Commission says Ireland granted undue tax benefits of up to €13B to Apple - <AUTHOR> http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0830/812819-apple-tax-ireland/ <comment><USER2> What Apple, Amazon, Google, Microsoft, and most other big US company do is the so called "double Irish"[1]. Essentially is a clever way of using two quirks of some EU countries loopholes in tax laws, from treating IP licensing fees (of course the brand and intellectual IP is owned by a British virgin island tax haven, where else could this stuff be created/invented), and the net result is that Apple et al end up paying single digit cents on the dollar in EU profits.

And with another quirk - this time in US tax laws - the do not even have to pay taxed in the US on those earnings, as they have not repatriated the funds.

How to pay dividends/fund buybacks, without repatriating those funds? Easy: Just issue debt (which your own subsidiary in the British Virgin islands making a killing on IP licensing might want to buy) or have your BVI IP trust fund buy those shares.

Now why would other EU countries let Ireland and the Netherlands get away with these accepted loopholes is a mystery to me, especially since Ireland had to ask for a bailout lifeline, and was in no position to negotiate firmly.

Why the US would allow their truffle pigs to not pay taxes on oversea earnings is clearly the result of expert lobbying.

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

<comment><USER3> > the result of expert lobbying.

You don't need expert lobbying. Look at this forum, full of tax-evasion apologists who conflate pragmatism with pedantry.

Pedantry is the one of the most intellectually and emotionally bankrupt moral frameworks. It basically states that if you just think about the rules a lot, then you will find the solution.

I mean, obviously all these politicians and normal people, they've just been getting it wrong all along! To quote other commenters, "Apple did nothing illegal!" The "Tax law is a system of rules!" Just look more carefully at those random tiny rules and then, we don't have to have a discussion anymore! People who don't read the rules carefully enough: "it makes my brain hurt!" Then blame the people who write the rules, or petition for the rules.

Pedantry is the disease, not lobbyists.

I don't know how to convince the pedants though that sometimes, it's ethical to reinterpret the rules.

To clarify, I think we should be asking whether or not what Apple does is ethical. And the answer to that question shouldn't depend on whether or not we're wondering the same about other corporations.

The answer is obviously no, tax evasion / avoidance isn't ethical.

<comment><USER4> What exactly are the point of rules if you can reinterpret them in your favor as you see fit? It would be perfectly reasonable to rewrite rules going forward, but to retroactively change what the law says invalidates the point of having laws to begin with.

<comment><USER5> There is no reinterpretation going on here. Apple never asked the EU. Apple went to Ireland "hey, guys, do you think it is okay to do this?" .. Ireland said yes, but Ireland has no authority here. The EU, which has authority, checked it and said "nope, your interpretation is wrong." \- Simple as that.

If I ask someone on the street if its okay to steal from the rich, he says "yes" and I steal from the rich, no one would bat an eye if the courts didn't agree with my "interpretation" of the law and put me behind bars. And no one would accept it as a legal defense if I said "but hey, that guy over there said it is okay to do this!" \- why should it be different for companies?

<comment><USER6> Ireland does have the authority, but:

1\. They have applied their own laws in a way that amounts to subsidies, and

2\. The corporate structure turned out to be fictional, and allocations of profits were therefore also fictional. ("Arm's length" and all that.)

They even open the door for national tax authorities to use their findings and evaluate for profit shifting.

This is an inspirational moment - too long have tax treaties favoured those willing to break the spirit of the law and weigh down the little man with the consequences!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> noir-york Apple engage(ds) in aggressive tax planning - and they, along with FBK, Google, etc - deserve to be smacked down with a heavy bill.

An effective tax rate of 0.005% - when your next door business neighbour is paying 20% - is morally wrong and damaging to society and the common good.

<comment><USER7> Morals are irrelevant in this story.

Tax law is a system of rules. There should be no second arbitrary standard people (and companies) should be expected to follow.

<comment><USER8> >Morals are irrelevant in this story.

ah, the capitalist angle. unfortunately, the consequences of acting this way are poor for the rest of society.

<comment><USER7> Change the laws to suit the morals most have.

<comment><USER9> I wish I could, unfortunately I have no power or money, while multinationals have armies of lobbyists and bags of money a la Scrooge McDuck to help write the laws to suit them.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you're American, don't celebrate.

The US government came out against this ruling, suggesting that US corporations are disproportionately targeted by the EC tax rulings.

>The commission has initiated investigations into tax rulings that Apple, Starbucks Corp., Amazon.com Inc. and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles NV. received in separate EU nations. U.S. Treasury Secretary Jacob J. Lew has written previously that the investigations appear "to be targeting U.S. companies disproportionately."

>"There is a possibility that any repayments ordered by the Commission will be considered foreign income taxes that are creditable against U.S. taxes owed by the companies in the United States," the paper said. "If so, the companies' U.S. tax liability would be reduced dollar for dollar by these recoveries when their offshore earnings are repatriated or treated as repatriated as part of possible U.S. tax reform."

[http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/u-s- treasu...](http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-08-24/u-s-treasury- steps-up-pressure-on-eu-over-apple-tax-dispute)

<comment><USER11> That's fine - sounds like an incentive for companies to bring money back to the US.

The reduction in tax liability happens when the earnings are repatriated per this quote. If these companies are storing this cash overseas in a bid to avoid paying taxes on it with no intention of repatriation until a tax holiday then why should we care?

<comment><USER12> I would very much care if I were Apple and going to be taxed a second time trying to bring my money back to the USA. If that silly rule was eliminated much of all of this would be moot.

<comment><USER13> They only get taxed on the difference. It's not really a second tax, it's just bringing the tax rate back up to non tax haven levels.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Every country in Europe has some sort of wacky tax exception for multinationals. Every state is locked in this race to the bottom with its neighbouring countries.

It's great that there is a supra-national authority forcing the states to cooperate on getting multinationals to pay reasonable taxes, because it wouldn't happen otherwise.

<comment><USER15> I'm not sure about that. I think most multinationals follow the same double- irish structure [0] which is based on laws in Ireland, the Netherland and the Bermudas.

According to Wikipedia (just listing the IT-companies):

* Adobe Systems

* Apple Inc.

* Facebook

* Google

* IBM

* Microsoft

* Oracle Corp.

* Yahoo!

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

<comment><USER16> Also bands like U2 make use of such structures to avoid taxes: [http://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21625444-...](http://www.economist.com/news/business-and- finance/21625444-irish-government-has-announced-plans-alter-one-its-more- controversial-tax-policies)

<comment><USER17> At least they are Irish...

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment> noir-york People here are commenting on Ireland (and other jurisdictions) engaging in tax arbitrage to attract companies and jobs.

Competing on tax rates and negotiating tax deals were a huge MNC like Apple pays a ridiculous 0.005% is bad: morally wrong, cuts to public services, increases unjustifiable economic inequality and is just not fair on other much smaller firms who have to pay full whack on the tax.

Apple, FBK, etc don't see it like that - they will engage in aggressive tax planning to minimise their tax, hoarding billions of dollars. And its not like they do anything productive with their cash pile; its not like it goes to higher pay checks for their Asian workers. Instead, its spent on share buybacks to prop up sagging share prices and keep Wall St happy.

Here's a better approach: tax companies on their profits and remove or reduce income tax and capital gains tax. This aligns incentives to:

1\. encourage and reward founders to start new business

2\. the most valuable employees tend to be mobile ones - a core EU principle is free movement so compete for the best employees by lowering taxes and giving them great public services. Companies will follow.

3\. tax company profits and everyone is on the same level playing field: provides an incentive for companies to reinvest their profits into growth (and indirectly jobs).

<comment><USER18> Companies are already taxed on their profits. The hard question is determining what is a profit and where it is located.

And share buybacks are returning capital to the owners of the business, which is why they invested in it in the first place. The owners can then make their own choices about how to allocate capital productively.

<comment> noir-york > Companies are already taxed on their profits

In theory.

We are having this debate because in practice some are taxed at 20% and others practically nil.

I'm arguing for no negotiated tax arrangements, indeed I have been giving thought to a progressive tax regime for companies. That would be interesting to evaluate.

> And share buybacks are returning capital to the owners of the business

Which is why I am not sure buy backs should be taxed. Either a company invests its earnings, or else it returns them to shareholders who can decide to identify growth opportunities, as you suggest.

<comment><USER19> Companies like Apple achieved a tax rate of almost zero by exploiting the definition of "profits" to argue that they didn't earn more than a trivial amount of profits in any of the countries they operated in. The definition is the problem here.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> 6% of total Irish national debt...

I wonder how much Irelands payroll taxes would have been were the corporations not to have set up shop in Ireland, they would have just gone somewhere with a decent tax arrangement.

Unemployment in the 70's and 80's was brutal in Ireland, personally, I think the government at the time made the right choice, however, this "selective treatment" allowed Apple to pay tax rate of 1% on European Union profits in 2003 down to 0.005% in 2014, FFS.

<comment><USER21> > I wonder how much Irelands payroll taxes would have been were the > corporations not to have set up shop in Ireland, they would have just gone > somewhere with a decent tax arrangement.

A better question is where the world would be if nation states wouldn't allow multinational companies to pay only negligible taxes by taking part in a race to the bottom.

With tax deals like this one you're just ripping other countries off.

<comment><USER22> _by taking part in a race to the bottom_

You mean countries competing for business? Why is that bad?

It would sound ridiculous if you applied it to companies "Car companies offering lower and lower prices is just a race to the bottom! If this keeps up we'll have no car companies as they'll all be bankrupt!".

<comment><USER21> Countries are not companies.

Also your comparison is pretty bad. The direct cost per unit is pretty high for a car in a car company, the one for a company in a country is negligible. So it's more like a publisher selling digital goods, except that there's no copyright, preventing the others from selling exactly the same for a lower price.

<comment><USER22> Countries provide a service (infrastructure, social programs, court system) based on a price (taxes). There is a floor for those costs. There is a minimal amount of tax required to provide those services.

I think it's a bad idea to tell a country that they can't charge a lower price (taxes) in order to sell more business (have companies move there).

<comment><USER21> > There is a minimal amount of tax required to provide those services.

And you can go lower than that amount if you attract an abnormal amount of companies through an abnormally low tax.

<comment><USER22> You could have a lower tax rate and make it up with volume, but you can't go below a certain tax revenue and still keep a level of infrastructure or social programs.

Overall I'm happy that gov'ts have to compete for companies. It's a great way to force them to be more efficient. If they never have to worry about their spending, why would they ever control it?

<comment><USER21> If this is about efficiency can you explain me then how Ireland is more than 1000 times more efficient than other countries (0.005% effective tax rate in Ireland for Apple, pretty much everywhere you pay more than 5% in corporate taxes)?

<comment><USER22> You're ignoring the tax implications of additional jobs in Ireland.

My only point is that countries competing for business is a good thing, not a bad thing.

<comment><USER21> My point is that competition only leads to lower taxes and worse governmental service by the countries on a global scale (though single countries can benefit on the cost of other countries).

Even without competition Governments have the drive to keep taxes as low as possible to boost the economy and keep local businessmen happy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> It seems a lot of people think this ruling has something to do with 1) the "double irish" which is doees not or 2) Irelands 12.5% corporate tax, which it doesnt either.

The ruling, as far as the EU are concerned, is that Ireland gave Apple a deal more beneficial than anyone else. But the basis for this claim is how the tax was charged. Instead of charging Irish tax for all income for the company, they charged what was reported in Ireland. The issue that needs to be resolved is did they pay tax anywhere else on the remaining profits. The US said they did but the EU say they dont think so.

</comment><comment><USER24> All of that will go back to Ireland's national debt repayments under EU rules from what I understand, which includes large repayments due to the EU for the recent loans provided to Ireland for propping up banks, so really EU is collecting this money by proxy of Ireland. Interesting play.

<comment><USER25> Debt, not depth ;)

<comment><USER24> Thanks, fixed ;-)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> I only wish that countries would compete for people the same way they compete for businesses. If they were to provide the best services, quality of life, in exchange for the lowest income taxes. That way people would move there and companies would follow. Wishful thinking?

<comment><USER27> They do. Why do you think New York City and London get to tax at the rates they do?

Taxes (at least personal taxes) are a user fee. Every time an employee snuffs at an offer in Missouri or Bangladesh, they are implicitly signalling a preference for quality-of-life elements.

<comment><USER28> You don't have an email in your profile, but I'd like to get in touch with you. Would you mind letting me know the best way to do so? My email is in my profile.

<comment><USER27> Shot you an email

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Apple responds with an open letter: [http://www.apple.com/ie/customer- letter/](http://www.apple.com/ie/customer-letter/)

</comment><comment><USER30> I don't think this was planned but it could become a great bait and switch scam for countries.

1\. Negotiate special tax privileges for a company

2\. Have them set up shop in your country

3\. Allow them to pay little tax for several years

4\. Have federal authority sue saying that the deal in #1 is illegal

5\. Collect back taxes based on normal tax rate and not the special deal in #1

<comment><USER31> They will not collect back 100% anyway, maybe maybe 1/3 of the total amount.

<comment><AUTHOR> Why they won't collect all the due taxes?

<comment><USER32> Imagine you had an agreement with your local tax authority that they agree for you to pay X in taxes. Then few years later tell you that actually, they were wrong and you have to pay more - you would fight this for as long as possible, wouldn't you?

<comment> k-mcgrady You can try, you'll probably lose. When the figure is so low it should be blatantly obvious it is wrong you won't get far arguing that you did what you were told and didn't realise something was wrong. When you pay 0.005% tax over a year when the corporate tax rate in the country is 12.5% who can you argue you thought you were paying what you were required? They will try of course and I think Ireland and Apple have both said they will appeal to the European Court but I don't think they'll get very far.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> We should cut corporate income taxes to 0%, and increase income taxes on investors and highly-paid employees to make the change revenue neutral. This will eliminate the incentive to waste resources on corporate tax avoidance and allow businesses to focus on creating customer value.

</comment><comment><USER34> Companies try to pay the taxes by the "legal minimum" principle: pay what is required, but not more. If you have 2 parking slots in the downtown next to each other and one of them is cheaper, you will park where is cheaper... Why pay more if not required?

Question is: Did politicians, who created such laws, received bribes?

<comment><USER35> The double irish is more like parking your car on the bicycle lane.

<comment><USER36> .. which means only the bicyclists will complain. everyone else thinks there's no problem :)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> From the press release:

> The amount of unpaid taxes to be recovered by the Irish authorities would > also be reduced if the US authorities were to require Apple to pay larger > amounts of money to their US parent company for this period to finance > research and development efforts.

I wonder how much of the 14B could be offset by this? I suppose there's a chance that it all might be.

</comment><comment><USER38> Most of you should probably read the EU press release which is full of juicy details before commenting.

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm)

</comment><comment><USER39> "...The findings are a result of the culmination of a three-year investigation by Competition Commissioner Margrethe Vestager into tax arrangements for Apple, dating back 25 years..."

I have no love in my heart for Apple.

At the same time, it's not like they don't have enough lawyers. So I have to assume that anything involving billions of dollars would be strenuously vetted. I might be wrong, but I'm starting from there.

And if they were supposed to pay taxes, they were supposed to pay them. Purposefully evading taxes is wrong. _Avoiding_ taxes is another matter. Complex tax codes to change society work because we assume that people will be actively avoiding them. So good for them. They're playing the carrot and stick game that governments like us all to play.

If true, this means that they did the right thing that the best-informed legal minds could offer in order to legally avoid taxes. It worked for a while then suddenly the rules changed. And they changed not just for the future, but retroactively.

What occurred to cause a rules change? It wasn't the law. It wasn't Apple's behavior. It became a story in the U.S. about how companies are getting away without paying their "fair share". The EC was the one that acted, and the only thing that makes sense to me is that the EC saw an opportunity and appointed a commission. Not arbitration, not a criminal or civil trial. A commission.

Quite frankly, this looks like a stick-up. Apple's a big company and can take care of itself. I really hope that the same kind of thing doesn't happen to mid-sized and smaller companies trying to eek it out in the EU. It's not just bad for the companies involved: it's bad for the reputation of the union as a whole. You can't keep changing the rules up if you're trying to tweak regulatory issues to promote long-term growth. Nobody with any sense is going to trust you.

<comment><USER40> I'm not convinced that even if Apple have the money and probably employ some of the best tax lawyers around. That they always go for the solution that is unambiguous above board and guaranteed to follow the law. This might be one of the times they went for something that looked good and they thought they could get away with, but that didn't pan out in the end.

<comment><USER41> Close. They did something that WAS good and perfectly legal. It was a perfectly valid agreement between consenting adults. Then other countries got jealous and intervened. These are the types of attitudes that are fueling the current separatist movement.

<comment><USER42> _that was against the laws that one of the parties had signed up to_ is missing from your statement.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER43> Can someone clarify where this money will eventually end up (assuming it's paid)?

The article says that it will be paid back to Ireland, yet it looks like Ireland was somewhat complicit in allowing this fraud to continue for so long? ' Is this just how it works, money goes to Ireland, and then recovered by Europe?

<comment><USER44> AIUI the money is owed to Ireland but Ireland originally refused it, EC is now saying "no, really, you have to take it". Might be followed up by Ireland getting into trouble if they unfairly benefited from the deal?

That said, I think Ireland owes the ECB money too, so they'll probably use that money to repay their debt?

EDIT: Corrected EU->ECB as pointed out below.

<comment><USER45> If you're referring to the public debt, that's towards the ECB (private bank) not the EU (public institution).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> So, if I understand correctly, EC's argument hinges on the idea that Ireland gave "special favors" to Apple in terms of the tax deal. In particular, that Ireland offered things which nearly all other companies were not. If that is not the case (IE, if it can be proved apple received no special treatment), then the conclusions of the case, and the penalty, are false.

</comment><comment><USER47> In 2014 Apple's effective tax rate was 0.005%. That is 5 cents for every $1000 in profits.

Even a patent troll could do better than Ireland...

<comment><USER48> Why this blatant falsification of facts? In 2014, Apple's earnings before interest and taxes was $53,483,000 and the income tax expense was $13,973,000. That's 26.12% effective tax rate. All data from Yahoo! Finance: [https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL](https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/AAPL/financials?p=AAPL). It's a similar tax rate in other years too.

<comment><USER49> This article is regarding Apple's EU profits, the Yahoo statement (I think?) is global profits.

Also the income statement says: All numbers in thousands

So you need to add 000 to the end of those numbers

<comment><USER13> It seems silly to price in thousands when you're talking about billions. Either go all the way and show billions, or show dollars. Don't try to do some halfassed compromise.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> US corporate profits as a percent of GDP are near their all-time highs. Take a look at this historical plot:

[https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=6ThF](https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/fredgraph.png?g=6ThF)

I wonder how much of that is due to tax avoidance, whether legal or "unexpectedly illegal" (as in Apple's case).

If governments around the world follow the lead of the EC, I would expect a noticeable decline in corporate profitability over the next five to 10 years.

Note: I just generated the plot above as a png at the St. Louis Fed's FRED website, and I don't know how long the image will remain available. To recreate it, plot the "Corporate Profits, Adjusted" series divided by the "Gross Domestic Product" series, using the same units for both series (e.g., nominal billions).

</comment><comment><USER51> Good. Read how Tim Cook publicly considers Nobel economist Joeseph Stiglitz as a one who do not know what he (Stiglitz) is talking about. Eye opening.

Excerpts from: [http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/sf/business/wp/2016/08/13/2016/08/13/tim- cook-the-interview-running-apple-is-sort-of-a-lonely-job/)

Q: What do you say in response to Nobel economist Joseph Stiglitz's comments on Bloomberg [television], where he called Apple's profit reporting in Ireland a "fraud"?

Tim Cooks answer: I didn't hear it. But if anybody said that, they don't know what they're talking about. [...]

Apple evaded taxes and consider it right :(

<comment><USER52> Apple paid taxes according to Irish laws. Is it Apple's problem that Irish law disagrees with EC agreements? (Seems to be Ireland's problem.)

If people want companies to pay certain taxes, they should vote for politicians that pass laws that require companies to pay those taxes..

In any case, we should be taxing land value. That's harder to avoid: you can't hide land.

<comment><USER51> What actually happened between IE and AAPL is on the verge of extortion and bribery - the only difference is not on personal level but on Gov vs Bus.

We should heavily penalise this, as AAPL literally stole money from both US and EU people. Because of this arrangement: Apple paid less taxes in US, hence US people have worse roads, healthcare etc. To the same in EU (but here by bad IE decision). Money taken is on AAPL accounts now.

Long story short: Apple promised IE to incorporate there, to do a lot of business through IE, to open job positions. In exchange they asked for low special tax. They also said: if no low tax for us, we will do all this things in different country.

Questions: 1\. how far is this from extortion? Should we allow this? 2\. did IE gov make a good decision (14mld is of lesser value than apple benefits given to IE) ? 3\. why this was decided non publicly? 4\. should we allow corpos to make such decisions (dodge taxes) ?

<comment><USER53> Companies make deals with governments __all the time__ for tax breaks and government subsidies. Governments want jobs and investment, companies want the best deals they can get.

This is NOT extortion or bribery, just everyday business. It happens every single day even between US states, not to mention nation-states. Business is competitive and that's a good thing.

AAPL in this case has deferred taxes on profits with their structural arrangement, NOT avoided them. To call it theft is extremely ignorant of how taxes and governments work.

<comment><USER54> > Companies make deals with governments __all the time__ for tax breaks and > government subsidies. Governments want jobs and investment, companies want > the best deals they can get.

And it's honestly one of the bigger problems of the world today. There was a Planet Money episode where they presented the data from jobs "created" in Kansas and Missouri through tax breaks. It was something like: Kansas stole 5000 jobs from Missouri through relocation of offices in Kansas City, and Missouri stole 4000 jobs from Kansas the same way. So millions offered to companies to get a net benefit of basically zero.

<comment><USER55> It is a problem but unfortunately not a solvable one.

It's the equivalent of paying everyone the same wage. Countries are going to aggressively compete for talent just like companies do. And whether it's offering them different tax rates, amending employment laws, building infrastructure for them etc countries are going to bend over backwards.

<comment><USER54> > It is a problem but unfortunately not a solvable one.

It is solvable through international agreements between countries. Unfortunately those tend to defend companies more than individuals.

But hey, maybe the recent TTIP backlash and apparent failure is part of a positive trend.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> And here the press release from the European Commission

[http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm)

<comment><USER37> Jeez, an effective tax rate on profits in Ireland of 0.005% is pretty inexcusable.

<comment><USER52> Why? 0% tax on profits would seem fair and reasonable.

(There's lots of stuff that's not taxed. Eg not a lot of people complain about not taxing capital gains of home owner/occupiers.)

<comment><USER56> Because the Pub next door pays a higher effective tax

<comment><USER52> They sell alcohol after all.

But fair point. And because the bigger players who can hire expensive accountants can always mask their profits, we shouldn't tax profits. It's too malleable. Hey, even VAT is a better tax.

<comment><USER57> VAT is not a fair tax, as it favours the rich at the disadvantage of the poor. It's everyone paying the same rate on basic necessities, independent of their financial situation. Sure the rich buy more stuff and thus pay more VAT, but raising VAT doesn't hurt a rich person. It hurts poor people, though.

<comment><USER52> Not every tax has to be progressive. It's enough to make the whole tax system progressive to achieve overall progressiveness. (Tautologically..)

Income taxes or even refunds or a basic income can fix that up.

VAT is mostly flat.

(I am in favour of taxing land by value for most or even all government expenditure. That's highly progressive, impossible to evade, and does not distort the economy at all: land's supply is fixed.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER58> I don't see why commentators here are so divided, presuming they are not beneficiaries of this system.

The government gets revenue from taxes to provide services. If everyone were to do what Ireland is doing then goverments either have to raise money by increasing other taxes or reducing services.

Either way individuals and society lose. Nobody wins from this race to the bottom.

The bigger question is the presence of these convenient loopholes in the global financial system that benefit the wealthy and privileged but leave everyone else facing clear cut laws that cannot be evaded without serious consequences.

Questioning the legitimacy of taxes, or even society, and getting pedantic about laws in this context seems little more than a self serving tactic to avoid admitting this is obviously wrong. Especially when everyone else without exception is paying their fair share. Here is a better idea, pay your share and then start a debate about taxes and society if you want.

<comment><USER59> This feels an awful lot like a scam; Apple is explicitly told by the Irish government (the presumable authority on Irish taxes) that what they're doing is fine, then over a decade later the EU steps in and says "you can't do that. pay more taxes retroactively (to us)".

This stinks of ex post facto lawmaking in order to get money from a corporation, and it seems there are a few of us who object to that. I'm all for changing the laws in the present, but I consider ex post facto laws a far worse solution than the disease.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Here's how to fix this:

1\. Foreign deductions are taxed based on the difference between the locale where the earnings are made and the locale the service/product is provided from. Where the sales division is located has no relevance to taxability, and deductions for sales costs are treated as any other internal service.

2\. IP is enforced on the national level, and should not be eligible as a foreign deduction. Good-will also follows the local market.

3\. Documentation should be provided that foreign costs are real, and that they are actually taxed. Tax agreements should be null and void if systematic abuse is uncovered.

The problem right now is that no company can compete against these cheats.

Personally, I think Ireland has scammed the rest of Europe for long enough by now.

Likewise, I wouldn't be surprised if a large part of India's competitiveness in asses-in-seats outsourcing is created by artificial tax rule phenomena - and various constructs to exploit these.

</comment><comment><USER60> The more I read about this the more likely I think this decision could be appealed and overturned.

The initial implication is that Apple specially negotiated a lower tax rate for itself in Ireland. But if you read through the European Commission press release[1], it's not that a special rate was negotiated, but rather Apple Sales International (the Irish Subsidiary) only pays Irish income tax on the portion of its income that comes from within Ireland, which is correct according to Irish tax law. But there's nothing particularly special about this setup that applies only to Apple, and from what I can tell, any other corporation operating in Ireland could have also set up this arrangement and is subject to the same rules.

It doesn't make sense to me that the EU can compel Ireland to collect more taxes from Apple, if according to Irish tax law, they've already paid what they owe for Irish sales, and they don't owe taxes for non-Irish sales. Now, there is a separate question, which is can/should every other EU country go after Apple's local subsidiaries for failing to pay sufficient income tax in their own countries (by transferring the profits over to Ireland)? The answer to that is probably yes. If Apple sells an iPhone in Italy for a profit, it should pay Italian taxes on those profits, and should not be able to avoid Italian taxes by booking the profit in Ireland. This is touched upon in the press release:

> _The amount of unpaid taxes to be recovered by the Irish authorities would > be reduced if other countries were to require Apple to pay more taxes on the > profits recorded by Apple Sales International and Apple Operations Europe > for this period. This could be the case if they consider, in view of the > information revealed through the Commission's investigation, that Apple 's > commercial risks, sales and other activities should have been recorded in > their jurisdictions. This is because the taxable profits of Apple Sales > International in Ireland would be reduced if profits were recorded and taxed > in other countries instead of being recorded in Ireland._

It seems more logical to me to conclude that that Apple doesn't owe more taxes to Ireland, instead they owe more taxes to all the other countries in the world where they operate but have avoided taxes by transferring their profits into Ireland.

[1] [http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2923_en.htm)

</comment><comment><USER61> If both Apple and Ireland are opposed to this I see little chance Apple actually pays this. Ireland's government obviously setup this tax structure intentionally to bring capital into Ireland and will want to preserve this.

</comment><comment><USER62> I am not too sure how I feel about this. On the one hand I do think Apple (and many other companies) should pay more taxes.

However on the other hand Ireland enticed many big companies to their country on the promise of lower tax. You can't blame Apple for taking advantage of such an offer. They followed the letter of the [Irish] law as far as I can tell (unless someone can correct me?).

I think this could end up being terrible for Ireland in the longer term. Then again perhaps the EU knows that they can't really go anywhere else now so will just have to put up with the new rates or not do business?

It is far from a cut and dry situation IMHO.

<comment><USER63> > However on the other hand Ireland enticed many big companies to their > country on the promise of lower tax. You can't blame Apple for taking > advantage of such an offer. They followed the letter of the [Irish] law as > far as I can tell (unless someone can correct me?).

There's two separate issues. One, Ireland is cutting taxes far below the EU average to attract all companies they can. That's a dick move, but welcome to politics, it's fully legal. Two, _Apple_ has received _further_ tax breaks on top of that, reducing their tax rate from a crippling, communist 1% to an effective 0.005%. The European Commission found only the second deal to be illegal, and Apple just has to repay the tax difference to the regular Irish levels.

Ireland is still a tax haven, just slightly less unfairly advantageously to Apple.

<comment><USER64> > Ireland is cutting taxes far below the EU average to attract all companies > they can. That's a dick move

Allowing people and their companies to keep more of their money while creating tons of jobs in a high unemployment country. What a dick move indeed. /s

<comment><USER63> > people and their companies

Oh? Apple, Google and other US-based multinationals are owned by their European employees?

> creating tons of jobs in a high unemployment country

Less creating, more shifting them from other countries. It benefits Ireland at the expense of the rest of the Union.

<comment><USER65> I'd also argue there's very little "Creating" OR "Shifting" going on from Apple in this tax haven.

They can keep the vast "majority" of the (read: "well paid") jobs in Cupertino with Stanford, UCBerkeley, CalTech, etc grads. All the while reaping the tax haven benefits abroad.[0]

[0] Found a better source, 6.5K employees in Ireland: [http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/25pc-of-apples- euro...](http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/25pc-of-apples-european- workforce-based-in-cork-30487720.html) , with 1000 to be added by 2017.

Their center in Cork, Ireland is a distribution base, which is different than the product design, R&D, and development that goes on in America. Compared to the amount, in billions, of taxes avoided, the "Tons of jobs" grandparent is claiming doesn't seem to be true.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> Even with these baby steps, I like to see that the EU is unifying its corporate tax code. Of course, we do not need to worry about Ireland, Great Britain already made sure their position as English entrance to the EU will stay strong regardless of tax-breaks.

The Netherlands are naughty, too, due to a strange coincidence Ikea Germany has to pay fees of exactly its profits to Ikea Netherlands each year. I think the bigger countries should use their power to end this ruthlessly, since in the end also the smaller countries would benefit if the race to the bottom stops.

<comment><USER67> Just to be fair: 1\. Netherlands profit tax rate is 20%-25%, where Germany: 30-33%. Companies, may take advantage of those difference, but it less obvious evasion than paying 0.005% rate in some tax heaven.

2\. Ikea Netherlands has several offices and a lot of employees in Netherlands. They likely provide some services to Ikea Germany.

3\. Licensing cost, may have profit component. E.g. I can sell you the franchise for restaurant which takes base cost + some % of your profits.

There are far more obvious tax loopholes that should be closed first, before worrying about taxation shifting between developed countries which taxes on roughly same scale.

<comment><USER66> > 1\. Netherlands profit tax rate is 20%-25%

Not for foundations [0]. This is not about some procentual differences, it is a big loophole in the Dutch tax code, Ikea benefits from.

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

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER68> I live in Europe and I can certainly see how this seems like a mess and how can a company obey the laws in one country and at the same time being illegal...

I just want to point out something that is often neglected. EU Commission is basically a referee entity. It all starts with someone making a formal complaint about Apple or Google or Amazon and then they check into it. And in MOST cases the complainers are other US companies that feel that their complaints are being neglected in their own country(ex Yelp)

</comment><comment><USER69> $14.5bn to be recovered.

<comment><USER70> Plus interest or not?

<comment><USER71> "Ireland must now recover the unpaid taxes in Ireland from Apple for the years 2003 to 2014 of up to €13 billion, plus interest." (from the official press release)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> Maybe Apple spent $10M or whatever in taxes in Ireland over the past 10 years. And of course corporate profits are imaginary so you can imagine them happening anywhere on the globe.

If I owned a small country on an island, I would be more than happy to allow Apple to imagine its profits were on my island and I would only charge $5M for the privilege. And I would be grateful for the $5M.

What would you do with your small island?

</comment><comment><USER72> I don't get how the US government can so strongly advocate in favor of Apple in this case. I am a big Apple fan, but clearly the law was broken. This seems like a slam dunk case. And Apple isn't fined, they just have to pay normal low Irish taxes like everybody else.

</comment><comment><USER73> Given Ireland broke the law, not Apple, shouldn't they get the punishment?

<comment><USER74> Apple broke the law. Ireland provided Apple with false assurances that they were tax compliant, but there was nothing stopping Apple being fully aware of applicable EU tax laws.

Perhaps Ireland should be punished (though the government is already arguing there is reputational damage), but you really cannot reasonable argue that Apple is not culpable.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Duplicate [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12385232](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=12385232)

</comment><comment><USER75> One might wonder whether multinationals paying 0.005% tax contributes to the horrible proliferation of oligo/monopolies.

</comment><comment><USER76> "European Commission tells Apple to spend €13B arguing against them"

</comment><comment><USER77> Mess with our banks, and we'll mess with your tech firms!

</comment><comment><USER78> Given the stakes, unclear to me why multinationals don't find a way to create there own country, that would be free of any non-member decent.

<comment><USER79> Because other nations wouldn't recognise it.

<comment><USER78> Unlikely, that they'd not recognize it; multinationals have to much leverage internationally and many have sway over the masses too.

What reasons would make you believe that?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER80> So Ireland, the tech hub that would replace London, isn't going anymore?

<comment><USER81> Suspect Dublin will do quite well in the fintech sector if Brexit means passporting agreements are difficult to arrange for London based startups...

</comment></comment><comment><USER82> This is all over the news like something is actually going to come of this.

What can Ireland/EU actually do? Apple is a bigger player in the world economy than Ireland.

</comment><comment><USER83> Time for Ireland to leave the EU too, I think.

<comment><USER84> Ireland's entire strategy when it comes to attracting foreign businesses to domicile there depends on being both 1) in the EU, but 2) lower-tax than most of the rest of the EU (excluding a few micronations). They're selling a tax arbitrage within the EU common market, which doesn't work if they aren't in it! Ireland's domestic market in itself isn't large enough to really attract major international companies to set up European headquarters there.

<comment><USER85> > Ireland's entire strategy when it comes to attracting foreign businesses to > domicile there depends on being both 1) in the EU, but 2) lower-tax than > most of the rest of the EU...

Spot on. I'd also add:

3) English-speaking 4) Close ties to the UK

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> The US smacks Volkswagen - the EU smacks Apple.

</comment><comment><USER87> Tax Apple revenues, not profits;

</comment><comment><USER88> Ireland uses lower taxes to attract companies to create jobs.

This has worked, but I wonder if the EU is going to cause another country to exit with this ruling?

Seriously, what does Ireland gain if it loses a ton a jobs due to this?

<comment><USER88> Why the down votes? Does a promise of lower taxes not attract jobs?

<comment><USER89> I suspect you are getting downvoted because the prospect of Ireland leaving the EU over this is farcical.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER90> Okay, the EC is wrong in that lower tax burdens are a form of state aid. Higher corporate taxes also tend to cause all sorts of new ways to lower tax burdens which can mean even less tax revenue, let alone simply up and moving to a more tax friendly environment. The EU needs to worry about Africa soon scarfing up companies looking for a way out.

Then last of all, they are fooling themselves if they don't think EU based companies aren't receiving similar deals. This seems concentrated only on US based companies for the time being.

Finally consider this, countries which lowered their corporate rates found increases in wages and taxes. This includes Canada and Japan

<comment><USER91> _" This seems concentrated only on US based companies for the time being."_

AFAIK, Fiat isn't US based ([http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-rules-that- starbucks-fiat-ben...](http://www.wsj.com/articles/eu-rules-that-starbucks- fiat-benefited-from-illegal-tax-deals-1445419279\);) neither are FC Barcelona, Real Madrid, and several other Spanish football clubs ([http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2401_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-2401_en.htm)), or Amsterdam, Antwerp, and other ports ([http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-124_en.htm](http://europa.eu/rapid/press- release_IP-16-124_en.htm))

Significantly lower amounts, yes, but certainly not "only on US based companies"

Taking it broader than tax rulings, many other examples exist.

Meanwhile, I read that both Ireland and Apple are going to appeal this ruling, so one can see this as a shot very close to the bow that doesn't make the ones shot at surrender.

I hope the result will be that the ruling that the deal is illegal will stand, with a smaller payback. Reasons? I think it is immoral that large companies can negotiate such deals, and applaud the EU for standing up against their pressure when smaller countries do not have the spine to do so, but do not think all blame lies with Apple.</comment></comment>


Script or Not to Script - <AUTHOR> http://www.mahdiyusuf.com/post/12147148179/script-or-not-to-script-1

<comment><USER2> Don't forget: 5) Is there an intern you can delegate to?

I was that intern :(</comment>


A Scorched Data Policy Is Bad for Web, Bad for History - <AUTHOR> http://blog.louisgray.com/2011/06/scorched-earth-data-policy-is-bad-for.html

<comment><USER2> Apparently those deletionists never met a real historian. I mean, not a history teacher, but a person who does research, either in the field or in the "stacks". You might have thought nothing of the deletion of Geocities when Yahoo killed it, but you can do real history with that stuff :) <http://contemporary-home-computing.org/1tb/> for example.

</comment><comment><USER3> I think you're missing something. Without wholesale deletion, we can't construct The Grand Truth about our past, like the textbooks in Junior Hi and High School "social studies" present to us.

Without mass deletion, anyone, absolutely anyone, can go look at the _unchanged_ _unedited_ primary sources. No interpretation by High Priests of History, the ones who write the simplistic pablum in school textbooks necessary. That's the kind of thing that causes reformations, and we don't want one of those, any more than we want another Watergate Scandal.

<comment><USER4> Was that sarcasm, or are you wearing a tin-foil hat?

I mean, not to say Junior High history books are 100% accurate, but really?

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> I'll save you guys some time. The answer is "Because you might one day want that data."

... Duh.

He completely neglects all the positives gained from looking to the future, instead of at the past. He doesn't even try to address any of them.

<comment><AUTHOR> He being me. Looking at the future is great. Deleting the past isn't necessary.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Bad for history maybe, but I liken this sort of thing to personal email archives.

I find that if I don't cull aggressively as email comes into my inbox, I wind up with an archive that is not only huge and unwieldy, but full of stuff I will almost CERTAINLY never need to read again. Unless you are a god with regular expressions, the best time to clean up archives is _as you are making them_ , rather than a hundred years from now when the archive has eclipsed available storage capacity.

Archiving stuff is great, but I try to stick to discarding the useless, the mediocre, and the pretty good, and only saving the remarkable, notable, and fantastic.

<comment><AUTHOR> This is understood, assuming your personal email is posted to the Web and consumed by others. I am a compulsive email saver, but periodically wipe out categories that are no longer relevant as well.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Solo, open source FIDO2 security key - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/SoloKeysSec/solo <comment><AUTHOR> We open sourced the firmware. To our knowledge this is the 1st open source implementation of FIDO2/CTAP2.

Our firmware is designed to be run/developed without hardware, and we have implementations already for efm32 and nrf52840. We're actively working on a new port to SAM L11 that will use ARM TrustZone for improved security.

There's still a lot to do on the ecosystem side. We'd like to improve tests, code style and comments, and make it pass some static analysis tools.

Feel free to join the discussions in the github issues, and of course we'd love to see you at our Kickstarter that will launch VERY soon (like in the next couple weeks). You can join the waitlist at [https://solokeys.com](https://solokeys.com)

<comment><USER2> Has it been cross compiled for Tomu.im ?

<comment><USER3> Tomu, being a ARM M0 core, might take some time to compute ECC signatures, but it is probably fine in practice.

Our code is designed to be small and portable, so I think it could easily be run on the Tomu. Just need some work to change the USB drivers stuff.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I didn't see any schematics, but maybe I just missed them.

The SAM L11 doesn't have a USB peripheral... are you bit-banging USB or using a second IC or something? I was considering using an L10/L11 for another project, but this omission is what led me elsewhere.

Edit:

Thinking about it some more, it may be advantageous to rely on a second, physically separate chip to handle USB communication, as it's next to impossible to verify that there isn't a backdoor in the secure chip. Chips that are likely to be used as secure elements are probably juicy targets for backdoors, and a USB peripheral would be an excellent place to hide one (e.g. a special "knock" code that dumps the contents of secure memory and resets the chip and is unlikely to be found via fuzz testing).

I really like the concept, though. I think we need more efforts like this, aimed at making our security tools simpler, more open, and easier to verify.

<comment><USER3> We are using the EFM8UB1 chip to implement the USB HID interface, then communicate with the SAM L11 via SPI.

After considering many MCUs with USB interfaces, it seems to always be more cost effective to get the non-USB MCU and use the EFM8UB1 (from a BOM perspective anyways). The lesser chance of having a backdoor is a plus!

Here's our schematic: [https://i.imgur.com/sVQ34em.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/sVQ34em.p...](https://i.imgur.com/sVQ34em.pnghttps://i.imgur.com/sVQ34em.png)

Still have to document this better on Github :)

<comment><USER5> Thank you(!!!!) for releasing the schematic!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Same comment as on the other MFA key story on the front page right now[0]:

Sad that the form factor looks terrible compared to YubiKey Nano.

It'd be really cool to have an "open" solution which comes in a minimally invasive package.

For reference: [https://i1.wp.com/vaultumllc.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/...](https://i1.wp.com/vaultumllc.com/wp- content/uploads/2017/03/YubiKey-4-Nano-In-Use-1.png?fit=1200%2C800&ssl=1)

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18036336](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=18036336)

<comment><USER7> If you get an ECAD/EDA tool you could do some work to reduce the size of the board.

From what it looks like, you can squish things together by a lot still and replacing components could further reduce it.

Though it's unlikely you'll be able to match the Yubi Nano easily unless you go for some expensive decisions (expensive unless you get a couple thousand keys).

<comment><USER3> I think if we had a single chip solution, we could make it work, but since we're using 2 chips, it would be tight. I posted schematic in other comments.

Maybe one "affordable" idea could be to stack 2 two-layer PCBs XD.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> >Extensions can be added to FIDO2/U2F to support things like SSH, GPG, and cryptocurrency.

That would be quite awesome, consider me sold on this. Having a fully self- buildable and OSS Yubikey alternative would be very amazing indeed.

</comment><comment><USER8> As always with open source projects, it might be a good idea to move it away from GitHub?

<comment><USER9> > As always with open source projects, it might be a good idea to move it away > from GitHub?

Could you please elaborate on to why?</comment></comment>


Revealed: Afghan war horrors, via Wikileaks - <AUTHOR> http://blogs.computerworld.com/16592/revealed_afghan_war_horrors_via_wikileaks?source=rss_blogs <comment><USER2> This is this generation's version of the Vietnam war coverage, since TV reports can't be trusted anymore.

</comment><comment><USER3> So far I haven't encountered anything that wasn't publicly-available knowledge already.

For example, the Pakistani intelligence agency is well-known for harboring Al Qaeda sympathizers.

This is why the Pakistan government was largely left out of the loop during the Battle of Tora Bora. In fact, its been hypothesized by many Army and CIA officials that ISI personnel likely helped Bin Laden escape and provided him safe passage into Pakistan.

</comment><comment><USER4> The wikileaks reports do not seem very damaging to the U.S. Both U.S. and international news seems to be focusing heavily on Pakistan and Hamid Gul.</comment>


Larry Page: If we can't win on quality, we shouldn't win at all. - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304066504576351650017002270.html

<comment><USER3> By the way, if you're interested in search, Google, or SEO, it's a pretty good book: [http://www.amazon.com/Im-Feeling-Lucky-Confessions- Employee/...](http://www.amazon.com/Im-Feeling-Lucky-Confessions- Employee/dp/0547416997/) There's several anecdotes about the early days of Google that help explain why parts of Google turned out the way they did.

<comment><USER4> i'm reading it currently (page 220 at the moment) i must say it's the best book about google yet.

it's actually the book about google i was waiting for. it's a book from an (ex) googler (no, i won't call them xoogerls) about google. it tells the story about the chaotic start up days, about their victories and their failures (and yes, there were failures), about the time when marketing had to "volunteer" to rewire servers, how brand and engineers fought about UX only to be overruled by sergy, how frustrating it can be to work with genius developers.

it is way better than "in the plex" (which is just "myth making" with little substance), much much better than all the "what would google do" like books, and much better than all SEO books (which are all sh#t anyway ... exception "search engine marketing incorporated")

well i'm on page 220 and there was not much about SEO yet. matt cutts and his p#rn cookies were mentioned, his fight against spam. there is a short story about "search for non PhD" which explains search engines pretty well (and holds more valuable information than you can get from an average SEO).

it also settles the question once and for all "does google uses the data from the google toolbar?" (the answer is: YES, and the green page rank bar (i call it "thought cancer bar") is indeed just a bait to turn on the "advanced features"). nothing new, but this time it's official (kind of). i hope that all the SEOs which claim that "it's not important what the users do after the SERP clickthrough" will finally be silenced.

@matt looking forward to your book...

<comment><USER5> Hardcopy is 40c more than ebook? $9.99 for ebook, $10.39 for physical.

Digital pricing for books is really starting to get to me. It makes absolutely no sense why a digital version can cost nearly as much (and sometimes more) than a physical copy.

<comment><USER6> Being able to read a book, instantly, without it consuming additional physical space in your home is a feature for some people.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Almost the complete opposite of a company I worked at in the late 90s where the CEO would say things like "If rover will eat I will feed him" (meaning if the customer buys the schlock we're selling who cares what you think) and "Quality Assurance is an impediment to revenue".

<comment><USER8> _> "If rover will eat I will feed him"_

This slogan handily summarizes the history of the computer industry, software and hardware.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> This is one of the reasons why I don't buy the whole concept of "intellectual property": the only thing that should matter is the quality and value provided to consumers; not marketing, not ideas, not strategy, but the end result, which as many have pointed out before is mostly execution, but whatever the path one gets there, only product standing on its own merits should matter.

<comment><USER10> So only big companies like google should ever be able to do anything?

When a little guy with no resources comes up with a brilliant idea he would try to implement it, the big guys would see it and use their near infinite resources to copy it while adding features and you would be cheering for them?

We need to fix intellectual property, not scrap it.

<comment><USER11> If the idea was "nonobvious" it should take some time for the big guy to figure out how to implement it (and it might even end up being cheaper to buy out the small guy).

Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself).

If a small guy invented the "one click buying" button, should it be protected?

Plus, in the end, we all win (if big company popularizes small guy's idea and it makes something better).

<comment><USER12> > If the idea was "nonobvious"

Lots of things are obvious in hindsight.

> Plus, the implementation should be covered by IP (but not the idea itself).

Huh? Are you suggesting copyright protection on the implementation is enough?

If not, what kind of IP protection on the implementation are you suggesting that isn't "idea" protection?

> Plus, in the end, we all win

I want the little guy trying to become big, because that's how things change. Letting the big guy win every time isn't nearly as good.

<comment><USER11> What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and we've seen it).

I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries do).

I'm not sure on how to give the "small guy" a head start without giving him some protection on the idea, but I have a strong opinion that protecting the idea is bad. (I could be wrong, and I'm open to being convinced).

<comment><USER12> > What I wanted to say is that protecting the idea is a very bad thing (and > we've seen it).

Are you against protecting all ideas? If not, what kind of ideas do you think should be protectable and how?

For example, if I invent a new way to do scheduling - is that something that you're willing to let me protect? If so, how?

> I do agree with protecting the implementation (which is what most countries > do).

What kind of protection are you talking about? Copyright? If so, that's useless against a legit big guy because they don't copy.

<comment><USER11> Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.

Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).

I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.

See for example:

<http://www.lessig.org/content/standard/0,1902,4296,00.html>

"Patent No. 5,715,314, for example, gives the holder a monopoly over "network- based sales systems" - we call that e-commerce." (yes, Amazon among others is a licensee)

Other horrible examples:

<http://w2.eff.org/patent/EFF_Patent_Busting_Project.pdf>

See also for a broader view, the ideas of economist Friedrich Hayek:

<http://blog.mises.org/9247/hayek-on-patents-and-copyrights/>

or, a mainstream view on an industry without copyright, the fashion industry:

[http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus- copyright...](http://www.newsweek.com/2010/08/20/copycats-versus- copyrights.html)

Another well-known case is of course Coca-Cola, which protects its core formula via trade secret rather than relying on the government.

(I am in favor of copyright, and protecting implementations as well - <USER2> reduced form of patents).

As I mentioned, if it's not obvious, and the big guy requires resources to copy it, they might be better off purchasing the small guy. If it was easy to copy, well, let's hope the small guy's execution was better than big guy's. (I do realize that big guy has an advantage in marketing, etc.)

<comment><USER12> > Yes, I'm against protecting abstract ideas with no implementation.

It's curious that you seen to think that patents can protect something other than ideas because ideas are the only things that patents protect.

> Even when there is an implementation, it's not obvious to me that it should > be especially protected by a government (especially a fallible government, > which is all of them, as well-meaning as they might be).

Then whom will enforce them? Do I hire a private army?

I assume that you feel the same about contracts and copyright (wrt enforcement).

> I'm definitely not in favor of granting you protection on a "new form of > scheduling". A program or calendar or whatever that implements it, sure.

So, once someone sees my new form of scheduling, they can use it and there's nothing that I can do about it. (I wasn't thinking calendar scheduling, but it doesn't matter.)

In that world, I'm going to reveal as little as possible.

> If it was easy to copy

Small orgs innovate only when they benefit from doing so. Since the innovations come from small orgs, reducing their ability to benefit is a huge cost. I'm still waiting to see the benefit.

Note that there are bogus patents in chemistry and every other field, yet I don't see near the outrage. Is software special?

<comment><USER11> No, they don't protect ideas, they protect products or processes. According to WIPO:

"What is a Patent?

A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the invention must fulfill certain conditions "

<http://www.wipo.int/patentscope/en/patents_faq.html#patent>

On your second point, I am in favor of government enforcement of contracts (as a last resort, hopefully), and copyright as well (though it should be amended or limited).

On your scheduling idea, yes, if the implementation is easy, then your only recourse is obscurity (trade secrets).

[http://www.ipo.gov.uk/peertopatentblog/?tag=mathematical- met...](http://www.ipo.gov.uk/peertopatentblog/?tag=mathematical-method)

Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.

At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are temporary. BigCo will catch up with you eventually if you don't use your temporary advantage to build up.

<comment><USER12> > A patent is an exclusive right granted for an invention, which is a product > or a process that provides, in general, a new way of doing something, or > offers a new technical solution to a problem. In order to be patentable, the > invention must fulfill certain conditions "

You're reading "product" and "process" too literally. A patent on a new way of making a wheel is not just a patent on the wheels that you're making. It's on the way you make wheels, the idea, whether or not you're involved in said wheel making.

> Scientific theory or discovery and mathematical methods are NOT patentable.

Scheduling isn't any of the above, even if it happens to use some of them.

Consider the patent on making vulcanized rubber. It came out of scientific discovery and depends on chemical "laws", but isn't any of those things. It doesn't cover the use of those things to do other things. It just covers the use of those things to vulcanize rubber.

> At Business School you learn that all sources of competitive advantage are > temporary.

Patronize much? Anything that applies to "all" isn't specifically relevant to this discussion, which is about specific sources of competitive advantage.

I'll repeat my question - do you really want to leave innovation to BigCos?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


U.S. life expectancy will soon be on par with Mexico's and Croatia's - <AUTHOR> https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/to-your-health/wp/2017/02/21/us-life-expectancy-will-soon-be-on-par-with-mexicos-and-croatias/ <comment><USER2> There have been many analyses as to what could be causing the lower life expectancy in the US. Some of it comes down to how deaths are counted.

\- In the US, a baby is more like to get intensive medical care if it's born with a condition vs. other countries where they are often labelled as "stillborn"

\- The US has a higher than expected premature birth rate. These babies are more like to die, so that pulls down the average life expectancy.

 _For example, in the United States, arrivals of all living infants are counted as births, but a few European countries (the Czech Republic, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland) have more restrictive definitions. For example, France and the Netherlands report live births only if the infant weighs at least 500 grams — a little more than a pound — or were born at 22 weeks' gestation or later._

<comment><USER3> Interesting, but if you continue the same article you quote, it refutes that as a major cause of the difference:

 _" But these reporting differences cannot account for the full extent of the gap between countries, says Paul Wise, MD, a pediatrician at Packard Children's and a health policy analyst at Stanford. "The reporting differences are a minor part of the story but not an excuse for why the U.S has such a high mortality rate."

Because even when researchers look only at births that meet the criteria for all European countries — 500-gram babies born at 22 weeks and later — the United States doesn't fare any better. In 2009, Marian MacDorman, PhD, a statistician at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's National Center for Health Statistics drew up a new ranking list, comparing the United States with 20 European countries and excluding the deaths of all babies born before 22 weeks' gestation. The United States still ranked below most European countries."_

[http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.htm...](http://sm.stanford.edu/archive/stanmed/2013fall/article2.html)

<comment><USER2> If you read the rest of the article it also talks about the higher-than- average rate of premature births. No one really knows why.

Also, whether or not you count a pre-mature birth as a "life" is only one of several differences in how counting is done.

I guess my take is that some of the difference is due to counting and some is due to differences in healthcare.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> The topic discussed in the article is important, but the data is not convincing. Based on the lead chart itself, which shows relative improvement, the USA as a whole is in the company of Japan, Sweden, Norway - all countries doing well, with universal healthcare, high life expectancy, etc. It makes you think that the situation is not as dire as the article makes it to appear.

      > If you have good insurance and you live on the East Coast and the West Coast,
      > you probably get the best health care in the world...
      > In many parts of the country, top health care simply isn't available.

I personally think that's one of the key drivers. There are certain parts of the country that are not doing well. Consider the case of Youngstown, OH where mortality rate in 2015 was 54.5 compared to 8.2 in the U.S. as a whole.

[https://github.com/axibase/atsd-use- cases/blob/master/USMort...](https://github.com/axibase/atsd-use- cases/blob/master/USMortality/README.md#detailed-sql-example-3---calculating- mortality-rates)

<comment><USER5> > Based on the lead chart itself ... the situation is not as dire as the > article makes it to appear.

The lead chart shows the U.S. ranked 32nd of 35 nations, for both women and men. (My quick count might be off by a little.)

In addition, this sounds bad to me:

 _[The U.S.] has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the "largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs," the researchers wrote.

Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.

Some Americans get a "bad start to life in nutrition and education" and suffer "high rates of homicide," Ezzati said. "And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late._

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_ex...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy)

Taken as a whole, the US is low on the list. Taken by state, it really depends on where you live.

<comment><USER7> Interesting (and perhaps emblematic) that DC has the highest life expectancy for whites, yet the lowest for blacks compared to any states that keep that statistic.

<comment> purple-again Not surprising for whites. D.C. Is home to many of the richest and most powerful families in the nation, most of which are still whites. It's long been studied that the rich have much better access which leads to a higher life expectancy on average.

The blacks is a head scratcher. You would expect Baltimore or Chicago to crush DC thanks to their famous gang violence but maybe those states don't provide statistics.

<comment><USER8> > You would expect Baltimore or Chicago to crush DC thanks to their famous > gang violence but maybe those states don't provide statistics

D.C. has a high violent crime rate, but Republican politicians recently don't trumpet it to attack the local government and the party behind it the way they do Baltimore or, particularly, Chicago's, perhaps because while D.C. has an elected (and Democrat-dominated) city government that is allowed some latitude, it's government is Constitutionally a Congressional power, and Congress regularly exercises that power to prescribe local policy or veto local government acts, so they'd end up pointing the finger at their own failures if they were to blame government in D.C.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Notice that is because Mexico and Croatia are expected to have a higher rate of improvement towards 2030, vs. the U.S. only improving by a couple of years. It's not that U.S. life expectancy will decline (although it did last year for the first time), just that others will improve more.

<comment><USER5> > It's not that U.S. life expectancy will decline (although it did last year > for the first time), just that others will improve more.

Is that acceptable? Other wealthy nations are improving much more rapidly. Certainly the U.S. could be doing better. It's immoral, a tragedy, and an embarrassment.

From the article;

 _The reasons for the United States ' lag are well known. It has the highest infant and maternal mortality rates of any of the countries in the study, and the highest obesity rate. It is the only one without universal health insurance coverage and has the "largest share of unmet health-care needs due to financial costs," the researchers wrote.

Tellingly, the United States was the first high-income country to see a halt to the pattern of increasing height in adulthood, a reliable indicator of improving public health, according to Majid Ezzati, a professor of public health at Imperial College London, who led the research team.

Some Americans get a "bad start to life in nutrition and education" and suffer "high rates of homicide," Ezzati said. "And then lack of universal insurance. Some people probably get diagnosed too little and too late._

<comment><USER10> And has anyone compared the rates of drug use? Not illegal drugs, the prescriptions. When i lived in the US i was shocked by how many people lived lives soaked in various drugs year after year, _young people_. That isn't normal in other countries. At some point this trend, paticularly the opiods, has to start shortening average lifespans.

<comment><USER5> I've seen research saying healthcare providers in the U.S. are much more likely to prescribe drugs than in other wealthy countries.

> At some point this trend, paticularly the opiods, has to start shortening > average lifespans.

I don't know what effects drugs, including opiods, have on lifespan. Certainly, taking the right prescription drugs extends lifespan in many cases. But even the wrong one might affect quality of life more than lifespan.

<comment><USER11> Opiates taken recreationally (or prescribed, but taken at doses above what is directed) can reduce life-span due to the lowering of oxygen intake, interestingly. That's ignoring all the _other_ problems inherent in them (overdose, etc.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Paul Krugman rather famously rate about this a couple years ago [1]. Much of the disparity is from an increase in middle aged whites dying from alcohol and similar causes.

[1] [https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/heartland-of- da...](https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/heartland-of-darkness/)

</comment><comment><USER13> Well, it's not just US health care that has a problem. Consider this: ETH has 19.2K students and a $1.68B annual budget, while Stanford (a comparable university) has 16.3K students and a $5.5B annual budget.

<comment><USER14> Ignoring whether it's related to healthcare or not, ETH Zurich is a public institution, whereas Stanford is private. Perhaps a more comparable university would be UC Berkeley (which many would consider to be on par with ETH), which has 38.2k students and a ~$2.5B annual budget.

<comment><AUTHOR> In case you don't want to do the math, ETH Zürich's per-student cost (~88,000) is 33% higher than UC Berkeley's (~65,000). Stanford's (~340,000) is 5.2x Berkeley's and 3.9x ETH Zürich's.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> It's almost as if quality of life and longevity are not primarily due to having the latest, most expensive technology; but rather by having access to practical, affordable solutions.

</comment><comment><USER16> The article references the healthcare at the costs, but doesn't provide any details.

Does anyone know of studies showing life expectancy at the coasts or by state instead of country aggregate?

<comment><USER16> Found some interesting stats:

\- [http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life- expectancy/?active...](http://kff.org/other/state-indicator/life- expectancy/?activeTab=map&currentTimeframe=0&selectedDistributions=life- expectancy-at-birth-years)

\- [https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_...](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_life_expectancy)

TLDR; Coasts being always superior isn't really an accurate depiction. Hawaii (1), CA and Connecticut (tie for 3 and 4) definitely are coastal, but also rich. Minnesota (2) is definitely a surprise for me. NC, SC, and Georgia aren't rank that high and FL is marginally higher.

<comment><USER17> It's shocking to me how closely related life expectancy seems to be with a state's political alignment based on those lists. I'd love to see the correlation coefficient of percent of conservative voters vs life expectancy.

[http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/life-expectancy-by- state](http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/life-expectancy-by-state)

<comment><USER16> What's also interesting, CA ranked one of the worst in uninsured in that same article [http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/uninsured-by- state](http://politicsthatwork.com/graphs/uninsured-by-state)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> My goodness. This article is written backyards. It uses positive phrases in negative ways that make it much harder to read...

</comment><comment><USER19> How about a comparison of health quality between Republican and Democratic areas?

<comment><USER20> I'm not sure why you'd want to do that, but given the country's current demographics, there's an obvious problem. "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for. This enables all sorts of deceptive political infographics...

<comment><USER5> > "Democratic" areas are also to a large extent the areas with money, and > population density, and crime, and industry, and higher education, and all > sorts of variables you'd want to be able to control for.

Maybe you wouldn't control for them; for example, some of those variables may be consequences of being Democratic areas. I'd guess higher education is, as the GOP often wants to cut funding for it.

<comment><USER21> Consequences such as Democrats ruling over the most violent and highest murder rate areas (both per capita) of the nation for decades? Along with Democrats controlling the areas of the nation with by far the highest infant mortality rates. There's no question it's a direct consequence of their governance.

<comment><USER5> I'm sure there are positive and negative consequences to both parties' governance; it would be interesting and valuable to discuss, learn about, and figure out.

That's not what the parent comment is doing, unfortunately. It's sad that yet another HN discussion is derailed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Why is it a bad thing?

<comment><USER7> The title alone does not necessarily imply anything negative, I guess. You could take it to mean that Mexico and Croatia will achieve astonishing gains in life expectancy in the near future that will put them on par with the richest nation on earth. Of course, if you read the article and know any further details of the situation around health care in the US (that life expectancy actually declined recently, that the US spends more on health care per capita than any other nation by far without a corresponding improvement in health outcomes), then it's pretty obvious why this is a bad thing. Unless you mean that people living as long as possible is not worth pursuing...

</comment></comment><comment><USER23> Shouldn't be surprising. Mexico is an emerging first world nation with universal health care, one of the best run systems in the world. Mexican- Americans live longer than white Americans indicating a long lived biology. And non-smoking Mexicans already live longer than non-smoking Americans while the smoking rate is dropping.

Croatia is also an emerging first world nation (though coming via the second world rather than the third as Mexico is) closely related to nations like Italy and Hungary with admirable levels of health and education. It has the support of the EU and all the experience in developing quality social services that implies.

Croatia and Mexico are good countries to share company with in the longevity statistics.

Of course people will try to scare you by implying those are backward countries. It's like when people compare your education statistics to Finland (#1 in elementary education) and Hungary (home of John von Neumann, known as the smartest man of the atomic and computer ages by the great minds that founded both sciences, and the Polgar sisters). Just because you aren't familiar with a nation doesn't mean it isn't great in some way.

<comment><USER24> I live in Mexico and pay for private health insurance because I want nothing to do with the government ran health system. Don't know what makes you think it's one of the best ran in the world.

<comment><USER25> I have also lived in Mexico (as an expat) and was blown away by the free public healthcare system. After seeing the doctor, I asked how much the diagnosis and treatment would be. The nurses laughed at me, said "Aye guerito, que lindo", handed me a prescription and sent me on my way.

If the same issue were to come up here in the US, I would have 2 options:

1 - with current ACA insurance - pay $200 + 50% of cost = $700

2 - with no insurance - about $1200 out of pocket

Which option do you think I (and most other people) would prefer?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Here's an interesting discussion of life expectancy and what it may mean or not mean with regards to how health care is provided.

[http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html](http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA547ComparativeHealth.html)

<comment><USER27> This is neither a discussion nor interesting.

<comment><USER28> Indeed. And in particular, consider the thesis of the argument:

> Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations > must satisfy three criteria. First, the statistic must assume actual > interaction with the health care system. Second, it must measure a > phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect. Finally, the > statistic must be collected consistently across nations.

Says who? The authors use these benchmarks to determine if life expectancy and infant mortality are valid units of measurement. Their actual claim, implicitly, is that life expectancy is unrelated or unaffected by quality of the health care system. And the infant mortality's numbers are biased against the US (here their argument is better but why would the UN knowingly include such biases?). The argument they present is weak...to put it charitably.

<comment><USER27> The thing is it's not even really an argument, it's a rationalization. It's so strange to me that someone would even try to argue that life expectancy doesn't reflect the quality of health care. what conceivably could be gained by attempting to prove such a counter-intuitive thing?

<comment><USER28> My reading between the lines is that the health care system is set up perfectly well to accommodate long lives, _if and only if you can afford to access it_. The authors actually controlled for GDP per capita, so they made their aims plain. Their explanations for poor health outcomes for disadvantaged minorities was also income related.

Not once did they ask the question "why are health outcomes so stratified by income and wealth in the U.S.?", because their ideology is that that is acceptable.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Obesity is the problem. And it's so easy to improve: Stop allowing people to use food stamps on unhealthy foods, particularly soda and other sugary drinks.

<comment><USER30> That's kind of a weird approach. Wealthier men tend to be more obese. White women seem to be the only group who's income and obesity levels seem related.

It's right there in bold: "Most obese adults are not low income (below 130% of the poverty level)."

But maybe food stamps aren't allocated the way i think they are.

[1] [https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm](https://www.cdc.gov/nchs/products/databriefs/db50.htm)

<comment><USER29> We spend ~5 billion/year giving people free soda. Cutting back on is an extremely easy way to reduce obesity. Maybe it won't solve it. Maybe it won't even make a big difference. But it will certainly help the cause.

<comment><USER30> According to the NYT, "SNAP households spent 9.3 percent of their grocery budgets on sweetened beverages. That was slightly higher than the 7.1 percent figure for households that do not receive food stamps."

I mean, soda might be a weird thing for you, but it's clearly something that's a standard part of the American diet. It's a 100 billion dollar industry. I don't really understand how removing soda for poor people would have a substantial impact on obesity.

[1] [https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp- snap-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/13/well/eat/food-stamp-snap- soda.html)

 _edit_

"removing soda for poor people" isn't really even the case. it's just not allowing food stamps to pay for soda. I think, effectively, people will just use cash for that, and not change their habits. So $5 less for gas, or rent, or whatever they might actually use the cash for.

<comment><USER29> 9.3 is 31% higher than 7.1. That's a pretty significant increase. I wouldn't call that "slightly higher"

Also, sugar is a standard part of the American diet. But Americans are obese. Here is at least one expert who thinks sugar is the problem: [https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and- metabolic...](https://www.ucsf.edu/news/2009/06/8187/obesity-and-metabolic- syndrome-driven-fructose-sugar-diet)

<comment><USER31> It might 9.3% of their budget because their budget is much smaller. I would bet the 7.1% is possibly skewed due to a lot more people with spare cash finding better ways to fulfill the pleasure aspect (but it's probably craft beer/etc). In the end, buying soda is a combo of poor education/willpower/contemplation.

FWIW, I'm pushing 50 and besides the occasional party, I've never had soda in the house from birth to present, and I probably only treat myself to a soda a 1-2 times a month.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> A Texas hospital sent a west African man home with a bottle of antibiotics to treat his viral infection. Turns out, he had Ebola.

Life expectancy is dropping in the US? Shocking. Do tell.</comment>


Why Python is more fun that Java - <AUTHOR> http://brizzled.clapper.org/id/75 <comment><USER2> I'd wish people stop post all crappy blogposts about shallow language- comparisons.

Saying language X does Y in 4 lines instead of language Zs 5 lines just doesn't say much unless you put it in a bigger perspective.

(And I like Python very much and hate Java).

<comment><USER3> That's true, and I also like Python more than Java. What's missing in these comparisons are some important architectural consequences of using Python (or ruby or PHP) for web apps. The one reason why I haven't been using Python as much as I like is the GIL (global interpreter lock).

The GIL requires that you use multiple processes to make use of multiple CPUs or cores. And that means you cannot keep much data in memory as it would be duplicated in each process. Some applications benefit a lot from keeping much of the data in memory most of the time, and if you have complex data structures (like graphs) memcached (or similar solutions) is no replacement as you have to rebuild those data structures on each access. Any solution that invalidates process relative adresses incurs a huge overhead in order to access that data.

I know the debate around threads and how problematic they are and how much better a multi process model scales. That's all very well, but threads are the only way to use multiple cores and access in memory data structures fast.

So using Python, for me, means having to write much of my application in C++ (or Java or C#) and access that backend process from the Python web frontend. This approach comes with a lot of complexity and it's a lot more work than using Java or C# in the first place.

On the other hand, keeping a lot of data in memory isn't necessary for most applications as the data structures and the parallelism lives in the DBMS, which is written in C/C++ anyway.

It's also questionable whether Java is a good solution for my scenario. Java and C# need about twice as much memory as C++ for the exact same data structures, and the garbage collector gets slower the more memory a process allocates.

I know there are more options but this post is getting lengthy :-)

<comment><USER4> If the data structures are static, you can build them, then fork off a bunch of python processes. They will all have the data, but it will only be in memory once. Just make sure to never invoke GC after that point... (unless python's GC isn't compacting). Also make sure to never reference anything, or you will increment it's reference count and trigger copy-on-write...

<comment><USER3> The data structures are not static. It's effectively an in memory database, so the data keeps changing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> It's a little surprising how many of the Python-favoring features are already present in C# 3.0; closures, syntactically clean properties, and a nicer array syntax; between the yield keyword and LINQ, you get something close to generator syntax; reflection is pretty painless; and while there's no dynamic typing, there's a convenient type inference mechanism.

My personal pet peeve against Java is the lack of multiline string literals, also available in both Python and C#.

Java has some syntactic catching up to do.

<comment><USER6> I share your peeve. A request for multiline string literals is over 7 years old...

<http://bugs.sun.com/bugdatabase/view_bug.do?bug_id=4472509>

Reading the Sun bug database, it's clear who's held back Java's functionality and stability over the years: xxxxx@xxxxx, who on this issue back in 2001 wrote "This is yet another request for a syntactic sugar to save some user from typing. It's not worth it."

I hope for the good of the platform xxxxx has been let go since then.

<comment><USER7> Agreed. If I ever find xxxxx@xxxxx in a dark alley, he/she better watch out.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Deja vu.

(<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=260014>)

p.s. I thought a dupe post got credited to its predecessor. Is there a time limit on this check?

<comment><USER9> the URL is different

<comment><USER8> URL is same (<http://brizzled.clapper.org/id/75>).

Also, I have experienced this myself. Submitted an article and found it had been submitted ~1-2hr before/after by another (so usually would delete article I submitted).

<comment><USER10> No, the url is different, which is why it got past the dupe-detection.

The original post's url is actually (<http://www.clapper.org/bmc/blog/id/75>), which just redirects to the current post's url. Same content, different url.

But yeah, it's a dupe. There should be a way to report this (similar to "flag"), and then the admins can merge the two topics.

<comment><USER8> Strange, was able to submit the same item twice...

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=278560> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=278541>

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Sorry but I stopped reading here...

System.exit(0);

It's hardly going to be fair and balanced with things like that in it.

<comment><USER12> His StringBuffer example is also wrong (the java compiler would automatically use a StringBuffer in his example).

<comment><USER13> StringBuilder?

<comment><USER12> Oh yeah, that's right, since jdk1.5. It used to be StringBuffer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> What, no decorators mentioned?</comment>


The Guide to CSS Flex - <AUTHOR> https://www.freecodecamp.org/news/the-ultimate-guide-to-css-flex/ <comment><AUTHOR> website layout tutorial</comment>