The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects - <AUTHOR> https://nytimes.com/2018/06/19/climate/koch-brothers-public-transit.html <comment><USER4> It seems like a bit of class warfare on the part of the Koch's. Without public transportation people in lower income areas can't get to better jobs, healthcare or schools. People in these areas also don't have access healthy food because grocery stores won't open in areas where the majority of customers use food stamps and government aid. Yes current modes of transportation are becoming out dated the newer modes like self driving cars are not ready for the mass public. What the Koch's fail to grasp is that the more people making a living wage we have means we have less people living off entitlements like food stamps. If we have more people paying taxes instead of living off the taxes of other we will see improvements for all and possibly lower taxes due to a surplus not a deficit. Sorry for the soapbox.

<comment><USER5> Class warfare has never been gone. It's just that it's only the rich and powerful that wage it, and of course they are winning.

<comment><USER6> >There's been class warfare for the last 20 years, and my class has won

\- Warren Buffett

<comment><USER7> This is a real quote but, without context, gives an unfair impression about Buffet: he said that while supporting bigger taxation.

He also said something in the lines that "he was paying a lower tax rate than his secretary". That sounds crazy to me, but I'm not going to discuss about finances with Warren Buffet.

<comment><USER8> Most of Buffet's income is long-term capital gains, and he probably pays his secretary well above median.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Some commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an age of self-driving electric vehicles have perhaps never lived in a city with good public transit. Road traffic in Victorian London was on average faster than it is now, but investing in underground tunnels for trains was still deemed necessary (even profitable). Likewise, buses massively reduce the road footprint per passenger, not to mention the increased energy efficiency, regardless of whether it renewable or not.

And finally, end-to-end transport offered by personal vehicles or taxis has been disastrous for public health. The difference between walking to your driveway or curbside versus a five minute walk to a bus stop or ten minute walk to a train station everyday would be enormous aggregated across an entire population. It would be a great missed opportunity if the idea of being able to summon a driverless electric car (we still have no idea how this technology will really pan out, whereas buses and trains have been around for over a century) kills public transit as an alternative to single-occupancy vehicles before it's even off the ground.

<comment><USER10> > commenters questioning the benefit of public transit infrastructure in an > age of self-driving electric vehicles

Such commenters would also not be living in reality. A few self-driving vehicles deployed as research projects in select areas hardly defines an "age". We're just at the start of the path, and until there are millions of these things roaming the streets, they will have no impact on society. People need to get to work _today_ , not in some near future that is still defined in years.

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think there's an interesting take on this - we are on the verge of a huge technological shift with the advent of self-driving cars. Should we hold off on massive transit projects where they don't already exist that is the community doesn't already have a subway and wait to see how self-driving cars pan out?

It's like investing in traditional cargo ships right as containerization started happening. Or investing in horse related infrastructure when the automotive was first being released.

This seems relatively sensible to me. Address near term issues - small fixes. And not fund huge projects that may become obsolete before they're finished.

I guess the question is -- how quickly will self driving cars be deployed, and how will they effect the areas. Will self driving cars completely replace buses?

<comment><USER12> Even with self driving cars, they cannot move any where near the quantity of people in a given space that a train can. It's not going to be a solution for dense cities.

Besides, if we are just on the cusp of having self-driving _cars_ we should be able to deploy self-driving _trains_ right now and reap all the benefits of autonomous transport immediately.

<comment><USER13> > Besides, if we are just on the cusp of having self-driving cars we should be > able to deploy self-driving trains right now and reap all the benefits of > autonomous transport immediately.

Self-driving (GoA4) trains are close to 40 years old: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_New_Transit](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kobe_New_Transit) [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lille_Metro](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lille_Metro)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> European here, living happily without a driver's license.

Could someone please explain the gentrification argument? How is public transport supposed to make it worse?

Assuming gentrification occurs when one area is much more desirable to be in than others, then with good public transport it can be reached more easily. People can live outside the center (or the nice district) and still get a good experience, work or spend time there. The desirable area expands. It seems to me that if anything, this should work against gentrification.

Also, living in cities means giving up some freedom. We share it, we have to make some kinds of compromise: keep the noise down, take up less space for our private use and use the public more (like parks instead of own gardens). In my opinion this also means limiting the use of cars, so that city centers don't have to accommodate wide roads and parking space and could become more walkable and generally pleasant. I appreciate that most major European cities seem to develop in that direction.

Want freedom - go live away from people, no one will restrict you then.

<comment><USER15> "The nice area expands" \- basically what gentrification is.

If public transit opens up travel options for poorer (usually minority) areas, young white people who can't afford to live in the city will start moving there, bringing their yoga studios and brunch cafes and actual grocery-stores- that-arent-just-an-isle-of-canned-food-in-liquor-stores.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> What's the story here? Seems like Koch Bros are against raising taxes. They aren't "killing" anything.

Let's assume the tax raise will only go to public transport. Let's assume for now it's a good plan and actually wanted by the public. The issue isn't the previous assumptions but the fact that taxes will not be lowered afterwards.

So even after completion of the project, the tax that was put in place to raise revenues to fund the project will still remain in the books. That's the insidious nature of government. Once it has it it will not let go.

<comment><USER17> Well

> One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs' conglomerate, > is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires > and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public > investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.

Also: stuff requires upkeep, consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway. You can't just build it and expect it to stay in perfect condition forever.

<comment><USER18> > consider the current state of the woefully unfunded NYC subway

Everything I've read about the NYC Subway system indicates that it's funded more than adequately, but due to mismanagement, corruption, and cronyism, the funds walk out the door in the pockets of ghost workers.

Assuming the system wasn't awash with grift, is there evidence to suggest that NYC doesn't actually fund it adequately? NYC residents pay well above the national rate in taxes, and presumably those taxes are intended to fund transit. If the money taxed isn't being used to actually maintain the infrastructure, I think it supports OP's argument that the taxes haven't abated but the services being offered for them have.

Without getting into the ideological debate of whether publicly funded projects are good or bad, I think it's fair to assume that _most_ people expect that when taxes are raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.

<comment><USER19> I don't think I've read the same things as you. Do you have sources for the cronyism and ghost workers?

Also, the tax levels in NYC don't necessarily relate to the levels of subway support (e.g., NY state contributes to the NYC subway).

> I think it's fair to assume that most people expect that when taxes are > raised to fund transit, that the taxes raised will be used for transit, not > to line the pockets of the friends and cohorts of who raised the taxes.

This is a straw man argument - the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is corruption. Is that actually true?

<comment><USER18> Sources:

* [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway-construction-costs.html)

* [https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-wh...](https://jalopnik.com/heres-the-most-damning-report-yet-on-why-the-new-york-c-1821651731)

* [https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-s...](https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2018/may/14/new-yorks-subway-scam/)

> the implication here is that the NYC subway's sole financial problem is > corruption. Is that actually true?

So, that isn't the assertion. The argument that taxes are raised for a project, then being diverted to general funds is a separate issue from the one of corruption, and speak more directly to OP's argument that "taxes don't go down", to which the rebuttal from GP was "Well, taxes shouldn't go down, because maintenance is a thing". If the taxes don't go down, and also aren't being used for the purpose they were raised, you have sort of a shell game.

That said, on the matter of corruption, here are a few quotes from the first source I linked:

        > The estimated cost of the Long Island Rail Road project, known as
        > "East Side Access," has ballooned to $12 billion, or nearly $3.5
        > billion for each new mile of track — seven times the average elsewhere
        > in the world. The recently completed Second Avenue subway on
        > Manhattan's Upper East Side and the 2015 extension of the No. 7 line
        > to Hudson Yards also cost far above average, at $2.5 billion and $1.5
        > billion per mile, respectively.

        > The spending has taken place even as the M.T.A. has cut back on core
        > subway maintenance because, as The New York Times has documented,
        > generations of politicians have diverted money from the transit
        > authority and saddled it with debt.

<comment><USER19> I remember glancing at that NYT article. It's hard to prove these things, but they only peripherally imply the idea of 'ghost workers'.

I agree that it sounds like social connections are leading to small numbers of contractors, but the takeaway I saw is the lack of political will to manage contracting - these so-called 'soft' costs were on the order of 1/3 of the overall costs.

I didn't pick up on the duration of taxes argument - I see your point there.

<comment><USER18> > It's hard to prove these things, but they only peripherally imply the idea > of 'ghost workers'.

[https://jalopnik.com/ill-be-damned-feds-indict-new-york- city...](https://jalopnik.com/ill-be-damned-feds-indict-new-york-city-subway- worker-1823273269)

That doesn't prove all of the allegations from the earlier articles, for sure, but does confirm that the story wasn't made up from whole cloth.

> "Lokhandwala concealed his receipt of the bribe payments by having the > contractors issue checks to shell bank accounts he controlled," the DOJ > said. "In exchange for the bribes, Lokhandwala promised to steer future work > to the contractors and to expedite bureaucratic paperwork for their benefit. > Lokhandwala threatened to bar the contractors from future projects if they > did not continue to pay him."

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> That project would have kicked their sales tax to 10.25%, highest in the country, and like every major public project they'd go far over their 5.4b budget.

The link to Koch brothers is a bit tenuous, it was the voters who killed this project, once they knew the costs.

</comment><comment><USER21> The article paints their motivation as naked self-serving hypocrisy:

> One of the mainstay companies of Koch Industries, the Kochs' conglomerate, > is a major producer of gasoline and asphalt, and also makes seatbelts, tires > and other automotive parts. Even as Americans for Prosperity opposes public > investment in transit, it supports spending tax money on highways and roads.

</comment><comment><USER22> > Americans for Prosperity counters that public transit plans waste taxpayer > money on unpopular, outdated technology like trains and buses just as the > world is moving toward cleaner, driverless vehicles.

> Most American cities do not have the population density to support mass > transit, the group says. It also asserts that transit brings unwanted > gentrification to some areas, while failing to reach others altogether.

> Public transit, Americans for Prosperity says, goes against the liberties > that Americans hold dear. "If someone has the freedom to go where they want, > do what they want," Ms. Venable said, "they're not going to choose public > transit."

Public transport is against freedom? I got to say, that is creative.

<comment><USER23> There is a point here. Public transportation is great, but under the incredibly inefficient management of the government it will almost always cost anywhere from 2x to 10x what it really should. That means it not only costs more, but takes longer to complete and is possibly irrelevant by the time it is actually usable. This wasn't the case in the past as much it is today and it's only getting worse.

<comment><USER24> This almost reads like a mad lib of every surface level, trope-like critique of publicly funded initiatives without actually saying anything at all of substance.

Government may be inefficient at times but so far they've been the most consistent purveyor of public mass transportation. It may not be great but I think in the larger picture the general public is probably well satisfied with transit that is consistent if you polled riders.

<comment><USER25> No mass transit system makes a profit, at least the last time I talked to someone who was heavily involved in the numbers. They require a subsidy of, what was it, 70%? That doesn't make it wrong, but it has to be considered.

<comment><USER26> That is wrong. The Munich public transport system has been turning a profit for at least 15 years out of the last 17. For the two missing years, I did not find numbers or sources, but it's probably the same.

Pretty sure there are others that run successfully.

BTW only road systems where you pay for every mile you drive (see e.g. motorways in France, Spain, Italy) turn a profit. All others are, basically, just a waste of taxpayers money ;-)

It's usually failed policies and nincompompous administration that make public transport systems fail.

Sources: >[https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&pre...](https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.mvg.de%2Fueber%2Fpresse- print%2Fpressemeldungen%2F2016%2F2016-04-29-aufsichtsrat-verabschiedet- jahresabschluss.html&edit-text=) >[https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschae...](https://www.swm.de/dam/swm/dokumente/unternehmen/swm/geschaeftsbericht.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> "The group's Nashville victory followed a roller-coaster political campaign, including a sex-and-spending scandal that led to the mayor's resignation."

Oct 2017 - Unveils $5.2bil plan Mar 2018 - Pleads guilty to felony and resigns; interim mayor (vice mayor appointed) May 01 2018 - Vote on plan May 24 2018 - Vote for new mayor (vice mayor wins with 55% of vote)

Yeah, sounds roller-coastery.

</comment><comment><USER28> Such public transit tax boondoggles always include buses and commuter rail in one measure. But the OVERWHELMING majority of such spending (ignoring the other trendy items such as hiking trails, beautification and congestive bike lanes) is for rail — NOT buses.

Buses are FAR cheaper and relatively much more efficient than rail. But central planners LOVE choo-choos.

Rail is NOT desired by most commuters. From 1985 to 2015 the Los Angeles region spent $9 billion on transit improvements — almost all on rail. At the end of these 30 years and with a bigger population, public transit in the region has fewer riders in 2015 than they had in 1985. Not just a lower PERCENTAGE of rail travelers — fewer ACTUAL riders. [http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but- fe...](http://riderrants.blogspot.com/2016/02/billions-spent-but-fewer-people- are.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> There are very few cities in America where public transport is the most efficient option for MOST trips - e.g. think about cities where a family of four could honestly say that they wouldn't need a car.

If a large capital project is not going to change that equation, it seems unlikely that that is an efficient use of money.

It's sad to say that in all but the largest and densest American cities mass transit is used for the most part by people that can't drive.

</comment><comment><USER30> OK that seems pretty vile.

Still, one gets the sense that these campaigns succeeded mostly because there was no response to them. This "team" the reporter followed talked to 66 people in one day? The campaign in total raised $1.1M? These are not overwhelming numbers, if the entire Nashville business community and political apparatus had really been united as described in TFA. It seems possible that support was a mile wide and an inch deep. It's easy to give lip service to a popular politician. This charismatic mayor was not around for the long haul, even if her bodyguard had not been the type of cad to kiss and tell. If her scandal had been delayed a year, the measure had passed, the money raised, etc.: then what? What strong constituency existed to keep pushing this project in the right directions over the decade it would take? If those people exist, they should have gone door-to-door a week after these AfP yokels to complain about rich Kansans interfering in our politics to sell us asphalt.

</comment><comment><USER31> Public transit is the way of the future in higher density urban areas. Not only is it more energy efficient per rider and of assistance to those that are financially less well off. It has a much lower impact on air quality. Check out the article on electric vehicles from The Guardian Aug 4, 2017. Always concerned when rich people with a vested interest discourage a service that helps the working poor.

</comment><comment><USER32> Americans for Prosperity has 2.3 million members, according to Wikipedia. Current headline, "The Koch brothers are campaigning against tax rises for public transit projects", is an improvement over original NYT insane "How the Koch Brothers Are Killing Public Transit Projects Around the Country" but still misleading. Kochs are financing a 2.3 million organization, which in part - by activities of their local activists, going door to door, which is impossible without wide support on the ground - opposes some public transportation projects. Which sometimes are a colossal waste of taxpayer money. For example: [https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption- incompetence-c...](https://reason.com/blog/2018/05/22/corruption-incompetence- characterize-los) [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york- subway-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/12/28/nyregion/new-york-subway- construction-costs.html) [https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound- transit-pa...](https://reason.com/blog/2017/09/18/seattles-sound-transit- pays-100000-for-a) [https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most- ce...](https://www.aei.org/publication/whod-a-thunk-it-like-most-central- planning-public-transit-systems-often-fail-without-massive-taxpayer- subsidies/) and many more.

From the article itself:

Early polling here had suggested that the $5.4 billion transit plan would easily pass. It was backed by the city's popular mayor and a coalition of businesses. Its supporters had outspent the opposition

So the evil Koch's money was actually less than the benevolent whoever-that- was-NYT-is-not-going-to-tell-us's money. So how did it happen?

"This is why grass roots works," said Tori Venable, Tennessee state director for Americans for Prosperity, which made almost 42,000 phone calls and knocked on more than 6,000 doors.

So it's not nefarious Koch Brothers and their dark magic. It's people on the ground making phone calls and knocking doors and convincing people that they are right. This is how democracy is _supposed_ to work. But of course for NYT it is anathema since their side lost this time, so they would present it as some kind of dark magic of evil Satan brothers. I would want to say I expect better from NYT, but the times when I did has long passed.

</comment><comment><USER33> When Americans pronounce their name as "Coke", is that a mean-spirited jab at the troublesome byproduct of Fred C. Koch's petroleum cracking process, or is that how the family pronounces it themselves?

</comment><comment><USER34> I live in nyc now, but grew up in a small conservative-learning town.

So many of my friends & colleagues who have spent their lives in liberal areas refuse to see the issue from the perspective of middle-class conservatives --> instead calling them 'deplorables' or 'morons'.

If you went around at my town's local supermarket handing out $50 gift cards - telling people that this was how much their taxes were going up - <USER2> proposition was getting voted down.

<comment><USER35> I understand 50$ goes far in small towns than in NYC. That said, shouldn't voters consider a proposal based on its merits than solely from a tax increase viewpoint? Sure I'm paying $50 more in taxes, but if it means not having to use my car as much, then it is a win, isn't it?

Handing out gift cards is a shitty move _even_ if all their reasons against the project made sense (which it doesn't). These should be settled with educated, sensible debates rather than who has more money to spend.

<comment><USER34> You're right. Completely right. Citizens should understand and think about tax increases in terms of their longer terms use. Whether that's increased security, infrastructure, education, etc.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> Driverless cars are tested in Arizona. I am not impressed. The US is FINALLY being weened off their urban sprawl fetish, every city on the planet is heavily investing in public transport.

When Trump was talking about how North Korea could one,day look like Singapore I smiled. Why does LA or New York not look like Singapore?

</comment><comment><USER37> Where is the need to spend 5.2 billion on public transit ? A few electric buses with point to point connections will do. Start small and expand as needed. Just one high density suburb <-> Downtown connection is sufficient to start with. Electric buses are so good, they have instant torque - so there is none of the lag that plague traditional diesel buses, they are fast, quiet and since it's point to point, your range anxiety is practically eliminated. A dedicated bus lane or the HOV lane and a stop every 1/2 ecits should cut it.

Sure it's not as fast as a dedicated subway or the Shinkansen but at a fraction of the cost, you are bringing in people to start using public transit.

<comment><USER38> The issue with starting small is that there is no network effect - <USER3> people have to get to the starting or end point.

This can work if you have a city structure with a clear resedential area and some central leisure or work place and there's lot's of commute between, but for many areas the benefit only comes if many people can use a network effect of reaching many areas.

</comment></comment><comment><USER39> Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a level playing field. Instead, they adopt anti-car policies to force people to behave like they want them to. See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of lanes, and so forth.

If the people really want public transportation, why do you have to punish them for using cars? Could it be that people value the freedom and privacy of having a car and living in the suburbs? Of living in quiet suburbs free of street crime and roving gangs of ne'er-do-wells? Of being free from the inherent restrictions to freedom that come with being in closer proximity to others?

<comment><USER40> > Big cities never seem content to let public transit compete with cars on a > level playing field.

You're right. We need to insist that drivers pay as much for their privilege to use public roads as we insist that public transit users pay to use public transit.

> See the highly inefficient HOV lanes, the purposeful underdevelopment of > roads, exorbitant parking prices, punitive fuel and car taxes, closure of > lanes, and so forth.

Oh. You want the government to subsidize your car-centric lifestyle even more than it does so. SOV cars have very large demands on space, and in urban settings, space is at a premium. Free parking, or even mandatory parking minimums, are essentially taxing everyone for the benefit of drivers.

The normal "user fees" for roads--gas taxes and car taxes--simply do not cover the actual costs even of maintenance for roads, let alone the capital costs of expanding them. This means that those funds come from general revenue, again causing everyone to subsidize drivers, whether or not they actually use them.

<comment><USER39> I see your point, and it's a very valid observation. But I think it's different when the overwhelming majority of people _want_ cars and _want_ to live in the suburbs. Organizing public goods to serve the collective desires of the vast majority is different than socially engineering society by forcing them to abandon their preferred way of life because a powerful minority thinks it's backwards and unenlightened.

<comment><USER41> People might "want cars and want to live in the suburbs." That does not mean that my city should be torn apart with freeways to accommodate them.</comment></comment></comment></comment>


Benford's Law tests on Wikileaks data - <AUTHOR> http://www.drewconway.com/zia/?p=2234

<comment><USER2> > Also, as suggested in the comments, I used a chi-square goodness-of-fit test > to see if the deviation is statistically significant, but it was not; with a > p-value of 0.2303. Meaning we would fail to reject the null hypothesis: the > observed data were a good fit for a Benford process. That said, the p-value > is not so large as to suggest total adherence.

Welcome to stats 101. If you get p > 0.05, it means your test failed to tell you anything. Which means your test failed to tell you about the likelihood of tampering.

<comment><USER3> You are on the right track, but no, it is more subtle than that. The test could still be meaningful depending on what probability of false positives you are willing to accept.

[1] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/P-value>

[2] <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Type_I_and_type_II_errors>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> this is a statistical blog post written by someone who has no idea how to do statistics. and even when told how to do it properly by a commenter, fails to accept the simple and overwhelming conclusion. why is this on the front page?

<comment><USER5> Perhaps because the data is interesting and we can draw the contrary conclusion: that there is no reason to suppose the data has been tampered with or fabricated?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> They should expect a bias, since Wikileaks have stated that some information has been held back deliberately. From <http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Afghan_War_Diary,_2004-2010>

"We have delayed the release of some 15,000 reports from the total archive as part of a harm minimization process demanded by our source. After further review, these reports will be released, with occasional redactions, and eventually in full, as the security situation in Afghanistan permits."

</comment><comment><USER7> I might be missing something, but how is it that overall the number of leading 2s is greater than the number of leading 1s, but not in any of the constituent regions?

<comment><USER8> It might be a form of <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simpsons_paradox>

<comment><USER9> I don't think Simpsons paradox plays any role here, if I understand this correctly.

In the first graph, the leading digit counts are _not_ the things being summed up across all the regions. The weekly report counts are summed up across all regions and _then_ the leading digits are counted.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I thought that wikileaks eliminates certain information that would cause harm to a party mentioned in the leak?

<comment><USER11> That is correct, there is a subset of ~15,000 records that are being withheld, which will be released when they no longer have a probability of being harmful to those they mention.

Source: <http://boingboing.net/2010/07/26/wikileaks-qa-with-ja.html>

_Boing Boing: We're told that there are more documents from this archive yet to be released by Wikileaks, some 15,000 of them as reported. Some have speculated that these could relate to Iraq. Can you comment more?_

 _Jacob Appelbaum: The 15,000 documents are part of the set of Afghanistan documents. They are being redacted for harm-minimizing purposes as requested by our source, and will be made available as is applicable with respect to the relevant security concerns._

I would like to know much more about the process by which Wikileaks determines what is or is not safe/relevant to be released. While I support their efforts, they are walking a thin line in becoming the very thing they are working against.

I only hope that the decision was done by experienced committee, but even that raises questions as to how do you vet that committee for the ability to gauge what is and is not releasable. How does one determine those people are even of adequate credentials/authority to read the information ahead of time?

If I were our the US govt., I certainly would be playing up that issue as much as possible. On the surface it would not be hard to push general sentiment in the direction of Wikileaks playing information Gods with the data they have.

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> Incredibly weak evidence.

<comment><USER13> It's not weak evidence. There's no evidence. The guy doesn't seem to know how significance testing works.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> An aptly named blog for the analysis.</comment>


PaperBack (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://ollydbg.de/Paperbak/#1 <comment><USER2> I've long wondered what the real-world impact would be of a Carrington Event [0] in the 21st century. If we're underprepared for "black swan" pandemic events, I suspect we're even more so for solar flare / solar storm events, given that unlike the long history of pandemics, we have no historical precedent for severe solar storms since the dawn of electronic technology.

I'm almost entirely ignorant on this subject; but my fuzzy understanding is that the only data formats which are guaranteed to survive such an event are optical media, and "paper backups" such as this one. I'm very happy that the GitHub Arctic Code Vault now exists; for closed-source OS/infrastructural code, I'm curious if any major vendors have their own equivalents.

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_storm_of_1859)

</comment><comment><USER3> Wow, incredible to see this again.

Way long time ago I wrote a wikipedia page for this software. The page was soon deleted and I learned my lesson about trying to contribute to things which do not value your work.

<comment><USER4> It's infuriating how many articles on niche software were (still are?) deleted. It's a modern day burning of the Library of Alexandria!

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> The URL brought back memories. I used to mess around with OllyDbg a lot back in the day!</comment>


Wallarm (YC S16) Uses Incoming Hacker Attacks to Reveal Security Flaws - <AUTHOR> http://themacro.com/articles/2016/08/wallarm/ <comment><USER2> Hey there. Stepan, co-founder of Wallarm, here. Feel free to ask any questions.

<comment><USER3> How do you intend to prevent false positives?

As a power user, I am concerned about the possibility of widespread adoption of your product and/or others like it.

I don't want my bank to ban me just because I use a browser extension to capture my own cookies from my own valid session and pipe them into a shell script I wrote to invoke curl to harvest my latest bank statement as a PDF and store it locally.

Supposing that your system wouldn't flag that activity as malicious, what about the vulgar things that I did to their servers while I was _developing_ my archive-bank-statement tool?

NB. Please ignore the implication that my tool is complete or useful. It's not... :)

<comment><USER2> The main idea about Wallarm is to get inner knowledge of how the application works and how users use it. Based on this data, we craft dynamic rules for every single applications or API.

The simplest example is what data transmitted in different parameters of the form field or API calls. For example, it's OK if someone put an SQL Injection payload at Stack-overflow site in the form writing a security-related article. It can be a normal behavior. Meanwhile, SQL injection payload is probably a malicious thing for a login form at your bank website.

We wouldn't ban request only if it is sent with curl. There is a set of different factors and statistics that are taken into the account. E.g. if you run this requests too quickly and it is sent with curl, it can be considered as a malicious activity.

<comment><USER4> So I can CSRF the bank site with a SQLi in the login form, and ban anybody who clicks my link?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Very impressive stuff, way to go guys!

<comment><USER2> Thanks!</comment></comment>


Toss Bombing - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toss_bombing <comment><USER2> What's interesting is modern fighters actually have programs to calculate all the needed stuff to do this. Recently watched a video of an F-18 performing the maneuver.

<comment><USER3> It seems like a fuel-inefficient maneuver. It could also expose the aircraft to anti-aircraft systems for longer than a high speed pass would.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bouncing_bomb)

</comment><comment><USER5> This means something different in the UK.

<comment><USER6> What does it mean?</comment></comment>


Mobile Device Management invades privacy - <AUTHOR> https://blog.cdemi.io/never-accept-an-mdm-policy-on-your-personal-phone/ <comment><USER3> As a counterpoint, I do recommend installing _your own_ Supervised MDM profile onto your iOS device. This will:

\- prevent the installation of any other MDM profiles (such as a work profile)

\- allow you to pair-lock your device, which will prevent any forensic tools from accessing your device (for instance if it gets taken by police or at a border crossing, even if you're forced to give up your password, they won't be able to image your device or do other scans).

iOS security researcher (now Apple employee) Jonathan Zdziarski has a blog post on it:

"Counter-Forensics: Pair-Lock Your Device with Apple's Configurator": [https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=2589](https://www.zdziarski.com/blog/?p=2589)

<comment><USER4> IIRC in iOS 11 (if not earlier?) Apple changed it so forensic tools can't suck data off your phone unless you enter your password while the phone is attached to the computer. Previously if you unlocked your phone, they could then carry it off to their computer, attach it, and start vacuuming up your info. But now unless it's already attached to the computer before you unlock it, you know they can't do that.

<comment><USER5> You can easily be forced to enter your password while you are in the 'constitution free zone' though.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> My employer recently required that any mobile access (or, really, any access through a method other than web browser) to any real-time communications systems for the company, including internal e-mail and instant messaging, must be through a device that has the chosen MDM solution enabled.

It was at that point that I informed my manager that I would no longer be checking work e-mail and instant messages on my mobile device unless the company chose to pay for a company-owned device and require that I carry it. My manager told me that he intended to do the exact same thing. Informal surveys of my group show that about 80% of the group are not following work e-mail or IMs when away from work computers.

I am happy that this is the case but am also disappointed that the remaining 20% are almost entirely the "burn the candle at both ends" segment of our group and they're forever replying to threads and the like even when off work on weekend or vacation.

I have read on multiple places that MDMs on an iPhone have quite restricted access (no SMS/iMessage, pictures, non-MDM e-mail, and the like) unless the device has been wiped and redone under the All Powerful MDM mode but I don't know if those people are correct or if they're all going from the same (possibly inaccurate) source. Therefore, I keep the MDM stuff off of my iPhone because it is _mine_ and I have data from other unrelated projects and companies on it that is none of my employer's business nor theirs to have access to hoover up.

<comment><USER7> > I am happy that this is the case but am also disappointed that the remaining > 20% are almost entirely the "burn the candle at both ends" segment of our > group and they're forever replying to threads and the like even when off > work on weekend or vacation.

Really? Off work is off work.

The moment I step out the building door, work is done, finished.

Want to talk with me? Wait for the following day I am at work.

There is nothing the employer can do about it unless it specifically states it on the work contract, most European countries have laws about being contacted after work.

<comment><USER8> Out of curiosity - do you work in the US, and are you am hourly or exempted worker?

Here's my problem: I try to maintain a good work life balance. I devote time outside of work to passions, hobbies and relationships. But I am not dogmatic about hours. My company does not pay me to have my butt in a chair. They pay me to get the job done.

<comment><USER7> In Europe.

I am very dogmatic about hours, because when the next layoff round comes, HR won't care 1 second about how much overtime people were doing when considering who to fire.

<comment><USER8> That makes total sense. Here, they absolutely care about who worked (unpaid) overtime when deciding who to fire. The people I've seen who are out the door at 5:01 don't survive those transitions.

I'll admit to more than a little envy!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Newer Android OSes have the concept of a "Work profile" that you can enable for this. The company's MDM goes onto the work profile, along with the approved work apps. These may be sandboxed copies of existing apps, like in the case of the google suite, where they're tied to company data and accounts.

The work profile apps and data are the only things the MDM can "see" at that point on the device.

You can also switch the profile on and off at will, which is nice for vacations.

<comment><USER10> While that's true, how many of the devices in use in the wild by regular people have newer versions of Android available? With that in mind, I think the article makes sense.

<comment><USER8> Profiles were introduced in 4.2 on Android, if I recall, almost 4 years ago. Most Android devices in developed countries are above this version. My original Nexus 5 had them, and that's some 4 phones ago.

I'm sure you could find a shipping device that lacks them, but not from a major carrier in most of the world. Of Play-enabled devices, Google puts this at less than 5% worldwide

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I was asked by a previous employer to perform the rollout of MDM to our mobile fleet, and I fully agree with everything in the article. Restrictions were implemented at the whim of my boss.

As an example, he found out there was a feature in the MDM service to block access to YouTube. He made sure that was ticked. Why? He didn't want people wasting time on 'his' phones. And the helpdesk would explode every time a new restriction was rolled out, but he didn't seem to notice or care. In his mind they were his phones.

<comment><USER12> You didn't explicitly state it, so I am just confirming, your previous employer did not actually purchase or own the phones, but expressed feelings of ownership over them?

<comment><USER11> It was a mixture of the two. Some of the phones were purchased by the company, some were personal devices.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This article is far too hyperbolic. Instead of calmly laying out the privacy implications and realizing people can choose where to draw the line for themselves, it draws the line for everyone. It's _my decision_ whether I find it worthwhile to accept an MDM policy, not the author's. Yes, I know the line is drawn by humans and not technology—but I am comfortable with and trust those humans.

I accept that trying to achieve privacy from my employer through technical means is essentially a losing battle. It would mean taking multiple laptops on all (frequent) work trips, never checking anything personal at work, and not being able to effectively check my work from home.

Plus even if I had that full isolation they already can technically access much of my personal data since they host my email and browser.

The second I lose faith in the security and privacy values of my company, I would leave—but trying to technically limit myself seems functionally impossible.

<comment><USER14> The most important part is that MDM can install VPN settings and root SSL certs on your phone, allowing your employer to intercept all traffic to and from your phone (unless the apps use SSL certificate pinning or end-to-end encryption).

People probably don't expect their employer to be able to intercept eg. their Facebook messages or private email.

And it's trivial to protect against this: Just use your own device for personal stuff. You probably don't need to bring a second laptop on a work trip, just bring your own phone or tablet for stuff that you don't want someone at your company to track...

<comment><USER13> I agree that people should know the implications, but I know them and am essentially comfortable with the tradeoffs. After all, I already share much of my browser history via Chrome anyways.

> And it's trivial to protect against this: Just use your own device for > personal stuff.

I don't consider that trivial. Switching from work email back to personal email, or checking Facebook while coding is very common for me. More importantly, I don't particularly care if my employer has the ability to track my activity.

<comment><USER14> If you check Facebook while coding, your productivity might also profit if you started using a separate device for that :)

<comment><USER13> Thanks for the moralizing point, which is entirely what I objected to in the original article.

How I manage my personal productivity is my prerogative. Personally I find that I fluctuate between periods of intense focus (where hours of coding pass without me even noticing) and times where my brain is tired and I need a thoughtless distraction.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> We work primarily with small businesses in mental health, where a large percentage of devices are employee managed. The lack of attention to employee privacy with security needs in these solutions has been an ongoing point of frustration for us.

A carefully designed MDM solution could greatly simplify compliance and improve the security baseline for many of these businesses. As the market stands now, you either get easy to use with no safety rails on one end of the spectrum or all the power and flexibility and complexity in the world on the other.

I think there is definitely some opportunity in this area.

</comment><comment><USER16> I have a handy tip for [older] Android. On Android you can setup Users, the users are like completely different phones (from a software perspective), different apps, accounts, passcodes.

If an employer requires MDM to be installed, and verifies that it is installed, you can add a second user account and install MDM in there. The user is so separate that if MDM is used to remote wipe a phone, when MDM is installed in a secondary user, it doesn't actually wipe the phone, it just deletes the secondary user. Yes, I actually tested this remote wipe functionality with an employer's MDM.

On Android 7.0+ the "work profile" is probably a better option ([https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/6191949](https://support.google.com/work/android/answer/6191949)).

</comment><comment><USER17> I have the "Google Apps Device Policy" app on my Android phone so that I can use work email/Slack/etc, and it has these permissions: Erase all data, Change the screen lock, Set password rules, Monitor screen unlock attempts, Lock the screen, Set the device global proxy, Set screen lock password expiration, Set storage encryption, Disable cameras, Disable some screen lock features. I explicitly agreed to these permissions when I installed the policy on my phone.

The obvious intention here is to make sure there are reasonable measures in place in case my phone is lost or stolen. I think the main possibly- problematic permission here is "Set the device global proxy", which apparently could be use to intercept SMS messages (according to the article, I think). Other than that one, I'm pretty sure most of the scary capabilities listed in the article (the ones affecting privacy) don't apply here. Maybe other MDMs have those permissions?

My understanding of the Android security model is that permissions changes need to be explicitly approved by the user, so I think an app update or config change wouldn't be able to extend the permissions without my agreement. Also note that the app is written by Google, so my company isn't even running custom code on my phone. Even if the permissions do somehow change, I always have the option to remove the app, which un-applies the policy and disconnects my work Google account.

I suppose this sort of thing depends on the situation and how much you trust your employer, but I think that for many cases this article is a bit alarmist. Note that you run into similar problems if you ever log in with personal Google on your work computer. Since your employer owns the computer, I believe they have legal access your Google cookie and could use it to read your email and anything else associated with your Google account. But I do it anyway because it's convenient and I trust my coworkers, and I am quite certain that nobody is reading my personal email. But I also work at a small company where I know everybody. YMMV.

</comment><comment><USER18> This is bullshit. I own my device, and this kind of management shouldn't be possible on devices that I own.

Can I run some sort of VM or a sandbox to make the server think they're MDMing my whole phone? I should be able to feed them enough garbage to keep the other end happy, right? If IT wants to be able to remote wipe my phone, they can remote wipe my VM instead. Anything less would be absurd.

<comment><USER19> Just get a cheap burner feature phone for work. They'll get the message. You might be able to use the same number on two phones on some carriers.

<comment><USER20> Google Voice can ring multiple phones from a single number.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Simply connecting an Exchange mail account allows an administrator (or yourself through the Exchange web app) to remotely wipe the device.

[https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/aa998614(v=exchg...](https://technet.microsoft.com/en- us/library/aa998614\(v=exchg.160\).aspx)

<comment><USER22> This varies by application, at least on Android. The built in client from the manufacturer or AOSP is far from the only option.

Years ago this was one of the key features of the Nitrodesk software - <USER2> data was all kept within that app and could be wiped by the Exchange admin. The Exchange client I'm using now (Nine) has an option in settings for the security model and can either be device or application, with capabilities as you'd expect.

<comment><USER21> Yeah, I only know about iOS, where if you use the Outlook app, it will only wipe that app, but if you connect using the native Mail app, it will wipe your whole device.

This guy has some more information.

[https://practical365.com/exchange-server/exchange-best- pract...](https://practical365.com/exchange-server/exchange-best-practices- automatically-remote-wiping-mobile-devices/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> You should also be aware that installing an ActiveSync profile (to access company mail and/or calendar) has a similar effect; ActiveSync has features to wipe your phone and set up restrictions.

<comment><USER24> That's something I encountered with my universities ActiveSync setup. I stopped it on Android with Mailwise.

[http://mail-wise.com/faq/#bypass](http://mail-wise.com/faq/#bypass)

But it is probably not wise to do that in a company setup, as it clearly undermines their control & security efforts.

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> The article seems to engage in a bifurcation fallacy in suggesting that if you have company data on a personal device, then you must or ought to have MDM.

Trusting me to be able to access my work e-mail from my own equipment without the need to monitor me is perhaps the lowest baseline of trust that I expect an employer to put in me. Afterall, if they can't trust me to be responsible with such data why bother giving me access to their systems at all?*

* The exception of course is in cases where they are required to monitor data use by law, e.g. medical. But prefer working in open environments anyways...

<comment><USER26> "Sorry boss, I didn't know it was risky to download company data to my Android 4 device and also install Candie Croosh Castle that needs access to Photos, Files and Media"

It's as much about ignorance as it is about malice.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I tried to get outlook for my work on personal device, wanting to use the app for push notifications.

They wanted MDM, I tried to deploy in my "secure folder"(formerly Samsung Knox), but would block my phone as incompatible platform.

They could enable this, but my company doesn't want to and no reason given

<comment><USER28> I just use the Outlook web portal. No MDM needed.

<comment><USER27> Yea that's what I am doing now, but don't have the push notifications to make it useful.

I am not required to access my work emails outside of my core hours, but it comes in handy if I could get notified of a new email directly to me (I get 100+ emails a day with maybe 10 requiring me to do something).

I like to be prepared knowing what I need Todo before I come into my office the next morning.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> No-one mentions performance impact of this. Maybe there is none or it's so small it goes unnoticed? I'm just wondering about that because in quite some companies I've seen the same issues; mostly on Windows, but I wouldn't be surprised the same happens on other OS: you let your device get managed by the company allowing it to push whatever onto it. Couple of months later performance comes to a grinding halt because of way too much unneeded stuff running, over-hungry virus scanners, bugs in managment scripts etc. It's horrifying to see a brand new workstation loosing all it's snappiness while an unmanaged +5year old one still runs smooth.

</comment><comment><USER30> I remember that this was a big deal when they introduced something similar at my previous company. It added something not mentioned in this article-If I recall correctly, it enabled IT to wipe your device at will. I declined.

<comment><USER31> I hate that as an admin, I have that power instead of just restricting my ability to remove company email/calendar/contacts only. I have a handful of senior execs who do not want a company phone (or rather give up their personal phone), still want to access company email, but do not want to install MDM because it allows me to completely wipe their device or perform other system- level stuff.

All I want as the admin is to (1) authorize if a device can be used to connect to company resources (2) require minimum level of security (pin/pass unlock) to be available to access company data and (3) de-authorize the device, which immediately deletes ONLY company data.

I don't want anything else. I don't want to sync photos, share clipboard, change security settings, send blaring lost-phone alerts. Those are not my problems. Just let me have an isolated VM-like area where I can allow/disallow the user's access to company data.

<comment><USER32> > I don't want anything else. I don't want to sync photos, share clipboard, > change security settings, send blaring lost-phone alerts. Those are not my > problems. Just let me have an isolated VM-like area where I can > allow/disallow the user's access to company data.

Good for Enterprise (now owned by Blackberry) does this. I do not know if it is really a secure enclave, but their app is its own universe and was the only part of my phone that was controlled by my employer at my last job. The drawback is that its their own universe - you are using their mail program, calendar, browser rather than your personal favorites. But it sure beats the MDM policy.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Sad that Samsung EOLed their Knox ecosystem. There seems to be a market for it.

</comment><comment><USER34> I ripped the MDM off my iPhone. Wasn't worried about the, tracking my porn habits, just got sick of being forced to update my passcode every few months.

Fortunately (?) I can access schedule and email with iPhone app.

</comment><comment><USER35> Burner androids are cheap.

</comment><comment><USER36> I use Samsung's knox VM thing. The corporate policy is applied only on the virtual phone that checks office email and calendar.

</comment><comment><USER37> The author is unclear of an issue I'm not 100% sure on -- once MDM is installed is it really "no longer your phone?"

Can't you just factory reset your phone, login to your accounts and download your data again?</comment>


Lenovo Crammed a Hexa-Core CPU and 128GB of Memory into a Laptop - <AUTHOR> https://www.tomshardware.com/news/lenovo-thinkpad-p52-mobile-workstation,37292.html <comment><USER2> A laptop with 128 GB of _ECC_ memory.

I _really_ want one.

But unfortunately it's a Lenovo... I still remember the malware they shipped in the system BIOS. Any good reason to trust them now?

<comment><AUTHOR> How long ago was the BIOS malware issue? My P50 will be two years old in August... I'm asking for myself.

<comment><USER3> Less then 2 years ago: [https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenov...](https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20150812/11395231925/lenovo- busted-stealthily-installing-crapware-via-bios-fresh-windows-installs.shtml)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I believe the category is mobile workstation rather than a laptop. I have a P50 and like it a lot, but it's not a machine you casually whip out in an airplane.

<comment><USER5> I've uses a zbook on an airplane. Definitely convenient to carry around that much power. Although I don't think mobile workstations quite get their max performance because of throttling.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> On the one hand I'm looking forward to more RAM in lower-end CPUs (Ryzen Mobile hello?) that are not Xeon (Intel seems to limit almost everythign to 32GB) for Virtual Machine labs on the go.

Having said that, RAM prices are making that hurt :( The extra cost for a Xeon class machine would probably be a blip on the radar of 64-128GB of RAM at this point.

</comment><comment><USER7> Mobile workstations suck to lug around. I made the mistake of buying a Dell M6500 precision. That thing was way to heavy, and it made me look like a toddler with it sitting on my lap. It had a lot of power, but it was extremely fragile.

<comment><USER8> I have one as well, it sits on the desk. Tho I take it if traveling so I can have something powerful nearby and then lug around the chromebook with me. I have a W520 which is the same. I think I carried it less than 5 times before it took it's permanent position at my desk.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Interesting to see it has a 170W power supply - that's a lot of energy!

<comment><AUTHOR> My P50 has a 230W power supply so that's quite a reduction in power consumption!

<comment><USER9> wow, that is incredibly inefficient!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Call me when the RAM on laptops and ultrabooks default to a baseline of 16GB and upgrade up to 64GB.

We've been stuck with 4-8-16GB for wayyyy too long.</comment>


Border-adjusted cash flow tax (to replace corporation tax) explained - <AUTHOR> http://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/2/28/14764098/dbcft-border-adjustment-explained <comment><USER3> Although not entirely obvious at first glance, this is a tax on consumption. Here's a simple explanation, taken from the clunkily titled _Australia 's Future Tax System Review_: [http://i.imgur.com/ocRMR0n.png](http://i.imgur.com/ocRMR0n.png). Consumption taxes that don't create high administrative burdens for businesses (CFTs are arguably less burdensome than VATs), are a very efficient way to raise tax revenue. However, I do take issue with this part of the article, where they're talking in the context of wages being deductible under a CFT (so that only labour value-add is taxed):

 _" Taxing wages is the thing that makes VATs regressive, hitting poor consumers the hardest."_

This is not entirely correct. Although taxes on gross labour might shift production towards higher capital intensity, I don't think VAT's actually tax the gross labour component of production (though I'm not 100% certain here). Value-added taxes, and consumption taxes in general (including CFTs), are regressive because they are levied at a flat rate and people on lower incomes usually cannot defer consumption: many have no choice but to immediately spend ~100% of their income as soon as they receive it. The inability to defer consumption also reduces scope to consume in an 'inter-temporally efficient' manner (e.g. volume discounts), further compounding the regressive effect. And although I have no real data to back this up (not that I've looked), I'd imagine the poor spend a larger proportion of their lifetime income domestically compared to the rich.

I'll stop here. I'm not trying to say CFTs or consumption taxes are bad (in fact, I think they're good if done properly). But people should be aware that any consumption tax introduction must also be accompanied by upwards adjustments of low-income transfer payments and reduced low-income earner tax burden elsewhere in the system (and this should be part of the public discussion). Otherwise it will shift a larger amount of the overall tax burden on to the poor.

EDIT: Giving it a bit more thought, this might be a good 'thin end of the wedge' to build towards 'basic-income/negative income tax'. And handing out some unconditional lump sum to every citizen also helps with some of the equity concerns.

</comment><comment><USER4> Perhaps a better analysis, from a more politically-neutral source:

[https://taxfoundation.org/understanding-house-gop-border- adj...](https://taxfoundation.org/understanding-house-gop-border-adjustment/)

Also this: "Talking Tax Reform: A Discussion of Border Adjustability & Cash- Flow Taxes"

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1rlheCigk](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FO1rlheCigk)

<comment><USER5> While Vox tends to lean pretty strongly anti-Trump I think this article is actually pretty good/neutral.

<comment><USER6> Especially in comparison to the ALEC/Heartland institute sponsored TaxFoundation..

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> I work at the Tax Foundation--a non-profit, non-partisan policy research group --and we've been working a lot lately to try and explain exactly what a destination-based cash flow tax is. There has been a lot of misunderstanding around it generally. It's not an idea that's been talked about in US tax policy much before. Our federal program director Kyle Pomerleau summed it up like this[1]:

> destination-based cash-flow tax = current law - corp. tax + VAT - <USER2> > tax.

[1] [https://twitter.com/kpomerleau/status/807355060170739712](https://twitter.com/kpomerleau/status/807355060170739712)

<comment><USER3> Is that under the assumption that payroll tax, in the long-run, is a tax on real labour income? Btw, I wish you guys the best of luck. It's surprisingly complex and difficult to explain. Just in case it's of some use, check out page 285 for a discussion on CFTs (followed by a discussion on payroll tax): [https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_re...](https://taxreview.treasury.gov.au/content/downloads/final_report_part_2/AFTS_Final_Report_Part_2_Vol_1_Consolidated.pdf)

EDIT: This gets even more complex/interesting if you are of the view that labour-value add will be an increasingly smaller share of total production value-add in future (i.e. due to automation)...

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> I would like to see a tax system that makes it more attractive to hire people and pay them well. I am not that versed in economics but are there any such proposals out there? The current trend with more and more income going to the upper ranks should be stopped.

<comment><USER9> What a lot of people miss about "upper ranks" compensation is that it's performance based and conditional (lets ignore for the moment CEOs that underperform and still get huge bonuses).

Most people will not accept a performance based salary, in most jurisdictions it's also nearly impossible to do pay cuts properly.

Say that you reduce the compensation of a all C level execs of a company from 10M to 2. The first thing you notice is that CEOs that say earn 10M tend to work for very large companies, so a 1000 employee company that gets 8M free cash now has 8000$ per employee for raises. Say that it had 10 C level execs earning 10M per year so now you have 80,000$ per employee for a raise, now that's money.

You give all your employee a raise from 100K to 180K and they are all super happy, but then the quarterly results are not good for a few quarters cutting 80% the salary of C level execs at that point is easy, reducing the salary of every employee by 44% isn't, in many places it might not even be legal.

But even this is usually a very unrealistic situation let's take Microsoft it employs over 60,000 people if you take every employee in MSFT with over 1M$ per year in compensation and you cut it by which every amount you want you won't get an amount that when divided by all employees would result in any significant increase in pay to the levels you expect. Sure if you liquidate Satya's compensation that is 1500$ increase to everyone, but after Satya the next high salary is probably the COO (and Kevin Turner which was the former COO has a total compensation of about 12M per year) but then again the majority of the compensation tends to be in equity which isn't hard cash, and the jump (or drop) between C level execs is quite big and if you count everyone that makes over 1M in MSFT you will probably will only reach 300M in total and about 100M in cash.

<comment><USER8> Fact is that the income of the top 1 (or use another number) percent has increased steadily over the last 40 years. As far as I know their share of national income has doubled while the bottom 50% have seen no increase. I doubt that the performance of top management these days is much better than 40 years ago to justify that increase while the rest of the workers has been slacking off and therefore doesn't deserve a raise.

In my view it would be good to create a tax system that incentivizes paying average workers more. A strong middle class is the best recipe for a healthy society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> To summarize, is it right to understand it this way:

I am a widget maker. I sell $100 of widgets to my friends domestically. I sell $100 widgets to foreigners over the internet. I use $50 of local materials and services, e.g. wood and labor (in the form of wages I pay my staff). I use $50 of foreign materials in the form of some rare earth metal stolen from a Central African country. And the tax rate is 20%.

Thus, in the current system I would have $200 in total revenue. $100 in the expenses (both domestic and foreign imports) I deduct. Leaving me with $100 profit on which I pay $20 to the government as tax.

In the proposed system I have $200 in revenue. I pay no tax on the $100 I exported. I pay 20% on the $50 domestic profit (so $10). And 20% on the $50 of imports (so $10). Total to government is $20.

(Side thought: Apple could bring all its cash back immediately in this scheme tax free by buying a $50 billion widget from Apple HQ.)

EDIT: Actually the comparison to VAT (GST as we called it in NZ/Aus) makes it confusing, the way that works in those countries (where I'm familiar with it) it would seem to imply the proposal is more like: I have $100 in foreign revenue on which no VAT is collected. I have $100 in domestic revenue on which I charge 20% VAT (i.e. the people buying domestically are paying me $120, I'm collecting that $20 for the government). That $50 of imports has 20% VAT added to it, so it cost me $60. That $50 of domestic expenses had 20% VAT added to it by those suppliers, i.e. also costing me $60. I've collected $20 in VAT from people buying my goods and services domestically, and I've paid $20 in VAT to my suppliers, so come the end of the year I pay nothing to the government. The governments revenue of $20 from this whole chain comes from the end users of products to the primary producers of the original goods and services (in this case my suppliers would be paying $20 to the government on behalf of my customers). How does this differ from a VAT?

</comment><comment><USER11> Vox should bother to learn the difference between evasion and avoidance if they're going to write on taxes.

<comment><USER12> A lot of us believe it is a distinction without a difference, so your view is not universally shared.

<comment><USER13> Do you take any deductions in your annual taxes?

<comment><USER14> The difference is between deducting what just happens to be deductible and deliberately acting in a way to maximize deduction and minimize your taxes.

<comment><USER15> The government would be very disappointed to learn people weren't making decisions based on a tax system that's filled with incentives to change the way people conduct their lives and businesses.

<comment><USER14> That are different kinds of taxes. There are taxes especially designed to steer behavior away from discouraged actions or towards encouraged actions and there are taxes that are mainly for funding. That is certainly no absolutely sharp distinction and all taxes can at least at times be used to steer behavior, but income taxes certainly do not exist to discourage having an income.

<comment><USER15> That's why, instead of trying to figure out what Congress intended, people should just worry about the law as written. Congress can always make changes.

<comment><USER14> That would work in an ideal world, but in the real world laws will have flaws. That is essentially exactly the same as with vulnerabilities. You find a vulnerability and responsibly disclose it, you are the good guy and maybe get a coffee mug or some money as reward. You exploit the vulnerability until someone else notices it, you are the bad guy and hopefully get punished.

As any other software developer I would certainly love if all the rules in the world were unambiguous and free of flaws, but that is nothing we can have, at least not at the moment. So we all have to deal with it and we all have to accept that the spirit is at times more important than the words.

And just to come back, nobody can seriously claim that they believed it was in the spirit of the law to pay no taxes at all. That is just not how or system works and everybody knows that, don't be surprised if you get punished for trying it anyway.

<comment><USER15> >That would work in an ideal world, but in the real world laws will have flaws.

Well, sure, and it's incumbent on Congress to fix them, not the bureaucracy or the courts. Of course there is some gray area where you can try to gain extra deductions through miscategorizating expenses and such, but that really a question of the letter of the law and not its spirit.

>And just to come back, nobody can seriously claim that they believed it was in the spirit of the law to pay no taxes at all.

That is entirely irrelevant and not even true for almost half the households in the US.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm curious what this tax would change for :

\- iPhones made in China and sold in Europe (i.e. would Apple have an incentive to involve Apple USA or not)

\- iPhones made in China and sold in the U.S.

\- U.S. based company (LLC/C-Corp) offering SaaS subscriptions in the U.S. and abroad

<comment><USER17> If I understand it correctly:

> iPhones made in China and sold in Europe (i.e. would Apple have an incentive > to involve Apple USA or not)

Nothing

> iPhones made in China and sold in the U.S.

Fully taxed

> U.S. based company (LLC/C-Corp) offering SaaS subscriptions in the U.S. and > abroad

Fully taxed on subscriptions sold to customers in the US, nothing on those sold to customers abroad.

<comment><USER16> thanks,

regarding the last one : today, if I own a US company and I charge a subscription to a German customer, I have to pay Germany's VAT and U.S. corporate tax, is this correct?

'Tomorrow' , I would only have the VAT to Germany to pay?

If my U.S. business pays a monthly subscription for a European-equivalent of Photoshop for instance, today I can deduct it from my taxes as it's a business expense, but 'tomorrow' I won't be able to? or: are services not considered "import" ?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> Uf I'm reading the article correctly, the net effect of this tax will be somewhere between zero and very small. What would be the point, then? If I am wrong about this, I would like to know.

</comment><comment><USER19> Step 1: Congress imposes a border-adjusted cash flow tax.

Step 2: Businesses switch to [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise#How_it_works](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TransferWise#How_it_works).

Step 3: A lot less money crosses the border, so Congress doesn't collect any tax.

</comment><comment><USER20> >The tax reform plan being considered by Congress also involves huge rate cuts, which would swamp any progressivity benefit of the new tax design and mainly benefit the rich.

So it's a pretty design, but if it drops the revenue the government makes it's still a big handout to the wealthy.

<comment><USER4> At the very least, the idea that any decrease in rates implies a decrease in government tax revenues in short term is debatable, and in the long run is exceeded by increased growth rates [0].

I think it's pretty logical that with lower corporate tax rates, we would see an increase in business activity in the economy therefore not necessarily less revenue, any more than a business decreasing prices always equals lower revenues. I think it depends.

[0] [https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-tax-cuts-increase- federa...](https://taxfoundation.org/corporate-tax-cuts-increase-federal- revenue-long-run/)

edit: You were probably specifically referring to individual tax rates. Though I would put forth a similar argument as above.

<comment><USER21> _I think it 's pretty logical that with lower corporate tax rates, we would see an increase in business activity in the economy_

Ask the state of Kansas and its "March to Zero" tax plan how that turned out.

Hint: it's been plenty of time for these policies to have their effect, and business is not booming and the budget deficit is blowing up like a balloon.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> What are the good arguments agains revenue tax? Say 1,5%

<comment><USER23> It makes small businesses even less competitive against large companies. Consider a few businesses. One owns an oil well. One owns a refinery. One owns a gas station.

The oil well sells 100L of crude oil to the refinery for $100 and pays $1.5 in tax. The refinery sells 100L of gasoline to the gas station for $200 and pays $3 in tax. The gas station sells 100L of gasoline to the consumer for $300 and pays $4.5 in tax. Total: $9 in tax.

BigCo owns an oil well, oil refinery and gas station. The only time money changes hands is when they sell 100L of gasoline to the consumer for $300 and pay $4.5 in tax.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: please help me understand latest trends in database design  - <AUTHOR>

I'm naturally a front-end guy but database design and back-end dev has piqued my interest the last few days and I'm lingering very confused. I'd like to fully grasp these concepts so my head doesn't hurt anymore.
I'm used to dealing with an ORM like active record. When I imagine my user objects through rails I picture an object of a person being related to a row in the people table. Ok basic.
So, I read that non-relational databases like mongodb aren't just cool because they're "fast with big data" but they're also cool because they apparently make developing more natural with an oop language (why?). Then I also read that most design patterns probably aren't truly relational. Ok, this is where I get lost.
1) What are some fundamental examples of relational design and non-relational design? 2) similar to above, what are examples of structured data vs unstructured (is this just rephrasing above?)
So, given those things I feel (in my immediate ignorance) that almost every type of project I've attempted to model against has been relational. But maybe I'm just using semantics over technicality. For example, posts and comments. Relational to each other. Add users in there. it seems most apps these days have data that is always useful to reach through other data/objects. That's relational isn't it?
How about something describing something less typical.
Let's say I was building a workout tracker app. I have users, exercises, workouts, routines and log_entries.
I create a routine to group workouts. A workout is a group of exercises. I record my reps and weight through log entries for my exercises. Is this relational data or non relational? Would mongo be great for modeling this or awful?
I hear things like statistics come into play. How does that affect the above example? What statistics are people usually speaking of?
Let's say I added tracking other things, like a users weight, height, body fat and so on. How does that affect things?
Thank you for taking the time to help me understand.
Edit: can anyone explain why it may be easier to develop for one over the other. Is using something like mongo more agile both because it "clicks" more once you "ge it" and also because you don't need to run migrations?
Another thing, when using an abstraction like an ORM - does it really matter? If so when? To me the initial value would be the ease of querying data and modeling my objects. Whatever lets me do that easier is what I'd be happy with. I truthfully do find myself scratching my head a lot when trying to model data. <comment><USER2> What web framework are you using?

It's possible to model inheritance/abstraction within database design but it's not always optimal. You can 'extend' an existing table by specifying the child identifier as a primary and foreign key referencing the parent table (this is called 1 to 1 mapping).

Most of the time when you see 1 to 1 mapping you won't see it, because in relational databases you add those columns to the same table. There are some scenarios where it makes sense to split the table into two tables, such as a User and an Account table (AccountId = UserId), so you can better model the relationships.

Most people would advise against it and tell you to denormalize those tables (put everything on the user table), but if you use an orm that does class-per- table mapping it really reduces friction (ex. anything referencing an Account is accessable from an account, everything referencing a User specifically won't be directly accessable via the Account).

There's also a difference between key-value stores and object-oriented- databases (both being NOSQL). The reason why using NOSQL is 'closer' to your actual objects is because you would be storing actual objects (they get serialized into a graphs and stored).

I'd also suggest you check out Brewer's CAP Theorem: [http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap- theor...](http://www.julianbrowne.com/article/viewer/brewers-cap-theorem)

</comment><comment><USER3> When you write your app, you are choosing a programming language to express your ideas. This is a MODEL of what you want to do - for example if you code using Object Oriented Design, you may have a Workout object and an Exercise object. So your design uses "HasA" inheritance - a Routine HasA Workout. But when you want to store the data these objects contain in a database, the model is now Relational. You have one record for the Routine and multiple for the Workouts.

Because the MODEL is different, you get impedance when you move data between the layers. An ORM is an Object-Relational Mapper that helps reduce this friction, but it can still have problems especially when you have many-to-many or circular relationships.

NoSQL datastores allow you to save your data very closely to how you model it in your application and you do not need an ORM. However, you do not get it for Free you have simply decided to move the logic of maintaining a consistent state into your application. Also, as your application evolves, it will become more difficult to manage your changes in your schemas because you have only deferred the cost change without following a good software development process, your system may spaghetti code very quickly.

If you want to learn more contact me at Ric AT NoSQL dot com</comment>


How Google Can Really Innovate / The Biggest Feature Missing in G+ - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/104656859697947622609/posts/2LHxjAnQw7u

<comment><USER2> Google+'s entire thesis here is based upon introducing another level of abstraction, Circles, into social networking. It's risky. Users generally don't want to learn new abstractions unless they provide a massive benefit or can be mapped onto something they already understand.

Will this complexity be something users embrace? Facebook clearly thinks the answer is "No." (And probably has evidence to prove it.) The adoption of G+ so far is by techie types who love new abstractions and want absolute control, and is no indication of how the world at large is going to react to it.

Crossing the chasm for this product is going to be particularly tough. The population of early adopters (techy types) happens to overlap precisely with the population that will not be turned off by the complexity introduced by Circles. This is a deadly combination, and will likely put up a wall through which the adoption of Google+ will not pass.

This post suggests yet another abstraction, tags, on top of everything else. It's a common reaction: engineer sees a flaw in the degree of control in a design, and introduces a new level of indirection to add the necessary control. Of course, this translates into less adoption, since this makes the product more complex and less approachable.

The Linux GUI is an example of this trap being fallen into over and over again for decades. (It's come a long way, of course, and a large reason for that has been the ability for people to learn how to say "No.")

<comment><USER3> _Users generally don't want to learn new abstractions unless they provide a massive benefit or can be mapped onto something they already understand._

With Circles, Google is touching right at heart of human social interaction: You show different sides of your personality to different groups of people. With your parents, you talk incessantly about the grandkids. With your buddies, you talk about old times and shared hobbies. With your colleagues, you talk about your industry. You occasionally mix things up a tiny bit, but you don't go overboard.

I'm convinced that 99% of the human race _gets_ this. (The other 1% are intolerable bores.)

Now, I'm not convinced Google has nailed the UI for Circles. For example, if you want to know who can read your comments on somebody else's post, you need to click on little blue "Limited" link, and try to make out the profile photos. In real life, you would just look around the room.

So there's more work to be done. But I suspect that "social circles" _are_ something that users already understand, and which they'll value.

<comment><USER2> Right, this is a fair point, and what I think G+ is banking on. The abstraction and additional complexity is clearly there. On the one hand, the _modelling_ part of the complexity is a wash, since as you state humans generally already understand separating their social circles. It's the _application_ of the model that people will find confusing, and will require a learning curve. It might turn out that just getting through the modelling phase successfully will be enough for enough people to sign up, and the complexity of learning how to apply the model effectively can be optional and left to the user to discover.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> Actually, this seems like a pretty good idea.

I presume that if G+ really is a collection of smaller projects, then this functionality would sit neatly inside the stream area.

It's also one of those ideas that once you hear, seems obvious - so wouldn't be too surprised if they're already working on this. It'd only really be useful if/when there is a large amount of newsfeed traffic on there, similar to how busy facebook is for most of us now.

<comment><AUTHOR> I hope they're working on it, but like I said, I'm mostly worried about the politics of it.

Also, they might reject that idea just on the basis that their interface won't be as simple with this...

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I think the tags idea might be a bit too complex, interface-wise.

I'd prefer an option next to every post in my stream called "fewer posts like this (from this person)". Given enough feedback from me, G+ would automatically start filtering out items for me. Since Gmail accomplishes a similar feat already, this doesn't seem impossible.

However, more practically, I think they could probably just solve my problem by allowing me to mute an entire contact or an entire person. Currently you can "block" individuals, but that's not really what I want - I don't want to block them from seeing me, I just don't want to see their stuff in my main stream.

<comment><USER6> that would be great, especially with multiple levels of visibility: shown in full length like now, just a one-line note for maybe-relevant and outright hidden for the really boring/annoying stuff.

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This seems useful. Hopefully they don't take too long coming out with the Google Plus API, I predict there will be a lot of thirdparty addons/interfaces like we saw with Twitter. I'd like to be able to use circles as venn diagrams and perform more sophisticated unions/intersections/differences/joins on my circles as well as generate them on the fly for one-use purposes.

</comment><comment><USER8> Not exactly an innovation, but I would be happy if they let me merge my Buzz contacts. Just create a "Buzz" circle, move everybody there and kill Buzz.

</comment><comment><USER9> Great idea, distinction not on peoples but on the content for your feed. Automagicaly.

I think twitter hashtags are the most close to this, but they lack the automation you suggest.

I hope developers would be able to make bots for g+, like for Wawe.

<comment><USER10> It is interesting how twitter has de-emphasized the obvious benefit to people creating custom streams through #tags

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting idea but to me it's definitely not the biggest missing feature.

What Google+ needs is reddit or HN-style commenting, maybe not with downvotes (for whatever reason they don't already have them, even though they're on YouTube comments) but at least parent-child style commenting. It's been shown all over the web that it's impossible to follow threads of comments when they're all treated the same, Facebook-style, and Google employees should definitely know better as many of them use these sites. I suggested it in the "Send Feedback" area and really hope it gets implemented as it would be a game-changer.

</comment><comment><USER12> Here's my solution to this problem, which I tried implementing when I designed my own (now-defunct) social networking site:

[http://coding.pressbin.com/51/An-algorithm-for-self- enforcin...](http://coding.pressbin.com/51/An-algorithm-for-self-enforcing- post-importance-levels)

</comment><comment><USER13> Personally, I would like to see something that filters out languages I don't understand. Too often on Facebook my feed is filled up with posts in varying languages that I simply don't know and I would prefer them not being there.

<comment><USER14> I've suggested a similar feature through their Feedback link, although the other way around: G+ should detect your contacts' default languages (via GMail, for example), and then automatically create circles for different languages (you could amend them manually where you have bilingual people). When you post, G+ should then detect the language (Translate can do that!) and suggest the right circle. To work properly though, you'd also need an "intersect" feature, so that you could share something with "people in English-speaking circle AND people in Friends circle".

Edit: in any case, considering their experience with Orkut (which was overrun by Brazilians and Indians using their own idioms), I bet Google is already working on language filters of some sort.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In reality - what we are saying is that structuring data is useful to saying who we are and interacting with the right audiences. It amazes me how unstructured the web continues to be. It's flexible, but is is valuable.

It is a fundamental paradigm shift - saying that the web should be structured around people. I like it. (and working on it ;))

</comment><comment><USER15> Rather than tags I'd just like to see custom streams. Just like you select circles and individuals to share with apply the same logic to building custom streams. Then there is not yet another things to learn, interface remains simple and you could filter your stream any way you want.

</comment><comment><USER16> Automated content tagging of any kind contradicts to core idea of social communication. It's actually step back to AltaVista times.

What G+ needs is one simple checkbox - exclude circle/person from common Stream. That's it.

PS. And #hashtags -- miss them badly in G+.

</comment><comment><USER17> It also badly needs prettier URLs.

</comment><comment><USER18> Great minds think alike. I was saying exactly the same thing: [http://www.rakkhis.com/2011/07/google-plus-because-i-hate- be...](http://www.rakkhis.com/2011/07/google-plus-because-i-hate-being-put- in.html)</comment>


Cruncher: An Implementation of Bret Victor's Scrubbing Calculator - <AUTHOR> https://www.cruncher.io/ <comment><USER2> In case you're unfamiliar with the term "scrubbing calculator" (like me), read this: [http://worrydream.com/ScrubbingCalculator/](http://worrydream.com/ScrubbingCalculator/)

<comment><USER3> It really is a good essay, but the videos in it have seem to be broken for awhile.

<comment><USER4> In chrome, I had to click on the words "click to play" to get the video running.

<comment><USER3> It didn't work for me (using chrome latest).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> Author's other projects are pretty interesting too: [https://rsnous.com/](https://rsnous.com/)

<comment><USER6> Very cool! Thanks for sharing!

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> When I click on the "assorted examples" link, it pops up a dialog to ask me if I want to leave the page.

After I tell it that yes, I really meant to click on the link that it had offered me, it displays the examples... and promptly replaces them with an empty page after a few seconds.

That annoying dialog also comes out when doing other things, like using the Back button.

</comment><comment><USER8> Interesting!

Quick feedback: some I believe issues in the current version, in the "assorted examples":

\- "4 apples + 5 oranges * 18 friends" ― wasn't that meant to be "(4 apples + 5 oranges) * 18 friends"?

\- "Hold ALT while scrubbing to plot" ― doesn't seem to work for me on Fx nor Chrome

\- after clicking on "assorted examples", they like to not show immediately, requiring me to go back till the URL has "?/examples/cdg" and then refresh.

\- also, Ctrl-Z doesn't seem to do anything, I'd really appreciate if Undo was available after I click something by accident.

\- 5,000 in some locales means 5 not 5000 (',' is used as decimal separator instead of '.') ― see e.g.: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Countries_us...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decimal_separator#Countries_using_Arabic_numerals_with_decimal_comma)

<comment><USER9> > "4 apples + 5 oranges * 18 friends" ― wasn't that meant to be "(4 apples + 5 > oranges) * 18 friends"?

In the 'real world', that would clearly be the correct interpretation, even if it flies in the face of the 'standard' rules of precedence. If the calculator really works that way, it only makes it _more_ impressive in my book.

<comment><USER10> Why is it that way in the real world? The example is still abstract, and without clear interpretation without context.

The text is supposed to be, in the first place, all the relevant context in an abstract form, i.e. problem minus all irrelevancies.

<comment><USER9> > Why is it that way in the real world?

It's an interesting discussion how the nature of concrete items involved in calculations might affect the precedence. I think that, since "apples" and "oranges" are clearly more closely related than "friends", it makes sense that they bind together more closely in this case. Also, the order in which the items are presented has some bearing on the interpretation.

<comment><USER10> Sounds like DWIM, NWIS...

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> On the one hand I love that people are thinking about how to make algebra more approachable and more usable in everyday life, but on the other hand I fear that it might mess with the learning curve. Once you want to do something that's beyond the capabilities of the scrubbing calculator, you start from zero because nobody's ever told you about algebraic equations and unknowns and you only know how to describe your problem in terms of "connections" and "locked numbers."

Compare this to an application like Calca ([http://calca.io/](http://calca.io/)). Calca is more difficult to start with for a mathophobe because, while it will solve your calculations and equations for you, you do have to explicitly define all variables and formulate an equation. But the result is that the learning curve when you graduate from the application is much smoother: you can easily port more complex problems to a programming language or pen-and-paper math. Your existing knowledge doesn't suddenly become void.

<comment><USER6> No offense, but clearly no good deed goes unpunished on Hacker News =)

Notwithstanding opinions on the merits or lack thereof of abstracting and visualizing concepts that may or may not help your syntactical understanding of algebra, I want to point out that this is A) a brilliant idea and B) a really cool implementation.

Kudos to the developer who spent the time to implement this, and to Brett for putting the idea forward. I hope this gets traction and is continued to be built upon.

<comment><USER11> It's great work. Constructive criticism can make it even better.

<comment><USER6> I know, and I don't mean to single you out, it just gets tiresome when the top-voted HN comment always seems to be critical. I felt this post in particular deserved better.

It was even more funny because while I was waiting for the comments to load I was thinking, "This is an awesome tool, but I bet the top comment is going to be some obscure reason not to like it."

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> So when I try to write + it writes = instead, not sure why.

</comment><comment><USER10> It's tempting to call this 'programming' or 'code', in order to link those concepts. This is true. _BUT_

Consider the context of this kind of thing is different to the context in which we _usually_ use code.

To explain:

It would be great if figures (e.g. in articles) came with code representing how they were calculated, such that they can be tweaked. In fact, I think actual programming source code should implement such a thing e.g. for constants. But this won't be part of the "real" code - the values will remain implemented as constants. Hence "code" like this should be still considered _manual_ , a working tool, as opposed to the nature of common code - which is non-manual in the end...

</comment><comment><USER13> There seems to be an issue where + is turned into = on my Swedish keyboard. So I can't type +.

edit: Can't seem to find any other character mapping issue. Perhaps this is due to some hardcoded mapping assuming an english keyboard?

<comment><USER14> I have the same problem with the + on my numpad.

<comment><USER15> Same as me on a British Mac keyboard number pad

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm solving "2^... = 256" and it gives NaN. It works when the right hand side is smaller than 200 but fails when the right side is larger than 242.

</comment><comment><USER17> Had some fun with this calculator toy. Scrubbing concept could work well in spreadsheet input values too. Maybe you could also scrub from a spreadsheet chart?

Text input doesn't seem to work for other than US keyboard layout. Does it read keycodes directly?

</comment><comment><USER18> I've been meaning to make an online version of Calca.io / Soulver, which I love so much! If this is it, that'll be awesome.

Currently, I can't really use it much because the examples won't load (they flash, and then disappear)

</comment><comment><USER19> Looks interesting, but doesn't seem to support my Swedish keyboard layout very well. Typing '+' inserts '=' instead. Pasting a '+' in works fine though.

</comment><comment> iso8859-1 Source here: [https://github.com/osnr/cruncher](https://github.com/osnr/cruncher)

</comment><comment><USER20> Getting an invalid cert for this via Chrome, anyone else having problems?

</comment><comment><USER21> Just to point out: entering 1000^6 gives 999,999,999,999,999,900.</comment>


Meditations on Moloch - <AUTHOR> http://slatestarcodex.com/2014/07/30/meditations-on-moloch/ <comment><AUTHOR> This was referenced in the recent discussion of ad-blockers. The title isn't terribly informative if you don't already know what the article is about, so I'll explain.

Moloch (the name of an ancient Near Eastern god, to whom children were allegedly sacrificed) is used in one of Alan Ginsberg's poems as a metaphor for, well, actually it's not entirely clear, but something responsible for all kinds of societal failures.

Scott Alexander (author of the article linked here) riffs off this, using Moloch as a metaphor for _coordination problems_ like the famous "tragedy of the commons", where the result of lots of individuals optimizing things is a grossly suboptimal overall outcome. Everyone works longer hours than is actually productive, because anyone who doesn't will be condemned as a slacker? Moloch. Every product in some category is substandard because customers can't readily measure quality and any business trying to do better would be outcompeted? Moloch. Ten companies making near-identical products spend a lot of money on advertising, the end result of which is the same as if there were no advertising? Moloch. Etc.

And it turns out there's rather a lot to be said about this and related ideas, and Scott Alexander duly says rather a lot about them. Also featuring: Las Vegas, Discordianism, artificial intelligence, Rudyard Kipling, H P Lovecraft, transhumanism.

(Pretty much everything else in his blog is well worth reading too.)

<comment><USER2> TPP? Moloch.

This was amazing to read.</comment></comment>


Algorithms Course Materials, by Jeff Erickson - <AUTHOR> http://www.cs.uiuc.edu/~jeffe/teaching/algorithms/

<comment><AUTHOR> This is a broad, well-written, well-organized, and nicely formatted set of lecture notes and problem sets on algorithms. The informal writing style helps those of us who are more applied than theoretical, but still appreciative of the latter. Oh, and it's free too.

</comment><comment><USER2> This was a great class when I took it during my undergrad.</comment>