Universa tail fund returned 3,600% in March - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-04-08/taleb-advised-universa-tail-risk-fund-returned-3-600-in-march <comment><USER3> The 3600% return in March is sort of misleading.

The returns are on the premium paid for options (or margin), not the notional (which is where fees are paid). That $4bn fund is counting its performance on only $40 million of invested capital (of the $4bn). So they are up 3600% on $40 million.

Universa's model is they take 3.5% of a portfolio value per year and use it to buy puts over the course of a year. So at any time, maybe they have 30-60 basis points of the portfolio in puts. So they are up 3600% on 30 basis points or like 12%.

"Spitznagel included a chart in his letter showing that a portfolio invested 96.7% in the S&P 500 and 3.3% in Universa's fund would have been unscathed in March, a month in which the U.S. equity benchmark fell 12.4%."

"The same portfolio would have produced a compounded return of 11.5% a year since March of 2008 versus 7.9% for the index."

2.6% per annum is a lot of outperformance, albeit not quite as eye popping as 3600%.

<comment><USER4> very misleading and after taxes it is probably less

i would not be surprised if it much worse. if they truly had a good strategy why tell everyone?

<comment><USER5> For more investor funds. Also, his style of investing is supposed to make a killing during times like this- but when you are flat to down a few percent for all the boring years in between black swan events, things don't look great.

There is also ego and prestige, and Taleb seems to desire both to a great degree.

<comment><USER6> The problem is not Taleb's trading method, it would provide a great return if the US had free markets...what the fed is currently doing is more akin to communism, bailing out and buying up all the essential industries.

<comment><USER5> While I agree that the Fed may be overplaying their hand, I disagree that Taleb has an otherwise outperforming strategy. The cost of hedging against black swan events is not zero, and has increased substantially since the financial crisis- at least in part by his own work to increase awareness of them! Volatility used to be greatly underpriced by the market, and while that may still be true, its not nearly true to the extent it was pre-crisis.

<comment><USER7> We are not out of the crisis yet. Taleb has been banging this drum for decades, and profited handsomely in 2008, and IIRC also in 2001 and 1998. His lesson was not appreciated by the industry at large during those decades - <USER2> it is likely that a couple of years after the end of _this_ crisis (whenever _that_ may be, anywhere from a few month to over a decade), hedging black swans will be cheap again.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> A lot of this boils down to having a better understanding of uncertainty and probability, especially in terms of being non-naive when it comes to extreme volatility and risk. If you find ways to bet on this in a rigorous manner, the payoff is disproportionally larger. For the lay investor, the hard part is that this essentially means losing money 95% of the time [in those positions], something most people aren't comfortable with. That and some technical difficulties, like liquidity, etc.

Of course, the bets needs to be sized correctly. This is not something you'd put all your money into, and this is part of the design from the beginning. See Kelly Criterion [https://www.amazon.com/KELLY-CAPITAL-GROWTH-INVESTMENT- CRITE...](https://www.amazon.com/KELLY-CAPITAL-GROWTH-INVESTMENT- CRITERION/dp/9814383139) for how these people think about it in a rigorous way.

For those who are interested to read more on how this is done, have a look at the papers here: [https://www.universa.net/riskmitigation.html](https://www.universa.net/riskmitigation.html)

Spitznagel has also written a book called Dao of Capital which talks about the logic and underlying philosopy of these ideas: [https://www.amazon.com/Dao- Capital-Austrian-Investing-Distor...](https://www.amazon.com/Dao-Capital- Austrian-Investing-Distorted/dp/111834703X)

There's also Dynamic Hedging by Taleb [https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Hedging- Managing-Vanilla-Opti...](https://www.amazon.com/Dynamic-Hedging-Managing- Vanilla-Options-ebook/dp/B000UG9JQA) which talks about these options and their structure in more technical manner, though I haven't read it.

<comment><USER9> You don't even have to be a genius -- everyone expected the market to collapse, ~10 years of a low not-QE-but-definitely-actually-QE federal funds rate means a lot of companies and banks with access to that credit were over extending themselves.

The financial system is cyclical -- funds like Berkshire Hathaway were starting to sit on more and more cash since last year. Even if you did nothing but follow their movements you would have been tipped off to the upcoming downturn. The consensus was that a crash was overdue, the question was just _what_ was going to cause/trigger it.

Also, disregard when pundits, government figures and central bankers say that this crash happened to an economy that was "doing great just a few months ago" \-- it's just like 2008, the problems were there, they were just _uncovered_ by COVID-19. Years of cheap loans, lax regulation, and lack of financial prudence means over-leveraged companies were taking risks they shouldn't have been, and all it took was one or two months of projected lost revenues for liquidity to implode. We're not even talking about restaurants who might run super tight margins here, we're talking about huge banks, institutions and large companies. Take the airlines for example, years of record profit and a clear view of what 9-11/H1N1/Ebola did to travel, yet no rainy day fund.

And the risk COVID-19 caused was absolutely _not_ unknown. We've had SARS, MERS, H1N1, Ebola all come through, businesses have had plenty of chances to consider insuring themselves or making themselves resilient -- there's just less and less incentive to be fiscally responsible with free-flowing credit.

<comment><USER10> As Taleb has said many times: _Don 't tell me your predictions, show me your portfolio._

What did you do with this "obvious" information?

Did you go all in beforehand to make a killing and set yourself up for life? Did you make smaller bets and build an awesome rainy day fund? Did you sit on the sidelines and call the plays afterwards?

<comment><USER11> The beautiful thing about trading is that you're either right or you're wrong. It's unforgiving in a way that punditry isn't. When you trade you have skin in the game, since past failures leave a permanent record on your portfolio, and people quickly learn that overconfidence is a liability.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> This method is highly path dependent and needs low volatility to work. It requires that the market not just fall, but rather fall suddenly. And it req. a vix be around 15 or so. The tail method would have failed from 2000-2008, which was a period of weak stock market returns but no sudden drops like in 2008 or 2020. The tail fund needs a very sudden drop to make those huge returns but also very low volatility proceeding the drop. The market falling 20% over a 1-year period like in 2000,2001, and 2002 would incur both losses for the tail part and losses for the equity part, versus a 20% decline in a month. From 1997-2003 volatility was quite high so the method would have done badly too. It would have done badly from 2003-2008 due to losses from the hedge.

[http://greyenlightenment.com/does-tail-hedging-work-it- depen...](http://greyenlightenment.com/does-tail-hedging-work-it-depends/)

The tail hedge method loses 10% a year from option decay assuming that 1% of the portfolio is invested in such options and the rest in stocks. That is very substantial over the long term if there are no sudden crashes.

If something sounds too good to be true, it probably is.

<comment><USER12> But there are always sudden drops eventually.

Market crashes aren't "if" they're "when"

People made huge money in '08 because they were betting the fail side of the CDOs. Small bleed for years, big win in '08

<comment><USER13> If your burn rate is 10% per year, the "when" is what matters.

<comment><USER12> True, but figuring out how much of your bankroll you need to invest in a fund like this to properly hedge (that's why it's called a hedge fund) against catastrophic loss in your other investment is the balance you need to strike.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> For the people commenting that this wouldn't work over the long run (or the past ~10 years of the bull market), the article says this:

> Spitznagel included a chart in his letter showing that a portfolio invested > 96.7% in the S&P 500 and 3.3% in Universa's fund would have been unscathed > in March, a month in which the U.S. equity benchmark fell 12.4%. The same > portfolio would have produced a compounded return of 11.5% a year since > March of 2008 versus 7.9% for the index.

So, yes this shouldn't be 100% of your portfolio (same with any fund), but a similar strategy _might_ be successful in a small % of your portfolio as a hedge.

<comment><USER15> That's interesting but those endpoints seem cherry-picked given the strategy.

<comment><USER16> Also cherrypicking the fund, it seems. I noted a few days ago a broader view: [https://www.ft.com/content/602c45e1-219c-49b2-ab17-9b47791fd...](https://www.ft.com/content/602c45e1-219c-49b2-ab17-9b47791fd038)

> Such funds on average lost money every year from 2012 to 2019 inclusive, > according to CBOE Eurekahedge's index of tail risk hedge funds. Despite > having three crises to profit from since the start of 2008 — the global > financial crisis, the eurozone debt crisis and the coronavirus crisis — they > are still down by an average of 24 per cent over that period.

<comment><USER17> Yes. One-quarter of 3.3% of your portfolio would lose value during that period. That is the cost of the insurance that paid off when 96.7% of your portfolio would have lost over 12% of its value.

The hedge is not your primary investment. It is an insurance policy. Crashes happen several times over an investor's lifetime.

<comment><USER16> > The hedge is not your primary investment. It is an insurance policy. Crashes > happen several times over an investor's lifetime.

The more frequently they happen, the _less_ valuable such insurance is, especially one that has such ruinously negative returns. (I'm not clear if that's -25% compared to a S&P benchmark or an absolute -25% in a period where the S&P is up like 200%+, but neither way is flattering).

Note, of course, that Taleb makes all of his money from books, and that the funds he actually ran all seem to have closed ignominiously and gone down the memory-hole - despite 'black swans' like 9/11...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> The article buried the news in exchange for a clickbait headline. The real news is this:

> The same portfolio would have produced a compounded return of 11.5% a year > since March of 2008 versus 7.9% for the index.

So IMHO the insurance premium would have been worth it.

If you'd been paying this premium for 11 years and looking at it in late 2019 you might think otherwise. OTOH if you were the kind of person who'd buy this product in the first place, 2019 would _definitely_ be the time you'd be sure to hang on to it!

<comment><USER19> That claim is based on Cherry picked endpoints and probably doesn't include impact if his fees.

<comment><USER18> Quite possible, as that is a common practice.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> Yes, it is possible to set up a fund that is structured to produce strong returns during black-swan events.

But outside of black-swan events, you are going to lose money investing in such a fund. It is more like an insurance policy than a traditional investment.

Traditional investors might hold lots of equities during a bull market and fewer equities during a bear market. A fund like this allows you to maintain a more constant percentage of equities, with the understanding that you're spreading your losses over time, instead of incurring more significant losses during a sharp market downturn.

Similarly, you can make some excellent money in a 3x bear fund if your trades are fortuitously timed, since they aim to give you three times the amount their associated index loses in a day. But it is not a buy-and-hold investment. If you buy and hold, your money will eventually disappear.

<comment><USER21> I think the thesis of this type of trading is that black swan events are underestimated in the market, making far out-of-the-money options (i.e. insurance against unlikely events) sufficiently cheap that you can make money in the long run even if you lose money on 99.9% of days.

<comment><USER22> This is an extension of 'the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain liquid'. You could make money in the long run if you have the funds to get there. If we consider that this and the 2008 crisis were black swan events, then we could expect them to occur perhaps once a decade, which from now could be up to 20 years for the next one. By the end of that 20 year period the amount you have remaining to bet on the black swan event would be severely limited by the preceding 2 decades.

<comment><USER19> If you aren't leveraged, it's trivial to ride out crashes. Why drag your returns down with expensive insurance?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> I'm getting really tired of these funds advertising these single event returns. Looking at their long term performance makes them look mediocre at best. There are seriously countless funds that have been betting on the next big disaster for the past 10 years and have been bleeding money out the nose and then they've made up a tiny fraction of their losses in the past month and are now like "Oh look we were right all along!"

<comment><USER4> agree. these hedge fund managers are just glorified salespeople. even ray dalio.

<comment><USER24> Dalio is a really good salesman though, have to give him credit.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As an NNT fan I knew about Universa long ago, and would have loved to have used it. Sadly however as a lowly "consumer" investor of normal means the minimum investment to gain access to funds of this kind is just astronomical. A serious tail risk hedge of NNT caliber that members of the unwashed like me could use would be a great thing.

And I lack the technical knowledge or patience to manually do all the necessary option trading to build this kind of tail risk hedge.

The Cambria Tail Risk ETF was my next option, and it did give some positive returns over the Coronavirus crash, but sadly nothing like 3600%, so it didn't do all that much good as a hedge. I assume this is because being an ETF it is liquid, and therefore the entire point of buying options _ahead_ of time is defeated.

edit: grammar.

<comment><USER26> Problem with Cambria's ETF is a majority of the fund is in treasuries, so convex exposure to volatility is dampened; the fund doesn't act as insurance.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> Note that they are true hedge fund, that is their job is insurance, not investment per se. That means their clients are likely heavily invested to other means, dedicating small percentage to Universa, which sums up to 0-1% of gain in total while all other assets are losing a lot.

</comment><comment><USER28> I'd really like a better understanding about what these active long volatility funds do. It seems a lot more involved than just buying rolling out of the money puts, which sounds like it would be an expensive/inefficient insurance. Another fund example is Artemis Capital which have a number of papers I've read over the past month. [1]

[1] [https://www.artemiscm.com/welcome#research](https://www.artemiscm.com/welcome#research)

<comment><USER29> Some of the things required to manage a tail risk fund are:

1\. Finding mispriced way-out-of-the-money puts, probably a full-time job in and of itself and requiring savvy, if not also sophisticated, price models

2\. The other half of the strategy is to mitigate the losses on the way OotM puts by simultaneously selling close-to-the-money and in-the-money options. I don't recall the details but Taleb has mentioned this in the past. There's a lot of work in designing, managing and executing those too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Anybody know what the minimum is to invest in this?

I emailed them a few months ago trying to invest, but they ignored me.

I realize it's going to be a large amount, but is it like $1M+, $10M+, $100M+, or something larger?

Also, is there a way to get in, indirectly? For instance, banks will pool smaller investors' money to get them into private equity. Is there a channel like that, to get into Universa?

I imagine I would have made a life-changing amount of money if if I had gotten into this fund when I attempted to. (Although my goal was to hedge, not to make money.)

Stupidly, I also followed the fund managers's advice (in their literature) of "don't try to do this yourself." In fact I could have done well buying put options.

<comment><USER19> Why not just take your money and buy lottery tickets? None of their clients made this return on more than a tiny fraction of their portfolio, and odds are it won't happen again for decades.

<comment><USER30> Please don't talk beyond your expertise.

Making this return on a tiny fraction of your portfolio is exactly what hedging is designed to do. The strategy worked as designed.

Please don't denigrate legitimate investors by equating them to lottery players.

I hesitate to say that much because you don't seem to care about actually understanding what you are talking about, anyway. I feel like I'm just feeding a troll.

<comment><USER19> You know nothing of whether the hedge worked, because you don't know what it's long term cost is outside some cherry picked return claims.

Meanwhile unhedged long term investors will book zero losses simply by not selling, and ultimately regain all and more without paying a hedging tax.

<comment><USER30> > You know nothing of whether the hedge worked, because you don't know what > it's long term cost is outside some cherry picked return claims.

If you've studied the issue, as I have, you'd see that the claims being made, make sense. There isn't reason to question them unless you have some specific evidence to present (which would probably require you to be a client of the fund).

You seem to have an unusual perspective. You are super bullish about the market, to the point that you think this kind of event only happens every few decades and you think long-term investors are guaranteed to make money. Yet you are so anti-hedging that you compare it to a lottery and totally denigrate/downplay it. I don't know where that perspective comes from.

<comment><USER19> The greatest investor of all time, Warren Buffett, has never used hedging. That's proof how unnecessary it is.

In the long run retained earnings drive market valuations higher. I don't know how long this bear market will last, or how long it will be till the next one, but I know remaining fully invested beats market timing by the end every time.

<comment><USER30> You shouldn't try to market time or hedge unless you know when to do it.

I find that I usually don't know when to, so I usually don't want to.

But there are exceptions to that. There are times when market timing and/or hedging make sense if you know enough.

> The greatest investor of all time, Warren Buffett, has never used hedging. > That's proof how unnecessary it is.

I'm not claiming hedging is necessary. I'm claiming hedging can be a rational thing to do. That Buffett doesn't use it, doesn't mean it can't be a rational thing to do. Not everyone has the same knowledge and circumstances as Buffett. Buffett's strategy is undoubtedly not the best strategy for everyone, though it's almost certainly the best strategy for him.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> And what about the other months? From what I understand the strategy bleeds money until an event like this. In such a scenario you cannot really deploy that much capital.

<comment><USER32> This is why people don't understand hedging. Some people will get it but for the majority it will never, ever compute.

<comment><USER31> Not sure what you're referring to. I'm saying a large percentage number in the headline is misleading. It looks cool but the reality of tail hedging is your paying up for insurance premiums.

So this 3600 percent return is based on the premium you paid? The denominator is probably small... On the order of a few million is my guess..

<comment><USER32> Yes. You have to pay for insurance.

And in terms of performance, you could have totally hedged out a portfolio for under 50bps (often well under) pretty much all the way through this market.

Universa did this but in a more sophisticated way...afaik, they created a portfolio where you got paid to hedge.

If this isn't clear: this is the kind of thing that people look back on and can't believe that it occurred. This is CLO manager in 2005 stuff. Literally incomprehensible. All because people cannot resist strategies that show small gains consistently. Retail investors cannot and won't ever understand that you will underperform, that is what a hedge is for, and that is how you reduce risk and end up with returns that crush the market. If you try to chase returns, you will get owned.

<comment><USER33> The idea that you can insure a stock portfolio against market events is bogus on its face, without any fancy math or logical argument. Do I need to even discuss it?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> And how much did they lose shorting the market every month over the past 10 years?

</comment><comment><USER35> I would be interested to see a study of how buying puts on a small percent of your portfolio over time fares over just a 100% index strategy. I have to imagine that the no-insurance strategy fares better over long periods of time since you're taking on greater risk. With puts you're just offloading your tail risk onto someone else willing to take it on. If that were not true it would mean puts are chronically underpriced.

For the average investor with a long investing horizon it does not make sense to reduce your gain just to smooth out your equity curve. But if you are a few years away from retirement, for example, then maybe it makes sense as an alternative to just scaling back on risky assets.

<comment><USER36> Unless you are an institutional investor, Puts are just expensive to have... Imagine you invest 3% of your portfolio in Puts, that money will be lost (probably cutting your 6% S&P500 return in half) only to give you a 500% / 1000% return on those 3%. There generally is a huge Spread (e.g., 10/30/50%) so you are already down the moment you buy the Puts.

The spread increases for "black swans" far out of the money events - so people are pricing the possibility of a crash into the Puts...

I doubt that a lot of people actually make money w/ Puts...

You would have lost your money most of the time for the past 15 yrs or so... May come out "even" if you get "lucky" and the market folds twice in between.

The only exception might be individual titles you believe are overpriced (e.g., 950 USD TSLA...).

Instead of buying Puts prior to retirement, just reduce the exposure. Btw, that is always true: Puts on stock index essentially have the same effect as lowering your equity invest (but you safe money).

Personally I doubt the Joe Doe investor will make any money w/ Puts on indices.

<comment><USER11> I assume that there was a tax advantage at least: hedging (with puts or otherwise) lets you hold your stocks for longer.

<comment><USER36> How is that a tax advantage? If I am not mistaken unless you hold your stocks/ETFs shorter than a year the taxation stays the same.

What is the math behind that? I'm really curious because a 10-50% spread on Put options just makes them pretty unattractive imho and more a "gamble" than a real option (pun intended)

<comment><USER11> Yea as you pointed out the long term capital gains is one area where you might have a tax advantage hedging. Imagine you bought a bunch of stock 11 months ago and you want to capture profits right now, it may be cheaper to buy puts out for 1 month and then sell for as long term capital gains.

Puts are of course only one way to hedge, some people hold cash, buy gold/bonds/natural resources, buy VXX, etc. Also the spread varies a lot, options on SPY tend to have tighter spreads than on a random stock, but I've found that submitting a "reasonable" offer (in the middle of the buy/ask prices, in-line with the black-scholes estimate) usually gets filled within the day.

Just buying a put without owning the underlying is definitely a risky gamble. But if you own 100 shares of the underlying it becomes a hedge since it limits your downside (at the cost of upside). And if you buy the put and sell a call you can limit any gains and losses to within a narrow band: [https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collar.asp](https://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/collar.asp)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Nice! I wonder if they ever had a winning year before.

NOTE! I understand that a Black Swan Fund (a) may have very different goals from an ordinary fund, and (b) might be very successful and only ever have the one winning year.

</comment><comment><USER38> Wow. This is insane. What's the idea behind this? How can this be replicated by individuals on stock brokerages like robinhood,fidelity, etc?

<comment><USER39> From what I have read, Universa's clients are institutional investors and super rich people. Not sure how easy this is to reproduce as a less sophisticated investor.

<comment><USER40> One of my good friends follows a strategy like this by simply buying puts against SPX. He is very bearish on the market in general, and has missed out on a lot of growth in the last decade, but in his case it did "finally pay off" recently.

As with any other strategy, though, it's not really valid to compare just the recent months, you'd have to evaluate his total return over say the last ten years, and I don't know how that stacks up.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Is there a way for a small, non-institutional investor to participate in Universa?

</comment><comment><USER24> They're conveniently not reporting their overall returns which would include all the underperformance from the cost of hedging through a 10 year bull market. There's also no mention of the fees and how much they eat into the returns.

<comment><USER42> Actually they somewhat did: "Spitznagel included a chart in his letter showing that a portfolio invested 96.7% in the S&P 500 and 3.3% in Universa's fund would have been unscathed in March, a month in which the U.S. equity benchmark fell 12.4%. The same portfolio would have produced a compounded return of 11.5% a year since March of 2008 versus 7.9% for the index."

This seems to suggest they needed to include the bad 2008-2009 time to come out looking better than just plain dca etf investing...

<comment><USER4> yeah but you would have a capital gains tax on that option trade

<comment><USER42> Not over here. Belgium is the world taxation champion, but it has no capital gains tax on equities. As you can imagine, accumulating etfs are quite popular here...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> this like saying they bought insurance and the insurance paid out. This is not an investment strategy in of itself.

</comment><comment><USER44> Dude has been talking his book hard for months.

<comment><USER45> As he should - It's invaluable knowledge he's trying to share. * If we're talking about Antifragile. I haven't read the others yet.

<comment><USER44> I agree but I meant [http://www.investorwords.com/8436/talking_my_book.html](http://www.investorwords.com/8436/talking_my_book.html)</comment></comment></comment>


Apple, ARM, and Intel - <AUTHOR> https://stratechery.com/2020/apple-arm-and-intel/?href= <comment><USER2> The most important paragraph in this piece is last one, which plugs a $22.8 billion bill to support domestic semiconductor manufacturing in the USA and suggests the need for new entrants.

Semiconductor manufacturing is truly one of the few remaining manufacturing industries in which the USA has a competitive advantage (albeit quite eroded by TSMC over the past few years).

Especially with US aviation circling the drain, this is an industry we can't afford to lose. Removing semiconductors from US manufacturing statistics makes US manufacturing statistics go from "stagnating" to "extraordinary decline".

And it's not just the manufacturing sector. Semiconductors power some of America's most valuable companies (including but not limited to the FAANGs).

US economic and actual security absolutely depends on a robust supply of world-class semi-conductors manufactured on-shore.

Congress should take the advice in this piece and avoid making the same mistake with Intel that it made with Boeing (piling the bulk of all federal and state support for an entire sector into a single clearly dysfunctional company)

<comment><USER3> US manufacturing has been growing steadily for decades. The US concentrates this in sectors that are high tech, expensive, and profitable. Low margin, low profit manufacturing has been offshored, but manufacturing hasn't been stagnant at all.

As a percentage of GDP, manufacturing has been on a downward trend, but that's because of the growth of service industry.

[https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united- states/manu...](https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united- states/manufacturing-output)

<comment><USER4> Genuinely curious then: where do we actually excel?

The only examples I can think of right now where we are genuinely number one is high priced low volume boutique aerospace (SpaceX and other new space companies, satellites, experimental military aircraft, electric planes, etc.) and of course weapons.

We can manufacture decent cars, but at least half of this is under the direction and management of overseas companies like Toyota and Nissan. US car companies have been on the ropes for decades.

We seem to be losing the bulk of aerospace, generation turbines, electronics, chips, medical devices, power equipment, materials, ... ?

Seeing graphs like this makes me wonder if I am living in the late days of the USSR when I'm sure many optimistic graphs were published by Pravda.

<comment><USER5> What? Turbines? Materials? Only the US and Europe can actually build functional jet engines and most of the bleeding edge materials. Even semi functional jet engines are still a distant dream for China. Same thing goes for chips, where only Taiwan and the US can manufacture current gen nodes. If anything, the US offloaded commodity manufacturing that is easily reproductible to build a very very high moat around key technologies instead of fighting to the bottom for scraps of old industries.

As for medical devices and tech, the US probably creates more new drugs and treatments than the rest of the world combined. when's the last time china, india or russia made a break through in medecine? When's the last time the US did? Last year?

<comment><USER6> > when [was] the last time china, india or russia made a break through in > [medicine]?

2015.

[https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/tu/facts/](https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/medicine/2015/tu/facts/)

(PS. This took less than 30 seconds to find and confirm).

<comment><USER7> The prize was awarded for work done in the 1970s, fwiw.

(PS. This took me most of a minute of reading the link you provided).

<comment><USER6> Sure, any to answer the more general question in the OP:

Russia invented and built and then sold to the USA the RD-180 rocket engines that are used for the first stage of the American Atlas V launch vehicle.

Which the USA will no doubt "reverse engineer" soon :)

The OP needs to get out more often.

<comment><USER7> I feel weird playing the jingoism game, because it doesn't even vaguely reflect my feelings on the subject, but here we go:

SpaceX, a privately-held American company, is the only source of innovation in rocketry at the present time. Their reusable launch platform plays in its own league; everything else is steam power, Falcon is internal combustion.

That's just a fact. Unlike insisting that China, Russia, India are incapable of innovation more generally, which is risible.

My vague impression, in fact, is that jet turbines are quite a bit more difficult to manufacture than rocket engines, even if the latter are thought of as 'higher tech'.

I'm fairly certain we'll discover, in the next ten years, that China is quite capable of making cutting-edge computer chips, and just hadn't gotten around to it yet.

I've never shared my countrymen's obsession with insisting on being 'the greatest'. This country is great in its own right, along many dimensions; it is, in fact, right at the cutting edge for medicine and CPUs; denigrating the work of other nations only detracts from this.

<comment><USER8> > My vague impression, in fact, is that jet turbines are quite a bit more > difficult to manufacture than rocket engines, even if the latter are thought > of as 'higher tech'.

My impression is that "real" rocket engines _include a jet engine just to pump fuel_. They have many other pieces as well.

Not that a modern high-bypass turbofan is simple, but don't discount the complexity of rocket science.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> On a related note, TSMC is based in Taiwan. Ben Thompson (who wrote this article) chose to live there. It's cheap/friendly/modern/safe/connected to all asia/awesome healthcare system/amazing food/surrounded by nature.

Taiwan now puts effort trying to attract new talents. The "gold card visa"[1] is quite easy to get, just earn more than usd5.5k/month at your last/current job, or work in a "trendy" field (AI/big data/energy/biotech...) and you get an "open visa" for 3 years without restrictions for ~300USD. If you're looking for change, I highly recommend her Taiwan! Happy to reply to any questions

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

<comment><USER10> How hard is it to live in Taiwan speaking only English? Is their official language Mandarin or is it some different Chinese dialect? How safe are Taiwan streets?

<comment><USER11> The main problem, when I was there, as with many places throughout Asia, is the poor air quality. You'll definitely notice it, my eyes were burning to get through the adjustment period.

<comment><USER12> Really? I found air quality even within Taipei to be comparable to San Francisco or even better, at least according to my nose, sinuses, and tear ducts.

<comment><USER11> Perhaps you were there during a weather pattern that minimized the effects. Unless you are saying you had a long-term low pollution experience there, which I think is impossible.

<comment><USER12> > Unless you are saying you had a long-term low pollution experience there, > which I think is impossible.

Over a year of anecdotal data using my own senses, which I consider extremely sensitive to allergens.

Maybe some pollution data will indicate otherwise? It's certainly no rural Kansas, and I bet industrial hot spots in Taiwan suffer (like near TPE), but yea I felt great in Taipei. Far better than most Asian cities, perhaps comparable to Tokyo.

<comment><USER11> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Taiwan](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_pollution_in_Taiwan)

> based on reports by the World Health Organization, that the air quality in > Taiwan is generally the worst of all of the Four Asian Tigers, in > particularly drawing attention to the annual mean PM10 level of Taiwan (54 > micrograms per cubic meter). The annual mean PM10 level of the country's > capital Taipei (47.1 micrograms per cubic meter) made the city rank only > 1,089 among 1,600 included cities around the world. Based on 2004 data by > Taiwan's Department of Environmental Protection, the annual mean PM10 level > for Taiwan had, for the last decade, been worse than the European Union > limit value (40 micrograms per cubic meter) every year.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> > Notably, one thing Apple does not need to give up is Windows support: > Windows has run on ARM for the last decade, and I expect Boot Camp to > continue.

I brought up the possibility of Bootcamp supporting ARM Windows on HN yesterday, and others responded with some rightful criticisms.

From mrkstu:

> _The problem is that Apple has moved to a home-grown stack for it graphics > and deprecated OpenGL and moved wholly to Metal. [...] There is no way Apple > would create a Windows driver for that custom silicon—it has always relied > on AMD or Nvidia for those drivers in the past, it has no in house code base > or expertise to write the requisite code in Windows and none of the silicon > has been optimized for it._

And from pavlov:

> _I don 't think there is a standard BIOS for ARM like there is for x86, so > multi-boot would probably require Microsoft to support Macs explicitly in > Windows on ARM._

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23528066](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23528066)

<comment><USER14> The other issue is that Windows for ARM is not a product you can just buy off the shelf right now.

<comment><USER15> i thought the surface pro x runs windows on arm? or do you mean you can't get a copy of the OS without the product?

<comment><USER16> Yep, WoA is only sold preinstalled in devices, you can't buy a copy (but you can install it yourself: [https://github.com/WOA- Project](https://github.com/WOA-Project))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> DC-3 The unseating of x86 as the de facto standard for laptops, workstations, and servers would be a net benefit for both performance and security. Unfortunately, though Apple will likely find very great success with their ARM Macs, it does not necessarily follow that the architecture will gain significant ground outside the Apple-sphere. I would love for my next laptop to be ARM-based, but I can't see Apple happily flogging chips to Dell or Lenovo, and I'm not sure if anyone else's ARM processors are up to the necessary standard.

<comment><USER17> I mean, ARM is 'there' in most cases, the issue tends to be perceived latency of RISC vs CISC CPU's on desktop, not overall performance.

There are decent quality laptops shipping with ARM already, like the Thinkpad Yoga: [https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21050758/lenovo- yoga-5g-sn...](https://www.theverge.com/2020/1/6/21050758/lenovo- yoga-5g-snapdragon-qualcomm-8cx-x55-arm-windows-laptop-ces-2020)

There's also the obvious: Pinebook pro.

<comment><USER18> What do you mean by latency here exactly?

<comment><USER17> I'm not exactly sure what I mean and that's part of the issue, when using an ARM CPU with desktop software which has not been optimised to hide UI "lag" there's something that feels like it just.. lags.

You can feel it on a rpi if you use it for a day, it's not that it's underpowered, you can grab a 15yo celeron that is much slower and single core and it will have less perceptable latency. The Celeron will "feel" as if it's working, the ARM chip will "feel" as if it's laggy.

I can't quantify this behaviour, but it's consistent across all ARM CPU's I've ever used with traditional desktop software.

Notably these issues don't seem to exist on Android or iOS, someone once told me this is due to the UI elements having a higher priority than anything else on the system.

<comment><USER19> If your experience with "desktop UI on ARM" is based on the RPi and other ARM SBCs, the overwhelmingly likely explanation for this perceived lag is lacking I/O performance. Running a Raspberry Pi (or any system) from any cheap flash storage setup like SD cards or cheap eMMCs degrades desktop responsivity a lot. The ARM desktop hardware most of us have experience with has significant I/O problems, but that's due to them being cheap hardware, and not due to ARM.

I/O is actually the real prevalent bottleneck for desktop interactivity on all modern hardware. Even older x86 systems with spinning platter hard drives are set up for a more responsive desktop experience due to the I/O performance being suited for the desktop. Modern Android phones and iPhones also have much better I/O setups for interactive use (UFS for high end Android, Apple actually uses NVME because responsiveness is so crucial) .

Certainly CISC vs RISC has nothing to do with it as that discussion really has no bearing on the situation anymore on discussions about modern ARM and Intel (see my other post).

<comment><USER20> > Running a Raspberry Pi (or any system) from any cheap flash storage setup > like SD cards or cheap eMMCs degrades desktop responsivity a lot.

Not really, if the system has enough free RAM to use as disk cache. For many scenarios, that suffices to run quite acceptably.

<comment><USER19> RAM as disk cache is only useful for things you have already loaded. It doesn't help your boot times, new program launches, or loading new content in your program.

I'm not saying SBCs are "unusable" for desktop use cases, I'm saying I/O is the likely explanation for desktop responsiveness issues they encounter on SBCs.

<comment><USER17> Nobody here is talking about boot times, I was talking about responsiveness.. it's easy to test your theory, you can boot USB on the new RPI, and USB3.0 has quite a high bandwidth, definitely comparable to SATA2, nearly SATA3

<comment><USER19> There's a good reason that they're making it more possible to boot a Raspberry Pi from USB. It's more reliable storage and has better performance for many use cases :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> > It is not out of the question that Apple, within a year or two, has by far > the best performing laptops and desktop computers on the market, just as > they do in mobile.

This quote from the article is the big takeaway. Apple isn't going to make a lateral move here. A processor transition that nets Apple merely _comparable_ performance would destroy the Mac brand. Apple needs a CPU that runs native code significantly faster than Intel on every device and it needs to be able to emulate Intel chips at reasonable speeds.

I suspect Apple knows this and that their chips are going to hit the mark. But we'll see.

<comment><USER22> My money is not only on the performance, but also an adjustable thermal envelope, which means perhaps even 5 times the battery life of normal windows laptops.

<comment><USER23> With some Ryzen Renoir machines hitting 9-10hs of battery (when paired with a decent 80+ watt-hour battery, that is), would you expect a mac hitting 50hs of battery life?

I mean I could see that happening when pairing a current A13 with a much bigger battery like a notebook has, but as others have said, the performance will have to be superb, so maybe we'll be seeing half the power efficiency? Were you thinkg 50+ hours or more in the lines of 20+ hours?

<comment><USER24> Considering a laptop can be at most 100Wh for US air travel - I doubt you'll see 50 hours anytime soon. That would mean the display is drawing less than 2 watts of energy while the rest of the system is near 0. Typical displays apparently use 2 watts - [https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-low- power-disp...](https://www.digitaltrends.com/computing/intel-low-power- display-technology/) If Intel released a 1-watt display then we might see the 50-hour level reached but that's going to only be on really light workloads. (Light text editing? Playing back a special low-power-codec video?)

<comment><USER23> Right on point with your considerations, both on maximum battery capacity and the display being a large factor un notebook battery life. Battery capacity can't be expanded, since it's regulation and we're tied to it. Don't really know what drives display power consumption and how it could be improved to get better battery life.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> It all makes sense on paper but I'm still skeptical.

For the last couple of years every time Apple has tried to do some acrobatics on the Mac platform it has failed miserably.

\- Yosemite

\- Butterfly keyboard

\- Touchbar

\- Catalina

I'm not much of a CPU guru but a switch to ARM seems like the most ambitious and risky of all these, by far.

<comment><USER26> You're forgetting the most underrated piece of hardware to come from Apple in the last couple of years, the 12" MacBook. The weight to capability ratio of that machine is off the charts and it's the perfect encapsulation of what a portable Mac should be.

<comment><USER13> I'm glad you like that machine, but I would not put it in the success camp. It was the start of the butterfly keyboard, and Apple ended up discontinuing it after just a few years.

<comment><USER27> It's not really correct to say they discontinued it. They basically just started selling it under the MacBook Air brand.

<comment><USER13> The new Macbook Air is a very different computer. Much larger and thicker, even compared to the 11" Air that was discontinued.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> I don't really understand the positive opinion around this. Isn't the break from the Windows and Linux default architecture and thus software too high here? Like in gaming - are Apple users really okay with not having access to a single Steam game?

Okay, the ones using this only for ~~work~~ office work, the browser and Netflix won't mind, but for the rest this presents a huge separation from what is available elsewhere. I must miss something.

<comment><USER29> Very few people use Macs for gaming, and many of those that do probably just play Apple Arcade games (which I'm sure will have a smooth upgrade path). And most of the games people play that _are_ on Steam are (these days) built with either Unity or Unreal, which will no doubt have 1-click-rebuilds for the new architecture. In Unity your game logic doesn't even need to compile to native code.

Even beyond games, the thing is that nearly every development platform these days is an abstraction above the hardware - be it the JVM, the web browser, etc - and the rest (of the new ones coming out) are built to be cross-platform from the get go. Just look at how smoothly Rust/Cargo can target different architectures. I'm sure the same is true for Go.

<comment><USER30> Just giving you some data points, there are many people that play older games on their laptops, one such community is the Sims3 players, they got screwed when 32 bits support was dropped, some still hope EA will make a 64 bit soon (IMO it makes no sense for the devs to do the work for free for this old game).

So the people the play games on Mac are not the same group that play latest AAA shooters or arcade games, they are people that play some casual games or retro games on their laptops so no "hardcore gamers"

<comment><USER29> The story is admittedly different when we're talking about legacy games that are no longer supported. Even if pushing the button is easy, if there's nobody there to do it, that doesn't help.

But the good news it that game life cycles have gotten much longer; where in the past a game was seen as a fire-and-forget project, these days a game may get active updates for five or more years after launch. And not just AAA, but indies too.

<comment><USER30> Sometimes we do not need updates, we need existing old games to continue to work. Ubuntu tried also to drop 32bit support but the community responded strongly with use cases like games and some other old apps, then Canonical/Ubuntu listen and 32 bit support was partially dropped, 32 libraries needed for games and different apps are still supported.

Meanwhile I see Mac players upset their 32 bit games no longer work (like the Sims3 players and I also see some Mac users in r/winegaming ). Again Apple can do whatever they make them more money but for example gamers voice was heard in Ubuntu/Linux and Canonical did the work (for free) to continue supporting gamers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> > Overall, in terms of performance, the A13 and the Lightning cores are > extremely fast. In the mobile space, there's really no competition as the > A13 posts almost double the performance of the next best non-Apple SoC. This > year, the A13 has essentially matched best that AMD and Intel have to offer.

Wow.

<comment><USER31> You can thank Intel for that. Single thread performance has stagnated since 2016. Some say 2014.

<comment><USER32> Skylake was released in 2015.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Hmm. Random question here... what prevents Apple from building in an x86-to- uops decoder stage into their desktop ARM CPUs?

That way they could run old code simultaneously with new code - x86 apps get their memory flagged (by the MMU perhaps?) that all code from this memory region gets executed with the x86 decoder stage, and code in normal memory gets executed with the ARM decoder stage.

And to be honest this is entirely what I'm expecting of Apple - yes they are not concerned with backwards compatibility but no one is going to buy a multi- ten-thousands-dollars Mac Pro or even a multi-thousands MacBook Pro if it can't run Photoshop or their favorite sound editing/DJ suite.

<comment><USER34> Photoshop is already running on ARM—specifically, on Apple's A-series chips.[0]

Unless you're doing something at least moderately esoteric, if you have an actively-developed macOS application today, you'll be able to produce an ARM version of it tomorrow (or, y'know, whenever Apple actually activates this capability) by ticking the right box in Xcode.

There might very well be a compatibility layer available for a transition period (there was for 68k->PPC, Classic->OS X, and PPC->Intel), but that's not at all the same thing as saying Apple will build in hardware-level x86 support in perpetuity.

[0] [https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ipad.html](https://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/ipad.html)

<comment><USER33> > if you have an actively-developed macOS application today, you'll be able to > produce an ARM version of it tomorrow (or, y'know, whenever Apple actually > activates this capability) by ticking the right box in Xcode.

Will this also take care of existing _low level_ optimizations? I can easily imagine Adobe and everyone in the sound/3D area to run custom specific x86 Assembler code in hot paths.

<comment><USER34> I think I covered that with my "doing something esoteric"...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> What are the chances TSMC announced the plans to build a fab in Arizona because Apple wants to say their chips are produced in the USA?

[https://www.tsmc.com/tsmcdotcom/PRListingNewsAction.do?actio...](https://www.tsmc.com/tsmcdotcom/PRListingNewsAction.do?action=detail&language=E&newsid=THGOANPGTH)

<comment><USER36> I was wondering the same. Also wondering if a new fab was required in order to scale up for the potential new demand from Apple.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Ha!!, man, the end of that sentence made me laugh so hard...

"Intel, by integrating design and manufacturing, earned very large profit margins on its chips; Apple could leverage TSMC for manufacturing and keep that margin for itself _and its customers._ "

<comment><USER38> Have you seen the iPhone pricing strategy? Yes they've moved up asp for the high end but are also now selling a $400 phone with chips that outperform anything else in the Android market. It's very likely some of this margin will be shifted to consumers

<comment><USER31> Apple's pricing in the services world: extraordinarily competitive low end to lure you in. Excessively-margined high end halo products. High margin, but attractive in comparison middle tier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> "the i3-1000NG4 Intel processor that is the cheapest option for the MacBook Air is not yet for public sale; it probably costs around $150, with far worse performance than the A13"

In so curious so see this. Unless I missed it we haven't seen consumer high end ARM chips that are readily available running a general purpose OS.

Like the Raspberry Pi is cool, but it's still trash in comparison to an average x86 laptop.

Let's see if those really high geekbench scores translate to an excellent computing experience.

<comment><USER40> I mean, is the iPad Pro not evidence enough? The A13 is much, much better than the chips in RPis.

<comment><USER41> I'd really like to see an iPad Pro crunch through as many VSTs as my old 2600k did in its 2 millisecond budget

<comment><USER42> As highlighted in the article, Apple's A13 is on par with Intel's i9-9900K in SPECint2006 and only 15% behind in SPECfp2006.

<comment><USER41> those are benchmarks, but to restate my comment I'd really like to see that hold up in actual real-world use cases

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> The irony in the narrative surrounding the ascendence of ARM is that the key innovation occurred in the Apple Newton. [1] History rhymes, they say. If I remember correctly, it was Digital Equipment Corporation's (DEC) silicon team that transformed ARM into a performance-per-watt powerhouse (no pun intended) to meet the requirements of the Newton.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers#ARM_Ltd](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acorn_Computers#ARM_Ltd).

<comment> the-dude ARM has always been a performance-per-watt powerhouse. The story goes the first processor was tested without a proper power connection and ran on the IO-pins.

<comment><USER44> > The story goes the first processor was tested without a proper power > connection and ran on the IO-pins.

That's real common actually. The current from the diodes on the I/O pins has to go somewhere.

<comment> the-dude Then it is odd I have ever only read the story about ARM. Do Intel's/AMD's proto's run on their I/O pins?

<comment><USER44> It's not really a fair comparison, because it's not the same TDP niche.

I imagine Intel Quarks will though. Probably any of the SoC versions as well.

I've actually had to design around this in a board once. Had a chip where the reset line didn't hook up to all the logic inside it. Originally just put FETs on the power lines, but that wasn't enough and I had to gate off all the I/O lines too.

<comment> the-dude The first ARM was designed as a CPU for a desktop computer ( the Archimedes )

<comment><USER44> Sure, and I bet a 486 (so a comparable processor for the time) can run off of it's I/O pins. A quark is a 486 core.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> A while back Linus said something to the effect that x86 was the default for servers because that's what people used on their desktops. I personally find this news very exciting because the x86 architecture is just so messy and filled with cruft from ages ago.

If ARM becomes the standard on the desktop for a significant portion of machines, then I think that we'll probably start to see more ARM processors making inroads in the server and workstation market, which I think will be a huge win.

<comment><USER46> It seems a bit silly to discuss servers based on Apple's architecture before they reveal something with several cores. Mainstream x86 processors have 64 cores per socket. These are the top contenders in SPEC performance-per-watt benchmarks. Notably, nobody has ever even bothered submitting a SPEC result for an ARM server, in particular not Ampere, whose product "provides industry leading power efficiency/core" even though there is no evidence to back this claim.

<comment><USER47> It is a lucrative market, they have money and followers. I would not believe they could design smartphone processor but here we are. Lets check in five years.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER48> Stuff like this is one area where Debian and other GNU/Linux distros are so valuable. The architecture doesn't matter much, and the flexible distros are poised to adapt well to this heterogeneous world.

</comment><comment><USER49> > Windows, particularly given the ability to run a full-on Linux environment > without virtualization

An effort that Windows seems to be in the direction of abandoning. (Plus, writing these kinds of compatibility layers is complicated but not _super_ complicated. What you really want is performance, and that's hard.)

<comment><USER13> Are you referring to the fact that WSL2 is technically a VM?

You're not wrong, but the point seems a bit pedantic—Microsoft is clearly investing a lot into making WSL2 _feel_ native, and it runs acceptably fast.

<comment><USER49> Yes, the VM approach won't work if your underlying architecture changes. And it's hard to make it fast if you're emulating, as I know firsthand from working on this for iOS ;)

<comment><USER13> > Yes, the VM approach won't work if your underlying architecture changes.

Well, but that's Ben Thompson's point, I think. If it's true that developers prefer to deploy to the same architecture they develop on, then one of two things are possible:

1\. Developers largely abandon the Mac.

2\. ARM becomes more common on servers.

Apple is presumably betting on #1 (or is just willing to lose the developer audience), but it's a gamble.

Lots of developers don't need to deploy code to servers, of course, but it's easy to see a situation where the momentum is felt by all. macOS's UNIX support has made it, well, I don't quite want to call it the "de-facto" development platform, but something approaching that status.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Apples extends its ARM, gives Intel the finger.

<comment><USER51> Hoping for a job with El Reg?

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> And with Apple moving to ARM, any hope of serious gaming on a Mac will be gone.

<comment><USER53> That ship sailed decades ago. Rightfully so, because everyone that has the money for a Mac can easily buy a console, and much gaming has shifted to mobile platforms. Unless you think rainbow colored keyboard backlighting is a key innovation area for a computer company, the gaming market is a complete waste of time except for driving graphics hardware, which Apple has always lagged at even for their Pro products.

<comment><USER52> Some of us can afford Macs and consoles, but still prefer a computer for playing games (graphics, kb/mouse controller, load times, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> I'm not sure Apple's goal is to replace their x86 line of products; that will alienate too many users and would involve a huge number of software to be ported to ARM. I think they're probably going to release an iPadOS device in a laptop form factor. Either foldable like the Lenovo Yoga or with a detachable keyboard similar to what Brydge Pro has done [0]. They're already heading down that path with the new iPad Pro keyboard [1].

      [0] https://youtu.be/Kkn9CLppLkI
      [1] https://youtu.be/JLQAh6IHPc4

<comment><USER21> Apple doesn't tend to do things by half measures. If they see Apple on ARM significantly out-performing Intel across their product line, then they will move. There will be frustrations and pain, but it will happen. As Ben hints, this may cause a bigger industry shift as well. With Apple on ARM, it makes Windows and Linux ARM more palatable, in particular this could give ARM servers a significant boost.

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> Will LLVM IR allow developers to deliver binaries that will run on both Intel and ARM?

I see the Swift compiler can output LLVM IR, can you do the same thing with Objective C code bases?

<comment><USER20> Not really. LLVM is not a single interoperable IR, it's more like a family of IR's with many arch-specific details. WASM+WASI could work though.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I'm not a business guy, but if Apple's going all-in on ARM processors, and then they expand into the server market (which the article speculates on), could we potentially see Apple opening a new product branch devoted to competing in the Cloud space with AWS, Azure, and GCP?

Imagine developing apps on an ARM-powered macbook, deploying onto ARM-powered servers owned by Apple, specifically for applications to be used on MacOS & iOS devices.

</comment><comment><USER57> Would it be possible for Apple to have an optional dual processor system, an ARM main processor and an optional Intel coprocessor? That way for people who need support for "legacy" x86 apps or for development they could get it.

Could you have an external Intel coprocessor like we have external GPUs?

(I know nothing about how this would work, obviously the traditional way would be to just have an remote x86 server for running those tasks)

<comment><USER58> I expect Apple to do something smarter, e.g. extend the ARM instruction set with operations that speed up x86 emulation.

For example, emulation of x86 on ARM is expensive due to subtle differences in memory model. Why not make an ARM chip that can operate with x86's memory model?

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> I am beginning to think if it make sense to segment the Mac into two Category.

The Pro model will use x86. And retain the compatibility of all macOS apps, some of them may likely never made the move to ARM. They just keep patching it to run on latest macOS. Along with Windows Bootcamp option. That will be Mac Pro, iMac Pro and MacBook Pro.

The Non-Pro model will use ARM. You will end up with a 12" Macbook that is priced at $799. With a possible 14" Macbook at $899 ( The BOM cost of an iPad Pro 11" would be the same as 12" Macbook, you are essentially swapping the cost of back camera modules to additional 128GB NAND, the Touch Screen And Glass Panel to Track Pad and Keyboard. ) It will be like the Macbook 2015, except it doesn't cost that ridiculous $1299. And $799 might have been the cheapest portable Mac in recent history as far as I could remember. Even the 11" MacBook Air was priced at $899.

It would greatly expand the macOS market shares. Which has very much stagnated for the past few years. Out of 1.4B PC market, Apple has 100M macOS users, 7% marketshare. Compare this to 4.5B Smartphone Apple has 1B iOS users, 22% marketshare. And the most important thing to me would be that Apple also accept / admit Tablet computing will never take over the Desktop / Notebook, or keyboard / trackpad paradigm. It is good enough for large enough of a market to worth continuing the investment into Mac other than trying to get iPad / Tablet to kill it.

The only problem with this hypothesises is that the software would be very messy. Would Xcode force all Apps by default to compile with Fat binary? Is Apple going to tell its user the different ? ( Not that I think it would matter to Non-Pro user )

Anyway, this will be an interesting WWDC. ( Or may be everyone got it wrong Apple isn't doing anyway to the Mac )

</comment><comment><USER40> I wonder what an alternate timeline would look like where Apple went for AMD semi-custom x86 chips instead of Arm. The Mac Pro would have 64 cores, MacBooks would have great APUs, and Apple would be able to segment their products at their own discretion–not Intel's.

I also wonder if any chiplet designs will find their way into Apple's Arm- based lineup.

<comment><USER60> At the time Intel was pushing on performance-per-watt, AMD was not. So AOM was significantly further away from getting the iPhone contract than Intel was.

And Apple is already extensively using multiple small chips put together to form their A13 APUs, so they are not far from the full "chiplet" already (they just are not using silicon wafers as the interface yet).

Right now I think that the main barrier to the Mac Pro already being on AMD CPUs is the lack of Thunderbolt. Already there is 1 Thunderbolt AMD motherboard, and with Thunderbolt becoming part of USB 4, that barrier will fall next year. So it will be an interesting race: is Apple pushing for AMD Mac Pros, or ARM ones?

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> > and a company from a territory claimed by China was.

A company from a _sovereign country_ claimed by China.

</comment><comment><USER61> I'm both excited and troubled, mostly because I fear the loss of LTS on x86-64: how long will Xcode, macports, and even brew support both architectures. Apple isn't one for backwards compatibility so this might be rough few years.

I shudder to think about how long it will take to debug all of the Python3 wheels and Node packages macOS devs are accustomed to. I already have issues with versions of both language's packages failing to install with other versions, and that's on the same platform, OS and CPU architecture.

Still, I'm excited. Intel is way overpriced compared to Arm at similar performance and power.

<comment><USER49> I should note that Xcode supports ARM perfectly well and MacPorts does the same for PowerPC. I'm sure they'll be fine.

<comment><USER13> Note that Brew doesn't even support macOS Sierra[1]. It doesn't outright refuse to run, but there's a big warning message that stuff will break and maintainers won't care—and lots of stuff does indeed break.

Macports's support for legacy versions of OS X is unique, and dare-I-say incredible.

1: [https://docs.brew.sh/Installation#macos- requirements](https://docs.brew.sh/Installation#macos-requirements)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER62> He big reason to move production offshore was labor cost (straight comparative advantage); now it's path dependency as the whole supply chain has migrated. This was the US's big advantage 1890s-1980s but that time has passed.

Advanced robotics will offer a chance of a fundamental restructuring as labor costs continue to contribute a declining proportion of COGS. The factories and supply chains could be completely distributed and resilient. But the example of the Internet is discouraging: the ultimate end-to-end system ended up highly centralized too.

</comment><comment><USER63> Oof, fun times at Intel right now. There are pockets of Intel not forgetting what made it successful, but they're usually the most difficult places to grow a career as they get snuffed out pretty quick

</comment><comment><USER64> Duplicate of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23538826](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=23538826) (which was posted a few minutes earlier).

<comment><USER13> Rightfully or not, I think this is the version of record at this point, given that it's sitting at the top of HN right now. They will probably get merged later.

</comment></comment><comment><USER65> Intel has lost its manufacturing lead, but these changes are not permanent. There is a good chance TSMC stumbles as transistors shrink. Intel has a chance to catch up, but it seems like Intel has structural problems that prevent it from winning deals to manufacture third party designs. Relying on complete vertical integration doesn't seem like a winning business model anymore.

Perhaps Intel should buy GlobalFoundries or license Samsung technology to develop competency in building designs for other customers.

</comment><comment><USER66> The problem, as explained here, is also what Linus and recently GKH have mentioned is that the lack of any consumer ARM hardware like laptops and desktops mean that kernel developers or app developers are basically not able to develop and test their code easily to be able to deploy it in the cloud ... if Apple was able to sell their macs with ARM and not only that but also provide instances of the same platform then they might be essentially at the core of architecture revolution

<comment><USER49> I doubt many kernel developers would like to develop on the Mac, considering that as of late it's been a bit problematic to get Linux to work on.

</comment></comment><comment><USER67> Apple having a really fast ARM chip is both an advantage and a disadvantage. If no Windows or Linux box will run on ARM for the same typical workloads a lot of stuff never gets ported. It would help Apple if there would be powerful ARM Windows or Linux PC's.

People say Qualcomm is catching up but I'm not sure what kind of performance we'll get from the first ARM PC processor from Apple. It will probably run circles around the 8cx.

</comment><comment><USER68> It is a misstatement to say that developers develop on Macs. They don't, they use Mac as a convenient environment from which to do Linux/cloud development. If it's MS/cloud development, they're running MS. The 3rd party app world on Mac is dying. Apple will be happy with their end to end commercially controlled device. That they put up with 3rd party apps at all was just a convenient anomaly.

</comment><comment><USER69> The article mentions that while the Apple ARM chips are faster per core, the Intel chips are faster at multi-core operations. How is that possible?

<comment><USER70> I think a big chunk of that is power thermals -- Apple's ARM chips are only used currently in passively-cooled, handheld, power-restricted chassis (phones & tablets). Intel's chips are generally actively cooled and run on mains power, so they can run hotter and draw more power, so they can make up the difference by stuffing more hot cores onto the chip compared to what Apple has been doing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> > Third, the PC market is in the midst of its long decline. Is it really worth > all of the effort and upheaval to move to a new architecture for a product > that is fading in importance? Intel may be expensive and may be slow, but it > is surely good enough for a product that represents the past, not the > future.

This is one of the key things they got wrong.

Mobile and tablet devices are not real computers. I can't run any software I want on them. They're locked down, managed, console type devices. There are other weaknesses at the OS and hardware level too, but the lack of flexibility and control is the most fundamental and hardest to change.

If you opened up the OS to versatility and user control you could easily scale up an iPad with a bigger battery, more cores, and cooling, and you'd have a fantastic laptop. The UI would need some work too to make it suitable for more complex tasks, but that's an area where Apple excels when they want to.

The locked down nerfed nature of mobile OSes is hard to change though because it exists for good reason. It addresses a primary need in their market niche. These devices are marketed to non-technical users, and in today's constant war zone environment a non-technical user without those controls will be inundated by malware and spyware.

Still, this keeps them from being viable replacements for desktop/laptop systems in the professional market. For that reason desktop is not going away.

We have two markets here that really do seem to demand two solutions.

The desktop market decline wasn't the death of desktop. It was the loss of the low-end of the market, with non-technical and casual users migrating to phones and tablets. That transition is nearly complete, and the desktop/laptop market that remains is likely to remain until and unless something appears that truly does address that market niche.

It's not a growing market but it is probably a stable one. Having a strong presence in that market is important for Apple because it's the market where developers live, and without developers who is going to make software and ecosystems for the rest of their devices? Who will ensure that these devices reach their full potential and thus are maximally appealing to consumers?

No, doing everything in cloud is not that thing. I want to actually own my data, and broadband is still far too slow to make that workable for a wide range of tasks anyway.

<comment><USER71> > Third, the PC market is in the midst of its long decline. Is it really worth > all of the effort and upheaval to move to a new architecture for a product > that is fading in importance?

Yeah this is just an Apple journalist bubble belief that doesn't really reflect the real world in any way and is starting to get tiring.

We keep hearing from them how iPad Pro is a computer and how it's so much more powerful than a real laptop yet we still never see it do anything more than tweeting, writing articles, extremely basic video editing and a painting app.

Yet I look around every workplace and its still just a sea of laptops doing incredibly varied work across multiple applications and systems most of which still just isn't possible on iPads.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> I would be more open to this if the new machines had Intel and ARM chips in them.

If Apple pulls any walled-garden nonsense around what apps I can and cannot install on my Mac today, at the extreme I can install Windows/Linux and run the majority of software that's available for those platforms.

If they move to ARM-only, I lose that choice.

</comment><comment><USER72> Matching the Spec2k6 scores of a high end desktop does not mean that the A13 has similar real world single-core performance. I've done ARM vs Intel perf comparisons in the past and we mostly ignored Spec2k6 because it looked nothing like real world code.

I'm curious if there are any better benchmarks that will run on iOS.

</comment><comment><USER73> I shudder to think of the huge number of applications this will break. This has all happened before with PowerPC (ironically an RISC architecture Apple abandoned ~15 years ago). It's probably necessary but nonetheless frustrating.

</comment><comment><USER74> two ifs for me

If they pass on the savings to consumers, looking at the price escalation with iPads I don't see why we should expect it to happen.

if they don't build that garden wall higher which can include no bootcamp support

while TSMC is doing great they are sill in Taiwan, a country which China has been making a lot of dangerous noise about and considering what is happening in Hong Kong how long before Taiwan suffers a similar or worse fate. That is a lot of manufacturing tied up in one area

<comment><USER75> It's very unlikely that they pass on savings to people by coming up with a cheap ARM laptop, after all their whole thing is gouging people with unrealistic prices for the hardware and huge margins on everything.

That said, if a laptop rolls around that doubles the 10 hour battery life on existing configurations - they'll scoop up a ton of users regardless whether it can run Windows or not.

I don't know how doable that would be, but the iPad Pro has a 28 watt hour battery, the MBP 13 has a 59 watt hour battery, a theoretical Macbook without a discrete GPU and a smaller motherboard footprint of an A13 chip, leaving space for a bigger battery and providing about the same performance could possibly hit 20 hours of battery in about the same space.

<comment><USER76> How are their prices on hardware unrealistic? Let's look at laptops: any other manufacturer(razer, dell) charges comparable prices for unibody ultrabooks.

<comment><USER75> Their RAM upgrade and SSD pricing is off the charts though. 8 to 16 GB is $200 - which other manufacturer does that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER77> its sad to see a king (Intel) slowly dying. Microsoft got its groove back with Satya Nadella and turn Microsoft into player two in the cloud computing and unlock .Net.

AMD ryzen to EPYC with Lisa Su and TSMC became king of pure-play foundry under Morris Chang.

i think there is a pattern here. a good engineer CEO have a vision of what a company can be while a CFO turn CEO only see the bottom line.

i don't know how long Intel can keep squeezing 14+++++++++++++++ nm.

</comment><comment><USER78> Is the issue here not the software who cares what he hardware is ? MacOS will be ARM based, but if all the software out there needs to be rewritten for ARM then we will lose a lot of great software. A lot of indie Mac software refuses to use the AppStore for commercial reasons, and maybe now will be locked out forever? I understand there will be an emulator but won't we end up with what we had before when we moved from PowerPC > Intel where the old software was slow and buggy and no one wanted to update as was not worth commercially worth it

</comment><comment><USER79> Will I be able to have an executable file with all of 68k, PPC, x86 and ARM versions included?

<comment><USER60> Apple's .app system already has that ability, brought over from the NeXT purchase. Those regularly had PPC and x86 binaries in the same package.

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> (Speculation) Jim Keller to Apple soon?

</comment><comment><USER81> This article has some issues. The author states that apple's best ARM chip is comparable to one in a "top of the line" imac. This is utterly false.

They also state that the A13 trounces every other ARM chip by 2x yet uses a chart that doesn't include the Qualcomm 865 which is in current flagship android phones.

It doesn't really hurt the main point of the article but the logical appeal falls flat when you don't seem to really understand what you are discussing at a technical level.

<comment><USER82> Here: [https://www.anandtech.com/show/15207/the- snapdragon-865-perf...](https://www.anandtech.com/show/15207/the- snapdragon-865-performance-preview-setting-the-stage-for-flagship- android-2020/2)

A13 still comes out a fair bit ahead in performance, but not in energy usage.

</comment></comment><comment><USER83> > To that end, while I am encouraged by and fully support this bill by > Congress to appropriate $22.8 billion in aid to semiconductor manufacturers

I fully don't agree. It appears as the exact opposite of what the rational use of market forces should be.

<comment><USER84> It's also about national defense, not just economy.

Republic of China is a big target of People's Republic of China. Sure, there shouldn't be a war, but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their chip manufacturing there. Notice that the new TSMC factory is with big emphasis on military contracts.

<comment><USER83> > but in the worst case scenario, USA is kinda screwed by having all their > chip manufacturing there.

Nobody should have any illusion: "in the worst case scenario" this "where" any chips are manufactured will be simply totally irrelevant. It's obviously a wrong model to plan for anything. The realistic model is the scenario which is not the "worst case." And then, the question is just is the "aid" reasonable or is it better compared to other existing or possible market forces.

Why giving away money "to spur the construction of chip factories in America" when

1) the U.S. is anyway an immensely big customer and simply deciding on how it buys what it needs can already influence the markets

2) the existing companies already have "chip factories" in America.

<comment><USER85> It's not just about blowing up factories with missiles. There's a much greater persistent security threat.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Where are the solid web and phone app development firms? - <AUTHOR>

My company is seeking a firm to build us an enterprise level website, database, and mobile phone apps.  There are so many firms that do this but we don't know who's really good and reasonably priced.  Has anyone got a firm they would recommend for us. Thank you.. <comment><USER2> Inside US or outside?

<comment><AUTHOR> Domestic companies please.</comment></comment>


Koudetat+ – Anyone can become an entrepreneur - <AUTHOR> http://koudetat.co/ <comment><USER6> OK, for those who don't understand French, this is a kind of training programs for entrepreneurs, so that "anyone can become an entrepreneur".

It seems to be one day per week, on the Saturday, from 10am to the night, during 5 months. Lessons seems to speak about Theory, Cases, Exercises and meetings with experienced entrepreneurs and mentors. It has an exam at the end of it.

It's done by several people who are doing a French incubator, named TheFamily.

The name "KOUDETAT" is a game play on "coup d'état", [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat)

</comment><comment><USER7> The title sounds like a Bannatyne book. To be honest, I think France is definitely the last country I would try to be an entrepreneur.

<comment><USER8> The mission of the fellow entrepreneurs, talents, public figures, hard workers of a country in which they believe and like living is to turn things right, not to give up...

This comment is a non-sense, especially if you don't know France so well from the inside.

<comment><USER7> Je parle en connaissance de cause ;-) I am not saying the project is wrong, far from it. I think you'd agree that France hasn't got the best fiscality or entrepreneur spirit compared to what you can find in the UK/US.

<comment><USER8> I'm pretty disappointed then :(

Fiscality has never stopped anyone starting things. Issues actually appear on the long run only.

Comparing US versus UK versus FR is a non-sense if your ambitions are global. You can start anything in France. Money is cheap, Engineers 3x less expensive than UK or US. And there are plenty of people unemployed looking for a great purpose. It's a wonderful play-field for someone ambitious.

<comment><USER7> Have a look here: [http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings](http://www.doingbusiness.org/rankings)

France is 38th on the list, UK is 10th and the US is 4th for "ease of starting up"

I am not sure engineers are 3x cheaper in France. Don't forget that the cost of employment (and unemployment) are horrendous for businesses.

Don't get me wrong, I know plenty of entrepreneurs in France. They are very talented, full of ambition and hard working but they all say it is very hard. There is also a complex in France with money and success but that is another debate.

Nobody said it is easy but it definitely helps if you live in an entrepreneur friendly country, because you will meet people like you and start things quicker.

<comment><USER9> Seriously, I don't know where this "France is not entrepreneur friendly" rant comes from.

France offers a tremendous amount of help to start, cost of employment is not worse than any other developed country (yes there are a lot of taxes, but salaries are lower because a lot of stuff is provided by the state) and mentalities are evolving towards a more startup-friendly attitude.

The only problem of France are French people who don't believe in their own country.

<comment><USER7> or in Hollande...

I agree with you that there is a trade-off with social advantages. NHS is not as good as having a carte Vitale but I still prefer to live in London.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I recommend their youtube channel (in French): [http://www.youtube.com/user/Startupfood](http://www.youtube.com/user/Startupfood)

They have some very interesting talks, in particular the KOUDETAT videos - classes about startup-related subjects, from which I'm guessing they based KOUDETAT+ - and the "Les barbares attaquent" (the barbarians attack) where they explore the current disruption of a bunch of industries.

</comment><comment><USER11> [http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=ht...](http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http://koudetat.co/)

Edit: Rather annoyingly, on clicking this link it translates to english and then reverts back to french onload! Ah well, I tried to help!

<comment><USER9> I copied and pasted the text in translate, and here it is:

All fundamental to dive into the world of entrepreneurship Every Saturday " It begins to age when we stop learning . "

\- Japanese Proverb 10h - 12h - Theory 12h - 14h - Lunch Box & Brain Game 14h - 17h - Atomic Skills 17h - 19h - Always Be Closing 19h - XXh - Open Chill ' House - up to 00h if you want! theory "Theory is when you know everything and nothing works. Practice is when everything works and nobody knows why . " \- Albert Einstein 1 - The entrepreneur, the businessman and the manager 2 - <USER2> solution is not my fucking problem! 3 - The challenges of the future 4 - <USER3> is the valuation of a startup ? 5 - There is a mover advantages Last 6 - <USER4> cofounder dilemma 7 - Roots & Cultures 8 - Follow the money 9 - The Art of Pitch 10 - Growth Obsession 11 - I want to be a Billionaire 12 - <USER5> Opportunities 13 - Unfair Advantages 14 - Artificial Intelligence 15 - Be a CEO 16 - The Hacker Mindset 17 - Ego & Founders 18 - Power Struggle , winning an unfair game 19 - Who do you want to kill today? 20 - Entrepreneurship Makes the world a better place lunch Boxes "After a good dinner one no longer wants it to anyone , not even his own family. "

\- Oscar Wilde We eat and makes paris , we summon his instincts and the capacity for strategic thinking we confront . One learns to risk money by exercising the bet. It also expressed its questions, doubts etc. . At the end of the semester, the winner takes ALL : winner takes all - as in real life. The team plays out of competition thefamily . Also on the menu, programs I dare you to ;) Atomic Skills " Twenty times on put your handiwork : Polish it constantly and repolish it ; Add sometimes , and often clear . " \- Nicolas Boileau From 0 to 1 , are valuable knowledge that Contractor must master . Forget the conventional definitions and lessons because 0-1 , the rules are not the same ! FINANCE & CASH FLOWS FROM 0 TO 1-4 sessions FUNDRAISING FROM 0 TO 1 to 2 sessions LEGAL FROM 0 TO 1-4 sessions BUSINESS MODELS FROM 0 TO 1 to 2 sessions SALES FROM 0 TO 1 to 2 sessions SCIENTIFIC DATA FROM 0 TO 1-4 sessions DESIGN FROM 0 TO 1 to 2 sessions Always Be Closing "You call yourself a salesman , you son of a bitch ? " \- Blake in Glengarry Glen Ross Community workshops on the art of pitch , the ability to know how to sell and convince. OPEN CHILL 18 - ... Reading , networking, discussion, group work, hacking workshop your homework " When you do something , you know that you against those who want to do the same , those who want to do the opposite and the vast majority of those who want to do nothing . " \- Confucius \- Making products quickly ( not hack & coding encoder Version ) \- Or out of building skills if you know coding ( become less shy )

KOUDETAT MORE Most people think that entrepreneurs are born - this is a mistake. "She has not the makings of an entrepreneur ", " it does not have the shoulders to mount the box " we often hear . At alleged extra- lucid powers thefamily replies: it takes years to judge the quality and potential of a person. One is not born entrepreneur , you become ;) Being an entrepreneur is learning to do unnatural things , naturally. Learn to ignore what others think of themselves, learn from failure and bounce back quickly , learn to transform stress into opportunities ... This effort takes time to several failures . A good theoretical preparation and intensive training to your allies fierce motivation are the best ways to raccoucir the path to excellence. This is what KOUDETAT offers: Solid theoretical foundation that will give you the right thought patterns Detailed facts and meet with exceptional founders Practices and put exercises intensive situations Bibliographies & biographies by subject Not to mention : The opportunity to meet ambitious people you Work in an exceptional place and kept secret Work culture and excellence Openness to the richness of different life stories

WHAT YOU CAN EXPECT Koudetat

Testimonials enthusiastic students following a course Osama

TEAM Osama Ammar Prof. Chief Entrepreneur, business angel and teacher at Sciences Po Osama anime most KOUDETAT workshops - aimed at startups thefamily , whose videos are online . Is the following interventions which suggested the idea of creating KOUDETAT + community : training open to the public release . Osama is not expert or mentor, but he is a barbarian of innovation, a benevolent guru a Gargantua entrepreneurship and most importantly, a lover of knowledge. Erika Batista Fairy Pedagogy Erika is a trained lawyer and an MBA in innovation. It comes from the Dominican Republic and is passionate about new technologies. It was she who answers to existential questions such as emails . It is also thanks to her that Osama may have beautiful teaching materials. When Erika loose its slides is to go dancing on reggaeton . She still has her accent after 2 years in France , for all to enjoy . Alice Zagury The Energizer President of thefamily , that's 4 years that Alice said that France , too, can take the chance and go for innovative startups. Alice breathes energy and good humor , especially when it leads the group workshops . It is appreciated for his outspokenness . His feedback often start with " Jt'explique guy " before moving onto more constructive. Hugo Amsellem connector Hugo started his startup before joining thefamily in order to contribute to the exploration of "Dark Matter" : the search for an unexpected deal flow . It will be the matchmaker , the creator of opportunities , super booster serendipity . He loves music and people. Curious , funny and empathetic , it connects well with Hugo.

FAQ WHAT IS THE SELECTION PROCESS ? No entry selection - Anyone can be an Entrepreneur Everyone will be given the chance to demonstrate that it has the potential to become an entrepreneur in the program. This does not mean that everyone will become an entrepreneur, but we reject the Franco- French system absurd and other discriminating selections folders. The honor will be distinguished by his work, his motivation and thus the best possible start the long road to success. Hurry as places will go to more spontaneous ! WHAT ARE THE DIFFERENT OPTIONS TO FOLLOW KOOUDETAT + ? Possibkes three options : ( 1 ) Kounnecté (2) KOUAKOU ( 3 ) Toutdunkou ( 1 ) KOUNNECTE Cost: 200 euros per month to the start of each month , without commitment because anytime you can decide to stop following classes without justification. You can access course ( Theory Atomic 10am to 12pm and from 14h to 17h Skills ) as well as support via email, but not practical workshops. (2) KOUAKOU Cost: 600 euros at the beginning of each month without commitment because anytime you can decide to stop following classes without justification. You have access to the entire device : the face courses and commuanuté . ( 3 ) TOUTDUNKOU Cost: 2500 euros paid at registration by credit card, bank transfer or check ( or 500 euros per month). You have access to the entire device : the face courses and commuanuté .

KOUDETAT ISSUES THERE A DEGREE ? No. However, access to the alumni group is only possible if you confirm the final exam.

HOW TO GET THE VALIDATION PROGRAM ? There is a review ! To enter the community Alumni KOUDETAT + , you must validate acquired by conquering the jury final selection . WHAT ARE THE DATES ? From March 1 to July 26 , every Saturday from 10h to 19h . COURSE WHERE HAVE PLACE ? In Paris center! WHO IS KOUDETAT + ? To all those who feel concerned ! Regardless of age , sex , education , political and musical directions . BUT WHO IS BEHIND THIS COUP ? This is thefamily ! Launched in 2013 by three partners : Alice Zagury Osama Ammar and Nicolas Colin is even those that offer education , privileges and capital to more than 80 startups in France .

I REGISTER ! The number of places is limited , hurry up ! KOUAKOU Formula without commitment € 600 / month All the benefits of Koudetat without commitment Kounnecté The distance formula € 200 / month Start whenever you want All online courses ToutdunKou Formula -sighted € 500 / month Five months of intensive training in one fell swoop € 2,500 for registration , 20 % discount You can also pay by check or bank transfer

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> If you want to become an entrepreneur, you should move to London.

They don't even have a word for entrepreneur in French.

<comment><USER13> Although, now that you mention it, "entrepreneur" kind of sounds French.

<comment><USER14> Yes, it is.

"French, from Old French, from entreprendre, to undertake;"

[http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entrepreneur](http://www.thefreedictionary.com/entrepreneur)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> Is that normal that I get the french version of the website?

<comment><USER16> Yes, it's a french website about entrepreneurship in France. It would be the same if you went to a Spanish or German website as well.</comment></comment>


Notes on the resolution and other details of the human eye  - <AUTHOR> http://www.clarkvision.com/imagedetail/eye-resolution.html

<comment><USER2> You can easily see one millionth of an inch. During my training as a Mechanical Engineer we did some work at a metrology lab. We used what in the US is called a Gauge block <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gauge_block> . If you set two gauge blocks by one millionth difference you can see the light between them. Also don't forget the human eye can see as far as a few light years - think stars!

By the way the Wikipedia article on Gauge blocks is also very inspirational for any aspiring inventors/enterpreneurs.

</comment><comment><USER3> Current silicon retina, which exploit similar event-based "pixels" (as opposed to frame-based scans), are way below the eye's resolution, but can still do so much:

<http://siliconretina.ini.uzh.ch>

Makes me wonder what the tiny composite eyes of insects can do in a complex environment like a forest.</comment>


What do you use to monitor and improve your stress and wellness level? - <AUTHOR> Have you used any wearables or other products to monitor and improve your stress and wellness level? What do you like or not like about them? <comment><USER2> So I didn't see any answers and I know you mentioned physical products, but you might want to look into the mindfulness discipline. (Also you can use any smartwatch or smartphone to set a reminder)

One of the best introductions and that's only 2 minutes long is this video [https://youtu.be/o-kMJBWk9E0](https://youtu.be/o-kMJBWk9E0)

Sam Harris has an app that does a good job of explaining a fiendishly subtle skill.

It doesn't so much as improve your stress or wellness level but rather improve your resilience and ability to manage stress.</comment>


Luxon – A small library for working with dates and times in JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/moment/luxon <comment><USER2> Looks great! I learned that it's a library developed by one of the maintainers of Moment.js, with rationale, pros and cons described here:

Why does Luxon exist? [https://moment.github.io/luxon/docs/manual/why.html](https://moment.github.io/luxon/docs/manual/why.html)</comment>


Show HN: App for doing async daily video check-ins for distributed teams - <AUTHOR> https://standups.io/mobile-apps <comment><USER2> Hi HN! :)

It's been a fun ride since our launch here on HN last August. It was just me working solo after leaving my full-time job last March and now we're a 4 people team working together to grow Standups. HN was fundamental to be here still running Standups as it helped spread what we do :) We're happy have great companies & distributed teams from all over the world as customers. Teams love to be able to see and update each other no matter whey they are around the globe.

After a lot of hard work these last months we're thrilled to finally roll out our mobile apps that had been requested by so many of you since our launch in August.

Our clients were testing our apps for some weeks already and they're loving to be able to post and share updates from their phones. We're excited to see how you'll be using them on your teams.

I prepared a discount for you guys to thank you for your support. Get a 30% discount for 1 year both for the monthly and yearly pay cycles :) Apply the HACKER-NEWS-30 code under the Billing section.

Note: due to App Store restrictions, you need an existing account to login from the apps. Register at [https://standups.io/register](https://standups.io/register) and setup your first team in case you haven't yet. If you're reading this from mobile web, you can register on Standups and then continue the setup from your computer. After creating an account, you can login from mobile and start posting and sharing updates with your team on the go!

Please feel free to ask any questions you may have and I'll respond to them throughout the day :)

JP</comment>


Show HN: Gunnner – a handy open source Dribbble client for Android - egor-n

I often browse Dribbble and Play Store didn't have an app to suit my needs, so I created one. It's called Gunnner[1].
The Gunnner app lets you:
- Browse Debuts, Everyone and Popular feeds on Dribbble
- Browse your likes, your shots and shots you're following
- Browse players' profiles as well as their shots
- Zoom in images to see every detail
- Open GIFs right in the app
- Share shots you want other people to see
- Swipe back to close the shot
Google Play - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gunnner
Gunnner is open source - https://github.com/egor-n/gunnner
Right now Dribbble API doesn't have write-access, but they are planning to implement it. A soon as they make it public, Gunnner will be updated.
I am open to suggestions!
[1] A person who is competitive, ambitious and substantially exceeds minimum requirements. <comment> egor-n Google Play - [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gunnner](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.gunnner)

GitHub - [https://github.com/egor-n/gunnner](https://github.com/egor-n/gunnner)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Nice! Do you have any plans for a transition to Material Design ?</comment>