop CPU. High CPU freq for the fastest builds!

</comment><comment><USER47> Get a 15-inch MacBook Pro. TouchBar is the best for programming.

<comment><USER48> I think I could care less about the touch bar, because I am one of the few willing to admit that I don't use vim. ;)

However, I am _much_ more frustrated by the lack of MagSafe. I am a tremendous klutz (as are my kids, and my cats, etc), so the peace of mind of being able to not destroy my laptop, should I ever trip on a cord or step on it, is something which I am wary of. For those of you with newer Macbooks, how do you handle charging?

<comment><USER49> "Ctrl+[" is equivalent to pressing Esc to exit the insert mode in vim</comment></comment></comment>


This is your pilot speaking.  Now, about that holding pattern... - <AUTHOR> http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2009/05/this-is-your-pilot-speaking-now-about.html <comment><USER2> Honest and classy apology. Nice, Google.

<comment><USER3> Yeah. Honesty is nice. Owning up to failures is extra nice.

The twitter fiasco of first removing a feature because it was "confusing" [according to them] and then backtracking and saying that it was removed because of engineering problems was interesting to watch.

<comment><USER4> Honesty is not nice and neither is owning up to failures. It's expected. It's a sad state of affairs when there are enough people and companies that hold themselves to a lower standard that the ones that do what they're supposed to do are somehow worthy of some extra recognition.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Sounds like someone fucked up a BGP update. Happens all the time: <http://www.google.com/search?q=bgp+update+outage+level3>

<comment><USER6> Is it me or does it seem that when you are something like Google there should be a process to prevent just this sort of thing?

<comment><USER7> I hate when someone suggests adding process to fix a problem - and I saw this quite a few times already.

Most people clearly understand the benefits of adding process, but very few seem to realize the costs.

If I tried hard I am pretty sure I could create a checklist with 1000 items for each developer to go through, and no one could argue against any of the items - individually, they would all be ok / necessary / correct. However, if I forced every developer to go through the list every time, for every change, they would - rightly so - feel crushed.

With very few exceptions - where a new process is really granted, I see people trying to substitute either thinking or automation by process. Which is a recipe for bureaucracy, and in my view a good part of why working for a BigCo can be so miserable sometimes.

A new process should be a last resort, after we answered yes to: a) Is it really beyond us to automate this?, b) Is there some flaw in human beings that will ensure this will repeat? c) Are the consequences of this mistake _really_ serious?

<comment><USER8> It turns out that you can reduce the number of surgical instruments left in patients by 33% by implementing checklists. Surgeons won't do it because it feels beneath them.

<comment><USER9> And it is. We have computers for this. Specifically, RFID chips, and readers.

Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too.

<comment><USER10> _Surgeons are very very expensive, so their time is too._

Surgical instruments, on the other hand, are easy to replace ;)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Likely hypothesis -- three thousand third party application developers who use google web services just got phone calls regarding application speed issues.

<comment><USER12> Ah, but that's also the nice thing about relying on somebody else's API: When it breaks, it's not your job to fix it.

Back in the dot-com days of '99, I built and maintained an app that was pretty much identical to what Google Maps released 5 years later (yeah, with tiles and javascript dragging & all that). The downside is that the backend was pulling from this crap GIS system that was always overloaded.

So it would bog down under load. And it was my problem. And it hurt.

So 10 years later, I run a little site built on the Google Maps API. Today it bogged down under load. And it was sunny out so I went out rock climbing because a whole team of smart people were scrambling to fix it for me and it wasn't my problem.

Sometimes "not my problem" can be pretty nice.

<comment><USER13> You climb? Where at?

I always wanted to pitch the idea of having a YC meetup at a climbing gym.

<comment><USER12> Kinda everywhere. I travel most of the year, following the sunshine to spots with good climbing, surfing and wifi. I'm in the Lake District (Northwest Engand) at the moment.

I seem to find myself in the 'states for about 3-6 months most years, usually in LA. If there were a hacker crag session when I was in town, I'd be there.

<comment><USER13> I'm a climber who loves surfing and hacking. Looking for hires? haha.

A climbing meetup is something I've been planning. I will probably ping the local (nyc) folks to see if they're interested.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Your Money: A Primer for Young People Starting Their First Job - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/14/business/yourmoney/14money.html?partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all

<comment><USER2> after taxes and health and 401k, THEN put away 10% of whatever's left for your own investment. Who knows if you'll be able to cash in that 401k.

10% is your baseline. Do it no matter what. Then set an investment goal like 25% a month. this keeps you thinking about frivolous spending.

set aside 10-25% a month for your twenties and you will be WELL ahead of the vast majority of people, especially with CS salaries as they are today.

my personal goal is 50%. Very steep from most people's perspective, but I'm not having kids so...</comment>


How to get in to Y Combinator [Interview with Interviewstreet] - <AUTHOR> http://www.pluggd.in/how-to-get-into-ycombinator-297/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+pluggd+%28pluGGd.in%29 <comment> avlesh-singh Wow, that's a nice first post to launch PluggdIn TV. Congratulations team. IMO, apart from interviews etc, product showcases on the TV product might be a good idea too.</comment>


Comparing AVL Trees in C++ and Haskell - <AUTHOR> https://izbicki.me/blog/avl-tree-runtimes-c%2B%2B-vs-haskell.html

<comment><USER2> > You might think that it is unfair to compare multithreaded Haskell against > C++ that is not multithreaded. And you're absolutely right! But let's be > honest, manually working with pthreads in C++ is quite the headache, but > parallism in Haskell is super easy.

C++ has std::thread and it would be very simple to parallelize this program, so yes it is unfair. I also wonder just how optimized the C++ AVL library is when it contains "//Assignment 6" at the top of its header. The C++ program is also non-optimal in that it is doing 2x lookups for each insert, once for the insert and then another to increment the counter. I haven't investigated the Haskell to see if it does the same.

Another important point is that mutable single node data structures like AVL or red black trees provide a property that the Haskell data structure cannot: stable iterators. If you don't need this property then you can usually get better run-times by using a more cache efficient data-structure like a BTree.

This is a very biased comparison.</comment>


Ask HN: I think I want to breakup with my co-founder, help me - <AUTHOR>

I am running a startup with my technical co-founder, we have a personal friendship that led us to starting the company together.  I convinced him to quit his day job working at a large company.  He has not ever worked outside of a large corporation before.  I am the business/SEO/marketing guy.
The kicker is that we are working remotely, he is working in one country, while I am in another country.  The target market for our product is the country where I am based.  At the start, we agreed to this arrangement.
I am however finding the strains of working remotely a big stress on this relationship.
1.  I don't have visibility on what he is doing, and he is of an introverted nature, so he will never skype me first, I always have to skype him or ask him a question and then he responds.
2.  We are expanding and hiring people, and without my technical co-founder on the ground here, it is very difficult to lead technical people.  I have a better relationship with the other technical person in our company because I am on the ground here, I don't think this situation is ideal.
3.  Since we started the company, we have pivoted several directions that requires my co-founder to learn a new programming language(objective C), however he has struggled to get up to speed quickly(2 months and no code produced), so we had to hire someone to basically continue product development.
4.  I don't feel like he puts in "extra" into the company, things like working weekends, coming up with new ideas, etc...
I don't know whether I am unrealistic in expecting him to learn a new language, but his inability to do so has shaken my faith in his technical abilities.
The product and the company I feel is taking off, we will be trying to raise a seed round soon,  but I am very concerned with my co-founder.  I don't feel like he is a co-founder, I am making all the decisions and he has very little to say about the major directions of our product, just agreeing with me.
We are going to raise money soon and I don't know if I can scale the company with my friend and co-founder?   Am I being paranoid?  What should I do? <comment><USER3> Ideally you should be in same location, I find that face time is crucial. I can relate to you as I'm the business/SEO/marketing/product guy as well.

I had to fire my technical co-founder because it turned out that he wasn't all that "technical" after all and lost my faith in him.

It took me months to do it, even with my mentors/advisors telling me to do it. I gave him the benefit of the doubt, and let it drag on for too long, when in fact it should have been an easy decision to part ways.

Long story short, trust your gut.. if you're not feeling it, pull out the axe, don't waste your time and hustle to find a suitable replacement. I know it's easier said than done, but it CAN be done...

<comment><AUTHOR> I had my reservations before we started about the remote arrangement, but started anyway.

The thing is that he is good at his chosen field of technical expertise(with years of experience in big companies), but I am finding out that if he needs to learn new technologies quickly, it is a huge struggle.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Is there a chance he could move to your country? Is he still accomplishing anything? Do you know what his personal situation is like (any recent troubles)? Have you formally started the company? What's the equity split like? Do you have any revenue?

<comment><AUTHOR> 1\. Yes, but it is a chicken and the egg, he is not willing to move unless we can raise funding, but... Most investors will not invest unless we have the whole team together.

2\. Yes, we are still going full steam ahead, but I just have this nagging feeling that it will not end well.

3\. He is very private about his personal life, there is a girlfriend in the picture which factors into his reluctance to move.

4\. Yes, formally started.

5\. 70/30, I have 70

6\. No revenue yet, it's a consumer based startup, so free product at this stage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> It was not too wise to start out down this path with your co-founder in another country - with that said - my advice to you would be to simply trust your gut. Based on what you have described, I don't think equity is the problem. There seems to be an established history of 'flakiness' and he clearly doesn't seem to share your passion. If you continue to sense his heart just isn't in the project then you should cut your losses and sever the relationship. If you do split up make sure you get a waiver from him.

</comment><comment><USER6> That's a tough situation to be in. It's probably going to ruin your friendship. Do you have a contract?

I have friends that are great coders, but I know they probably wouldn't be a good co-founder. I also have some friends that would make great co-founders.

It sounds to me like your friend would be a better employee. Founders of a company should be sacrificing and busting-ass every waking moment.

Could you ask him to fly/temporarily move to your country?

<comment><AUTHOR> no contract, we talked about shareholder agreements but nothing put in writing.

I have asked him to move temporarily, after months of "nagging him", he has agreed to come for a month at a time.

But I feel like it's kinda self-defeating, I should not have to nag him to get him to do this.

<comment><USER7> Before you do anything else, at all, take care of the paperwork. If you two part ways before everything's been formalized, you'll create a cloud of legal uncertainty over your start-up that'll make it very difficult to raise or have an exit.

In your agreement, you both should have a long period of founder vesting. Then, should you part ways, you can give your co-founder his share of equity multiplied by whatever fraction of the four years he worked.

Getting the paperwork right doesn't end with the shareholder agreements - <USER2> also need to make sure all the intellectual property is assigned to the company.

Actually, what you really need to do is sit down with a lawyer that knows what they're doing.

<comment><USER8> Exactly! Get with an attorney quick. Other option is to find funding and buy him out now. Sometimes investors like stepping in where there is a shakeup, they feel like a savior, get more equity and presumably, control. If you can do this, part of the deal will be the full release agreement along with ip assignment.

<comment><AUTHOR> At this early stage of a startup before we have scaled, the leaving of a co- founder is likely a bad signal that would scare away any investors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> How did you end up with 70% compared to his 30%?

<comment><USER10> This could be part of the problem. A huge benefit of an equal partnership is that neither feels justified in feeling that the other person should do more of the work.

Even if you're intellectually okay with an uneven split it can gnaw at you subconsciously and effect motivation.

<comment><AUTHOR> I suspect that this might be part of the problem, he has mentioned that he would like to re-negotiate the equity split. However, I feel like giving him a larger proportion of the company to solve a motivation issue is not the right thing to do.

<comment><USER10> Well, personally I'd never start a partnership with someone that wasn't even. If they're not worth half they're not worth partnering with.

There are exceptions: if I invested in the company I might end up with more equity based on that investment, but it would still _start_ at 50/50 on day one.

No one feels bad if you put in $500k to get an extra 20%. But just arbitrarily deciding one guy gets an extra 20%? That's going to gnaw at you later.

You said you put in 70% of the money and he put in 30%. Is he willing to match your contribution to get himself up to 50%?

<comment><AUTHOR> not really possible, he doesn't have the money.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Why Don't Rationalists Win? - <AUTHOR> https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/hgw3mYJnorskJG5RJ/why-don-t-rationalists-win <comment><USER2> I've long held a less charitable suspicion that at least applies to politics: rational thought seldom results in a position that unfairly favors one group over another.

If you want your side to _beat_ others, you want irrational ideas and motives that justify violent and deceptive actions.

<comment><USER3> > _rational thought seldom results in a position that unfairly favors one > group over another_

This strikes me as so absurd, I can't fully wrap my head around it. Instead, I'll just give counter examples.

In politics, rational thought often favors the majority over the minority. Almost everyone ends up as the unfavored minority for a few issues.

Rational thought is also incredibly subjective. A Marxist's reason is wildly different from a capitalist's, and there is no objective or rational way to say who is correct. It boils down to morality.

<comment><USER2> > In politics, rational thought often favors the majority over the minority. > Almost everyone ends up as the unfavored minority for a few issues.

Seems like that argues against simple majoritarianism being rational.

> Rational thought is also incredibly subjective. A Marxist's reason is wildly > different from a capitalist's, and there is no objective or rational way to > say who is correct. It boils down to morality.

If it's subjective it means it's either not rational or depends on undecidable questions. Undecidability is part of reality, but can be accounted for.

<comment><USER3> This is going to sound condescending, but I don't intend it this way at all. I had the same misconceptions as you did before taking some introductory philosophy courses. I don't see the point or the possibility in arguing this further when you don't seem to have a very basic foundation in philosophy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Pay attention: (hard won realizations)

Politics is advocacy. Debate, in the more formal, rational sense, is a subset of advocacy.

Advocacy has three pillars and they are:

Reason, the rational.

Emotion, the feels, essentially.

Character, the reputable, our nature, worthiness.

Effective advocacy incorporates all three, ideally. It can be effective with less, depending on the state of the advocacy targets.

A simple example is desperate people. They are not entirely rational, because they are in pain, need. Strong emotional and character advocacy will be extremely potent.

"You hurt because bad people" or, "those other people."

"You deserve because X is the right thing to do."

One area where rationality can fail is when how people value things differs from otherwise rational norms. A great many entirely rational arguments centered on market based solutions as primary policy fail because they assume people to be rational actors in posession of sufficient information, time and energy to make optimal choices. The reality varies considerably, and people value things differently enough to make the "optimal" choice a more complex space than is understood and intended as an artifact of said policy.

While we intend and desire to see politics as some objective debate, the reality is one of advocacy and influence being applied to actualize desires and preferences as much as it may be for a common, public good, or promotion of the general welfare.

Money in politics exacerbates all that.

Finally, and due to variances in what people value and why, the idea of there being "right" answers does not align with the reality being answers ranging from poor to excellent.

People, particularly struggling people, want to end their struggles far more than they want to, say reduce global poverty, for example. And their lives, loves, desires all count when it comes to votes, and other political activity and expression.

The single most important thing we can do, whether we are rationalists or not, is seek better understanding of others.

That leads to effective advocacy, and it can lead to just, effective, human policy. It may not be optimal. Very large numbers of humans will not care so long as their struggles do not exceed that level where they find the idea of change more compelling than exercizing their options are. (If they have options, or understand those they do have.)

Humans are not machines, nor computers. They feel stuff and they trust some people, despise others, and it all counts no matter how painful and complicated that is.

Politics boils down to a sell job. Getting what you personally want can happen with money and or a compelling vision for others to also want what you want.

There are really no objective right answers. Ideologies are reasoning tools, not laws, like physics.

There are only choices and outcomes.</comment>


More than 1,000 Nokia employees walk out in protest at Symbian phase-out - <AUTHOR> http://www.hs.fi/english/article/More+than+1000+Nokia+employees+walk+out+in+Tampere+in+protest+at+Symbian+phase-out/1135263743059 <comment><USER2> Also here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2206437>

... with many, _many_ comments.</comment>


Google Instant Is Anything But a Time-Saver - <AUTHOR> http://www.xconomy.com/national/2010/09/10/google-instant-is-anything-but-a-time-saver/?single_page=true

<comment><USER2> I, on the contrary, trust Google here.

They're known for their extensive testing. I highly highly doubt that they would make such a major change to their main page without knowing _for sure_ that it would be for the better.

<comment><USER3> I have complete trust that Google is doing their damnedest to maximize Adwords revenues, and I highly doubt that they would have made a change like this without knowing _for sure_ that it would increase impressions and clicks.

<comment><USER4> Oh, if you only knew...

I work in Search, the same department that was primarily responsible for Instant. We're explicitly told not to worry about revenue. For a launch of this scale, Ads is involved if only to make sure that it doesn't bankrupt the company (it wouldn't look very good on the 10-Q to have revenue suddenly drop to zero). But we can and have launched things that decrease revenue if doing so is the right thing for users.

<comment><USER5> Do you try to optimize for user satisfaction, user productivity, or somewhere in-between? A more "interactive" search—like one where you're constantly looking down at the morphing result list as you type—can, at the same time, increase satisfaction while being slower to use. I guess this is almost an ethical question—do you give people what they want, or what is good for them?—but I'm mainly wondering whether there's an established Google policy on the matter.

<comment><USER6> Your definition of what is "good for them" is different than mine. Efficiency is less important to me than feeling good, though those items are often related.

<comment><USER5> My definition of what is "good for you" is whatever optimizes your utility function—what you consciously, rationally like, for whatever reasons you like it. This is a multidimensional quality: feeling good is highly weighted in your personal utility function, for example.

However, the quantity users report on user-satisfaction surveys—"which is better, in your opinion"—is basically whatever your subconscious heuristics tell you is better. If you were consciously presented with the choice _before_ your brain had become entrained to either alternative, you would perhaps respond differently. People don't "like" things that are unfamiliar, even if they have more benefits, and could normally be convinced of this—this is why people react negatively every time Facebook changes its UI, and why New Coke would only have worked if there had never been a Classic Coke to compare it to. People "like" addictive drugs, fatty foods, etc., even when they know that these will _decrease_ their net happiness over time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> The only thing that i care about is that it helps a lot for doing incremental searches, e.g. if you are searching for someone, you can add keywords like their occupation, university expertise and it works really well.

most of the ppl crying over this are doing this because now there SEO is all messed up and people can look for things that they want much more efficiently. Consider so many people who rather looked at results that they got rather than modifying their searches. also people will choose top 5-6 results, so if your results are not in top 5-6 they are worth much less.

All this talk is nothing but google hate. if you just dont want to use this feature press enter every time you type.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have two problems with it

1) It makes search slower on my slow netbook (all these DOM operations aren't free, you know). So while I type some long phrase, Google does all these meaningless searches (that I don't even look at), and slows down the browser tremendously. (I use Chrome on the netbook).

2) I cannot turn it off. I tried. I went to "Search settings", selected "Do not use Google Instant", saved the settings. It's still on. When I go to settings again, "Use Google Instant" is still checked.

<comment><USER9> > meaningless searches (that I don't even look at)

One of my complaints is that I _do_ look at those searches, which derail me. Those results, along with some of the completions, are often related and interesting, but not actually what I was looking for, so I go off on a distraction quest with "oh, that's interesting", before I finish actually searching for what I had intended to search for. Possibly a personal failing, but I definitely so far feel like Google Instant is adding one more distraction to an already-distracting internet.

It sometimes feels like a Google Instant version of the six degrees of Wikipedia game: which topics completely unrelated to what I'm supposed to be doing can I reach via one- to three-word prefixes of search phrases I'm legitimately looking for as part of something productive?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Actually... I think they may be right. Though I have my own theories as to why:

More results = more time _reading_ results, = more ad impressions. If you hit two letters and it seems to have decent results, you're probably going to look to see if it _is_ what you wanted, rather than finishing your search term. Good for Google's income.

In addition, on the other side of the equation: if you don't know _exactly_ what you're finding, more results more quickly means you're more likely to find exactly what you were looking for... which is good for Google, because you'll come back, and good for _you_ , because you found what you wanted.

More time is more time, but I typically visit Google for all of 5 seconds. Having it take 10 seconds to find better results (and in a few wide-ranging searches, I _definitely_ got better results due to the immediate feedback) is worth it to me.

<comment><USER11> Google gets paid for clicks, not impressions. As long as the same percentage of searches terminate in clicks on ads their revenue will remain unaffected.

The only conceivable impact on ads is that traffic will shift from long-tail to shorter keywords as people find what they need earlier in the search process. The exact impact this will have on click prices is unclear.

<comment><USER10> Thought I saw somewhere that they were defining an ad impression as one which was on-screen for 3 seconds during an Instant search. That would seem to imply they're extracting _some_ value from impressions alone.

Could've misinterpreted, though.

<comment><USER12> That is how they define an impression in their reporting but they are still payed on a click basis.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> 1) Who searches on "sausage" or "Sausalito"? I might search for 'sausage making quote' or 'Sausalito italian restaurant'. And while I type that I get faded type ahead in my search box and results popping up on the screen. Annoying.

2) As long as I'm criticizing, I also use quotes in about half my searches, but Google's type ahead feature strips them out rendering the function useless.

3) OK, a rave about Google's search tools...being able to search in past 24 hours, week, month, year, etc is wonderful when trying to find an answer to a specific technical problem.

But Instand? I turned it off within a couple hours. It's too distracting.

</comment><comment><USER14> I hardly ever use the Google homepage to search anyway, I always use the address bar in Chrome so this new feature is largely irrelevant to me.

<comment><USER15> it's also largely irrelevant to the many people here who type faster than Google can serve them results</comment></comment>


The Crabb Affair - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lionel_Crabb#Crabb_Affair <comment><USER2> Lots of bonkers conspiracy theories there. I'm not sure either nation involved would be interested in a mine or killing someone during a diplomatic mission.</comment>


Apple vs. Google ads: What are they selling? - <AUTHOR> http://www.tipb.com/2011/05/04/apple-google-ads-selling/

<comment><USER2> Very strange, confused, and seemingly self-contradictory post. The author is not trying to dissuade anyone from using Google services and is a heavy user of G services himself. One would assume, then, that he doesn't find those services creepy. Why, then, is the ad, which seems like a fair representation of those services to me, creepy?

What a strange thing to try to convince others of the creepiness of something. I think if on watching I didn't find it creepy, then that means it wasn't creepy to me. I imagine if I found G services to be creepy, I might find the ad to be creepy, but not otherwise.

I found it to be quite an effective ad. It showcases exactly how G services and tech at large are supposed to enhance our lives.</comment>


Linear B - <AUTHOR> http://linearb.com/ <comment><USER2> Am I missing something? I only see a 2-sentence incomplete synopsis. The CSS page is huge by comparison, and it's not doing anything particularly interesting.</comment>


We Need a Programmer for President - <AUTHOR> http://java.dzone.com/articles/would-you-vote-programmer <comment><USER2> I think the author greatly exaggerates the assumpitions he makes about "programmers", just because you know how to write computer code doesn't mean you will want to spend more money on the space program or be opposed to software patents. Furthermore this list isn't the benefits from a technical person running the country its someone who agrees with his ideology. How about we need a engineer to be running this country so that

        * They understand how to break down large problem to small ones
        * Are efficient and always looking for ways to make other parts of the system efficient
        * Understand the technical issues facing the country
        * Knows the value of having, and the benefit of relying on expects in each problem domain
        * Knows how to plan and implement solutions to complex problems
        * Knows how to map problems across domains to leverage existing knowledge
        * Isn't afraid of getting into the details of problems.

I think thats a better list.

<comment><USER3> I notice that "building consensus among people" is absent from your list.

In fact, the word "people" is missing from your list.

<comment><USER4> Yep. To be chief executive, one needs to have executive experience in managing large organizations of diverse talent. Except for the last election cycle, the US of A went for about 40 years of electing a president with executive experience (governors mostly, but also some people who had been Vice President, or ran the CIA).

The last cycle was an aberration, in that both major party candidates were legislative politicos (disregarding McCain's officer status in the Air Force), and there was no clear large organization management experience in the field.

<comment><USER5> McCain served in the Navy, not the Air Force.

<comment><USER4> My bad, I knew he was a pilot, didn't check my references.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Programmers make good programmers. Programmers who make good project managers are not that common. Programmers who make good CEO's are rare. I don't think I've met a programmer who would make a good president.

Sure, if you re-think the world to some utopia where the president only needs to figure out what the problems are, design new laws and implement them by pushing a button, then yes. But you don't need to watch a lot of West Wing to realize that the skills required are primarily people-skills: communication, diplomacy, delegation and negotiation. Some programmers have these, sure, but they are not their typical strengths.

<comment><USER7> _Programmers who make good CEO's are rare. I don't think I've met a programmer who would make a good president._

Agreed, but have you met a lot of lawyers who would make good CEOs or presidents? I think you may be talking about rare _people_.

Just as an interesting reference point, people with undergraduate engineering degrees are actually represented as CEOs in the fortune 500 far out of proportion to their percentage of the undergraduate degree population. I believe it's reverse for government, though.

Of course, programming != engineering, though a lot of the programmers I know did major in some kind of STEM field.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Maybe we should get someone with a CS degree running for president. If HN is any indication, it is the only degree to qualify you as an expert in economics, history, politics, various forms of science, religion, and sociology.

<comment><USER9> I think you mean a college dropout from a CS degree program.

<comment><USER10> why not

[http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/college-dropouts- wh...](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/19/college-dropouts-who-made-it- successful_n_1610645.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> U.S. programmers, as a whole, won't get behind one stance on immigration.

I know many programmers from India, for instance, and they are talented people that I really like. I've seen the real contribution that these people make to America's bottom line.

I've also seen many corporate "body shops" where frankly, there's a class war going on, and management wants to "tame" the complexity of software developers by making us low-priced and low-status cogs. The low status may be more fundamental than the low price, because a professionalized stratum of programmers is a threat against managers who build castles in the air and send us off on charges of the light brigade and to build Marginot Lines.

Many U.S. programmers see H1-B as a weapon that will be used against them.

Personally I see something in both points of view on this issue but I'd find it hard to take either side as a platform position or to support an organization that takes a stance on H1-B one way or the other.

I definitely think we're missing a real professional organization for software developers. The ACM fails at this because it represents the interests of academic computer scientists, not practitioners.

I'd very much like to pay dues to something like the ACM, oriented towards practitioners, but unfortunately this doesn't exist.

<comment><USER7> This is a good point. The most common profession among legislators in the US so far has been law. They have most definitely not shown any interest in making it easier for foreign lawyers to practice in the US (I'd say they've shown remarkably cartel-like inclinations, really)... but they are relatively enthusiastic about getting more STEM workers here.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I always find these sorts of articles ridiculous. Its like those people who always say "we need an businessman president!" A regular profession is largely irrelevant to the skills needed to be an effective President. The relevant limitation isn't someone who has the right ideas. It's finding someone who can savvily spend political capital to achieve particular ends.

<comment><USER13> Working in a given profession for an extended period of time imparts a certain world view. Most politicians were lawyers, and I think it shows. Maybe we need a "hacker" president, not just a programmer, but I do believe that a programmer president would have a point of view very different from those currently represented in the government--one that can understand and appreciate the technological challenges that will continue to grow in importance. The Internet and its effects on business, war, civil liberties, and everyday life is very much uncharted territory and understood by very few. Until someone in a position of sufficient influence, perhaps the president, understands software, I think the government will remain in the dark ages.

<comment><USER12> Having been both a programmer and a lawyer, I don't think the world views are really that different. They are both detail-oriented and analytical. I think lawyers have a stronger inclination towards fairness and programmers have a stronger inclination towards correctness, but I think most good lawyers would be good programmers and vice versa.

You don't need to be a programmer to understand the impact of the internet on civil liberties, etc. How does knowing about how TCP provides reliability on top of IP help you understand the impact oF the Internet on civil rights beyond just using the Internet? I think that's an old/young thing, not a programmer/lawyer thing.

I don't think shuffling among different highly analyrical/detail-oriented professions will achieve sea-change. I'd much rather see someone in office with a legitimately different world view. Maybe a social worker. Somebody whose job requires empathy, communication, and being able to work with people in the toughest situations.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Programmer? Uh.. no.

I worked for 25 years in house techie/programmer for a child development agency. I had discovered that the best leaders are the ones who know how to lead, set the course and work with all the groups. From having a good staff to rely on as well as be an effective communicator with drive and empathy. Definitely good to to be a people person.

I think having a programmer oriented person in the cabinet staff would be a good thing, but not as a leader.

</comment><comment><USER15> While personally I think this is a great idea, it's nothing new.

In a technocratic society; specialists rule. It wouldn't matter whether the President would be a programmer, engineer, or theorist. Any scientist would do an equally good job at re-factoring the government's inefficiencies.

But sadly, a FPTP voting process means it's a popularity contest. Fix the voting system, and open up this possibility. My vote's on this: <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE>

<comment><USER16> Instant runoff voting has the problem of nonmonotonicity. A simpler ranking system without rounds of elimination and vote shuffling would be better, IMO.

<comment><USER17> Proportional representation might work until we have a runoff system of some kind. So for example at the state level, if 40% vote liberal, 40% vote conservative, 10% vote green and 10% vote libertarian, then that percentage from each party would go into office.

So out of 100 representatives, 10 of them would be green and 10 would be libertarian, instead of the 0 (or maybe 1 if we're lucky) that we end up with now. They use this system all over in Europe and even though they have their own unique set of problems, they're able to stay on top of issues that the US seems perpetually unable to grasp.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> "Issue #4: Internet Freedoms"

Adding an amendment for 'the internet' is lame.

The already existing Bill of Rights covers it nicely.

That we're getting laws and executive orders that nullify civil rights isn't a problem with the internet, but with the guys writing the laws and executive orders.

<comment><USER19> I believe we are going to need a second Bill of Rights to overrule all the Supreme Court cases that have dampened the 4th and 5th amendments plus put in some explicit privacy protections. I had some hope of them going the other way given the 2nd amendment cases and Citizens United, but it looks like thats not a trend.

This administration is worse than the last and that one wasn't any friend of civil rights either. The thought process that a GPS can be attached to someones car or data kept in the cloud can be searched without warrants is going to be a killer for civil rights.

<comment><USER18> Layering on an a second layer of rules to the already existing rules doesn't work so well for computer systems. I doubt it will work as expected in real life.

At least my experience is the more rules you have, and the more rules clarifying the rules, the more wiggle room you leave people to exploit loopholes.

What we need aren't more rules but actual enforcement of the existing rules. 'Congress shall make no' and 'The government may not do anything not enumerated herein' are pretty clear.

<comment><USER19> Well, layering (really replacing or adding) is really the only option with regards to the Constitution. It needs to show a modern intent to some of the amendments that have suffered in the modern era.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I remember in philosophy class in college learning that ancient philosophers thought philosophers should lead society. I think there is a quote from Thomas Jefferson where he says the best president would be one who was a farmer.

I think the best way for our people to change the government is through the House of Representatives. I think we could get an engineer elected in SV, NoVa, Boston, Austin, RTP... maybe a few other places if we really tried. That would be a good place to start.

</comment><comment><USER21> Programmers can't even make proper choices when designing software for people, how would they do while designing government?

I would say, being a programmer might even make you a worse president:

1) There are no advantages to being a programmer while responding to significant issue questions regarding abortion, health care, gun control, etc. Programming profession is oblivious to these human concerns.

2) Software is infinitely flexible and costs little to change. Government, might look like just a bunch of sentences written in laws and rules; but changing them are infinitely expensive. Being a programmer puts you in a mindset that is far from advantageous in this setting.

Programmers (or engineers) could perhaps make good bureaucrats, creating mechanisms that will realize the specifications given by people.

</comment><comment><USER22> Programmers most of the time have no people skills. Programmer will never win a debate. you need to be able to lie or change subjects with a smile and no sweat. Also if you can talk really well you could explain your idea to people and they will go for it. On the other hand you may have a 1000X times better idea but if you can't explain it properly or connect to people they will move inin 30 sec. I think this whole thing is pure speculations. you could say we need a NASA astronaut or a Math PhD for a president as well...

</comment><comment><USER23> This article isn't something I take seriously, but FWIW Herman Cain has a BS in Math and an MS in Computer science. It didn't seem to help him in the primaries.

<comment><USER12> Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer.

<comment><USER24> ... and one of the worst presidents in history.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Total rubbish - Presidents are not wanted for their ability to program CPUs; They are wanted for their ability to adjust the programming of the human mind.

One speech, one vision can re-program millions of minds, one policy consistently followed can affect billions.

We need leaders who know how humans work. We would like leaders who use that ethically and for the good of all.

Here's hoping.

</comment><comment><USER26> I'm not American but i think saying a programmer should be President is just as bad as saying a lawyer should be President, which pretty much all politicians are. I'd rather see a world leader and their Government use an approach like a meritocracy. To me, old white guys that cant turn on a computer shouldn't be making laws that govern the internet and that's applicable to any subject. Assign those that know their shit in that field to administer it.

On another note, I cant remember what country it was, i think either Japan or China, the majority of the higher tier politicians are engineers, rather than lawyers, which i think is a good thing, but again, over abundance of one profession hurts other issues.

</comment><comment><USER27> There's an assumption here that presidents get to do what they like regardless of anything else.

Planet Money has been running an infrequent series within the series about policies economists of all persuasions believe should be the US economic policy. It's great - all solid, reasonable stuff from an economic perspective but also (as they make clear) entirely contrary to public opinion.

Even assuming (and it's a massive and somewhat arrogant assumption) that a programmer knows what's right for America, it completely fails to address how that programmer (or anyone else) might get such policies enacted, especially as of the 8 at least 5 are contentious and 2 (congress and immigration) are potentially politically suicidal.

</comment><comment><USER28> Most of the listed responsibility items would not fall under the purview of the Executive (the President) but rather the Legislature (Congress - the House + Senate).

There seems to be a persistent expectation in the United States that the President is an all powerful position that can dictate laws, etc. Remember that he can merely suggest to the legislature what should be done. While executive orders are available they often have limited scope and can be easily challenged (or even ignored).

In fact, legislatively the only _real_ power the US President has is negative, not positive - he can say __no __to a legislation (by vetoing it).

Let's take a look at a few of the proposed items here:

* Issue #1: Teach Programming at an Early Age

The majority of curriculum decisions are deferred to a LOCAL level in the United States - mandates from individual states & school districts primarily decide what is being taught. Worse, because Texas is one of the largest text book markets many manufacturers simply print the textbooks used across the US to the Texas educational standards.

The only major influence I've seen in recent years on a national education standard is No Child Left Behind which, by many reports, has simply pushed schools to focus on test taking. By many reports, "Race To The Top" (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Race_to_the_Top>) has made this no better.

If you look at Wikipedia's article on the Department of Education, they do not really set policy in the US. Instead, 'The primary functions of the Department of Education are to "establish policy for, administer and coordinate most federal assistance to education, collect data on US schools, and to enforce federal educational laws regarding privacy and civil rights."[10] The Department of Education does not establish schools or colleges'

* Issue #2: Fixing Immigration

Again, this is primarily up to Congress to act on, and there seems to be no desire to do so. The President really has no influence on this issue directly.

* Issue #3 Abolish Software Patents

This is primarily a legislation issue – we must fix the patent system and that has to be done in Congress. The one place a President might influence this would be the appointment of Supreme Court Justices; and let us not forget that Congress has veto power over these.

* Issue #4: Internet Freedoms

This discusses amending the US Constitution; this process is not done by the US President. There are, to my knowledge, two ways of amending the US Constitution.

1\. The US Congress can draft a proposed amendment with a MAJORITY of Congress approving it (2/3+), and put it to the States to ratify - 3/4+ of them must ratify it.

2\. A Majority of the States can demand Congress form a Constitutional Convention to discuss creating a new amendment, then 3/4+ of them must ratify it.

I don't recall if every state deals with the Ratification of amendments the same, but I believe some can have the state legislature ratify on the people's behalf, while others have a direct popular vote.

* Issue #5: Cybersecurity

You might pull this off at the Executive level, by further empowering agencies like Homeland Security. But real action requires coordination with a Congress who can draft penalties for companies that don't comply, etc.

* Issue #6: Refactoring Congress and Agencies

Only Congress may refactor Congress; the Executive has little to no power over this.

* Issue #7: Improve Government UX

Again, we need Congress to refactor this, and probably constitutional amendment processes. A system like our Congress thrives on "insider" behavior and has little incentive to change itself.

* Issue #8: Space

Developers may care about space (I do, as well) but the majority of the United States does not. The President may propose a budget, but ultimately the Congress decides it.

the NASA budget tends to be less than 1% of the US Federal Budget, and getting it higher than that is a battle that would require a radical change in the perceptions of the American Public as well as Congress. ([http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Budget_of_NASA#Annual_budget.2C_1958-2012))

<comment><USER29> The office of the presidency has more power than you think it does. The president is expected to set the legislative agenda, meaning that he or she has a lot of influence over what the houses of congress will talk about. ie, the ability to block the agenda of others using veto power until they agree to discuss certain issues. The past several presidents have had control of at least one body of congress, and the majority leader will usually take direction from the president on what should be on the agenda.

For example, Barack Obama has had an impact on #5 and #7 from your list. He's most likely going to make a big push on immigration reform in his next term, though it most likely won't involve H1-B visas (though he has spoken in favor of the issue, at the urging of his many silicon valley supporters).

Your point is correct that the president is not all powerful. But if he or she really wants to push for any of the items you mentioned, they have the power to make it the subject of national discussion. A president who is particularly skilled at dealing with congress (like LBJ) can go a long way toward turning bills into law.

<comment><USER30> Yes and no. Obama repeatedly pushed immigration in his first term and it got nowhere. If Republicans control the house, I predict it continues to go nowhere (although he might be able to bash them over the head with it and other issues enough that they get thrown out in 2014).

But yes, there are some things he can do (and has done) within federal agencies that directly report to him as regards cybersecurity and UX.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Imagine that you are given a massive code base, full of bad practices, code duplication, no uniform coding style, lots of it written written in COBOL. Most parts of it are written by average or incompetent programmers. If you attempt to refactor or get rid of something, you are met with a stiff resistence by people who don't want to lose their jobs or just don't like change. Would a programmer want this?

</comment><comment><USER32> To any programmers looking to work in Congress, there's a job opening for a "Software Technician" in the Office of Legislative Counsel[0]:

        MEM-098-12
        The House Office of Legislative Counsel is looking for a Software Technician to
        augment their existing IT staff. This position is a support position that solves daily
        software issues as they arise and performs preventive maintenance routines.4
        Core Responsibilities:
        To troubleshoot and maintain office drafting software, document management
        software, and related supporting software. To monitor nightly scheduled jobs for
        errors and fix as needed. To work with systems administrator in solving problems
        when underlying operating system or network permissions may be part of the
        problem. Assist end-users with resolution of system related technical challenges
        Duties:
        Check logs from nightly automated scripts on SQL server, and utility file servers
        for anomalies; assist in deploying/installing software written by office
        programmers as well as outside vendors; provide backup assistance to the system
        administrator on desktop and operating system issues when necessary;
        create/modify utility scripts in DOS batch and VBscript ; test certain software on
        new desktops and laptops before they are assigned to users ; perform SQL queries
        to assist in troubleshooting; performs or commissions network, personal
        computer, and peripheral maintenance; adds, updates, and deletes users from the
        document management and authoring systems; eventually provides computer
        software training to staff; document tasks and fixes in internal wiki used by
        office;  attend weekly staff meeting to discuss present and potential upcoming
        issues; Performs other duties as assigned.
        Qualifications:
        At least 4 years technical training or equivalent work experience with computers,
        software and hardware; at least 2 years experience working with Windows
        networks (LAN); strong academic credentials; knowledge of current Windows
        software and applications; ability to work with technical peers and users of
        computer systems;
        some knowledge of SQL queries, XML markup language, PERL programming
        language, and VB programming language helpful; strong oral  and  written
        communication  skills; abilityto work cooperatively and courteously with others;
        and
        availability to after hours and as needed (a few times a year generally)
        Applicant Instructions:
        Email resume and cover letter with subject line "Software Technician" to
        firstname.lastname@example.com.

[0] <http://www.house.gov/content/jobs/members_and_committees.php> (free subscription required)

</comment><comment><USER17> My main concern with having a programmer in office is that technicians don't always have a deep understanding of concepts like civics, or psychology, or the contexts that groups use to arrive at the opinions that they have.

An effective public servant is just that: someone who is able to save and spend political capital in a way that best serves his or her constituency (the people) instead of choosing merely the most technical sound or inexpensive solution to a problem.

So in that respect, usually more socially minded people like teachers and nurses make good politicians. They understand that the electorate is more capable than it realizes and can rise above problems that on paper appear to be too complex or expensive to solve (for example by spending its way out of a depression instead of choosing austerity which shrinks an economy).

</comment><comment><USER33> Sounds more like a party platform. First organize a pressure group inside one of the major parties. (Even Ron Paul eventually decided he's more effective _inside_ the GOP.) Win a couple of primaries. Get a speaking spot at the convention. Then you can start dreaming about the presidency.

</comment><comment><USER34> I'm waiting for some of those rich Googlers or Facebookers to get into politics with a platform based on an incredibly objective data-driven policy agenda. Bring on the technocrats!

</comment><comment><USER35> There are so many disparaging generalities and stereotyping presented here. The anti-intellectualism and programmer hate is on full display. An important question is why is this socially acceptable in 2012. We get it. you are afraid of smart people in charge.

</comment><comment><USER36> (Actually we just need to wait for the next reset, an a direct hit from asteroid. :) )

The problem isn't the president, the problem is that people are greedy and non-rational.

</comment><comment><USER37> Let me comment on some of those points after reading through the blog post kindly submitted here.

"Issue #1: Teach Programming at an Early Age

. . . .

"Ask any programmer how old they were when they first started coding. A survey done on that very question shows that programmers who were still coding well into their thirties started learning, on average, at age 13 with a standard deviation of about 5 years, which is a window from age 8 to 18."

More interesting than asking current programmers at what age they started programming would be asking them whether they first learned to enjoy programming and to become good at it because of school lessons, or despite school lessons. Comments on that issue from working programmers would be very interesting to me here.

"Therefore, I believe we need to require all Middle School students to take a course that equips them with a basic understanding of computers and computer programs."

I took a unit in BASIC programming on a time-sharing terminal as part of my eighth grade mathematics class during the Baby Boom generation. That didn't turn me into a programmer. Some of my high school classmates who did turn into programmers endured our high school's optional course on computers (as I also did), but they actually learned their programming by doing what they felt like on the PLATO time-sharing terminal at our public library, by playing around with their early Hewlett Packard electronic calculators, and as they became college students by building their own microcomputers before those were a commercially available product. My oldest son, who is currently a software engineer at a startup in New York City (yeah, they have their electricity back now) learned to program in a joint class arranged by our homeschooling support group, with voluntary attendance, through some voluntary distance-learning courses, and through a lot of building his own projects on GitHub while taking computer science classes through dual enrollment at our state flagship university while of high school age.

"An early start program like this would ensure that everyone gets a taste of what it's like to code, giving us a greater opportunity to inspire more kids to become developers."

Mandatory school courses in MANY subjects frequently have little or nothing to do with what actual practitioners do with the same subject in the free- enterprise workplace. It would be an interesting issue to study empirically, but for all the evidence I have seen, mandatory school courses can do as much to turn pupils off to subjects as they do to spark learner interest.

"Issue #6: Refactoring Congress and Agencies

"If Congress were a software product, customers would have abandoned it long ago. If I am elected president, I intend to bring a set of fresh eyes to every little process in congress, the executive branch, and our many government agencies."

Translated into English, what he is saying is that he is going to violate the separation of powers among three branches of federal government that is built into the United States Constitution. And Congress will succeed in blocking him from doing that--with my full support. I don't want a dictator in the United States, and I'm more worried about a President who becomes a dictator with no checks and balances than I am about an inefficient Congress. (Indeed, I cherish the saying of a wise friend of mine who said, in a conversation about politics with a mathematics teacher and me, "I'm an engineer. The last thing I want is EFFICIENT government.") On the other hand, to give this point its due, if he would like to do more private-sector contracting to deliver services of the executive branch that the President leads, I'm happy to see him do competitive contracting to the full extent allowed by law, and to use the bully pulpit of the presidency to persuade Congress to pass more laws that would allow more flexibility in management of executive branch agencies.

"Issue #8: Space

"Developers care about space. Maybe it has something to do with an appreciation for inspiring innovation in the fields of engineering,"

but more likely it has more to do with most developers reading more science fiction novels than they read books about history and current events. I'm a child of the Space Age, and I liked nothing better in my youth than watching TV news reports about space missions and reading continually books (fiction and nonfiction) about all aspects of space exploration. But the cruel expense of boosting materials out of earth's gravity well even into near-earth orbit has convinced me, once I grew up and learned economics, that manned space exploration (particularly) is a huge waste of money, and even unmanned space exploration (which I support in general, for instance by putting photographs of Mars on my computer as my desktop wallpaper) needs to be very carefully managed not to become a money pit. I agree with Neil deGrasse Tyson that there is a rapturous sense of wonder derived from exploring space that expands our imaginations, and that basic science research in general is very important, but it is easy to spend too much on the space program, which was certainly done by the space shuttle program and arguably by the Apollo program. There are a lot of exciting and stimulating basic science problems to solve right here on earth.

As Winston Churchill said, "Many forms of Government have been tried and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time."

</comment><comment><USER38> I have been thinking about a similar idea for a while now. Would love to get some feedback. Basically, one can view the government (as a concept, not the specific people) and the set of laws, from the Constitution down, as a complex software system. To justify this analogy, I think of the fact that the laws define the behavior of the society (the system), and interact with each other in ways both expected and unexpected. There are scalability issues, e.g.: laws that were meant to be applied to only certain circumstances bleed over to others impeding progress (software patents), and the people of the government are supposed to act as a sort of CPU that both executes the laws/code and enforces integrity constraints when a fault happens (typically done by the judicial branch in the US).

Now that we've established that... what a poor way to write software. First of all, making laws in the US is an additive process. As a developer, you approach a system that is large, intertwined and sometimes contains large streaks of spaghetti and you are asked to make a small tweak. You can refactor the system to accommodate the new paradigm, or you can simply hack on the feature on the peripheral. On top of that, you are not the permanent maintainer of the system; you are a contractor how is only working on it temporarily. Lastly, you won't be the one using the feature (maintaining the law or affected by the law).

Next, everything is a law in the US. I will use a made-up example here to not stir up controversy with actual examples: the legislative branch may pass a law that says "the Federal Highway Administration" shall oversee the construction of I-999, a new highway through states XX and YY". That's not a law, that's the FHA's job. The law should delegate, and not worry about what the FHA is doing. It should of course include the integrity checks: if the FHA does a poor job, the people responsible will be held accountable. Less laws leads to less complex system and less unintended consequences.

There is also lots of legacy code, that nobody seems to want to clean up. First, there are the ridiculous laws like "In Missouri, It is Illegal To Drive With An Uncaged Bear (Caged Bears Are OK)". Legacy code weighs you down and makes things more complex. There are also laws such as the "stand your ground" law in Florida where you can get more of a sentence for discharging a firearm into the air (warning shot) than shooting someone dead.

The solution seems to me to be in getting some system architects into the White House, Congress and Senate. The system architects, developers and ops people in charge should think long-term. Yes, we are in a recession now, and yes, a large number of these individuals have to start worrying about campaigning in less than two years, but while they may be in and out, we are stuck with the laws they pass and enforce for pretty much an indefinite amount of time. In fact, encouraging reduction of the lawbase should be a part of the system. Refactoring should be encouraged, so long as it is done properly; I know that's a vague term, but currently, so much of the system is off-limits/a third rail, that nothing seems to get done about major issues.

Another solution would be to add expiration dates to laws, and the more specific the law, the sooner it expires. That way, pain in the ass laws that keep coming up should be done away with.

What does everyone think of this analogy?

<comment><USER38> What's with the downvotes? I don't think this os off topic and I don't see how this wpuld offend anyone.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> The problem with making government into "Google" style is upward mobility. One hand we want to cut down government size, make it simpler, but on high upward mobility = expansion. You can increase salary but the person will remain as secretary for the next 10 years? It's just boring.</comment>


GraphSense – A Scalable Cryptocurrency Analytics Platform - <AUTHOR> http://graphsense.info/ <comment><USER2> Looks interesting.

I would love to get involved on the design side. Just did some other work for a client creating a tool that allow you to analyze multiple cryptocurrencies and their underlying metrics. (Difficulty, close price, volatility etc) and are interested in exploring this field a little more.

Here is small section of one of the directions we went:

[https://cl.ly/c997d4680e7c](https://cl.ly/c997d4680e7c)

[https://cl.ly/a41354620e82](https://cl.ly/a41354620e82)

If you are looking for someone to help send me a PM (and yes for free I understand it's an open source project)

<comment><USER3> That looks nice. Did you use a UI/CSS library?

<comment><USER2> No all hand done

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm interested in Ethereum analysis because of the token economy. Specifically, I would like to see when a large amount of tokens are moved from a known exchange addresses.

<comment><USER5> Some friends of mine are doing this [https://www.coinfi.com/signals](https://www.coinfi.com/signals)

<comment><USER4> Thanks for posting that. It looks like a service traders would appreciate.

I'm looking for something open source though because my interest is intellectual and the "signals" type stuff is associated with pump and dump groups.

There is also so much market manipulation going on from all sides that it's really impossible to take any signals seriously.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for the feedback - cofounder of CoinFi here.

We actually help fund the open source Ethereum ETL scripts created by our data engineer Evgeny here: [https://github.com/blockchain-etl/ethereum- etl](https://github.com/blockchain-etl/ethereum-etl)

In addition, we've contributed the ingest as a public data set to Google Cloud if you want to do your own analytics without running the architecture: [https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data- analytics/ethere...](https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/data- analytics/ethereum-bigquery-public-dataset-smart-contract-analytics)

The compilation of exchange specific addresses is a long and tedious process, plus we hypothesize that exchanges would rather prefer to keep their addresses private, so we're not releasing that information though.

However, one of our Signals products reads from the Ethereum blockchain in real-time and notifies whenever there are abnormal movements to/from exchanges.

Unfortunately we're aware of the "pump and dump" association with signals - any suggestions for front footing that negative connotation and showing users that this is in fact different?

One way we've thought about is to create a Signals Library that basically explains each signal we provide and details the behind what it represents, a rough overview of what triggers it, and the historical performance if you traded off of it.

Any other suggestions would be greatly appreciated!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> That's really fun! Funny enough, we put up a tutorial last week on looking at the silk road bitcoin / rogue DEA incident with Neo4j<>Graphistry (we do GPU viz): [https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1TwYTDaBcMFxL6g5xLQz...](https://colab.research.google.com/drive/1TwYTDaBcMFxL6g5xLQzo44I9inELT29u)

Would love to see if we can do even cleaner as GraphSense<>Graphistry!

</comment><comment><USER8> Would love to play around with this, but getting this up and running seems daunting.</comment>


Putting Money In The Bank - <AUTHOR> http://alexanderle.com/blog/2011/money-in-the-bank.html

<comment><USER2> I suggest a better lesson to learn is to not join competitions in which the difference between a winner and a loser is measured in ridiculously small numbers.

<comment><USER3> That just a measure of how accurate the judging process is. It's why FIFA are now going to experiment with goal line technology

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I get the depositing analogy, but how is he withdrawing anything when he competes? Competing is just training with more incentive. If anything, he's much better/stronger after having performed at a competition than before. After resting for a week or so, of course.

<comment><USER5> This is a remarkably pedantic sentiment. Competing is not "just training with more incentive". Competition is the thing you train _for_. The differences psychologically are so obvious that they're not really worth enumerating.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> I'll definitely think of the Phelps quote when I am unmotivated to get out of bed and go to work in the morning. You never know, you might just learn something new and that something can possibly change your life for the better.

<comment><USER3> I think it was Woody Allen who said 90% of life is about showing up. It's a phrase that I think of a lot both on days when I dread doing something and after a day that went badly

<comment><USER7> _I made the statement years ago which is often quoted that 80 percent of life is showing up. People used to always say to me that they wanted to write a play, they wanted to write a movie, they wanted to write a novel, and the couple of people that did it were 80 percent of the way to having something happen. All the other people struck out without ever getting that pack. They couldn't do it, that's why they don't accomplish a thing, they don't do the thing, so once you do it, if you actually write your film script, or write your novel, you are more than half way towards something good happening. So that I was say my biggest life lesson that has worked. All others have failed me._

<comment><USER3> Thanks, I thought it was something he'd said as a one liner, maybe in a film!

<comment><USER7> He probably did, I think this was a follow-up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Stackin bricks.

</comment><comment><USER9> If this isn't brogrammer wisdom, I don't know what is.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, because having an interest in anything athletic-related makes you a brogrammer.

 _Groan_

<comment><USER11> I think heyrhett's was trying to say that article does not teach its readers anything new about the world. You could sum it up as "practice makes perfect".

From the HN guidelines: _Off-Topic: Most stories about politics, or crime, or sports, unless they're evidence of some interesting new phenomenon._

<comment><USER12> One of my lads teachers has being saying "practice makes perfect" and he's repeating it ... i counter that it's not true, it "makes better".

A counter idiom is "excellence is good enough".

Striving for perfection can be destructive.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Is this a good scenario to use node.js? - <AUTHOR>

A couple of my friends and me are planning to make a time tracking web application. Between us we have experience in Java, C++, Django and Backbone.js, though we have never made any full fledged commercial application. This is our first real project and we wanted a bit more clarity before learning nodejs.
More about the app:
Users will use this application through out the day to log various tasks (sort of like a task management application) ,track the time spent on these tasks (time tracking). Users do not interact with each other's tasks.We expect users to use this app continuously throughout the day.
So we want the app to have high Performance. We also foresee making native mobile applications (ios & Android) in the future, which can work with the same API used for the web. JSON and javascript are very appealing due to this. We also don't want to re-write code on the client and server.
I have already checked out this answer: How to decide when to use NodeJS? but would really like some more clarity.
Is node.js a good fit for this scenario? What advantages would it have over, say Django+Backbone.js?
Also at SO: http://stackoverflow.com/questions/14197870/is-this-a-good-scenario-for-using-nodejs/14198179 <comment><USER2> You can use node.js along with Express (<http://expressjs.com/>) and backbone.js. The advantage is that you can reuse some parts of your code on client/server.</comment>


The Google Galaxy Nexus - <AUTHOR> http://www.google.com/nexus

<comment><USER2> The scrolling and fade site design is becoming popular.</comment>


Intellectual Alchemists - <AUTHOR> https://www.publicbooks.org/intellectual-alchemists/ <comment><USER2> I've only ever enjoyed Foucault's Pendulum by Eco, which seemed mostly a sober variation on the The Illuminatus! Trilogy.</comment>