Go GC: Solving the Latency Problem in Go 1.5 - <AUTHOR> https://sourcegraph.com/blog/live/gophercon2015/123574706480 <comment><USER2> I've worked with garbage collected languages (ruby, Java, Objective-C in the bad old days), automatic reference counting (Objective-C and Swift), in the Rust model and manual reference counting/ownership in C over about 15 years now.

Having thought about this a lot, I just don't really understand why people continue to work on garbage collection. Non-deterministic lifecycle of objects/resources, non-deterministic pauses, huge complexity and significant memory and CPU overhead just aren't worth the benefits.

All you have to do with ARC in Swift and Objective-C is type 'weak' once in a while (which effectively builds a directed acyclic graph of strong references). With Rust you can get away with just structuring your code in accordance with their conventions.

I'm sure this won't resonate with everyone but I think it's time to walk away from GC. I'm curious, is there something I'm missing? The only true benefit I can think of is reducing heap fragmentation; and there must be a better way to address that.

<comment><USER3> > I just don't really understand why people continue to work on garbage > collection. > ... but I think it's time to walk away from GC

Well, look at the arguments. GC advantages:

      * less memory (unless you use a semi-space GC)
      * faster
      * can handle cyclic refs (graphs, not only trees and linked lists)
      * trivial to use, less programmer errors

What you got wrong: significant memory and CPU overhead.

If you compare the memory overhead and complexity of refcounts with malloc to a non-semi-space GC, you'll be surprised. malloc is more complex and worse in it's CPU overhead, refcounts in every data cell are a huge overhead. GC's got it better.

Where GC's have a memory overhead (copying collectors), they do it on purpose, on machines which do have enough memory. Those copying collectors are the fastest, but cannot be used on small devices. With not enough RAM, you just use a trivial Mark&Sweep, which is much more trivial than your malloc implementation and manual refcounts.

The only real field where you cannot use a GC is, when you cannot tolerate pauses, as in real-time, latency critical apps. But even there exist incremental GC's (like boehm) with real-time characteristics. And when you need immediate destruction of objects, when they go out of scope, and not when the GC decides to destroy them later on. This can be solved by the compiler, but usually isn't.

Of course people always walk away from GC and avoid it like a plague. GC people on the other hand feel memory is too important to be trusted to programmers. We had these discussion for decades.

<comment><USER4> Also, Azul Systems solved that issue - the proprietary C4 GC has no pauses, and the heap can be huge, like hundreds of GB. If that tech would become common place, maybe this discussion would be obsolete. But I think C4 requires kernel support, and the first attempt to get a patch accepted didn't go well.

<comment><USER5> To clarify, Azul's Zing _does_ have pauses, but they optimized the crap out of them (the pauses are more time-to-safepoint rather than GC pauses). GC time wrt application stopped time is constant regardless of heap size.

(I'm an Azul customer and Zing user)

<comment><USER4> Thanks, the marketing implies its pause-less. What are typical application stop times?

<comment><USER5> My mean pauses are a few hundred micros. Standard deviation is slightly more (300-500 micros), with a max of a millisecond or two.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> > ...there has been a virtuous cycle between software and hardware > development. CPU hardware improves, which enables faster software to be > written, which in turn...

This is the exact opposite of the experience I've had with (most) software. A new CPU with a higher clock speed makes existing software faster, but most new software written for the new CPU will burn all of the extra CPU cycles on more layers of abstraction or poorly written code until it runs at the same speed that old code ran on the old CPU. I'm impressed that hardware designers and compiler authors can do their jobs well enough to make this sort of bloated software (e.g. multiple gigabytes for a word processor or image editor) succeed in spite of itself.

There are of course CPU advancements that make a huge performance difference when used properly (e.g. SSE, multiple cores in consumer machines) and some applications will use them to great effect, but these seem to be few and far between.

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure users really care how many gigabytes their word processor is. How fast it is is probably more interesting to them. And while wasting CPU cycles on abstraction layers isn't a great way to make a super fast program, if the program still runs at 60fps and took half as much time to develop, then maybe they're worth it.

Of course, when you end up with some standards-driven monstrosity like a modern web browser, you do seem to have a lot of unnecessary abstraction layers and also it's slow.

<comment><USER8> > and took half as much time to develop

Abstractions make coding faster now?

<comment><USER9> No, it'd be way faster to just do it all in assembly. These fancy "high level languages" and "memory management" and "libraries" are just cons foisted on poor unsuspecting programmers by middle management and enthusiastic marketers. Real Programmers (TM) don't need any of that shit.

(/s)

<comment><USER8> You don't seem to understand what "abstraction" means in computer science. Hint: it's nothing to do with memory management. High level languages like Python/Ruby actually have less abstractions than lower level languages like Java because they don't need them, and Python/Ruby programmers tend to want to get stuff done rather than write a ode to the Gang of 4 in XML.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Better images of the plots:

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJatKFQUkAE5qcR.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJatKFQUkAE5qcR.png:large)

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJavrIAUMAAIaq8.png:large](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CJavrIAUMAAIaq8.png:large)

</comment><comment><USER11> I am a bit surprised by most of the discussion here so far. Garbage collection has first of all one fundamental advantage: correctness. You are guaranteed never ever to have a pointer to a freed object and that any unreachable object does get freed. For almost all programs that get written, correctness should go over speed.

And speaking of speed, unless you require hard realtime behavior, garbage collection can be quite beneficial. A generational GC offers faster allocation times than any malloc based allocator, and the collection of the nursery generation is instantaneous in most cases. ARC has the overhead of counting for each referencing/dereferencing and while it might predictable about kicking in when killing a reference frees memory, the time required to free a given object completely depends on how much objects get consequently freed.

Furthermore, garbage collection helps to write clean code, as it is safe (and usually cheap) to allocate memory during a function call and return results referencing the memory.

Of course, badly written programs might perform badly with GC - but without the same kind of programs would just be a disaster. And most strategies for efficient memory usage used in non-GC languages (e.g. memory pools for certain objects) can and should be equally used in GC languages.

</comment><comment><USER12> Erlang's per-process (Erlang process, not Unix process) GC is pretty good from this point of view. I'm surprised they didn't mention it as something to think about.

<comment><USER13> Why would you mention it? Go is shares all memory, erlang doesn't. It is a different problem.

<comment><USER14> Actually, IIRC Erlang does have a shared heap, but it is used as an optimization to avoid copying very large objects.

<comment><USER13> That doesn't contradict what I said. Go shares ALL memory, erlang may share some sometimes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Interesting. I think the GC pauses are go's biggest problem.

Looks like they are tackling this head on with positive results.

<comment><USER7> Have you encountered any problems with go GC pauses?

<comment><USER15> Yes, I have. We used go in a system that had to keep track of essentially large hashes containing popularity / scoring information, in addition to what were effectively routing tables, and ran into >500ms pauses.

At scale, it seemed the largest part of the complexity of go was manipulating data structures and code to avoid gc pauses. With sufficient work we may have been able to decrease the pauses sufficiently, but we also ran into raw request per second numbers that were lower than we liked.

The direction we have taken was to switch to C++ for this application. Having said that, the gc pauses were the primary reason for the change.

<comment><USER16> If it's possible, and you're interested in trying, it would be interesting to pull that code out and try it again with Go 1.5, if it's easy.

If you've got a C++ solution, I would not suggest under any circumstances short of Go suddenly and frankly mysteriously blowing the doors off of C++ that you _switch_... I'm just saying it would be an interesting comparison.

<comment><USER15> I'll be recommending we try it in a lab with go 1.5, absolutely.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> Was the presentation more in-depth that this summary? I'd love to read or hear more about the changes.

<comment><USER18> The summary pretty much covers it in terms of what was presented. There definitely would not have been enough time to discuss the changes they made at length.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> And with this, I hope we'll see a race for GC pauses improvements.

</comment><comment><USER20> "Go programs will get a little bit slower in exchange for ensuring lower GC latencies."

How much slower are Go1.5 programs compared to their Go1.4 version? Is this relevant for web apps?</comment>


Surprise Fusion Garage is TabCo, announces Grid 10 tablet, Grid 4 smartphone  - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/08/15/tabco-fusion-garage-grid10/ <comment><USER2> _It'll cost $499 for the Wi-Fi only version, and $599 for built-in 3G._

Even if they hadn't completely ruined their credibility with the crunchpad fiasco, I'm still amazed by the meetoo's that end up costing as much as an iPad.

To have a tablet that competes with iPad it has to either be very much better or very much cheaper. If you do neither, you're screwed even if you're not "Chandra" Rathakrishnan. Double so if you are.</comment>


The Apple netbook, and the return of Steve Jobs - <AUTHOR> http://www.itworld.com/personal-tech/66716/apple-netbook-and-return-steve-jobs <comment><USER2> I believe this article may be absolutely devoid of actual content.

</comment><comment><USER3> How would a netbook differ from the MacBook Air? I guess what I mean to ask is, what is it about the MacBook Air that disqualifies it from being considered a netbook? Is it just the price?

<comment><USER4> Air: 13" screen, GeForce 9400M, Core 2 Duo

netbook: 9-10" screen, integrated graphics, Atom processor

<comment><USER5> What do we mean by "integrated graphics" here? That GeForce 9400M on the Air isn't really upgradable; The Air's not one of those huge honkin' Alienware laptops with the replaceable graphics cards.

From Apple's website:

 _With a new integrated graphics processor, MacBook Air changes the game and just about everything you do with it._

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> An Apple netbook makes little sense.

The desktop operating system would invite desktop apps onto hardware never meant to run them. The experience would never match the expectations. And frankly, people aren't using netbooks for the full features of desktop OSs, so there's no benefit to shipping with one. Notebook makers used them only because they didn't have a more appropriate alternative 2 years ago when these things started coming together.

Similarly, Windows tablets never took off because they've been running operating systems and applications on hardware that was never designed for them. Is anyone surprised those bad experiences didn't turn people into converts and evangelists?

It's for those same reasons I would not be surprised at all by an overgrown iPod Touch. The expectations would be that it can do what a Touch does --essentially, everything most people are using netbooks-- but with a bigger screen. It would easily cross that low bar. And developers would climb over one another to re-imagine their software in an app specifically designed for the interface and the hardware driving it.

It wouldn't have the lodestone on it that windows tablets started with. To the contrary, it would hit the market with considerable momentum due the success of the App Store and iPod Touch.

</comment><comment><USER7> "not a dry eye in the house" ... man that was corny

</comment><comment><USER8> I think the new Newton is going to be Jobs's last hurrah.</comment>


China's Tech Giants Have a Second Job: Helping the Government See Everything - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/chinas-tech-giants-have-a-second-job-helping-the-government-see-everything-1512056284 <comment><AUTHOR> Relevant excerpt:

"The Chinese government is building one of the world's most sophisticated, high-tech systems to keep watch over its citizens, including surveillance cameras, facial-recognition technology and vast computers systems that comb through terabytes of data. Central to its efforts are the country's biggest technology companies, which are openly acting as the government's eyes and ears in cyberspace.

Companies including Alibaba Group Holding Ltd. , Tencent Holdings Ltd. and Baidu Inc., are required to help China's government hunt down criminal suspects and silence political dissent. Their technology is also being used to create cities wired for surveillance.

This assistance is far more extensive than the help Western companies extend to their governments, and the requests are almost impossible to challenge, a Wall Street Journal examination of Chinese practices shows.

Unlike American companies, which often resist U.S. government requests for information, Chinese ones talk openly about working with authorities. Tencent Chief Executive Ma Huateng, also known as Pony Ma, and Alibaba founder Jack Ma both have voiced support for private companies working with the government on law enforcement and security issues.

"The political and legal system of the future is inseparable from the internet, inseparable from big data," Alibaba's Mr. Ma told a Communist Party commission overseeing law enforcement last year. He said technology will soon make it possible to predict security threats. "Bad guys won't even be able to walk into the square," he said.

In practice, China's internet giants, which have benefited from trade policies shielding them from foreign competition, have little choice but to cooperate in a country where the Communist Party controls both the legal system and the right to function as a business."</comment>


Bacteria Invade Antibiotics and Transform into Superbugs - <AUTHOR> http://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2016/09/08/492965889/watch-bacteria-invade-antibiotics-and-transform-into-superbugs? <comment><USER2> I just hope the researchers had a flamethrower at hand at the end.</comment>


New Laptop - <AUTHOR> I have had a desktop my whole life, but I really want to buy a laptop so I'm not relegated to working in one space.  Given that I'm on a budget and I'm just starting to learn to program, what is the best "bang for my buck?" <comment><USER2> They are all Intel Reference platforms: only your budget will determine the model (if you get your money through work, then you'll go for the best "bang for the buck").

That said, there are 4-5 (tops) companies in the WORLD making notebooks: all the choice you see in the shops are about branding and artificial product differentiation. ECS, Acer, Asus etc. fall off the same machines as Apple, Fujitsu, HPQ etc. (Lenovo being a notable exception). They contain the same CPU, same RAM ...same MS licence etc. Some even have almost the same shell (e.g. ECS-DELL-FSC-Toshiba).

If you use it for work, I suggest you get the cheapest one that offers you enough value to perform your task (e.g. 15.4", 17" being no longer portable; x3100, 2Gig are all sufficient for coding: if you need real power, you'll ssh anyway to the given HPC). You will not get a heart-attack if it drops, gets scratched or stolen: you will just get a brand new one, being 2x better for approx. the same price within a year with strong batteries (they will fade within 2 years anyway).

If it is (also) for showing feathers, then obviously Apple, Sony (and no, Lenovo is no good for attracting attention).

But then again, these are PC-s, and the P stands for Personal: tastes and habits vary. On a pure technical level, whichever runs Linux/BSD best (generally the least fancy ones) already gives enough empowerment to change the world...

</comment><comment><USER3> I strongly suggest getting a 14.1" ThinkPad T6x series laptop. I have had a T60 for almost two years now and it has worked great. The keyboard is just amazing compared to anything else out there. The TrackPoint (little red mouse pointer thing in the keyboard) is great when you get used to it. Unless you play games, you should get the integrated graphics (great battery life and easier to get working under Linux). The only bad thing about ThinkPads is that they don't run Mac OS X (legally/easily).

If you are on a budget, I recommend getting a slightly older model (slower processor) but with as much memory as you can get. I also recommend that you get a model with the one-year warranty instead of the three-year warranty, to save money. There are so many people selling ThinkPad parts and accessories that there is no reason to pay for a warranty that you will probably never use when you can replace anything that breaks yourself for less money. I just priced one at lenovo.com and it was less than $1,100.

BTW, I strongly considered buying a MacBook but I went and tried them at the Apple store and I found that the keyboard is really horrible for programming. Only Sony VAIO is worse. No dedicated home/end/pageup/pagedown on either?!?!

<comment><USER4> I've had a T60 for about 16 months now. What exactly do you like about the keyboard? I've found that the keys have a tendency for things to get stuck in their movement, and the ] key had even fallen off of my keyboard. Then the whole keyboard stopped working, so they sent me a new one. I've also gotten a new power adapter (insufficient strain relief).

I personally like going with the three year warranty (but in a bundle rather than explicitly adding it on). I previously had a T22 that I ran into the ground, and over the course of its life had the motherboard, drive, and power cord replaced.

<comment><USER5> Speaking of power supplies... MAGSAFE. Nothing beats MagSafe.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regarding "bang for your buck" Dell's are still the best bargain for compute power. Many people (rightly so) piss all over them for bad customer support, but if you buy from the "small business" side of the site instead of the "consumer/residential" side of the site, then you get small biz customer support bundled, which anecdotally is much better.

<comment><USER7> Yeah, you can get a great Dell for really cheap. They now come preinstalled with Ubuntu (<http://dell.com/ubuntu>), so you don't have to pay for Windoze.

<comment><USER8> I got one of those, and have really liked it. It's not going to ever get lots of looks, but I use it for programming, not showing off.

Also, in the one occasion when I needed customer service, it was really good. I bought it in the US, but called up the support line in Germany, and had a new hard drive here in Innsbruck, Austria the next day. I was pleasantly surprised: I thought I would get hassled because of the change of country, or they would be slow, or see that I had bought it with Ubuntu and give me grief for that, but they really didn't ask any questions, just sent a guy over with a new drive.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> 15% off Code: USPSAVEMORENOW

[http://www.techbargains.com/vendor_detail.cfm/96/lenovo- coup...](http://www.techbargains.com/vendor_detail.cfm/96/lenovo-coupon-code)

Lenovo ThinkPad R61 Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 14.1 inch Notebook PC $552.07 Free Shipping, May. 22 8 AM

lenovo has the Lenovo ThinkPad R61 Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 14" Widescreen Notebook PC for a low $649.50 - 15% off Coupon Code: USPSAVEMORENOW (Exp 5/26) = $552.07 Free Shipping. Tax in most states.

5.2lbs; 14.1"; Intel Core 2 Duo T7250 @ 2.0GHz; 1GB RAM; 80GB HDD; DVD- ROM/CDRW Combo; 802.11a/b/g; Linux; 1yr warranty

<comment><USER7> Good, but I think you can do better. I got a Dell with the identical specs (plus Windows) 2 years ago for $700 and change (incl shipping). The time value of those two years makes me think you can get better specs for this price.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> There are really only two: the MBP and the ThinkPad.

<comment><USER11> Thinkpad++ I do believe some models come with linux preinstalled.

I believe thinkpad is one of the few laptops left that has what's called a stick? you know the little nub on the keyboard that you can use instead of a touch pad, and in reality it's way better than a touch pad. god I hate touch pads.

I wish I had bought a thinkpad.

<comment><USER12> The new MBPs (and MacBooks?) have a two finger touchpad interface that I've found makes a huge difference in its usability - with one finger down already controlling the mouse a second finger essentially works as a mousewheel. I can use my MBP's touchpad fine but can't stand having to use my work dell laptops w/o that feature.

<comment><USER13> Most of the PC laptop touchpads that I have used will scroll the focused control if you run your finger up and down along the rightmost edge (or bottommost for horizontal motion). If yours doesn't, check your control panel settings to see if it can be enabled.

It's not quite the same as a scroll wheel in that there are some programs where one scrolling technique (wheel or trackpad) will work while the other won't, but it's similar enough to handle most cases.

<comment><USER11> oh this I'm aware of. mine has this feature. I still think touchpads (all that I have encountered) suck.

and infact on linux you can modify the area of the touchpad that does this. I think you can even add horizontal scroll if your touchpad didn't previously support it (not 100% on this).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I think you're approaching it from a wrong standpoint. You should start off by telling us what you're going to program in and what your OS and tools of choice are.

<comment><USER15> The article author is learning to program. Not learn to program in something, learning to program. I doubt it would be a good idea to tell us that, since it would be, in effect, limiting options for exploration. (Well, or just giving us false data, which wouldn't be as bad.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Watch out for the cheap laptops. These are really enticing options and I am typing on one now. As a student and planning to run linux on it anyway, I thought it would be a good idea to save my money and get a cheapie. I bought an Acer about a year ago and after a good amount of usage I realized my mistake. After having this thing on for about an hour or so it gets hot. I mean hot lava burn your nuts so you won't have children hot. Not only is this an inconvenience, but the performance goes down as well. I can't watch videos for more than 15 minutes and even youtube can be annoyingly choppy. None the less it does get the job done when it comes to programming, as most laptops out will.

My friend gave me good advice about this once when I was complaining, he said "Why would you try to save money on a tool that will not only be the basis for your profession, but also the device you will spend most of your day on?". He was right. Its like trying to save 150 bucks on a bed that has a huge lump in the middle that makes you wake up with a sore back every morning. Its not worth saving the money. Don't worry so much about bang for the buck, focus on getting that consistent bang to get the job done each day without added stress. A carpenter wouldn't go to work each day with a plastic hammer and a nail file instead of a saw, so approach your purchase with the same logic. Find out your needs, find the tools that meets those needs, and then make your decision from that point. Don't let money be that big of an influence, you will regret it.

</comment><comment><USER17> Honestly, I'd recommend looking for a used Thinkpad -- something from the T41/X41 era will be cheap (<$500), well-built, and extremely well-supported under just about any recent Linux distro.

I used an X41 as a mobile development box for quite a while, and only upgraded to a MacBook Pro when I started shooting a lot of RAW photos with my DSLR and wanted to run Lightroom.

<comment><USER18> Thanks for this. I'm just selling my Macbook core2duo on ebay at the moment. I use a mac mini with a 23" screen at home, and I don't take the macbook out much because it's heavy and valuable, so mainly it just sits there doing nothing.

I have been planning to get the new eeepc (when it comes out in a week or two) - I hadn't considered a second hand thinkpad.

Thanks very much indeed for a great tip.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Get a Dell. I've had one for 4 years now and it has held up pretty well. It did cost me around $2000 but it has been worth it. If you really want a 'cheap' laptop get a refurbished one.

</comment><comment><USER20> I went to a mac reseller and told him I wanted a mac laptop for $200 if he had anything, even if it needed a repair, like a hard drive. He did. In September 2006 he had a late 2004 ibook G4 for $200. The hard drive was wearing out but still usable. Ended up replacing the hard drive for another $100, and put another 1GB ram in it (for a total 1.25GB ram) but totally worth it. Upgraded to Leopard and it's even better. Firefox 3, and it's even better. Total of ~$550 and I've got a pretty decent laptop.

I got my wife a Dell under the Tulane student discount, loaded Ubuntu dual boot, and she chooses Ubuntu. I wouldn't recommend a Dell, but it sure attests to the usability of Ubuntu.

I'm not sure I would get a macbook simply because I can't stand the short screen, glossy or not. MBP is definitely not a budget buy. Thinkpads seem awefully nice. Since you can run linux on a mac now, I would think the question comes down to do you or do you not want OS X?

I have to say though, I have never been more please than getting a $200 iBook. It used to get deadly slow if you leave firefox 2 open for days, but with firefox 3, it got a new breath of life.

</comment><comment><USER21> Under $400 (Prolly not you): Eee and OLPC battle!

Under $700: You just walk into best buy and try to max out ram/HD/Optical Drive/USB Ports and stuff. Its hard to say who's a sure winner becuase this category is so tight.

$700-1000: Either do what you did for the lower price range, or sometimes you can get a lower end PC from the next price range, if you know where to look.

Over $1000: Thinkpad, MBP, Dell Precision, HP 85xx/87xx series.

</comment><comment><USER22> budget + starting to learn => don't underestimate the second hand market

despite lusting for a MPB I recently acquired a hp nc4400 second hand which rocks when I am away from the desktop it runs Hardy and all the soft I need for my coding (and I am not starting to learn :P)

... and you get the feeling that your are doing something for the environment in the process (not that I'm a hardcore green or anything ;)

</comment><comment><USER23> Buy something used; the Powerbook G4 I use seems to go for about $500 on eBay.

</comment><comment><USER24> The best Unix machine you can get (things just work, no driver issues) is a MacBook Pro. It also allows you to develop for iPhone, and for Windows if you use Parallels or VMware. If cost (comparing with crappy Dells that come with Vista, egads) is an issue, I invite you to check your wallet for this amazing device called a credit card. It's worked wonders for me.

</comment><comment><USER25> Are you a mac, linux or windows user?

What's your budget? A budget of < $1200 basically rules out any recent mac laptop.

<comment><USER26> I got a refurb macbook from apple for $800 or $900. With a recent Core 2 Duo processor, it's very snappy. Only downside is it came with only 1GB RAM. That's surprisingly tolerable for basic use, but application switching starts getting slow with my ~50 tabs of Firefox and overloaded Eclipse install. Easy to fix for cheap, though, as I will be soon.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I use an HP/Compaq NC6000, $300 on eBay. Make sure you get the widescreen (1440w) version with integrated Bluetooth, and expand it to 1GB RAM. It runs everything I need for interactive development, including hogs like Photoshop, Flash, and the Eclipse-based Flex Builder 3; the Bluetooth means I can get internet access through my smartphone; it's fairly light and has a real-world battery life of three hours under steady use; its battery is swappable, so you can carry a spare; and you can afford to lose it, which is a very distinct possibility if you're carrying it around a bustling city all day. (I live in Manhattan.)

Even the best backup plan and warranty won't cover the "oh FUCK ME" moment when you realize your $3000 laptop just got lost, dropped, or stolen.

</comment><comment><USER28> If you have small hands, the eee pc might be nice.

[http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE...](http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&DEPA=0&Description=EEE+PC&x=0&y=0)

<comment><USER25> I've got an eee and a development box it is not.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> What are your requirements and what is your budget?

If you're purely looking for a cheap machine that will hold up decently well, you're going to be looking at a Dell + warranty.

If you're looking for higher quality (and price point), you're going towards Lenovo/Apple

</comment><comment><USER30> I bought a MacBook. Bought 4GB ram and 320 GB hard drive and replace the factory one. Total cost without warranty and before tax: $1099 (MacBook) + $139 (disk) + $98 (4GB).

I need to add $79 for VMWare Fusion to run different VMs for FreeBSD, Linux and another $150 for Windows XP pro. But this laptop will have all client system that I need to use.

I guess you can do the same thing on Lenovo ThinkPads with similar cost or maybe cheaper. If you don't need to write stuffs for OS X/iPhone, you just need to use Safari Windows to check your web sites.

Since your are beginner to learn programming. I guess a ThinkPad with Linux and you can start to learn python right away.

</comment><comment><USER31> You don't need anything fancy, save as much as you can, and buy additional ram (possibly from a 3rd party site for much cheaper rates).

I have 2 gigs and frequently go to the limit with the number of apps I have open. Slowdowns due to lack of ram can really kill your flow.

I have a regular macbook, mainly because of OS X, which gives me unix tools with an OS that just works. Apple's hardware is ok, not great. I've had issues with 3 out of 3 notebooks. That said, the issues have become smaller (so Apple's QC seems to have improved).

If I could run OS X on cheaper hardware, I would do it in an instance. I don't need to show off at the coffee shop. :)

</comment><comment><USER32> If you're just starting to learn to program than any laptop you get will be sufficient. If you go Windows, HP's are pretty slick. They're fast, good looking, easy to carry, and have great multimedia features. I personally have a ThinkPad, HP, and Dell. I use the Dell the most but the HP is extremely light and small and great for traveling. If I had to choose one I'd go with the Dell. I got a MBP for work and that's great, but I still prefer Windows/nix. The ThinkPad is old. Haven't used a new one of those since before Lenovo.

</comment><comment><USER33> I'm a pretty big fan of the Lenovo X series if you want to go Windows. You may want to look at the T instead if you're not planning on using an external monitor though due to screen sizes.

</comment><comment><USER34> I've been using a model n200 from Lenovo's 3000 series(the consumer ones, a grade below Thinkpads) and am relatively pleased. Build quality is lower than a Thinkpad, but I've had no trouble using it daily since last summer, toting it around, scratching it up....it's taken one fall, and the only thing that happened was the battery came loose.

Main caveat: have to baby its airflow so that it doesn't overheat. Vista will throttle on overheating, Linux won't, at least not the kernel I'm using.

</comment><comment><USER35> We use Toshiba A200-AH9 laptops running Ubuntu. Intel wifi just works. 9-cell battery. Only downside is the resolution if you don't use an external monitor and no bluetooth.

<comment><USER8> Good point about the Intel chipsets - they work better with open source drivers than, say, nvidia.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> Macbook. They're updating them soon, so you might want to wait for that to happen, and then either buy an old one for less, or a new one with new features.

</comment><comment><USER37> Random thoughts: the MacbookPro and thinkpads, besides everything said here, have the highest resale value, for sure. But i would definitely avoid the early MBPs, lots of heat issues, bulging batteries and keyboards. The recent ones, including mine, still seem to not sleep/hibernate properly.

Buy used from Craigslist. Make sure you get original purchase receipt, O/S install DVD's. Or from Costco. 90 day return policy.

<comment><USER37> a couple other things: look for a full complement Control, Alt, Option keys on the right side of keyboard. Very important for a lotta editors, emacs, textmate.

off-topic, but i've never seen this discussed anywhere. TO dual head my toshiba laptop with ubuntu Gutsy, I choose gutsy in grub with external monitor disconnected, then plug it in about 4 seconds later. It works, no nasty xorg.conf to edit.

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> About 18 months ago, I bought a Dell laptop (dual core, 2 gigs RAM, etc.) and it has worked really well for me through short (day) and long (to Australia) trips. As a contractor, it has made me a lot of money because I can show customers their software at their site, and I can make adjustments as needed on site. A quick turnaround time for changes is essential to happy customers.

</comment><comment><USER39> I bought the lowest model Macbook (not pro) for ~1000 bucks and then bought 4G of ram at Fry's for $60. Its worked great for a year now. Most of my friends have pro's but mine has worked just as good for me. I like the smaller size as well.

Another great thing about the macbooks is their high resale value. Factor that into the cost.

</comment><comment><USER40> I recommend checking out powernotebooks.com before you decide. You might like what you see there. I have a Sager that I recently purchased from them; it's a great machine, well-built, and since it's factory direct, it's less expensive than a comparable machine from most other vendors.

</comment><comment><USER41> If you're going to buy MBP from apple, try buying refurbished ones from apple online store, they're about 15-25% less than the brand new ones. I think the refurbished ones go through extra testing as well, so I think its a pretty good deal.

</comment><comment><USER42> Dell D830 with the WUXGA 1920x1200 screen rez.

Very cool. Ubuntu 8.04 works like a charm.

</comment><comment><USER43> What about something like this?

[http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204814777&list...](http://www.buy.com/retail/product.asp?sku=204814777&listingid=4746360&dcaid=17902)

</comment><comment><USER44> If you consider using ThinkPad, you can find the following specialized forum useful: <http://forum.thinkpads.com>

<comment><USER44> Also, your options may vary according to whether you care about any of the following points: 1\. weight and size (do you want to have your laptop with you all the time and feel light on the go) 2\. battery working time (do you want to work on batteries for long periods of time) 3\. screen quality and brightness (be prepared that laptops in general are backwards from desktops in this regard) 4\. keyboard quality and size 5\. drive size, longevity and durability 6\. network acess options (some laptops have cellular modem built- in, so theoretically you will be able to stay connected really anywhere; need that?)

If you don't care, that's easier for you. If you do care (like me) - then you should do some serious research and, frankly, can still have some backwards thoughts after your purchase.

I was in the situation similar to yours, i.e. I wanted a laptop to be able to learn programming in different places. As a long time computer user, I had my specific preferences: 1\. minimum weight and size; I want to have my laptop with me all the time and not feel constrained with it 2\. maximum battery working time. noone thinks that a cell phone that is only able to work half of a day is ok, why is it ok for laptop? in the meanwhile, I want a laptop with a battery life as long as possible. 3\. i wasn't concerned about screen quality, as I don't want to edit images on my laptop but mainly work with text and programs. but now I think screen of my current IBM X60s could really be brighter. it's ok to use in rooms, when not under direct sunlight, but not with the minimum brightness settings. viewing angles are decent, but cold be better too. in general, from what i gather, IBM/Lenovo is very conservative in their choice of screens. In non-Apple world, the only company whose laptops' get frequent praise for their screens is Sony. 4\. i'm very used to desktop keyboard, so the more I was inclined to buy a ThinkPad: their keyboards are often said to be of great quality and the key placement is the closest to desktop that I've seen. 5\. i don't need file storage of great size, but I really want to be sure that my hard drive won't break. so I chose SSD (these models don't come with them standard, the hdd was upgraded manually by the prev. owner) 6\. i wanted to have cellular modem built-in, so I went a bit out of the way to get it: here in Russia the models with WWAN are not sold, so I bought import model and had to unlock it with a special program. It works now! also: I needed Windows. In fact I think that open-source OS is the wave of the future, but I don't ride that wave. I'm deeply rooted in Windows. XP is fine for me, don't need Vista. mat screen. 4x3 screen proportions. lower dpi screen, please. 1024x768 on 12" is ok (107 dpi), but higher resolution screens have higher dpi - I have problems with those. I have good vision, but I don't want to strain it.

So, after careful consideration, that brought me the following laptop: IBM X60s (1702-64M) 12.1 1024x768 | CD 1.66LV | 2GB | 32GB SSD | BT+abg+WWAN(MC8755) [1,5 kg, 6..8 hours of mild work] I bought it from a ThinkPads forum member in Australia. I'm generally quite happy with it, but I'm still yet to get adjusted to some issues like the smallish keyboard (maybe a light 14" would be better? or should I just adjust to this one?) and not very bright screen (it's ok in the room, but when I'm on a bus and there's sunshine in the street and the bus turns - oops, I can't see anything anymore :) - maybe a Sony would be better)

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> i have been happy with the toshiba r205 s209

originally retailed for $2200 but i've seen them lately for around $800.

Spend an extra $100 and load up the RAM to 1.25GB. It runs linux like a charm and gets great battery life.

Best of all, it's got a titanium case and doesn't flex and groan the way mac laptops do. It's light and rock solid.

For $800 it's by far the best deal you'll find today.

If you like games, don't buy it however b/c it has a slow graphics card for 3d stuff (I don't play games)...

</comment><comment><USER46> I just bought a Lenovo T61p (ThinkPad mobile workstation), but it was very nearly a coin-flip decision vs a Dell XPS M1530. www.notebookreview.com

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm looking at MSI Winds with great interest. If you can handle the small display, you that might be good for you.

Price should be at $400-500ish

</comment><comment><USER48> all laptops have one of the highest failure rates in all of mainstream consumer electronics.

that said: i will add to the groups discussion i am a die hard thinkpad guy. the 'stick button' is SO MUCH more effective than a touchpad. they are fantastic machines. X series are small light and about $1k - $1.5k. i never spend more.

downside: Windows. or worse... VISTA!

</comment><comment><USER21> I'm using the Dell Precision series and I'm really happy with it. Its hardware is well supported by Linux.

</comment><comment><USER49> Let me warn you: DO NOT BUY A MACBOOK! Let me tell you my story...

A few months back, I decided to travel to china. I sold off my desktop, and because the macbook was small and nice looking, I bought it. I installed windows on it, installed bootcamp and all was fine, and I really loved this notebook for a few months.

But the thing is, in China, I was constantly on the move. And I was moving with the laptop all the time in my bag. The macbook does not deal with this well at all. Two nasty things happened: First, my hard drive failed a mere 4 months after I bought it. I lost weeks of work, and the Apple repair store would not replace it for me for 3 weeks because of chinese new year. So I bought a new hard drive and did it myself. The instructions online do not mention that you need a very strange and difficult to find screwdriver to do this.

Next thing that happend is that a piece of plastic along the edge broke off. The problem with the macbooks body is that when a piece along the edge chips off, the entire edge slowly peels of. My laptop is losing the edge, and now the resell value is less than half of the original because it looks fugly as hell.

Some other things:

* The white macbook gets dirty as hell quickly

* Bootcamp is no longer free! You need to buy Mac OSX to get the new version of Bootcamp. There are some on the torrent sites, but you never know what trojan you'll be getting, and a trojan in a kernel driver is nasty

* When booting windows, the keyboard does not always get detected at startup. When reinstalling from CD, this can be frustrating. And if you have that 30 seconds countdown on windows, you have to wait for it to countdown because the keyboard is not detected. You also cannot go into safe mode.

* There is no frickin right click on the keyboard. For development work, it's very annoying. Try using Eclipse or Visual Studio without right click.

* There are no fricking curly braces or square brackets or the pipe symbol on my macbook keyboard! You cannot open or close functions, you cannot index arrays and you cannot do a logical OR. Who came up with that braindead keyboard designs. Also, there is no printscreen key. You never know how much that screen is useful till its gone. (this is the german keyboard layout I'm talking about)

* In some rooms with overhead projects, the audio of the macbook goes on and off randomly. I learnt this the hard way when tryign to do a presentation. This probably has to do with the remote control

* The webcam is mirrored.

* If a CD is inside and your macbook has no power, there is no way of getting it out

* The macbook comes with a minidv video output, A.K.A make them pay extra money

* The coolness factor of a macbook is long gone. Everyone and their grandma own a macbook

On the positive side: * Has webcam

I'm about to switch my laptop as soon as I can get apple to repair that hard drive for me. I've done some reaearch, and I'm going for the:

LENOVO THINKPAD x61t

It's a rugged looking tablet PC, smaller than the macbook, has a docking station and is not particularly expensive.

Conclusion: Macbook is like a pretty but crazy girlfriend. In the beginning, you are madly in love, and later you have to break up when bits start falling off!

<comment><USER50> I think a lot of these grievances apply to any notebook, really.

* Any white computer, like a white car, is going to look super dirty.

* Bootcamp comes with any new MacBook as part of the package. You would only need to worry about trojans(!?) if you were buying an old, used machine and didn't have the extra money for 10.5. It's a fraction of the price of Vista, so what's the trouble here?

* The German keyboard sure is peculiar (<http://flickr.com/photos/fuzheado/453807351/>) but is this just an Apple thing? How does Asus, Toshiba or Lenovo compare?

* Right-clicking is usually done with control, and that works in VMWare, but BootCamp is a different deal. If Apple had better Windows trackpad drivers, they could fix this.

* The webcam only appears to be mirrored, it's all done in software. You can turn this option off.

* Any CD stuck in a machine that's slot load will be difficult to rescue if the power is off.

* The MiniDV output is a bit of a pain because you need a dongle, but you can use VGA, DVI or composite from the same port. Most notebooks only have a VGA port which is probably more convenient until you want DVI, in which case you need a new notebook.

* If you need to buy a computer to 'be cool', then I guess you need a MacBook Air. That's gold-plated. With diamonds.

<comment><USER49> Bootcamp upgrades are not free. I have the old bootcamp, but want the new one. Why should we pay for driver upgrades? It goes against my philosophies.

Apple is the only computer maker with that wierd layout. All others are sane.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> Get a refurbished mac. If you are going to program you should have a mac. The 21rst century computer company.</comment>


How Spotify Almost Sold To Google For $1 Billion, Plus New Apple Rumors - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2010/10/26/how-spotify-almost-sold-to-google-for-1-billion-plus-new-apple-rumors/

<comment><USER2> That would be a pretty impressive exit.

The reason why it didn't sell reminds me of Dalton Caldwell's startup school talk, if you haven't seen it yet and intend to do a music startup (or are doing one) you probably should go and watch it:

<http://www.justin.tv/startupschool/b/272178844>

</comment><comment><USER3> I really hope Apple dont buy Spotify. Spotify made me stop pirating music, I'm now a legitimate paying customer. I detest itunes with the heat of a nova.

Google would be the lesser of two evils but i'd rather they remain independent, become profitable (if they arent already, i've no idea) and continue to do the great work they're doing right now.

</comment><comment><USER4> If Apple acquired Spotify they could kiss those streaming contracts goodbye. There's no way the labels would risk handing even more power to Apple, paying only micropennies per play, when they're still kicking themselves over the near monopoly Apple grabbed the first time round.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd rather Spotify were independent, because someone like Google owning it might discourage potentially innovative competitors from springing up.

</comment><comment><USER6> Spotify's business model is based upon a collection of dubious contracts with record labels that have nothing to gain from spotify. That is amazing.

Is it me or does anyone realise that spotify is napster all over again? I mean come on even Sean Parker is on board. lol.

<comment><USER2> I must have missed something, I can't find any indication that the contracts mentioned are 'dubious', the only thing that seems to be the case is that they are so good that if they're not part of the deal Google does not think they can re-negotiate them on such favorable terms.

How does that make the contracts 'dubiuos'? To me that indicates they are of questionable legality, that does not seem to be the case here.

<comment><USER6> In terms of longevity.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Nice of Spotify to tip off TC to clinch this buyout.

<comment><USER8> I never thought leaks clinched deals. I always thought leaks queered deals.

<comment><USER9> Wow! didn't know "queer" was a verb.

<comment><USER8> "To queer the deal" is one of my favorite idioms. It's not really a verb outside of that.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Where are they? Why I hope the search for ET life finds nothing (2008) - <AUTHOR> https://fermatslibrary.com/s/where-are-they-why-i-hope-the-search-for-extraterrestrial-life-finds-nothing <comment><USER2> There's an obvious possibility that people ignore because it's not very sexy: maybe life is common, but sending messages clearly over interstellar distances is pointless and extremely expensive.

Maybe the energy cost of transmitting a signal that can be clearly heard over interstellar distances -- mixed with the time/distance barriers of interstellar travel and communication -- makes it kind of pointless outside of novelty. (Not to mention any communication would happen on the scale of rise and fall of civilizations -- how do you even have a coherent conversation across hundreds of years?). I mean maybe most societies that form just don't have the energy and willpower to colonize outside their solar system. They might also be like us where dominant civilisations and philosophy's rise and fall every few years — meaning not enough stability for a 50000 year long conversation

Perhaps the universe is silent simply because there's no reason to speak up.

<comment><USER3> > maybe life is common, but sending messages clearly over interstellar > distances is pointless and extremely expensive

It certainly is. I've heard that we wouldn't be able to detect Earth's most powerful broadcasts from a distance of half a light year. So expecting broadcasts to make it across interstellar distances is ridiculous. Tight beam signals might work, but then you've got to know somebody is listening. Nobody knows anyone here is listening, so nobody is sending anything to us.

But I thought the real paradox according to Fermi is not that we don't receive signals, but that they're not already here. If interstellar travel and colonisation is even the slightest bit possible, and spacefaring civilisations are somewhat common, then some of them must have had a millions or billions of years head start on us, which should have been plenty to colonise the entire galaxy. Why did nobody discover this fertile planet somewhere during the age of the dinosaurs?

The obvious solution here is of course that interstellar travel is so impractical that even in a million years, nobody will ever colonise another solar system.

That, or Erich von Daniken was right.

<comment><USER4> >The obvious solution here is of course that interstellar travel is so impractical that even in a million years, nobody will ever colonise another solar system.

It's also entirely possible that a civilization that colonizes another solar system won't also inevitably colonize the entire galaxy. I think people assume this because the mathematical progression makes sense and because the precedent of humans colonizing other continents makes it seem intuitively plausible, as if space were just a bigger ocean. Decades of space opera and science fiction stories have turned the metaphor into an archetype.

Yet if it is true that rockets and radio waves are all anyone ever gets, then _every new colony_ is an investment of hundreds or thousands of years' effort or more, assuming there is always a stellar body nearby with a planet which is amenable to colonization, as if stars were equidistant from one another, and assuming all previous colonies continue and survive.

Many people seem to assume that either the entire galaxy must be converted to computronium by Von Neumann probes or no life exists elsewhere in the universe, but to me, _detecting_ the signs of interstellar civilization anywhere in the universe is the least likely possible scenario _even if life is common._

<comment><USER3> Even if it takes a colony 10,000 years before it's ready to colonise, a billion years is a lot of time. If each colony spawns a new colony every 10,000 years, that's enough to colonise the galaxy.

But it's entirely possible that colonies don't feel such an urge to spread. We may feel it because our planet is fairly densely populated, but a high-tech colony with all the education and medical tech to not require large families, might grow so slowly that their planet will never feel cramped.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> > Humans have, to date, seen no sign of any extraterrestrial civilization.

We do not know that and it may very well be false.

Yeast was known of and observed for thousands of years, but was not discovered to be life until the 1800s. The signs of life were there, but were not recognized.

It is just our human bias to envision complexity as only occurring on earth- like planets, on human-like time and size scales, communicating over the EM spectrum, formed of baryonic matter...

We don't ask what Great Filter prevents the aliens from speaking English. But we might if English was the only language known on Earth. What languages other than DNA are spoken in the universe?

<comment><USER6> Right, and the author glosses over UFOs but the evidence is undeniable.

<comment><USER7> The evidence that there is something happening in the skies is pretty strong, but the evidence that it's extraterrestrial visitors is weak.

<comment><USER6> They're a complete mystery. There is extensive evidence that US and international militaries and space programs have released. That evidence points to physical objects in the sky that respond to our aircraft and behave in a way that physicists have said is not possible given our level of technology.

Maybe they're from a small African nation that's hiding their technology in plain sight. Maybe they're time travelers. Maybe they're the result of some distortion in the earth's magnetic field. Maybe they're aliens.

It's a scientific mystery but it doesn't get the proper funding and respect because of the stigma. This is a huge loss.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> There are a number of flaws with this argument, but one major obvious one is the idea that finding life on mars would show the probability of life generating on a random planet is high. The premise of this argument relies on assuming life arising on Earth and Mars are stochastic processes that each occurred independently; on the contrary, there could be shared featured of Earth and Mars that make life more probable on those two planets than elsewhere.

The 'great filter' could be shared between the two planets.

<comment><USER9> It's about as meaningful as asking 9 people in the same, small, rural town if they like going to the library, then concluding that x/10 people, in general, like going to the library. Maybe that particular town has a really shitty library.

<comment><USER10> I like reading, but i hate libraries (as in physical buildings), at least in the western countries. With almost everyone having internet access, there's no point. Digitize everything, put it online.

<comment><USER11> I hate sports, but I don't argue there's no point to them because there's no point to them _for me_.

A library's advantage isn't just "musty old books" books (some young people, myself included, love physical books and have small apartments!). It's also a free, public space you can come to just be. If you're a kid who has no spending money, you can come to do your homework, or code. Especially relevant for kids who have a poor learning environment at home (too many siblings, parents fighting, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is an old argument, covering well-trod ground.

Somewhere in the ocean there's an island with only one colony of ants.

In that colony, there's a little ant-Enrico Fermi, doing little ant-things, writing in little ant-journals, wondering little ant-thoughts, including "Where are they?"

You have to bring a great amount of hubris to bear on this problem to reach any kind of conclusions. After all, we only have an example of one Earth, with one species of humans on it. I'm not sure we'd know what an alien was if one were standing next to us (metaphorically, perhaps actually). We have no common frame of reference to reason about such things. The best we can do is string together a lot of terms representing concepts through multiplication. This gives us the unsurprising result that lots of things multiplied by each other tend to get either really large or really small really quickly.

The question Fermi asked was a truly profound one. It was profound because it points the finger back at us, asking _just what do we really know about the entirety of universe we live in?_

It's a great question. We will be fortunate to see little tiny pieces of the answer in our lifetimes.

</comment><comment><USER13> Highlighting text on a webpage so that you can focus on a particular sentence should _never_ move the text and make you lose your place. I like the idea but don't make it a pop-in sidebar that moves the page.

<comment><USER14> Yes, the ux was horrible, especially on mobile.

<comment><USER15> On firefox I couldn't even enable reader mode on this page.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Charlie Stross' "Accelerando" floats an interesting idea: Post-Tech- Singularity civilizations might naturally become isolationist because consciousness becomes tied to computing hardware that is dependant on abundant energy and low communication latency that you don't have unless you all cluster closely around a star, i.e. a small Dyson sphere. Leaving those ideal circumstances becomes unthinkable for the individual because it would mean lobotomizing yourself.

However, we should be able to _see_ those Dyson spheres, and we don't.

<comment><USER17> Isnt the purpose of a Dyson sphere to keep all Energy inside? If thats the case, how would you detect such a sphere?

Maybe that's where the dark matter is. 80% of the universe, packed into small Dyson Spheres, where live is sprawling and we just cant see it. ;-)

<comment><USER16> > Isnt the purpose of a Dyson sphere to keep all Energy inside?

No, because that would be both impossible (see "black body radiation") and useless. The purpose is to _use_ all energy produced by the star. But "using" energy doesn't mean it's gone (see conservation of energy) or that you have to trap it. What it really means is you want to use the low _entropy_ inherent in a concentrated source of energy to perform work.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think this is not giving enough thought on the topic of population growth. I believe in most rich/advanced countries population is declining, unless they have a lot of immigration, United States for example. Hans Rosling has some studies on this, his studies say that the world population won't exceed 11 billion.

Also, people are having less sex than before. [https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the- sex...](https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2018/12/the-sex- recession/573949/) which obviously is going to affect population growth.

Although, this could change if somehow we manage to live considerably longer lives. Then population would grow again. Which is the main promise of Scythe by Neal Shusterman.

We would need a very good reason to spend the resources to go colonize other planets.

</comment><comment><USER19> Why does there have to be 'one' great filter... I think it's more a 'tiered' system... I mean on any given planet getting to eukaryotes is difficult..once you do, you've made it past 'a great filter'.... onto the next...

Everything in life is a battle to survive - even evolution. I don't think there even being a great filter means that we necessarily wouldn't pass through it... -- I guarantee you there's a great filter...if we never become space faring this world will die -- the sun will supernova. If humans survive to that day, and never leave the solar system then all life here will be snuffed out... If we do survive eons past the end of this solar system at some point the entire universe could contract, entropy could run out and all life would be snuffed out...

On a long enough time line -- everything in this universe will be filtered out.

<comment><USER20> Not to detract from your other points, which I agree with, but our star won't supernova. It doesn't have enough mass. It will go red giant and toast our planet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> It's because the simulation was built to simulate a culture that wasn't yet aware of aliens and alien interaction isn't part of the experiment. It's also less expensive in compute resources.

</comment><comment><USER22> Our own DNA-based life may actually be the von Neumann probes the author mentions -- self-replicating spacecraft, controlled by AI and capable of interstellar travel via "Panspemia".

</comment><comment><USER23> There is currently an excellent podcast exploring these ideas: "The End of the World with Josh Clark"[1]. Nicely produced, fairly deep content -- including audio quotes from Nick Bostrom among others.

This link is to episode 1, but for convenience in subscribing look it up on iTunes.

[1] [https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/the-end-of- the-w...](https://www.stuffyoushouldknow.com/podcasts/the-end-of-the-world- with-josh-clark-ep01-fermi-paradox.htm)

</comment><comment><USER24> I've thought along these lines before, and am writing a hard science fiction novel with this premise. I love thinking about the possibility of other advanced civilizations etc as much as the next guy, but it does seem like the _other_ possibility is less represented in sci-fi and maybe in current thought in general. It's so fun to think about life existing and those implications, less time is given to thinking about life _not_ existing elsewhere and what that would mean. I get that to a degree. I feel like Debbie Downer just saying it, but in order of likelihood based on current observation, I would arrange the scenarios like this:

* Intelligent life only exists on Earth. This is what we have observed so far, so in absence of other evidence this is "most likely" with a large margin of error ;)

* Intelligent life does exist and is abundant, but we are among the most advanced. Hard limits in physics mean it is impractical to travel out of one's solar system, much less galaxy.

* We're among the most advanced because of a "great filter" after our current stage.

* We're among the most advanced because of a "great filter" before our current stage.

* We are a simulation

</comment><comment><USER25> The idea that we'd most likely encounter a colonising civilisation in the form of von Neumann probes seems reasonable.

Imagine there was one (or even a few dozen) such probe currently occupying an asteroid somewhere in our solar system, slowly completing the millenia-long task of replicating itself. Would we have noticed yet?

</comment><comment> c-smile If to expand that line of thought even further we shall conclude that we are alone in observable Universe.

Life as we know it tends to preserve itself - the instinct of self- preservation is the main feature of life. Others are just consequences.

"Hi-order" life will preserve not only one particular incarnation of it but various others too.

So as soon one civilization will pass the filter - it should help others to pass it.

And if we do not see that other hi-order one yet then it means this role is ours and no one is out there.

For humanity "hi-order" state of life is definitely far ahead - long way to go. If not the filter is ahead of us :)

<comment><USER19> >> So as soon one civilization will pass the filter - it should help others to pass it....

unless neither civilization knows 'when' the great filter is...and continues to expect it's in the future... this could cause fear of each other... fear leads to the dark side...

Interstellar war probably isn't good for the less advanced civilization. Let's hope when the time comes we're not the less advanced civilization...or the other one will become our great filter..

The great filter also could be a predatory civ that snuffs out any sign of life after they find it. For this reason many civs could be afraid to do anything to draw attention.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> The possibilities that come to mind are:

1\. We happen to be first.

2\. They are on their way.

3\. They are within reach and are not malevolent, nor allow the spread of malevolence, given the 'typical' billions years gestation period.

<comment><USER27> Or they exist but because the universe is huge and sparse we'll never encounter each other.

My hunch is that life is actually prolific. It's in the oceans of Encledeus (sp), may be in extremes on mars, and possibly more in other places. But it's not industrial the ways we are.

<comment><USER28> > But it's not industrial the ways we are.

I find this very unlikely. If you do some computer simulations, you can see that if "life" has minimal amount of freedom to get modified, it diverges to really interesting objects and exploits a lot of phenomenon happening in its virtual universe. Something as absurdly unlikely and crazy as symbiogenesis occured multiple times in our planet. It's unlikely if there is life out there, it'd stay simple and invisible.

My hunch is that life is extremely rare, if it exists at all. We know from computer science that evolution is a very good method to find ever-improving local optimas, so to me it's very likely if life exists, it'll evolve to galactic empires in a few billion years. And thus thanks to Fermi paradox, this convinces me that life must be extremely rare, or the Great Filter must be very effective or intergalactic communication/travel must be extremely expensive.

<comment><USER27> Our industry is possibly an emergent phenomenon. There are many species on this plant and only one has taken technology to our extremes. That could be a differentiator.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> If you liked this, you might enjoy "Light of the Same", which examines the Drake equation and seti in the light of all the planets that have been discovered.

[https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236156-light-of-the- st...](https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/36236156-light-of-the-stars)

</comment><comment><USER14> I wonder if the availability of fossil fuels is the great filter? My understanding is that all that plant matter didn't decay only because fungi hadn't evolved thr ability to break it down, and thus fossil fuels are a one time burst of energy that isn't going to ever be available again.

<comment><USER29> Do you have a citation for this understanding? I hadn't heard this before so I did a brief search and found [0], but this seems to apply just to coal which goes through a lignite phase during its formation [1]. I'm not familiar the details of how other fossil fuels are formed, but I was under the impression it usually happens under the seafloor, are the same mechanisms at play in an undersea environment? It seems like fungi are more common on land than at sea [2].

[0] [https://clarknow.clarku.edu/2012/06/28/findings-point-to- fun...](https://clarknow.clarku.edu/2012/06/28/findings-point-to-fungi-as- prime-suspects-in-fossil-fuel-mystery/)

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

[2] [https://sciencing.com/types-fungi-grow- ocean-8467074.html](https://sciencing.com/types-fungi-grow-ocean-8467074.html)

<comment><USER14> Ah, TIL.

I am wrong. I was unable to find any source for this, and, like you, found some countervailing posts, like this one:

[http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.ht...](http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2013/02/18/3691317.htm)

So, please consider the above comment retracted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> My latest favorite tin foil hats are The Watchers & The Cosmic War because otherwise perhaps we're going thru a Great Filter right now with global warming due to energy consumption, etcetera & I dunno if we're gonna make it at all

</comment><comment><USER31> Human also occur in the earliest likely epoch of the universe:

* We have, astronomically speaking, just entered the epoch where the universe can support life. We have the required abundance of elements and conditions that give rise to life (stellar nucleosynthesis).

* Intelligence is an incredibly strange thing to evolve. Evolution is a gradient (the evolutionary whitening of the polar bear is probably the best example of this). There is no gradient to move down towards intelligence. You have it or you don't; you are reactive, instinctual, or intellectual.

* Intelligent life has also been demonstrated to be unbelievably improbable. With nature as the best laboratory, out of all the species that have ever evolved, only one on Earth evolved intelligence.

In layman terms, we are likely the "ancients," or rather we might be, as we could simply go extinct.

<comment><USER32> > * Intelligent life has also been demonstrated to be unbelievably improbable. > With nature as the best laboratory, out of all the species that have ever > evolved, only one on Earth evolved intelligence.

I wonder whether this is actually true. Imagine the human society being transported to dolphin or shark bodies (they'd spawn there). Assume the following: food is not an issue in the short term and we retain our knowledge and we have quite a good control over our new bodies and can do what sharks or dolphins normally do.

Even with these advantages, could we recreate what we made on land?

<comment><USER31> Good point.

I would say that the defining feature of human intelligence is immediate and self-directed teaching. House training a dog takes many weeks and many rewards. Stopping smoking is a decision that a human makes and can immediately put into practice.

Using sharks and dolphins as an example, both would learn to avoid fishing nets and communicate that danger (which is not unique to humans), remember it (which is) to each other and their offspring (again, unique to humans). What's not done is seemingly more important than what is, because beating opposable thumbs is pretty hard (as you've pointed out).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> It's very hard to read these not-HTML and not-quite-PDF sites on mobile, especially with all the popups. Author might have something interesting to say but I can't tell.

</comment><comment><USER34> Space is BIG with a capital BIG !!! Small is human.

</comment><comment> david-gpu Title needs a (2008) tag.

</comment><comment><USER35> Bostrom dismisses, as a fallacy, the idea that the relatively rapid appearance of life on Earth is evidence for it being somewhat probable, yet it is just about as fallacious to think that the absence of life on Mars would be evidence for humanity having long-term prospects.

</comment><comment><USER36> > UFO‐spotters, Raelian cultists, and self‐certified alien abductees > notwithstanding, humans have, to date, seen no sign of any extraterrestrial > intelligent civilization. [...] If large telescopes, NASA satellites, and > omplicated mathematical data analysis are involved, it becomes harder for > outside observers to mistake the work for the ramblings of UFO‐nuts and > other crackpots.

The author makes it clear that for a serious scholar "UFOs" can a priori only be a subject of ridicule.

<comment><USER37> This behavior evidently started with Zeno of Elea's run on logic through reasoned argument. He's the reason we have the scientific method, basically.

Fortunately, the scientific method produced technology that allows me to post this comment. Unfortunately, limiting a culture's philosophy to only discussing things we can attempt to disprove results in limiting the ability to discuss something as if it were true, before we know it to be true by proof.

Example: I believe ʻOumuamua was a spacecraft. Can't prove it, but can't talk about it as a truth either, which sorta sucks given I figured (when I was a kid) aliens would be here by now. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER38> I'm picking up a lot of existential angst in this one. The author hopes we are the only intelligent species in the universe because why? I think spending so much time on the nature of ones own existence is to neglect the here and now. I say this as someone who confronted his own existential angst - it can drive you in any number of directions, none of which really matter for someone with an expected lifespan of 70 years. If life is so precious, why not go experience it while you can?

<comment><USER39> >The author hopes we are the only intelligent species in the universe because why?

Because if there is other life in the universe, then it's more likely that the Great Filter is ahead of us and that human civilization will end sooner. If we are the only intelligent species, then it's more likely that the Great Filter is behind us and humanity is more likely to spread across planets.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> All I know is that if we're going to locate or communicate with any other advanced civilization out there, it's sure not going to be with radio waves. It will be with something a little more subtle that may not necessarily be constrained by gravity or the speed of light. Just my $0.02

<comment><USER41> It's likely that everything in the universe is constrained by the speed of light, so maybe radio waves _are_ the best form of communication?

<comment><USER42> I think a lot of folks don't realize most real and hard science is done with radio waves. The tech is often associated with antiquated devices for music and news of erras by gone, but scientifically speaking, radio waves are pretty high tech. Electromagnetic Radiation has it's own brand problems though. We really new words not associated with early use cases.

<comment><USER43> Sadly most people don't realize what they see is 'radio waves', hence OP's misguided comment.

<comment><USER40> What you claim is indeed so very sad, but I wouldn't gnash teeth or loose any sleep over it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


A Better Pip Workflow - <AUTHOR> http://www.kennethreitz.org/essays/a-better-pip-workflow <comment><USER2> Have a look at pip-tools [https://github.com/nvie/pip- tools](https://github.com/nvie/pip-tools) which does basically that and a bit more.

</comment><comment><USER3> This is basically how ruby solves it with Gemfile and Gemfile.lock

<comment><USER2> bundler has many more features, for instance it provides a sandboxing mechanism and it allows for breaking the app boot if a dependency is not correct (which is a super good thing, I can't count the number of times I had a different egg than another developer and it was breaking things...)

edit: you're totally right tho! that was just a complement</comment></comment>


Jim Hefferon's Linear Algebra: A free textbook with fascinating applications - <AUTHOR> http://www.randomhacks.net/articles/2007/03/07/hefferon-linear-algebra-review <comment><USER2> I prefer books that are much the opposite, like Priciples of Mathematical Analysis. I like to fill in the gaps in terse presentations and poke around on the internet for applications and other things. A good professor, however, can make any book a good one.

I had a teacher last year that used Artin's Algebra. He made a game out of the massive amount of typos and errors:

Show that question X is false as stated. Give the correct hypothesis and prove the new theorem.

How can we strengthen question Y?

On page ABC, what is the error in the proof of such and such. How can it be fixed?

Honestly, any good professor can make even the worst of books enjoyable.

<comment><USER3> "I prefer books that are much the opposite, like Priciples of Mathematical Analysis"

Can you recommend a similar book for Linear Algebra? (terse comprehensive rigorous).

Thanks in advance,

<comment><USER4> (1) Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right"

...a nice introduction to abstract linear algebra, but not quite abstract or terse enough.

(2) These course notes: <http://www.math.mcgill.ca/goren/AlgebraII07-08/AlgebraII.htm>

...good, though the duality section is a bit lacking. Riesz Representation Theorem FTW!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I hated math in college, I never thought that any math past basic Algebra would ever be used again in my life. But as I progressed further in Computer Science, I learned that if anything, Linear Algebra is involved in so many cool fields; AI, Graphics, Searching, etc.

My biggest regret in college was not learning linear algebra as well as I should have, thanks for the great link.

</comment><comment><USER6> It looks like a nice book. My only criticism after a quick skim is that it seems to neglect stability issues (condition numbers, etc). I realize that that is technically linear analysis (and nearly all textbooks neglect it), but it still belongs in any intro book.

He touches on it slightly on page 68, but inadequately in my view. The issue is not that it's hard to program, but that the problem of ill-conditioned matrices is fundamentally hard.

Nevertheless, I like this book. I'll strongly consider using it in the event I teach linear algebra.

</comment><comment><USER7> My favorite text on Linear Algebra is Gilbert Strang's _Linear Algebra and Its Applications_ although the current edition is ridiculously expensive:

[http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Applications-Gilbert- St...](http://www.amazon.com/Linear-Algebra-Applications-Gilbert- Strang/dp/0030105676/)

<comment><USER8> I managed to find an older version of the book, but somehow still unused, for a much lower price. I haven't found anything missing yet that I really need to know. I'm sure Linear Algebra as a field of knowledge has advanced a lot in that time, but the basics are still the basics.

I bought it because I checked several Linear Algebra books out from the university library, including an even older version of Strang's, and found that I liked it far more than the rest. Good transitioning between motivation, explanation, proofs, and examples for each topic. Also, it follows the on-line Strang lectures.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Always interesting to see if someone can write a great linear algebra book. I like Axler's "Linear Algebra Done Right" [1] because he puts off the determinant until it's clear why you want to define such a map. That the book continually treats the case when your field is the complex numbers slows things down at times, though.

[1] <http://linear.axler.net>

</comment><comment><USER10> Looks a good book. Would any readers know of a good book on more advanced linear algebar particularly all things eigen - eigenvalues eigenfunctions and so on theory and application, but not just lists of theorems (much like the recommended book)

</comment><comment><USER11> Thanks. I'll take a look as soon I have time.

The direct links for the book: ftp://joshua.smcvt.edu/pub/hefferon/book/book.pdf

The direct link for the answers: ftp://joshua.smcvt.edu/pub/hefferon/book/jhanswer.pdf

</comment><comment><USER12> Looking at the Table of Contents it seems fairly decent.

The most helpful Linear Algebra book I have used is Linear Algebra by Friendberg, Insel, and Spence.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's a beautiful thing, linear algebra.</comment>


Neal Stephenson: Tech Moguls, Brain Science, and Fall: Or Dodge in Hell - <AUTHOR> https://www.thestranger.com/books/2019/05/22/40277284/neal-stephenson-interview-tech-moguls-brain-science-and-fall-or-dodge-in-hell <comment><USER2> I have loved some of Stephenson's books, but haven't made it though Seveneves or Dodo. But he's built up enough goodwill with me that I will always give his next book a shot.

A plea: Read Anathem if you haven't. It's great on a number of levels. The less you know about it going in the better.

<comment><USER3> I enjoyed seveneves. It's certainly not as good as cryptonomicon or anathem but totally worthwhile

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Excited to read this and contrast with Tad William's Otherland.</comment>


Offer HN: Build your prototype - <AUTHOR>

I teach at a Hack Reactor, a dev training program, and this class' personal and group project periods are coming up.  I've had a lot of fun suggesting ideas for them to work on and thought I'd open it up to the HN community.  If you post here (or send an email to email@example.com), students will see your ideas/mockups/etc, and someone just might build it.  Please include any/all of the following:

    1. Your contact info & project description
    2. Mockups/comps (it'll help a lot if you take 5 minutes to sketch a few screens with pen and paper)
    3. Any info about built-in users (eg "I/my nonprofit/my soccer club will start using this tomorrow")
    4. Any bounty that you'd like to offer
 Just for context, here're a few student projects from the past:

    http://save-world.meteor.com/
    http://graphe.me/
    http://tsunani.com/
 (Clickable links in a comment below.) <comment><AUTHOR> <http://save-world.meteor.com/>

<http://graphe.me/>

<http://tsunani.com/></comment>


Using SPARK to Prove 255-Bit Integer Arithmetic from Curve25519 - <AUTHOR> https://blog.adacore.com/using-spark-to-prove-255-bit-integer-arithmetic-from-curve25519 <comment><USER2> Just started reading/working through the book, "Building High Integrity Applications with Spark". I started with assembler, then basic and c, and took Turbo Pascal in the late 80s. I am very interested in safer, secure programming, and Spark and Rust seem to be approaching the hub from different spokes of the same wheel. I was playing with F _/ F# toolchain, but F_ is a bit formal for me, or at least not very clear for me.

The use of Spark on embedded devices, and CubeSats has sparked my interest ;)

I found the code and explanation in the article easy to follow although the subject matter is not in my domain.

<comment><USER3> Rust and SPARK are totally different things. SPARK was designed to build high integrity applications, Rust was designed to build applications that don't crash because of invalid memory accesses.

The second is a much, much weaker guarantee, basically any language used nowadays besides C and C++ will offer the same memory safety guarantee as Rust.

<comment><USER2> Sure they are different: OOP/Pascal-like vs. multi-paradigm/C-like language, etc., but the point of the spoke and hub analogy is that coming from different sides (spokes), but directing towards something like safe, secure programming is what they have in common (the hub), and has instigated the ADA/SPARK community to take notice, and vice versa for Rust. Look at these two discussions for a bit of where I am going with it:

[https://www.reddit.com/r/ada/comments/7wzrqi/why_rust_was_th...](https://www.reddit.com/r/ada/comments/7wzrqi/why_rust_was_the_best_thing_that_could_have/)

[https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7ibea3/safe_pointers_...](https://www.reddit.com/r/rust/comments/7ibea3/safe_pointers_in_spark_ada_inspired_by_rusts/)

I like Rust (and I like Zig too). I like ADA/SPARK 2014. I am currently interested in safe, secure, verifiable and validated software development, and these PLs are on my radar. I have also considered a duo of F*/F#, but they are not ticking as many boxes as ADA/SPARK 2014.

I'd love to see the cross pollination or competition between Rust and SPARK 2014 lead to them both improving, and borrowing concepts from each other. Rust is being touted more and more for embedded, and SPARK 2014 is already there. Now if I could get SPARK/Rust in a Lisp!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The title should be corrected to "SPARK", not "Spark". It's used all caps each time it's mentioned on the page. That's also how I've seen this tool referred to elsewhere in the programming language literature: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_(programming_language)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPARK_\(programming_language\))

<comment><USER5> Corrected now. This is an unfortunate wave-particle when it comes to casing, which HN's software tries to autocorrect in titles.</comment></comment>


Windows 10 October 2018 Update still not released, running out of October - <AUTHOR> https://arstechnica.com/gadgets/2018/10/windows-10-october-2018-update-still-not-released-running-out-of-october/ <comment><USER2> It deletes files, they have to postpone it until they can fix that.</comment>


Move.js - body movement controlled javascript - <AUTHOR> http://skycocker.github.io/move.js

<comment><USER2> Moving the box didn't work very well for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> It didn't work in anything but Chrome, now it's fixed.</comment></comment>


Dog-Walking App Exposed Home Addresses and Lockbox Codes - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/dog-walking-app-exposed-home-addresses-and-lockbox-codes-1515524881 <comment><AUTHOR> Mirror: [https://archive.fo/f3QCK](https://archive.fo/f3QCK)</comment>