Apple Announces the iPad Air 2 - <AUTHOR> http://techcrunch.com/2014/10/16/apple-announces-the-ipad-air-2/ <comment><USER2> Can someone please explain Apple's "thinness" arms race? I never heard so much as a suggestion that the previous iPad Air was too thin, while battery life is something that could be (literally) infinitely improved.

Why did they not keep the device the same thin-ness and double the battery? Surely that would increased the product's value and utility?

<comment><USER3> I don't know what needs to be explained. Apple believes the value of increasing the battery life beyond the typical work/school day + commute is less than the the value of having a device that is much easier to hold and carry + costs saved by not putting in twice as much batteries and paying for a thicker enclosure.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Nice, but thoroughly uninteresting.

Not that Apple has any obligation to make their product announcements interesting every time.</comment>


Ask HN: Do people still use the social media buttons on your website? - <AUTHOR> I'm about to start a new project and am curious if the social media share buttons that appear on many websites are or ever were actually used? <comment><USER2> I'd like to have them, but I don't want to load any external scripts on my site (for speed purposes mostly). Is it possible to make your own share button and share something on the various social media networks with just an URL, or a POST request?

<comment><USER3> Last year, a project that does this was featured as a 'Show HN': Sharingbuttons.io [1]

[1] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12209595](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12209595)

<comment><USER2> That makes things really easy. I especially like that they use SVG instead of images. Saves yet another request :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I always put them on any project I do in which I want people to share the page. I have always had success and the buttons serve as a reminder for people to take action. They are less likely to just share the URL than if they see buttons there to help them.

This website has got a bad reputation, but I've rarely had any issues with them. I think any issues I have had were easily handled with some CSS or some htaccess URL blocking.

Nonetheless, I still use it on all my websites. Simply copy the code into the pages you want or the footer if you are using a platform like WordPress, and the code takes care of the rest.

[http://sharebutton.net/](http://sharebutton.net/)

FYI: I am in no way associated with the owner of that website.. I just think whoever created it did a great job at making social sharing easy... and no plugin required!

<comment><USER5> yeah they load up my Google Analytics stats with referral spam all the time.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> On Desktop, I guess users click on it because there's no other native way to share.

On Mobile phones, users tend to go the native way - for most of the people, they use Chrome's share because it's easier.

</comment><comment><USER7> Yes, If things are interesting or if they get any rewards they will share with the people. Specially whatsapp or any other messaging application.

<comment><AUTHOR> I didn't know about the whatsapp share button - that is very neat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I would be curios to know which of the buttons gets the most use</comment>


Show HN: Stock Sandwich [Beta] – Free, high-resolution stock images - <AUTHOR> https://stocksandwich.com <comment><AUTHOR> Hi guys, Ross from Little Lightbulb here.

Stock Sandwich is our way of giving back to design, marketing and the open source culture. Initially launching as a beta with 200 of my own photographs, we will soon be featuring talented photographers and providing a platform and credit for their talents.

Our newsletter will introduce photographers and provide you with fresh photographs before they hit the site.

We'd really appreciate your feedback (and maybe even a share) to help our efforts.

Thanks from the Stock Sandwich team.

</comment><comment><USER2> What a fantastic idea. Keep up the great work and I'm definitely going to keep sharing it with everybody within my network.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you cywormerod!

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> Good idea, but I think it will be more useful once more photos are added and categories (and/or search) is implemented!

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks Fratlas!

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> I couldn't find a search field. Is there any?

<comment><AUTHOR> Hi DerWOK,

Thank you for your feedback. A search facility is definitely on our radar, but due to only having 200 photographs for our 'soft launch' we felt that it wouldn't be too helpful initially. We will be adding this functionality once we have reached 800 - 1,000 photographs and have indexed them all.

We'll be making our subscribers aware of each new feature as they are launched via our newsletter. Tag and colour searching is coming soon!

Ross</comment></comment>


Biometric payment system trialled in supermarket - <AUTHOR> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-41346717 <comment><USER2> >"Today's millennial generation now expects a higher level of ease, security and efficiency from the way that we pay," he said.

>have to put your finger in some weird scanner, rather than tapping your card/phone

not efficient/easy

>biometrics, can't be changed

not secure either

>Sthaler says its method is "the safest form of biometrics with no known breaches".

only because it's not in widespread use yet. pretty sure the same could be said of fingerprint/face/retina scans when they were first introduced.

</comment><comment><USER3> Most places in London accept contactless payments card payments now. Is this really much better?

<comment><USER4> That depends on whether or not you're trying to sell biometric tech, or if you're everyone else.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> In 2006 or so I interviewed at a San Francisco startup called Pay By Touch that had this implemented at grocery stores in the US. They have since shuttered.

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

<comment><USER6> I remember a startup trying the same kind of tech at our university in Sweden, also now shut down.

[https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/quixter/](https://techcrunch.com/2014/04/14/quixter/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> In India biometric IDs have been issued to all residents. Pretty sure if the present govt and their private sector backers have their way it will be gradually linked to credit/debit cards, if not replace them. It is already linked with your bank accounts, tax returns, subsidised food, cooking gas, mobile numbers and so on. But merely linking the ID number is a far cry from actually authenticating the biometrics, which seems to be seldom done.</comment>


Choosing New York over San Francisco - <AUTHOR> http://kellysutton.tumblr.com/post/901431677/choosing-new-york-over-san-francisco <comment><USER2> I think one major argument that he didn't mention is that NYC beats SF hands down in the 'getting laid' department.

If you are young and your idea of having a good time is going out, partying until 4am, and getting laid often, then you should stay in NYC.

If you a super hipster, social outcast and/or into weird stuff, then come to SF. Your friends are already here.

<comment><USER3> I actually had a similar experience. Spent most of my life in SF but lived for about 6 months in Manhattan. It was far, far easier to meet women. In fact, a guy can even be a bit of a wallflower and still meet women in Manhattan, because they will take the initiative. Funny, up to that point, I thought SF was a pretty good place to meet women, because my only point of comparison was San Diego, which is a pretty rough dating scene for men. I actually still think SF is ok, because it has a greater concentration of jobs that appeal to women, as opposed to the valley. But it's no manhattan (I suspect that nowhere else in the world really compares). You know, this is actually one of the benefits of being in a city where tech isn't the main industry. New York is a far bigger center than SF for fashion, publishing, advertising, and so forth - fields that attract more women than men.

<comment><USER4> Having lived on the east coast, midwest, and west coast, I would say the resources are certainly different at a business level (capital, talent, etc) although you can certainly make do wherever you go.

However, anyone who thinks there are hot girls in SF has never left SF.

<comment><USER5> _anyone who thinks there are hot girls in SF has never left SF_

Wil, you haven't lived here long enough to even know where to look. Also, SF != the bay area.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Not every time, but much of the time, I try to talk about what I do with a New Yorker (most East Coasters, actually), they start by bringing a lot of stop energy[0]. They'll say something like "Why are you doing that when there's already X?"[1], "That'll never work because of Y"[2], "Why did you quit your job at Z?", "Why don't you go work at ABC Investments, Hedge Funds, and Worldwide Arbitrage, Inc?"[3], etc.

It's frustrating and tiring to have to run through a huge body of what should be background knowledge just to have a conversation with someone about what I'm doing.

In the Bay Area, I generally don't have to deal with:

\- Huge amounts of stop energy.

\- Myopic views about which industries/products/companies/places[4] matter.

\- Support of entrenched monopolies or ideas.

\- Excessive amounts of negativism.

For example, when the iPhone came out, people in Silicon Valley were really excited. Meanwhile, talking to people in New York, it was almost a non-event; all I heard from them was why it would never matter because the Blackberry was so freaking awesome.

[0] <http://www.userland.com/whatIsStopEnergy>

[1] Why are you going to work for Apple? Nobody uses Macs and Microsoft is a much bigger tech company.

[2] Nobody here uses iPhones, you'd better get yourself a Blackberry!

[3] The future is bundling mortgage securities!

[4] If you can't find it in Manhattan, it can't be found! Best city in the world!

<comment><USER7> I'm not sure a little stop energy is such a bad thing. I'd say take their views with some salt...but Silicon Valley tends to be an echo-chamber. What's important in the valley isn't always important everywhere else. Unless your business/venture/idea is only targeted at people in the Bay Area, it pays to keep a little attention elsewhere.

<comment><USER6> Sure, but I and most of my friends and colleagues spend all day every day thinking about and working on things which could be described as "the future". The things I think are important are often things I think are going to be important 3 or more years down the road, and that's why I'm working on them. That potential may not be realized, but I can derive absolutely no value from talking about them with someone who refuses to look beyond the here and now.

<comment><USER7> An imagined future with no grounding in the present is as useful as an oil rig on a hot air balloon. ;-) Keep inventing the future...but ignore the Luddites at your own peril.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8>
      San Francisco is fun, don't get me wrong. Compared to New York,
      it's boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an
      apartment in Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto. Those places
      are socially dead.

Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto are not San Francisco. It is like saying...

      New York City is fun, don't get me wrong. Compared to San Francisco,
      it's boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an apartment
      in Staten ISland, East Rockaway or Westchester. Those places
      are socially dead.

<comment><USER9> True, but the error is more of a mis-choice of words ('San Francisco' instead of 'Bay Area') rather than ideas, since If we're only considering San Francisco, the tech dominance starts to fade a little bit.

Also, while we're calling people for misspeaking, Staten Island _is_ New York City.

<comment><USER10> _Also, while we're calling people for misspeaking, Staten Island is New York City._

True, but Staten Island _feels_ like New Jersey -- even, I suspect, to most New Yorkers. I have a friend from Staten Island, and when I talk about going back to New Jersey, it drives her crazy.

I can't imagine people from New Jersey minding being mistaken for New Yorkers...

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I agree with the (title of the) post very much, but one major point I would like to make is: Mountain View != San Francisco! I find it very misleading when people talk about San Francisco (usually in a negative light) and what they are really talking about are the suburbs of SF. Please stop doing that. That would be like saying NYC is boring because you are actually talking about Yonkers.

<comment><USER12> Yeah, but 80% of the tech employment is down there. So you either have a horrific commute or get to live in the suburbs.

That alone seals it for me, I'm staying in NYC. Although maybe I'd get more work done if my immediate environment bored me to tears.

<comment><USER13> Well it is possible to work for a tech company and stay in SF. You just need to work with a more restrictive set of job requirements. I got tired of doing the long commute in 2003 and decided to only look at companies within the city limits. It took a year to find something I really liked, but it was life- changing to be able to work and live in the same place and avoid the 50-mile one-way commute.

And, of course, you can start and operate your company out of SF (which is what I eventually did as well).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I've lived in a number of cities and surprisingly the Internet looks the same in all of them.

<comment><USER15> I agree.

The internet is the same here in Helena, MT as it is in any other city or town on the planet. Sure, the connection speeds leave a bit to be desired and there's little startup community. But there are exceedingly few places that have a quality of life to match it, especially if you are into trail running and mountain biking.

Maybe it'll be a bit harder to startup here. Maybe I'll end up moving if I create a startup with legs, or after I completely trash my body running ultras.

I've made my choice. I hope everyone else does too.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> Well said. The point that Wall Street != New York is particularly important here, w.r.t Antonio's post. I've only been here a year, but I know New York is _big_ , and it is _not_ homogeneous. I don't think Antonio ever realized that.

Also, kudos to blip.tv. I had a chance to meet a few of the blip kids a few months ago and you guys were really cool.

<comment><USER17> Seconded. I rarely interact with those types, and I work for a major consulting company in the city. There are multiple ways to avoid that crowd, starting with staying out of Murray Hill.

The thing I love about New York is the inherent challenge. You're among some of the most competitive people in the world who love nothing more than to squash your idea. And if you manage to convince those people or rise from their negativity, you know you're onto something.

I view it in many ways as its own little market economy with (close to) perfect competition among commodities. If something facing fierce competition (like restaurants, for example) can hold its own, you know there's some quality behind it.

<comment><USER18> > The thing I love about New York is the inherent challenge. You're among some > of the most competitive people in the world who love nothing more than to > squash your idea. And if you manage to convince those people or rise from > their negativity, you know you're onto something.

So you're saying that if you have the ability to make it there, the probability of making it in other locations is high?

<comment><USER17> I always have trouble wording it in a way that doesn't convey that logic.. I just mean there's much more resistance to go through to vet your idea, for better or for worse. The NY tech community has a lot of the same personality as the HN community - just because you are a part of it doesn't make you less likely to succeed without it but it's great at providing guidance and critique.

I hope that clarifies, I still haven't found a great way to articulate it appropriately.

<comment><USER19> [http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+sinatra/new+york+new+york...](http://www.lyricsfreak.com/f/frank+sinatra/new+york+new+york_20056380.html)

Take a look at the 5th stanza. Then look at the comment you're replying to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> I like this rebuttal, a lot. I will say, having lived in California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Kentucky (not in that order) has made me realize this: culture counts for a lot, the internet is prolific, and calling any large American city a "technological backwater" is a farce.

A lot of people = a diversity of ideas = culture = innovation. New York has _a lot_ of people and _a lot_ of culture, quite a bit of innovation has come out of that city; California (as a whole, not just the Valley, I live in SD right now) has _a lot_ of people and _a lot_ of culture. The same can be said for Atlanta, Dallas, etc...

I will note this difference, though: much of California's culture embraces the leading edge more than it's east coast counterparts - computers and the internet _is_ the leading edge; the internet is an agent of social reform and change, technology (computers) is the vessel through which widespread social reticulation is delivered. Therefore, I do not think New York is a technological backwater; but I do think the people in California/Portland/Seattle can be more progressive and this is why the west coast is carrying the torch.

Small disclaimer: I've been to New York but I haven't lived there, my conclusion is derived much more from intuition than actual experience.

</comment><comment><USER21> > Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement > and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1. Not some social > network plaything.

Humorous considering it's hosted by Tumblr, a social plaything based out of NYC. Foursquare is another that comes into mind as a questionably "real-world problem" solver social network plaything that came out of NYC.

<comment><USER22> Real-world problems? I get that a lot of software is just toys, but isn't NYC the home of economy-jamming fictional assets which only exist so a permanent overclass of full time traders have something to make more side bets on?

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Palo Alto is not in San Francisco. Look at a map. Comparing New York City to Palo Alto is like comparing San Francisco to Burlingame.

</comment><comment><USER24> Another common gripe about California that I'll echo here: there's no weather! It may sound masochistic but I miss the seasons, the snow, wearing a scarf, sheltering inside with a cold nose and hands with something warm. The passing of the seasons gives life a constant pulse and direction. The eternal summers of CA get to be disorienting after a while.

<comment><USER25> I find the ability to drive and experience seasons, like going to Tahoe during winter, is far more agreeable than being forced into them.

I spent 20 years in Chicago with its freezing winters and hot and humid summers and San Francisco's mild climate is a dream.

<comment><USER26> Hear hear.

I do suspect no seasons makes some of the LA natives a bit wacky. It's good character building to deal with shitty weather for a while.

But CA has all the advantages here. The day-to-day weather is consistent and mild, and there is easy access to whatever nature you desire for a change. Mountains for skiing, the ocean for swimming, surfing or boating, forests and deserts for hiking.

I was stuck in Michigan weather for 20 years too. Literally stuck in the winter. Having options is much nicer than not having options.

<comment><USER27> > no seasons makes some of the LA natives a bit wacky

By the count entire countries in the tropics should be wacky :P

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Nothing like an inflammatory rebuttal to an inflammatory essay.

"The social component of a real city with museums, clubs, venues, pubs, bars and barcades is important."

SF has all of these. Obviously less by virtue of being in a metro area a third the size of NYC, but you aren't going to get bored.

"Am I paying for a car? No."

Many San Franciscans don't drive. That being said, having a car always has its benefits - and a car in NYC (at least in Manhattan) is even tougher than in SF.

"In short, New York City is more interesting and—I believe—better suited for the startup and a young guy's lifestyle"

Well, we all have different lifestyles. I enjoy yearlong mountain biking that's only minutes away. I enjoy awesome snowboarding only 3 hours away. I enjoy climbing 14,000 foot mountains. I enjoy not sweating in humid, hot summers and freezing in snowy, cold winters.

I've spent about a month of my life in NYC (over various trips) and would hands down take SF over it.

</comment><comment><USER29> This rebuttal is hilarious.

Kelly's TL:DR summary at the end should have been:

• NYC is more fun! And interesting! I'm 23. • I work at a big company, but startups have happened here at least once. • What do I know? I'm only 23.

The original article was articulate if a bit bombastic. The most salient points, which Kelly failed to address, were in my mind:

• The Bay Area has a culture and history of tech innovation • The Bay Area has thousands of VCs and venture money • The Bay Area has top engineering schools • The Bay Area has tons (metric!) more startups, entrepreneurs, hackers, coders, etc.

The most telling sentence in Kelly's post is: "The social component of a real city with museums, clubs, venues, pubs, bars and barcades is important."

A "real city"! Wow. By Kelly's estimation there must be at most only 2 or 3 real cities on the entire planet.

</comment><comment><USER30> The title says "San Francisco" but the article only mentions "Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto" ... ???

What kind of comparison is this?

<comment><USER5> It shows us that the poster didn't understand where he lived. That's OK; there are enough of us here, don't you think?

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> _Every once in awhile, you see a Google emerge from the Valley. But for every Google emerging from the Valley, there are ten thousand equally ambitious startups that fail. Some of them fail catastrophically... Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1. Not some social network plaything._

This is the main reason NY will never usurp Silicon Valley. Tech-wise NY's culture is too conventional.

"Why build Z when X is good enough?"

"This idea is stupid."

"What's the point? It doesn't make any money."

</comment><comment><USER32> Title really should be "Choosing New York over Silicon Valley" - the city of San Francisco is night and day different from bedroom communities like Palo Alto, Mountain View, etc.

</comment><comment><USER33> If you are trying to do a life style start up, New York is probably a good place. (i don't have anything against life style business). Most of the examples you gave,including the startup you work for are life style business. So sure they would be more practical and making money from day 1. But you're trying to do anything more ambitious, silicon vally is still the place to go.

</comment><comment><USER34> "Given the lifestyle in the City, products are much closer to the pavement and are a solution to a real-world problem from Day 1."

This makes no sense. How does NYC's "lifestyle" create products that are any closer to "the pavement" than SF's does? Maybe Kelly should illustrate his point by choosing some NYC companies and comparing their products with SF products, or the products of startups from anywhere else for that matter?

</comment><comment><USER35> Is san francisco ruby or python?

<comment><USER36> I don't know, but Boston is C++. Its mixture of hacker culture, hyper-IQ academia, and classical puritan social values is sort of like implementing closures with template metaprogramming and special #ifdefs everywhere for compiler backward compatibility.

It's puritan social values plus academic liberalism plus nerds. It is backward compatible but not strictly a superset.

Comparing cities to programming languages thread GO!

<comment><USER37> Do you think Boston is the best city for nerds? I'm looking for a genuinely pro-intellectual climate.

<comment><USER36> It's pro-intellectual, but it's also a bit stuffy and introverted.

If you like the quiet life, lots of academic options, and very tame social gatherings then Boston is for you. If you like excitement, extraverted social culture, and lots of new experiences then I'd look at SF.

Boston has some plusses: it's a walking city... possibly the only true walking city in the country (of any size). You do not need a car. It's ridiculously safe for a big urban area. Bostonians' idea of a bad neighborhood is one without a Starbucks in eye-shot. It's very economically healthy and has a lot of good high paying techie jobs.

But some of that could be said about SF too... just not the walking city part. (Well, SF proper can be handled without a car, but all the techie stuff is in the valley which is a car-centric suburb.)

Both are among the nicest cities in the country.

<comment><USER38> I moved from SF to Boston about six months ago.

SF is a great place to build a startup, but a lousy place to live. I never felt like I could really be myself there (despite meeting hundreds of supposedly like-minded people).

Bostonians are far less friendly on the surface, but man, you can really get to know them. People are nerdy, intellectual, informed (and not just about tech), opinionated, and largely quite sane.

The pace of the city is slower, too, in a way that I appreciate. When I go to a tech event here, I'll often meet someone and spend an hour locked in conversation with them. That kind of deep, engaged conversation _never_ happened in SF, where people are perpetually on the go, and cutting from one thing to the next.

Outside of work, Boston (and by this I specifically mean Cambridge and Somerville -- or "Camberville" as we call it) is the best place in the country to be a nerd. The place is filled with swing dancers, LARPers, grad students, cult movie screenings, comic book and game shops, and quite possibly more CTY alumni than any other city.

Simultaneously, we've got a lot of general culture, too -- lectures, theater, good food, and so on.

Stuffy and introverted? Sure, a bit. But you can get past that quickly, and discover a wonderful place to live.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> Why the * does this matter? Start sh* anywhere.

</comment><comment><USER40> What about Boston in this whole discussion?

<comment><USER41> We're too busy coding and working on our startups to comment. ;)

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> "My city is better than yours!"

"No, it isn't!"

It's weird how opinions work, isn't it? I don't like either place - where does that leave me?

<comment><USER26> Hopefully it leaves you in the city you live in, content with your life and work and surroundings, just like the rest of us.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> What about vendors for Wall Street? Anyone know where I could find vendors to Wall Street that are still essentially tech companies? I figure that market is huge in New York and might be a good alternative to the tradition IT in an IB job.

</comment><comment><USER44> Having lived both places SF feels like the place where new ideas meet with the least resistance. In New York I'm more inclined to want to go out and ogle girls in summer dresses, but NY is a very inspiring place to live, no doubt.

</comment><comment><USER45> +1 from a guy that did 2 startups in NYC over 3 years as well. My sentiments exactly.

They are different environments with pros and cons, but I preferred the social scene in NYC to SF by far.

</comment><comment><USER46> >along with Seattle, Los Angeles, Düsseldorf and Berlin So how is Düsseldorf, Berlin compared to NYC and SF? Would you have moved to Berlin if blib.tv was there?

</comment><comment><USER47> If you want an affordable, quality place full of capable, motivated people, not to mention the headquarters of the Kauffman Foundation... Kansas City is the place.

<comment><USER48> I second this, KC is a great city for startups and very affordable. Lots of motivated people at Startup Weekend and other events... many Ruby and PHP devs, not enough design talent. UMKC is pushing entrepreneurship through their E&I institute and student venture incubators.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Palo Alto is "socially dead"?

</comment><comment><USER5> _Compared to New York, it's boring. I have trouble even thinking about living in an apartment in Mountain View, Cupertino or Palo Alto. Those places are socially dead._

This post suffers from the presumption that everyone wants the same thing from a city. So SF (really, the Bay Area) was not for you. It's for a lot of us.

Not all of us want to suffer awful winters and unbearable summers. Some of us love natural beauty -- and not just the girls. And many of us like a different kind of social scene than NYC offers.

Sure, NYC is exciting. I've been there, and not as a tourist. But it's not for me. (Then again, I'm not 20.) SF (proper, not the Bay Area in general) is the birthplace of cafe society. Mountain biking was born on Mt. Tam. This is a unique, beautiful place, and a lot of people can't figure it out -- and so they move. That's fine: we're already the largest state in the union. We don't need any more people, thank you.</comment>