Puerto Rico files for biggest ever U.S. local government bankruptcy - <AUTHOR> http://www.reuters.com/article/us-puertorico-debt-bankruptcy-idUSKBN17Z1UC <comment><USER3> I have lived all my life in Puerto Rico, and as you can imagine, this issue is quite controversial. We owe money to the creditors... and what you do with a debt is to you pay it off. Yet the amount is so staggering, that I wonder if it's actually possible.

As is typical, decisions by politicians placed us in this situation. Decade after decade, 4-year term after 4-year term, the government has spent money it does not have. Be one political party or the other, it is the same thing.

There was a big manifestation this past Monday, where various Unions, groups, and students did a "Paro Nacional". Truthfully, I don't think they accomplished anything, other than various idiots vandalizing property they don't own. We are in deep shit, and it's going to get worse.

Lots of people are leaving the island, which just compounds the problem (less revenue).

I don't leave because: it's where I was born, where I have lived my entire life, and it is, honestly, paradise.

Obligatory John Oliver's Puerto Rico segment: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt- mpuR_QHQ](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tt-mpuR_QHQ)

What will happen? I have no idea. Good to see this in HN.

<comment><USER4> > We owe money to the creditors... and what you do with a debt is to you pay > it off.

That's not the case. Sometimes, you pay your debt off. Sometimes, you default, and file for bankruptcy. For lenders, it's the cost of doing business. If they don't want to deal with the possibility of bankruptcy, they shouldn't lend out money.

Lenders charge creditors a premium, because of the risk of default. It's as much on them to be careful about who they lend money to, as it is on the creditor to be careful about being able to pay off their debts.

<comment><USER5> That's true in any individual case. But if we make it our social norm that bankruptcy is nothing to be ashamed of and to be taken lightly, won't it change the equilibrium for future generations of lenders and borrowers such that an inefficiently low amount of lending goes on? If everyone has the expectation that the lenders and borrowers will try their best to live up to the contract they made in good faith, wouldn't it be a better equlibrium? And we can work towards such a world bit by bit in how we respond to crises like the Puerto Rico one.

<comment><USER6> > But if we make it our social norm that bankruptcy is nothing to be ashamed > of and to be taken lightly

I don't know about "taken lightly" but bankruptcy and defaulting on a debt should not be something to be "ashamed" of, for an individual, a company, or a government. Default is an option specifically written into every debt contract out there. There should be no more shame in choosing to default as there would be for choosing to exercise a stock option that causes your counterparty lose all his money. Lenders reap a huge premium for doing nothing but assuming the risk of default. If there was zero risk there should be zero premium.

No surprise that it's mainly bankers pushing the "it's immoral to default" line.

<comment><USER7> I'm pretty sure taking out a loan that you intend to default on is fraud, but making a contract with someone that you expect to be very profitable to you is not.

<comment><USER8> If I were to look for fraud anywhere, I'd start by looking at the people who give inflated ratings to bonds.

<comment><USER9> What about politicians that use the government to take action against firms when they lower particular ratings ?

Are those committing fraud too ?

What, incidentally, about politicians who force pension funds to buy bonds "they like" by legal means ? (at least 200 politicians in current service are guilty of this)

These are US government bonds, by the way, if a default happens with them, the sort of organisation that will suffer the most is US pension funds.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_governme...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_credit- rating_downgrades)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> All that text about Puerto Rico's financial difficulties and not one mention of the rampant fraud that spun up the debt from a reasonable amount to the $XB that is likely to default is the result of graft, corruption, and fraud enabled by many US and international actors.

Want to take a guess how many of those responsible for the transactions, debt issues, and back-office fund transfers are in jail and all their assets seized to repay the debt, a la Civil Forfeiture for drug crimes in the US?

I feel bad for the Citizens of Puerto Rico, because here in Dallas the Fire and Police Pension fund is probably insolvent due to a combination of graft and incompetence as well, and those responsible in both these circumstances seem to just shrug it off and go on with life, their pockets lined more than 90% will ever see in 20 years of hard work.

Talking about the debt in Puerto Rico without firmly acknowledging the conditions that led to it is irresponsible in my opinion. Hard to separate the two. And, if we're going to talk about accountability for the latter, then we should nail those who committed the former first. Likelihood of that? Heh, yeah I'm not optimistic - doesn't mean I can espouse what I believe to be a justifiable alternate course.

<comment><USER11> Would love to read more on the subject if you have links to both the PR and Dallas situations handy.

<comment><USER12> Here is an article on the Dallas pension problem. [http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21711335...](http://www.economist.com/news/finance-and- economics/21711335-pensions-crisis-has-been-brewing-decades-and-it-not- confined-dallas)

The gist as I understand is that pensioners were promised a 8.5% return (which didnt happen) and (some?) retirees are able to withdraw their current value in their pension in full. There is talk of reducing benefits, which is causing a situation much like a run on banks to occur.

I've seen a few proposed solutions such as having the state of Texas help pay, to pillaging funds from DART (public transit), to tax increases.

It is a complete mess, and PR must be in such a bad position. In Dallas' case, it is obviously corruption that caused the problem, with no penalty, and the only recourse is to penalize those that did not cause the problem. Seems like PR is in a similar yet more dire situation.

<comment><USER13> Offering recourse to the pension-holders will clearly require penalizing groups that did not cause the problem.

But can't we also penalize those that made the un-keepable promises and mismanaged the funds? This won't make the policemen financially whole, but it would offer at least some sense of justice, and, more importantly, send a message to others currently operating similar schemes.

<comment><USER12> I'm not sure that is possible and I question if their actions were illegal. Investing is risky and when actual returns did not beat the guarantees, the investors decided to invest in riskier assets to attempt to make them whole. However I'm not excusing their behavior and they are clearly to blame. There was also questionable behavior but I'm not sure how illegal it was.

And if their actions were illegal, I wonder how many people were involved and able to be prosecuted. I imagine there are many, from investors to politicians, and thus an expensive endeavor for the city and state.

I think the best thing is to prevent this from happening in the future by monitoring and exposing these shenanigans early rather than before it is too late. Cities and states with pensions should take note of Dallas' problem and act accordingly. Contracts should include clauses for penalties and recourse so as to allow civil lawsuits.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> When issues of local government financial problems come up, I think it's important to remember that local governments are typically not able to undertake deficit spending the way the Federal government is.

If the US Federal government were prevented from running a budget deficit, we'd likely see a lot more solvency issues and financial failures of many sub- organizations within government due to bad budgeting. It would also be a lot harder for our leaders to start wars or get away with sloppy cost estimates of their grandiose ideas.

My argument is not that government should be small, simply that its spending should reflect its income and the results of its spending should be easily correlated with their cost.

Since the Federal government takes the lion's share of income taxes, local governments are constrained in their ability to generate income. Yet for most people, local governments provide the vast majority of the useful government services they enjoy.

So while it may seem that the Federal government is comparatively stable and responsible, the reality is that it's simply far less accountable to anyone and is able to use that lack of accountability to launder its reputation. States (or local governments) do not have the same luxury.

<comment><USER15> > If the US Federal government were prevented from running a budget deficit, > we'd likely see a lot more solvency issues and financial failures of many > sub-organizations within government.

No, there's just be a lot more pressure to monetize government finances. We have some safeguards against that (e.g., the Fed being separated from Congress and outside of it's direct control), but the biggest constraint on that is that the government, so long as Congress is free to set fiscal policy within it's own preferences, has very little reason to choose the path of monetization.

<comment><USER14> I completely agree that our leaders would exploit loopholes. My point was meant mainly to describe the scenario if the Federal government were effectively constrained.

Would the public have supported a tax increase in 2004 when the cost of the Iraq war began to drastically exceed estimates? Likely not, we'd have brought everyone back home and saved Trillions and prevented a significant amount of loss of life.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I feel like local governments are going to be the first to really be affected by significant pension overlays that are not properly accounted for -- a lot of pension funds assume rates of return that are historically farcical. I think the industry average used to be about 8%.

"During the 20th Century, the Dow advanced from 66 to 11,497. This gain, though it appears huge, shrinks to 5.3% when compounded annually."

[http://davidgcrane.org/?page_id=702](http://davidgcrane.org/?page_id=702)

It doesn't auger well for the future of stable financial markets. Weak localities will fail, and eventually the states that have to support them. Puerto Rico is the canary in the coal mine.

<comment><USER17> The answer to pension problems is real socialism. Produce in bulk, provide in bulk, eliminate the waste and middle-person profit by providing as much of the pension as possible directly so that the allowance for other items can be of a much smaller serviceable size.

<comment><USER18> Which is why Cuba, Venezuela, and North Korea are doing so well. I'm astounded people still think the idea of central production control has any juice left in it after such a thorough debunking in the 20th century.

<comment><USER19> Which is why Norway, Denmark and Sweden are doing so well with all their socialist programs.... so what now...?

I personally feel the right answer is in the middle. Socialise whats required like health, education, emergency services, roads, pensions, etc And leave the luxuries of life as free market.

As an extra touch, I would make politicians and civil servants required to use public services rather than private alternatives. Because when they and their families have to use public schools and hospitals etc they will care a bunch more about how they run than if they are choosing private alternatives, which is common in Australia at least.

<comment><USER20> All three of the mention countries have pretty much free, capitalistic enterprise - which is the total opposite to what mjevans suggested.

That said, there is a huge government ("public") sector and the taxation is high on most things. Especially income and consumption.

Basically, all of the socialist programs that's currently going on in the Nordic countries rely heavily on taxing free enterprises (private sector) and would work a lot less without them.

<comment><USER21> > Basically, all of the socialist programs

social, not socialist.

<comment><USER22> Even better, the actual platform is called "social democracy": [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_democracy)

Quite a different beast.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> A few months ago I discussed this with friends and suggested the government subsidize cheap flights to Puerto Rico, say $30 for a round trip flight from Atlanta, scaled up depending on domestic distance.

This would cost taxpayer money but would drive a ton of tourism to Puerto Rico (albeit temporarily) and pump a bunch of money into their economy, defibrillator style. I've never been there but given a cheap round trip flight I would easily go and spend money.

The alternative appears to be some kind of bailout and/or debt restructuring and I don't see that working out in the long term, which would presumably cost taxpayers even more money.

<comment><USER24> Probably recreating the tax climate that attracted pharmaceutical manufacturers and was allowed to lapse would be more effective than trying to gin up tourism (although in my opinion probably that wouldn't be all that helpful either).

<comment><USER25> Lowering taxes only works if you can combine it with something else that will keep the companies in place afterwards, such as a critical mass of specialized workers, infrastructure, etc. Otherwise it's just playing the downward-spiral game in a saturated market.

The federal government should create a 10-year plan to subsidize PR and fix its economy/democracy from the ground up. If you look at Eastern Europe, it takes a long time. One specific hack won't fix this, that's magical thinking, and usually from corrupted politicians turfing their funders.

<comment><USER26> > that's magical thinking, and usually from corrupted politicians turfing > their funders.

Subsidization is the game that corrupt politicians love. Not so much lowering taxes (and therefore their power to choose the beneficiaries among their friends/special interests). Unless of course the tax reduction is via a myriad of specialized loopholes and deductions, then it could be directed at a chosen few.

<comment><USER24> Spending money and cutting taxes are essentially equivalent, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> For the Spanish speakers of HNs, NPR's Radio Ambulante has an excellent episode (called "deuda") that they did last year explaining the complexity of the situation.

The short version is that a lot of the debt is held by the people of PR themselves in form of bonds that were sold when the economy was good.

The reason it was artificially good is that for a long period it had great US tax benefits when compared with other US territories/states. During that time several corporstions (particularly pharma) had factories and jobs there. During that time there was a boom in bond sales - a lot of predatory practices that are reminiscent of the US housing bubble were done there, too. Once the tax loophole was closed, corporations left the island, jobs went to shit, the bonds could not be repaid, and all well, you get the picture. Except that in this case, "not paying debt", literally means not paying a huge chunk of all the life savings that people poured (arguably even patriotically) to their own bond system (see the parallels to the housing crisis?).

You could technically boost the enconomy there by reintroducing similar tax loopholes, but it would be a temporary fix, and there would be significant struggles in the Senate and Congress... Taxation without representation sucks big time...

Link to podcast:[https://16683.mc.tritondigital.com/NPR_510315/media- session/...](https://16683.mc.tritondigital.com/NPR_510315/media- session/5571309b-92cf-49c6-9897-5088c9d08229/anon.npr- mp3/npr/ambul/2016/12/20161216_ambul_deuda.mp3?orgId=1&d=2261&p=510315&story=505690705&t=podcast&e=505690705&siteplayer=true&dl=1)

<comment><USER28> What percentage of the debt is held by private individuals and what percentage is bets by traders?

<comment><USER29> I was wondering this too, who is exposed, by how much, and are those entities publicly traded now?

In the Detroit one, bond holders were able to get back .75c on the dollar[0], and I suspect the haircut here will be worse for bond holders.

[0] [http://www.barrons.com/articles/seven-lessons-from- detroits-...](http://www.barrons.com/articles/seven-lessons-from-detroits- bankruptcy-for-muni-investors-1414183339)

<comment><USER27> See my response above for links :)

<comment><USER29> WSJ just released this today too: [https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-most- exposed-to-puerto-...](https://www.wsj.com/articles/who-are-most-exposed-to- puerto-ricos-bankruptcy-mutual-funds-and-hedge-funds-1493840870)

<comment><USER27> Thanks for sharing

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Puerto Rico should really be a state by now. Would it being a state given it any distinct advantages (or are there any specific problems in light of it not being a state) in this type of situation?

<comment><USER31> There's a statehood faction, an independence faction, and a big "don't upset the gravy train" faction that likes the status quo. If Puerto Rico became a state, US Federal personal income taxes would be imposed. If Puerto Rico became an independent country, immigration to the US would be stopped.

There have been referendums on this. The next one is June 11, 2017.

<comment><USER32> I know a very wealthy hedge fund manager who just moved to PR in order to minimize (read: eliminate) his Federal tax burden.

Of course, as the current situation demonstrates, not being under the Federal taxation umbrella has certain disadvantages.

<comment><USER33> Wait. I though Puerto Ricans were only exempt from federal income tax on Pueto Rican-sourced income.

<comment><USER34> Here's a local law where if you meet all the criteria (income made off the island, spend > 180 days per year here, various other criteria), you're exempt from income taxes here. And since you're a resident, all your income is here. Effectively exempting you from federal income taxes.

The idea was to attract high net worth individuals to spend money here.

Every analysis I've seen says it has worked quite well.

<comment><USER35> Crazy. So if you move to PR but making money from other US based interests you get exempted from US federal income tax, but if you move and work permentantly in say Germany, you still get charged US Federal Income tax?

<comment><USER30> That was my question. The US is one of two countries where US citizens are required to file taxes even if they're not living in the country (the other is Eritrea).

<comment><USER34> If I remember correctly, PR and Guam are the two places in the world where your income is exempt from federal income tax, if you pay local taxes. There are some exceptions to that.

It's supposed to give some local autonomy to the taxation process and fiscal management.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER36> I spent several months in Puerto Rico working on operations with Google's Project Loon, launching balloons out of Cieba.

Seeing the island during September 2016 power outage was eye-opening. It was admittedly a pretty bad event that spurred it, but portions of the island were without power for several days. Infrastructure development is definitely necessary, particularly considering the possibility of storm hits there.

It is a lovely island, I hope this manages to nudge along solutions from what seemed to be a stagnating problem.

</comment><comment><USER37> As you hear about Puerto Rico the next few days, take some time to get smart on the history and dynamic. Highly recommend Congressional Dish Podcast that came out a few weeks ago. Very good - [http://www.congressionaldish.com/cd147-controlling-puerto- ri...](http://www.congressionaldish.com/cd147-controlling-puerto- rico/#more-2190)

</comment><comment><USER38> There is an excellent episode on the podcast Radio-Ambulante on exactly this. There're are accounts of a few people living there, small business owners etc. if i recall correctly

[http://radioambulante.org/en/audio- en/debt](http://radioambulante.org/en/audio-en/debt)

English translation: [http://radioambulante.org/en/audio- en/translation/translatio...](http://radioambulante.org/en/audio- en/translation/translation-debt)

</comment><comment><USER39> I'm not super knowledgeable, but this seems to me like a good thing. If investors lend money to a government that can't repay, they should lose some of that money. I don't think whole economies should remain in a state of economic slavery.

Is there some way in which this move might turn out bad for the people of Puerto Rico, aside from it probably being more difficult to raise debt in the future at a reasonable rate?

</comment><comment><USER40> The Marxist hidden in me says

* listen to Richard Wolff's views on Puerto Rico [http://www.rdwolff.com/tags/puerto_rico](http://www.rdwolff.com/tags/puerto_rico)

* listen to David Graeber [https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290](https://www.amazon.com/Debt-First-5-000-Years/dp/1612191290)

</comment><comment><USER41> A lot of people forget that government debt is often funny-money. Defaulting on debt is very different than not paying your friend back.

<comment><USER42> Only for governments that can issue money.

</comment></comment><comment><USER43> Are there any investment opportunities amidst this news? I've always wondered how these massive bankruptcies play out.

</comment><comment><USER44> For a good intro to the Puerto Rico financial crisis, see this Planet Money podcast :

[http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/01/472733338/episo...](http://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/01/472733338/episode-693-unpayable)

</comment><comment><USER45> TIL there are territories of the United States where the U.S. Constitution is not fully applicable.

</comment><comment><USER46> Does anyone know how much the US federal govt is on the hook for?

</comment><comment><USER47> Ok, So China's economy is on the verge of collapse ( as the media likes to paint it), it is not sustainable, but they are carefully trying to control it.

EU is, Brexit, Greece ( tiny compared to P.Rico ).....

And now U.S.

It seems we have more problems then we had after the Money Printing machine turned to full power in 2008.

This may sound naive, do we actually have a recession in the past 20 - <USER2> years? We may have contraction, but actual recession? 2008, was like a come and go event in such a short time frame.

And an even more stupid question, is a constant GDP growth, sustainable? Or if we include the lowered value of currency we have been in negative already?

</comment><comment><USER48> [http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org](http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org)

I'll just leave this here.

</comment><comment><USER49> Their governor looks like Michael Scott. I've never understood why governments go into debt. It's just stupid.

<comment><USER50> It's misalignment of incentives rather than stupidity (well, in some cases, maybe also stupidity). Governments make decisions from one election cycle to the next. So taking on debt that will be some future administration's problem in order to finance public projects now, and increase the current administration's popularity makes perfect sense.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> Illinois badly needs to do this as well.

<comment><USER52> When you're looking for states that might be in trouble, you're looking for places with certain attributes. For instance, high debt per capita and low per capita income. Add to that low or decreasing populations and a few other metrics and you can get a really good picture of which states will end in the most trouble.

Illinois wouldn't be terribly high on that list. Your best bets for gaming collapses would be places like Rhode Island, Mississippi and Louisiana. In the next tier would be places like Kansas and Alabama. These are the places that I'd wager will have the most trouble in the future.

But I'm not sure how you'd game any of this... because we're talking about States, so bankruptcy protections would work differently.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> > As is typical, decisions by politicians placed us in this situation. Decade > after decade, 4-year term after 4-year term, the government has spent money > it does not have.

Every time every one of us votes for any politician who favors any deficit spending - and this is most of us - we give aid and comfort to this outcome. We all want fiscal responsibility until its a cause that touches us emotionally.

<comment><USER4> The United States will always be in some amount debt, and that's perfectly fine. Going into debt, in order to invest into something with a good RoI is a non-brainer.

It stops being fine when the debt exceeds its ability to pay - which, given that it is in control of its own currency, never has to happen.

What you should be concerned is investments into things with poor RoI. Corporate crony handouts, tax cuts to the rich, building bombs and dropping them out of airplanes, and then rebuilding whatever they blew up, digging ditches and filling them... All of these have incredibly poor RoI.

</comment></comment><comment><USER54> Apple could buy that debt and rename the island to "Apple Island", etc.

</comment><comment><USER55> As Maggie Thatcher said: eventually you run out of other people's money.

</comment><comment><USER56> On the bright side, perhaps it's now a great time to buy property in PR?

</comment><comment><USER57> The PROMESA bill is disgusting. An unappointed board filled with bankster- friendly technocrats will now overrule democracy in Puerto Rico. The island is in for a generation of recessions and low growth as the entire economy will be permanently directed towards paying off bondholders.

</comment><comment><USER58> Why not sell of the island, or part of it for seasteading?

</comment><comment><USER59> Wonder how bad it would be if they didn't subsidize rum production so heavily.

<comment><USER60> How much is rum production subsidized? Hiding tax breaks for export industries is hypocritical politics, but logical economics.

</comment></comment><comment><USER61> Debt: The Next 5000 Years

</comment><comment><USER62> In 30 years bankruptcies like this one will look like peanuts compared to the collapse of massively underfunded government employee pension funds that will begin happening soon.

</comment><comment><USER63> I was in Puerto Rico a year or so ago. I'm by no means a expert but it seemed like a odd place to live. Mostly because its not a US state yet a good chunk of the people seem to want it to be.

</comment><comment><USER64> Should I cash my USD now or should it be safe for few more months?

<comment><USER53> Money isn't a mechanism for the exchange of sovereign assets anymore. That role has been supplanted by debt.

You wouldn't cash in your USD anymore than you would trade in your car because petrol prices have fallen.

You _might_ cash in your US Treasury bonds. I say might because there is no flight to safety from US bonds at nation-state scale. Treasuries are the only game in town.

If all this is confusing then here's another way of looking at it... it doesn't matter how precarious the US financial situation becomes until such time as there is a scaleable, stable and transparent alternative means of storing, buying, selling, lending, investing value.

<comment><USER65> So perhaps the successor to the successor to bitcoin, in another 10 or so years?</comment></comment></comment>


Seth's Blog: Take the ball and go home - <AUTHOR> http://sethgodin.typepad.com/seths_blog/2009/01/take-the-ball-and-go-home.html

<comment><USER2> The problem is when the bully is your boss. I had this happen to me after a reorg. I did good work so he wouldn't let me move to a new group. I put up with it for 2 years. Big mistake.

Seth's advice is good but if it doesn't work, plan your departure.

</comment><comment><USER3> Trouble is - some of those bullies are psychopaths and do not respond as Seth would like us to believe they would. Still - perhaps it is better to get fired when you run into one of them than to try and work with them

</comment><comment><USER4> Totally agree.. They need you to ascertain theirselves. Wish I had read this earlier.</comment>


Tiny spacecraft tested as part of plan for interstellar travel - <AUTHOR> http://www.astronomy.com/news/2019/05/tiny-spacecraft-tested-as-part-of-breakthrough-starshot-plan-for-interstellar-travel <comment><USER2> A list of tech needed to build such a craft[1]. I was interested in how they are thinking about getting a signal back to Earth from Alpha Centauri. It looks like they are hoping a 1W laser might be detectable from such a distance[2].

[1][https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/challenges/3](https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/challenges/3) [2][https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/forum/14?page=2](https://breakthroughinitiatives.org/forum/14?page=2)

<comment><USER3> I hope quantum entanglement (QE) it will be achieved. It's hard to have QE now between billions of chips to achieve an internet without wires/delay, but between 2 chips one on board of the tiny spaceship and the other here on Earth to have instant communication without having 4 years delay is totally feasible right now. I know, I'm a dreamer :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Very cool. I always thought that the path to interstellar exploration has two options: small devices like this with adequate AI for exploration, and better, larger devices that would have human DNA, micro factories to build bigger factories, and bootstrap life.

Clearly option 1 is much more feasible in the next hundred years or so.</comment>


Where do we stand on benchmarking the D-Wave 2? - <AUTHOR> https://plus.google.com/+QuantumAILab/posts/DymNo8DzAYi <comment><USER2> From Scott Aaronson:

> If one considers only the ~10% of instances on which the D-Wave machine does > best, then the machine does do slightly better on those instances than > simulated annealing does. (Conversely, simulated annealing does better than > the D-Wave machine on the ~75% of instances on which it does best.) > Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to characterize the instances on > which the D-Wave machine will do best: one just has to try it and see what > happens! And of course, it's extremely rare that two heuristic algorithms > will succeed or fail on exactly the same set of instances: it's much more > likely that their performances will be correlated, but imperfectly. So it's > unclear, at least to me, whether this finding represents anything other than > the "noise" that would inevitably occur even if one classical algorithm were > pitted against another one.

He continues:

> However, I neglected to mention that even the slight "speedup" on ~10% of > instances, only appears when one looks at the "quantiles of ratio": in other > words, when one plots the probability distribution of [Simulated annealing > time / D-Wave time] over all instances, and then looks at (say) the ~10% of > the distribution that's best for the D-Wave machine. The slight speedup > disappears when one looks at the "ratio of quantiles": that is, when one > (say) divides the amount of time that simulated annealing needs to solve its > best 10% of instances, by the amount of time that the D-Wave machine needs > to solve its best 10%. And Rønnow et al. give arguments in their paper that > ratio of quantiles is probably the more relevant performance comparison than > quantiles of ratio. (Incidentally, the slight speedup on a few instances > also only appears for certain values of the parameter r, which controls how > many possible settings there are for each coupling. Apparently it appears > for r=1, but disappears for r=3 and r=7—thereby heightening one's suspicion > that we're dealing with an artifact of the minimum annealing time or > something like that, rather than a genuine speedup.)

<comment><USER3> This seems like a boiler plate criticism of an earlier D-Wave.

My quick read of the article gives me the impression that it and the most recent D-Wave render this criticism obsolete.

Shouldn't the higher rated comment actually related to the article at hand (I'm not very qualified to evaluate it but it seems to give specific points that address these objections).

<comment><USER4> Scott's post is from January 16th and was updated on the 26th, as far as I understand he is using the latest results:

[http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1643](http://www.scottaaronson.com/blog/?p=1643)

<comment><USER3> I don't see anything in the parent quotes that addresses the discussion of the article, which goes into the relative performance of the D-Wave and custom algorithms in detail, describing situations where the D-Wave is faster;

"But importantly, if you move to problems with structure, then the hardware does much better. See Figure 3. This example is intriguing from a physics perspective, since it suggests co-tunneling is helping the hardware figure out that the spins in each unit cell have to to be flipped as a block to see a lower energy state..."

Which isn't a blanket endorsement but is a statement that there are places where they can show D-Wave is better (Vs Aaronson's "Unfortunately, no one seems to know how to characterize the instances on which the D-Wave machine will do best")

Edit: Looking at Aaronsen's blog, he is using some very recent results but I don't see any indications that these results are the same as those referenced by the parent article here by the "Google AI Team". Maybe I'm missing something.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I like how one of the challenges with quantum computing is working out whether any quantum computing is actually happening

<comment><USER6> It's more that D-Wave has gone off and abandoned the approach that everyone else is taking with their machine, so it's not clear if you can call it a quantum computer.

Imagine if I had a box that didn't have a cpu, or anything like a cpu, but could still solve a particular type of computing problem. It's kinda weird to call it a computer when it lacks the part that computes, but it still gets results for a subset of the problems.

On top of that, the D-Wave has far larger numbers, like it's 509 q-bits for this one, but it can't solve problems of the size we could if we had a 509 q-bit regular quantum computer. It's not really measuring the same thing.

<comment><USER7> Well it sort of lives in both worlds. It does some some problems better, some not so much.

It is a quantum computers as much as you can build a specialized FPGA or ASIC that does SHA256 hashes really well then kind of think, hmm, where I can use this awesome feature and what problems can be reduced to computing SHA256 hashes? Is that a "computer", well, kinda, maybe.

> but it can't solve problems of the size we could if we had a 509 q-bit > regular quantum computer.

Well yeah because it is not really a universal computer and it is controversial and they are being sneaky about it.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Huh. So at this point it basically is believed to be an actual quantum computer, but it can't consistently beat optimized traditional implementations? Confusing. Does that mean that an ASIC running an efficient traditional solver could beat the D-Wave?

<comment><USER9> Most folks in the field don't believe it's quantum. Benchmarking is a truly stupid way to test something's quantumness. It's a bit like a company selling fusion reactors who puts their reactor in a car, and then races it, and when they kinda sorta beat their competitor, they say "clearly had to be fusion." Ideally you'd try to use the zeno effect to watch the thing slow down as you "turn off" it's quantum behavior, but d-wave haven't given us that dial. There are then papers from d-wave that say that the thing is quantum because in an 8-qubit spin chain, they see an avoided crossing. I don't know what to think about this, besides that the thing they are selling has many many more qubits than 8, and the whole problem in quantum computation is scaling, ya dig?

The ones I find the most convincing are the ones that try to find a "signature" of quantum computation, by setting the system up with a certain connectivity that will cool down into certain ground states with certain probability iff it's quantum. I like these. There was one from Boixo, but I guess Vazirani's group at Berkeley figured out that this test wasn't good enough to differentiate. There was another, again, which Boixo is on, from Ronnow et. al. which came up with another signature, and they decided that it wasn't quantum.

If you've been doing superconducting qubits for a while, you notice that they're using a qubit design which even the inventor has abandoned at this point. If you're an experimental physicist, you notice that the whole thing is a poorly designed scientific experiment. If you're just a casual observer, and you listen to the language they use to describe their product, you notice that their wording is very slimy. I don't believe it's quantum.

I also think a room temperature annealer ASIC could be very, very cool. An analog computer sort of thing. Would LOVE to see this.

<comment><USER8> Informative comment, thanks:

By superconducting qubits I assume you're referring to a general approach for creating qubits that you can use for computation (I'm also assuming the 'superconducting' refers to getting some material into a superconducting state at which point the physical/quantum properties are useful). Is that right?

And when you say the inventor has abandoned their qubit design, do you mean the person that came up with that particular approach? Or the credited inventor of the d-wave? Or something else?

The small amount of stuff I've read examining their claims definitely made it seem like they were weasel-wording things, but I've never understood enough about quantum mechanics (or quantum computing) to attempt to examine them directly. Thanks.

I hadn't realized that annealing could be done in an analog fashion - that's pretty cool. I can see how in that case an ASIC could actually dramatically outperform a digital model, then?

Also, 'room temperature' \- does the D-Wave have to be cooled to some absurdly low temperature to work? I can see how that would be necessary if it relies on superconductivity.

<comment><USER10> > does the D-Wave have to be cooled to some absurdly low temperature to work?

Yeah, 20 millikelvin. It's cooled with liquid Helium.

([http://www.nas.nasa.gov/quantum/quantumcomp.html](http://www.nas.nasa.gov/quantum/quantumcomp.html))

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> My biggest problem with these results is that they are comparing the D-Wave machine against classical simulations that are built to solve the same problems the D-Wave is best at solving. The gold standard in the quantum algorithms world is to show that you can solve a given problem faster than any possible classical approach in the O(n) sense. This has been done for many problems, notably search, which can be done in sqrt(n) vs n/2\. Factoring is faster but has not been proven to be faster than all possible classical approaches.

Another way to put this is that what this post is saying is that problem x can be solved y times faster on the D-Wave machine when compared to classical systems designed to act like the D-Wave machine. There are many other classical approaches that could be use to solve x. If the problem was significant enough a best know classical algorithm could be devised and implemented on an asic. Could the D-Wave machine beat this approach?

Or for less significant problems, could the cost of the D-Wave machine compare to paying someone to devise an special purpose algorithm per problem and implement it in C, Java, C#, Haskell / other fast languages. How much does it cost to pay someone to do this one something like top coder?

<comment><USER3> Sure but D-Wave is pretty much a "Silver-not-gold" level quantum computing device.

They are, more or less, clear that they aren't doing real, general purpose quantum computing but special purpose quantum computing.

It would be great to have a general purpose quantum computer. D-Wave is spec'd as such, sorry.

It's possible that D-Wave is a clever special-purpose classical machine that's just being hyped as a quantum machine. But the linked article seems to give good evidence that D-Wave is what it claims to be; a special purpose quantum computer, which is indeed different than a general purpose quantum computer.

One thing to think about is that D-Wave may be going just a little beyond what's possible but, apparently, using quantum computing to go that little, they learning something possible interesting about creating a quantum computing device.

<comment><USER4> I don't have any issue with the fact that it is special purpose, I have a hard time calling it a success before it can be shown to be better than any known classical approaches at something.

I love the fact that they are trying and are spreading awareness of quantum computing but I take issue with some of their claims. They have a long history of making unsubstantiated and sensationalized claims. They also have a portfolio of patents many of which were arguably discovered by someone else or are overly broad.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> _You can create much tougher classical competition by writing highly optimized code that accounts for the sparse connectivity structure of the current D-Wave chip._

Why should optimized code "account for the sparse connectivity of the D-Wave chip"? If the contest is to solve an optimization problem, then the "classical competition" doesn't need to know anything about the D-Wave. The only reason a competing code would need to model the D-Wave itself would be if it's simulating how the D-Wave solves an optimization problem-- in which case comparing the times taken to do the optimization is hardly meaningful.

<comment><USER12> The problem is that the "non-optimized" solutions assume that every quibit can talk to every other one. So they are modelling what the quibits should do in a perfect case and modelling the perfect case is much slower than modelling what we actually have.

So the fastest ones are the ones that say, oh, the best answer that the D-Wave is going to give will be X so I don't need to be any more accurate than that. I'll just model the bare minimum necessary to have the same accuracy as the D-wave. Its like lossy compression vs lossless compression. If you are willing to have lossy compression you can do much better and faster. The D-wave is lossy (because it has a "sparse connectivity structure") and thus the other solutions which are also lossy are better comparisons on a speed benchmark.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Just when I feel like I am finally getting the hang of this computer geek thing (it took 20 years) then some whipper snappers go do something fancy and make me feel inferior. Hail to the smart people!

</comment><comment><USER14> Quantum Computing is the new Cold Fusion.</comment>


More inclusive language from Twitter engineering - <AUTHOR> https://twitter.com/TwitterEng/status/1278733305190342656 <comment><USER2> I don't have words for this level of stupidity, but I'm pretty sure Twitter engineering can come up with some for me.

</comment><comment><USER3> My issue with the "whitelist/blacklist", "master/slave" and "dummy value" changes is the following:

"White" and "black" have been used to signify "good" and "bad" probably since around 100 BCE [0]. I don't think this is, in itself, a problem. The problem arises when anyone would decide to connect that "white" and "black" to someone's race or skin colour, a connection which I find absolutely ridiculous and incomprehensible.

If we follow this line of reasoning, we shouldn't describe situations as "insane" or "crazy" because those words could also be used to describe people with mental health condition. Does this mean we should stop using any negative word in the language that could conceivably be used to describe a group of people as well?

I think not, because "insane situation" and "insane person" are two completely different and unrelated usages with different meanings, even if the word is the same -- just like "whitelist" and "white person".

This is my current view and I'm happy to have my view changed, so please let me know what your opinions are!

[0]: [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sons_of_Light_Again...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_of_the_Sons_of_Light_Against_the_Sons_of_Darkness)</comment>


Caltrain planning to cancel almost half of their trains - <AUTHOR>

See http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Proposed_Service_Changes.html
via a friend: "Caltrain may be cutting most of their trains come July. According to the proposed schedule there are only commute-hour trains, and a number of stops will be closing.
I'm particularly irked by the last train leaving the city at 8:30am, and then no trains until around 4 pm. Read the proposed schedule here and see if the train you normally take is on it: http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Public/48TrainScheduleDRAFT_02-09-2011.pdf
There is a meeting in SF to hear public comments about this proposal. There are also meetings later in the week in San Carlos and Gilroy. Read about the nature of the service changes here: http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Proposed_Service_Changes.html
I've made a facebook event for the SF meeting, which I will be attending. If you are affected by the extreme schedule change you should come as well. Facebook event is here: http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163048787079367
Please invite your friends that take the train." <comment><AUTHOR> clickable:

[http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Proposed_Service_Changes.h...](http://www.caltrain.com/riderinfo/Proposed_Service_Changes.html)

[http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Public/48TrainScheduleDRAFT_0...](http://www.caltrain.com/Assets/Public/48TrainScheduleDRAFT_02-09-2011.pdf)

<http://www.facebook.com/event.php?eid=163048787079367>

</comment><comment><USER2> Alright, this is no good.

How much?</comment>


Flattr is now in open beta - <AUTHOR> http://blog.flattr.com/2010/08/open-beta/ <comment><USER2> You know what annoys me? When a company has a blog for their product, but that blog doesn't include a link to the product. Anywhere.

If your blog post interests me and I want to learn about the product, it should be as easy as clicking your logo to get to it.

<comment><USER3> Amen to that! I have come across several company blog posts where there is no direct link to the actual site. Clicking on their logo usually leads me right back to the blog.

Very annoying - For anyone else who gets annoyed with this - Clickable link - <http://flattr.com/>

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Advice: This would have been a good opportunity to tell me what Flattr is rather than making the assumption that I have been eagerly following along with your progress and am as excited now as you are.

(Edit: Found the homepage, read it, still don't know. Tab closed).

<comment><USER5> I put 20euro into my Flattr Account, and choose to spend 2uero a month. As I browse the web, when I see content I like, and click the 'Flattr' button, which is like the Facebook like button. At the end of the month, everyone who's button I clicked gets an equal share of 2euro.

I can spend whatever I want monthly, this is just what I actually do.

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> Actually, I think they could get traction, but for that to happen that would need to release an API to check if user "donated" to my blog/service/etc.

Therefore I can create a "premium" zone accessible for a smallest fee ever. That would create a need for user to create Flattr account. You pay to see some premium content. Also, you pay the same fee to get premium content on dozens, potentially, hundreds of sites.

Otherwise you're just hoping to sign up users to pay 10EUR(?) monthly as a kind of "permanent monthly donation". Even though it's not a lot of money, but still most people would avoid that: 1. it's a semi-permanent obligation 2. as practice shows - relying on people giving a donation for something available for free is a bad idea. (Let alone MONTHLY donation for same thing)

You need to provide something in exchange for their money. Give us the API to find out that user donated and we'll give him a reason to sign up with Flattr (premium content).

<comment><USER7> While seemingly similar that would be an entirely different concept. What flattr does is enabling small donations for things you already like. One of the nice things with flattr is that the users are already "sold" and have already payed the "fee". If they like what you've done they are going to flattr you, not thinking "is this really worth x". There are a lot of potentially nice things that differs from other revenue models, like making it harder for "link-bait".

I can't really explain entire concept (as I see it) in a good way, you'll have to "get into it" yourself. You also have to keep in mind what the founders are coming from. I don't think it would be a very good fit for Peter Sunde to push for "paywalling" of the Internet with a subscription network.

Finally, the monthly minimum amount is currently 2€.

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Great news, well done! One quick suggestion: have a link to Flattr from the blog ;)

</comment><comment><USER9> I like the business model, even though it's heavily geared towards content creators. I have no problem putting a little money in and rewarding other content creators if I get something in return, too. It doesn't have to be equal. So far, I have flattr'd one thing, and have received three flattrs. There's something in it for me.

However, if I didn't have stuff people could flattr, I doubt I would've joined.

<comment><USER7> So my comment was removed without reason or identification so I'm going to assume it was a mistake based on that I previously posted two comments and removed the duplicate.

Here is my original comment: _"Well, part of the point is (or will be) that most people on the Internet creates content. Like you just did when you wrote your comment. I guess this will be clearer when the API stuff gets going."_

While I do feel pretty unmotivated to explain what I mean, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt.

One of the more highlighted features of the Internet is that the line between customer and consumer has been blurred. Today you can create what was previously only known as a TV channels or newspapers in the form of video sharing or blogs. Even when traditional media publishes something, you can follow-up with your own view. Because of this and social media trends, _almost every Internet user is also a creator_. The upcoming Flattr API will let sites with user created content have their users flattr each other and take part of the revenue of those flattrs.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> In an earlier discussion, patio11 had an interesting comment about their business model - <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1499269>.

</comment><comment><USER11> Thoughts:

* split test your font and colour usage. A lot. I'm pretty sure the green/orange combo is going to hurt your conversion rate

* The black box around the YouTube thing is kinda fuzzy. Crisp is good

* The social element seems slightly random. There seems to be too much latitude for it to get spammed. Maybe feature blogs, instead of posts? Or aim to be the flip side to Kickstarter - I've made something (book, blog, album, book of poetry), enjoy it and then pay me

* Share the love - you're focusing on the wrong thing - people aren't going to share stuff they love in large numbers; content creators will share there own stuff. So if you're appealing to the masses, then it needs to be about supporting the stuff you love. If it's geared towards sharing, what's this got that Twitter/Digg/Fb hasn't got for promotional purposes? Split test the messaging

I don't mean to put a downer on it, just trying to pick it apart a little so you can make sure it works as best as possible.

</comment><comment><USER12> "Flattr is a social micropayment platform. Help support the people you like - and enable them to continue to do what they do! And add your own things to Flattr and receive support from others."

I'm obviously not an English expert, but I don't particularly like this text. Too much "10 years old" words repeated. (i.e. "to do what they like to do")

<comment><USER13> Flattr is Swedish, so I'm guessing English isn't the copy writer's native language either.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> It's your own blog.

It's linking to Twitter, Facebook, WordPress and a WordPress theme.

But not to Flattr.com.

Not picking on you in particular - about six people do this every day. _Drives me insane._

</comment><comment><USER15> Does this mean that if no one cares enough to donate then you wouldn't be making money at all?

</comment><comment><USER16> Cool. But what is flattr?

<comment><AUTHOR> It's a sort of micropayment service: You sign up and distribute a fixed amount of money per month (I.E. 10€). Everytime you click on a flattr-button (Which seem to shop up on german blogs only, in my experience), they will get a share. At the end of the month, your fixed amount divided by the number of shares is payed out to the sites.

There are some implementation details which results into calling themselves a 'social payment service'.

<comment><USER17> Which is worth pointing out - it is not a social payment service, it is a social donation service, since you get to view the content whether you pay or not.

<comment><USER15> Hmm. So what's the difference between using this and using Paypal for donations?

Also, it's hoping that people will donate - if nobody cares to donate any money, would this mean the content creator gets zilch?

<comment><USER17> There wouldn't be much difference, but taking donations is only a small part of what paypal does. You can donate money with a credit card, but that is not what it is mostely used for.

Flattr on the other hand, can only be used for donations, which means that it has little, if any value.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER18> that could work... intriguing step up from HN in many ways as I'd be putting my money where my mouth/comments/pts currently reside...

</comment><comment><USER19> Like TipJoy.

</comment><comment><USER20> I won't be using this service.

The owners of flattr also own thepiratebay. I remember hearing a speech a few months ago talking about how everything should be free, just like when we were children (we need to learn to share). They have no regard for the rights of developers and have no problems giving a clear and direct roadmap to a free copy of your commercial application.

If they really believed in sharing, freedom, and rainbows, why does Flattr charge a 10% surcharge on top of every transaction (more than even Paypal). I might use them if they didn't make a profit and only paid for the infrastructure and bandwidth of the service.

It seems most people here don't see them for what they really are: a bunch of greedy fucks.

<comment><USER21> "The owners of flattr also own thepiratebay. I remember hearing a speech a few months ago talking about how everything should be free, just like when we were children (we need to learn to share). They have no regard for the rights of developers and have no problems giving a clear and direct roadmap to a free copy of your commercial application."

[Citation Needed]

"why does Flattr charge a 10% surcharge on top of every transaction"

Bandwidth isn't free.

"I might use them if they didn't make a profit"

How do you know they are profitable?

<comment><USER20> [Citation Needed]

(pirate bay founders create flattr)

[http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/12/pirate-bay-founders- flattr-...](http://techcrunch.com/2010/08/12/pirate-bay-founders-flattr-opens- to-the-public-vote-for-sites-you-visit-with-money)

Here is the video where he talks about sharing:

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IyGCsCpofVk>

"How do you know they are profitable?"

Bandwidth isn't that expensive. With all of the micropayments that will go through their service, they will make a profit.

<comment><USER22> What's wrong with earning a few dollars providing a useful service?

<comment><USER20> "What's wrong with earning a few dollars providing a useful service?"

Nothing. It's when you have also have a service that promotes the sharing of other people's commercial work for free (and say it's because you thing that sharing is for the good of the world). It's hypocritical and the people in this forum don't seem to see a problem with it.

I suppose I will just go with the flow and pirate any user's app I see on here.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Levandowski files suit against Uber [pdf] - <AUTHOR> https://ipfs.eternum.io/ipfs/Qmd9PTEtuSrKKtJQw36aNzpjJwZAdCdwCmUn4w21mmq74z/Levandowski-Uber-Complaint-1.pdf <comment><USER2> This is an interesting claim. It basically says that Uber knew about Levandowski's crimes when they agreed to indemnify him against claims brought by Google. Given the way Uber seems to work, this wouldn't surprise me at all. There seems to be a lot of bullshit in this claim, but that specific piece wouldn't surprise me.

Mostly unrelatedly, this part seems particularly shitty:

> In fact, Uber had considered acquiring Tyto in 2015 but declined to do so at > that time. Tyto was ultimately acquired by Otto with Uber's consent and at > Uber's request prior to Uber closing on its acquisition of Otto to secure a > lower price for Tyto than what Tyto would have requested had it known that > Uber was the acquirer.

<comment><USER3> I don't think so. When you sell a company you are relinquishing control of it. The acquirer wants to turn around and sell to Uber that's none of your business. You aren't entitled to know the ultimate acquirer to set your price any more than CVS is entitled to know my income to set my price for a bottle of Coke on a hot day.

<comment><USER2> I'd consider it more like accepting a new job. Your new employer is totally entitled to reorg and transfer you to a new team you wouldn't have wanted to join on week 3. But if they planned on transferring you out of the position all along, while they were simultaneously convincing you to leave your old job for this cool new position that you'll totally get to have (for two weeks), then they're being shitty.

If I found out that my new employer/acquirer was dishonest to get me on board with the terms we ended up on, sure they "won" the negotiation in a way they're entitled to, but it's going to sour the relationship for good reason and I'd say it's bad behavior that makes the ecosystem worse for all of us.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> 244\. Mr. Levandowski therefore seeks a declaration that Uber has no right to rescind the Indemnification Agreement without also rescinding the Otto transaction and returning all consideration received from that deal. 245\. In addition, Mr. Levandowski seeks damages, including any consequential damages, arising out of Uber's rescission of the Otto transaction.

</comment><comment><USER4> > On March 4, 2020, Judge Schulman ... entered a judgment in Google's favor > against Mr. Levandowski in the amount of $179,047,998.64.

> As a result of Uber's breaches, Mr. Levandowski has suffered damages in an > amount to be proven at trial, which amount should be at least $4.128 > billion.

</comment><comment><USER5> While I don't think Levandowski is a good guy (he did take a bunch of files, even if I think it's unlikely they were used in any real way), I think the way Google pursued him hinders skilled individuals from switching between companies and spreading innovation.

Here's an excerpt from a New Yorker article about the case:

> The judge, William Alsup, quickly tired of such distractions. "Despite the > excellent quality of the lawyers here, I cannot trust what they say," he > announced in court. The documents he was being shown, he said, included "a > lot of half-truth" and arguments that were "not quite accurate." Alsup > clearly thought that something unseemly had occurred, writing in one ruling > that Levandowski had resigned from Waymo "under highly suspicious > circumstances," and that the "14,000-plus purloined files likely contain at > least some trade secrets." He also noted that "it would strain credulity to > imagine that Levandowski plundered Waymo's vault the way he did with no > intent to make use of the downloaded trove." Yet Alsup wasn't sure if Waymo > had demonstrated that any of its information had been used in an illegal > manner. "If you can't prove that Uber got these trade secrets, then maybe > you're in a world of trouble," he told Waymo's lawyers.

[https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber- steal...](https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2018/10/22/did-uber-steal- googles-intellectual-property)

Faced with a weak case, Google settled quietly for 0.33% of Uber's stock, which is no tiny amount, but definitely not a landmark settlement.

The more concerning part is that:

1\. Google pursued Lewandowski with the help of federal prosecutors, using the threat of criminal trade secret charges and

2\. He was essentially abandoned by both his former employer and his current employer. The former attacked him to punish him for wrongdoing and to set an example. Uber abandoned him because he became too risky now that he became a weak point that could be exploited in court.

This feels like too much leverage for a former employer to have, regardless of whether you were truly guilty or not. In fact, I think the outcome would have been similar had Lewandowski stolen nothing at all.

<comment><USER6> The dude stole all the IP. He literally downloaded it all on purpose the day before he left. And took his team with him. And had a meeting with the head of Uber (a rival) the day before he left, to plan his de-facto selling of the Google self driving car project (which he did not own but which he could basically duplicate with stolen IP and poached people).

If you or I did any of those things we'd have been crucified. The fact that he's still standing is a testament to our dual legal system, one for the wealthy and powerful and one for the normals. Had he just left without stealing the IP he'd be fine. He even could have gotten away with violating his non-solicit agreement. The fact that nobody can prove he used the stolen material doesn't really apply.

<comment><USER7> Not to mention that his Google comp was in the neighborhood of 9 figures.

<comment><USER8> Why would he even give that up to go to Uber (let alone risk criminal charges)? Was he somehow under the impression that he would hit 10 figures at Uber? Why does any single person even need that much money to begin with? Give me 9 figures (or even 7), and I will call it a day. I'm really trying to understand his individual rationalization here.

<comment><USER9> He actually planned to create a church of AI named "Way Of The Future" following the model of Scientology, and have all AI professionals potential members benefit from certain american church tax exemptions - "The documents state that WOTF's activities will focus on "the realization, acceptance, and worship of a Godhead based on Artificial Intelligence (AI) developed through computer hardware and software." That includes funding research to help create the divine AI itself. The religion will seek to build working relationships with AI industry leaders and create a membership through community outreach, initially targeting AI professionals and "laypersons who are interested in the worship of a Godhead based on AI." The filings also say that the church "plans to conduct workshops and educational programs throughout the San Francisco/Bay Area beginning this year." - [https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski- artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial- intelligence-religion/)

Also from the same article - "Just as important to Levandowski is shaping the public dialogue around an AI god. In its filing, Way of the Future says it hopes an active, committed, dedicated membership will promote the use of divine AI for the "betterment of society" and "decrease fear of the unknown." "We'd like to make sure this is not seen as silly or scary. I want to remove the stigma about having an open conversation about AI, then iterate ideas and change people's minds," says Levandowski. "In Silicon Valley we use evangelism as a word for [promoting a business], but here it's literally a church. If you believe in it, you should tell your friends, then get them to join and tell their friends."

But WOTF differs in one key way to established churches, says Levandowski: "There are many ways people think of God, and thousands of flavors of Christianity, Judaism, Islam...but they're always looking at something that's not measurable or you can't really see or control. This time it's different. This time you will be able to talk to God, literally, and know that it's listening."

Levandowski says that like other religions, WOTF will eventually have a gospel (called The Manual), a liturgy, and probably a physical place of worship. None of these has yet been developed. Though the church was founded in 2015, as Backchannel first reported in September, the IRS documents show that WOTF remained dormant throughout 2015 and 2016, with no activities, assets, revenue, or expenses.

The religion's 2017 budget, as supplied to the IRS, details $20,000 in gifts, $1,500 in membership fees, and $20,000 in other revenue. That last figure is the amount WOTF expects to earn from fees charged for lectures and speaking engagements, as well as the sale of publications. Levandowski, who earned at least $120 million from his time at Google and many millions more selling the self-driving truck firm Otto to Uber, will initially support WOTF personally. However, the church will solicit other donations by direct mail and email, seek personal donations from individuals, and try to win grants from private foundations.

<comment><USER10> How hasn't this been covered more widely? This is nuts!

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> I think there was a scene like this in Austin Powers.

</comment><comment><USER12> Like real money or stock & stuff worth that much?

</comment><comment><USER13> Could not have happened to a more ethical company.

</comment><comment><USER14> Damn I'm sure he's appealing to the AI godhead that he is victorious here and doesn't spend too long of a time in prison.

[https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski- artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial- intelligence-religion/)

<comment><USER15> The article says it hasn't been created yet.

<comment><USER9> Levandowski says that like other religions, WOTF will eventually have a gospel (called The Manual), a liturgy, and probably a physical place of worship. None of these has yet been developed. Though the church was founded in 2015, as Backchannel first reported in September, the IRS documents show that WOTF remained dormant throughout 2015 and 2016, with no activities, assets, revenue, or expenses.

The religion's 2017 budget, as supplied to the IRS, details $20,000 in gifts, $1,500 in membership fees, and $20,000 in other revenue. That last figure is the amount WOTF expects to earn from fees charged for lectures and speaking engagements, as well as the sale of publications. Levandowski, who earned at least $120 million from his time at Google and many millions more selling the self-driving truck firm Otto to Uber, will initially support WOTF personally. However, the church will solicit other donations by direct mail and email, seek personal donations from individuals, and try to win grants from private foundations. [https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski- artificial-i...](https://www.wired.com/story/anthony-levandowski-artificial- intelligence-religion/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Fuck this guy. These people are the cancer of Silicon Valley that generally has integrity and decency in pursuing startup endeavors; with some rotten apples here and there like this guy and Elizabeth Holmes.

<comment><USER17> I have never heard anyone associate Silicon Valley with integrity and decency (pursuing startup endeavors).

Not saying they aren't, I just never really heard it explicitly said so. Is this a common self perception within that region? What makes it so? Beyond a baseline of that most people consider themselves having integrity and decency.

<comment><USER18> Investors routinely entrust entrepreneurs with millions of dollars, after only some relatively-light due diligence. You'll meet for coffee first, then dinner, if you hit it off then more conversations, and eventually a term sheet. The investor doesn't ask for source code or technical documents, or subject the entrepreneurs to a rigorous examination to make sure it's not a scam. It's all based largely on _trust_.

<comment><USER19> I do not think that investors do not do background checks between coffee, dinner and more conversations.

On contrary, I do think that you put too much trust on trust.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> It's a .docx file.

Potential for malicious macros?

<comment><AUTHOR> I used filebin to create a link - should be fine. Otherwise the doc is behind a paywall.

<comment><USER21> FileBin. Really?

I have news for you. The file itself is real but it's also acting suspiciously like malware. (Opens a second document showing a "hire me!" message and downloading another file)

I was lucky to spin up a VM, open it and I saw that message.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> He needs this money because he will he broke after his prison term</comment>


Pearls - Perfect Accessory for Summer Wedding - <AUTHOR> http://www.pearlhours.com/index.php?pearls-perfect-accessory-for-summer-wedding.html <comment><USER2> Is there a spambot getting through here? I'm seeing at least two other junk posts- <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629278> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1629264>

<comment><USER3> There are always spambots. Flag them and move on.</comment></comment>


Google Mobile and Tablet: Introducing the Knowledge Graph - <AUTHOR> http://insidesearch.blogspot.co.uk/2012/05/knowledge-graph-for-mobile-and-tablet.html

<comment><USER2> This links to a mobile-specific story. It seems like you meant to link to [http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing- knowledge...](http://googleblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/introducing-knowledge- graph-things-not.html)

which has a submission here: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3982887>

<comment><AUTHOR> True, but the content of the two is largely the same, "Cross-posted on the Inside Search Blog". I've altered the title to that effect.

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> "Fact Graph" seems like a more apt name

</comment><comment><USER4> So like DuckDuckGo does ?</comment>


Ask HN: What is the main reason to buy an expensive smartphone? - <AUTHOR> I am looking at the LG Nexus 5 and the Google Pixel. Both with 32 GB. The Pixel is about 3 times as expensive. What is the main reason in terms of hardware? If not resolution, storage or size .. what would be my main benefit of buying a Pixel? <comment><USER2> Are you sure you're looking at the 2013 Nexus 5 and not the newer Nexus 5X which is also made by LG?

I owned the older 2013 Nexus 5 for two years until upgrading to a Nexus 6p, which I am still happily using. The N5 was a great phone, and an exceptional value at the time but the hardware is quite old at this point and I believe Google has stopped updating it to newer versions of Android. The Nexus 5 build quality wasn't that great and had a common problem where the power button would break and stop responding. This happened to my unit after approximately 14-15 months of use.

I've never owned the 5X but I did consider it when it was first released. I ultimately opted for the 6P even though it was more expensive and larger. The 5X has fairly large bezels for it's screen size and the size difference between the 5X and 6P wasn't as large in person as I assumed. The 6P also had a better screen in my view, and far better build quality.

The Pixel is an interesting proposition for me since it is even more expensive than my current 6P. I couldn't justify the upgrade cost since my current phone is still more than adequate, and I found the Pixel's design to be lacking. I've heard the battery life is very good, especially on the Pixel XL.

In short, the biggest reasons for buying an expensive Android smartphone for me are build quality and update support. I'd also add that the more expensive phones tend to place a higher priority on the camera. I never really felt this was a big deal or killer feature, but since getting the 6P, which has a very good camera, I've found myself using it more and more. It's gotten to the point were going forward, camera quality will definitely be an important consideration in a future phone. I'll add that the Pixel's camera is said to be very impressive.

You may also want to consider the more recently released OnePlus 3T[1]. I've heard very good things about this phone and many consider it the spiritual successor to the Nexus line since it offers very good value.

[1][https://oneplus.net/3t](https://oneplus.net/3t)

<comment><AUTHOR> Yeah, I am comparing to the Nexus 5. The Nexus 5X would also be an option. Interesting. I would have assumed maybe the CPU is the main reason to buy a more expensive phone. I never had a problem with built quality. I think I am very careful with phones.

<comment><USER2> I'm also incredibly careful with my phones, almost to the point of not really being able to enjoy them for the first few weeks because I'm overly cautious. Nonetheless, my Nexus 5 suffered from the power button issue that seems to be quite common.

You're correct in that the CPU can be a big factor but I don't play mobile games or watch much HD video so it wasn't as much of a concern to me. It should be noted that the Nexus 5 is running a 32-bit SOC whereas the new phones like the Pixel are running ARMv8 64-bit SOCs which have noticeable performance improvements, particularly with regard to encryption. Newer phones will also have more RAM which is actually a noticeable difference for me in day to day use as well as higher speed memory.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> Its the brand of Google, their support, their OS upgrade promises and probably some exclusive features of android that will only make to Pixels. If you care about all these then you can go for it, if don't then there are many cheaper options.</comment>


Indian Effort on Spies Squeezes Phone Operators - <AUTHOR> http://www.nytimes.com/2010/07/17/technology/17telecom.html?_r=1&partner=rss&emc=rss

<comment><USER2> What a load if crap.

They implement a law to prevent snooping by insisting that all equipment is checked by labs in the US, Canada or Israel!

The US and Israel have the biggest spy networks in the world....I know that there are other countries or corporations out there that would love a nugget of Indian technology...but seriously? It the equipment didn't have spyware before it was sent it has a bloody good chance of doing so when it comes back!</comment>