Ask HN: What are your favorite browser add-ons? - <AUTHOR>

What are the YCers' favorite browser plugins for web development or just plain browsing?<p>Are there any features you use in Firefox/Safari/Opera or another browser that you just haven't seen elsewhere? <comment><USER2> In terms of browsing, these are the add-ons I don't know that I would fair well without:

easyGestures, Adblock Plus, ChromEdit Plus / Smart Bookmarks Bar, Greasemonkey, Foxmarks Bookmarks Synchronizer

Also a fan of some others such as Zotero, Delicious, Tab Catalog and a few others.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> My personal favorites in Firefox for personal browsing are: Adblock Plus, Colorful Tabs, NoScript, Nuke Anything, Popup ALT Attribute (for XKCD), and Tree Style Tab.

For web development I find Web Developer and Firebug indispensable.

</comment><comment><USER3> Inquisitor is the only add-on I use, for Safari. It's a beautiful add-on and it's the only thing that does something for my browser that makes me more productive.

</comment><comment><USER4> I can't wait till everyone starts using Adblock (Plus) and it completely throws off the Internet economy.

</comment><comment><USER5> Firebug is a pretty obvious choice. Highly recommended!

I also use Flashblock.. oh and Sage for RSS.

</comment><comment><USER6> vimperator</comment>


A primer for fundraising on Angel List - <AUTHOR> http://thehalltruth.co/post/50580698481/a-primer-for-fundraising-on-angel-list <comment><USER2> Thanks for posting this. I'm glad to see you talk about the nuts and bolts of fund raising in such an open way. This is great. I'm impressed by your management skills as well, which is no doubt an indicator of your success.

</comment><comment><USER3> Thanks for posting this! As a pre-beta startup, AL looks like an interesting way to generate funding, but using it effectively is a bit baffling.

C'est la vie. My big concern now is getting customers, not funding.

</comment><comment><USER4> Great article, though this strategy (as well as AL) is not of much use for first-time & pre-traction entrepreneurs.

<comment><AUTHOR> Of course it is. I know tons of first-timers who've used AL effectively.

<comment><USER5> You mention getting intros from your network. A first-timer is probably less likely to have people in their network who could introduce them to a VC, although they may have a large network. Accelerators like Y Combinator seem to solve this problem, but what about those outside of the accelerators?</comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Darkwinds, the blockchain trading card game. Trade, fight and collect - <AUTHOR> https://playdarkwinds.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> Hey all! I'm René, and I work as a software engineer at MEGO ([https://mego.cl](https://mego.cl)), the game studio behind Darkwinds ([https://playdarkwinds.com](https://playdarkwinds.com)).

We are the same team working on both BitQuest ([https://bitquest.co](https://bitquest.co)) (a Minecraft server with bitcoin- denominated economy) and HammerCoin ([https://hammerco.in](https://hammerco.in)) (an online RPG with bitcoin economy!).

I would be happy to answer all your questions or comments about our game, how does Ethereum fit in it, what is a cryptocollectible, or why are we doing pirates, lol.</comment>


Fed Leaves Interest Rates Unchanged - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/18/business/economy/fed-leaves-interest-rates-unchanged.html <comment><USER2> Probably their last chance before the next crisis. It was already almost guaranteed, but we will probably see negative interest rates in the U.S. within a year.

The beatings will continue until morale improves.

[https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPH_BT3UYAQxP25.png](https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CPH_BT3UYAQxP25.png)

<comment><USER3> What evidence/knowledge/premonitions are you basing this claim on?

<comment><USER4> I'm assuming just the general business cycle which averages a recession every 6 years or so. Plus negative interest rates being the only tool available to the Fed during a new recession.

[http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businesscycle.asp](http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/businesscycle.asp)

<comment><USER5> > I'm assuming just the general business cycle which averages a recession > every 6 years or so.

That may be an average, but its hardly _consistent_.

The period (peak to peak) between recessions for the last 10 cycles has been:

81 months 128 months 100 months 18 months 74 months 47 months 116 months 32 months 49 months 56 months

> Plus negative interest rates being the only tool available to the Fed during > a new recession.

OTOH, arguably, the reason that the Feds been forced to be so extreme with monetary policy that that might be the case is that the government has pretty much neglected fiscal policy responses. Which is, generally, not a positive thing, but it does mean that, as exhausted as the monetary policy options might be, the fiscal policy arsenal is well-stocked and untouched.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wish the fed allowed me to borrow at their rates. In fact, if I had access to such rates I could turn that money around and could loan it back to the fed for a substantial profit. I wonder if anyone else has though of that?

<comment><USER7> the discount window lending rate is pegged to be 50 basis points above the federal funds rate, so, yes, they thought of that.

<comment><USER8> Hell you could pay off everyone's credit card debt and charge them maybe 5%. You would be a multi-billionaire over night.

<comment><USER7> That's called refinancing and it is already a thing that exists

<comment><USER8> Yes I know it exists, I am talking about me personally having the ability to borrow billions of dollars for next to nothing. Credit cards are a sort of tax on people. The rates are excessively high for money that costs next to nothing. And they charge both the lender and the merchant. They are like a 5% tax paid to private banking interests on most people's income.

<comment><USER7> You still have to manage default risk. You seem like you're almost assuming that none or at least less than 5% will default on you if you refinance them. This is why loans aren't just slightly above the discount window.

Moreover, discount window loans _are not unsecured_ \- the bank must put up collateral for them, isn't automatic, limitless or guaranteed, terms are very short, and in practice only ever used in times of crisis.

Besides that most people could probably get a refinancing loan from a normal bank for 5% or less already.

<comment><USER8> > manage default risk

That's the justification for interest in the first place 20-30% covers risk to absurdity.

<comment><USER9> > 20-30% covers risk to absurdity

No, it pretty much covers uncollateralised default risk and pre-payment risk.

If it were otherwise, for example, if were a cartel keeping the prices up artificially, then you would expect the same thing from the collateralised market, no? YMMV but my credit card rate is ~25% and my house secured rate is ~3%. The only difference is the house; lender and borrower are the same.

The other argument against undercutting the market and making billions is a variant of the Fermi paradox: why isn't everyone doing it? Maybe not you or me but an institution that can borrow a lot at bugger all, or is cash rich, would hoover up. Or at least drive the rate down substantially.

If there were only one or 2 players then, fine, you could have a big illiquidity premium but there aren't. There are loads of players. In the UK, cash rich companies like the supermarket chains have got involved and have had some impact but it's small, primarily squeezing operational costs and profit margin. But the cards are still running at rates substantially over base.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> That's good for most HN readers, as the tech industry depends entirely on low interest rates to make insane amounts of capital available to unprofitable businesses. If you're enjoying your inflated salary, thank Janet Yellen.

<comment><USER11> Uh, I wouldn't say salaries are inflated right now at all. As the other commenter said, doctors and lawyers still grossly outpace software engineers. For whatever reason, I've noticed engineer pay plateaus around 120-150K, which is odd to me. If you have a lead engineer who's building the product that is bringing in millions of dollars of revenue and funding, you should pay them accordingly.

Also even if you were right, it's not just the tech industry that relies on low rates. Anyone who needs capital, which is everyone, relies on low interest rates.

<comment><USER3> >If you have a lead engineer who's building the product that is bringing in millions of dollars of revenue and funding, you should pay them accordingly.

How much money someone "brings in" is not the sole determinant of how much money they make.

And do you believe that engineers should be making the same as doctors?

<comment><USER12> In fact its rarely correlated. Good Engineers are woefully underpaid most of the time.

Case: a support Engineer of my acquaintance worked to retain $24M worth of at- risk customer contracts last year. He got a better job offer, and when he told his employer he was leaving they said "Tell us what it would take to keep you"

He replied "$3M paid over a two year contract"

They said "No, really, what would it take?"

That's how badly Engineers get treated. Given a proven track record, they still couldn't imagine paying him what he was worth. They'd rather lose the next customer.

<comment><USER3> That's great work and I would love to be able to say I helped my company save $24M, but I'm willing to bet he isn't the only engineer in the world capable of doing that. It really wouldn't make sense to pay him $3M based on his past work when it's possible to hire another engineer and pay him $150k, assuming they can do the same job.

<comment><USER13> Agreed. People don't seem to understand how a labor market works.

<comment><USER12> Yet, sales people get commissions. Executives get bonuses when the quarter is good. But Engineers, who actually do the f'ing work, get paid. I understand completely how the labor market works.

<comment><USER3> >Yet, sales people get commissions.

And they usually have lower salaries because of this. Many "eat what they kill" and if they don't sell they don't make money.

> Executives get bonuses when the quarter is good

Everyone in the company I work for gets bonuses commensurate with how well the company does, even the engineers.

You just listed a very, very small part of every company. Other than sales people and high level execs, no one else has their compensation tied by a significant extent to their productivity. The rest, the accountants, financial analysts, business analysts, strategy analysts, marketers, billing analysts, researchers, designers, managers, etc. all are in the same boats as the engineers.

>But Engineers, who actually do the f'ing work

Construction workers actually "do the f'ing work" as well and they aren't compensated extremely well because although it is a very hard job there are many people who can do the job. There are also many competent engineers who can probably do your job as well, lowering your salary. I work in finance, and there are even more people who can do my job well than there are engineers who can do your job well, thus I am not paid like an engineer. This is how the labor market works.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> There was an interesting article on here yesterday talking about what an experiment this has been. It will be quite interesting to see what will unfold in the markets once the fed builds up the nerve to finally bump up interest rates.

<comment><USER15> Let me save up to buy a house first.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> It seems like the market has become addicted to low interest rates. Every time there is a hint that interest rates will go up, the market goes down, and then the federal reserve gets spooked and doesn't go through with the hike.

At one time, it was the Federal Reserve's job:

      "to take away the punch bowl just as the party gets going"

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

<comment><USER17> I presume the rationale to increase the rates is that during the next crash there will be something to lower. What will they do if the market crashes and the rate is still 0?

<comment><USER18> > _What will they do if the market crashes and the rate is still 0_

Go negative.

The idea that they should raise rates to slow the economy so that they can turn around and lower them to stimulate it defies reason.

<comment><USER19> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytx1P7P4XXk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ytx1P7P4XXk)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's really remarkable (in a good or bad way depending upon your perspective) that 12 people hold the fate of the world financial market in their decisions.

<comment><USER3> I've heard it said that the Federal Reserve Chair is the second most powerful person in the world after the US President.

<comment><USER21> The President of the US may have bigger weapons, but I'm of the opinion the tools used by the Federal Reserve may be more dangerous by scope of impact...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Well maybe it's time for them to acknowledge that money as form of credit should have an interest rate which is variable.

</comment><comment><USER18> Unemployment is looking okay, but inflation is non-existent and Industrial Utilization is still below "normal". Why should rates be raised?

For some reason people want a rate hike for the sake of a hike. I'm glad the Fed is being cautious.

<comment><USER23> People are concerned that very low interest rates for the long term will lead to an asset bubble[1]. It's a reasonable concern; it's happened in the past eg the 1980s Japanese real estate bubble[2].

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble#Identifying_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_bubble#Identifying_asset_bubbles)

[2] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_asset_price_bubble)

<comment><USER18> > _" People are concerned that very low interest rates for the long term will > lead to an asset bubble[1]_

If people foresee the bubble, why do they participate in it? Why aren't the on the "short" side?

I get bubble mechanics. What I don't agree with are forecasts like, "What about asset bubbles?" Well, what about the income gap from years of sub- optimal growth happening _right now_? Why does an asset bubble (which have occurred throughout history, regardless of rates) trump that scenario?

The idea of damaging growth now to forestall a _possible_ asset bubble in the future is not a good tradeoff.

<comment><USER24> >If people foresee the bubble, why do they participate in it? Why aren't the on the "short" side?

From John Maynard Keynes himself, "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent."</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Covid-19 stats for The US and Canada - <AUTHOR> https://coronavirus.1point3acres.com/en <comment><USER2> Canada has 1/2 the cases and 1/4 the deaths per capita. What is the difference?

<comment><USER3> I'm not sure to what extent things are shutdown in the states, but all of our major cities are more or less locked down. Vancouver is imposing big fines on social distancing and already didn't have a great nightlife to begin with. We also have less cities close together.

<comment><USER4> They're not 'locked down' in the NY sense, freedom of movement is not restricted, although business closures have occurred to various degrees depending on the province and freedom of assembly is restricted also.

I drive a taxi in the GTA. Was driving an essential worker home to Toronto last night and there were still lots of people on the streets, although not as many as before obviously.

I recall Vancouver having great nightlife when I was there a few years ago. I hope it returns soon (after this). :)</comment></comment></comment>


Programming Collective Intelligence author has 2 new books out - <AUTHOR> http://blog.kiwitobes.com/?p=80 <comment><USER2> About 5 years ago I wrote my MSc thesis in CS on a Semantic Web related topic (searching the SW). What a mistake. At that time SW meant things like ontologies/syntax vs. semantics/RDF/RDFS/DAML/etc and the W3C kept coming out with _more_ and _more complicated_ specs without any big player implementing or pushing these standards/ideas. As they say, it was "academic". To my knowledge, it still is.

<comment><USER3> "The Semantic Web is the future. And Always will be"

<comment><USER4> Is this because the semantic web is completely unattainable, or because the definition keeps shifting (e.g. todays "normal web techniques" are yesterday's "semantic web")?</comment></comment></comment>


Is It Better to Buy or Rent? (NYT tool) - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/business/buy-rent-calculator.html

<comment><USER2> Strange that they buried the most important factor way down at the bottom of the 3rd page of "Advanced" options.

At its core, the whole rent vs buy economic decision boils down to comparing your expected returns investing in the housing market to your expected returns investing in the market in general. The rest of the factors in that calculator are just there to help you arrive at the conversion factor.

Since it's pretty much impossible to determine what the stock market and housing markets are going to do, it's probably best to base your home buying decision on something more rational. Such as "Do I want to own a house?"

For me, the answer to that question is quickly arrived at by asking a few of your homeowner friends what they did last weekend, and what they plan to do next weekend. The answer will invariably revolve around some form of maintenance on the house.

Like it or not, buying a house gives you a new full-time hobby. Lots of people like that hobby, and that's why they have houses. If gardening and cleaning gutters don't sound like fun to you, there are plenty of other ways to invest your money that are less hands-on.

<comment><USER3> Maintenance isn't so bad, and it doesn't require every hour of every weekend. But I've got a small apartment with a small patch of grass. It takes me 10 minutes to cut the grass and 20 to trim the hedges, once a month.

Like any hobby, you get out what you put into it. I spent 2 weekends gutting and renovating the kitchen, put ethernet and coax in every room, and wired my garden for electricity and music.

My last rental had 3 fireplaces, none of them worked because the owner, rather than paying someone to clean and maintain them decided to plug them up. Ethernet? forget about it. Cable in every room, not an option. The kitchen was nice and new, but designed to someone else's specification, not mine.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> A simple way to quickly compare buying vs renting for entire areas is the "rent ratio", which is calculated by dividing an area's median house price by its annual rent. Obviously it just paints a geographical picture and each property should be evaluated individually before making any sort of specific buy vs. rent decision. We turned the rent ratios for the US into a heat map a few years ago (but keep it up to date): <http://hotpads.com/search/rent-ratio- heat-maps>

</comment><comment><USER5> It's interesting to see just how sensitive the scale is to initial assumptions. But more important to me is the inefficiency created by the drag on movement - when you're renting, it's much easier to move, even when you've got furnishing and the whole lot etc. When you've bought, and you want to move, you may be at the mercy of the current state of the property market as to whether you make a loss or a gain, or even need to stay for a few years more.

I grew up in rented homes. Perhaps the most poignant thing is that the house I remember best (age 9 to 18 or so) has been renovated, sold etc. It's not somewhere I can ever go back to. But that may have been the case with a bought home anyhow.

<comment><USER6> I believe that it would necessarily be irrational to ever "need to stay for a few years more" because of the state of the housing market. (I do agree in general that you're more mobile as a renter, I just think think you've overstated it.)

An extreme example: You buy a house and then the value plummets to a fraction of what you paid. Why might you need to stay in that house? Other house prices presumably fell along with yours so you can still sell yours and buy a similar one. I think people find it painful to sell at a loss because it makes a loss on paper become explicit. If you don't sell then you can tell yourself that you're speculating -- you really think your house is worth more than it will currently fetch so it's imprudent to sell. But probably you're not smarter than the market in that regard. In other words, there's no harm in turning a loss on paper into an explicit loss.

Bottom line, if you want to move from house A to house B and the price difference (plus moving costs) is worth it, then do it, with no thought at all to the price you happened to have paid when you bought the first house.

Of course, moving costs when realtors are involved are huge so the original point partially stands. You're never stuck in the sense the parent implied, moving is just more expensive when you buy vs rent.

<comment><USER7> > Other house prices presumably fell along with yours so you can still sell > yours and buy a similar one.

Not if the house lost more value than your down payment. If you're underwater (and a lot of people are), you need to either arrange a short sale or bring money to the close. Either way it's nowhere near as easy as you imply.

<comment><USER6> If you owe more than the house is worth then theoretically you should default and walk away. I know that question has been debated endlessly and I don't understand all the practical implications like what it means for your credit rating, or even whether it should be considered ethical.

I concede that if defaulting is not an option then you may be stuck if you owe more than the value of the house and can't borrow more money. Good point.

<comment><USER5> Defaulting differs in different countries. You may be forced to liquidate other investments to make up the shortfall. Nonrecourse loans are not usual outside of California, AFAIK.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Buying is as much a emotional decision as it is a financial one.

You have to take into account not only the how much you can afford and how much you want/would like your money to grow but what kind of lifestyle you desire. If the lifestyle that owning one's home affords is more important than the increased returns then perhaps you should buy. On the other hand if you are happy to rent for a decade or two you will likely end up richer.

I am currently of two minds, I love the idea of being able to do what I like to my own home. But at the same time real estate isn't necessarily the best investment, though where I am (Melbourne, Australia) we've had massive growth in housing prices (somewhere in the order of 20%+pa off the top of my head) though it is slowing down now.

One of my favourite bloggers Ramit Sethi has some strong opinions on the issue <http://www.iwillteachyoutoberich.com/buying-a-house/>

<comment><USER9> Another piece of the lifestyle choice is control. While renting you are at the mercy of the landlord. I found this out last year when our landlord decided she wanted to move back into her house. Even though we had a lease, and the law is _suppose_ to protect you, it doesn't stop them from making your life miserable - and that cost isn't worth any amount of money to me.

<comment><USER10> That's bleeding horrible, and I agree. I've had some pretty miserable landlords (though I still continue to rent, and will not buy a house (at least not in the city I'm living in)).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I wrote about this a year ago: <http://messymatters.com/buyrent>

(I'm so proud of that article! I think it's literally the most popular thing I've ever written. It was even translated into Spanish.)

Short version: Neither choice is a no-brainer. It comes down to all the auxiliary aspects of the decision like tax benefits and personal preferences.

</comment><comment><USER11> If you are doing the startup thing, it may be worthwhile keeping your financial obligations/footprint to a minimum. You can always downsize a rental, but a mortgage is not so easy to exit.

Plus, that mortgage downpayment might be better invested in yourself and your venture?

There are factors besides the rent vs buy calcs worth considering esp for entrepeneurs.

</comment><comment><USER12> Let's see. Housing is propped up by the policies of a government that is currently borrowing 43% of the largest budget in human history. Will it be able to continue doing either indefinitely?

If you think so, by all means buy a house.

But if you think everybody reaps what they sow, think twice.

<comment><USER5> FWIW: the dynamics of governments borrowing - particularly governments with control of their currency, and debts denominated in that currency - are in no way like personal borrowing.

If the country we are talking about was at or close to its richest point, and it is in a bad recession, I would expect its budget to be very large with a significant portion of borrowing. To do otherwise would be irresponsible.

<comment><USER12> No, I think its irresponsible, especially in light of all the nonsense being funded.

Stimulus does not create recovery, any more than the stimulus of a massive housing bubble and two ways prevented the current economic trouble.

In fact, government created this bubble and the inevitable with stimulus. A phony economy where building things that people would not ordinarily demand requires building an expensive infrastructure which becomes useless when the phony economy collapses.

We can either let the economy return to normal, building things people are willing to pay for. Or we can try to create another phony government-directed economy with another recession to follow.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Interesting - on the few California properties I tried, it says it _never_ makes sense to buy, no matter how long you live there.

This could actually be true in some areas. Prices are still really high relative to rent. The Houston prices I put in made sense to own after a 2-3 years.

</comment><comment><USER14> Where "better" is defined entirely to mean cost efficiency. Targeted at those who believe a home is primarily a financial asset.

<comment><USER15> I noticed the same. Who looks _only_ at the figures? I certainly don't and I suspect that most people just partially factor them in.

For me, the biggest factor is that does the apartment or house feel like my home. If it does, then I will consider buying or renting, depending on whether it's on sale or to let.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> A must-see : <http://www.khanacademy.org/video?v=YL10H_EcB-E>

</comment><comment><USER17> This is a superb calculator, however it assumes a faster growth rate relative to inflation than is likely. Try it with a -1% appreciation rate (which is the historical average for residential real estate since ww2)

<comment><USER18> Another thing to check is condo or homeowner's association fees. The default value in the calculator is 0, but for many condos the fees are 1/4 or more of what you'd pay in rent on a comparable apartment, which makes a _huge_ difference long-term.

<comment><USER3> Every place I've, rented the association fees were in addition to the rent. It might be included in the rent but listed as a seperate item, or it could be the renter that pays directly. In any case, association fees weren't included in the deposit. In my case rent was 1500, deposit was 3000, but the check every month was 1700.

<comment><USER18> I've never seen HOA fees listed separately from rent for apartment buildings. I've rented in LA and Seattle; maybe it's different other places.

<comment><USER3> Apartment buildings normally don't have HOA fees. I can't imagine why they would since no one there is a homeowner. If you are renting a condo then the owner may or may not include the fee in the rent. In my case this charge includes heat and water, 2 things that change frequently.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> I bought a house. According to this calc i may or may not have been a good idea based on how the house appreciates (I got it at the bottom of the market).

But at the end of the day my house is like 4x bigger then my apartment. So worth it even if it does not end up being an over all savings or not.

<comment><USER20> I don't get this calculator, because you are likely to make money or get back your payments when you sell the home. Rent is forever gone.

<comment><USER6> I think I can make intuitive why the "rent is forever gone" argument is wrong. Another way to state that argument is "after I pay off the mortgage I own a house and live for free whereas if I'd rented the whole time then I'd own nothing and still have rent to pay".

Quoting myself from the comments of <http://messymatters.com/buyrent> ...

Imagine yourself 30 years from now with a house you fully own, with no more payments to make. Now imagine your alternate renting self who, instead of steadily paying down the principal on the mortgage, has built up hundreds of thousands of dollars in equity in some other investment. You still have rent to pay each month but that's also about how much you're collecting in interest on your investments. So the renter now lives for free just like the home- buyer.

Another way to say all this is that if you ignore price bubbles, taxes, personal preferences, and leverage then renting and buying are roughly financially equivalent. Not that you should ignore those things, just don't fall for the myths that it's a no-brainer decision.

<comment><USER21> _Another way to say all this is that if you ignore price bubbles, taxes, personal preferences, and leverage then renting and buying are roughly financially equivalent._

And that shouldn't be surprising. In a world where buying really is clearly superior to renting, there would be lots of arbitrage opportunities to buy houses and rent them profitably. That would increase both the demand for houses and the supply of rentals, which would make buying more expensive and renting cheaper until they reach a point of equivalence.

<comment><USER22> Landlords aren't charities. Their profit is based explicitly on the idea that buyers get a better deal than renters.

<comment><USER6> Quoting myself from <http://messymatters.com/buyrent> again:

In fact, landlord profits are probably a very small part of the equation: on par with the cost of collecting your rent and arranging (not paying for) maintenance. We can check this by seeing how much property management companies charge. Casual web searching indicates it can range from 3% to 15% of rent. But that includes the cost of finding new tenants — the equivalent of which home-buyers pay in spades in realtor commissions (directly or indirectly). I think it's safe to say that at most a few percent or so of your rent is wasted in the sense of being profit for your landlord.

(Which is what you'd expect in a competitive market, as someone above pointed out.)

<comment><USER22> That's not the point at all.

The strategic picture is this: if renting were so much better than buying fewer people would buy, and nobody would be dumb enough to buy and then rent the place. But obviously buying is better than renting because a lot of people choose to go and spend their money buying _extra_ homes beyond the one they need and renting it.

I don't need to refer to google searches for my information, I have seen the landlord perspective 1st hand. I'm not surprised that most landlords see very little in the way of month to month cashflow profit. The renter pays in but you have to pay out a lot of other expenses (as mentioned).

But at the end you own the house and the renter doesn't. Basically if you have enough money to front for the down payment the house costs you little or nothing after that except time/hassle of dealing with your tenant. It probably doesn't actually put more money in your pocket each month, but neither would a bunch of stocks if you were reinvesting the returns.

So why tie yourself up in a single house instead of a bunch of stocks?

Leverage.If I have 40k and get a mortgage on a 200k and make a small return, at some point that is better than getting 40k of stocks and making hypothetically a bigger return.

Plus there are other intangiables. I can buy a shitty little house and spend a few weeks working on it and turn sweat equity into real equity, no matter how much you look at your stocks you haven't increased their value.

Of course there are negatives, the tenant can trash the place, you can go without tenants for a while, but overall it makes sense for a lot of people who have some free cash and a bit of extra time and want to have a side business.

<comment><USER21> _if renting were so much better than buying fewer people would buy, and nobody would be dumb enough to buy and then rent the place._

Correct, which means that renting isn't clearly superior to buying either. (Except during insane housing bubbles). Again exactly what we should expect.

 _But obviously buying is better than renting because a lot of people choose to go and spend their money buying extra homes beyond the one they need and renting it._

And obviously growing your own food is better than buying it because lots of people grow extra food and sell it. The point is that the profits you can earn in either case aren't so great that it's foolish not to do it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> The Bubblizer spreadsheet is a much better tool. It allows you to go in and tweak a bunch of different variables. [http://randolfe.typepad.com/randolfe/2006/04/bubblizer_a_req...](http://randolfe.typepad.com/randolfe/2006/04/bubblizer_a_req.html)

</comment><comment><USER24> One common technique for lowering the cost of a mortgage is to make one additional payment per year and/or each month. This lowers the principal and makes subsequent interest payments lower.

Although, not everyone can afford that it would be nice if this calculator would allow you to factor that in. I suppose you can fake it by altering the interest rate an appropriate amount but I'm not sure it follows the same curve.

<comment><USER6> I don't believe this is really a factor. Paying down the principal faster saves you the 5% (or whatever your mortgage rate is) interest on the amount of your pre-payment. It's tantamount to investing that money at a risk-free 5%. That might be the smartest thing to do with your savings but it doesn't change the calculus fundamentally.

Buying a house with a suitcase full of cash or getting a zero-amortization (infinity-year, ie, interest-only) mortgage or anything in between is all roughly financially equivalent if you have alternative investments available.

Actually the longer the mortgage term the bigger total tax deduction you get, so in that sense the more you pre-pay the costlier it is.

<comment><USER24> I don't have a mortgage so I don't personally do this, but I can tell you it's a popular practice.

> but it doesn't change the calculus fundamentally.

It does change the calculation that this tool is showing. If you use the tool and assume you make 3% interest on savings, but then make periodic payments on your 6% interest loan, there is no way to model that with this tool.

OK, so lets say this is a bad idea and you should instead not have any savings in that case, and make all of your savings into payments on your mortgage interest. You're saying we could model that by assuming you are making periodic risk-free 5% (or whatever) investment instead.

> Actually the longer the mortgage term the bigger total tax deduction you > get, so in that sense the more you pre-pay the costlier it is.

I get what you're saying but a tax deduction can never completely offset the interest payment right? Also, it depends on the difference between capital gains tax and the credit you would get on your tax rate for the interest.

<comment><USER6> > OK, so lets say this is a bad idea and you should instead > not have any > savings in that case, and make all of your > savings into payments on your > mortgage interest. You're > saying we could model that by assuming you are > making > periodic risk-free 5% (or whatever) investment instead.

Exactly.

> I get what you're saying but a tax deduction can never > completely offset > the interest payment right?

Agreed, but I just meant that the more mortgage interest you pay the more you save on taxes, not that the interest is totally offset or anything.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> NY Times put out this exact same calculator in 2007. Is this one any different? Have they updated some data or how the calculations are done?

<comment><USER25> Concepts like compound interest and tax calculation based on a known rate are based on straight mathematics, not politics. The only thing different between now and then is the starting figures you enter in the calcuator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> It is better to own your own home outright.</comment>


Huntely – Get an email when a keyword is mentioned on Product Hunt - <AUTHOR> https://huntely.com/ <comment><AUTHOR> We're also on Product Hunt - [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/huntely](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/huntely)

</comment><comment><USER2> Seems to be nice service for lazy people :D

<comment><AUTHOR> Yes, it is :)</comment></comment>


Open-source or proprietary? - <AUTHOR>

I am part of a team developing a new software technology, and we have a bit of a dilemma: whether to make it open source or proprietary? The product in question will be a core technology -- one could call it a platform -- on top of which specific applications will be built, either by us or by other developments.
We are aware of the ups and downs of either approach, but are not certain what impact will they have. On one hand, open-sourcing it would make us able to create a wider base of developers familiar with it; on the other hand, we plan to build a profitable business on top of it, and fear that investors (whom we need to fund the R&D) will be driven away by the incomplete ownership of the core.
What is your experience here? Companies such as OpenX and SugarCRM seem to be doing quite fine, but then they might be the extremes -- we'd never really hear of the failures, would we? <comment><USER2> 1) Build a user base

2) Grow a substantial user base

3) Open source (iff your technology is clearly a commodity)

Don't do #3 until you've gone through steps #1 and #2. First you need a platform that has users. Technology without users is like an object that is never instantiated. Open-sourcing for the sake of open-sourcing makes as much sense as promoting a new technology for the sake of new technology (ie technology that doesn't really solve somebody's problem).

</comment><comment><USER3> Not an easy problem, but just one nit to pick: open source does not necessarily mean "incomplete ownership". Mysql, for instance, completely own their code base. As does the FSF - they require copyright assignments.</comment>


New Setback in Attempt to Contain Gulf Oil Spill - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/05/09/us/09rig.html

<comment><USER2> This doesn't seem to be the ideal backdrop for more offshore drilling.

<comment><USER3> It's not, but historically things like this are pretty rare.

If anything I'd be more in favor of offshore drilling, not less. After a disaster like this people will learn from it. (Just as they have from every previous disaster.) So offshore drilling is likely to become even safer.

<comment><USER4> _"It's not, but historically things like this are pretty rare."_

That's false. Drilling-related spills are quite common:

[http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/09/weekinreview/0...](http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2010/05/09/weekinreview/09marsh.html)

 _"Oil regularly spills into Gulf waters....Oil companies reported that drilling platforms alone dumped nearly 50,000 barrels of oil, or more than two million gallons, into U.S. Gulf waters from 1996 through last year."_

<comment><USER5> If you interpret "like this" to mean on the same order of magnitude, then yes, they are rare. 50000 barrels of oil total over 14 years is the standard. This is 5000 to 50000 barrels _per day_. I'm not saying that it's okay to spill any amount of oil, but the present spill should be viewed in its proper perspective as an uncommon event.

<comment><USER4> How did I know that was going to be the comeback? Of _course_ an event of this magnitude is rare. The point is not that massive oil spills are common, but that it's pretty common for drilling to lead to spills.

The parent comment was that he'd be _more_ in favor of drilling now that this has happened, as if it were a situation where we'd made the one big mistake, and now drilling is going to be safer. The reality is that drilling leads to a lot of damage _in general_ , regardless of how rarely these major spills occur.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Amazon pledges net zero carbon emissions by 2040 and 100% renewables by 2030 - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2019/09/19/amazons-climate-pledge-commits-to-net-zero-carbon-emissions-by-2040-and-100-renewables-by-2030/ <comment><USER2> Easy when you have a trillion dollar company and don't pay your invoices on time. :)

Good lip service though.

<comment><USER3> Also a smart competitive move as it will put pressure on all of your competitors.

<comment><USER4> Aren't they dead last in terms of emissions?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Related: Rising sea levels could flood Seattle-area homes by end of century

[https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/report- ris...](https://www.seattletimes.com/business/real-estate/report-rising-sea- levels-could-flood-1-in-200-seattle-area-homes-by-end-of-century/)

</comment><comment><USER6> Uh, 2040? Seattle will be underwater by then.

<comment><USER7> I can't tell if you're trolling or not.

<comment><USER8> Since it's true at least in orientation, they're probably not trolling</comment></comment></comment>


What Is the Cost of Building a Subway? [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://pedestrianobservations.files.wordpress.com/2019/11/costspresentation2.pdf <comment><USER2> I also like this analysis of general high infrastructure costs in America: [https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/03/why- american-c...](https://pedestrianobservations.com/2019/03/03/why-american- costs-are-so-high-work-in-progress/)

This tidbit is particularly infuriating:

> In California, the problem is, in two words, Tutor-Perini. This contractor > underbids and then does shoddy work requiring change orders, litigated to > the maximum. Ron Tutor's dishonesty is well-known and goes back decades: in > 1992 Los Angeles's then-mayor Tom Bradley called him the change order king. > And yet, he keeps getting contracts, all of which have large cost overruns, > going over the amount the state or city would have paid had it awarded the > contract to the second lowest bidder. In San Francisco, cost overrun battles > involving Tutor-Perini led to a 40% cost overrun. This process repeated for > high-speed rail: Tutor submitted lowest but technically worst bid, got the > contract as price was weighted too high, and then demanded expensive > changes. It speaks to California's poor oversight of contractors that Tutor > remains a contractor in good standing and has not been prosecuted for fraud.

Edit: oh, wait, just realized this is from the same blog, so the same body of work.

<comment><USER3> Ah, but in what way is the under-bidding contractor the problem?

Who gave the contract to the contractor?

The problem is the process of going for the lowest bidder, or one of the lowest.

Moreover, in this case, incredibly, going for the same low bidder with the knowledge of all the history of the bids from that contractor being unrealistic lowballs and requiring costly change requests.

Don't blame the contractor. They get the job and make their money. From their angle, they are successful. They know that the city is aiming for the bottom and so they adjust their bidding accordingly. If they didn't submit a low bid, the job would go to someone else.

True story: some decades ago. My father was bidding on a contract with the GVRD (Greater Vancouver Regional District). Something in the tens of thousands of dollars, probably. He was out-bid by $5. That was all they cared about. So he pulled out a $5 bill and plonked it on the table.

If you ever drive in Vancouver, Canada and wonder how the roads can be so shitty, remember that story.

<comment><USER4> Certainly CA shares blame for not managing their contracts better (whether due to incompetence or malice).

But it's unethical behavior to be a contractor who intentionally under-bids with the plan to later (repeatedly) charge exorbitant amounts for modifications and fixes.

The government isn't doing its due diligence, but I take a dim view of people who exploit and waste taxpayers' money.

<comment><USER3> > _But it 's unethical behavior to be a contractor who intentionally under- > bids with the plan to later (repeatedly) charge exorbitant amounts for > modifications and fixes._

If the ethical alternatives all ensure that someone else gets the contract, then that particular ethics in that situation is rather good for nothing.

<comment><USER4> I'll never claim that taking the ethical choice will ensure that others won't choose unethically. But "everyone else is doing it" is not an excuse for unethical behavior.

Suggesting that ethics are good for nothing in this case because of that is... well, even more disappointingly cynical than I'm willing to go.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> From Marginal Revolution:

 _Levy is to be lauded for his pioneering work on this issue yet isn't it weird that a Patreon supported blogger has done the best work on comparative construction costs mostly using data from newspapers and trade publications? New York plans to spend billions on railway and subway expansion. If better research could cut construction costs by 1%, it would be worth spending tens of millions on that research. So why doesn't the MTA embed accountants with every major project in the world and get to the bottom of this cost disease? (See previous point). Perhaps the greatest value of Levy's work is in drawing attention to the issue so that the public gets mad enough about excess costs to get politicians to put pressure on agencies like the MTA._

<comment><USER5> >So why doesn't the MTA embed accountants with every major project in the world and get to the bottom of this cost disease?

Like with any organization, follow the incentives. I'm betting the performance reviews in the top half of the MTA are pegged to metrics that don't have to do with service delivered per dollar.

<comment><USER6> MTA appointees serve at the will of the governor.

The construction lobby is a frequent large donor to political campaigns in New York.

"It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his salary depends upon his not understanding it."

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I was always impressed by Berlin's subway. Some parts of it are very accessible, with the rails literally 20ft below the street. For example: [https://youtu.be/42EV-9G9vjo?t=230](https://youtu.be/42EV-9G9vjo?t=230)

Also, no fare gates (there are occasional ticket checks on the trains, and heavy fines for non-payers).

<comment><USER8> > Also, no fare gates (there are occasional ticket checks on the trains, and > heavy fines for non-payers).

In Germany, fare evasion can in theory carry up to one year in jail. (In DC, max is 10 days, and we're getting rid of even that.)

<comment><USER9> > "In DC, max is 10 days, and we're getting rid of even that."

you seem to say this as if it's a bad thing. it's silly to think fare evasion is worth jailing someone, nevermind paying the administrative and enforcement costs of doing so. even holding someone for an hour is more than enough punishment (which is typically what happens anyway due to bureaucracy involved).

<comment><USER10> If you don't have any real penalty for fare evasion, what keeps people from doing it all the time? That's the whole reason we put people in jail for mere shoplifting, even if it's for something low-cost.

<comment><USER9> it _is_ a real penalty. there's usually a fine as well.

but for the sake of argument, an hour lost would mean being late to work, to an appointment, or to another likely time-sensitive activity. additionally, there's the embarassment of being caught evading the fare (why is everyone staring? how do you explain your tardiness to family/friends/coworkers?). most people would avoid these penalties in and of themselves.

regardless, the penalty isn't what deters most fare evasion (or shoplifting) except at the margins. mostly, adherence (that is, paying fares) is due to social cohesion, self-image, and social responsibility.

that's why berlin, LA, and other transit systems have open transit gates. the cost of enforcement _at the margins_ isn't worth it.

<comment><USER9> further, most people who fare-evade (or shoplift) do so because they're desperate. jail time doesn't deter behavior for those cases nor does enforcement provide additional revenue (couldn't pay in the first place).

no need to punish such folks more with jail time because they're _already being punished_ by circumstance. being detained and fined is more than enough additional punishment here.

<comment><USER11> > further, most people who fare-evade (or shoplift) do so because they're > desperate.

Next time you're in the store in a less than perfectly clean and safe area, look at what kind of stuff is specially protected against shoplifting. In my experience, it's usually washing liquid, shaving razors and hair products. Hardly the domain for the most desperate.

You have quite a pollyanish view on society, where there are no wrongdoers: shoplifters never do this for profit, they are just desperate people forced by circumstance. This doesn't match my experience.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> The observation about station costs resonated for me. I've always been startled by the scale and ostentation of Westlake Station [1] in Seattle, which is relatively modern (1990), but feels like it was built in the 20s, it's huge and complicated and serves only two platforms. A practical station design would be a fraction of the size

[1] [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake_station_(Sound_Tran...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westlake_station_\(Sound_Transit\))

<comment><USER13> Boston's light rail system (Green Line) is built in a very utilitarian, un- ostentatious way. The second it becomes feasible, the trains emerge from tunnels and ride above ground. Many of the stops are nothing more than a painted stretch of pavement. I've always found it ugly, but perhaps there was wisdom in keeping it simple.

<comment><USER14> Aww, come on - the green line can be really pretty. Go check out the Longwood stop and take a walk in the park along the tracks in the summer, it's almost surreal how beautifully the ironwork and old stone bridges and greenery mesh together.

<comment><USER15> The D/Riverside Line of the Green Line is a recycled former heavy rail line, it was not originally built as a streetcar/light rail line.

The ironwork, old stone bridges and stationhouses and such are very nice, but are thanks to the Boston and Albany RR in the late 1800s/early 1900s.

It was bought by the government and converted over to a light rail line in the late 1950s.

<comment><USER14> Fascinating, thanks for the history lesson - I guess that's part of Boston's charm. They say that cows and horses designed the street layout more than people did, although I'm sure that's not true anymore :)

<comment><USER15> For a little more of a history lesson: Much of the core of Boston is artificial land added at various times throughout history.

The seemingly crazy street layouts and orientations (especially in the Downtown/North End areas) make much more "sense" when you realize how the original landmass was shaped, which was a peninsula only connected to the mainland by a single very narrow road out to the south/southwest.

You can find more detail and scope elsewhere, but here's a quick image that illustrates most of it: [http://i.imgur.com/dWSGEjQ.jpg](http://i.imgur.com/dWSGEjQ.jpg)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I thought I would dislike this analysis, but I actually found it pretty reasonable. One of the biggest takeaways for me: California and the US aren't exceptional. Because so many of us on HN live in California, it often seems that California is uniquely bad at infrastructure, but cost overruns are just as much of a problem in the rest of the US, as well as Canada, the UK, and Australia.

<comment><USER10> >it often seems that California is uniquely bad at infrastructure, but cost overruns are just as much of a problem in the rest of the US, as well as Canada, the UK, and Australia.

California is not uniquely bad within the US. NYC is utterly infamous for their ridiculous construction costs, caused by a huge amount of graft, terrible unions that require 4x as many workers as necessary, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> > _" MTA Chair Pat Foye, last week: "New York has a more built-out commuter > rail network than London.""_

Hmm. Perhaps Pat Foye should compare this map:

[https://nycmap360.com/carte/pdf/en/nyc-rail- map.pdf](https://nycmap360.com/carte/pdf/en/nyc-rail-map.pdf)

To this one:

[https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/London_South_East_expanded-09...](https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/London_South_East_expanded-0919.pdf)

<comment><USER18> The point Alon was making is that Foye is fucking clueless.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The coolest thing about this presentation is that it was created using LaTeX and Beamer.

On macOS you can open it using Preview.app and then select View -> Slideshow.

</comment><comment><USER20> You can't really compare costs and ignore the level of corruption. In e.g. Russia the only reason why subway costs $500M/km is because at least two thirds of that money immediately vanishes into the various off-shore companies owned by the various oligarchs, government officials, and cronies thereof. Same with highway construction. Someone once jokingly "calculated" that it's cheaper to pave the roads with foie gras there.

</comment><comment><USER21> What's the opportunity cost of areas like the bay area, where average commute time is 32min, and some people are closer to one hour, where mass transit isn't as robust as somewhere like NYC or Toronto.

<comment><USER22> Toronto transit is... robust? SF must be brutal.

<comment><USER23> SF transit is _amazingly_ bad. It's like the worst case scenario for anywhere I've been that has transit.

<comment><USER16> That's not true in my experience. I'd put San Francisco transit above Seattle, San Jose, and Los Angeles and below Portland.

<comment><USER23> I honestly didn't know San Jose had a transit system.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> I guess it mostly depends on how much the politicians greening the project takes into it's own pockets in most of the world anyway lol

<comment><USER25> Actually if you read the presentation it shows that corrupt countries have lower costs than the AngloSphere, and is not a sufficient explanatory factor. Many less-corrupt (in public infrastructure) countries also have low costs (Switzerland for example).

<comment><USER26> The notion that the Anglosphere, especially the US, is less corrupt requires further examination. Local governments, and their special purpose entities like MTA, have complex relationships between politicians, officials, bonding firms, consultants, engineering firms, contractors, unions, suppliers, etc. The corruption is not typically overt, involving envelopes stuffed with cash handed over in New Jersey diners, but is more like a constellation of tacit mutual self interest among the parties.

<comment><USER24> Yep, I mean as a non-american I could also point out at how weird it looks something like super PACs exist, as it seems from the outside just a legal way to bribe elected gov officials, same thing goes with how Healthcare works over there, or that some states in america are de facto high earning first choice to move their dirty money from abroad and keep it safe and secret, not even in switzerland now, only in america lol

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For Las Vegas, the cost for the first three stops is "about $50 million."

[https://www.boringcompany.com/lvcc](https://www.boringcompany.com/lvcc)

Interesting comparisons could probably be made to:

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

</comment><comment><USER28> This is just a part of an increasingly serious problem in all areas of human endeavour. Our projects are becoming so big, complex and lengthy that they are effectively unmanageable with the methodologies and expertise we currently have. In one way being highly ambitious is a good think: if we were always thinking "we'll stick with doing what we know how to do" we would never progress but we need to control our ambition so they don't get completely out of hand.

<comment><USER29> I do not see how infrastructure projects today are any more complicated than 50 or 100 years ago.

<comment><USER30> Oh come on now, really? I have a piece of farmland in the middle of nowhere and let me tell you, even digging a hole out there is harder now than it was 100 years ago because of the things you find buried. Subways in 200+ year old cities? I can't even imagine. What do you do when your borer, designed for medium size rock and dirt runs into a 4ft wide brick and cement wall the city forgot about 40 years ago? This happens! Also, back 100 years ago we were talking brick, cement, some steel, and thats it. Today there is a vast array of engineered materials and machinery that didn't exist back then. It's not 1,000s of unskilled workers with shovels anymore, its hundreds with technology and mostly engineers.

<comment><USER31> The problem in old cities isn't as much that they can't get through old stuff, but more that they don't want to because of archeology.

For an example, see the Bosphorus tunnel in Istanbul ([https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/25/turkey.iantray...](https://www.theguardian.com/world/2006/jan/25/turkey.iantraynor), [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaray#Delays](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmaray#Delays))

A huge find, unfortunately on the location where a terminal was planned.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Most hacker friendly laptop on the market? - <AUTHOR> Hi fellow Hackers! I am a grad student/wannabe-enterprenuer/hacker and I am really looking for advice in choosing a good work machine that would suit all three roles. Your advice is most welcome. I've been using company laptops and an old Dell Studio that worked well for last 7 years. Now I need one and the market is flooded with configurations and models. Maybe this discussion can help me and others in choosing something that is our livelihood :) <comment><USER2> I'm using the new Dell XPS 13 Developer's Edition, without the touch screen. I've found build quality to be a step up for Dell, but still a bit flimsy especially around the cover of the monitor.

I like that it's pre-vetted hardware for running Ubuntu/Linux, has very long battery life, and the screen is really a joy to look at.

It's a 13-inch screen crammed into an 11-inch laptop body, so you get a lot of screen real-estated without the full bulkiness.

I also love the lightweight (close to MacBook light here), and the versatility in connectors (a detractor for the MacBook line for me).

In addition, out of the box things like 5GHz ac wifi just works under Linux.

<comment><USER3> I would definitively recommend this one as well, the quality is very good.

Some downside with the Ubuntu version:

* the trackpad not deactivated when typing, that's a real pain, have you found a solution?

* the wake up after a suspension will sometimes generate some problems (no wifi etc..)

<comment><USER4> I got the trackpad being disabled when typing, see this discussion for reference:

[https://github.com/advancingu/XPS13Linux/issues/3#issuecomme...](https://github.com/advancingu/XPS13Linux/issues/3#issuecomment-115431965)

I haven't had any real problems with waking up from suspension, it only takes a little time sometimes. Disabling and re-enabling the WiFi should work anyway, if you lost your WiFi connection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Thinkpads. If you don't mind used and want something inexpensive and still decent, the T420s/X220s are pretty cheap ($250-400USD depending on configuration) and still very good machines.

Won't break (dropped mine on cement before and came back with just a few scratches and a small dent in the metal) and they're reasonably fast.

<comment><USER6> I am very happy with my X220. Decent battery life, great keyboard, and performance that rivals even the very latest models in the same form-factor. The only negative point for me is the screen resolution of only 1366x768.

Some people don't like the trackpoint, but I love it so much that I've disabled the trackpad completely.

I honestly think that it's the best value laptop currently available.

<comment><USER7> x01-x230 were all great. x201 with an ssd runs like a modern laptop. hated that the x240 lacked trackpoint buttons. x250 doesnt have the texture of the x230, x230 is probably my favorite, but x250 has a modern processor with battery life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Macbook pro retina, 13"/15" dependend on your pockets. You won't get the same quality cheaper and the battery can easily last through the entire work day. It's a productive environment, though, so if you really want to tinker with the hardware pieces, this may not be the right choice for you.

<comment><USER9> There are tradeoffs, but the 11" and 13" Macbook Airs are also worth considering imo. I personally greatly prefer them, mainly for the lighter weight and better battery life (also, they're cheaper). I especially like the 11". Downsides are slower CPU and lower-res screen.

<comment><USER10> The MBAs are nice for the battery life and especially the weight, but I find the 11" is too small for me. I can't be productive with so little screen real estate. Some of my peers really regretted getting the 11".

The 13" MBA I had was nice, but I ended up replacing it with a 15" MBP for the power and higher resolution.

I originally replaced an insanely heavy 17" MBP with the 13" MBA, so the weight of the 15" MBP doesn't really bother me even though I carry it around everywhere.

<comment><USER9> I thought screen-size might be an issue, but I've settled into a workflow of mostly working inside a full-screened iTerm2, which I'm really enjoying. For that it's plenty big; with the font size I use, you can fit two 95-char editor windows side by side (or an editor window and a prompt, etc.). Obviously that particular work style won't suit everyone though.

The weight difference between my old 13" MBP (4.5 lbs) and the 11" MBA (2.4 lbs) is big enough to make a difference for me since I constantly have it slung over my shoulder. It looks like they've since lightened the 13" MBP to 3.5 lbs, though, so it's not as big a difference now.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Life is too short not to buy a Mac. I have an rMBP 15" and its awesome. After years of using Macs, I got a ThinkPad T450s because of the keyboard. It's now sitting on a shelf while I set it up for my dad.

It's _okay_. The screen is okay, pretty bad backlight bleed.[1] It's got a weird memory configuration--you can run dual channel only up to 8GB. The keyboard is fantastic, but the touchpad is awful. [2] Apple's touchpad is unmatched, and induces less cramping than the trackpoint.

Windows is getting better. I think Windows 10 is pretty good. But its not better than OS X, and Visual Studio is the only Windows app I miss. Even Office 2016 is just as good on the Mac (unless you have particular Excel- related needs). Retina support is still far better in OS X, and its 2015 and a non-retina screen isn't acceptable any more.

[1] I got the AUO screen, I hear the LG is better, but that's one thing you risk on the PC side--everyone has less tight sourcing tolerances than Apple.

[2] The touchpad on my work-issued T430 is better. That's another fact of PC- life: Its pretty much a crapshot whether the next iteration of any given model will have major regressions in trackpad quality or battery life or screen quality. PC manufacturers just don't care--they'll source whatever part is cheapest.

<comment><USER12> > Life is too short not to buy a Mac.

Yeah, except when scrolling a website on a EUR2500 rMBP stutters. (That was one reason mine is sitting on the shelf.) And the charging cable breaks. The Macbook charging cable of the 27" Cinema Display also breaks, and it is built into the display so you can't just buy another one for $5. And it's nice and thin but now when it's 30 degrees in my room (I hate aircons and there's almost 40 outside) GPU and GPU both run over 90 Celsius even only 1 from the 4 CPU core is in use and fans are running at maximum. When an external display is connected the case above the top keyboard row is so hot that it burns my fingers.

I fully see the advantages of a Mac for development (for me that was mostly the *nix part of the system, i.e. the console), but it's not just roses. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Some stuff to remember:

\- thinness does not matter that much. If you want your stuff to look cool, then it does, but for portability it doesn't. \- thinness affects cooling. You don't want your battery get ruined, your CPU throttled and your lap burned. \- expandability matters on the long run

I just replaced my 2013 rMBP. I needed the following: \- expandable storage -- I can put 3 SSDs in this

\- expandable memory - 4 DIMM slots, up to 64G RAM

\- dockable

\- trackpoint

\- can drive UHD screens @ 60 Hz

\- as Linux friendly as possible

\- good keyboard

\- good cooling

\- IPS screen, min. fHD

I ended up buying the HP Zbook 15 G2. The only issue with that is UDH external screens and Linux-friendliness don't go together, because those displays require discrete GPU (Broadwells can drive UHD screens through MST, but most displays don't support that). The other alternative was the Thinkpad W550s, but I could get the G2 at half the price (and it's much more powerful).

I didn't buy:

\- smaller devices because I'm working on this 10 hours a day sometimes, and portability itself wasn't enough to compensate for less power, less memory, worse cooling \- Thinkpad .40 series because of their clickpads

\- Dell Precisions because they're extremely bulky and HPs have better keyboard

\- Macbooks because OSX was not an option for me after using it for 2.5 years, also they don't have a trackpoint and their cooling is really abysmal

\- anything from smaller vendors like System76, etc. because they all use OEM chassis and they're a far cry from top-end HP, Dell, Lenovo and Apple chassis

I personally don't understand how could anyone recommend a 11" MBA to someone who wants to do serious work on it. A 11" screen is extremely uncomfortable for all-day coding; if you keep it docked all day then might make sense though.

<comment><USER13> I'm surprised you say that thinness doesn't matter for portability. I couldn't imagine going back to my previous ThinkPad (currently using a 13" Macbook Air) - it would take up so much space in my bag. Remember that by thinning a laptop, you also make it lighter too.

<comment><USER14> I personally think weight matters, but not thinness. I used to use a 12" Powerbook. I now use a 11" Macbook Air. I still use the same bag to carry it around. Being thinner didn't win me anything. However, being lighter is a definite win.

Hypothetically, if I could get the same laptop that is thicker, but cheaper, but is the same weight and has full sized ports for things like ethernet (or ports that were removed like SD cards, firewire, etc) instead of requiring dongles and attachments, I would get the thicker one.

(A coworker bought a 15" Powerbook the same time I got my 12". We went to a conference and were lugging our laptops all day for a week. The weight difference took its toll on my coworker by the end of the week.)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> The number of people recommending MacBooks makes me cringe a little. Sure the build quality is good, but I can't live with the keyboard's crippling lack of keys and the need to constantly use the mouse in OSX. Lenovo isn't fairing much better these days - I have a T440p, and the lack of the 'menu' key (between right-alt and right-ctrl) drives me nuts. The lack of Home/End/PgUp/PgDn/Delete on the Mac also drives me crazy.

For those of us who live on the keyboard and hate to touch the mouse (too slow and inefficient), these days are dark times..

Also: why aren't we seeing >16 GB of ram in laptops yet? I realise workstation laptops are at 32, and possibly 64 GB now, but why are some brands going backwards from 16GB down to 12 and even 8?

As for my recommendation? There isn't a single laptop on the market that I like, I'm sad to say. Lenovo dropped the ball, and dell's build quality isn't up to par. I'd look at an HP workstation, or maybe one of the Lenovo W541's, although the keyboard isn't much better than on a MacBook.

The Chromebook Pixel 2 (the top spec one) is such a tantalising glimpse of what could be - just shoehorn in more hard drive space, add a mini-DP port and an RJ-45, and most people would be good to go...if they fixed the keyboard.

Sorry for the rant! Just overly frustrated with the state of the market.. Won't someone just release a standard workstation laptop without following all the keyboard/mouse trends?!?

<comment><USER16> Have you tried to make OS X keyboard friendly? Window Management - Spectacle: [http://spectacleapp.com](http://spectacleapp.com), App Launcher - Quicksilver: [http://qsapp.com](http://qsapp.com), also just learning each app's keybindings as I incorporate them into work.

OS X also has some of the best text manipulation in apps: [https://coderwall.com/p/usc8qg/use-emacs-readline-key- bindin...](https://coderwall.com/p/usc8qg/use-emacs-readline-key-bindings-in- os-x). As a Emacs/Bash user, I haven't found anything as consistent, even in Linux.

For your missing keys Home = Cmd + Up, End = Cmd + Down, PgUp = Shift + Space, PgDn = Space, Delete = control + d

<comment><USER15> Thanks for the good advice. Yes, I've tried most of these (spectacle is new to me though), but I've found that shortcuts aren't very consistent between apps, plus there's no shortcuts for manipulating windows; eg, [alt+space, x] for maximize. Maximising windows is a whole other problem (rightzoom mostly fixes this.. mostly). It's little workflow issues like that which put me off OSX. I used it for work for three months before I couldn't take it any more, despite learning a lot of shortcuts and 'fixer' apps in the mean time.

These days, I like windows as my main OS, with a linux VM for real work.

<comment><USER17> There's nothing wrong with your setup. I personally just got a Macbook Pro 13 inch because I wanted to become familiar with the Apple ecosystem, coming from mainly Windows and Linux worlds.

I can honestly say given a couple of weeks, I could be productive on any of the platforms. But it just comes down to preference here.

The issues you mention for manipulating windows - that is "fixed" by installing a Window Manager such as one of the following (some free, some paid);

Free:

Spectacle [http://spectacleapp.com/](http://spectacleapp.com/)

Paid:

Divvy [http://mizage.com/divvy/](http://mizage.com/divvy/)

BetterSnapTool [https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bettersnaptool/id417375580?m...](https://itunes.apple.com/us/app/bettersnaptool/id417375580?mt=12)

=====

It sounds like you gave it a fair shot though, which is fine. Use whatever you are most productive in :)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> I'm an infosec guy, and I use a 13" retina MacBook Pro. Unfortunately my work laptop is different, but for outside of work (security is my hobby as well as my work), the MacBook does exactly what I need. Long battery life, great build quality, and the screen is amazing for reading a lot.

I'm not a fan of Apple, but when I was looking through my options while shopping for a new laptop recently, there was nothing else that seemed like it wasn't a compromise for the same price.

</comment><comment><USER19> Purism is building crowdfunded laptops (13", 15") based on user feedback on features (e.g. VT-d and TPM to support Qubes) and privacy (hardware switches for camera, wireless and microphone). Where feasible, components are used which support libre drivers and firmware.

[https://puri.sm/](https://puri.sm/)

<comment><USER20> Note the current HN discussion on Purism:

[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9912034](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9912034)

(It's not all favourable...)

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> I also recommend a Macbook (Air or Pro depending on how much dev).

Most students these days seem to be using Apple products, laptops or iPads. This makes it easy to deal with your University's IT department if/when they make you do special things to get access to their networks. (I remember the days when only Windows was supported and getting Mac/Linux to work with campus networks and services was a huge ordeal.)

As an entrepreneur, a lot of tech companies are mobile focused which means iOS is in the mix. To do any native development requires a Mac. And to do pitching/presentations, Macs are very nice for creating and presenting that type of stuff. (Guy Kawasaki has warned Windows users to expect to lose 20 minutes setting up your PowerPoint display for a pitch.) Additionally, VCs tend to use iPhones and iPads now...your Mac data will usually interoperate better.

For hacking, again, if mobile is a concern, Mac is the only platform that lets you do both iOS and Android. The Unix heritage on Mac makes dealing with the harder areas of Android development easier than on Windows (Linux is okay).

If you are doing heavy development, then a Macbook Pro is probably better. If you are doing light development, Air is fine. With Xcode, RAM is more important than CPU. So max out the RAM on any Air. (I don't know if the 12" Macbook will have enough RAM where you will be happy with Xcode.)

</comment><comment><USER21> If you don't mind waiting a bit, the ThinkPad "Retro" is quite promising. We might get a good ThinkPad with modern hardware: [http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-retro-thinkpad-classic- could-...](http://www.zdnet.com/article/a-retro-thinkpad-classic-could-be-a- killer-laptop-not-crippled-by-insane-thinness/)

The company is even asking customers and thinking about backtracking to old designs. It's wise decision. I thought I would never see this, especially after introducing island-style keyboards and the Superfish fiasco: [http://youropinioncounts.lenovo.com/s/87869/Survey2/nc/](http://youropinioncounts.lenovo.com/s/87869/Survey2/nc/)

If you are in a hurry, I would recommend getting a x220 and then waiting to see what we get. The x220 was really good, except for a horrible trackpad and a slightly noisy fan.

</comment><comment><USER22> If you mean "hacker friendly" as in completely free/libre software, one of these would probably be ideal:

[http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/product/libreboot-x200/](http://shop.gluglug.org.uk/product/libreboot-x200/)

The older X60 is slower but also similar, and Thinkpads (before Lenovo bought them) are very robust hardware-wise.

<comment><USER23> No one can definitively tell what OP means with "hacker friendly." I think it's time to retire that word

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> I initially used a think pad (T61p) with ubuntu installed on it, subsequently moved to the chromebook but finally settled for a macbook pro late 2014 , its the best undoubtedly . look at craigslist in your area for a re-sale one in case your budget is a bit constrained.

</comment><comment><USER25> If you just want to get shit done, I recommend a macbook air 13" (or pro if you can afford it).

Shit will just work (mostly), updates won't (generally) break things and you can just do work.

When I was younger with more free time, I would have recommended a Lenovo or a Thinkpad running some variant of debian and happily messed around making things work how I want. Now I'm contracting and every hour I spend trying to make my computer work is an hour I can't bill - I find my tolerance for down- time is pretty much zero

</comment><comment><USER26> My hands are too big to type on anything smaller than a 15" laptop. 17" would be better, so you actually have some screen real-estate to work with, if your intent is to do actual work on it. Ideally something with an aluminum case, since the screen hinges on plastic case models wear out so quickly. Something that has accessible panels for upgrading/replacing RAM and hard-disks, without having to completely disassemble the case. Something with a standard keyboard layout, with real F1-F12 function keys, and a full numpad on the right.

Get a cheap wireless/bluetooth mouse that takes AA batteries and turn off the trackpad.

If carrying around a 5 lb laptop is an issue, you might want to go to the gym a little more often ;-)

Unless you have to do iOS work and need to have XCode, I wouldn't pay the 300% Apple tax. There should be something offered by Acer or Asus for $500-600 that would fit your needs. Get the cheapest one that has a decent processor/GPU (don't worry about the HD or memory, as long as the motherboard supports at least 8GB DDR3). Throw an SSD and some decent memory sticks in it, and install a clean version of Windows, without all the bloatware, or your favorite flavor of Linux.

<comment><USER27> weight matters if you're trying to travel light, not just for carrying around.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> I hate to redirect a question by someone else, but I also am looking.

Would really like to see Ubuntu AND Kali Linux laptop that supports these requests:

A decently high resolution screen (minimum of 1280x1024) wifi hacking capable (hardware that will work natively with Kali) Faster than ARM - for processing reasonable password hashing (not 3d GPU level) and running VM's of Windows

Thanks all including original poster.

<comment><USER23> The word "hacker" is completely meaningless now. Based on OP's intro ("wannabe-entrepreneur") , I don't think it means "penetration tester" in this context.

</comment></comment><comment><USER29> I'll vote for (yet) another Mac. I bought a retina 15 with my accrued leave when I left my last job and my current job bought me another. Neither, with varying workloads and duty cycles has ever left me wanting. My hackerness leans more toward cloud instances and microcontroller/raspberry Pi hardware, which the Mac works with just niftily. I _did_ have an issue with finding a usb/serial/terminal solution to talk to the console on a Palo Alto Firewall, but a second machine was easy enough to borrow while performing the initial config.

(Yeah, I'm a console gamer...while 'games' is the historical achilles heel of the mac, I've not had any problems with the types of games I play (Bioshock/Portal))

</comment><comment><USER30> Whatever laptop a hacker can get his hands on, is a hacker's laptop. and a friendly one is one that is easily upgradeable, like x86. Get a reasonable x86 laptop. In my opinion, something with an 8gb, 500gbs i5 equivalent should be more than sufficient.

</comment><comment><USER31> Mac laptops are definitely the go to in the startup world. If you're using it for work and you plan on doing programming, this will make that transition much easier. Biggest perk? They have a unix operating system.

For things that are linux specific, you can always use a VM through Vagrant (there's few practical reasons you'd need a Linux GUI).

If you truly want a "Hacker" laptop, then what you actually want is the Novena. :D [https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio- kosagi/novena](https://www.crowdsupply.com/sutajio-kosagi/novena)

</comment><comment><USER32> > a good work machine that would suit all three roles

You need a server that is hosted in the internet, a desktop system with a good mouse and keyboard, and two or more screens, and a laptop that is portable and cheap.

I really can not see, how to combine those 3 different roles, into one machine, as those roles have different locations: Server room, desktop and shoulder bag.

For laptop the only requirements are: max 2lbs as one has to carry it, maximum $300 as a laptop can be damaged or stolen easy, and it must run 100% free software without binary blobs, when it comes to wifi and graphics.

</comment><comment><USER33> MacBook 13 or 15 retina. A great 13" for software development can be had for ~$1200.

Why Mac:

* It's Unix-like.

* Homebrew is fantastic for OSS package management.

* It's ubiquitous. (Yeah you could use Arch Linux instead of a Mac with Homebrew, but Homebrew will always get updates first.)

* Great battery life. (Linux often sucks at this.)

Why Retina:

* Text is extremely clear. It may seem like nothing before you've used it for a while, but you'll never go back.

* More real estate for side-by-side viewing of whatever you need.

* The Retina MBPs are actually quite light, enough so that I don't have MacBook Air envy ever.

</comment><comment><USER34> The Macbook Air 11/13" is a solid solid workhorse. You don't necessarily need the extra power that MBPs offer.

My 2012 MBA is still perfect today.

Two things to note: 1) Max out the RAM and CPU 2) The 2015 13" MacbookAir has much faster PCIE storage for some reason

In addition to this, I sometimes remote desktop into a £500 Windows Laptop (80% as fast as TOP-end unreleased Broadwell) from pcspecialist.co.uk with an i7-4810mq processor). Also has nvidia 860M graphics!

15" MacbookPro with old graphics for £2500 is outrageous.

</comment><comment><USER35> I just bought a ASUS 303LN. Was tossing this up vs the Dell XPS 13 and Mac Book Air. Seems a fairly good machine for a reasonable price point. If getting make sure you get the 5th gen processor as some places still sell with the 4th.

[http://www.ultrabookreview.com/4274-asus-zenbook-ux303ln- rev...](http://www.ultrabookreview.com/4274-asus-zenbook-ux303ln-review/)

</comment><comment><USER36> I think macbook is the best if you don't want to use linux. I had some issues with it using linux. I also purchased lenovo x1 carbon, but I don't like it I tell you. the build quality is kinda low. I also heard some good things about dell xps 13. but I also saw compatibility complains.

</comment><comment><USER37> I've been using a Thinkpad X1 Carbon (3rd gen) with ubuntu on dual boot no problem. It's pretty thin like that other brand, and has good battery life in both OS, like 6-9hrs depending on use. Visual studio and netflix? 6hrs. Coding in a text editor: 8-10.

</comment><comment><USER38> I use an Asus N550JK. It's got good performance and handles Linux well, except for Optimus support which is still not great.

I used to own a MacBook Pro, but had bad experiences with hardware failures and Apple sweeping such defects under the rug for as long as possible.

</comment><comment><USER39> I've got a macbook pro 15 retina and the new Macbook. Would recommend either. Though you might want to offload heavy workloads to a droplet/linode if you go for the new Macbook.

</comment><comment><USER40> If freedom is an issue, ThinkPad X60 would be the only viable option. If not, a high end MacBook or ThinkPad depending on what you like.

</comment><comment><USER41> The market is flooded — just buy any brand with a reputable repair rate at a price that fits.

</comment><comment><USER42> dell xps 9333 with ubuntu

</comment><comment><USER43> I love my Surface Pro 3. It's better than anything. Sure, you can buy a Mac - but then you have to use OS X :(</comment>


Reverse engineering and exploiting a critical Little Snitch vulnerability - <AUTHOR> https://sentinelone.com/blogs/shut-snitch-reverse-engineering-exploiting-critical-little-snitch-vulnerability-reverse-engineering-mac-os-x/ <comment><USER2> Wow. Incredibly detailed and technical. Wonderful blog post. High five. There isn't enough of this type of research happening and being published (in a detailed form)</comment>


Memorandum for the Heads of Executive Departments and Agencies - <AUTHOR> http://project-open-data.github.io/policy-memo/

<comment><USER2> Something I've been continuously impressed with is the incredible amount of highly detailed data the U.S. government collects on just about everything. I don't mean spooky scary intelligence data, but more mundane things like the Census and Geospatial data. If you dig long enough you can find data on almost anything.

I think France does something similar, and I've been impressed with the few bits of data that I've seen from the U.K. (but some of it is stuck behind weird trademark laws or something). But I'm largely lost behind language barriers in finding this out for other countries.

What other countries do this?

<comment><USER3> More than you would imagine. The problem has always been awareness, access, noise and definitions. Most people aren't aware data relevant to them is collected and when they discover data they want, it's in a format that is difficult to use or full of noise. And even if you get clean data in a format you want, it can be hard to find official definitions and criteria describing the data, so it's not uncommon for two agencies to appear to collect the same data, but it's not really the same data because those agencies are working under their own varied definition or criteria.

When I worked as a financial analyst in Brazil, I was amazed at the data that was available from IBGE and various other governmental agencies. Despite the availability of data, it was rarely in a format that was useful without constantly having to writing a special scraper/parser. And even then the same type of data was inconsistent between sources.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4>
      The app Project Open Data will be able to:

      Read your public information.
      Update your user profile.
      Update your public and private repositories (Commits, Issues, etc).
      Create and edit gists.

<comment><USER5> Meh. Just go here [https://github.com/project-open-data/project-open- data.githu...](https://github.com/project-open-data/project-open- data.github.io) instead.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Wow, a tremendous step towards transparency. Wish my country did this, but one can dream...

The site is just gorgeous (<http://project-open-data.github.io/>). And most important of all, editing the content is really easy (although you need a GitHub account for that). I'll have to check out the GitHub editor they are using.

Published law as a living, collaborative document. This is the future!

Edit: Hmm, why is it that in my RSS feed the submission link goes to <https://github.com/blog/1499-the-revolution-will-be-forked> and here it goes to a random page on the open-data site?

</comment><comment><USER7> The schema.md they link to currently leads to a 404...

</comment><comment><USER8> 1.e. No PDFs.</comment>