Ask HN: Should one buy Intel-based Macs now? - <AUTHOR> Apple today updated the iMac (Pro). Among other changes they also now come with 10th Gen Intel CPUs. The question now becomes if it is a good idea to buy one (or other Macs).
Obviusly, this depends on the situation and use-case. Thus, I will give describe my situation. The company I work for gave me a 13" MBP that has deceng juice to get my work done (mainly writing docx and LaTeX, using SSH for remote access to Linux servers and workstations). And I am also alowed to use it for private purposes, so I also use it for my side-projects (Python and Xcode projects mainly). Now comes the catch. I'm also musician using Logic. And here the MBP struggles having only 4 Cores. So, my plan was to buy an decent iMac and use it for the next 6+ years. I wanted to buy the i9 CPU and 512GB SSD and upgrade the RAM myself. And after all the years, the iMac would be upgradable (to some degree). But these options are now gone, I think. macOS will certainly not be supported for 6+ years (assuming a similar timeline as during the last transition). So if I buy one now, in the near future I will have a really expensive Linux worstation.
And there is also the question if (i)Macs with Apple Silicon will be upgradeable. CPUs surely not, but I am afraid RAM and storage won't be upgradable neither.
So, what is you take on this problem? Would you buy or not? If, why? <comment><USER2> I'm in the same boat. I'm kind of done with Mac though because Catalina broke a bunch of VST's I used and Live 9. I'm not paying for an upgrade on Ableton Live because an OS upgrade. It's not even that old. Live 1 still installs on Windows just fine. I guess Catalina is getting us used to all the stuff breaking and never working on ARM. People really expect someone like Propellerheads Reason to work on ARM? It doesn't even have 4k support. Mark my words, there is going to be big name music software that will never work on Arm. They'll just turn in to Windows only support. At least then they don't have to rewrite their software every two years for Mac. These codebases go back decades.

I had to downgrade to Mojave but how long is that actually going to work. Stuff moves too fast on Apple. I can install old deprecated software and Windows and it boots up just fine. Cakewalk Project 5 for example and load up projects that are 15 years old. All of the old Cakewalk VST's still work fine on Windows but stopped working on Mac at Yosemite. It's just pitiful. If I wasn't a mobile developer I would have dropped Mac in a heartbeat.

</comment><comment><USER3> In general, I would not buy the first iteration of a major new Apple product. If you look back the first Macbook Air, first iPhone, first iPad, first Apple Watch... the third or fourth iteration absolutely blew away the first.

So this seems like a great time to get the latest Intel Mac. By the time you're ready to replace it, Apple will be past iteration #1 of the ARM Macs, hopefully well past it.

<comment><USER4> It's probably a good idea to skip the first generation in general, but this is a bit different than those others.

The first iPhone had a fixed function graphics pipeline and 2G cellular service. Unsuitable for the native application market that they set up afterward and changing cellular capabilities and customer expectations.

The first iPad was similarly very constrained, though slightly better. For all practical purposes, it was a blown up iPhone 4.

I suspect, given the general advancements and recent stability in Apple's ARM SOCs, that this first generation of hardware will be good, though maybe a bit underpowered compared to what people are used to with the Intel equivalent. But not the practically beta level of those other devices.

<comment><USER5> I wouldn't be surprised if the first generation ships with firmware issues. The x86 emulator is also likely to be a source of friction. In the past when Apple has switched architectures the new one is so much faster that even emulated code see some benefit. That's not the case here, old x86 apps stand a good chance of performing poorly and having issues. I wouldn't blame anyone for holding off for a generation or two.

<comment><USER6> _> The x86 emulator is also likely to be a source of friction. In the past when Apple has switched architectures the new one is so much faster that even emulated code see some benefit. That's not the case here, old x86 apps stand a good chance of performing poorly and having issues._

This doesn't match Apple's claims and demos of performance of emulated x86 applications. I'd suggest you watch the WWDC 2020 keynote video for more on this and take a look at the compute and graphics intensive x86 applications they demonstrated running (emulated on Rosetta 2) on ARM hardware of undisclosed specs.

<comment><USER5> I'm taking those demos with a grain of salt personally. Historical precedent suggests this is very difficult to get right.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I would get one.

First, I generally would wait to see how the Apple Silicon laptops do in the real world. I'm sure they will eventually be very great, but I wouldn't buy the first generation just the same as I would not immediately upgrade to a new version of OSX/macOS.

Let the bugs get worked out, let other vendors pick up their own support for it, then take a look at if it's worth investing in.

Second, even if Apple drops all support tomorrow for their Intel line, you still have a working setup that can take you through at least 3+ years of use before needing an upgrade, including software (Brew, MacPorts). Your DAW won't immediately stop working. SSH won't stop working. There are still companies that let you download older versions of their software (Cubase, for instance). If another big Heartbleed-like issue is found, get the update from HomeBrew and set your PATH to use those binaries instead of the default ones.

Lastly, your Intel Mac is still a computer. You can install Linux or Windows and get extra use out of it.

</comment><comment><USER8> My company assigned me a 16" MBP with gobs of memory and all that. I am sitting here right now with an _extremely_ light set of applications running, CPU is 98% idle, I've got a 4K 27" monitor and the MacBook is in clamshell mode. Plugged in and fully charged. Ambient temperature is 25C and CPU temp is 60C.

Both fans are running loud enough to notice: 2600RPM, about 27%, and that's about average when it's not asleep. It's too loud to watch a quiet movie without headphones.

If I had full control of my kit, I would seriously consider ditching the 16" MBP in favor of a 27" iMac just in the hope that the cooling system isn't a complete disaster.

As for the ARM question, I am very much looking forward to buying an ARM Macbook Air (or whatever) for personal use.

But since I have no idea exactly when one will show up that does what I need; and since I expect the Intel Macs to be supported for many years to come; and since especially for a desktop it's also quite nice with other OS's; I wouldn't hesitate to buy an Intel Mac if I needed one.

Just not the damned 16" MacBook Ventilator.

<comment><USER9> Even though opening the lid makes the GPU work harder, it typically is a win in terms of cooling the laptop down. Also, try plugging in the power adapter on the right side USB ports, that allegedly makes a difference in heat

<comment><USER8> The reason I started running it in clamshell mode, after years of keeping my 13" open, was the the GPU would massively overheat when running an external monitor, so I'd have the fans running at well over 50% _all the time_ in that case. Clamshell fixed it at the time.

Seems to play nicer with my other (Dell) monitor but when I was using Garage Band (only on the external monitor!) it got so loud I had to quit GB and let it cool down... and I still never went over about 20% CPU. The fans are pretty normal when I _only_ use the built-in monitor, but the case still gets way too hot to rest on my legs.

I'll try the right side power, thanks for the tip!

<comment><USER10> My 15 inch mbp 2019 got super hot when I ran the dock (with HDMI and keyboard) on the same side as the charger. Having them on opposite sides helped loads with the temperature. YMMV

<comment><USER8> Whoa... this seems to have done it. (I think.)

Thanks a lot for the tip! Funny, that's how I had it connected with the previous monitor and I didn't have trouble with the clamshell mode.

FWIW right-side power didn't help, nor did the turbo switcher AFAICT (I'm not doing anything CPU-intensive) -- but as soon as I put the monitor in the _left_ and the power in the _right_ the fans dropped way down. Still running, which is annoying, but not especially loud.

I find it maddening that a $3600 computer has a problem like this, and Apple doesn't even tell you about it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> It's a really straightforward decision.

\- Do you want/need a Mac? \- Can you afford the one you want?

People agonize over this way too much.

I did a few months ago. My trusty 2013 MBP finally was wearing out. I needed a new MBP and the new 16in has rolled back some of the previously objectionable changes (keyboard, restored escape key). I could afford it (but whew I'll admit that was a big number).

I only work on MacOS. I have a Windows desktop for games but despite the hardware being high quality, I can't ever be productive on a Windows environment.

You just have to decide if you need it and buy it.

<comment><USER7> > I only work on MacOS. I have a Windows desktop for games but despite the > hardware being high quality, I can't ever be productive on a Windows > environment.

I have that same feeling.

At Uni we had to alternate between coding in SSH on Redhat machines for one class, and writing .NET programs in other classes.

While both are workable, something just felt foreign about development or DB management on Windows (even with great tools like Visual Studio).

I attribute this to knowing more about the inner workings of *nix compared to Windows, where things such as registry, services, etc. felt more like black- box magic compared to having config files, cron jobs, daemons, etc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> I wouldn't hesitate to buy a intel-based mac (hell, I bought a new MBP 16" not but 3 months ago knowing about the ARM changes). My suggestion would be to hold off on any ARM based mac-purchases (with a carve out for those that only use their mac as a glorified chrome machine).

Apple gets many things right the first time around e.g many people ragged on Apple's FaceID but I think it's pretty successful in the /mobile facial recognition space/. We in the tech community are often reminded not to buy the first-generation of anything due to the inherit bugs/issues/stability so it's been very perplexing to me as to why people want to jump on being the first movers for ARM based macs. I understand that Apple has moved from PPC to Intel (and in under their two year goal) but that was a different Apple, different organization, and different leadership.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for all your replies.

One point I may have missed point out more clearly: The 6+ years I plan to use this thing is also due to environmental considerations.

First, I am a big advocate of the right to repair. I think it is consumer- friendly and more sustainable. One of my Apple Silicon concerns is, that the new Macs won't be as repair-friendly as the current generation. MacBook are already not repairable at all, I guess this trend will continue to the Desktop lineup (except the Mac Pro maybe).

Second, almost all my devices eventually have a second live, sometimes even a third live. My first MacBook (first white Intel MacBook) was used by my wife for 3 years after I used it 5 years. Then the plastic body started to fall apart, so I sold it on eBay for a decent price. My first Mac Mini (2,1) was used for about 6 years. Then, I upgraded the 32-bit Core Duo CPU to a 64-bit Core2Duo, got 4 GB RAM and a SSD. I patched EFI to support 64-bit OS and the Mac Mini runs as a little home-server (Pi-Hole, Time Machine, Nextcloud). And finally, my 2011 15" MacBook Pro still runs Catalina (thanks to DosDude's Catalina Patcher tool). This is were currently my music production and recording happens (yes, really!). This machine has still more juice than the new 13" MBP.

So, the point is, however, I want run macOS as long as possible on this machine and then give it a second live (what ever it will be then). And I'm afraid this will be a problem because either a) (if I buy Intel) macOS will drop support for Intel in 5-ish years or b) (if I wait for Apple Silicon) the iMac won't be upgradable and everything glued and soldered to the max, which also makes repairs impossible.

Do you have any thoughts on this matter?

And what I can read from your comments is a) Don't hesitate if you need/can afford/can live with macOS and b) it's probably time to leave the Apple ecosystem. Anyways, you gave good points to think about, thanks a lot!

</comment><comment><USER13> I ordered the recently updated MacBook Air for my wife yesterday. Her old one is over five years old and she uses it a lot, so it seemed like a no-brainer refresh.

If it was for me, I would wait for the Apple Silicon. I use a three year old MacBook, love it, and I was happy to hear that Apple may start selling that form factor again with Apple Silicon.

I do most of my development on a remote VPS that is __much __more powerful than my MacBook but I still do sometimes use IDEs so an iPad Pro or ChromeBook won 't do it for me. I also have a System76 Linux laptop that is great.

</comment><comment><USER14> I would go for it unless you can wait for 3-4 years.

It will take time to understand how good silicon macbooks are.

So, 2 years to release, plus 1-2 years to understand how good it is, and how fast all the apps will be fully migrated.

</comment><comment><USER15> I think I'd wait for Apple to transition to their new CPU.

My first Mac was a Mac Plus. It was old when I bought it. My first new Mac was PowerPC 6100. Then a G4 Mac. Both of those were pretty much obsoleted by Apple so fast I had no choice but to purchase a new one, and then all the software I used that wouldn't run on them, and some of it was never updated for use on the new hardware.

I've been using a Mac Mini I bought new for $500 for the past 10 years. I was kinda hoping Apple would release another in that price range but the last update on those didn't have an option in that range. Perhaps the new ones will, but considering their current plans I don't want to be put in the same position I was when I bought that 6100 or the G4.

So I purchased a new Raspberry Pi 4 with 8GB of ram a couple weeks ago just in case my old Mini bites the dust. Performance wise it's pretty close the Mini I have now. The hardest part of moving to it is not being able to run BBEdit. I've been using that for around 20 years and it's almost worth buying a new Mac just for that. But the idea that a new Mac will likely be obsoleted in just a couple years and I'll have purchase another new Mac again to keep using it is a deal breaker for me right now.

</comment><comment><USER16> No hesitation: yes. Intel Macs will be supported for a long time to come, easily for the next 6 years you cite. And you won't have to deal with 1st gen ARM bugs. And you can use it now, not 1 or more years from now.

iMac is not upgradeable however. don't kid yourself.

> macOS will certainly not be supported for 6+ years (assuming a similar > timeline as during the last transition).

Don't understand this at all. macOS will be supported forever. Did you miss a word?

</comment><comment><USER17> Opinion:

Apple has indicated that ARM is where their future is. If you're looking at using the product for 6 years and can afford to wait a bit, I would wait for the ARM ones. Even though the first generation may not be perfect. Based on the past experiences, Apple is pretty good at making the hardware. Software may take a bit to catch up, but the upside in performance and flexibility could be very high.

</comment><comment><USER18> I would not advise to buy the first generation Arm based MACs, because when the underlying platform changes system must go through many unstable iterations before getting optimal balance which I think will come after at least 3rd generation of Arm-Macs. Intel macs are well matured for its eco system, and as far as future concerns apple will support it for at least 3 years which may be short life for rather robust hardware.

So, I would advise you to go to third route, build a hackintosh system there are some good website which lists well reviewed hackintosh builds like

[https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/building-a- customac-h...](https://www.tonymacx86.com/buyersguide/building-a-customac- hackintosh-the-ultimate-buyers-guide/)

give it a try, It will last for at least 5 years(may be 10). you can always update it to run Linux or Windows in future when you buy a matured Arm based iMac.

<comment><USER19> Don't build a hackintosh if you're depending on it for a living though. I'm saying this while typing on a hackintosh. I've really enjoyed building it and playing around with it. I love the power it has. However, there are lots of small quirks that get annoying to deal with over time.

Having to read over multiple threads before updating, having to reset iCloud passwords after triggering Apple's security checks, etc is not all that fun. It ends up being more work than it seems upfront. I'm perfectly fine with it as I'm a student with a lot of time, but its not for everyone.

<comment><USER20> how feasible/worth it would it be to build a hackintosh out of a regular PC? I just built a PC and am trying to keep it as a kind of shell (nothing on it that I can't easily replace, like steam games, etc), so I've considered tinkering with it to make a hackintosh, if it's possible

<comment><USER21> Hackintosh is a normal pc. Check the aforementioned tonymac website. Compatibility is quite finicky

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I'm an macOS/iOS developer and I was on a 2013 13" MacBook Pro that was on its last legs. I finally decided to just buy a current-gen replacement. I need this machine to do day to day work and it was just dog slow (and battery dying), so I didn't have too many options. I suppose I could've got a replacement battery installed, but not sure if all the perf issues I encountered would go away.

My reasoning was I need it now and I feel like I could still get a few years out of it (Apple will likely support it even while moving to ARM).

</comment><comment><USER23> I bought a new MacBook Pro a couple of months ago, just before the ARM announcement even though it was rumoured. Like others have mentioned, I'm not too keen on buying the first gen of the ARM laptops. If they or the second gem are that appealing, the resale value of the one I bought should still be ok.

The only worry is, if you plan to keep it for a long time, how long will macOS support the Intel line. I know Apple said they would, but iirc the PPC —> Intel change caused the PPC macs to stop being supported after 2 years.

</comment><comment><USER24> I have a i9 mbp bought a few months ago.. don't. Get the i5 or i7. The i9 is expensive, gets impressively hot quickly under load, and makes the keyboard too hot to use and makes a fair bit of noise.

Whatever the fraction of performance the i5/i7 is, anything that's cooler and quieter is worth it and you don't likely notice the performance difference anyways.

Numerous things cause the fan to run flat out, for example crashplan.

</comment><comment><USER25> Yes, I'd say so.

The ARM based iteration that Apple will ship will be good, potentially great even, but it doesn't change the fact that it will be the first iteration.

Apple will be supporting Intel for at least a couple of yeas, seeing as they just introduced the most beefy MBP 16 inch and the refreshed iMac and iMac Pro along with the Mac Pro.

</comment><comment><USER26> My personal solution is to stop buying Apple altogether. Unless you need a Mac (i.e., you do Apple specific development), you have a much broader set of choices. If you can wean yourself off Logic (try Live, perhaps) then you can get better hardware at lower prices. Just my opinion.

<comment><USER27> Linux is terrible on the desktop and Windows can go die in a fire. Looks like Apple gets my money!

<comment><USER28> I'm a life long Windows user and fan and I recently bought a Macbook Air and love it. It's so much better than the $1800 windows laptop I've had for the past two years. Granted the windows laptop is for gaming and they're very different devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I have an ARM DTK, and 3 weeks after, bought a 16" MBP.

Everything works, I can virtualize any OS I want.

No regrets.

That said, if you don't need to buy now, then don't -- especially when it comes to Apple gear.

</comment><comment><USER30> So you'll get two problems. #1 Intel + #2 Mac.

Much better would be to solve both problems by buying a good and 2x cheaper and 3x faster AMD laptop with Linux. Like a Lenovo.

</comment><comment><USER31> I think you should wait if you can. See what the new ARM macs are like. If they're good buy one, else get an Intel one then. It's only a few months.

</comment><comment><USER32> No. Buy a PC and install Linux.

<comment><USER33> You mis-spelled Haiku ;)

<comment><USER21> :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> No

</comment><comment><USER34> If you want more than 5 years out of this machine I would not. Just a personal opinion.</comment>


Benford's Law (a neat fraud detection technique) applied to Wikileaks data - <AUTHOR> http://www.drewconway.com/zia/?p=2234&cpage=1#comment-4809

<comment><AUTHOR> Benford's Law is really simple and neat. Worth reading about in isolation <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benford%27s_law></comment>


Fisker patents claims it can power a car for 500 miles and recharge in a minute - <AUTHOR> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-5083367/Fisker-patent-solid-state-battery-charges-MINUTE.html <comment><USER2> This may be possible, but I don't see it happen at scale with current technology (and maybe never). If you want to charge a battery in a minute that then lasts for 10+ hours, you have to charge it 600+ times as hard as you discharge it.

Assume (conservatively) a 60kWh battery pack. Fully charging that in an hour takes 60kW of power. Doing it in a minute takes 3600kW, or 3.6MW. You would need 30 Tesla superchargers to provide that. That seems doable, but is it economically viable?</comment>


Major milestone in the search for water on distant planets - <AUTHOR> http://astronomy.com/news/2014/09/major-milestone-in-the-search-for-water-on-distant-planets

<comment><USER2> I wonder if this water is a byproduct of the solar wind and radiation, rather than endogenous from the planet.

<comment><USER3> Cometary impact is considered the primary delivery method for water onto planets. In other words, this is hydrogen and oxygen that bonded together in the protoplanetary disk to form water; clumped together to form icy bodies (comets); eventually had its orbit disturbed sending it into the inner system; and finally, impacting a planet. It is also possible that the icy dust grains (water) may have been part of the planet as it formed, assuming the planet formed far enough out that water ice could exist. The planet would have then migrated inwards (which new models are showing is the likely origin for the close-in exoplanets).

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Appeared at [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365211](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8365211) but didn't get much discussion.</comment>


European startups battle labor laws for best talent - <AUTHOR> http://slashdot.org/topic/cloud/european-startups-battle-labor-laws-for-best-talent/ <comment><USER2> There are two macro trends here: 1\. More software is needed in almost every part of life (i.e. think of cars, now over 20% of a car's R&D goes to software for its systems, compare it to the same type of car 10 years ago), and so on.

2\. Due to the low central bank's rates there has been a divulge of money, a lot of which has ended up on startups/seed investing. Most will go no where, but they need engineers, yet they can't afford them as they are not profitable, or really just speculations.

So, more engineers are needed, yet a lot of these companies can't afford to go to bidding wars for them as they don't have solid financial footing, hence you see so many of these "there are not enough engineers" articles, yet salaries are only increasing few percent a year at best.

So, this extra engineering demand is created by companies (i.e. startups) that have a great chance of failure, and will just go away as soon as money starts becoming tight again.

Which means, one the longer term the larger companies (the ones that actually make money) will dictate the salaries of engineers. Since they tend to move slowly, compensation of engineers will do so, only few percentage a year, probably a bit over the inflation, reflecting the long term Macro trends on more software being used everywhere.

I haven't heard any of the crazy 1999-2001 stories yet, so I'd say this feels a lot like 2006-2007 (the Web 2.0 boom), which ended up with a soft 2008-2009 period.

<comment><USER3> I think you really nailed it with this analysis

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This last couple of weeks I've been contacting some companies (start ups and established ones). It seems London is really up there with a talent shortage, but except for one or two established companies, none of them pay any decent money for senior developers to actually live in London.

I live in freaking Portugal with low wages and high taxes. Taking most of the offers that were presented would mean losing a lot of purchasing power at the end of the month. How can you expect to bring people to one of the most expensive places in the world, and try to pay them just a bit above average the UK salary?

So as in the US, there is only a shortage because employers don't want to pay what the market is expecting. (note about the article, the fact companies are paying individuals off the books, actually means the companies are actually saving between 20 to 50% (depending on jurisdiction) over the gross salary, again, more related to money than 'visa' issues)

<comment><USER5> I do not buy the argument that employers simply do not want to pay. That might be true in Europe but not in the US. If that was true then it would not be the case that everyone is having difficulty finding employees; many companies pay very well and are still in that position.

Here are _average_ US regional tech wages in 2012 according to the TechAmerica Foundation:

California: $123,900

Massachusetts: $116,000

Washington: $110,200

And I know at many companies the average is more like $150,000 and still have a very difficult time hiring software engineers. I doubt most of the public will be sympathetic to claims that the only reason these positions go unfilled is that companies are unwilling to pay an appropriate wage.

<comment><USER6> Your stats are a farce. I've never met a programmer/software developer in my life who makes more than 100k if they aren't essentially management. Median US salary for a software developer is $69,564. The 90% percentile is 100k. Please come back to planet Earth.

Likewise, in places where wages are higher it appears to be mostly about cost of living. The last time I calculated it out making 50k in the armpit of nowhere USA turned out pretty close overall to making 75 or 80k in SF or NY with taxes, commute time, and cost of living factored in.

<comment><USER7> You've just met one. Pleased to make your acquaintance.

 _Quite a bit_ above $100K too, and I don't even consider myself a guru/ninja/pirate/whatever programmer either.

I'm not alone either - _literally_ every programmer I keep in regular touch with, and _literally_ every programmer at the shop I work at is making well into the $100s. In fact, a good friend of mine the same age as me (mid-20s) just accepted an offer in the $180s.

The cost of living argument is also mostly bull. I've lived and worked in 7 different cities, ranging from cheap $300 rooms on the wrong side of the tracks to $2000+ luxury high-rises. Nowadays I live in Manhattan, and I've done the math multiple times - it costs me about $20K more per year (with fairly generous numbers) to live here than in, say, Seattle WA where I once worked. Of course, the pay difference between NYC and elsewhere is a _lot_ higher than $20K. Even accounting for taxes, food, and everything you're still coming out well ahead.

<comment><USER6> The COL is bull if you're making a huge salary, sure. Then it doesn't matter where you live. But if you made $50k/year and got an offer to work somewhere for $75k/year but the cost of living was $20k more, it wouldn't make sense.

I know some of the best developers in my college class have ended up getting paid 45k to 65k a year in places like Phoenix because that's what was available job wise.

<comment><USER7> Right, and that's my point. Moving from my baseline of Seattle to NYC is virtually guaranteed to raise your salary by _far_ more than the $20K extra.

I've done the same math from almost everywhere I've ever lived, and both SF and NYC still come out on top. The market salaries in those cities _do_ make up for the cost of living, and then some. The whole "SF and NYC are bullshit because you end up losing money after cost of living adjustment" argument is bull, specifically because the market salaries between it and other cities in the US doesn't bear this out.

> _"I know some of the best developers in my college class have ended up > getting paid 45k to 65k a year in places like Phoenix because that's what > was available job wise."_

Sadly, the availability of jobs is not _very_ highly correlated with programming ability. And I say this in a non-snarky way. The top end of the software industry is _very_ much an exercise in pedigreed degrees, networking acumen, and fake-it-till-you-make-it.

We're really not that much better than the business majors we like to make fun of.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Developer shortage is a lie (in Germany). If there would be a real shortage, the amount companies pay to contractors and salaried employees would rise. Instead it's decreasing!

e.g. some companies in Berlin are trying to find developers that work for below 50€/hr (you have to pay ~600€/month for mandatory health insurance, 600€+ for a room, 100€ for public transporn, 100€ mobile phone, retirement provision / buffer for bad times — and ~35-40% taxes before that). Usually there is no participation in the company (stock options) because there are no going public-exits.

It's mainly a bubble to attract cheap developers from other parts of Europe, female developers and junior developers willing and eager to get work even if payment is bad.

This is great but it's still a lie to tell everyone that there is a shortage. If you pay low, it's hard to find people. Simple as that.

<comment><USER9> Bull. Startups can't pay more because there's no investment capital.

Established and successful companies that pay well still can't get people. The shortage is real.

<comment><USER8> Nope. Even companies with a large sum of VC, let's say >5m€ don't pay fair salaries. Siemens, Allianz, younameit pay way more + have a lot of benfits, less stress more (real) job security and a development perspective (career path).

Same for freelancers.

Sometimes I see very large teams of mediocre developers. Why didn't they hire 2-3 (more expensive) experts instead of 10 juniors? Maybe because they doing this because of an aqui-hire exits or some ridiculous "hire 10 people" todo that their VC dictate.

<comment><USER10> >>Why didn't they hire 2-3 (more expensive) experts instead of 10 juniors? << For the same reason they don't hire 2-3 architects instead of one architect and 10 workers to build a small house. Actually hiring solely "experts" the productivity may be lower because they're used to doing only certain kinds of things.

<comment><USER8> Experts are developers, too. They code faster/have a better focus.

An architect usually can't build a house.

<comment><USER10> Yeah, but there are large software systems with a lot of boring, repetitive stuff that is being done.

<comment><USER8> In startups? Then they're doing it wrong. Even in enterprise-size businesses they're doing it wrong. If manual repetition of a task occurs it has to be automated or refactored if it costs significant developer time (=money): <http://xkcd.com/1205/>

<comment><USER10> Repetitions are often a result of changing requirements things that can't (normally) be automated. If you think that enterprises are doing it wrong and you know more than them, you could become rich by showing them the right way of doing things - on one condition: you have to prove what you're claiming. :)

<comment><USER8> It's a myth that large companies have a lot of repitition tasks. They know how to automate. No need to tell them what they already do.

As my postings are focussed on the German market, I rarely see real Lean Startups that. It's still very common to build one thing big and to hope that it succeeds. So actually you don't start from scratch more than 1 time except some low profile developers messed it up.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> If there really were a problem wages would be increasing drastically, my Alma Mater's CS department would be spamming its graduates with employment opportunities, and there'd be loads of non-Java, non-.Net job ads in places besides the SF Bay Area, New York, and other 'startup hubs,' but there aren't.

Your stats are a farce. I've never met a programmer/software developer in my life who makes more than 100k if they aren't essentially management. Median US salary for a software developer is $69,564. The 90% percentile is 100k. Please come back to planet Earth.

Likewise, in places where wages are higher it appears to be mostly about cost of living. The last time I calculated it out making 50k in the armpit of nowhere USA turned out pretty close overall to making 75 or 80k in SF or NY with taxes, commute time, and cost of living factored in.

update: I'd meant to reply to a specific comment. Oops. I'll also caveat that different sources seem to use software developer to mean different things. I'd consider a web developer a software developer, but they supposedly get paid on average significantly less, probably because it draws in a lot of self- described people who do websites but don't really program.

<comment><USER11> Recently, my wife and I started a company and she's handling the international IT recruiting side (I do consulting/training) and for years I've written a blog about how to be an expat. I'm actually a freelance software engineer with a background in economics. This leads to me to having an _extreme_ amount of knowledge about this topic and while the article had a few issues, it's mostly spot on.

There is a significant shortage of developers and ardit23 explained, with rapid growth of young companies fighting to hire developers but not able to pay Google-sized salaries, the vast majority of the job salaries are constrained by limited budgets of entrepreneurs. Until this industry stabilizes, it's going to be hard to get accurate price signals.

And despite your contention, I know of _plenty_ of devs who make >100K. I speak at conferences all over Europe and the US and I meet these people face- to-face all the time. Just because you don't know them doesn't mean they don't exist. That being said, part of the reason I know roughly what they make is because they work for big names like Google, or they are in-demand freelancers (we can charge buckets of money in the right situation). Hell, I know one guy who made €30K for a week of training! (search for top-notch training, note the cost per student, multiply that by a decent class size and five days. You don't turn that trick very often, but when you do, it's a lot of money).

And $75 to $80k in New York? No way in hell I'd take pay that low to work there.

<comment><USER6> Oh, I believe developers who get paid that exist. But they're the exceptions who happen to all meet each other because they get sent to conferences and are team leaders or primary devs on large open source projects and such.

If they were the rule the average salary would be 100k but it isn't, and all the 100k + devs you supposedly know aren't enough to move it.

I wouldn't take 80k to work in New York either, hence why so many startups whine about not being able to find 'talent.'

The 'shortage' is mostly a symptom of companies only wanting to hire these celebrity developers who already make a lot of money (and Stanford grads).

Likewise, the hoops you have to jump through in job interviews would be shrinking if people were really desperate to hire, but instead they're growing. Have a giant github. Do two 4 hour technical interviews. Only apply after solving 2 to 5 programming problems. Etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Terrible title. It seems to me it's more about immigration laws rather than labor. The only paragraph where labor laws are mentioned is where the French vc talks about 9 companies evading social charges because they are too expensive.

If you don't want to hire talent you can get them to consult with you, but that will shift the social charges on them and will make them less secure, so they'll ask for more by the hour.

</comment><comment><USER13> This description of the European startup labor "shortage" sounds so similar to reports from the US that it makes me wonder how diametrically opposed political systems end up with the same set of problems. Of course, when it comes to immigration forces on both ends of the political spectrum aren't so different. The populism of the left and right wing differs in rhetoric but not is substance.

<comment><USER9> You would be surprised to learn that immigration for qualified tech and science people is a lot easier in many European countries than it is in the US.

An American with a job offer can easily get a work permit in the Netherlands, no quota and nice tax rebate to boot.

The shortage is the same for the same simple reason: qualified people simply aren't there. We can hire from the US, Canada and all of the EU, that still doesn't solve our problem.

<comment><USER14> Actually, I think qualified people _are_ there. But the job market for programmers right now is a bit like the dating market: the _really good_ prospects, at any given time, will most likely already be involved with someone. So the _reserve army of unemployed programmers_ is really tiny.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Romanians are an issue, but for completely other reasons. Quite frustrating, but nothing to do with labor laws or visa in general.

But other than that I've never had or heard of any such issues here in Amsterdam. Locals are getting outnumbered in the tech-scene. The majority of my team is now non-Dutch, and not because it's cheap, because we pay well.

<comment><USER15> Can you please elaborate on why Romanians are an issue? I'm curios because I am one and I'd like to know more about your perception.

<comment><USER9> It's not "perception". Recent studies have shown that about half the Romanians in the Netherlands are here illegally, and most of those are criminals. And those that are here legally don't always work under legal conditions.

This royally sucks for Romanian developers that want to work here, because despite being EU members they still need a work permit. The government basically assumes that the odds of Romanians coming here with good intentions are pretty low.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> The article was good, but there are a few issues.

My background: I went to uni to be an economist, but I'm now a freelance software consultant/trainer. Also, for years I've written a blog about how to be an expat and on top of that, my wife and I run a company and she handles international IT recruiting. In short: I know a ridiculously large amount about this topic (except for the black-market work).

> Schools and universities are failing to equip young people with the skills > that twenty-first century digital businesses need, these people say.

That's not true at the university level. At least here in Europe, increasing amounts of people aren't taking degrees in STEM technologies. If people won't seek the degrees, there's not much the universities can do. At a younger age, public education could be doing more to help here, but aside from interesting ideas like Estonia teaching children to program ([http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/09/06/why- estoni...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/parmyolson/2012/09/06/why-estonia-has- started-teaching-its-first-graders-to-code/)), you're going to have to have government support around a wide-spread approach of schools trying to interest students in IT.

> The time and expense that Navarro says is necessary to import a European > national to work in the U.K. is not insignificant. The paperwork alone costs > $1,000.

That's misleading. It's sort of true if you're a medium or large employer hiring tier 2 workers ([http://www.overseas-exile.com/2012/08/we-dont-sponsor- work-p...](http://www.overseas-exile.com/2012/08/we-dont-sponsor-work- permits.html)), but ... that's a one-shot cost for becoming a licensed sponsor. After that it's making a job offer and issuing candidates a sponsorship number (which costs £184 for a tier 2 or £14 for a tier 5). Yes, there are still costs in bringing them over, but not

No, the real issue with the UK is that they currently limit non-EU skilled workers to 20,700 per year (unless you earn over 150K). As a result, you want to import your workers early in the year. Need a specialist in October? Ha! Good 'un, guvnah!

Of course, like the US, UK university graduation rates are dropping as tuitions rise, causing them long-term issues that they can't offset with importing enough skilled labor because both countries are limited said import!

Also, it's disappointing to see the article failing to mention the European Blue Card. That's one of the most exciting opportunities that Europe now has. Designed to fight against the US Green Card, it's a way to allow European countries (minus the UK, Ireland and Denmark) to import skilled workers with very little paperwork or hassle. Stay in your first country for a few years and you have the entire EEA labor market (minus caveats above) open to you! In Germany, for example, it's almost as simple as getting a job offer and moving. It's paying off well for Germany and it's going to be a long-term game changer for the EU if they can overcome their Euro troubles.

</comment><comment><USER16> Allow remote, problem solved. "Talent shortage..... within 60 miles"

<comment><USER13> Just trading off one problem for another but remote work is definitely part of the solution.</comment></comment>


International Standard Paper Sizes - <AUTHOR> https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso-paper.html <comment> mark-r This is a very thorough explanation of what I consider a brilliant paper size standard. What genius to make the aspect ratio identical for each size, and to create smaller variants by cutting the larger one exactly in half.

There are two places where you can tell it's a bit dated though. The first is in declaring the TV aspect ratio as 4:3; it's just about universally 16:9 now. The second is the expectation that the U.S. would be converting to metric, that becomes less likely with every passing year.

<comment><USER2> The brilliance becomes obvious when you combine it with the envelope sizes. Mailing things in the US always ends with you having to awkwardly tri-fold papers and hope that you didn't botch it, so that the result will fit in your envelope of a non-standard size.

Meanwhile, anyone can fold an A4 perfectly in half and it will always fit perfectly in a C5 envelope. Paper can't be folded? Mail it in a C4 envelope instead. Think a C5 is too big? Get a C6 envelope and fold it twice.

All the parts fit perfectly into each other, and it's obvious how they fit. Any size paper can be mailed in any size envelope simply by folding it.

<comment><AUTHOR> I live in Japan and the vast majority of mail is folded in thirds, just like it is in the US... Is using envelopes for paper folded just in half actually widespread in other countries?

<comment><USER3> After a vacation in, then, Czechoslovakia I received a letter from the police. The letter was artfully folded so that the text would overlap at 90 degrees (if viewed with a light source behind the folded letter). I always reckoned that was done to scramble the letter from unintended reading.

Normally the C3 or C4 envelopes used by government would be printed on the inside with a mass of letters, but in a way that matched with how the letter paper inside would be folded.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> > _The Legal format itself is quite rarely used, the notion that it is for > "legal" work is a popular myth; the vast majority of U.S. legal documents > are actually using the "Letter" format._

Can anyone confirm that this is really the case in the U.S.? In Canada at least, lawyers often use a paper size _even longer_ than legal format. It makes photocopying a huge pain because the glass plate isn't long enough on ordinary copiers, and these extra long sheets don't fit in standard file cabinets without folding, and forget about using binders. Nobody uses these ridiculous extra long sheets except (Canadian) lawyers.

<comment><AUTHOR> So looking around more, this is interesting - historically US lawyers did use legal size, but in 1983 the Supreme Court instituted a rule to move all federal paperwork to letter size, and most states followed shortly thereafter if they hadn't already transitioned.

[https://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/8...](https://www.michbar.org/file/generalinfo/plainenglish/pdfs/89_july.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> Digging around on the same page i stumbled into this which i think is a fun/interesting look at the history..though sounds like the ratio was in use even before its referenced here. Anyone know more about it?

 _" letter, written in 1786-10-25 by the physics professor Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (University of Göttingen, Germany, 1742–1799) to Johann Beckmann, seems to be the oldest preserved written reference to the idea of using the square-root of two as an aspect ratio for paper formats"_

Excerpt of the English Translation -

 _" I once gave an exercise to a young Englishman, whom I taught in algebra, to find a sheet of paper for which all formats forma patens, folio, 4to, 8, 16, are similar to each other. Having found that ratio, I wanted to apply it to an available sheet of ordinary writing paper with scissors, but found with pleasure, that it already had it. It is the paper on which I write this letter, but to which, because since by cutting some of its original form may have been lost, I also add an uncut original. The short side of the rectangle must relate to the large one like 1 : √2, or like the side of a square to its diagonal. This form has something pleasant and distinguished before the ordinary [form]. Are these rules given to the paper makers or has this form spread through tradition? Where does this form come from, which appears not to have emerged by accident? Honoured wellborn forgive me this freedom."_

[https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/lichtenberg- letter.html](https://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/lichtenberg-letter.html)

</comment><comment><USER6> > Based on the experience from the introduction of ISO paper formats in other > industrialized countries at various points during the 20th century, it > becomes clear that this process needs to be initiated by a political > decision to move all government operation to the new paper format system. > History shows that the commercial world then gradually and smoothly adopts > the new government standard for office paper within about 10–15 years.

The article is obviously dated, but at this point that'd be such a waste of time and resources. Government has to be focused on digitization and paperless/electronic processes, ideally getting rid of photocopiers instead of upgrading them.

Had never heard the logic behind the ISO paper sizes before though, very cool!

</comment><comment><USER7> From 1996, the one from 1999 is not that different though. [https://web.archive.org/web/19990129003006/http://www.cl.cam...](https://web.archive.org/web/19990129003006/http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~mgk25/iso- paper.html)

</comment><comment><USER8> I feel there are something missing. B0, C0, A0, ..., B1, C1, A1, ..., B2, C2, A2, ... . How about make "D series"? B0, C0, A0, "D0", B1, C1, A1, "D1", B2, C2, A2, "D2", ... .

</comment><comment><USER9> [https://xkcd.com/2322/](https://xkcd.com/2322/)

<comment> mark-r 11/8.5 = pi/4?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> One of the things I keep hearing from non-Americans is how dumb Americans are and then proceed to explaining the benefits of the metric system. I see this from random internet forums to Youtube comments, from news paper articles to talking to people in Europe. What people don't realize is that America is like a giant ship that has a ton of inertia to change. It is the world's largest economy with huge diversity of evolved shit that has piled up. It is difficult to clean it despite of the will. The US gov tried to convert America to the metric system unsuccessfully [1].

The US (NIST) in collaboration with international bodies lead the redefinition of SI units based on fundamental constants [2]. Furthermore, semiconductor industry, university labs, medical industry, etc. all use ISO standards and the metric system. The US semiconductor industry alone is larger than the GDP of Switzerland. I studied engineering in America and we used the metric system throughout with some problems in ANSI units for familiarization of the units - ultimately, the engineer needs to adapt to the company's unit system and not try to be a thorn.

I personally am tired of the rest of the world patronizingly explaining the advantages of the metric system to Americans - over and over. It is not that difficult of a concept and most technical people, engineers I know in the US already understand the benefits of the metric system. It is mildly annoying at best and condescending at worst. If we are in the unit system mess, there are a lot of things that _still_ do not follow base-10 based units. For example, font type units (points) from Switzerland. Or the way we measure time. How come there aren't 10/100th units of a minute/hour commonly used around the world? A second is split into 1000 milliseconds but a minute is not split into 1000 seconds. Why this inconsistency? Why 360 degrees? If we didn't have 10 fingers, the entire decimal system is worse than base 12 or duodecimal system [3].

The problems faced by America are exactly the same type of problems if we want to convert the entire world to duodecimal system. It is next to impossible despite of clear advantages. Note that I am not defending the people that arrogantly want to stick to status quo - there are certainly people like that in the US.

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

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_ba...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_redefinition_of_the_SI_base_units)

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

<comment><USER11> Another thing is that a large portion of the "metric" world isn't fully metric, using old-fashioned units like miles and pyeong and tsubo. Really, the whole metric vs non-metric debate comes down to _how much_ non-metric people see in their daily lives, not any binary distinction between "always use metric" and "never use metric" or anything of the sort.

<comment><USER12> Almost the entire world still uses nautical miles, knots (speed), and feet for aircraft altitude. I'm pretty sure most airplanes all use AN hydraulic fittings, which are based on Imperial sizes (correct me if I'm wrong there).

Also, people always say that the US is the only country that uses feet, pounds, miles, etc. But there are a lot of other countries that still use those units, or at least understand them, even if it's not an official unit. I even work with engineers from China who use and understand Imperial units. I also visited a friend in Ireland who had a (pre-digital) scale that measured weight in stones.

<comment> GuB-42 Living in France, general aviation is a bit of a mess.

\- Light aircraft use nautical units.

\- Ultralight use metric for speed and distance but feet for altitude and vertical speed

\- Gliders use metric

\- Charts use feet for altitude. Aviation authorities define airspace using nautical units but ground authorities use metric for things like fly over altitudes. All converted to feet in charts but the legal text use meters.

\- AFAIK, mechanical parts for non-US built aircraft are metric. Pipe fittings have always been in inches for some reason, but commonly converted to metric (1/4in is written as 6.35mm).

<comment><USER13> In France the Air Force uses feet for altitude due to NATO STANAG, and the ALAT (Army helicopter corps) uses meters.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> > _ISO 216 defines the A series of paper sizes based on these simple > principles:_

> _\- The height divided by the width of all formats is the square root of two > (1.4142)._

> _\- Format A0 has an area of one square meter._

When we look on _A0 papers on the market_ mostly it's size is _841 mm × 1189 mm_ , that is not correspond to this standard:

\- Length Ratio: 1189/841 = 1.41379310345 (should be 1.4142)

\- Area: 0.999949 m² (should be 1.0 m²)

P.S. There are few websites which are useful for retrieving various paper formats sizes.[0,1]

[0] [https://www.papersize.org/a-paper- sizes.htm](https://www.papersize.org/a-paper-sizes.htm)

[1] [https://papersizes.io/a/](https://papersizes.io/a/)

<comment><USER15> > _\- Area: 0.999949 m² (should be 1.0 m²)_

And it is! I mean, if you're not going to use an electron microscope to measure it :)

The real measurements should be 840.9mm x 1189.2mm, but I'll forgive them for the rounding.

<comment><USER16> All paper sizes are rounded to the mm and the rounding is always down, so that is is possible to get two A(n+1) sheet by cutting one An sheet.

<comment><USER17> It would be 840, not 841, if rounded down. Wikipedia says you should add 0.2 mm before rounding down (which gives you the expected 841), but it doesn't explain where that number comes from.

<comment><USER18> The answer to your question is in the comment you are replying to.

> the rounding is always down, so that is is possible to get two A(n+1) sheet > by cutting one An sheet.

<comment><USER17> Huh? I pointed out that the rounding is _not_ always down, and I didn't ask any questions.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: DeepForge – A Modern Development Environment for Deep Learning - <AUTHOR> http://deepforge.org/ <comment><USER2> I love these initiatives and would love to learn about any other end-to-end deep learning architectures. It took us a long time to build up our in-house tagging infrastructure and whole model warehouse + inference servers that are connected to Kafka. I'd love something more polished though. It's a killer when you want to do ML in the real world, but have to spend forever rolling out infrastructure.

<comment><USER3> I am building Deep Video Analytics which aims to become Database+Processing framework for visual data. With DVA you can load, store, decode, annotate, apply inbuilt and custom Deep learning algorithms. Further you can examine the data through full text and visual search. It's comes with a Django+Postgres+Celery/RabbitMQ setup. And scales across multiple machines on AWS using EFS + S3.

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

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> OT but I want a service where I can upload a set of images, manually tag them with a few categories and then let some kind of AI tag the rest of them based on the tags I put on the dataset. I'm not looking for a general image recognition engine. The tags are pretty abstract things like "enjoyable".

<comment><USER5> [https://www.clarifai.com/](https://www.clarifai.com/) can probably do this. I used it at a Hackathon to quickly toss together a food recogniser with custom classes.</comment></comment>


Utilizing the Social Graph as a Relevancy Source for Data Ranking - <AUTHOR> http://www.wireblur.com/discuss/498

<comment><USER2> The problem I see with most attempts at using the social graph for problems like this is that most social graphs have no notion of expertise. Tom may be a good friend of mine who shares my interest in cooking and scuba diving, but he works in a Windows shop coding in Java for enterprise apps while I am a Mac user who does large-scale consumer service development using Python and Erlang. He also likes the Patriots, which calls into question any opinion he may have about sports :) Capturing the different facets of "relevancy" is hard, and it does not sound like this comes close to being able to distinguish signal from noise when coming from a source that otherwise might appear to be trustworthy.

<comment><USER3> Agreed, but there are a ton of different social graphs out there. If you are looking for data about a person who is only on one or two social sites, the data won't likely be very valuable, but if you are looking at a group of people that all have a many social graphs like on linkedin, twitter, hackernews, quora, that all vary from each other appropriately with the aim of the particular sites, I can see being able to pull out some valuable data. One of the keys is that the users you are interested in actually participate in the different sites differently and have different followers and friends on those sites. If they automatically friend everyone, and crosspost everywhere it makes the social graph useless.

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting you should mention this: <http://techcrunch.com/2011/01/13/newsie/>

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Glancing at the front page, it seems that the social graph is made up of technophiles and business junkies.

But then, we knew that, I guess. It's just funny, this is basically SF/NYC tech/business talk, while a trace over the RL social graph would probably bring up something more like Us Weekly or ESPN. Even at a sample size of 1, I talk more tech/biz online and more ESPN offline.</comment>


Is a Science Ph.D. a Waste of Time? - <AUTHOR> http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/science/2012/08/what_is_the_value_of_a_science_phd_is_graduate_school_worth_the_effort_.html

<comment><USER2> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4460922></comment>


LeakedIn - Check if you LinkedIn Password is Leaked - <AUTHOR> http://shiflett.org/blog/2012/jun/leakedin

<comment><USER2> A couple points here. You can enter the sha1 hash of your password or your password in plaintext. In the latter case the sha1 is calculated on the client (using JS) before being sent to the server.

Now that we got that out of the way the more interesting pattern here is how easily people will put the plaintext password for a specific site into a webpage that sprung up overnight.

* I know Chris Shiflett is at least trusted in the tech community (has written books and talks at conferences, etc) so it's not about trusting the site but the larger social implications of user behavior.

</comment><comment><USER3> Who here _didn't_ do a view source immediately just to make sure nothing was being sent to the server? =)

</comment><comment><USER4> Don't forget to clean your .bash_history.

<comment><USER5> ... or prefix your commands with whitespace to skip ~/.bash_history altogether.

<comment><USER4> ... or $ unset HISTFILE

<comment><USER6> or put it in a file so it will never be in ps and use sha1sum < file

<comment><USER7> or just change your passwords and be done with it.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Show HN: Find microbreweries near you - <AUTHOR> http://www.nearbeer.co/

<comment><USER2> Very cool!! I live in a small town in the mountains in Central Arizona and it located the micro brewery a few hundred yards from my house.

</comment><comment><USER3> Interesting idea. It didn't really have the breweries that were near me, though.

</comment><comment><USER4> I get an internal server error...</comment>


Xinhua Weighs In on Google-NSA Link - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.wsj.com/chinarealtime/2010/02/26/xinhua-weighs-in-on-google-nsa-link/

<comment><USER2> i think xinhua pretty biased on most things...

but this is dead on.

<comment><USER3> Agreed. I think it is very interesting to see how hypocritical governments worldwide get w.r.t. freedom of press and privacy issues. The reality is that pretty much everyone is spying on everyone these days but selective reporting spins a different story in the mainstream media. The reality is that there is no meaningful freedom of press or privacy no matter where you are, it's all a smokescreen.</comment></comment>


The Programming Language Zoo - <AUTHOR> http://www.andrej.com/plzoo/

<comment><USER2> OCaml looks like a great language for implementing programming languages. I wish I had the time to explore it further.

<comment><USER3> Here's some background

<http://code.google.com/p/ocaml-burg/>

[http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/OCaml_code_generatio...](http://brion.inria.fr/gallium/index.php/OCaml_code_generation_tutorial)

<http://flint.cs.yale.edu/cs421/case-for-ml.html>

[http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/bbnao/falling_o...](http://www.reddit.com/r/programming/comments/bbnao/falling_out_of_love_with_a_language/c0lzapn)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Camlp4>

(F# has a rich set of parsing/generating tools also: fslex, fsYacc, fparsec and active patterns, also.)

<comment><USER4> Also:

<http://www.cs.caltech.edu/courses/cs134/cs134b/book.pdf>

<http://caml.inria.fr/pub/docs/oreilly-book/>

And yes, OCaml is excellent for that sort of thing. Pattern matching in particular is a HUGE advantage.</comment></comment></comment>