Find the "bug" - Two equals Four - a mathematical "paradox" - <AUTHOR> http://www.solipsys.co.uk/new/TwoEqualsFour.html?HN1

<comment><USER2> It's not a paradox at all. It's simply not mathematical. The first question, which is completely ignored:

Is x^x^x^... well defined?

And does he mean x^(x^(x^...)) or ((x^x)^x)^x...

Because of his second statement, I guess he means x^(x^(x^...)). So he is looking at the limit of the sequence (x, x^x, x^(x^x), ...). So you have the function f

       x |-> limit of (x, x^x, x^(x^x), ...)

This function is not defined for all x (e.g. it diverges for x>=2) and (thus) its target set is clearly not R.

You can see that it does converge for x=sqrt(2), because 0 < sqrt(2)^a <= a for all a in 0..2) and thus it is correct that f(sqrt(2)) = 2 (by using his statements).

You can also see that 4 is not contained in the target set, because a^4 > 4 for all a>sqrt(2) and because f is monotone for x>0 and because f(sqrt(2))=2.

Thus, the set {x | f(x)=4} is empty.

I.e., his assumption that there exists such an x results in the wrong conclusion.

<comment><USER3> Yes. It's simply not mathematical.

Suppose, x^(x^(x...) = y

At first the author says --> y = 2 and when he says "now consider the equation..." he equivalently says --> 4 = y.

Then obviously we can say 4 = 2. Means, you are assuming 4=2 and then concluding 4=2. Please point out if I am wrong. :)

<comment><USER4> You are wrong. When x is 1, y is 1. When x is sqrt(2), y is 2.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Convergence is not an identity.

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

<comment><AUTHOR> I know that, and (clearly) you know that, but this is a nice demonstration as to why one must be careful.

I'll be interested to see how many times the page is accessed. I find that very few of my mathematical oddities get upvotes.

<comment><USER5> Now I will look for other posts from you about this. BTW, was there any good discussion of the recent partition number proof by Ken Ono et al?

<comment><AUTHOR> It appears not. I don't remember seeing any.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Along with convergence not being identity, any time you start playing with infinity, and then pretend that (∞-1 = ∞) you know that you are looking at a proof with problems…

<comment><AUTHOR> Provided it's done with care, the argument that removing a point from a countable set still leaves a countable set is perfectly valid. The trick is knowing that sometimes care is required.

There are many proofs that rely on removing finitely many points from an infinite set still leaving an infinite set. The definition of division on the equivalence classes of Cauchy sequences in the one of the definitions of the real numbers is just one example.

<comment> brown9-2 Sorry, I'm not understanding a part of this statement and it sounds like you know math a whole lot better than I do: infinity is a "countable set"?

Could you explain this more?

<comment><AUTHOR> It stems from what you mean by "infinity". Most people use the term as if infinity is a number, and that gets you into trouble. You need to say what you mean.

He talked about \infty - 1, and really that means - "take an infinite-sized set and remove an element from it." Now you have the question: Which infinite- sized set?

In particular, there are different sizes of infinite sized sets. The set of positive whole numbers, the set of primes, and the set of rationals are all "the same size" (under a reasonable definition of the term). However, the set of real numbers, or the set of subsets of primes, are both "bigger" (in some very real sense).

So I was responding to the comment about "\infty - 1 being \infty" causing trouble. When you treat these things properly (whatever that means) then it _doesn't_ cause trouble. At least, not any more, and not for people who understand the care required.

tl;dr : If you mention "infinity" you are probably talking about the size of a set.

<comment><USER7> This gets into something that you and I discussed earlier, that "infinity" can refer to two different concepts. While your interpretation is well-defined, and reasonable, it's not what people usually mean when they think of that expression. Even knowing the math and notation behind both of them interpretations and the difference between them, I still tend to see _\inf-1_ as an ill-defined arithmetic (algebraic) expression rather than a well-defined set operation.

Note also, that you can treat _\inf_ as an ordinal number, rather than a cardinal or a limit point, and subtracting one as the inverse of the ordinal successor operation. In this case, _\inf-1_ has a rigorous definition, which exists almost all of the time, and is somewhat closer to the naive, ill- defined algebraic interpretation. Under this definition, _\inf-1_ does not equal _\inf_.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> bug: 4=x^4 does not imply 4=∞(x), therefore you can't 'go back up' in the reasoning.

The psychological core of the "paradox" is that ∞(√2) actually equals 2, bringing credence to the second part. This does not actually makes the first part a valid proof of x=√2 either (as the bug still applies). All that it proves is that IF 2=∞(x) then it MUST be √2. Remains to be proven is that n(√2) converges when n->∞, and does indeed converge towards 2.

For the second part to be proven false, it is sufficient to show that convergent values are originating from [e^-e, e^1/e] and that for x in [e^-e, e^1/e] we have ∞(x) < 2.8. Therefore ∞(x) can't equal 4, ever.

<comment><USER9> That's not _quite_ what's going on here. The manipulations show that, if 4=x^(x^(...)), 4=x^4. The mistake is in beginning with the assumption that the former equation has a solution. If it doesn't, any manipulations that assume it does are invalid to begin with. Most people aren't exposed to the idea that an equation could have no solution all by itself, basically because polynomial equations always do.

<comment><USER8> Well that's what I meant (or rather wanted to mean). I should have phrased the whole thing differently, but I'm still wrestling with English as a language, and rarely if ever used it in mathematics! I should definitely write more.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Let's define x^x^(x...) as a closed form equation:

y=x^y

By simple substitution, y=x^(x^y), y=x^(x^(x^y)), and so on. But the closed form is easier to reason about. The equations given are equivalent to nonlinear systems of the form:

      y=x^y
      A=x^y

where a=2 or 4.

A little manipulation (logs are base x):

      y = x^y
      Assumption:  x>1 (log is not defined for all values if base is <1)
      log y = log x^y
      log y = y

Which is only true if y=1, * provided that x>1\. But y is taken to be not 1 as a premise, and then x is derived to be greater than 1. The proof thus assumes a contradiction; naturally, it's not difficult to prove a contradiction if you assume one. The trick here was to hide the assumption in a strange equation.

* - Actually, on further review, this turns out to be false. Everything else was correct, though, and as it happens log(sqrt(2)) 4 != 4, so this still shows the flaw.

</comment><comment><USER10> >But the part in brackets is the same as the whole, and hence is equal to 2. Thus we have 2=x^2

The bug is in the third line, the statement is invalid.

Obviously (x^x infinitum) is not the same as (x^x infinitum-1). For the same reason that x^x^x^x != x^x^x.

Sadly, I'm not math savvy. In fact the highest math level I passed in college was calc 3 and that was after taking calc 1 and calc 2 twice. So, my answer is based on logical reasoning rather than mathematical proof. Spock would likely indicate my logic is flawed, and only co-incidentally leads to the correct conclusion. Either way, this doesn't seem like a very interesting "math paradox".

<comment><AUTHOR> I'm really pleased that you've been willing to stick your head above the parapet and say this. What you've said seems to me to be a common line of reasoning, but it always confuses me.

In particular, you say:

        > Sadly, I'm not math savvy.

OK, that's cool, and I'm always willing to engage with people who want to learn.

        > Obviously (x^x infinitum) is not the same as (x^x infinitum-1).

Given that you're not math savvy, that's a pretty definite thing to say.

        > ... my answer is based on logical reasoning rather than mathematical proof.

Well, actually your answer seems to be based on intuition, and not on reasoning at all. You intuitively say that x^x^x^x != x^x^x, which is fair enough, and then leap to the conclusion that the infinite case must be like the finite case.

And there's a problem. The infinite case is _not_ like the finite case. Similarly, the infinite sum 1/2+1/4+1/8+1/16+1/32+... insofar as it can be given any meaning at all, must be set equal to 1, even though all the finite partial sums are strictly less than 1.

        > this doesn't seem like a very interesting "math paradox".

But your "reasoning" is wrong. Perhaps you've dismissed it as "uninteresting" because you haven't really understood it? That's fair enough - I don't have a problem with that, but it would be nice to believe that you realised it.

Let me just say again that I'm really pleased you expressed your thoughts on this. I'm sure you're not the only one, and I find it useful to hear the way people think about these things. I give lots of presentations and masterclasses on math to all ranges of ages and experience. I need to know the intuitions people are using. So thanks.

<comment><USER10> Thanks for your response Rider, and let me re-iterate that I'm already aware my reasoning is wrong. Hence my allusion to how I think Spock would reply to me.

For clarification, I'm considering my observation that x^x infinitum is not the same as x^x infinitum-1 as based on reason rather than intuition because there is reasoning behind my statement. This may be an argument of semantic and thats certainly what I want to avoid since it's useless. But my answer isn't based on an instinctive knowing (intuition) it was based on the following considerations:

      3^1 = 3
      3^2 = 9
      3^3 = 27

For any n^x I could* think of, n^(x-1) was a different value.

If I think of infinity as some unbounded large number, then I think of x-1 as a smaller (by 1) unbounded large number. It may be fair to consider this an intuition, but since I'm basing it off of observations of smaller number examples I think its closer to an implication of the previous observed behavior.

With that argument I contest that my conclusion is in fact based on reason. However, I will and still do submit that my reasoning is that of a layman and may be (and probably is) incorrect. But, my conclusion seems to be inline with that of the other comments to this thread regarding the overall evaluation 2=4 through this number game. Now, I'm making an assumption here and by all rights perhaps making an ass of myself, but from my understanding of the majority responses is an agreement that 2=x^x(infinitum) does not lead to a conclusion of 2 != 4. Their arguments are more technical and perhaps outside my understanding level, but I think this is where my point lies about the math paradox being interesting. I would think that the paradox would only be interesting if the mathematical reasoning would be counter intuitive than a layman's intuition. That is to say, if the layman says it should be yes, mathematically it should be no in order for it to be interesting. (Again, I'm making the assumption original post argument doesn't hold water based on the refutation of the comment thread)

Thanks for taking the time to reply, level headed even without being insulting, to my [mathematically incompetent] comments. :)

      * while formulating this reply, it occurred to me that if n = 1, 1^x = 1^(x-1).
      Here during this argument I've discovered a flaw in my reasoning.
      Which I am conceding in my foot note as my comment above is meant to explain my original reasoning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> This makes me wonder what are the fixpoints of f(a) = x^a, and whether they are attractive or not. For example if you take x=sqrt(2) then it appears that 2 is an attractive fixpoint while 4 is a repelling fixpoint.

</comment><comment><USER12> This reminds me of that 'troll math' post some time back. There was a square of edge length 1, but the corners were bent such that the total length(4) around the shape would stay the same. And then to infinity the corners were raggedly bent to keep the length around the shape the same while trying to say that as the bending went to infinity, the square actually became a circle, and that the circle's circumference was 4.

Logic when dealing with infinity is quite odd to deal with.

</comment><comment><USER13> I don't see why this has anything to do with an infinite progression. The problem is that he has a system of two equations that are not consistent.

Replace the x^x^x^x... with "y". Now you have:

2 = y and 4 = y

OMG, 2 = 4!

Not every two equations can be solved with the same assignment of variables.

<comment><AUTHOR> You don't seem to have understood the point. Let's do it without re-using the same variable name.

Solving 2=y^y^y^... lets us find that y=sqrt(2). Therefore sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^... = 2

Solving 4=z^z^z^... lets us find that z=sqrt(2). Therefore sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^sqrt(2)^... = 4

Therefore 2=4.

Now, could you explain your resolution of the "paradox" more clearly?

<comment><USER14> To restate; we can say:

1) Assume that an x exists such that 2=x^x^x^x^...

2) Then x = sqrt(2)

3) sqrt(2)^10 = 32

Therefore there is no such x.

In very brief, we can say that there is no number so infinitesimally close to 1 that infinite exponentiation of it does not 'blow up'.

Or to pull a Calc 1 term: x^x^x^x^... does not converge for all x >1\. Simple.

<comment><AUTHOR> I don't understand why your step 3 is relevant. Observe that using r=sqrt(2) we have that the sequence r, r^r, r^r^r, r^r^r^r, ... does converge to 2. We are not performing arbitrarily large exponentiation of x.

Or, to pull a Calc 1 term, x^x^x^... does converge for x=sqrt(2).

<comment><USER4> It's the difference between x^(x^(x... and ((x^x)^x)...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> 2=x^x^x^x... cannot be solved, since x^x^x^x... will only converge to 0 (if x=0) or 1 (0<x<=1) or -1 (x=-1), ignoring complex numbers. So the original equation is false.

<comment><USER16> Wikipedia says it (roughly) converges if e^(−e) ≤ x ≤ e^(1/e)

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration#Extension_to_infinite...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tetration#Extension_to_infinite_heights)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> The equation 4=x^x^x^x^x^x^x... is not solvable. Read the wikipedia article. x^x^x^x^x... either converges to a value smaller than 4 or does not converge at all.

<comment><USER18> It diverges for all values of x >= 2, iirc.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> The first line assume 2=x^x^x^x^... which is impossible. We assume the author is asking: for what x \in R does 2=x^x^x^x^x^... Cognitive bias confuses us.

<comment><AUTHOR> I'd love to hear what you mean by this. In what sense is it impossible to have 2=x^x^x^x^... ??

<comment><USER19> There is x\in R such that 2=x^x^x^x^x^... Furthermore, I believe it should be possible to prove there is no field S such that R\in S, whereby 2=x^x^x^x^x^.... Complex numbers don't help.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> In layman terms, infinity can't be a number, and neither can something times infinity. The problem is that infinity isn't really a number at all.

<comment><USER21> Don't want to sound condescending, but I don't think that seeing this in layman's terms has any merit. All of mathematics, although often built out of some intuitive, natural notions, is about definition: describe an object and then see what follows from your description. The description is not, in general, something that's "out there" and can be deduced by common-sense.

(Infinity, in fact, can be defined as a number and can be defined as a non- number in different contexts. But infinity is only something when it's part of a strictly defined mathematical universe with specific axioms.)

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> This part doesn't ring true....

But the part in brackets is the same as the whole, and hence is equal to 2. Thus we have 2=x2

<comment><AUTHOR> No, that bit works. If 2=x^x^x^x^x^... then we can raise x to the power of both sides, giving

x^2=x^(x^x^x^x^...)

But the RHS is equal to x^x^x^x^... and hence equal to 2. Thus x^2=2.

<comment><USER22> Im' still thinking the original equation is not solvable = 2=x^x^x^x^x^x... is invalid.

<comment><AUTHOR> But (purely for brevity) using r=sqrt(2) we find that the sequence r, r^r, r^r^r, r^r^r^r, ... converges to 2. To my mind that makes it perfectly reasonable to say that 2=x^x^x^... has a solution with x=sqrt(2).

<comment><USER23> I think implicit in the parent is that the equation is not solvable for ∀x, whilst you're saying ∃x where x converges toward a "solution" of 2 = x^^\inf.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER24> _Rolls Eyes_

Someone here hasn't heard of Georg Cantor.

(More to the point, this is only a paradox if you assume that there is only one transfinite number. A brisk tour of "Infinity and the Mind" by Rudy Rucker sufficed to disabuse me of that idea some years ago. Time for a re-read, I think.)

<comment><USER25> That's either a nice troll or you don't know what you think you know!

<comment><USER24> Possibly. What do you think I don't know?

<comment><AUTHOR> Interesting question. The problem is that you've mentioned there being more than one transfinite number, when this question is actually about convergence. It appears that you've simply gone "Alleged paradox - infinity - must be ignorant about Cantor and the uncountables."

In fact, Cantor and the uncountables have nothing to do with it. If you think otherwise then I'd be interested in seeing a more complete explanation of your comment.

<comment><USER24> Well, there's a transfinite implicit in the series of exponentiations -- we have aleph-0 exponentiations, don't we? And if we knock off that first one, we've got (aleph-0 minus 1) exponentiations.

(NB: I don't understand your use of the term "convergence" -- must be either something I've forgotten in the third of a century since I studied maths, or something above the level I reached. (Sub A-level.) (See also: Dunning-Kruger effect.))

<comment><USER26> Convergence is what happens when you have a sequence of numbers, and they get closer and closer to some fixed number. Some sequences converge and some don't, and part of what's going on with this "paradox" is that one of the sequences it implicitly asks you to consider doesn't converge.

Yes, there's a transfinite number implicit in the sequence of exponentiations, namely aleph-0. (It might be better to say omega-0 -- an infinite ordinal rather than an infinite cardinal -- but that's a technicality that doesn't really matter here.)

But the problem with the "proof" doesn't have anything to do with the existence of infinite cardinals larger than aleph-0.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> I tried setting 9=x^x^x^x^..., and by similar logic, we can take x^[both sides] and get x^9 = x^x^... = 9. Which means x is a ninth root of 9; I think we may as well pick the real root. However...

      arc> (expt 9 1/9)
      1.2765180070092417
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.3656685405664577
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.3957179500635313
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.405994788813235
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.409526784112037
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.4107427255115605
      arc> (expt (expt 9 1/9) that)
      1.4111615739170247

This doesn't look like it's converging to 9. This tells me that you can't just say "N = x^x^x^..." and expect there to be an x satisfying that condition, any more than there's an x satisfying "3 = 0*x". Actually, that one's arguably solvable with x = ∞. A better example is "|x| = -2", or perhaps "3 = f(x) where f(x) = 1 if x>0, 0 otherwise".

So I guess the takeaway is that the function "x^x^x^..." is a kind of "decision" function, if you know what I mean--one that requires making some sharp distinction somewhere, like the absolute value and "if x>0 then 1 else 0" functions. The x^x^... function is actually a limit, and evaluating it requires deciding that it does approach a limit in the first place. You can't expect these "decision" functions, as I call them, to always be as robust and invertible as usual mathematical functions. This result is probably surprising only because the limit is implicit.</comment>


Why is it so difficult to find a Sr Dev/Lead into VP of Eng role with a Start-up - <AUTHOR>

I'm working directly (I'm a headhunter) with/for a new start-up in the predictive analytics/gaming space in NYC.  This company is well-funded (offering a competitive salary and sizable equity >2%).
I know most people on here will be quick to bad mouth recruiters but I'm curious what people's thoughts are on this.  One would think this is a relatively attractive position (Chance to manage all the technical architecture/responsibilities, build out your own engineering team, equity, competitive salary, cool product, etc.)  Are 4-7 year iOS Devs/Mobile Architects looking to make a career transition that rare?
I'm guessing most Engineers by that level are so well-taken care of or dedicated to their employers that they are unwilling to leave.  It also seems the start-up space is quite saturated at this point and the "Exciting Start-up" Opportunity isn't quite as sexy as it was even a few years ago. <comment><USER2> _" I'm guessing most Engineers by that level are so well-taken care of or dedicated to their employers that they are unwilling to leave."_

Senior engineers leave their jobs all the time, but to get them to do so you have to offer them at least one of: more interesting work, more money (adjusted for local cost of living), or better working conditions (e.g., private offices for people who prefer them).

And I'd agree with the commenters who said that people who are good developers are not necessarily interested in being managers, and especially not VPs, who are managers of managers of managers, and thus pretty far away from the programming action. After being a director for many years, I decided to go back to being a developer because it made me much happier to write code, not sit in meetings and deal with management issues (hiring, layoffs, performance reviews, fighting for staff raises, employees not getting along with each other, etc.).

Also, there's no guarantee that a good developer would even make a good manager - it requires a whole different set of skills that include empathy, politics and diplomacy. Finding someone who has both programming and management skills would be exceedingly difficult. Better to hire the developer you need now, and if they show aptitude and interest in management, promote them. If not, hire a competent manager to oversee the growing department.

<comment><AUTHOR> It appears that I incorrectly assumed most Senior Engineers will eventually become/strive to be VPs of Eng or IT Directors.

Greenyoda, if you don't mind me asking, how many years were you a director before switching back to being a developer? Also, did you find it was a pretty seamless transition back to a hands-on coding, or were you playing catch up for a bit? Thx.

<comment><USER3> You definitely made an incorrect assumption. I have been at various levels of management and also continued to be very hands on in the code bases. This included start up's and very large (Fortune 50, on the lower end of the digits) companies.

I believe I was a very successful Director and VP level manager. However, I realized a few things that made me switch back.

1) Engineers, particularly me, don't like to manage. Most of us get into it for the money or because it's some sort of natural career progression. But generally it means more of the things we don't like doing. Meetings, personnel issues, hiring, firing, and not coding. Some say that management at that level get more say in the product direction or in other business matters and I have not found that to be true. Engineers get just the same amount, if not more, say in product than any manager. If you happen to be a "hands-on" VP, you get to do all of those things you don't enjoy doing from 10-4 and then code on the product all night. That can be quite unpleasant.

2) "Natural Career Progression" is a myth. If we're talking about purely financial benchmarks, as an engineer and a consultant I make more than just about every manager I know. And certainly quite a bit more than I made as a VP, including equity. If we are talking about career "prestige" or "respect", as an engineer I get asked to speak at more conferences, write more articles, and get on the phone with more CEO's than I ever did as a manager.

3) Quality of life and happiness. I have spent the better part of my entire life learning how to make computers do what a company needs them to in order to make money on their product idea. I think a lot of VP's and Director's absolutely love their job, but I felt unproductive and constantly inefficient. I wasn't making a computer do what the company needed it to do to make money on a product. I was trying to get engineers to work, I was settling disputes between engineers and other engineers, engineers and other managers, managers and product schedules, product schedules and financing, upper management and partners, the list goes on and on. This did not make me happy. I didn't sign up in this business to be the referee. I want to be the best engineer, so I strive to become the very best at that.

Now to answer your specific questions. I was a director or VP level for 7 years. I walked out of my last job as a VP and walked into a consulting role the following day making 20% more. The transition was absolutely seamless and I did not play catch up. However, this may be more of a testament to my own learning and retention. Others may take longer.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm a senior developer (but in web more than mobile). I freelance but often fall into a lead role when I'm part of a team. My thoughts:

1\. When I read "competitive salary" or "market rate" in a job description I dismiss it as underpaid. I interpret it as "average salary," and I hope I bring more than average value. To me a competitive salary is one that competes with my freelance income. Tell me the range or I'm moving on.

2\. Lots of good programmers are happy as leads but don't aspire to management. If a startup advertised a technical track with the same compensation as the management track, I bet they'd attract a ton of interest. Maybe this is an "architect" role, maybe even CTO (for certain definitions of CTO), but it's pretty rare. My favorite question to ask startups is what they offer career-wise. BigCos have a plan, but I've yet to meet a startup that could answer that question, except a hand-wavy "we're growing". They definitely don't have a tech-track answer.

EDIT: 3. What kind of vacation do you offer? I see 2-3 weeks a lot and it's not interesting. When I read PTO I close the tab. When I read "unlimited vacation" I close the tab. If you can't offer an actually-competitive salary, you could try to compete here.

</comment><comment><USER5> As someone that probably comes close to fitting the bill, here are the reasons I wouldn't apply.

1\. You're in NYC, where everyone is currently getting obliterated by snow. For positions like this you should hire in spring or summer if you want to attract a candidate from warmer climates.

2\. You want someone who can put in the hours of a 20-something but has the experience of a 40-something. To me, that says the management team wants to hire 2-3 people for the price of one. These expectations simply aren't realistic and anyone brought in will fail in one capacity or the other.

3\. The company raised or earned enough to hire you to hire for this postion. So clearly they had someone fulfilling this role but it hasn't worked out. That implies a lot of interpersonal conflict on the management team (all too common in startups).

I think if you start with hiring a VP level and focus on hiring a manager first, you will be better off. Who ever comes in should expect to promote from within and/or hire externally quickly. The management team needs to heavily involved in selling a prospective candidate on the role to alleviate any concerns about the interpersonal conflict.

</comment><comment><USER6> My theory is first while it is not rare, I think a majority of developers want to stay developers and not really take on that type of role. Just like Captain Kirk, we've rather be commanding a starship than be an admiral. However, I also think it is rare to find an opportunity like you state. Normally a person would grow into this role in a company. I've never seen some one looking for a VP with zero experience. So the people who would like that position probably aren't looking for it. I would love a role like you mention but never been offered anything like that. So part of your problem is just a search issue. The people are out there but you need to find out how to look for them.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Appreciate the comments. Its actually funny you mention that, as we were initially titling this role "CTO" which resulted in potential candidates who were just too hands-off by that point in their career. I've restructured the role and search to VP of Engineering just because there will be plenty of coding and hands-on work in the beginning which should ease up as the company hires more engineers.

I'm thinking reworking my ideal profile to 8-12 year candidates that are Directors, Leads, or Architects who are still very hands-on. The tough part of the search is the intangibles, like finding someone who still has the motivation and passion of someone in their early/mid 20's.

<comment><USER6> You see you just cut off your whole market. There is no possible way to find someone in their 20's that meets your specs. Also it is really ageist. Look for what you want not the age.

<comment><USER7> You've read that wrong (I did, too, the first time). OP was saying "passion of someone in their early/mid 20's." which is just a comparison, not an age requirement.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thx...thats correct.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If the position is in NYC then your competitive salary probably isn't as competitive as you think. The rate would have to be very high for me to consider moving to NYC.

</comment><comment><USER9> Maybe they're looking at the wrong targets? I wouldn't in any way call someone with less than 7 years to be VP level - nor would I want them managing staff. That might translate to a beginning Director level at 7 years. But besides that - everyone's frames their opportunity as "Exciting Start-ups" that the phrase is numbing.

</comment><comment><USER10> Hi dogstraightup, This is just a suggestion, but try posting contact information here or a link to it so that potential candidates that have read your post could get on your radar.</comment>


Ask HN: an archive for RSS feeds (similar to the wayback machine)?   - <AUTHOR> I thought an archive for RSS feeds (similar to the wayback machine) should exist. But I couldn't find any.
RSS would be a minimum common denominator for the web. When pulling an RSS feed, omehow you can only access the last 20 posts or so; I don't think this is a limit that the protocol imposes (it's rdf after all) or a custom, but the fact is you cannot get an old article from an RSS feed.
Feedburner (RSS kings) don't seem to have an archive, at least one I could find.
Do you know if such a thing exist? The main advantage of RSS over scraping is that there's little noise due to formatting, TOCs, ads, etc. <comment><USER2> > The main advantage of RSS over scraping is that there's little noise due to > formatting, TOCs, ads, etc.

How would you get past the fact that not everyone publishes the entire piece of content in the RSS feed?

Slightly off topic, but related... I've often wondered why no one has created an RSS delivery protocol like IMAP. I've considered writing something many times, but it seems like it could get crushed by a few changes in already existing readers.

</comment><comment><USER3> Google Reader archives the feeds. Just keep scrolling back. There is also a not-very-official API.

<comment><AUTHOR> But do they do that for ANY feed? Or just for the ones you are subscribed to? Because I need archives to any feed, not just the ones I follow...

It's true though that google seems to be catching feeds :). Nice.

I wonder if there's a way to search for a particular feed. Otherwise, I'd have to create an account and subscribe to all feeds in the world O_0.

Where is the non-official API, anyway?

Thanks!

<comment><USER3> <http://code.google.com/p/pyrfeed/wiki/GoogleReaderAPI></comment></comment></comment>


Ask: Is there a "Machine Learning for Dummies"? - <AUTHOR>

Maybe such a book shouldn't exist but I'm just curious. I tried taking the hacker dojo course but it's too theoretical for me. It'll be long before this saturday before I have HW #1 done.<p>I'm kind of a person who needs code and an explination and example. I sound dumb compared to most of you but that's the kind of programmer I am, i guess <comment><USER2> Programming Collective Intelligence. It's very well written and you can cover quite a bit of ground without too much arcane theory.

</comment><comment><USER3> If you want a "less math" machine learning book, I like these two:

Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques, Third Edition

Ian H. Witten, Eibe Frank, Mark A. Hall

[http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Practical-Techniques- Manag...](http://www.amazon.com/Data-Mining-Practical-Techniques- Management/dp/0123748569)

Machine Learning: An Algorithmic Perspective

Stephen Marsland

[http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Learning-Algorithmic- Perspecti...](http://www.amazon.com/Machine-Learning-Algorithmic-Perspective- Recognition/dp/1420067184)

</comment><comment><USER4> PCI is a great, not-too-mathy primer. Let me also add that Drew Conway and Johnny Myles White are working on a ML-type cookbook. Should be available soon via O'Reilly (I think).

</comment><comment><USER5> To get started, try Mining the Social Web, followed by Programming Collective Intelligence.</comment>


Comparing JVM alternatives to JavaScript - <AUTHOR> https://renato.athaydes.com/posts/comparing-jvm-alternatives-to-js.html <comment><USER2> This is a pretty unfair comparison for React. He uses the "JavaScript has complex toolchains" excuse to not use best practices like JSX and a bundler, then claims React is verbose and slow compared to other solutions that use complex toolchains?

First of all, Parcel is a dead simple to use bundler that supports JSX, hot reloading, code splitting, and various file types (including TypeScript) out of the box: [https://parceljs.org](https://parceljs.org)

Second, that React code is much longer than it needs to be, mostly due to formatting, but if you use function components and React "Hooks" it can be extremely short:

        const Counter = () => {
          const [count, setCount] = useState(0);
          return (

The current count is {count}

              <button onClick={() => setCount(count + 1)}>Increment</button>
              <button onClick={() => setCount(count - 1)}>Decrement</button>

          );
        };

With the imports and call to "render" it's about 15 lines of code, which is much shorter than all of his other examples.

The class version (written how I'd do it) is about 25 lines, which still shorter. Here it is without JSX, using Preact's HyperScript-style `h` instead of `React.createElement`:

        class Counter extends Component {
          constructor(props) {
            super(props);
            this.state = {
              count: props.count || 0
            };
          }
          increment() {
            const { count } = this.state;
            this.setState({ count: count + 1 });
          }
          decrement() {
            const { count } = this.state;
            this.setState({ count: count + 1 });
          }
          render() {
            const { count } = this.state;
            return h("div",
              h("p", "The current count is " + count),
              h("button", { onClick: () => this.increment() }, "Increment"),
              h("button", { onClick: () => this.decrement() }, "Decrement")
            );
          }
        }

And of course these are toy applications, which aren't even representative of real applications. I'm not sure I can go back to imperative UI toolkits like GWT, etc.

The application size seems approximately accurate, but if you really care about bundle size you could use Preact (which supports most of React's features). The brings the bundle size down to about 10KB, which is also much smaller than his examples.

Load time is also unfair due to lack of bundling.

<comment><USER3> > He uses the "JavaScript has complex toolchains" excuse to not use best > practices like JSX and a bundler

Those are best practices if your goal is to stick with javascript no matter what, which is not the goal of the comparison. Resorting to a transpiler which adds whole new complexity dimensions and failure points to your build, and doing so while aiming to introduce a complex workflow that requires half a dozen modules to become manageable is far from the ideal solution.

<comment><USER2> > Resorting to a transpiler which adds whole new complexity dimensions and > failure points to your build, and doing so while aiming to introduce a > complex workflow that requires half a dozen modules to become manageable is > far from the ideal solution.

What? The entire post was about comparing JavaScript to alternatives which use... compilers/transpilers:

       GWT - Java-source-to-JS, server and client-side framework
       TeaVM - Java-bytecode-to-JS compiler
       JSweet - Java-source-to-JS (and TypeScript) compiler with library ecosystem
       CheerpJ - Full JVM implementation on the browser
       Vaadin Flow - Java-source-to-JS-source, server and client-side framework
       Bck2Brwsr - Java-bytecode-to-JS compiler

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> After 20 years of traditional JavaScript, I recently got a chance to use ClojureScript on a decent size project, it's the only way I'm ever doing JavaScript from now on. It's a beautiful way to use React, no JSX or HTML strings in site, it's all generated using the same stuff used to write application logic. Yes, there's still a lot of tooling behind it, but I very rarely had to directly deal with any of it, Leiningen does most of the work with package management and builds, and ClojureScript itself takes care of utilizing Google Closure for its dead code elimination and other optimizations, without me having to write a single ugly annotation.

<comment><USER5> If only the Clojure(script) community would keep an up-to-date full guide on how to do modern web development with Clojure+ClojureScript...

I'm 1000% sold on Clojure (and have done some production back-end tools with it), but every time I try to do front end or mobile, I struggle without outdated guides or books and relative lack of other current online resources to get me reasonably down the road toward success.

Apparently people who successfully use these tools are happily working and not having the time to educate new people. Of course it's not their responsibility, but it does seem that the Clojure community is far less involved in nurturing new users than many other languages/toolkits/frameworks.

<comment><USER6> Luminus provides ClojureScript support out of the box along with documentation on how to use it. It's been around for years now, and the primary goal is to provide a smooth beginner experience:

[http://www.luminusweb.net/docs/clojurescript.html](http://www.luminusweb.net/docs/clojurescript.html)

You can create a new project with Clojure/Script support by adding different flags. For example, for a re-frame project:

        lein new luminus myapp +re-frame

This will generate the needed boilerplate and configuration. You can now start the server by running:

        lein run

The server will start a nREPL that you can connect the editor to on port `7000`, this is defined in the `my-dev-config.edn` file. The typical workflow is to connect to the REPL, and run your code as you're writing it.

Next, you start ClojureScript compiler in a separate terminal with:

        lein figwheel

The front-end workflow typically involves having figwheel running while you write the code, and it will automatically push changes to the browser. You can also connect to the nREPL started by Figwheel from the editor. This port is specified in `project.clj` under `:figwheel` with the `:nrepl-port` key. The default is `7002`. Once you connect the editor you run `(cljs)` function to switch to the ClojureScript REPL. You can now evaluate any code that's running in the browser. Note that Figwheel has to be started, and the page loaded in the browser first.

The project is set up to keep all the code in the same repository, and you have three separate source paths:

* `clj` - server-side code * `cljc` - code shared between the server and the client * `cljs` - client-side code

Packaging the app is done by running

        lein uberjar

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Interestingly, even as a one time front-end specialist, I'm leaning the something same direction this author did: the complexity introduced along with front-end frameworks/tooling treads near (and in some cases beyond) a border past which I stop feeling like working with JS itself is a win. The more the development process treats the browser as a runtime target for generated code, the less point I see in sticking with JS -- or even augmented versions of it -- as a source language. And I _like_ JavaScript.

Of course, I don't much like Java, so that's not where I'm likely to go, but I am struck with what the author demonstrated here regarding that as an option. Like the author, I'm very curious about something like Elm; if I'm going somewhere with a type system, I'd like to go further along the spectrum of benefits types can provide.

And I'm also not sure we've reached the apex of possibilities of working more directly with HTML/CSS/JS, but that's highly domain/application dependent and another topic.

</comment><comment><USER8> The sad part is, even with all these complex toolkits and yada yada, I still haven't seen much of an improvement in the UI, which is, from the user's perspective, the primary ( if not only) thing that matters. Sites just get slower, break more easily, and look comical when you turn the JS off. Maybe some backend helps ease some pains, but if you have to spend hours and hours reading about how to do X in framework Y cooperating with framework Z did you really save any time or make your site more robust than including and using a few tools from a lightweight library? Not that I make anything big, but it seems websites aren't any better than before; just the toolkits are getting bigger.

<comment><USER9> How true. Lately I am also starting to have problems with my default Firefox setup, which blocks 3rd party cookies and trackers. The result? A lot of (in my opinion) lazily coded websites break, without ever catching a single error, because they were put together assembling external services and skimming on testing.

Normally everything more or less works with my fallback chrome in its default configuration, but then I feel we are more or less back to "optimized for ie6" days.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> It's interesting seeing GWT producing small javascript. I must admit I have been somewhat biased against it given prior experience. It _used_ to be used for the AWS console all over the place, on the theory that it would be easier for the service devs to also write the console code. That got eventually overhauled to the far superior form it is now.

The Javascript that used to be produced was enormous, and of course on a per- service basis, and it had a big overhead on the parsing and running stakes. If any of you was using the console maybe 5 or so years ago, you'll know what I mean about the console loading experience (it was fine once the javascript got processed).

<comment><USER11> AdWords is a huge service. It was the largest GWT app out there and always pushing the limits. It was entirely rewritten when they moved to Dart. It's hard to say how much of the improvement was due to better language-level tools versus having learned a lot since then.

The GWT team at Google went on to write the j2cl compiler, and based on Github commit history, they're still working on it:

[https://github.com/google/j2cl](https://github.com/google/j2cl)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> He doesn't like JavaScript development because the tooling is too complex, but then he pulls in behemoths like GWT?

<comment><USER13> GWT is incredible. Admittedly the tooling is a bit clunky but it's really no worse than your run-of-mill webpack/yarn/grunt/gradle/whatever JS build. Such a shame it's kind of been semi-abandoned, it just blows TypeScript/React out of the water on so many fronts. Hard to pick what I like best about it but I think the number one gap that TS et. all will have trouble reaching is compilation to asm.js. It's really hard to overstate just how much more performant GWT apps are pound-for-pound due to this and a few other performance-related features/hacks that seem a long way off, if not downright impossible, to match as long as the source language is JavaScript.

<comment><USER14> Have you tried Vaadin? Apparently, it's based on GWT and still actively developed. I'd really like to try the GWT style development model for an upcoming project and Vaadin looks like an appealing solution.

<comment><USER13> I have not, but I have met the Vaadin guys at a conference and seen demos. I would agree it does look quite appealing overall.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> I'm a bit mystified why OP didn't include Kotlin on their list. It's very accessible for Java devs, works brilliantly with tools they are probably used to (IntelliJ, Gradle etc) and compiles natively to JVM and JS (and Native these days, if you care about that). It seems like the ideal candidate.

<comment><USER11> Kotlin's JavaScript support has been around for a while but I was under the impression that it wasn't used much. Is there a community using it now and is it getting much support?

<comment><USER16> Kotlin may be a nice language but its HTML library:

      https://github.com/kotlin/kotlinx.html

... is an abomination.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a crazy argument IMO. JavaScript tooling is stupid simple if you know what you're doing. Learning something new is always hard so if you're new to JavaScript (and have a JVM background) of course it'll seem hard at first.

I love node 'cause it "just works" (but really it does). The app I work on is node TypeScript Nest.js backend and TypeScript Angular frontend. The set up process for a new dev is install node (takes like 10 seconds), clone the repo, npm install, npm start. Ready to start developing.

TypeScript is as simple as installing typescript, and running tsc from the command line. With ts-node you can simply make your npm start script "ts-node ./index.ts" and you're off and running.

<comment><USER16> The trouble with Typescript is that the corporates have gotten their hands all over it as a means of turning JS into Java. TS turns lean, functional JS into an over-engineered smorgasbord of classes, interfaces and general OOP nonsense. JS was designed primarily as a functional language.

<comment><USER18> Right, because functional languages aren't known for having highly expressive type systems at all. And anyways, while Eich's original dream was to bring Scheme into the browser, it's obvious that forces at Sun, by telling him to make it more similar to Java, changed the nature of the language in a core way.

It's absurd to say JS was designed primarily as a functional language when there is mutation everywhere, inconsistent use of equivalence, and one of the looser type systems still in existence.

Either way, I'm surprised that that's been your experience, because I have found it to be the opposite. I've found TS to be most of what I like about C#'s typing (interfaces are an incredible, foundational tool) with much less of the ceremony. I still prefer C#, but I find TypeScript's flavor of OOP to be one of the lightest (in terms of enterprise-OOP, langs like Smalltalk obviously still take the overall cake).

<comment><USER19> Hi, just for the record, Netscape management as well as Sun insisted that JS look like Java. Java was supposed to be the big language on the client side. That didn't pan out, but JS got big and begat WebAssembly thanks in part to the asmjs.org latent static type system (another part: WebGL typed arrays).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> pcj-github Add [https://github.com/google/j2cl](https://github.com/google/j2cl) to the mix if you're looking for java development for front-end work.

</comment><comment><USER20> The problem with this post is that React, an UI library, is being compared with toolkits that in some cases are simply Java-to-JS compilers. To make a fair comparison there should also be a plain js example

</comment><comment><USER21> Scala.js is also an option.

[https://www.scala-js.org/](https://www.scala-js.org/)

It skips the JVM altogether and complies Scala to Javascript. I haven't used it for anything significant, but I've heard nothing but good things.

<comment><USER22> I am using it now and it's solid. Recommend combining it with:

Slinky React ([https://slinky.dev](https://slinky.dev))

JSON RPC ([https://github.com/shogowada/scala-json- rpc](https://github.com/shogowada/scala-json-rpc))

Diode ([https://github.com/suzaku-io/diode](https://github.com/suzaku- io/diode))

Scalably Typed ([https://github.com/oyvindberg/ScalablyTyped](https://github.com/oyvindberg/ScalablyTyped))

Being able to use almost every React library but with full types and code completion is amazing. And with JSON RPC you can treat Client -> Server as though it's just another method call.

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> For all that people wanted to run away from Java's 'complex' toolset it seems modern JS has managed to recreate most of it.

I wonder if we'll do a loop with JSON and end up back at XML

<comment><USER24> We did, GraphQL is the new XML.

<comment><USER25> Yeah, I don't understand the love for GraphQL. It seems over-engineered and difficult to get started with.

<comment><USER3> GraphQL gets a lot of love because it presents itself as a solution to a considerable and all too frequent problem: get the front-end/client teams to coordinate with the back-end teams. This is more of an organizational ans project management problem than a technical problem, thus their advocates are ok with the trade-off.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> GraalVM is also an alternative. It might be able to run your existing NodeJS project on JVM.

[https://github.com/graalvm/graaljs](https://github.com/graalvm/graaljs)

</comment><comment><USER27> J2cl (successor to GWT) produces even smaller code.

</comment><comment><USER28> In a similar vein, I have been idly wondering about the viability of using Python for building browser apps recently:

Http://brython.info Http://pypyjs.org

No idea what the performance is going to look like for webasm, but might be a worthwhile sacrifice if the developer productivity gains were good enough (using the same language for FE and BE makes many things easier).

<comment><USER29> Here is Mozilla bringing Python to Browser via WASM, a few science benchmarks run faster in WASM than CPython, others get upto 12x slower.

[https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/04/pyodide-bringing-the- scien...](https://hacks.mozilla.org/2019/04/pyodide-bringing-the-scientific- python-stack-to-the-browser/)

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Use `create-react-app` you absolute maniacs.

</comment><comment><USER31> oh, i know now

</comment><comment><USER32> It can be useful to keep it simple and try to stay exclusively with HTML- latest + ES-latest + CSS and avoiding external JS libraries as much as possible. Using the latest versions of just the basics (HTML, ES, CSS) can help minimize what only recently required the addition of external JS libraries.</comment>


Commodore to relaunch 21st century version of C64 - <AUTHOR> http://www.mediapost.com/publications/?fa=Articles.showArticle&art_aid=135891

<comment><USER2> I see this story about every 3 years. For a few seconds I think "wouldn't that be awesome." Then I realize that a modern C64 (or Amiga) will never be as good as my childhood memories. In fact, modernizing it would probably destroy it for me. Let me keep the memories of notching 5.25"s, BBSs, and LOAD "*",8,1

<comment><USER3> You can always use VICE.

Or MESS, but I never quite got that one to work.

Still, a modern PC in a C64-like box would be sweet. It's like a casemod without sacrificing a real C64.

We cannot preserve those machines forever - they'll end up breaking. This may be an economically viable way to preserve the experience of using a C64, as well as a source of mechanically compatible parts.

The joysticks of my Atari XE were manufactured 20 years after the computer.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> This could use a helluva lot more information on what the product will actually be. A clone of the original C64? A new-style Windows box in a keyboard form factor? A machine with a Commodore-branded special-purpose Linux-based OS?

<comment><USER5> I'd heard something about this a couple months back, but don't recall what it was all about. I think your latter guess is closer than the former.

Oh, here we go: [http://www.pcworld.com/article/191896/commodore_64_awakes_fr...](http://www.pcworld.com/article/191896/commodore_64_awakes_from_slumber_with_makeover.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Progress really smacked me in the face when I bought a C64 emulator a couple of years ago.

What used to require a large keyboard with extra room for the computer, a large diskdrive, an expansion slot and a drawer full of floppies now completely fits into the size of one of those original joysticks. You hook up the joystick directly to the TV and it contains about 100 games.

<comment><USER7> I have one of those too. <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C64_Direct-to-TV> . You can even solder a PS2 keyboard connector to it and hook up a keyboard, then use it as a C64 and do a POKE 53280,0 or write a basic program ;-)

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeri_Ellsworth> designed it. An interesting talk by her is at [http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1053309060448851979...](http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1053309060448851979#) in which she also tells about how she got interested in electronics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Just rebranding or remarketing something isn't the same as actual innovation. The home computers of the 1980s, such as the C64, were fun in part because they represented something genuinely new and innovative in technology. Taking some PC hardware and slapping a Commodore sticker onto it isn't quite the same.

<comment><USER3> In 1982, you could build a computer with 4-bit color at 320x200 graphics, a 3 voice synthesizer, without any software to run on it at the right price and have a huge hit.

You just can't do it now. If you build a computer that uses anything but an x86 processor, you won't be able to sell it to people who like Windows. You could go for 1080p screens, but many high-end home PCs surpass that. You could run a complete Linux desktop, but that would face some user resistance.

It kills me but there seems to be no space for innovation in the desktop PC market.

<comment><USER9> Perhaps it's that barriers to entry on the net are so high. I think you could usefully sell a $30 computer (simple to program, cheap to make, flexible enough to be useful) in places like Africa etc to people who could not afford to have one otherwise but even a basic web browsing experience needs a lot of CPU cycles nowadays. Of course there are text-based browsers, but you might as well go with the $100 price point like OLPC and just look for subsidies. I have heard nothing about how programmable those are, for young hackers in poor countries, I hope there's access to python, js, or similar.

Closer to home, I would have quite liked to use the Playstation 3 as a computer, to the point that I learned quite a lot about the Cell chip inside it and started thinking about Linux distros again. But Sony made it non- expandable (boo), with no access to the GPU (WTF), were late with driver support (argh) and finally ditched the OS loader option entirely. They briefly hinted at giving away their 3d modeling engine but changed their minds about that too.

Now, I know they recoup the hardware development costs from royalties on the games and have an investment to protect, but with a little more patience, support, and faith in their own engineering instincts they would have been rewarded with PS3s popping up up at every science fair. People are nostalgic about their 80s computers out of all proportion to their quality because they were easy to do things with if you wanted.

I do think there's still room for lightweight and hackable products. One which missed the mark by going down the x86 route and overloading price and spec was the eee keyboard PC ([http://www.tomshardware.com/news/eee-eee-keyboard-eee- pc-wir...](http://www.tomshardware.com/news/eee-eee-keyboard-eee-pc-wireless- hdmi-atom,10416.html)). Imagine if it had been $99-200 and run android or so!

<comment><USER3> > I have heard nothing about how programmable those are

They are excellent. They come with a Red Hat OS, with Python, Smalltalk and lots of goodies.

> But Sony made it non-expandable (boo)

They needed to do it because they sell (sold) it at a loss. They want you to buy games, not to browse the web or crunch numbers. I would pay for an expandable, non-subsidized PS3 (extra geek points if they resurrect the News name). I bet it wouldn't be that expensive now. And I wouldn't ask for PS3 compatibility.

<comment><USER9> If you can make a credible application (eg academic or sw publishing involvement) to <http://develop.scee.net/> my understanding is that a test unit + SDK is under $2k. It won't play commercially available games/DVDs/blu- rays or dump the hypervisor, but I doubt that's why you want it. Twice the super-fast RAM (or maybe expansion slots for same), RSX access & Linux- compatibility. As it seems quite secure there is a limited trade in used units, which I've seen for under $1000.

If you can live without access to the graphics core, older Linux-compatible models can be had cheap on eBay, like $3-400. Sadly the Cell doesn't seem to have much future outside of industrial-scale computing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> 64 as in 64 bit I guess? ;-)

<comment><USER5> Yes, actually. From the article I linked to above: "The computer will be an all-in-one keyboard, with Intel's 64-bit quad-core microprocessors and 3D graphics capabilities, according to the site."

<comment><USER11> Not quad core. Dual-core Intel Atom D525 1.83 GHz with GMA 3150 GPU on-chip integrated graphics.

GameSpy article on new C64: <http://pc.gamespy.com/articles/111/1116901p1.html>

Intel's CPU specs: [http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49490&processor=D52...](http://ark.intel.com/Product.aspx?id=49490&processor=D525&spec- codes=SLBXC)

Wikipedia's list of Intel Atom CPUs: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocess...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Intel_Atom_microprocessors)

<comment><USER5> That makes more sense! A quad core sounded a bit excessive for this sort of system. That article is from a few months after the one I linked to, so I assume Commodore had clarified the specs a bit more by then. This all still seems quite vague, though.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Help, HN - Vimeo is Not available in India - <AUTHOR>

Vimeo is not available in India. But there are some awesome tech learning videos on it. Can someone send the video www.vimeo.com/42530011 to YouTube so that we can watch it? This is from the last post - Git and GitHub Secrets by Zack Holman. I didn't find it there. <comment><USER2> I am from New Delhi, India and I am able to watch the given video(www.vimeo.com/42530011) on Vimeo. How is it not available in India? Am I missing something?

</comment><comment><USER3> Try using <https://> instead of <http://> Or use a proxy server Or use their IP address - 184.108.40.206 Or VPN into a server hosted outside India & try access vimeo from there.

All of these should work

<comment><AUTHOR> Can't youtube be simple? I don't under why we try to complicate things?

<comment><USER3> erm, how is it complicated to use the IP address or https?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Update: Zack is kind to keep the files for download. I am seeing it now. Thanks everyone.

</comment><comment><USER4> sshuttle is your friend - <https://github.com/apenwarr/sshuttle></comment>