Apple Plans to Ship 16-Inch MacBook Pro This Year - <AUTHOR> https://www.forbes.com/sites/brookecrothers/2019/06/23/apple-plans-to-ship-16-inch-macbook-pro-this-year-says-ihs-markit-offers-more-details/#30507d8549f0 <comment><USER2> Heart be still.

Please leave the headphone jack. And if it's too much to ask we don't want/use/need the touchbar, other than the fingerprint reader.

<comment><USER3> With the extra space maybe include the touchbar above a row of physical function keys?

<comment><USER4> I have a 2013 MacBook Pro so I haven't tried the Touchbar.

With the exception of the ESC key, with I use a lot, I'm not sure I'd miss the rest of the function keys. The idea of a touchbar seems like it could work if done right.

Did Apple do something wrong or it just doesn't work in practice?

<comment><USER5> I recently went from a 2015 MBP to a 2018 MBP with Touchbar. There is a utility called BetterTouchTool ([https://folivora.ai/](https://folivora.ai/)) that adds lots of great features to the Touchbar and made it worthwhile.

The Touchbar is a good idea, though it's not a killer feature - mostly because of issues with Apple's software support for it (same story as Force Touch). The biggest issues with it are the lack of a physical Esc key (a mistake, especially because the virtual Esc key is broken in some apps), lack of tactile/haptic feedback (BTT actually has an option to shake the force trackpad as a haptic feedback substitute), and poor customization support (you can show app-specific keys or "control strip" keys, but can't mix the two - there are artificial limitations to what's available created by Apple's idiosyncracies).

<comment><USER6> Here's hoping that Apple will do what they did in the Air 2018 to the new mbp 19.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> My wants:

\- Mini oled screen [0]

\- 4k resolution

\- 2012 body

\- 2012 keyboard

\- magsafe

\- 32gb minimum

Most of these will guarentee a purchase from me as I'm replacing an ageing 2012.

\- AMD Ryzen [1]

This will have me foaming at the mouth lol. I can dream I guess.

I'd love for the keyboard to not be piping hot under load. Or the laptop to be throttling under load or extremely hot weather. An AMD Processor or even an ARM can maybe have it warm or perhaps cool to touch?

[0]: [https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/21/apple-samsung-oled- ipad...](https://www.macrumors.com/2019/06/21/apple-samsung-oled-ipads- macbooks/)

[1]: [https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-3800x-benchmarks-leaked- cru...](https://wccftech.com/amd-ryzen-7-3800x-benchmarks-leaked-crushes- intels-i9-9900k-in-multi-threaded-performance/)

<comment><USER8> Can I add a swappable battery to your list?

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Please give it real ports. Not just USB-C. And please make it not catch fire. And the keyboard not break. And the CPU not thermal-throttle terribly. And Nvidia GPU option. And a screen that has a reasonably-durable ribbon cable. And a keyboard that's not trash.

<comment><USER10> Basically don't make it thin. No one gives a F* if its thin or not.

<comment><USER11> I also don't need them to focus on excellent bass and audio output via the internal speakers.

Not a priority guys.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Perhaps the device will the same size and will simply reduce the bezels on screen, since 15.4 to 16 isn't much more.

</comment><comment><USER13> I still think the 17" models that they produced until about 2012 or 2013 were the best machines they have made. Everyone I know who had one kept those monsters running as long as they could. A refreshed version in that form factor might be enough to make me buy an Apple product.

</comment><comment><USER14> Serious question: what are super-large laptop screens good for?

If I'm using my laptop on the go, I prefer a small screen so it's usable on a small plane tray, on a cramped cafe table, in a conference room where I don't want my device to distract, etc. And weighs as little as possible.

While if I'm using my laptop for real work, at work or at home, I want to plug it into an actual large screen, which 15" or 16" is not -- it's just too small. Let's do 25" or 30".

Large laptop screens are this weird middle ground for me that seem to be worst-of-both-worlds.

What am I missing?

<comment><USER15> I thought the same until last year when I had these awkward 3 week business trips to our various satellite offices.

I would bring my small laptop, set it at my temporary cubicle, and basically leave it there for the duration. I always asked for a spare monitor, but sometimes there wouldn't be any at the smaller offices, or they would be crappy TN monitors.

It was then that I realized having a large screen would be very convulsions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> That seems strange to me. 15" seems like a pretty standard size for carrying cases, etc. 17" made sense as significantly larger. Unless they plan to replace the 15" with the 16" and get it in the same chassis form factor, this seems like overloading that space with too many options. Apple generally has pretty segmented product lines, perhaps one good option for large categories (casual users, power users, etc.) without making you think too hard after getting in a general segment.

<comment><USER17> I bought a 14 inch sleeve for my MBP retina 15 inch (2015) because my old 15 inch sleeve was to loose. Especially with those soft material sleeves the thinness of the laptops plays a factor in fit size.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Current 15.4" VS new 16". Does is make a significant difference? Both being a 1.6 aspect ratio

</comment><comment><USER19> Anything < 17" feels sub optimal compared to my to 3x 24" setup on my main desktop

I'm not sure why the larger options are not offered I can't believe I'm the only one and that the margin isn't there

<comment><USER20> > _I 'm not sure why the larger options are not offered_

Probably because the market for very large laptops is smaller.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> have a personal 2013 13" macbook air that is getting pretty old and needs to be replaced. I have a 2016 15" pro from work... Very hesitant to upgrade my air because paying 1.5-2.5k for a laptop with this keyboard is a deal breaker.

I feel like if there was a 3rd party service replacing the keyboard with one that has better travel it would make tons of money.

</comment><comment><USER22> I guess the numbers are really showing people want bigger laptops... In my circles most think the 12inch MacBook is too large. iPad Pro 10.5 with a better keyboard and more software freedom would be perfect. But almost everyone I know is a 'traveling coder'.

Edit: seems downvotes because of disagreeing? I am just adding a data point from a few 100 people I know/work with who would never buy this machine. Or any other larger than 13inch machine for that matter.

<comment><USER23> As a counterpoint, I'm a traveling coder/student and I abhor tiny screens. If the LG Gram 17 gets an update with a 4K screen, or better yet if Apple releases a zero-bezel 17" MBP the same size as the current 15.4" model, I will jump on that like my cat on anything dairy.

<comment><USER22> Thanks for the counterpoint. Come to think of it, I really know one person who likes as-big-as-possible and he is a pilot and avid gamer, so he buys 'portable' gaming laptops.

The laptops I encounter when working with people all over the world are usually 13 inch or smaller and people nag a lot about that they are not comfortable to carry or use in cramped spaces. There are quite a few Japanese laptops that are popular among this crowd, especially this[0] jewel pops up more and more.

[0] [https://panasonic.jp/cns/pc/products/rz8k/](https://panasonic.jp/cns/pc/products/rz8k/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> Allowing a fully customizable touch bar that has an API would be an option for me at least.

</comment><comment><USER25> The keyboard will be gone, this time, replaced with a oled touch-panel.

<comment><USER26> All input will happen through dance movements interpreted via a depth-sensing notch at the top of the screen.

<comment><USER27> "Capoeira is an extraordinary new technology that we've been developing to revolutionize the human computer interface experience."</comment></comment></comment>


Work-from-home boom leads to more surveillance - <AUTHOR> https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/854014403/your-boss-is-watching-you-work-from-home-boom-leads-to-more-surveillance <comment><USER2> I own a small business, and all of us, my employees and me work from home. We've been doing this from well before the COVID-19 epidemic. My team is mostly programmers with a one marketing person. This sort of intrusive monitoring is utter garbage. My team would quit if I used it and in any case, I don't want to know what they are upto by the minute. I don't even encourage realtime slack unless we've mutually agreed to a specific time. Email, slack and the zoom calls (and lunches when COVID-19 was not a thing) are more than enough (Indeed too much.) What idiot managment even thinks this a good idea?

<comment> blaser-waffle Nothing about your business sounds like it reflects the rest of the white- collar working world.

<comment><USER3> Most of my direct reports work from home full time, just like most people in our company. We look at the output from our teams and we frankly don't care if people are checking Facebook on their phones during business hours. Focusing on the work that's getting done results in everybody being happier than micromanaging how people spend their time.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> It's being done by the same clowns who can't live without time clock cards, all sorts of monitoring,and tracking.These are the people who have no clue how to manage people,how to measure their work and act upon results.These are the same crappy companies who would rather ask their staff to email endless Excel spreadsheets to each other instead of investing some money in database or some crm system. In a nutshell,these are the bottom feeders of this world.

<comment><USER5> I'm curious how much of this comes from working with unskilled labor (hope that's the right term).

I once worked in fast food right out of high school. 80-90% of the employees were one or more of untrustworthy, unreliable, whiny, always making excuses or trying get out of work. My point being if you start there you might just assume that that's the way it always is for all employees no matter what type of job and therefore feel like you need to surveil.

Most of my tech jobs didn't have this issue AFAIK (though one did) but just as one stat from a random search

[https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/workplace-crime-costs-us- bus...](https://www.cnbc.com/2017/09/12/workplace-crime-costs-us- businesses-50-billion-a-year.html)

<comment><USER6> That's been my observation too. In tech, this kind of paranoid micro- management is a great (inverse) indicator for whether someone's used to working with talented people. If I were ever managing again in tech I'd be trying to find people much smarter than me and then get the heck out of their way.

<comment><USER6> Edit since I just re-read the parent comment and might have misunderstood: I don't distinguish between tech and other fields in this regard. I think it's an issue in all fields.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> _" If you're idle for a few minutes, if you go to the bathroom or whatever, a pop-up will come up and it'll say, 'You have 60 seconds to start working again or we're going to pause your time,' " the woman said._

Solution to that using appliances available in every home:

Dangle the mouse from you desk and put a fan next to it so that it hits the mouse from time to time.

But also quit your job - managers who use such tactics are usually very trigger-happy when it comes to firing people, so you're just delaying the inevitable.

<comment><USER8> It's probably not difficult to work around these checks but nobody should be suffering this indignity in the first place. People can't even go to the bathroom without getting called out by managers over lost productivity. How dehumanizing.

<comment><USER7> And it's not even effective. There's a quote from one of the more known Total Quality Management evangelists, which stuck with me(paraphrased):

"Don't engage in games with your employees, because you can't win."

He elaborates further explaining that any scheme or incentive system created for a specific behavioral outcome is bound to be exploited or otherwise worked around.

<comment><USER9> It's central planning, seems like. Does "the boss" really think they can implement a system that one of their 5 or 10 or 50 or 100 employees can't figure out how to circumvent?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's old-fashion management. If you don't understand your employees workload and don't trust them then either you resign or fire the employees. Simple as that.

I don't see how this makes any employee productive. This adds more stress imo. An employee gives you 8 of their 12 hour day. Now, you tell me if that works only for you - the management. They're people just like you. They have a life just like you. They have responsibilities similar to you. They might have a family similar to you. There's no fucking way they can manage all this, giving you a focused 8 hour. They might need a few mins to pay a bill, lookup a medication, place a personal Online order. And many other activities that come with "living", being alive.

I am certain most managers that implement this are antisocial fucks. It's poor management. Uneducated decision making.

Now, it does has its place. For example in highly secured environments or when dealing with highly sensitive documents. But for a small or regular office, no!

HR/Payroll companies such as ADP and Insperity need to start setting ground rules. I know that they're in favor of the employer, however, it would make good on them.

<comment><USER11> Couldn't have said it better.

One of the reasons I'm a supporter of universal basic income is so that the employees can have a better negotiating position. I suspect many bullshit rules will go out the window when the alternative to employment isn't destitution.

For far too long has this negotiation been highly in favour of the employer.

<comment><USER12> This is a bit of a tangent, but one should be careful with that path. Not all employers are 'evil' and have negative intentions for their employees. Think of an example such as the independently owned restaurant that cannot afford to pay employees high wages and their owners are not wealthy. Just as not all employees can be painted as untrustworthy and hostile, not all employers should be painted as untrustworthy and hostile.

<comment><USER13> I've been a line cook, restaurant owners are absolutely untrustworthy and hostile. The food industry is one where exploitation, highly aggressive staff retention practices (making employees dependent on you for a visa, threatening to spread lies about you, etc.), crazy unhealthy hours and just a generally awful culture are standard.

<comment><USER14> I've worked in the restaurant industry in the US. It's nothing short of horrifying, and often traumatizing for those involved.

I've seen no overtime pay happen, lies from management to get unemployment claims denied, management not actually firing people but just giving them zero or reduced hours to mess with the unemployment claim process, the VISA fuckery you mentioned, harrassment. Intentional scheduling of conflicting days for people with multiple jobs. Being made to work 7 days a week for long periods of time. Being made to repeatedly close late at night / early in the morning and then open the restaurant the next morning, a few hours later, and work a double. Being made to work while sick (this happens a _lot_ ).

A gold comment I heard from one manager was "I don't pay overtime because these motherfuckers already take enough of my money" (referring to the employees). This same guy was shaving time slips to keep them below 40 hours.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> > After two weeks of working from her Brooklyn apartment, a 25-year-old > e-commerce worker received a staffwide email from her company: Employees > were to install software called Hubstaff immediately on their personal > computers so it could track their mouse movements and keyboard strokes,and > record the webpages they visited.

I'm 100 percent positive that I would tell this company to get stuffed if they suggested I put that crap on my personal computer/phone.

This is managerial paranoia. These are probably managers that worked their way up by stepping on people and bumping others into oncoming buses along the way.

<comment><USER16> I completely agree, but it's a privilege to be able to risk your job for such a principle. I hope we can push to level the power imbalance between companies and employees so that privilege is available to more people.

<comment><USER15> > ... but it's a privilege to be able to risk your job for such a principle.

I absolutely agree that it is.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> vanilla-almond If you want an example of what workplace surveillance software can monitor and capture, watch the following video. It's simply horrible that employees have to put up with this:

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA_fJh4lzqQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xA_fJh4lzqQ)

<comment><USER17> Does Interguard have a license from NBC to use characters from "The Office" in their marketing and other materials? It would be pretty funny if they got dinged for this and had some revenue extracted for profiting off someone else's work because they weren't productive enough to generate their own content.

<comment><USER18> speaking out of my ass but from experience, it's probably just an intern that was told to put fake data in there that happened to be fan of 'The office', I can tell you with 99% of certainty they don't have the rights

</comment></comment></comment><comment> eli-bryan There's a researcher, Ethan Bernstein, who has looked into this quite a bit and has some great stories about the ways close monitoring can (sometimes) go sideways. He did a fascinating history of it here: [https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/BernsteinE-M...](https://www.hbs.edu/faculty/Publication%20Files/BernsteinE- MakingTransparencyTransparent- AMA2017HBS_1ffde6a8-90b5-4dcb-8014-c2eea12b78bf.pdf)

A representative anecdote re: a factory workfloor: "First the [embedded researchers] were quietly shown ''better ways'' of accomplishing tasks by their peers — a ''ton of little tricks'' that ''kept production going'' or enabled ''faster, easier, and / or safer production.'' Then they were told, ''Whenever the [customers / managers / leaders] come around, don't do that, because they'll get mad.'' Instead, when under observation, embeds were trained in the art of appearing to perform the task the way it was ''meant'' to be done according to the codified process rules posted for each task. Because many of these performances were not as productive as the ''little tricks,'' I observed line performance actually dropping when lines were actively supervised." From "The Transparency Paradox": [https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/000183921245302...](https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/0001839212453028)

I've also interviewed a few engineers about this recently and there are plenty of horror stories. My favorite 2 quotes (from the same person) about screenshot monitoring freelancers: _" It almost uniformly led to worse work..."_ and _"... but my boss loved it."_ [https://medium.com/@elibryan/employee-performance- tracking-d...](https://medium.com/@elibryan/employee-performance-tracking- doesnt-have-to-be- toxic-b8538aa39376?source=friends_link&sk=aceafa8cd097a280568e95f37868508b)

</comment><comment><USER19> > And with few legal barriers, employers who turn to this software during the > pandemic may choose to keep using it even after work-from-home orders are > lifted, he said.

Unsurprising - why give up power once you've accumulated it. Regulation is the only way to reverse that. The companies building these tools are a special breed.

<comment><USER20> Your last sentence is an interesting point. Like, man, I really don't want to be apart of that if I can avoid it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER21> Working for a highly regulated company at least company owned desktop monitoring is BAU. I assume anything I do with company equipment is monitored at all times. And if I forget they remind me every time I log in.

When I discovered the company needed to protect their data by pushing on a policy that let them wipe my personal device remotely I respected that and bought a personal device dedicated to the task of reading email and running their apps. But not everyone has that luxury. I'm fortunate to be able to buy an iPad and dedicate it to blackberry and the company app store.

It's an interesting conundrum because am I really obligated to install this to _every_ personal device or just the one I'm using for work-related tasks? I think a reasonable person would assume the latter.

And am I under obligation to use a personal device compatible with their spyware? What if it only works under IOS and I'm an Android user? What if tsheets only works on Windows and I'm a MacOS guy, or heck I just run a remote desktop viewer from a raspberry pi? Lol.

<comment><USER22> Why would you install anything from an employer on a personal device? If they want you to install their spyware they should buy the hardware.

<comment><USER23> Or they can decline to let you connect to the corp net when you are out of office.

<comment><USER21> Which isn't really an option now that we have mandatory work from home. I'm not going to quit my job because they don't wish to supply me with a laptop.

<comment><USER24> Right, but now the situation is give and take. You want me to do work on my personal device? Maybe I'm willing to bring that to the table. You want me to install your spyware on it... not so much.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> Vox Reset covered worker surveillance software in their most recent two episodes: [https://www.vox.com/reset](https://www.vox.com/reset) "The future of work pt 1 & 2"

One nice thing about being in a union is that if my upper management ever got a twinkle in their eye about this kind of thing (they wouldn't, because they're cool), I'm 100% sure I could flat out tell them no, AND keep my job.

If I wasn't in a union, I'd like to think I'm personally in a position where I could still tell them no and deal with the consequences. But I know a lot of people won't be in that position.

</comment><comment><USER26> I think it's time to start naming and shaming these companies. This doesn't increase productivity. It's disgusting. You don't own people's lives for 8 hours a day; you pay them to help you achieve goals for the company.

It baffles me how the US has trouble not understanding that paying for someone's time does not make them your slave.

<comment><USER27> It's not just the US. We've had episodes of this sort of thing in the UK, albeit with clumsier tech, for years. Here's a tale from 2016 [1] about motion sensors under journalists' desks (management later did a reverse ferret, aka volte-face [Edited to add the aka]):

[1] [https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/11/daily- telegrap...](https://www.theguardian.com/media/2016/jan/11/daily-telegraph-to- withdraw-devices-monitoring-time-at-desk-after-criticism)

BTW - "Reverse ferret" is a British media thing:

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Employers asking to install this junk on personal devices seems like an over reach.

Maybe some bored software developer could create the "uBlock of employee trackers". A program that would feed fake data into these trackers to make them unreliable for employers.

<comment><USER29> BYOD must not require spyware, period. Companies that do it are too cheap to provide corporate equipment and too insecure to trust their own employees observable output.

An open video stream to employees workstation could be reasonable if there is suspicion of fraud, like outsourcing their work to untrusted 3rd parties. It's not too unlike having an employee in the office. Though even in office employees have some expectations of privacy, like not exposing their home life or bathroom routines. Of course a company device would still need to be provided.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Earlier in my career looking for my first remote job, I got an offer for 20$-30$ per hour. This is 2.5x the average salary where I live, and almost 2x of what I was making at the time.

"Are you okay with installing surveillance software installed on your computer to track everything you do?"

Laughed at their faces. I will take ANY job (roof repairing, garbage man, security guard) before doing that.

</comment><comment><USER31> Question: Is it legal for a company to provide you with a laptop that you use at home and then monitor video/audio from it? What happens if I am using it in a space with my family present? Is it legal for my employer to spy on them? What if my two year old runs naked through the room? Can they monitor during "non-working hours?" What if I have to be on 5am video conferences and am answering emails at 12am?

<comment><USER32> Why don't you just shut the laptop off unless you are actively working, ie 8-5?

</comment></comment><comment><USER33> I think this is a situation where employees need to leave the company. We vote with our choices. If we don't deem this to be appropriate, we must respond in kind. It's not simple and not everyone has the choice, but for those that can, should.

<comment><USER34> Or regulate. Consider that your same argument was applies to e.g. the 40-hour workweek, and workplace safety standards in the US. We quite rightly decided not to leave such things to the market because in practice the labor market is FAR from perfect.

<comment><USER35> Regulation is the opposite of exercising freedom you already have

<comment><USER36> I downvoted you, because I think this is not true in general. Regulation can actually increase the freedom. It is a concept in philosophy: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox_of_tolerance)

And it's also not true in particular, you might happen to be in a group which benefits from given regulation. Hopefully, in a democratic society, the group that is negatively affected (if any) is as small as possible.

<comment><USER37> .. and I downvoted you, because it absolutely true by definition.

Regulation, by definition, _decreases_ freedom.

That's the whole point of regulation - to threaten with violence, acts that people have agreed are not a good idea.

If software engineers were regulated under IEEE, the freedoms of software engineers would _decrease_ not increase.

I quote from the article you linked:

"In order to maintain a tolerant society, the society must be intolerant of intolerance."

Regulation, by _definition_ , is _intolerance_.

For example - the minimum wage regulation. You have now removed the freedom of an untrained, unemployed person to sell their labor at a lower floor which was their only way to gain employment when there's a trained but unemployed person willing to also work for minimum wage!

<comment><USER38> You've got a pretty simplistic view of freedom there, bud. Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others. Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, increase or decrease freedom?

Employers have immense power over their workers, and regulation is one of the tools societies can use to make sure that power isn't abused.

<comment><USER37> Regulation, by _definition_ , decreases freedom.

The word _regulate_ , in _regulation_ literally means "decrease freedom".

In physics, a regulator is used to decrease freedom. That's why regulators are used in the first place.

> Regulations often increase freedom for some while decreasing it for others

Again, regulations can only decrease freedom.

It does not make sense to "increase" something that already exists.

The freedom to live does not make you more alive than what you already are.

> Constitutions are just regulations for government--does preventing the > government from infringing on the right to free speech, for example, > increase or decrease freedom?

The concept of free speech is innate and available everywhere, including countries that does not _recognize_ free speech.

Free speech is an inalienable right that every person is born with. It does not require someone else to grant or validate it.

All that the first amendment to the Constitution does is _recognize_ ( _not_ increase) your freedom to speak against the "government".

That is it.

The "government" still can jail you or even kill you.

All that a country that _recognizes_ free speech promises is that _after_ the deed is done, it will bring that misdeed to justice and hopefully right that wrong.

If that was not the case, the courts would be way less crowded than it already is.

Also, first amendment to the Constitution does _not_ apply to private citizens.

If you suddenly started to yell at your neighbor's lawn, not matter how well placed and logical your arguments are, you will still get booted with no legal recourse.

The only thing that is left is if this was the government that booted you out, you can take them to court and expect to win _if_ you have a valid case.

There can be no such expectation in a country that does not recognize free speech.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > "If you're idle for a few minutes, if you go to the bathroom or whatever, a > pop-up will come up and it'll say, 'You have 60 seconds to start working > again or we're going to pause your time,' " the woman said.

This is the exact type of sociopathic behavior that creates unions.

<comment><USER39> There's too many techbros and 'rockstars' that think they're 10x better than anyone else. Surprise - they're more average than others tell them.

But I've seen it again and again, IT people don't seem to gravitate towards unions.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The lack of ethics in the companies, and people that work at them, that create this software is sad and borderline demoralizing.

<comment><USER41> Lack of ethics for sure. Sadly the tech industry is filled with people lacking ethics, which allows privacy breaching companies like Facebook, Google etc. to thrive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > But in the office, it is much easier to figure out if someone is doing a job > well.

I found this odd. The only measure of doing a job well is the output, isn't it? How is this easier in an office? Plenty of people can spend all day cranking away in Excel or an IDE, with no Facebook or YouTube in sight, producing complete garbage.

</comment><comment><USER43> _" Are they generally active on programs and websites that I would consider productive like Excel, PowerPoint, Word, email, as opposed to YouTube or Facebook?"_

The CEO talking about his product in terms of first person value judgements tells you all you need to know about the degrees of sliminess involved.

</comment><comment><USER44> My question would be ... does it work?

Say there are people who are not being tracked using these tools ... does the act of tracking them make them more productive?

𝗔𝗻 𝗶𝗹𝗹𝘂𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 There is the old joke paper given to the British Medical Journal ([https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC300808/)). The "problem" it tries to figure out is do parachutes work? There is anecdotal evidence that they work - bit there have been cases where people have fallen from great height without a parachute and not died and there are cases where someone has jumped from low altitude with a parachute and died.

What they then do is suggest a proper double blind analysis to confirm that a parachute actually works. But it is a joke so they do not go far.

The point they make applies here also. On the part of the boss it does feel like you are in control and I am sure HR would love it because they now have time sheets that they can use to process payroll etc.

But for the end user ... does it actually increase productivity?

Actually ... does it actually matter whether it does or not? Maybe their goal is to make the bosses happy. My suspicion though is that it may actually be reducing productivity as they mess up morale. But that has not been tested either. (Not sure if it can be tested).

</comment><comment><USER45> Using this software is a tacit admission that the manager is unable to measure the output of their own employees, nor are they able to determine what an appropriate level of productivity is.

You don't need cameras to track where the dough goes if you already know how much flour you bought, how many pizzas you sold, and how much flour it should take to make a pie.

This reflects a fundamental inability of the manager to do their job.

</comment><comment><USER46> MS Teams has a "green check" next to your name if you've touched your keyboard or mouse in the last five minutes and automatically sets your status to "away" if you haven't done so. I've had people at work use this to try and figure out if I'm working or not. It is a violating feeling, but also very similar to the "is your butt in the chair" way of management when not working from home, and I can see why managers like the feature.

For any of those suffering under this problem, have a look at caffeine[1], it simulates a keystroke on your laptop every 59 seconds.

1: [https://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/caffeine/](https://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/caffeine/)

<comment><USER47> I prefer Mouse Move. Windows Store so it seems to get around the corporate blockers. [https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/move- mouse/9nq4ql59xlbf?ac...](https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/p/move- mouse/9nq4ql59xlbf?activetab=pivot:overviewtab)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Is anyone aware of any actual research on this issue? If so, what does it say? Do remote workers actually work less? Do intrusive monitoring apps improve productivity or decrease productivity?

I've always had the sense that people who work remote are perfectly capable of being productive without monitoring. In some ways, depending on your personal situation, being at home can be less distracting than being at the office. On any given day, I would bet that most people in an office only put in 3-4 hours of good work (or less). Much of the rest of the time is spent being distracted by office gossip, meetings, coffee breaks, etc. Why should we expect people working from home to put in 8 solid hours of good focused work when we don't demand the same of people in the office?

It would be nice to see some actual data on this problem. I have an instinct that this is a major overreaction by managers and that it will ultimately drive productivity and retention down. However, I'm open to being proved wrong if this is an issue that has been studied in a rigorous fashion.

</comment><comment><USER49> I feel like if you're involved with the development of tools like Time Doctor, you should go fuck yourself. edit: Also deploying such tools.

</comment><comment><USER50> I think a lot of this comes back to laziness and/or lack of critical thought toward measuring efficiency of completing work. It's perfectly normal to want to determine who is most efficient and who is not. Those who are working harder than others should be rewarded and the inverse for those that need to improve. I think the big question is how do you measure output? The wrong way is measuring how often your mouse is moving or tracking how much time you spend on Facebook. Ultimately management should have some way of measuring job efficiency, in a way that is difficult to influence in any other way. Surveillance software is going to give you terrible metrics probably unrelated to output (amongst tons of other bad side effects)

</comment><comment><USER51> MS Teams has a "green check" next to your name if you've touched your keyboard or mouse in the last five minutes and automatically sets your status to "away" if you haven't done so. I've had people at work use this to try and figure out if I'm working or not. It is a violating feeling, but also very similar to the "is your butt in the chair" way of management when not working from home, and I can see why managers like the feature.

For any of those suffering under this problem, have a look at caffeine[1], it simulates a keystroke on your laptop every 59 seconds.

1: [https://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/caffeine/](https://www.zhornsoftware.co.uk/caffeine/)

</comment><comment><USER52> Would you be okay with tracking software if it was installed on a work provided computer?

<comment><USER8> Why would mandatory malware ever be okay under any circumstance?

<comment><USER53> Tracking software is not malware. I totally oppose the use of tracking software, but they are not the same.

<comment><USER8> The only difference is a clause in the contract saying the employee agrees to use the software.

<comment><USER53> Definition of malware: software that is specifically designed to disrupt, damage, or gain unauthorized access to a computer system.

You could argue that tracking software is "disruptive" but more so to the user, not the system itself. you're conflating your dislike for both tracking software and malware as the same. Again, I'm not defending tracking software, just disagreeing with your false equivalency.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> If you need to rely on this sort of technology to feel confident your team is being productive and meeting their goals, you're not doing a very good job managing your team and/or you're simply not a great manager. Full stop.

</comment><comment><USER55> Sounds like a business opportunity.

How hard would it be to get your phone to transmit gps coordinates you choose, not where you actually are?

How hard would it be to override what tattleware sends your boss with what you want it to send?

</comment><comment><USER56> This is a surefire way of making everyone employed at these businesses miserable. No one likes someone looking over their shoulder, especially for the entire working week. These companies are going to lose interest from their talent most likely. I feel for anyone working in these circumstances. I expect it will be extremely demotivating also.

</comment><comment><USER20> There's no way decent companies are doing this. Any company that does this probably also has skeleton budgets with underpaid staff.

I just can't fathom it.

<comment><USER57> I don't think decency has anything to do with it. Profits are king that everyone bows to. I can see a management meeting where inevitably someone throws the idea of webcam surveillance into the rink. After all it is simple to understand, it "makes sense", (micro)managers will really enjoy it. So it will pass with flying colors.

And as they say, the rest is history. Good workers will eventually leave. Some will adapt. Software and hacks will appear that can trick key presses and mouse clicks. Eveyone will become 9 to 5 no matter what.

I see some examples brought up where developers are not putting up with it - that is correct. For developers, typing <> productivity, so that will not stick. But there are other occupations around - admin work, marketing, data entry, HR, etc... Productivity in those occupations will dip, some people will leave, but in larger scope work will continue. Companies will compensate by hiring more people, it won't be visible on a balance sheet as "survelliance tax" because no one is tracking. And the world will go on. Worse off than before, unfortunately.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> activity != accomplishment

We always knew that's bad bosses never understood this.

It's just sad to see that now there's a market for it.

</comment><comment><USER58> It sure would be fun to write software which pretends to be working and boosts people's 'productivity scores'.

Some days I think I missed out by not taking a job I could have gotten a computer to automate, and spending all my time doing interesting coding projects.

</comment><comment><USER59> Counterpoint: Is it really fair to say this is "more surveillance"? Requiring employees to be on site where there is a manager present is a form of intrusive surveillance. Wouldn't this kind of monitoring simply be an effort to retain existing dynamics.

</comment><comment><USER60> can I figure out if my company is doing this? will Interguard show up in Task Manager somehow?

</comment><comment><USER61> Work surveillance leads to employees who feel disrespected. Employees who feel disrespected don't go that extra mile when it really counts.

A better approach would be to trust the employees (hand-picked by the company), and set measurable performance expectations.

</comment><comment><USER62> I wish the employees of that fucked up company would band together and tell the management to sod off. If everyone done that the company could do nothing short of committing business suicide. Unfortunately this is extremely unlikely to happen.

</comment><comment><USER63> Another concrete example against our "tech will solve everything" tendencies.

</comment><comment><USER64> It doesn't lead to it, the capabilities to do so were already there, it's just being activated more.

</comment><comment><USER65> i'm a manager of individual contributors. If I'm not aware of this being used at my company, is it likely a good indication that it's not?

Are there examples of this surveillance only being conusmed at higher levels in the management structure

</comment><comment><USER66> Are the employees using their personal computers/phones for work stuff?

</comment><comment><USER67> Doubts about the efficiency of such ideas, calling managers incompetent and general handwringing will not work. The data, the tech is here. The only thing that will prevent your most horrific workplace dystopia is regulation.

</comment><comment><USER68> just watch this video when you think you're being surveiled >> [https://youtu.be/7YvAYIJSSZY](https://youtu.be/7YvAYIJSSZY)

</comment><comment><USER69> That's a dramatic exaggeration...companies you describe exist everywhere and it's up to the individuals to change if they don't like it.

<comment><USER70> Victim blaming like this breeds radicalization. Need I say more?

<comment><USER69> Depends, could you elaborate on what you did say because I don't follow. Thanks!

<comment><USER70> As avicebron said, when a person has had enough of being stomped on they will snap. Most won't drive a truck through a crowd of people, or blow up buildings, but a few will weld themselves into bulldozers* and level buildings, or shoot up schools, or rob banks, or drive through crowds of people. The action doesn't really matter. Destroy every gun in existence? We'll see more knifings and vehicular homicides.

Unless everyone is locked into a cage like a rat in a straight jacket people will find ways to maliciously hurt themselves and others when they've been pushed too far. Many self deluded and extremely privileged people decline responsibility for these extreme behaviors, yet, in reality, we are all culpable in the actions of the worst of us. It is everyone's responsibility to arrest the decline of someone nearing the breaking point. Once a person is closeto snapping they are no longer capable of rational thought, let alone digging themselves out of a hole that they are not fully responsible for digging. If we are to dismiss responsibility for these people that have been pushed too far then we only create a habitat for more of these desperate and sad souls to develop in.

* [https://youtu.be/qlZh9-NQEyI](https://youtu.be/qlZh9-NQEyI)

<comment><USER69> Do you feel personally responsible for the actions of other people who have "snapped"?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Counterthought: anyone who would knowingly and willingly install spyware on their personal computer deserves to lose their privacy.

<comment><USER15> No they don't. They have two choices; quit or be fired. Personally, I would quit, but I've got that type of personality. Others can't just up and quit so they comply.

<comment><USER69> "Others can't just up and quit so they comply."

Who are these others? Are you suggesting they do not have the ability to decide if they want to continue working?

<comment><USER15> I'm sorry, but do I really have to answer these questions? How is it people still don't understand there's a huge segment of the working population who just can't up and quit a job?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Everyone has a choice: yes or no.

Consequences may vary, but then again, no-one is owed anything legally, morally, or otherwise so to act as though every individual does not have or exercise their own self-agency is disingenuous.

<comment><USER16> I strongly disagree. There are certain human rights that it is immoral and illegal to contract away. The common example is that selling yourself into slavery is illegal even though people have self-agency. Over time we have decided on others so for example it is illegal to take a job that disallows bathroom breaks or violates certain safety standards. It's also not legal as far as I know to take jobs with certain consequences for quitting, like "we break into your house and kill your family". Although, "we will ensure your family starves" may be an unwritten one.

Also, it is disingenuous at least to say every has their own "self-agency", but "Consequences may vary." I would agree it's a sliding scale because people's chioces imply different levels of consequences for losing one's job (for example if you bought an expensive mortgage versus not). But morally, and legally as well, we certainly owe people the ability to make actually free choices without metaphorical guns to their heads.

<comment><USER69> Thanks for strongly (and respectfully) disagreeing out loud instead of being one who just downvotes without the courage to provide an alternate view/retort!

<comment><USER71> > just downvotes without the courage to provide an alternate view/retort

It's not about courage. It's usually that someone else has already provided the same alternate view/retort, so there's no sense in starting a new comment branch.

<comment><USER69> you show great courage stronglikedan!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> As a prelude to what i'll type below I hate these things. They are not useful and I believe they are detrimental to employee productivity through the "panopticon" idea of management.

There's no need in my eyes for regulating this or getting in quarrel over workers rights. You, the employee, sign a contract with the employer to perform some work for some compensation. If the employer wishes to run this type of strategy on their own hardware I do not see a problem with this. You can, and should, find a job that respects you as a worker. What we are seeing here is the MBA-style spreadsheet management turned into software.

This "panopticon" management increases turnover rate and decreases productivity. I have personally seen it. I worked IT in a company that had this software (I was a low level sysadmin and had no control). People would spend an inordinate amount of time finding ways to hide their activity instead of just quickly doing what they had to do and moving on. The solution isn't to complain, or call for regulation, but rather just leave your job. If the software isn't being installed on your computer then the company is completely okay to do this, no matter how damaging it is to their bottom line through subsequent lost activity.

<comment><USER73> There's a lot to say for this. One management proposes something as ridiculous as this, there's really know way to restore the relationship. If I have to live on beans and rice instead, I will.

</comment></comment><comment><USER74> But my lord, is that _legal?_

</comment><comment><USER75> If a company can have most, if not all, of its software engineering workforce WFH, why would they hire in US or Europe for those/similar roles?

<comment><USER76> Timing, for one thing. For example, we have two sites in India; one of them works on Eastern time, the other on Indian time. The one that works Eastern time is a lot easier to deal with, as they are active when the rest of the US- based company is active. However, that means the Indian-based team is working nights, which makes it harder to retain good engineers.

The team that works on Indian time has good engineers, but with little overlap to the US-based management structure (and US-based engineers), there are sometimes significant delays in getting everyone on the same page.

That's one example, but there are others, such as cultural (i.e. expectations for US-based management may not be the same as non-US-based engineers) and "optics" (US-based customers like it better when US-based companies use US- based employees)

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> My mother-in-law is trying to teach driver's ed over Zoom. It's a horrible clusterfuck, because they are trying to force everyone to keep their webcam on at all times as a means of tracking attendance. The first session was 75% her shrieking at kids because their internet connections were dropping out or Zoom was glitching and the video feeds froze. Not to mention that Zoom can only show a 5x5 grid at a time, and some of the classes had 27 or 30-something kids in it.

It's not easy for normies to deal with video-conferencing... Take your normal enterprise conference call bingo card, and put it on turbo.

<comment><USER78> Yesterday, one of my kids was in group class on Zoom. The instructor kept yelling about the kids being quiet. So my wife reached over and muted the microphone. The instructor unmuted it and proceeded to continue yelling about being quiet.

<comment><USER73> That's great (and would make a good YouTube video).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> It's up to individuals as employees to decide if they want to subject themselves to this (agreed repulsive) treatment...what's with all these comments and sentiment in this thread acting like they have a gun to their head?

JUST QUIT already if uncomfortable with whatever a given job entails should that include perceived invasive measures ie - surveillance.

<comment><USER79> "JUST QUIT" makes it sound like quitting is an easy thing to do. "like they have a gun to their head" makes it sound like direct physical threat is the only mechanism of coercion that exists. These things are just not true.

For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive.

This is especially true during a pandemic that's causing more people to be unemployed.

<comment><USER69> "For a lot of people, who have more expenses than savings and are not in highly demanded jobs, quitting puts them at great risk. They have a metaphorical gun to their heads. They might not die the moment they quit, but by quitting they are endangering themselves and those that depend on them. Their relationship with employment is inherently coercive."

With all of that said: whose responsibility is it to avoid this type of situation? Is it anyone (or anything) but the individual them-self?

And should one unfortunately find themselves in this situation described above, whose responsibility is it to figure out a solution? Is it their friends and family who is responsible? Their neighbors? The government? Are you responsible?

<comment><USER80> I would argue it is the government's job to not allow businesses to impose dehumanizing conditions on workers due to the extreme imbalance of power.

It's probably not a risk for most of the HN users. Most of us are in high demand jobs, and we would simply refuse to work for a company that uses this kind of spyware. A lot of people don't have that option, because there isn't as much demand for their jobs.

Should we really be given that extra privilege simply because what we chose or wanted or had the ability to do is in higher demand? I would say no, it should be a fundamental right of workers in general. It's not as if there is some drastic harm that not installing spyware would impose. If your best means of measuring worker productivity is this junk, you're not going to last as a business anyways.

<comment><USER69> "Should we really be given that extra privilege simply because what we chose or wanted or had the ability to do is in higher demand?"

So you think you are privileged because you exercised your option to decide and do what's best for you? Or because you have the demonstrable ability to make it happen - ie - learn a thing that is in demand? Is it a privilege of the ability to act in your own self-interest?

Stepping back, maybe it's because you have acquired cognitive skills that others have not that you are privileged? The mere ability to think for yourself, that's a privilege too, then? What about changing your mind, increasing your understanding of, evolving a thought...all privileges, yeah?

Perhaps somewhere along the line you have made a decision that was hard and required risk and sacrifice but that contributed to who you are and where you are today, was that pain and suffering part of the privilege? What about losing someone or something you love, because surely it's a privilege to experience love in the first place, no?

Is anything that makes us different and unique from one-another _not_ a privilege by extension? Has the word privilege been used and abused to the degree that it means absolutely nothing anymore?

What about being alive...is that like, the ultimate privilege? So when all are privileged, are any, really?

<comment><USER79> > When all are privileged, are any, really?

That's like saying "when everybody has money, does anyone have money?". People have varying amounts (and kinds) of privilege, but some have more than others.

<comment><USER69> ...and who has the privilege of judging others privilege?

<comment><USER81> And you really think this is an honest argumentation?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Things that won't make it into Perl 6.christmas - <AUTHOR> https://gist.github.com/jnthn/040f4502899d39b2cbb4 <comment><USER2> * Low use of taint mode in perl5?

* no use oo :closed :final and not even having tried to understand the performance advantages? There is a known performance advantage of compile-time dispatch over run-time dispatch. People may remember O(1) vs O(n).

<comment><USER3> I think it's the right choice to focus on features that affect what you can accomplish and not how quickly you can accomplish it for the initial production release.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> What would an int1 even look like? Just a sign bit and no magnitude at all?

<comment><USER3> While I suspect it's just for uniformity, that might actually be interesting to play with and see if you can find a use for.</comment></comment>


Q&A: Tenzing Norgay's Son on Sherpas and Risk - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/04/21/qa-tenzing-norgay-son-on-sherpas-and-risk/ <comment><AUTHOR> _«The Sherpas fix the lines and ropes; set up the tents; carry all the gear, the oxygen, the personal items, the food, the sleeping bags. They set everything up. When a client walks with the Sherpa later, everything has already been laid out: the tents are up, the food is made for them. They don't have to do anything but walk.»_

Tenzin is the son of the Sherpa that was on the first expedition on Everest.</comment>


The desks of 37signals - <AUTHOR> http://37signals.com/svn/posts/3120-all-hands-battlestations <comment><USER3> I hope everyone is catching on to what 37signals is doing: building significant brand awareness before the launch of a new product. Notice that they've been posting more frequently, with varying content (and of course a bit of Basecamp Next peppered in). Really subtle, but it puts them in the minds of a lot of people.

<comment><USER4> Yep... Having never been a fan of their work myself, I do not check anymore their posts on HN. Still I enjoy reading some of the comments associated with the post, it can be enlightening.

To add to your point, being a (self proclaimed) nerd and not a geek: I don't care about new technologies, I do not own a smartphone, hell, I don't have anymore Facebook or Twitter, I found what's posted on 37signals very boring and devoid of interesting information. I am, however, surprised by the huge number of people that upvote these kind of posts.

To answer the article without really reading it, and again it's because of my nerdy side I don't care on what I am working as long as I have a desk, an OK mouse, an OK screen, and OK keyboard, that's it, I am happy.

<comment><USER5>
      > I don't care on what I am working as long as I have a desk,
      > an OK mouse, an OK screen, and OK keyboard, that's it, I am
      > happy.

I think with attitude like this it is very difficult to build a GOOD product. "Meh" most likely. But other nerds may consider it to be OK though. OTOH, I don't think that being nerdy should necesarry mean "not caring how good something is".

<comment><USER4> I tend to disagree: from what I have seen having a lot of "pluses" is more a distraction from actual thinking that a plus in terms of productivity. Same goes with a lot of things in life, the amount you invest (in time/ money) for the extra luxury generally outweighs the benefits of a simple and effective solution.

Also I can't really see the correlation between building a good product and a desk or its organization. What build a good product is a good team, a good organization, good and proven tools. It reminds of a story with a friend, this guy was quite rich and was trying to learn guitar, so when he started he bought a $3000+ guitar (Martin D20 or something approaching), but given his skills a 1000 or even $500 dollars guitar could have suited his needs for the next 5 years. He didn't play better than somebody else with better tools, maybe worse because of the complexity of repairing the guitar. What drives the product is the skill of the programmer, the tools are secondary.

But I might be wrong!

<comment><USER6> The difference between your friends guitar story and most of HNs computer usage is that your friend was just trying to learn guitar while most HNers use a computer as a job. I think you would agree that someone whose job it is to play guitar should probably spend (money doesn't equal quality, but just using it as a point) whatever they think is necessary to have the best guitar for them.

When it comes to using a computer all day, every day, having great (not just okay) input devices, and great (not just okay) monitors not only can make you more productive, but also save your eyes and prevent RSI. Desks also fall into this category of saving your actual health.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Having spent many hours of my youth on technology forums, I feel I am qualified to say: this is the most banal "show your setup" post, ever.

Save Noah, it's just an Apple Store. Sam's apartment/house looks great, though.

<comment><USER8> I think that's part of the statement. It's riffing on the "show your setup" post, but instead of focusing on the gear (something 37S have eschewed for a long time) they're focusing on the environment, and, by extension, the people. All the signaling is about peacefulness and happiness: look at my dog, look at my kids, look at my lovely pitcher of water.

It's effective in my opinion for a few reasons. One, it's personal/voyeuristic, which will make at least some people interested and also, if you have a positive response, connected to the fact that there are real people working on the big product they're about to launch. Making a company feel human and intimate is an important branding goal these days, and something they talk about a lot.

Second, as someone else mentioned, it emphasizes their "work-from-home" message. When I look at those desks, I see comfort. Every day is like staying home from work. Gee, it sure must be nice to work like that!

There's even a subtle power/wealth signal, I would argue, in DHH's setup and the fresh flowers on all the office desks.

<comment><USER9> I got the idea for having a small bunch of fresh flowers on everyones office desk from the restaurant world.

I always like sitting down to a table at a restaurant that has a small simple arrangement of fresh flowers. It's a great detail and it brings color and life to your immediate surroundings. Plus, nature is the greatest designer so there's no better influence.

We have the flowers switched out weekly. They're different each week and each desk has a different arrangement. We also have weekly arrangements in the kitchen, the lounge area, and in the front entrance.

For those in Chicago, I highly recommend the good people at <http://asraigarden.com> for this service. They take great care of us.

<comment><USER10> We also do this, but instead of flowers, we chose plants. Being a bit of a nature-geek myself, my desk is particularly green, but everyone who wants, has at least one desk-plant in our office:

<http://wybowiersma.net/pub/academia-desk.jpg>

We also have some plants that don't fit on desks, like this - name says it all - elephant-ear plant:

<http://wybowiersma.net/pub/academia-plant.jpg>

We (<http://Academia.edu>) got them all from the plant-warehouse in downtown SF:

<http://www.yelp.com/biz/plant-warehouse-san-francisco>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Is it just me, but despite all nice things 37signals are doing I find them arrogant and feel like they exaggerating more than they actually doing.

<comment><USER12> I completely agree, for me they are the ultimate embodiment of the hipster/brogrammer/ninja/guru culture that has become something of a running joke in the industry (at least in my little corner of it).

<comment><USER13> 37signals is the most smug and obnoxious company ever. I'm so sick of them. On their desks, where's the empty wine glass that they use to smell their own farts? Thaaaanks!

<comment><USER9> I never thought about using a wine glass for that. Great idea.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What I noticed was that only two or three of them use desktop computers - <USER2> rest are on laptops with external displays.

No laptop on the market today has enough storage capacity or RAM (save for the MBPs that can take 16GB I suppose) to be my only computer. I do a mix of iOS and web and systems development - not too different of a workload from these guys, I'm sure. I've also noticed laptops slow down a fair bit when you plug in an external display and make the GPU work overtime pushing all those pixels. So, what gives? Have these guys just never _tried_ working on a maxed- out desktop machine so they don't know how good it is, and they just assume that waiting around for your computer to do stuff is normal and acceptable?

Another nail in the coffin, I suppose...

<comment><USER15> The experience I've been reading is the opposite: that folks can do web development in a Macbook Air and love it. What do you use 16 GB of RAM for?

<comment><USER14> I'm always running Redis and Mongo and Memcache and Postgres and Xcode and the iOS simulator and Mail and Skype and etc...

Local server stack + dev tools + collaboration tools, essentially.

SSD helps, as swapping fast is better than swapping slow, but best is not swapping at all.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I've always found working from a laptop to feel very cramped, I find it so much easier to work with more space, is there an unknown advantage to using a smaller display or is it just personal preference? (My setup: <http://i.imgur.com/uKpyV.jpg>)

<comment><USER17> I would bet that most developers who use laptops as their primary development box sometimes tether to a large screen - that is what I do in my home office. I often work in other places around the house, rather than my office, but then I tend to do tasks that don't require a large monitor.

Having your whole working life on a single laptop (with multiple types of backups) is a real convenience and time saver.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Why does 37signals show up at the top of HN everyday, no matter what they blog about?

<comment><USER19> Because people up-vote the submissions.

<comment><USER20> I suspect cromwellian's underlying question is: _why do so many people on HN upvote a post with nothing more than pictures of some people's desks?_

<comment><USER9> Because people like looking at other people's desks/setups? It's not much deeper than that.

<comment><USER12> Well if that's the case, can I have photos of my desk on the front page of HN also? I've got two monitors and phone and everything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> dhh, do you _really_ work that way or did you clean your desk off before that picture was taken?

If so, I salute you. I'm still 14 purges away from that level of minimalism.

</comment><comment><USER22> I dig the vertical monitor. Using one of those as a second screen plus switching to xmonad has been the most positive change I've made to my own working environment in the last year. Code, websites, anything text oriented - shorter lines are easier to read and comprehend

<comment><USER23> How does a vertical monitor work with sub pixel rendering? <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpixel_rendering> . Does linux do sub-pixel rendering? Does OS X turn it off when a monitor is rotated to vertical?

<comment><USER24> Also I would recommend going for an IPS monitor if you want to use it vertically, as it has a much wider viewing angle compared to TN monitors.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> I wonder how many people scrolled impatiently just to see dhh's desk.

<comment><USER26> Guilty.

Interesting to see so many people working remotely.

<comment><USER27> "... so many people working remotely."

I think that's the subtle point of the post. A huge part of their world view is "work where you want, when you want". And of course, they just happen to sell tools that help people work remotely from wherever and whenever. I applaud how much the Signals practice what they preach.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't really see the problem with "show your setup" posts. I like looking at great designed workspaces. Inspirational, at least for me.

What I just do not get is how they all can only work with a laptop, sometimes an Air. I think the screen space would be to limiting for me to stay productive.

Favorite: Sam's desk. Clean, minimalistic, lots of light,...

</comment><comment><USER29> For me there is way too much light/sunshine there to make a comfortable work environment. I like to be in a reasonably dim (not pitch black) spot so the contrast from my screen is comfortable to look at. At least pull the blinds down.

</comment><comment><USER30> Not sure where David works from but the view outside that window is grand.

<comment><USER31> According to his twitter feed, that's Spain.

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> I think the one major thing that sticks out in these photos is that all these people work from home or some other remote location. Everyone's work space has a relaxed and zen-like feeling to it.

<comment><USER9> 13 people work in the Chicago office. ~20 people work out of their homes in other locations. Although, some Chicago people work from home a few days a week, too.

<comment><USER33> Our Chicago JV partner says your office is "right around the corner" from their office at 1000 W Monroe St. So, having used Rails since 0.7, and being a fan of 37Singals work, I naturally got kind of excited at the prospect of stopping by. Is the 37Signals open to visitors (even with no specific purpose)? Just curious :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> While coding I need only two things to be perfect - a)My laptop b)A comfortable desk/chair. Everything else - surroundings, noise etc doesn't matter. I don't even notice these things.

</comment><comment><USER35> I like the stand-up desks. The first time I remember reading about such a thing was Michael Dell having a custom built stand-up desk in the early 1990s. I up vote the expansion of life expectancy.

<comment> mike-cardwell Is there any evidence that using a standing desk increases life expectancy?

I would expect people who use them take health more seriously in other aspects of their life as well thus increasing their life expectancy anyway...

<comment><USER35> The evidence is that sitting down for hours per day is extraordinarily destructive to various aspects of your body, including your metabolism, circulation, oxygen distribution, and that it increases the risk of diabetes (and cancer due to consequence of fat gain from a slower metabolism). I believe (per what I've read on the subject) that it also significantly increases the risk of heart attack and stroke due to a collapse in normal / healthy function of the cardiovascular system.

The data on it is rather common these days, a quick google will turn up several high profile write-ups from sources such as the NY Times.

And if we're just talking logical extrapolation - it makes sense that humans wouldn't benefit from sitting down all day, as it wasn't common to our evolution / how our bodies are designed to work. Caveman Joe didn't sit on his rock for 12 hours typing.

<comment><USER20> Correct, but the evidence does not indicate that _standing_ for hours a day is any better for overall health than _sitting_. What I really want is a walk- around desk ... but I'll grant that I might be more likely to move around periodically if I'm already standing.

<comment><USER35> Perhaps, but there are only two possibilities (that I see).

1) Standing is radically more healthy than sitting, or 2) Being upright and walking / moving, is what is radically more healthy than sitting

I think that part of the problem with sitting is the blocking of the circulation system through slightly crimping the arteries in your legs. It strikes me that just standing up alone would relieve a lot of that stress and assist the free flow of blood and oxygen.

So if you want to play it safe, stand up, and move about regularly. If you're standing at your desk, I'd argue it's far more likely you'll move about regularly as you're working on problems throughout the day.

I've read previously that the average American used to walk three to five miles per day a hundred years ago, and that's down to a small fraction of that now.

<comment><USER5>
      > 1) Standing is radically more healthy than sitting

People who spend their days on their feet may not agree with you there. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Varicose_veins>

<comment><USER35> I'd counter argue that the common negative health effects of sitting down far outweigh the common health effects of varicose veins (from that wiki):

"Most varicose veins are relatively benign, but severe varicosities can lead to major complications, due to the poor circulation through the affected limb."

I think the positive evidence for standing versus sitting is overwhelming to put it lightly.

[http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39523298/ns/health- mens_health/t...](http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39523298/ns/health- mens_health/t/why-your-desk-job-slowly-killing-you/)

"This isn't actually a new discovery. In a British study published in 1953, scientists examined two groups of workers: bus drivers and trolley conductors. At first glance, the two occupations appeared to be pretty similar. But while the bus drivers were more likely to sit down for their entire day, the trolley conductors were running up and down the stairs and aisles of the double-decker trolleys. As it turned out, the bus drivers were nearly twice as likely to die of heart disease as the conductors were."

<comment><USER20> Running up and down stairs and aisles all day != standing all day.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


SMU & Google find abundance of geothermal energy in US - <AUTHOR> http://futureoftech.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/10/27/8509629-energy-from-hot-rocks-abounds

<comment><USER2> oh, there's an editorial in nature ([http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/462848a...](http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v462/n7275/full/462848a.html)) about how this could cause earthquakes?

awesome. well, nothing worth doing is risk-free, right?

also I love how when google funds something now, they also do it. it seems that all of the investigators were SMU people but because google.org paid for it, now it was discovered by google as well. ;)

<comment><USER3> 'Fraking' has caused earth quakes in the uk, where they are trying to extract the gas down there. <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydraulic_fracturing>

But that is a slightly different thing to geothermal drilling. You're basically drilling 4km down, and putting a big pipe in. Then you run water through it, which heats the water.

There have been no earth quakes caused in Australian drilling for geo thermal plants to my knowledge.

However, it depends on the technology used. Some of these people are just dumping massive amounts of toxic chemicals and blasting the crap out of the rocks. Obviously this affects the water down there - and is super evil. If you're careful, and with planning I don't see why it wouldn't be possible to do safely and in a non toxic way.

<comment><USER4> > There have been no earth quakes caused in Australian drilling for geo > thermal plants to my knowledge

There was a serious earthquake in Switzerland caused by geothermal plants (not gas extraction). I believe minor ones have also occurred in the US. My understanding is that the risk is very manageable, though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I wonder if something like this could be used to desalinate sea water.

<comment><USER6> Probably, but I imagine there might be a massive build-up of salt, leaving the "mine" unusable after a while.

<comment><USER5> Nah. It was a bad idea from the start. When you inject the water into the well you'll end up with it carrying all sorts of salts it finds down there.</comment></comment></comment>


No, Apple won't be dumping Intel chips for ARM, you crazies - <AUTHOR> http://venturebeat.com/2011/05/06/no-apple-wont-be-dumping-intel-chips-for-arm-in-laptops-you-crazies/

<comment><AUTHOR> Apple clearly has a long term goal that involves moving to their own processors. But the article that claimed it would happen as early as 2013 is ridiculous IMHO.

Apple's goal for the next 5 to 10 years is to move developers to the iOS APIs. Once they do that they can slowly start transitioning to their own processors in the desktop.

But to do it in the next product generation or two would require them creating a virtual environment to support old Mac programs on their processors and I just don't see that happening.

<comment><USER2> I think, that much more important to Apple is to migrate off their antiquated Objective-C.

In the next 5 to 10 years developers will move to new modern and shiny languages and new CPU architecture will not help there.

<comment><AUTHOR> I sincerely doubt this will ever happen. Objective-C never made sense. It was brought over from NeXT and Steve Jobs has shown an absolute dedication to it. So even though no one else was using it Jobs threw all the other Mac tools out and replaced them with Objective-C and XCode (which at the time was Project Builder)

To this day every Mac development tool out there still finds its origins in NeXTstep and Apple's hasn't even hinted at changing that (in fact they've adopted SproutCore in their web projects which is a tool built to emulate the current Mac Desktop development model)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Compare and contrast: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2521802>

Related:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2520685>

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2511721></comment>


Jeff Jarvis on How the iPad Destroys Creativity - <AUTHOR> http://thefastertimes.com/mediaandtech/2010/04/04/the-ipad-an-unhappy-return-to-the-past/

<comment><USER2> It's way too early for this type of hand-wringing. It's not like native apps are fundamentally less capable of UGC than web apps, it's just that the iPad was released, uh, _1 day ago_.

Media companies don't have anything against interactivity, they're just excited about the fact that Apple has had some success creating markets where people actually pay for a la carte content. The true old-world of limited distribution is certainly not going to come out of the app store—Apple is a gatekeeper yes, but they don't have any interest in enforcing an artificial scarcity on behalf of old media.

The hardware limitations are just v1 stuff. Remember when the iPhone launched without an SDK? People were shitting cinderblocks all over the blogosphere, but Apple took its time and came out with a killer product in due course.

I'm all for open platforms, but the way some of this stuff reads it's like Apple already has achieved a monopoly on general purpose computing with the iPad. Yes, it's too bad that Apple couldn't have been a little more open with the iPad, but realistically they are innovating more than anyone else in the market. We should be glad just to have them injecting ideas into the marketplace even if their platform remains fully closed. It's still better than Microsoft buying and killing anyone with a promising idea, or free software's inability to create a compelling end-user experience. When Internet usage starts to approach 50% iPad then maybe we have something to worry about, but for now it's just rabid punditry desperate to cash in on the hype.

</comment><comment><USER3> UGC is overrated. He mentions this in his article: Twitter, e.g., is thinking out loud and not a lot more. Yeah, it's fun, but is it good for you? Sure, why not. Twitter's a conversation at least. But have you ever read a YouTube comment worth reading? And it's damn hard to find a blog, even a really good blog, where the "Comments" h2 tag isn't a sign to gtfo before you remember how stupid other people are.

I think there's a parallel to be drawn between user-generated content like comments* and what the Web has done to the magazine format. Compare say Slate.com with a really good old-media magazine like Harper's or the New Yorker. The former is throwaway, largely vapid, blog-format pageview fodder, terrible podcasts, or dull echo-chamber commentary on the real, long-form kind of reporting and thought perpetrated by the latter. Slate pushes more words than Harper's, it's probably fair to say (and scare-quote) that they "actively engage" more of their "readership" than Harper's, but this is not an unmitigated good. Sometimes it's good to stop and take a breath and think, even if it's just for the 1.5 seconds you lose having to hit the home button before you can switch to your IM client.

This isn't a categorical judgement on "content creation", but it's important to consider what exactly is meant by "content". Jarvis seems to be longing for the brave, relatively new world where you can add your blather to the bottom of the first page (~180 words, skip the rest) of a Time.com article on the Michael Jackson heirs. The iPad is perfectly capable of thoughtful aggregation and creation of content; what it doesn't lend itself to is millennial ADHD "multitasking" and throwaway content. (I think there's a breed of geek that has the idea that the internet really is a lot like the Matrix: you get images and text thrown at you for a while and all of a sudden "I know kung fu". No, you don't, you just wasted hours of your life passing your eyes over disconnected words that you will never remember, synthesize, or regain.)

If you're interested in reading a book or two, thinking about them a while, recording your thoughts, maybe make a drawing or two, a blog post, etc., the iPad is perfectly capable of aiding your schemes. If you absolutely must watch two TMZ video feeds (and firstpost on the comments thread natch) while updating your work/home/secondary work tweetdeck streams and copywriting top- ten lists for your blogs.com subsidiary, yeah, you're going to want something different, but I don't want to be your friend.

*aware of the irony thx

</comment><comment><USER4> Sometimes I feel people writing this type of article decided to see the world through their window and ignore what goes around it.

I get the ways the iPad can be detrimental to software development and the perception of what constitutes legitimate use of a device, just as the iPhone was/is. However, to place it as an anti-creativity agent infiltrating our lives is either disingenious or misinformed.

There's no doubt different interests are at stake here, and that old media is trying desperately to feel in control again. But media consumption is but an use case for this and similar devices. To reduce it to that and ignore the amazing things people have been doing with their post-iPhone mobiles is to dumbly state only the issue of content distribution (written content, mostly) is relevant in this discussion.

Look at Everyday Looper, the many drawing apps, the games. You can argue any way you want about how it isn't an IDEAL situation, but there's vibrance in the community of developers, and a growing number of things users can achieve. I am not a musician, and I have been working beats. My drawing frustrates me a lot, but on my phone I feel free to sketch, and it allows me to spend my time in more creative ways than I would have a couple of years ago. And maybe, just maybe, all that arises from the perceived stability of the platform as opposed to Android (and its many versions): people can target it in code, people can use it and know it will be a thought trampoline, and that different trampolines will come out soon.

We all have our biases, and too easily frame situations as if our version of inside baseball were paramount to the fate of the world. While we do it, people will keep churning great ideas wherever they feel enabled to do so. Apple is kind of like New York, or Berlin, or Paris in that sense: there's much to dislike about it, but it provides enough of a cushion for creatives (including programmers), enough inspiration in the form of the works of others, to help make great things.

</comment><comment><USER5> Anyone else find it interesting that that these days it is Apple vs Google and not Apple vs Microsoft. I almost feel sad for Microsoft :P

</comment><comment><USER6> Giles Bowkett has written an entire blog post rebutting this point: <http://gilesbowkett.blogspot.com/2010/04/ipad.html>

</comment><comment><USER7> > Equally important, it does not include a simple (fucking) USB port

There's probably a name for this error, but it's something like "I'm not thinking of what's behind the scenes, therefore there is nothing behind the scenes".

1 simple (fucking) USB port. A tweak to the case to allow it to be somewhere. Out of the way when you are holding around the edges, but also connected internally to the right places. A tweak to the power supply to provide +5V to guest devices and allow more power when the iPad is being powered (except if it's being powered by weak USB itself). USB host IO controllers internally and kernel modules. USB drivers for common things you want to plug in, and an interface to manage and update them (internationalised). A way around the problem of poor 3rd party drivers crashing your iPad. A user interface to expose the 'safely remove USB device' option. A file manager and file related APIs for apps. A print interface if it is to support printing. Available to any app.

You still wouldn't get, say, a wired LAN controller because there's no interface for working with multiple network cards. You might get a USB TV tuner, but you'd probably struggle with an external monitor driven by the CPU.

I'm guessing what he really wants is just USB mass storage for moving files around - and putting a USB interface but limiting it to do only that is rather clunky. Especially when he could do it wirelessly with the right software (App or Apple tweak).

> See the German WePad, which comes with USB port(s!)

and which doesn't exist and has no price or estimated release date.

<comment><USER8> While the difficulties you outlined in adding a USB port are not completely trivial, they are pretty close when compared with the rest of the technical difficulties and problems overcome in building the iPad at all.

If Apple wanted to, they could produce solutions to all those problems and give it a USB port. Or support Flash. Or whatever.

Where Apple spends its technical talent just reflects what's important to them and how they envision the people using this device.

I don't often agree with Jeff Jarvis, but I do here. The iPad is a device designed for consumers not creators.

<comment><USER6> _I don't often agree with Jeff Jarvis, but I do here. The iPad is a device designed for consumers not creators._

If that were true, why are people getting so excited about the myriad of music/synthesizer/drum machine, sketching, mock-ups, and presentation creation apps that are already available for the iPad?

The consumer-vs-creator thing is bullshit anyway. A tiny percentage of people online are serious creators. Look at sites that have tried video commenting, hardly anyone uses it. The whole Web is really "designed for consumers not creators." The number of people who "give back" is tiny compared to the number of consumers. And so it will go with the iPad, the iPhone, the PC, the Mac, or any other device you make.

<comment><USER9> _The number of people who "give back" is tiny compared to the number of consumers. And so it will go with the iPad, the iPhone, the PC, the Mac, or any other device you make._

Very true. It's much the same as music. The degree of musical talent required to be a professional musician is _widespread_. The bar is really pretty low. Basically, if you can play in rhythm, in tune, in the right key, with a modicum of feeling, you can get paid for playing music. This squares with the distribution of musicians in the pre-phonograph United States. It used to be that almost every household that could afford an instrument had an accomplished musician living there. It's what one had to do to have music at all.

Now look at the situation today. The economic barriers to music production are _low_. The industrial revolution enabled an individual to acquire a real instrument for $20 without even looking too hard (Hohner Harmonica) but today there are millions of devices capable of _studio production_ , advanced digital sound manipulation, and even limited mass production of _product_. Yet not even close to every household has an accomplished musician living there.

Another thing I learned while teaching both music and programming: Those who aren't inclined to learn won't learn very much, no matter how much time and resource you throw at them, but those who really want to learn _can't be stopped_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> He would have convinced me if the iPad didn't include a kick ass web browser :)

</comment><comment><USER11> Disgree that this is inherent to the iPad -- but strongly agree about the first generation of media-outlet-specific apps. Many are "worse than the web" -- less content, idiosyncratic controls, no outlinks, no permalinks for inbound linking, no commenting.

</comment><comment><USER12> These bitter, narrow-minded opinions about the iPad's closed nature are boring to no end.

The closed nature of any machine or videogame console has never affected people from hacking it and developing for it to _make it do what they want_ ; the best example would be vast amount of "homebrew" software available for every damned videogame console from SEGA, Nintendo, Sony and others, that each, with time, has been broken wide open, documented, and made available for developing - and a system just doesn't get more closed than a videogame console.</comment>


Linux kernel initialization, part 9: RCU initialization - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/0xAX/linux-insides/blob/master/Initialization/linux-initialization-9.md

<comment><USER2> It looks like all of the content of that git repo is available in a slightly more readable/navigable format at [http://0xax.gitbooks.io/linux- insides/content/](http://0xax.gitbooks.io/linux-insides/content/)

</comment><comment><USER3> This series is really awesome. Thank you.</comment>


What really happened when Swedes tried six-hour days? - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-38843341 <comment><USER2> > "I really don't think that the six-hour day fits with an entrepreneurial > world, or the start-up world," argues Erik Gatenholm, chief executive of > Gothenburg-based bio-ink company.

> He is candid enough to admit he tested the method on his production staff > after "reading about the trend on Facebook" and musing on whether it could > be an innovative draw for future talent.

> But the firm's experiment was ditched in less than a month, after bad > feedback from employees.

We already have short work weeks. It's called part time. If you don't like the pay, blame reality. This experiment was done with tax money, and my guess is businesses would not voluntarily pay more for less work, without massive subsidy, which would be pro large corporation, and anti small business.</comment>


Introducing the new VoteWithMe - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/ndp-annotations/introducing-votewithme-1db7bb8f22 <comment><USER2>
      we look up the voter data for the people you know

This is illegal in many jurisdictions.

<comment><USER3> Ok. The United States isn't one.</comment></comment>


How virtual pets can help us to take care of our well-being in 2020? - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@dimapyanov/how-virtual-pets-can-help-us-to-take-care-of-our-well-being-in-2020-451e0dac4670 <comment><AUTHOR> I'd like to know what you think about this concept! I'm also looking for a gaming CTO so please don't hesitate to contact me if you're interested to learn more</comment>