Ask HN: How did open source work before GitHub? - <AUTHOR> How would you publish maintain projects? How would issues be resolved? It will be nice if mention the era in the answer . like 80's 90's 2000's <comment><USER2> It's very simple: "Just use sourceforge". [https://sourceforge.net/](https://sourceforge.net/)

GitHub didn't invent anything. They only made a better UI.

SourceForge was more oriented toward software users. It handles the distribution of binaries. Imagine a time when 90% of software sites would redirect you to sourceforge to download them. Distribution was first. The repo and the issue tracker were in a secondary tab.

GitHub is oriented toward developers. It shows you the repo as the main page. You can't distribute binary releases (well, it was added recently).

GitHub took over by attracting developers right at the start of the project. They need a repo, here it is. UI is nice, site works. The new projects eventually become well known and carry the reputation.

SourceForge went downhill slowly with their shady practices. Ads, confusing pages and software repackaged with adware.

<comment><USER3> GitHub launched in 2008. SourceForge added git support in 2009. That year delay surely contributed to GitHub taking over. Git was an absolute breath of fresh air after years of SVN (and CVS...)

<comment><USER4> An enormous difference (which was one of the reasons that I moved to Google Code and GitHub) was that on SourceForge one had to request a project and the SF staff had to approve the project. They would reject projects for all kinds of silly reasons.

On GitHub, you could just create a project and get going.

<comment><USER5> Absolutely. SourceForge tried to act as gatekeepers of what was worth hosting. GitHub got out of your way. Much better approach.

<comment><USER6> I put my project (a small, windows-only WEP cracker for a very specific wireless device) on SourceForge "for free" \-- it was a huge hassle to be sure, having to upload new versions with FTP and so on.

It _was_ free and 'gatekeeperless' however.

<comment><USER5> I've learned (from this topic coming up other times) that there were times you didn't need approval for new projects on SF, but there definitely were times where you did. I don't know when, perhaps when they dropped the restrictions I had already moved on to github?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Kids these days :)

Richard M Stallman will tell you of the days when people mailed tapes back and forth, but that was in the 70s.

A key development was Larry Wall writing "patch" in the early 80s, which he posted to USENET. That made it much easier to start mailing changesets to the maintainers of programs. This workflow continued basically until Linux wrote "git" in the late 2000s. The idea of the pull request formalises the process of emailing Linus.

In the late 90s and early 2000s, most projects had their own CVS server and mailing list. Mozilla decided they would write Bugzilla to keep track of bugs. Sourceforge grew up as an ad-supported hosting and distribution server for CVS (and later SVN) repositories.

<comment><USER8> Larry Wall's patch was a huge step forward. In case you don't know what this is, it takes the output of diff and tries to apply those diffs to your source files. If diffed baseline and your baseline are the same then the patch will apply cleanly. If they are close the patch may apply cleanly (though it may have some messages like "offset 3 lines" which tells you that it found the place to patch 3 lines away from where it thought it was).

There was a big period of time where the Linux kernel work was all diff/patch based. So the answer was (a) a mailing list that everyone was one, (b) some way of knowing a baseline (you could just have a baseline tree and a copy of that and you diff -Nur the two trees), (c) email the patch.

All that worked but it didn't scale which is why Linus switched to BitKeeper and then later Git.

<comment><USER9> It still is diff/patch based (and several people including Andrew Morton don't use Git, they use stuff like quilt). All of the code review is done on patches sent to LKML, git is only used as a merging mechanism for developers to manage their changes. And if you look at Patchwork and other things like that, they have an insane amount of tooling around tracking mailing list patches.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> The only thing that Github's pull request system adds that wasn't being done before is single-click merging. Everything else was there. You would email a patch to the author, or to the mailing list, and discuss the merits of the patch there. Then someone with access to the repository would commit it (I use the term generically; version control was less common back then).

The diff program we all use today has it's origins in the 70s, although the unified diff format that we almost always use was created in the 80s.

Email was invented in the 60s, UUCP in the 70s, and Usenet in 1980.

Version control was invented in the 70s with SCCS.

Web-based bug trackers such as Bugzilla originated in the 90s, as did continuous integration software like Tinderbox.

Of all of these, Git represents the biggest improvement over it's predecessors, while email is pretty much still just email. The diff program hasn't changed since the 80s. Bug trackers and other such tools haven't changed dramatically either, although a lot more attention is paid to UX and polish these days.

I think the largest change is the wide availability of these tools today. Everyone knows about them, and it's seen as aberrant to not use version control or bug tracking.

</comment><comment><USER11> God this more than anything before has made me feel old.

Is GitHub _that_ strongly associated with open source that alternate models for open source development are a mystery? Somehow that's really troubling to me in terms of the open source paradigm, even though I generally see GitHub as a very positive thing. I don't mean that as a criticism of the poster, just saying that it feels like maybe there's some room for more diversity and competition.

I think others have given pretty good descriptions of pre-GitHub models, so I'll leave that to them.

</comment><comment><USER12> Before the web there was usenet. People would assemble and curate lists of links and post them to newsgroups dedicated to particular languages or fields of interest. People would assemble CDs stuffed with code, you'd send them a few bucks and they'd send you a copy by mail. In the 1980s you'd buy computer magazines and check the classifieds. For a few bucks you'd get a floppy disk mailed to you.

Netscape did a lot to move project management to the web. Bugzilla was written in the mid-1990s. Before that all bug reporting and issue tracking was done via email. If you were good you'd email a patch to the author to fix a bug or add a feature, just as people still do with Linus. He wrote git initially as an improved tool to merge patches received by email.

<comment><USER13> Walnut Creek sold a CD-ROM that gathered up a lot of usenet source lists. To those of us who had limited access to the internet this got us pretty far.

I remember writing some extensions to usenet software and emailing the author. That opened up a whole world I never knew existed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I started being involved with Open Source in the early 00s.

For source code, people typically used CVS or (later) SVN. The repos were hosted by platforms like SourceForge, berliOS or Savannah, or on the projects' own servers.

Releases were tarballs hosted on servers. End users sometimes got software by downloading and compiling those, but there were already package managers and repositories. Before most people had Internet at home, at least in France, you could buy CDs with Linux packages at the press store.

Communication between developers typically happened on IRC for casual chat and through mailing lists (hosted with mailman) for serious stuff. Sometimes there were web forums to communicate with users. And conferences, of course. A lot of projects were developed by people who were physically close, for instance people who met at the same Linux Users Group.

Some projects used bugtrackers actively, some did not. It was mostly Bugzilla or Trac. That did not really change too much with GitHub.

The main difference in my mind is that forking was usually regarded as something bad. You would not fork a project and then send pull requests to fix issues.

For a simple fix, you would generate a patch and send it to the project's mailing list, where it would be discussed and eventually checked in by one of the owners. If you wanted to really engage with the project, you would become active in the community and eventually get commit rights.

I think what led to that change of model is: cheap branching in Git, GitHub as a platform with users account, and maybe Continuous Integration making it easier to validate patches.

</comment><comment><USER15> Self-hosting. SourceForge was certainly popular at one time, but it didn't own the market, certainly not to the extent that GitHub currently does. Many projects were simply run on whatever hardware and connectivity the project could scrounge up. For a project I founded I initially bought a used SPARCstation on EBay and installed CVS, Apache, Mailman, Bugzilla, etc. I traded consulting time with various local ISPs in exchange for bandwidth.

</comment><comment><USER16> It's worth noting that kernel development is still git + emailing patches around. It's too big for github/gitlab.

<comment><USER17> What are you talking about?!

[https://github.com/torvalds/linux](https://github.com/torvalds/linux)

Linus just don't agree with GitHub's pull-requests, so he doesn't accept such that way.

<comment><USER9> I don't think anyone is claiming that GitHub can't host a mirror of a big git repo. That's not what parent is claiming is "too big".

The problem is that the tooling for reviewing changes on GitHub doesn't scale and also doesn't match the model that Linux uses (deputies). Hell, I would argue large projects like Kubernetes and Rust are hitting these same issues.

Also, that is just a mirror. The real hosting is on [https://git.kernel.org/](https://git.kernel.org/).

<comment><USER17> Ok. I read it as "too big" size wise. Of course I know it's a mirror.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Just sort by year: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_host...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_source_code_hosting_facilities)

Before then, code was often on people's private websites, or FTP servers, with communication over BBS, email, and IRC.

</comment><comment><USER19> Others have pointed at sourceforge , google code . There was also Freshmeat ( renamed to Freecode )

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

</comment><comment><USER20> Mailing lists and Newsgroups (usenet) were both quite popular. Before the internet, it was over dialup BBS systems and CDs/floppy disks.

Just remember that Git was designed around the workflow of the Linux kernel originally. That's why there are commands like "git format-patch" and "git am" which have help messages like "Prepare patches for e-mail submission" and "Apply a series of patches from a mailbox".

It was also not that uncommon to see code patches printed in magazines or snail-mail letters.

<comment><USER21> This was my experience as well. In fact, source code control tools weren't that high on the list of success factors. Communication and distribution were more important.

"Pull requests" were often just a tarball of diffs against a specific version, sent via email, and discussed on usenet. The code owner had to deal with the merge issues if the tarball wasn't built against "trunk".

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> See suckless.org for a good example.

Personally, I used to put them under my personal website, seperating each to a subdomain. If you'd like to see source code, you'd download it.

</comment><comment><USER23> As other commenters mentioned, you used Google Code, Sourceforge, and before that you'd email a patch to an email list, specific bug tracker for the project, or to the maintainer. Probably the biggest changes that Github added was the social aspect, and much improved UI compared to most previous tools. It made it much easier to search, browse code in the browser, and add requests to merge features or bug fixes.

</comment><comment><USER24> Some projects would use older version control systems like cvs.

Others would manage development through email lists. Everyone was good at using the diff & patch commands. Mail clients like mutt were great at searching and sorting email. Releases would go up to FTP servers.

In larger projects, there might have been multiple trees maintained. For example, get your patch into Andrew or Alan's tree before Linus would take it.

</comment><comment><USER25> In addition to the repository hosts already mentioned, there were also some specialized services for open source for a particular type or class of use.

A good example was CurseForge.com. They provided free SVN, Git, and Mercurial hosting for add-ons for several popular games, along with per add-on issue tracking and discussion.

Add-on authors could host at other, general purpose, hosting sites, but there was an advantage to using CurseForge. Curse.com had an application called the Curse Client for end users. The Curse Client was an add-on manager. It integrated with CurseForge, allowing you to handle searching for, downloading, installing, and updating add-ons from CurseForge right in the Curse Client GUI.

Curse and CurseForge are still around, and support a variety of games. I'm not sure what the deal is with repository hosting there now. I saw some documentation that suggested you are supposed to use an external repository and provide a link to it as part of your CurseForge project settings, but I also see a lot of projects whose repository is on curseforge.com.

</comment><comment><USER26> SourceForge. Before that, webpages in a "ring". Before that, Usenet/BBS forums.

SourceForge, specifically, is basically the same as GitHub

</comment><comment><USER27> Hi,

I was one of the original contributors to Gentoo in the late 90s (back then it was called Enoch). We had a private FTP site we stored source code and packages at, and we all downloaded regular snapshots of the system. I would archive milestones to CD-R out of a sense of duty+fear.

It sounds primitive, but at the time source control was something only wealthy corporations had.

</comment><comment><USER28> OpenBSD with anoncvs started in the 90's with showing a live cvs to the world. That was a nice change from release dumps.

</comment><comment><USER29> I managed SimplePie using a self-hosted SVN repository for the first 5 years of its life. Contributions exploded AFTER moving to GitHub.

The AWS SDK for PHP started life as a project called Tarzan on Google Code.

GitHub made code feel more accessible. It made contributions easier. It improved the visibility inside the project.

</comment><comment><USER30> Sourceforge or SVNs. Github didn't revolutionize the open source landscape. They just gave everybody an easier-to-use GUI.

</comment><comment><USER31> Sunsite.

And new releases were announced on Freshmeat.

</comment><comment><USER32> Self-hosted Trac (without the "k"). It was usually trac.domain.com

</comment><comment><USER33> zipped source tarballs w/ anonymous FTP downloads.

Then you emailed diff patches to maintainers and prayed.

</comment><comment><USER34> sourceforge

</comment><comment><USER35> Many people commenting here say that github did not bring anything new to the game. While that is partially correct we know that bringing only new things does not matter. What matters is slick,seamless polishing of existing ideas and execution. There are many examples of just reinventing the wheel and making it more beatiful and usable.

To your original question: sourceforge was huge, google code, cvs, bazillion of local "downloads.com" etc

<comment><USER36> I think it's incredibly naive to underestimate how much value GitHub provided by shifting the focus from users to developers and putting contribution front and center.

SourceForge was primarily a way to distribute software. While most software would be under some form of open source license you'd often also find plenty of projects that either weren't _really_ open source or hosted their source code elsewhere. And when the source was on SF, the web interface for browsing it was unintuitive and unhelpful.

The most intuitive use of SF for non-maintainers was downloading releases and leaving comments. There was a separate space for filing issues but it was pretty much just another forum. And let's not forget that contributing code also meant you had to have experience with using SVN (or CVS, I think?) because learning that at the time felt even more daunting than git does now.

Before THAT you were mostly confined to sending patches to newsgroups or mailing lists as far as I recall. I open sourced a single project on SF and beyond that never really got into open source until GitHub made it painless and straightforward -- I doubt I'm the only one.

<comment><USER37> So true.

Coming from times when I had to download my PHP libs from SF and trying to get some fixes landed, everything's much different and better now.

I get everything via a simple npm install and landing PRs has never been easier.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Before GitHub you had Google Code.

Before that was SourceForge.

<comment><USER39> Can confirm sourceforge was huge

<comment><USER40> Another vote for Sourceforge; even today it contains a lot of stuff.

<comment><USER41> Sourceforge got desperate for money and they started modifying installation packages to contain crapware, an example is FileZilla. I try to stay away from sourceforge since then.

<comment><USER34> _Sourceforge got desperate for money and they started modifying installation packages to contain crapware_

That is only a relatively recent development.

<comment><USER28> And one they have stated here on HN that the new owners are ending. Judging by the comments everytime they are mentioned, they need to do a lot more aggressive PR.

<comment><USER42> They can do whatever they want, many people won't touch them for the rest of their lives, I'm among them.

<comment><USER28> How is that a productive attitude in life towards anything? The people who did the deed are long gone, but the people who want to restore and advance SourceForge are SOL?

<comment><USER42> Because there is competition that have never done anything bad like SF, that offers better products. Would you buy your groceries at Al Capone's, while there's a grandpa's groceries just right next door that offers better, cheaper, and more versatile stuff?

<comment><USER28> SourceForge isn't owned by the same people anymore, so your example is rather bogus.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Is Remote Work 'Bull***t'? - <AUTHOR> https://distributed.blog/2019/06/13/is-remote-work-bs/ <comment><USER2> No.

\</comment><comment>

To provide more context. No. It isn't bullshit. Magic synergies do not just materialize out of thin air when you physically sit next to someone and eat pizza together.

Truly motivated individuals can create something amazing even if one is on top of a mountain with a satellite phone and the other is sleeping on a bench in the airport.

Two unmotivated individuals can't create awesome code even if you lock them in a closet and say they can't leave until they make a landing page.</comment>


Parisian Lives: Samuel Beckett, Simone de Beauvoir and Me – A Memoir - <AUTHOR> https://www.drb.ie/essays/the-hhard-life <comment><USER2> Nice to see this. The book came out just before Bair's death. I've reviewed it here: [https://niklasblog.com/?p=23209](https://niklasblog.com/?p=23209). On the other hand, I recommend Kate Kirkpatrick's 'Becoming Beauvoir' a lot: [https://niklasblog.com/?p=24693](https://niklasblog.com/?p=24693)

<comment><USER3> I read your Bair review and thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks! Between the OP and yours, the quotes make her voice sound so engaging that I think I may actually order the book. Also: everything Beckett is quoted as saying is mesmerizing.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> _' There is a sense on almost every page of Parisian Lives of the biographer settling scores and airing long-suppressed grievances. [...] . It's a pity that the generosity and kindness of Seamus and Marie Heaney and others towards her is described only in passing.'_

Instances of this remind me of the "Brother, I set her down on the other side of the river, why are you still carrying her?" koan (e.g. [https://www.kindspring.org/story/view.php?sid=63753](https://www.kindspring.org/story/view.php?sid=63753) )</comment>


Geohot secures VC funding for self-driving car - <AUTHOR> http://electrek.co/2016/03/08/geohot-self-driving-car-startup/ <comment><USER2> Didn't know a16z was in the business of throwing away money.</comment>


CRISPR machines that can wipe out entire species - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnet.com/news/the-crispr-machines-that-can-wipe-out-entire-species/ <comment><USER2> It's horrible that people are dying because of malaria. I'm a bit divided on this approach though, I don't know enough about the topic at hand to suggest a different approach, but let me try.

Would it be feasible to suggest using CRISP to create another adaptation to the gene, one that preserves the mosquitoes but makes them unable to transfer the disease to humans?

Eliminating a species because we don't like it reminds me of speciesism as Peter Singer outlines in one of his books. (Animal Liberation I believe it was). Where humans assume another species to be inferior and have less of a right to live a decent life.

I do think it's a normal response to value human life more. And in fact, I also do think that in this case it makes more sense to safe the humans if no other approach is viable..

<comment><USER3> The article mentions they tried to engineer mosquitos to not carry malaria, but it made them weak and so natural selection favored the non-engineered mosquitoes.

As for the rest, yeah tricky business. By all accounts we have more value than a mosquito, but as you move up the food chain what are the unintended consequences?

<comment><USER4> What about the effect of existing anti-mosquito measures? We aren't exactly using pleasant chemicals for that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> We have to learn first how to de-extinct a species.

The cascade of known, expected and unexpected comsequences from wiping mosquitoes could be enough to distroy the economy of entire countries.

And is so easy to think in believable sceneries that is astonishing to see people repeating again the mantra that nothing is proved and nothing will happen.

Wiping mosquitoes in Africa could affect profoundly Europe, for example.

The same birds that save harvests in Europe each year, pass the winter in Africa. Finding some alternative food, here and there, is not the same as "finding enough fuel to not die in the return". Do we really want to start an experiment that could lead to Europe losing decens of insectivorous birds overnight and episodes of famine in many points of Europe?

Or... What if malaria strikes back being forced to jump to the next species of mosquito available, those able to stand cold temperatures that can be found in Scottland or Swedden?

</comment><comment><USER6> "Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee;". But in our new worlds we'll just CRISPR them away.

No more roses with thorns (they cause thumb injuries), sweet smelling stink bugs, glow in the dark pets.

Can't imagine what could go wrong. Someone needs to be writing the movie plot right now.

<comment><USER7> A little dated, but here : [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx_and_Crake](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oryx_and_Crake)

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Frightening question: what if this technology could be targeted not at species, but at races?

<comment><USER9> You mean humans?

AFAIK human "races" are largely superficial biologically - there are some correlations, but weaker than the variability between individuals.

<comment><USER10> By the time DNA wars begin, we will be already very mixed as a planet.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I remember having a conversation with a friend a couple years ago, about a hypothetical scenario where a more intelligent species would someday threaten human existence. We'd then point to mosquitoes and say, _look how we hate these little guys and they are still everywhere_.

Well, that was that.

</comment><comment><USER12> What technical limitations allow us to genetically target mosquitos with this but not the malaria parasite itself?

<comment><USER13> This is a good question. I don't have a full answer.

The proposed gene drive causes male mosquitoes to produce sperm that, when it fertilizes egg cells, will lead to only make offspring. After several generations of this spreading, eventually all offspring will be male, and that will be the last generation.

The gene drive does this by attacking the genes in the mosquito sex determination system called doublesex. I guess, no-one has discovered a similar vulnerable mechanism in the malaria plasmodium sex determination genes. The malaria plasmodium is a single-celled organism, and it goes through both asexual and sexual reproductive phases in its life cycle. But it does go through the sexual phase, too.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> What will be the effect on humanity when we lose a constant source of stimulation for our immune systems? Perhaps it will actually set us up for a pandemic of apocalyptic proportions.

</comment><comment><USER15> this sound like that game — horizon zero dawn

</comment><comment><USER16> ITT: people who live in countries that aren't ravaged by malaria share their vague feelings of doubt about whether or not getting rid of mosquitos is a good idea

<comment><USER17> If you've been personally affected by malaria your immediate impulse is do whatever it takes to stop it.

But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished.

There's a lot of debate about whether destroying malaria-carrying mosquitoes would have _any_ side effects whatsoever. Alternately, it may have some.

I don't think your characterization is fair, in other words. Those of us in areas not immediately affected are insulated against that emotional response, but we must be aware of the reality of malaria's toll. But destroying an entire species is a draconian approach that should require a great deal of thought.

<comment><USER18> > But we know nothing comes for free, no good human deed goes unpunished.

We know nothing of the sort. Perhaps this is something _you_ know.

<comment><USER19> Pretty much all projects of large-scale human ecological interventions ended up with some unexpected side-effect. It's extremely hard to take into account all the variables and often you fix one issue, but create 10 new ones. Just think of using myxomatosis to control rabbit population, or introduction of cane toads in Australia in attempt to control sugarcane pests.

<comment><USER20> Erradication of smallpox?

<comment><USER19> Well, it's a bit different with viruses as they're not directly part of the food chain for complex organisms - unlike mosquitos that are important food source to many insects, fish and birds. For instance for some fish and their fry the mosquito larvae are the primary food source, so if you destroy the complete population of mosquitos you might also severely affect some fish species. Some spiders and birds will also be left hungry. That can then affect other ecological niches up the food chain, perhaps even cause a collapse of the whole biotop system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Not my area of expertise at all, but mosquitoes seem unique in nature in that they can pick up diseases from one animal and spread them to another by direct blood transfusion. I've long wondered if this might confer some kind of advantage to the animals being bit, perhaps along the lines of how vaccines work.

<comment><USER22> Possibly also leeches - [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8073013](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8073013)

"many fish leeches directly transmit several blood parasites" "Consequently, the leech is a potential vector of many pathogens, especially in regions with an endemic spread of human and/or animal pathogens."</comment></comment>


I Was a Guard in the 1971 Stanford Prison Experiment - <AUTHOR> http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/2y5sbt/iwasa_guard_in_the_1971_stanford_prison/ <comment><USER2> Oddly I was thinking about this experiment this morning. Perhaps I opened HN and forgot.

My thinking was along his lines. Now I think that I was in denial. In The Banality of Evil book, the main clerk of the genocide had "the personality of a mailman." He had "winged words." He fuggedaboudit. He forgot what his mind wanted to.

The Nazis were not sorry for their genocide victims. They were only sorry for themselves that they had to be the bad guys. De Nile runs deep.

Battle for the Mind: A Physiology of Conversion and Brain-Washing (Sargant, 1957) says that you need total neurological collapse to convert someone. I guess this is why the book of Nash the mentally ill math genius has better information than the misleading movie that people take seriously. He never got better until he was in a cheap state hospital and they broke out old fashioned insulin comas and such techniques on him. Total brain shock.

There is a debate now about whether torture works. It is all wishful thinking. People are innately convertable. There was a k5 essay about this. Slavery from raids used to be common. The adaptive behavior is Stockholm Syndrome -- you break down and reintegrate to the new tribe. Like Blue Jacket play (no longer being shown since it is ahistorical like the Simpsons play).

<comment><USER3> Hannah Arendt is widely praised and its Jerusalem book is often quoted all around the world, yet this portrayal of a "mailman" is more than dubious. The historian Hermann Langbein, who survived Auschwitz and later wrote the authoritative "Men and women at Auschwitz", showed that her ideas didn't match the facts. Recently, the first integral study of Eichmann's papers completely broke this "mailman" picture: he was a typical intellectual, who read philosophy books and even poetry, and liked writing. This "personality of a mailman" is a nonsense, unless writing long commentaries of Hegel's philosophy is "banal" for any "mailman".

Taking the Nazis as a whole is another big mistake. Some were sorry, some tried to mitigate the violence, at different levels. Primo Levi (also very critical of Arendt) remembered a young woman that became a guardian: at first she was horrified, she couldn't stand the violence and felt ill the first days, she tried to resign. A few weeks later, she was accustomed and hit prisoners. It's a pity his "grey zone" concept is despised by our Manichean world.

Apart from this, I totally agree with the denial aspect. The Standford experiment was very probably a trauma for this former guard, and his denegating discourse seems strongly biased by this. His main claims are:

\- This experiment is a fraud, it claims to prove that we, the guards, became "evil" (his term), but that's wrong. \- The experiment was biased because the main experimenter made some important decisions along the way. \- We, the guards, did not loose our humanity, the material settings were inhumane and made us behave like this. For instance, we were sleep deprived. \- If a guard became violent, it's not because he was violent, it's because he was an amateur actor that had endorsed a violent role just for fun. \- The experiment author manipulated the students into saying things they didn't thought, and he kept their identities secret to give him "more control of the narrative".

Sure, this experiment is morally questionable and it's hard to build strong conclusions upon it, but if it was a fraud, why wasn't it debunked long ago? Why didn't most of the students protest they were wronged? Why caricature it with notions of good/evil? And would actors play a "violent cop" role for many days just on an impulse, with graduating violence? And, most of all: if an inhumane setting made them behave with less empathy, less humanity, isn't that a very interesting experimental result?

<comment><USER4> The Stanford Prison Experiment _was_ debunked long ago. It's mostly taught today as a cautionary tale of how not to do psychological research, and as a case study in research ethics demonstrating why we have IBR's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> His comments are pretty interesting. He seems to lay the entire blame for the conditions of the experiment on Professor Zimbardo.

> _Looking at the prisoners, they were all just like me. Unlike in real > prisoners, there wasn 't social or racial disparity. There was no animosity. > They looked just like me, or people I knew._

This is an odd comment to make; I'm not sure what he'd be trying to get at here. The most charitable interpretation I could give it is that abuse is more expected if there are racial or social differences between prisoners and guards.

I'm really disappointed that nobody thought to ask him directly why he didn't object to anything that he observed. He says a couple of times that there were parts of the experiment he didn't agree with, but that he didn't want to taint or harm the experiment. So, he seemed to be willing to at least passively accept the abuse of other people -- his own schoolmates -- for the sake of a purpose.

He wasn't apparently aware of how the experiment is taught in modern Psych classes, and it's funny, some of his comments reinforce what those classes teach:

> _We used the Stanford experiment to talk about prison mentalities actually > and how prison effects people and changes them. How people become what the > situation calls for. Like you said above that Lombardo set up that > experiment and you did what you were told as a kid_

and

> _While the popular idea from this may be the inherent evil, I hope you at > least know that those who learn about this in college /university do not > learn it that way, it's more along the topics of conformity, and diffusion > of responsibility._

...in response to his saying,

> _In that prison experiment, leaving would have been an option, but I didn 't > for several reasons: first off, from my perspective, I didn't see that much > happening that was bad. People looking back now ... can see it in black-and- > white, two-dimensionally. At the time, it went on pretty much as advertised. > ... Also, I felt a commitment when I agreed to participate in the > experiment. For all I knew, if I left, the whole experiment could have > unraveled. Also, I felt like this was a unique experience and I enjoyed > getting paid for doing something unusual._

<comment><USER6> It's a little disingenuous to use the word "schoolmates" to describe his fellow prisoners. This was at Berkeley; as far as I'm aware, none of the guards knew the prisoners before the experiment.

Honestly, if it weren't unethical, I'd be curious as to the results of a re- run of the SPE except that you spend the first day out-of-character doing icebreakers before role assignment. I suspect that it'd make things better on the whole, but you'd have the occasional case where a guard uses it as an occasion to fish for ways to get under a prisoner's skin much more quickly and effectively.

<comment><USER7> Not "at Berkeley". I suspect even going back to 1971, this sort of 'experiment' wouldn't have flown at Berkeley.

<comment><USER6> Blah. I got my recollection confused with the Greater Good magazine, which is at Berkeley. /facepalm

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Incidentally, Dr. Zimbardo has continued doing stuff in the last 40 years. He testified as an expert for Abu Ghraib, wrote a book [1], and has been promoting heroic imagination as an antidote. It's worth checking out his work since, if this is an area you're interested in.

[1] [http://lucifereffect.com/](http://lucifereffect.com/)

</comment><comment><USER7> The real lesson of the Stanford Prison Experiment is that professors will do awful things to trusting undergraduates for academic fame.

</comment><comment><USER8> It's difficult to achieve some kind of objectivity. Of course no one wants to believe that they are _innately bad_ or easily coerced into doing terrible things to other human beings, so it seems like it would be very natural to expect them to lash out at the methods of the experiment.

<comment><USER9> Not to argue the basic concept, but in this specific case, AFAIK, it's very arguable whether "people are innately evil" might have been proven.

I.e. the experiment was influenced by the author of the research by his own admission, and the results were never replicated.

<comment><USER8> > Not to argue the basic concept, but in this specific case, AFAIK, it's very > arguable whether "people are innately evil" might have been proven.

I definitely was not implying that a statement like that was (let alone ever could be) proven; only that for the subjects that participated in the experiment, who were exposed to that perhaps popular interpretation of the results - could be expected have a significantly different perception of the experiment on account of this.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> There's a well-known psychological result that people will do awful things if asked to do so in an authoritative context. What the guard is essentially saying is that the behaviour documented originated more from that existing result than any emergent behaviour.

<comment><USER11> The well-known psychological theory was in part developed because of this experiment. This one, and Milgram's famous experiment.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> "It wasn't my fault, we were just following orders. It was sleep deprivation, the prisoners were dehumanized and we were told to play act as bad guys." seems to be his excuse (from reading his comments) which to me, seems to reinforce Zimbardo more than discredit him. But I might be missing something.

This is also just one person's opinion and memory from 40 years ago.

For better or worse, I think the Stanford Prison Experiment is a very interesting piece of research, and if it wasn't, we still wouldn't be discussing it and what it means.

<comment><USER6> Well, it's worth noting that this has been John Mark's statement for some time. Here's the earliest instance I can find online: [https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?artic...](https://alumni.stanford.edu/get/page/magazine/article/?article_id=43897) (2011)

I'm also somewhat certain that his view was mentioned in Zimbardo's 2007 book; I loaned out my copy, so I can't check.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> It's kinda well known a lot of these old pop psychology experiments were not scientifically valid yet peoples keep taking them at face value even in this thread?

It's not to say the point was wrong, they were made fanciful to popularise a point the researchers believed in.

But if you want to believe they were right please at least quote valid research.

</comment><comment><USER14> This man repeats over and over again that he believes humans are not inherently Evil, while he justifies the behavior of guards on the way the experiment was designed.

For me that proves that people could be inherently Evil while not realizing about what they are really doing(until they suffer from it).

For example, at the start of the WWII killing and abusing for the Germans and Japanese was so easy because there was such a power imbalance, like in the experiment with guards weapons,horses against tanks in Poland in WWII, that they actually abused and killed without actually thinking about it. They were Evil, but most of them did not really knew at the time, because all the propaganda they heard and so on(radio told them they were being heroes).

It was only when they started to loose that they understood what they had done to others, because they started being on the Evil receiving side.

Today you see this power imbalance in Iraq, any American soldier could kill 100-200 people from the other side before one American dies. So they don't really think about this until a terrorist attack kills 10-20 people in the West. Control on the media means the thousands of people dying in Iraq is not displayed on TV, so it does not exit.

<comment><USER15> Just for the record, "horses against tanks" is well known to be propaganda bullshit.

<comment><USER14> We developed technology in order to help investigators access archives of documents of the time.

Once of the most interesting things you discover when you read the archives is that lost of things we consider obvious today, was not at the time.

One of those is the usefulness of airplanes at the start of WWI, proven at the end, and the usefulness of tanks at the start of WWII.

The fact tanks were bad weapons at fist, bulky, difficult to operate, slow,low range(compared with big cannons) easy targets, and no ability to cross difficult terrain.

This was improved in an incredible way, for example tank suspension improvements rendered the Maginot Line obsolete when finished.

Lots of people in the army were against change. Making tanks were very expensive, they needed fuel, and they genuinely considered money was better spent on other things.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Where's the IMDB link to the recent release of the Hollywood Docu-drama?</comment>


Different approach to engineyard contest - <AUTHOR> http://www.raycmorgan.com/

<comment><USER2> This was one of my first ideas when I saw the contest, but I think it will not work unless you have a very large site you can open a more or less background popup, _a lot_ of javascripts engines running at the same time are needed in order to compete even with just a single GPU of a good nvidia card...

<comment><USER3> Indeed, I'm using CUDA (PyCUDA) and getting about 200,000 iterations per second.

<comment><USER4> What does an iteration mean? I can do about 2million shas/process with just the cpu. I think CUDA is much faster.

<comment><USER5> I'm not really what he means either. If he was talking about kernel launches, there'd be no way he was getting 200k/sec since there's a bit of a launch latency (tens of milliseconds); the EngineYard program that one of the members posted on the CUDA forum can do over 200 million SHA hashes on a good card. One member said that he was getting over a billion hashes/sec on his multi-GPU setup.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Well, since I have no intention of participating, let me share my idea: I'd ignore the words entirely and just choose some random ones. Then, I'd work the SHA1 hash up to the very last letter, then save the internals of the SHA1 data. From there, work all of the possible last letters. When that fails, back up one step (which I saved earlier), advance with the next letter, then keep going again with just hashing the last letter/number. This ought to get you another order of magnitude over naive brute forcing. Probably as clever as it is possible to get.

It's those last five characters that are the most interesting. If you have the time to get through all of a given set of words, then you can try a new word.

Good luck.

</comment><comment><USER7> Essentially the same idea: <http://pluraprocessing.com/>. I reached out to Ray to see if they'd be interested in using us, but if anyone else would like to as well, just drop us a line.

</comment><comment><USER8> I have to give this site some props for that sweet little graph they have of throughput. I want to use it to profile various browsers and operating systems, which has the nice side effect of helping them out.

<comment><USER9> Currently getting ~1840/second on Firefox 3.5 (Windows) and ~620/second on IE8.

<comment><USER9> ~2750/second on Chrome, same machine, after a while with lots of tabs. (Starts at around 3400/sec with one tab).

<comment><USER10> Chrome is doing ~1634/sec for me on an old Pentium 4.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> apparently not "that" different, just started seeing a few pop up, I guess I am going to have to be careful about what tabs I leave open over the next 30 hours.

</comment><comment><USER11> Uh either it's a bug or they've easily won - the current best score no my screen says 0.

<http://screencast.com/t/Q4c50esrBpf>

EDIT: meh sorry, apparently chrome is a bust :) I see it's 43 in Firefox

</comment><comment><USER12> We also have some C and Java implementations helping out. C = 500,000 a sec per core and Java just under that.

Also, we will be tweeting out what our analytics say about how many computations took place in the browser sometime soon after the competition is over.

</comment><comment><USER13> Best pure Mac solution seems to be <http://www.stainlessapp.com/> in my own uneducated tests I can 100% load my MacBook Pro with 4 tabs each chugging at 2000/sec permutations

</comment><comment><USER14> Lately, I've been thinking about the applications of a distributed system like this.

What you really need is an incentive for users to stay on your site. Porn is a good way to get people to do silly things like letting their browser eat up all their CPU. There used to be a virus that would popup a picture of a girl who would take off her clothes as you solved captchas for spammers (<http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2704,2210674,00.asp>)

Maybe something like: "the lower the hamming distance, the lower my top!"

</comment><comment><USER15> I'm sure it'd be a lot faster if they made a Java Applet or JavaFX version. Is there a reason they didn't? They could always fall back to Javascript if Java wasn't installed.

</comment><comment><USER16> copying from my faulty comment on silentmac implementation: Sorry for dual post:

This idea is a really well thought and implemented. This may be a new way of cloud sourcing. Have you considered making a facebook app? It would definitely attract many more people than this. Of course you should offer some carrots for users that do not have any idea what's going on.

</comment><comment><USER17> good luck!</comment>


Copy/paste, Motherfucker - <AUTHOR> http://copypaste-motherfucker.com/

<comment><USER2> No place to comment there but, author, don't weaken a good meme just because you can.

<comment><USER3> It would be funny if there was some glowing comment in agreement with the site, then a reply / comment button - but the only thing that happens when you press that button is it copies the original glowing comment and pastes it new.

Or especially after soemone types a bunch of crap - the submit replaces everything they types with the glowing comment :)</comment></comment>


Why Did Music Visualizers Disappear? - <AUTHOR> http://digg.com/2019/spotify-music-visualizer <comment><USER2> "Because they make you think about the music. And when you're thinking about the music, you aren't hearing it"

\-- Alan Watts, more or less

</comment><comment><USER3> I run a dedicated one on my Mac, cost a few bucks but it's way cooler than anyone that came with a player in the past, although the way it feeds audio into the visualizer using the microphone is pretty weak.

[https://www.discobrick.com](https://www.discobrick.com)

</comment><comment><USER4> Since I do my best to keep one online, to me music visualizers are now online : [https://do.adive.in/music/](https://do.adive.in/music/) :)

</comment><comment><USER5> I thought Digg disappeared. :/

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> The author mentions a web-based Spotify music visualizer (that actually works!), [https://www.kaleidosync.com](https://www.kaleidosync.com)

Such a nice retro thing :)</comment>


A Physicist Trying to Fix Quantum Mechanics - <AUTHOR> https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/25/magazine/angelo-bassi-quantum-mechanic.html <comment><USER2> TL;DR: Physicist Angelo Bassi is trying to experimentally test the GRW collapse model [1], which is in fact experimentally testable. Personally, my money is firmly on the side of these experiments failing, but I would not bet my entire life savings on it. These experiments may well succeed, and if they do, that will be the biggest breakthrough in physics in 100 years. It's great that someone is actually testing this.

[1][https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghirardi%E2%80%93Rimini%E2%80%93Weber_theory)

<comment><USER3> Interesting that such a potentially grand idea is published unceremoniously in a specialized journal (Physical Review D).

<comment><USER4> Physicists generally publish their physics in physics journals. There is usually no public ceremony involved.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I disagree that quantum mechanics needs fixing. What it requires is understanding. Many people even ones with PhDs don't really have a deep understanding of QM.

Ask a grad student or even a professor of physics what is essentially different about QM verses classical mechanics.

I almost always get one of two answers.

QM has operators acting on a Hilbert space (rigged HS). It's so mysterious because we have to replace everything with operators. well...

Have they heard of the Koopman–von Neumann formulations of classical mechanics? It's CM formulated using HS and ops.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_cl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koopman%E2%80%93von_Neumann_classical_mechanics)

Another answer is uncertainty. QM has uncertainty. Well... so does classical mechanics!

So what is different? That's a very long answer but one thing is the Exclusion principle.

Besides the KvN formulation is it possible to do QM using the equations of CM in the same form?

yes, it is. The Wigner Moyal Weyl formulations of QM. Look it up or Moyal star products.

Lastly, the collapse of the wave function.

Already done long, long ago by John von Neumann in his book on Quantum Mechanics. The correct formulation involves the subtle concept of decoherence. Von Neumann's trace operators are used in extreme cases where standard calculations (which involve a tiny bit of cheating) won't work, e.g. black hole entropy.

What's wrong with QM? So far nothing! It's possible someone might find a flaw but it hasn't happened.

The problem is mostly US. We don't understand all the implications of what we already possess. The enormous amount of myth making and lack of understanding surrounding QM obfuscates what the true problems are which in 99% of cases is the most physicists simply haven't studied von Neumann carefully enough.

<comment><USER6> In Scott Aaronson's paraphrased words...

Quantum mechanics is just statistics, but operations preserve the 2-norm instead of the 1-norm. Instead of case weights (probabilities) adding up to 1, the squares of case weights (amplitudes) add up to 1. Everything else (the uncertainty principle, measurement mattering, no cloning, Bell inequalities, etc, etc, etc) follows.

<comment><USER7> > Everything else (the uncertainty principle, measurement mattering, no > cloning, Bell inequalities, etc, etc, etc) follows.

Did Aaronson provide a source for that?

<comment><USER6> He usually explains the details right after stating it. For example, you can follow along in his lecture notes: [https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html](https://www.scottaaronson.com/democritus/lec9.html) .

"Statistics but with the 2 norm" is really just a succinct way of stating the postulates of quantum mechanics, and obviously all effects of quantum mechanics are determined by the postulates. So you shouldn't really see this as a statement that's controversial at all.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> > the wave function's numbers have no obvious meaning

A lot of things in physics (or in other model in science, for that matter) have cannot be measured directly. (I think "has no meaning" is a stretch here.)

I can go for ages talking about things in physics that are less intuitive than simple, non-relativistic, quantum mechanics (Poynting vector, anyone?)

But think about something simple and concrete: electric potential. You cannot measure it. But you can measure its difference.

<comment><USER9> I am not disagreeing with your overall point, but they sell meters that measure electric potential. We measure it all the time.

<comment><USER10> No, they measure the electric potential _difference_ between two points. This is why, for example, you ground your scope probes.

<comment><USER9> Only the potential difference is physically meaningful. The absolute potential has no effect on anything. You can add 1000 V or 10^6 V to everything and you get exactly the same physics.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is totally unnecessary, as the fact that this _appears_ to happen has already been explained with decoherence, which emerges naturally from the fundamental laws. However, I guess there's something to be said for checking every imaginable possible modification of present theories. As far as I know the only modification that's _truly_ motivated is adding gravity to the standard model, which nobody knows how to do, so the next best thing is to imagine extra terms and then try to swat them out with experiments.

<comment><USER2> > The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is > totally unnecessary

Except to explain our everyday experience of a single classical world. Then something in QM has to give.

<comment><USER12> >Except to explain our everyday experience of a single classical world.

Which the parent says is explained via decoherence. Why do you feel that decoherence does not account for the observed phenomenon?

<comment><USER2> > Which the parent says is explained via decoherence

No, that's not what the parent says. The parent says:

"The idea that quantum mechanics stops working at macroscopic scales is totally unnecessary..."

which is true, with the one exception that I noted:

> Except to explain our everyday experience of a SINGLE classical world > [emphasis added]

You can get from QM to multiple worlds without any ad hoc assumptions, but you cannot get to a SINGLE classical world that way. You have to give up either linearity or superposition.

<comment><USER13> The necessary emphasis in the above sentence is OUR EXPERIENCE. If you can accept multiple worlds then you can accept the other ones are populated by different yous each of whom experiences a single world, namely the one they are in

<comment><USER2> It is actually much more complicated than that.

[http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many- wor...](http://blog.rongarret.info/2019/07/the-trouble-with-many-worlds.html)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Angelo Bassi has a number of papers on arxiv.org:

[https://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+bassi+site%3Aarxiv.or...](https://www.google.com/search?q=angelo+bassi+site%3Aarxiv.org)

This one seems relevant to the topic of the NY Times article:

[https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8600](https://arxiv.org/abs/1310.8600)

</comment><comment><USER15> This reminds me of Carl Sagan, who basically said while people believe the beautiful math and wave functions are the fundamental reality and a universal language, he didn't actually believe this and thought there was something more and very simple behind the math we use to understand/explain our observations and make predictions.

<comment><USER16> Problem is, math is the only "microscope" we have a hope to peer with into the fundamental reality. On the other hand, the wave function is just as real as, say, the number "3" is.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Given the (according to me) fact that many worlds (more aptly named the Relative State Interpretation) is true and correct, one can confidently predict that no "collapse" will be found. That, and the fact that people have been looking for actual collapse of the wave function for many decades.

<comment><USER18> The MWI is a cop-out. The problem of nonlocality just gets handed off to whatever process forks the parallel universes - it has to ensure that every universe has consistent outcomes for both halves of a Bell experiment, for instance.

The probabilities in QM should be viewed as subjective, but physicists hate subjectivity, so they talk about hypothetical ensembles. It baffles me that Everett took those ensembles and decided they were real universes.

<comment><USER19> The MWI van violate Bell inequalities locally by using post-selection; that's trivial to show.

When the universe splits at two distant measurements it isn't until those outcomes are brought into contact that the matching of worlds needs to happen.

<comment><USER20> I know there's math that makes this seem real, but logical arguments make it sound silly.

Does the universe split every time the wave function collapses in any form, for all measurements of all atoms in the universe? Isn't that essentially infinite? And how would you prove it if any of this was real?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Will the Internet eat your brain? - <AUTHOR> http://www.economist.com/news/books-and-arts/21614088-neuroscientist-warns-will-internet-eat-your-brain

<comment><USER2> The other day some colleagues and I were joking about how uncomfortable a trip to the restroom is when the wireless is down. But then, the same statement made without forced grins is just really a declaration that a trip to the restroom, alone with your thoughts for five minutes, has become the old way and is increasingly uncomfortable. I know this must be true for more than zero people.</comment>


Skribilo: A Scheme-Based Document Programming Framework - <AUTHOR> http://www.nongnu.org/skribilo/

<comment><USER2> This supports an org-mode like syntax for authoring, not just the sexp syntax: [http://www.nongnu.org/skribilo/doc/user-3.html#outline- synta...](http://www.nongnu.org/skribilo/doc/user-3.html#outline-syntax)

</comment><comment><USER3> How does this compare to Pollen?

[http://mbutterick.github.io/pollen/doc/](http://mbutterick.github.io/pollen/doc/)</comment>


The Art of Fuzzing (2017) [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://sec-consult.com/wp-content/uploads/files/vulnlab/the_art_of_fuzzing_slides.pdf <comment><USER2> Is there a video or slide notes?

<comment><USER3> Found this. [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-DiwxoeXMs](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-DiwxoeXMs)</comment></comment>


The Geometry of Musical Chords - <AUTHOR> http://music.princeton.edu/~dmitri/ChordGeometries.html

<comment><USER2> Mathematics of music is a frequent guest topic of John Baez's This Weeks Finds in Mathematical Physics. Week #234 was one of the most interesting, referencing lots of work, including Tymoczko's : <http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week234.html> Many books are mentioned there already, but I would like to add one more, Benson's "Music : A Mathematical Offering", which is a little lighter read (at least not going into category theory stuff), downloadable here : <http://www.maths.abdn.ac.uk/~bensondj/html/maths-music.html>

<comment><AUTHOR> These books are also interesting (and require no more than elementary math):

Mathematics and Music (by David Wright) <http://www.math.wustl.edu/~wright/Math109/00Book>

Theory and Techniques of Electronic Music <http://crca.ucsd.edu/~msp/techniques.htm>

<comment><USER3> I like the Musimathics books:

<http://musimathics.com/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Does anybody have the link to the TED talk about this prelude?

<comment><USER5> Benjamin Zander's talk:

[http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_...](http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/benjamin_zander_on_music_and_passion.html)

(Although as you probably know it's not exacly _about_ the prelude; Zander illustrates his point by playing the prelude.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> WHOA, as a CS/Music Theory major and as an FP hacker, I must say, this is mindblowing stuff that I've definitely thought about but never implemented. Props to this guy. Good next steps after these would be notations for tonal, contrapuntal and schenkerian analytical structures, not to mention some sort of interface to, say, something like pd (puredata.info). Good find.</comment>


7 things you should know about Vue.js - <AUTHOR> https://www.pointofvue.net/2017/04/05/7-things-you-should-know-about-vue-js/ <comment><USER2> Seems like yet more of the endless JavaScript churning: Yui, jquery, angular, react, vue, in less than ten years.

> Like most modern front-end JavaScript frameworks these days, Vue is fast. > 'How fast?', you ask. This article on medium and the official docs have > detailed write ups of Vue's performance compared to other popular front end > frameworks like React and Angular 2.

How can vue.js be faster than "vanilla JavaScript"? It is not possible for something written in javascript to be faster than javascript.</comment>


RAMCloud puts everything in DRAM - <AUTHOR> http://www.zdnet.com/blog/storage/ramcloud-puts-everything-in-dram/1546 <comment><USER2> "Imagine a world where data layout doesn't matter, where apps are optimized for sub-millisecond storage, where 100 byte I/Os are faster and just as efficient as 8KB I/Os. The architectural implications are huge and would take a decade or more to get our heads around."

Umm.. I've worked with in memory data structures (who hasn't?) and yeah, layout DOES matter. Especially if your data structure is larger than a cache line.

<comment><USER3> >"Imagine a world where data layout doesn't matter, where apps are optimized for sub-millisecond storage, where 100 byte I/Os are faster and just as efficient as 8KB I/Os.

with latency not being absolute 0, 100bytes I/O will always be less efficient the 8K I/Os. For example, with 300Mb/s and 0.01ms latency the throughput would be 10M/s vs 220M/s.

<comment><USER4> _"100bytes I/O will always be less efficient the 8K I/Os"_

Not if only 200 bytes of that 8K are relevant. It depends on the rpc overhead, but the small io's may be more efficient. Which is why you see them researching changes to the networking stack.

 _"300Mb/s and 0.01ms latency the throughput would be 10M/s vs 220M/s."_

When you write numbers on a napkin this is true. When you're talking about real systems that are both concurrent and scheduled in quantized slices you'll see much more complex behavior.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Here is a summary of the research paper. [http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-for- ramclouds-...](http://muratbuffalo.blogspot.com/2010/12/case-for-ramclouds- scalable-high.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> Is "DRAM" the new name for "RAM"?

Anybody know why the change in terminology? In which circles is this standard?

<comment><USER7> > Is "DRAM" the new name for "RAM"? Anybody know why the change in > terminology? In which circles is this standard?

RAM has always been DRAM. Specifically putting the "D" was probably meant to differentiate it from other types of Random-Access Memory, like NVRAM.

<comment><USER8> The term DRAM is used to differentiate it from SRAM, which is faster but less dense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> One of the driving goals of putting everything in DRAM was "low latency." They want latency of retrieving a small sized (100 byte) object to be as low as a few microseconds, _even across a network_.

</comment><comment><USER10> I'm not exactly sure what's being invented here that doesn't exist already.

<comment><USER11> can you cite an example of when DRAM is used for persistent storage? I am not aware of any.

<comment><USER7> There are a few products the use primarily DRAM, usually backed by capacitors/batteries and flash.

ZeusRAM SAS drive: <http://www.stec-inc.com/product/zeusram.php>

RamSan rack-mounted: [http://www.ramsan.com/products/rackmount-ram- storage/ramsan-...](http://www.ramsan.com/products/rackmount-ram- storage/ramsan-440)

Kaminario K2 SAN: [http://www.kaminario.com/products/K2-Solid-State-SAN- Storage...](http://www.kaminario.com/products/K2-Solid-State-SAN-Storage/)

<comment><USER12> Further examples of combo products:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOPS>

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Am I mistaken, or is this what Violin Memory, FusionIO, and there is a 3rd company that is doing this already...

<comment><USER14> That's flash, accessed through a block device interface with 10-100 us latency. RAMCloud is using DRAM with <10 us latency.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> It would be cool if they could put everything in SRAM.

<comment><USER16> At the large sizes they're using, SRAM would be slower than DRAM because of the longer wire delays that its lower storage density causes.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> redis?

<comment><USER4> Nope

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> This sounds a lot like SAP's in-memory database, HANA:

"SAP HANA is an integrated database and calculation layer that allows the processing of massive quantities of real-time data in main memory to provide immediate results from analyses and transactions."

[http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/10/04/why-sap-hana- is-a...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/sap/2011/10/04/why-sap-hana-is-a-better- choice-than-oracle-exalytics/)</comment>


How William Shockley's Robot Dream Helped Launch Silicon Valley - <AUTHOR> http://spectrum.ieee.org/at-work/innovation/how-william-shockleys-robot-dream-helped-launch-silicon-valley/ <comment><USER2> IEEE Spectrum, suberb article as always.

But maybe a bit too far fetched on the "Robot Dream". The way the silicon in Silicon Valley was seeded is by Shockley Labs and its (lack of proper) management.</comment>


Ask HN: Review New Startup - Trafficspaces (its like having a Facebook Ads for your site). - <AUTHOR>

I would like to get comments from the community about our startup - Trafficspaces.
http://www.trafficspaces.com
Trafficspaces is an ad management service that helps publishers create self-service user interfaces for their advertisers.
It is like having your very own Facebook Ads system customied/branded for your site.
We reckon it will be a smash hit with publishers because 1) it saves money for publishers and 2) it helps them reach more advertisers. This is particulary important in a recessionary economic environment.
We created Trafficspaces because we think a branded self service interface is infinitely better than the manual, time consuming email based ad processes that many publishers currently use.
Please take some time out to have a look at our site, and our demo and tell us what you think.
We appreciate your time.
Thanks in advance. Niyi <comment><USER2> Heh, that's funny, I had the idea for this exact same product about a year ago, and never got around to building it. Props to you for actually executing. Feature suggestion: I'm more of an advertiser than a publisher, but as an advertiser, I would love the ability to search all sites registered with Trafficspaces, and bulk place ads on them. Similar to the AdWords content network. To appeal to advertisers, highlight popular/niche sites using the system. In order for you to succeed, you need monetary incentive for publishers to sign up, that is Trafficspaces will bring more revenue on a CPM basis than say, AdWords. To do that, you need to engage adveritsers to actively use the system.

<comment><AUTHOR> Il,

thanks for the kind words. We are a small team trying out best to create a great product. your comment is much appreciated.

Regarding the multiple site search feature, we are working on it. As you know, we'll need to scale the platform among publishers before it makes sense to release that feature to advertisers.

Its interesting that you had the same idea. We are actively looking for partners (active and advisory). If you are interested, send me your email at "niyi-at-trafficspaces-dot-com.

Cheers

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Is there any example that I can see the "self-service user interfaces"?

And, I don't think that your service is comparable to Facebook Ads System where you can target the demographic you want which your service doesn't not provide.

Anyway, I don't think you are going to read the feedbacks I leave since you just created a dummy account to promote your website.

<comment><AUTHOR> Here is one - <http://modeltxt.trafficspaces.com/advertise/>

You can see some more examples at <http://demo.trafficspaces.com/setup/> There is a preinstalled account there.

The Facebook Ads analogy was just to illustrate that publishers can create a branded self-service ad system just like Facebook does for its advertisers. We didn't mean it functions exactly like Facebook. :)

Anyway, thanks for the feedback siong1987. Much appreciated.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> the logo still points to <http://www.aductions.com>. pls fix it.

<comment><AUTHOR> We'll fix it now..

Thanks for pointing it out.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> OpenX has a plugin that enables this

<comment><AUTHOR> Paraschopra,

You are right. Our main competitors are OpenX and Google Ad Manager. However, there are some things our system does uniquely. For example, a) customising the system to match your site through a web interface. b) online payments and c) we do everything out of the box in a hosted environment

OpenX is still the big 800 pound gorilla in the room and we are the underdog but we reckon there are many weaknesses we can exploit to take them on.

Thanks for the feedback</comment></comment>


ARMed mac: not again or for real this time? - <AUTHOR> https://mondaynote.com/arm-ed-mac-not-again-or-for-real-this-time-a3548eece86 <comment><USER2> There's one thing I don't think Gassée, or many of the people predicting an ARM transition for the Mac, are considering: user patience and goodwill, basically political capital with the user base.

Apple blew through an incredible amount of it on vanity projects in the 2010s, from the abandoned trashcan Mac Pro to the Touch Bar and butterfly keyboard. They've clearly changed course with the 16" MacBook Pro and the 2019 Mac Pro, but they've asked a lot of users over the past decade, and this doesn't quite seem like the right time to ask the entire user base to please be patient once again.

In other words, while there's little question that a switch to ARM is worth the headache _for Apple,_ the critical question is whether Apple can make the case that the switch is worth it _for users._

<comment><USER3> Apart from sentiment, does anyone, including Apple, still care about OSX? Seems that the potential move to ARM will merely be the final nail in its coffin. Apple has removed a lot of backwards compat over the last releases, large app developers seem to not be embracing new systems/APIs, software largely isn't being ported, iOS now has the iPad pro, soon perhaps a laptop.

What is the reason for macOS at this point?

<comment><USER4> Pixar does, along with many other video/movie producers. There are also a lot of professional musicians and recording engineers using Macs as well. Not to mention all the developers using Macs for iOS app development. None of these activities are realistically viable on an iPad Pro. I think the real issue is OSs aren't very interesting at this point - they're mature and there isn't a lot of sexy sizzle to be added to them.

<comment><USER5> there's a Qemu implementation that now runs on iOS, and with services like AWS Cloud9 you can get away with developing on an ipad only setup, at least for most webdevs. Sooner than later someone is going to be able to run android on this: [https://github.com/utmapp/UTM](https://github.com/utmapp/UTM)

and then the gates will open to ARM heaven, once developers find a way to do their jobs on an ipad the rest of the industries follow

<comment><USER6> QEMU for iOS, Bochs, has been a thing for a long time. I remember running Debian on my iPod touch 3G.

edit: Contrary to my memory it's its own project and not QEMU based.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> "The iPhone and iPad have run on Apple-designed ARM chips since birth, and while early entries into the Axx line were underpowered, the latest chips created by Apple's silicon design teams have yielded laptop- or even desktop- class performance"

This is incorrect. iPhone's SoC until iPhone 4 was a 32 bit ARM Samsung SoC [1]. From iPhone 4 and onwards they were designed by Apple. The first iPad also had a SoC not designed by Apple [2].

I fail to see how the details of this are relevant though.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_(1st_generation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_\(1st_generation\)) / [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPhone_4)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_(1st_generation)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IPad_\(1st_generation\))

<comment><USER8> Those SoCs were designed exclusively for Apple products by Apple and Samsung. They were branded Samsung because then Apple failed to notice the importance of brand power of APs.

<comment><USER7> > Those SoCs were designed exclusively for Apple products by Apple and > Samsung.

Seems true [1].

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple- designed_processors#Earl...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple- designed_processors#Early_series)

<comment><USER9> Pretty sure they're no longer manufactured by Samsung. It's been TSMC since the A8 [0].

[0] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A8](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_A8)

<comment><USER10> A9 was sourced from both Samsung and TSMC.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The problem seems much more software based than hardware based.

The Mac has lost so much software through Catalina's 64 bit transition, and that was telegraphed a decade ago. Between that, Apple's collapsing quality of documentation, seemingly having two competing development frameworks due to internal infighting, the prevalence of Electron, the loss of similarity to software for popular Linux x86 distributions, and Metal being extremely uninviting as a dev wanting to do any crossplatform work can Apple really assume the software will come for an ARM based Mac?

I am very worried it wouldn't. Last time the Mac underwent a transition it ultimately made things easier for developers and there was a fairly thriving (if niche) Mac software base. There simply isn't any more. Mac gaming is going backwards at a rate of knots and dual booting to Windows is more important than ever. Large companies seem to just be abandoning Mac drivers entirely (glares at Sony dropping support for their camera software for Macs rather than transition to 64bit).

<comment><USER12> > _can Apple really assume the software will come for an ARM based Mac?_

This is what Catalyst is for, no? Mac software is now iPad software. Macs are now somewhat more capable iPads. The golden age of computing is over.

<comment><USER13> Adding catalyst didn't remove the ability to use any other UIKit, or to compile and run whatever you want in any language there is. Everything that ran before continues to do so, and it's almost oxymoronically wrong to consider a system that is a strict superset of another less free.

<comment><USER12> Right, and we could find ourselves in a time when any meaningful non-developer app is only available as a Catalyst app.

It's kind of how like Microsoft's "embrace and extend" made us less free, because it's actually "embrace, extend, and (later) extinguish".

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I have a pessimistic view on Apple and Macs based on how this product line has been neglected for years (and continues to be neglected: one case in point is the iMac Pro which is three years old with no updates). It seems like the focus is on "iOSifying" the entire ecosystem (overall, Apple hasn't done much, or what was expected/possible, on the Mac over the past several years anyway).

Due to that pessimism, I'd expect the first ARM based Macs that are released publicly to run inferior Apple software (this is already evident with the Apple apps in the last few years). Many things will be further crippled and lobotomized with even more sandboxing restrictions, and likely no longer resemble what a "Mac app" has meant for a very long time. There have been signs of the "non-nativeness" with the Catalyst apps. Perhaps the Finder would be thrown out in favor of a Files app ported from iOS/iPadOS. What about browser rendering engines? Would third party ones be disallowed, like they are on iOS/iPadOS/tvOS? Safari on Mac has already removed support for WebExtensions last year, leaving users who have more than casual browsing requirements to switch to Firefox (or Brave or Chrome or other browsers). With battery life, thinness and lightweight laptops considered very important by Apple, there could be many things getting axed on the new ARM Macs. _Perhaps, the very first ARM based Mac would actually be a new iPad with an integrated keyboard and trackpad._

The article talks about splitting the Mac line, which certainly seems to be a practical possibility. Would we then have macOS that runs on the ARM MacBook, Mac mini and iMac lines and another macOS Pro that would continue to run on the x64 Mac Pro for a much longer time? The stage is already being set to encourage developers to build iOS/iPadOS apps and have them sold as a single bundle on Mac. It's just a matter of pushing them further with the "promise" of a single build running on all platforms (thanks, Catalyst).

Just a crazy thought on emulation of x64 apps: would Apple embrace a "streaming app" emulation, similar to game streaming services where any necessary heavy lifting is done on the server side, with the local ARM processors just handling the minimal (pre-computed) rendering and I/O?

<comment><USER15> > Many things will be further crippled and lobotomized with even more > sandboxing restrictions

Agree on the first half, strong disagree on the second. We need _way_ more sandboxing restrictions on all operating systems. I have yet to see someone run into sandboxing problems on MacOS (in production) that wasn't doing some evil shit that _should_ be difficult.

As a developer it's a bit annoying. As a user it's why the OS experience sucks less than windows and linux for user applications. The .app and permissions design is fantastic - the experience of developing it not so much, but it could be improved.

I really don't want your app spawning off god knows how many processes doing god knows what with unfettered access to my filesystem and network.

<comment><USER14> (GP here) I agree, and would like to have more restrictions on what data apps can have access to. The problem I see is how to make it effective while also keeping it easy to use. I don't see a point in an app asking a user (through the system) for access to the Documents folder or Desktop folder and the user granting it. I'd prefer something more granular...something that fits the "sandbox" model with precise and granular access. I realize this may be complex, but there's hardly any point arguing about restrictions if giving access means opening up a really big chunk of data (folder) up for an app.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Eh, if Apple releases and ARM based Mac, they will start with notebooks, something similar to the Macbook Air. People should appreciate a laptop with better performance and longer battery life compared to the Intel versions. Most of the software should compile just fine, and if not, maybe a version from the iPad OS will be an ok stopgap. I'm assuming of course that most Mac Apps don't have any Intel assembly code in them. I'm guessing that may be the case for something like Photoshop.

<comment><USER17> I think you're right and will go a step farther to say that I wouldn't be the least bit surprised if everything without a 'Pro' in the name went to ARM over a relatively short period.

Switching the Pro lines over is a tougher row to hoe, and has much higher expectations from users. I do know that Apple was playing with ARM coprocessing chips to allow for certain types of computations to be performed while in sleep mode. Perhaps the Pros will end up with both.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> Moving personal computing to ARM is going to enslave us, the end users. The temptation for the OEMs to lock everything down and integrate all components into non-extensible hardware is too strong.

<comment><USER19> Since we're on the subject, how far are we from a truly open source machine?

<comment><USER20> Definitely more than a Decade, there is no true GPU equivalent Open Core, There are some Open CPU Cores but these are basic compared to what ARM has on offer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> I find these rumors continually terrifying. Boot Camp and VMWare Fusion is vital to my workflow. If Apple drops x64, they're dropping me as a customer.

<comment><USER22> Windows runs on ARM, as does Linux.

I'm sure if apple switched entirely to ARM, lots of other software would switch too, and we might even eventually see the end of the x86 era.

<comment><USER23> It's not Windows itself that people want to run (need to run, actually), it's Windows-based x64 software.

Windows is just one of many pieces of software people would need to run on an ARM-based Mac. Seems pretty clear that this can only work if the ARM-based machines have a pretty decent way of executing x64 binaries.

<comment><USER24> It seems like they only have 32-bit app support right now based on articles like [https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/surface-pro-x-arm-app- com...](https://www.laptopmag.com/articles/surface-pro-x-arm-app- compatibility). I'm curious what the blockers are for x64 software which would obviously be desirable in many ways.

<comment> Const-me Most likely Intel's patents on different ISA extensions. E.g. every x64 CPU is required to support at least SSE1 and SSE2.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> One other question that I haven't seen addressed is, what about GPUs?

Apple makes a GPU for the iPads that seems to compare very favorably to AMD's laptop offerings. I imagine anything written in Metal should "just work," but what about OpenGL? It's now deprecated in MacOS but still sort of on life support, and it seems a little premature to just cut the cord on that.

Or could AMD GPUs work on ARM? That also seems like kind of a heavy lift…

<comment><USER26> The current AMD GPU in the 16" is the first one in a while (except maybe the Vega series) which has 'acceptable' performance, and there's all kinds of stink about how much extra power/heat the GPU generates when it is in use, even though it's been that way with the MacBook Pro since Apple went to the dual graphics models.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I think the hypothesis at the end of the article ("Could the iPad's rising revenue (6.5% of total) help cover the hit once its user interface (and keyboard with trackpad) makes it more laptop-like?") is most likely.

I think Apple will continue to add features to its tablets to make them take over the niche of its OS X driven computers. Already I have student friends who use an iPad + keyboard + stand as their primary device for productivity work.

If they just keep doing this at a certain point the segment will be large enough to just consider this type of configuration a "Macintosh"

<comment><USER28> > Already I have student friends who use an iPad + keyboard + stand as their > primary device for productivity work.

I use my ipad for _everything_ except programming (and all work-related tasks are currently done on a work laptop due to being in a highly regulated industry, for now) and gaming (besides a few games that work exceptionally well on tablet, I never got into mobile gaming, I have a PS4 anyway).

All of my web browsing, youtube watching, document editing, spreadsheets etc I do on ipad. I even occasionally SSH'd into a server to fix some stuff and used a git client to push some minor edits. I also quite like ipad for animation, photo editing and 3d modeling (although I'd like to learn blender since the UI updates...), and Miro for digital whiteboarding.

I'm pretty happy with it, but though I've tried various setups, tools and editors, I've not yet been happy with actually programming on ipad.

Note that outside of the ipad, my preferred setup is actually a very keyboard- centric tiled WM Linux setup (i3 on manjaro currently), but I'll use OSX happily enough (and do for work). I was never really into Apple products much, but I love my three year old 9.whatever inch ipad pro.

<comment><USER29> Congratulations. I'd love to only carry an iPad as it's < 1/2 the weight of a Macbook Air and it appears to be faster (runs Shadertoy shaders faster).

Unfortunately even simple things I find infuriating like trying to select text with my fingers.

Trying to multitask while planning a vacation/business trip and trying to flip between note taking, 4 hotel sites, 3 airline sites, airbnb, and multiple instances of google maps (oh right, only allowed one map view on iOS and one AirBnB view) ...

Shopping online I find similar, it's so much easier to compare items on a desktop ATM with 12+ tabs open and some split in into separate windows.

The majority of tasks I do require multi-tasking and often seeing 2-3 apps at once.

Even trying to write replies on HN is almost always infuriating, especially if I want to grab some links to paste into the reply, but also if I see a typo and try to use my fingers to move the cursor to the place to edit.

Maybe it's a learned skill or maybe I just use computers differently but I'm always fascinated and somewhat jealous of people like you that some how manage to avoid all that frustration on an iPad.

<comment><USER30> > and multiple instances of google maps (oh right, only allowed one map view > on iOS and one AirBnB view) ...

I'm not too experienced with this but I'm 99% sure this is in fact something you can do in the latest version of iPadOS. You can have three apps on screen at once too.

The problem is that the gesture system for doing so requires too much effort versus just using a laptop with multiple windows.

<comment><USER28> Yes, you can have two apps side by side and a third floating app.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Unfortunately I have heard these rumors way too often. I won't believe anything anymore until Apple itself releases a product.

<comment><USER32> We kept hearing stories about x86 for years too. I'm sure ARM based MacBooks already exist as testing devices.

<comment><USER33> Did successive stories about the x86 change provide additional information before the actual release was imminent? The ARM stories are not.

<comment><USER32> They never did, just new sources of rumors.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I still think that the AppleTV is where this will start. They now support multiple accounts, have an app store, etc. iOS supports keyboards and mice, and they have a "conference room display" mode that brings them into a business setting.

Release the iWork suite and some sort of thin client/remote desktop app and then see how people use them. Learn, iterate, repeat. They can build an ARM- based Mac bit by bit, out in the open, without anyone freaking out and killing their x86 sales.

<comment><USER10> Apple TV is already ARM (at least the new ones are…), and it runs what's essentially a skin of iOS. I doubt they will switch that out with macOS anytime soon.

<comment><USER35> The original Apple TV (that looks sorta like a half-height Mac Mini) was based on a stripped down version of OSX, but you are correct, everything from the Apple TV 2 and on is ARM and running a derivative of iOS.

<comment><USER6> Isn't iOS a version of Mac OS? :-)

Do they share any new code nowadays?

<comment><USER10> They share most of their code.

<comment><USER35> Now, sure, but not back then to the same extent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> "ARM started as a branch of Acorn Computer in Cambridge, England, with the formation of a joint venture between Acorn, Apple and VLSI Technology. A team of twelve employees produced the design of the first ARM microprocessor between 1983 and 1985."

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

</comment><comment><USER37> > Why invest in the development of such a high-end chip for Mac Pro's low > volume?

\- Control of the whole stack (Apple's stated M.O.)

\- Consistent architecture across all their product lines

\- If it's roughly twice as energy efficient, as claimed, the floor-standing heat sink known as the Mac Pro could potentially be smaller and lighter again (or they could keep the case the same and increase internal expansion, as they did when they switched the cheesegrater from G5 to Xeon, or they could double the core count with the same cooling)

\- Depending on how much cheaper it would be, you could put the same CPU into less expensive Macs (high-core-count-Xeon-level performance in an iMac or Mini would be quite compelling)

How much difference is there in architecture between a Xeon-level chip and an i3-level chip? I assumed most of the added cost of a Xeon was market segmentation, so if you had another way to do that (e.g., by only selling CPUs in complete systems), you'd be able to increase performance on the low end without losing money.

</comment><comment><USER38> >Nuvia [1] is developing a chip to power cloud servers. Williams, who spent nearly a decade at Apple, says he raised the possibility of developing such technology years ago, but the idea was rejected by then-Chief Executive Officer Steve Jobs, who died in 2011, and by Johny Srouji, who's now Apple's head of hardware technology, because they thought it would detract from the company's work on consumer facing technology. Apple continues to hold that position today, according to Williams.

>"In 2010 [2], Williams and [co-worker Jim] Keller raised this idea with Mike Culbert, their former supervisor at Apple. Culbert suggested that they put together a presentation for Steve Jobs, pitching the idea of Apple building a server chip. Williams and Keller did so, and Culbert presented that opportunity to Jobs," the court filing reads.

"Following the meeting, Culbert reported to Williams that Apple would not be pursuing the server chip project because Jobs was only interested in pursuing Apple's development of consumer-based products."

I dont know why anyone would think Apple is making its Desktop Class CPU for Mac. As a matter of fact, even Jim Killer tries to pitch the idea to Steve Jobs on ARM Server Chip [2] . Apple was very late into its own Datacenter play. I am not sure if the economy of scale would have worked in flavour of Apple if the Server and Mac Pro were using the same chip.

Basically I still dont think the pros are so clear. It is far easier to switch to AMD for cost saving measures and even Apple couldn't be bothered to do that.

[1] [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuvia-exec-sued-apple- says-18...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/nuvia-exec-sued-apple- says-181807641.html)

[2] [https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/14/nuvia_apple_server/](https://www.theregister.co.uk/2020/02/14/nuvia_apple_server/)

</comment><comment><USER39> I thought most MacOS applications compile to universal binaries that are something like bytecode, not direct x64 code? Assuming I understand this correctly, most applications should run correctly on ARM without any modification?

Anyway, one of the big appeals of Apple computers and MacOS is that I can run whatever I want in a VM. That little one-off Windows utility that I use once a year that never made it to Mac? Runs fine under VMware. I also hear of plenty of people who dual boot.

What happens when Apple switches to ARM? Are we going to loose dual booting and rich virtualization? At least for me, as much as I love MacOS, virtualization has always been what made it work for me.

<comment><USER37> > I thought most MacOS applications compile to universal binaries that are > something like bytecode, not direct x64 code?

No, "Universal Binaries" are still native code: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_binary)

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> I'd love to see an ARM-based Macbook, especially if it can last 20+ hours on battery, is highly portable, and has great thermal/low heat output. I believe history can repeat itself, as in the past 4 decades, we've seen Macs transition from Motorola 680x0 to PowerPC, and from PowerPC to Intel x86, and from Intel x86 32bit to x64 64bit-only. This brings me back to memories of fat binary and PPC emulation.

</comment><comment><USER41> ARM Macs will be the end of the line for many "prosumer" customers of Apple.

It will probably sell quite well though. And it will bring back fanless designs.

<comment><USER42> > ARM Macs will be the end of the line for many "prosumer" customers of Apple.

Why do you think that? Do you just think ARM can't match Intel performance? Or do you think the prosumers need Intel-specific functionality like counters?

What I'm worried about is implementing top-quality ARM backends for software like the JVM. We need someone doing this rapidly as I think an ARM MacBook Pro will just turn up one day, unannounced.

<comment><USER43> > Why do you think that? Do you just think ARM can't match Intel performance?

Can it match single core performance? Audio production plugins are often running on single cores. The A13 maxes at 2.65ghz, and the 80-core Altra maxes at 3.0 (turbo boosted). Both of those are too low for me to use in audio production. I intentionally went with less cores and a higher clock speed on my last computer because of this.

<comment><USER37> Clock speeds aren't comparable between different architectures.

You're also looking at a CPU designed for a phone, and a CPU designed for a server farm. If Apple were to design a CPU for professional multimedia workstations, it would not have the same parameters as either of these.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER44> If Apple moves to a full ARM line-up, they will need to copy AMD's chiplet strategy.

As Apple understands economies of scale, they will need an architecture that will enable them to cheaply mass-produce millions of chiplets to combine them into low, medium and high-end cpus to suit their different use-cases.

Just like AMD is doing now.

There is no way Apple can create a monolithic Mac Pro-level cpu at low volume for a profit.

It might be easier to just go AMD with the whole Mac line-up. Requires only a little adaptation on OS level and will give users less nuisance trying to run their old apps.

In addition, they will gain performant GPUs as a bonus.

</comment><comment><USER45> Another thread here:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524315](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22524315)

<comment><USER46> Now merged hither.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> [quote] The Pro is a monstrously powered machine that costs tens of thousands of dollars and is designed for a (relatively) small audience of content creator professionals and other high-end technical users running fluidics dilutions and the demanding calculations involved in machine-learning applications. [/quote]

I really don't get that. You can have a $8000 Mac Pro that is decently configured as a general purpose workstation that will last you 5-10 years if it's well built. Yet everyone only talks about the $50000 or whatever the high end config is.

<comment><USER48> Not sure how much you can get a decent configuration of the Mac Pro for just $8000, but this is a very steep price, considering that the Mac Pro just doubled the entry price compared to its predecessors. From the build quality, this is certainly one of the nicest machines one could get, but the pricing is a new pinnacle even by Apples standards.

<comment><USER47> Sorry, 7000 US prices. 48 G ram and 2 Tb storage, rest default.

Not everyone needs more than 8C/16T or uses GPU compute. Which was my point. The price may be inflated (not sure by how much, a similar Dell is what, 5K instead of 7?), but there are configurations that cost less than a good car.</comment></comment></comment>