France Plans 5% Digital Tax as Governments Chase Internet Giants - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-03-03/france-plans-5-digital-tax-as-governments-chase-internet-giants <comment><USER3> Can anyone comment on how this interacts with the idea of the single market? Why can Google Ireland Ltd. be charged a special tax for doing business in France?

In my (limited) understanding I thought this was not supposed to happen, and that most goods and services could automatically be sold EU-wide. France could not charge import duties on Guinness trucks, nor demand that beer good enough to be sold in Ireland is not good enough to be sold in France.

(This does not sound at all like the usual discussion of the tax on multination's profits, and whether declaring that your business unit in the Bahamas actually made the profit is avoidance or evasion. It seems to be a brand new tax on some kinds of business-to-business sales.)

<comment><USER4> There is already a difference in tax (VAT) rates based on the consumer's location. This move would be distinct from import duties or product standards in that it's not really creating a clear barrier to sales across the single market.

On the other hand, the really quite high threshold might well be subject to complaints on the basis of distorting the single market. All the large multinationals that would hit the threshold reside in Ireland / Luxembourg, whilst lots of French firms don't hit the threshold and thus gain a competitive advantage.

I'm neither a lawyer nor a tax advisor.

<comment><USER5> Wouldn't it be more accurate to say that it's correcting an imbalance?

Google operates in France but is able to undercut France businesses for digital content sold to French people ( merchandise is traceable ) because it happens to have an Ireland operation?

<comment><USER6> If the imbalance is that an Irish company is more competitive than a French one, then no, not really.

<comment><USER7> In this case, this will be the race to the bottom and smallest countries will be able to charge 0% tax just for the sake of office space rented since their domestic market is small enough to not bring much of income tax (Luxembourg for example).

The issue here is with omitting responsibilities. If a company makes hundreds of millions of income in a country, it should pay some taxes there.

There is a huge push in Poland now, to introduce non-refundable revenue tax (of 1.5%) on larger companies in place of income tax. This would solve the issue entirely.

<comment><USER6> There would be no race to the bottom if there was a real, tangible benefit to being established in a high tax country - ie, better public services, a more educated workforce, more business friendly environment, etc. As it is right now, very few countries justify their tax rates and that prompts people and businesses to do the rational thing and go where they pay less for the same thing.

I think it's very concerning that European countries are so focused on taxing access to their market rather than asking themselves the question of what they can offer to businesses and individual to make them more interesting as places to settle down or establish a company.

<comment><USER8> A country does not have to justify its tax rates before Facebook. A country should focus on serving its citizens, not multinationals.

<comment><USER6> It most certainly does - both to its citizens and the companies that do business there. Otherwise, the implicit idea that your taxes pay for public services is chucked out of the window and we're left with taxation as just another expense to be avoided if possible.

<comment><USER8> Only to its citizens. Not to companies. The idea behind taxes is not to pay for public services, but for whatever the citizens want to use them for (which happens to include public services of course).

Companies aren't allowed to vote for a reason.

<comment><USER6> Keep in mind that companies are not just large multinationals but also small mom and pop stores, freelancers and everything in between. I hope you understand how deeply hypocritical it is to tout paying taxes as a moral obligation while at the same time refusing to be held accountable for how that money is being spent or denying companies a voice.

<comment><USER8> And many companies are owned by citizens whose opinions actually matter just as much as those who don't own a company.

> I hope you understand how deeply hypocritical it is to tout paying taxes as > a moral obligation while at the same time refusing to be held accountable > for how that money is being spent or denying companies a voice.

There's nothing hypocritical about not wanting corporations to have even more power than they already have.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> French guy here. I think a lot of comments miss the point of the new tax : Some US tech companies use fake transfer prices to avoid paying income taxes in France. Eg Irish facebook subsidary owns the Facebook brand for Europe and charges other subsidiaries for using it. The French Facebook subsididary was charged so much in past years that it didnt declare any benefits in France. This is fraud. But this is fraud at EU level and EU is not yet organized to face it. So French government is taking the lead and expects other countries to follow soon (very likely). You have to understand that French companies and French taxpayers a getting reasonnably upset for paying high taxes when some US companies dont.

<comment><USER10> French guy too. I have to add that's not specific to US company : Total, Ikea, and even EDF (french electricity state owned company ) also use the same practices. I too would prefer that they fix the law. It has been decades we know this and nothing seems to be done. I hope that the fact that population is getting more and more upset by the situation will push the politics to move. Btw the way the same companies dont seem to pay taxes in the US either.

<comment><USER11> I think the key point here is that all global companies structure their tax in the most efficient fashion possible. They pay a bunch of money (millions) to save far more in tax globally. Forget morality. They are behaving optimally for their incentives.

The only way forward is to shut down the model of "redirecting profits to the place with the lowest tax". Kill it with fire.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> A key feature in many obfuscated corporate structures designed to avoid tax is differing corporate structure declarations in different tax juristictions.

As companies are made up of many different sub companies by declaring your corporate structure as one way to the US tax authorities and another to the, say, Luxembourg tax authorities you can make intra group loans appear and disappear from different sets of accounts. And as a result the costs and, crucially, income from those 'loans' materialise wherever you want. Or not appear at all.

</comment><comment><USER13> In France, taxes account for an ever increasing proportion of a stagnant GDP. Nobody stops to ask if a "Digital Tax" makes any sense: are they saying that digital properties make use of some public resource without taxation, or is this just basically a tariff?

[0]: [https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax- revenue.htm](https://data.oecd.org/tax/tax-revenue.htm)

</comment><comment><USER14> Couldn't we just ban tax evasion? What makes it so hard? (honest question)

A recent European study has shown that the more company win money, the less they pay in taxes (in percentage).

Is it because of bad laws? Corrupt politicians? Something else?

<comment><USER15> Banning tax evasion is easy. Just get rid of corporate income taxes and replace it with a sales tax. It's not like corporations pay taxes anyways; their customers do as tax is built into the cost of products.

<comment><USER16> I see a couple of issues with this solution:

1) Companies would not pay most of their taxes where they put the greatest strain in public infrastructure.

2) Moderate differences in VAT rates would create enormous price differnces, which would invite smuggling.

3) The incentive for rich people to move to low tax destinations would be even greater than it already is.

I won't deny that the solution has upsides as well though.

<comment><USER17> Companies don't put strain in public infrastructure. They're legal abstractions. People and their activities (employees, shipping, factories) put strain on the public infrastructure, and they can be taxed (income, real estate, and pollution taxes) at that point.

The issue is that when Google shows ads to someone in the UK to monetize a search service used by the UK person, Google uses almost no UK resources.

<comment><USER18> Exactly. What a lot of governments seem to want is some form of tax on foreign companies for the privilege of gaining access to their local population/market. For physical goods we call that an import duty.

<comment><USER16> They do indeed want that, but what is it that has changed recently that makes this so much more urgent? People claim that digitisation has changed the equation, but I don't understand why. Google is for the most part a regular US exporter.

It appears to me that the only thing that has changed is that the US has left everyone else in the dust, which causes envy.

<comment><USER19> Governments need more tax revenue. Almost every country with social programs is on a timer to figure out ways to raise tax revenue to pay for those programs. Almost every developed country has a fiscal gap.

<comment><USER16> I get why everyone (me included) wants money. But if every government comes up with its own inconsistent ad hoc scheme to tax foreign corporations then they will unleash the mother of all trade wars.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER20> This is not very helpful or informative. In the case of Google, who are they going to tax? Google Ireland? Google France? How exactly?

<comment><USER21> Money collected for services rendered through a French IP. That is, on ads shown to French viewers, on GSuite accounts paid while connected to a French IP address, etc.

<comment><USER20> The money is collected by Google Ireland. So they're going to charge Google Ireland? It's probably safe to assume they're not charging Google LLC in Delaware.

<comment><USER22> Presumably France has access to the not in considerable French origin advertising revenues.

<comment><USER20> How? Based on VAT? I can think of multiple approaches, but each of them is convoluted or deviating from existing norms in its own way. Every time there's an announcement like this, it's often surprisingly low on actual details.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Why wont government taxation agencies have tax bounty programs?

If you, as a tax professional, find a taxation loophole that allows big businesses to lower their taxes - you get a $$$ compensation and the loophole gets publicized and "officially" patched.

<comment><USER24> I don't think knowledge of the loopholes is the issue. It's reasonable to determine what loopholes were used after the fact. The problem is actually closing them and the political fallout involved.

<comment><USER23> perhaps the loopholes should be exposed to the general public then so that we can hold the public officials accountable to fix them.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> As usual, highly inefficient governments trying to expand into every wallet in their sight, in order to keep funding their inefficiency with no accountability.

We need market de-regulation. End of government-sponsored monopolies. Accountability on budget spending. Enablement of profit-oriented policies that generate surpluses. Enabling equal opportunities to people of all social classes, and performance reviews to keep everybody accountable.

Then, and only then, equal and fair taxation that promotes social wellness and stability.

<comment><USER26> What would you say is an example of a country that -- more or less -- follows these principles?

<comment><USER27> Different governments do different parts of that well. If there was any government that did it all perfectly we would be saying "we should do things like X" not describing policy in the abstract.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> This reminds me of a horrible tax I came to know of recently - <USER2> called the EU VAT MOSS on digital goods. Apparently, it is supposed to target giants like Amazon who route money via multiple countries to evade taxes. Not surprisingly, this ends up affecting the smallest players most drastically. Worst, the glib language used to describe _who_ should pay the tax is utterly confusing. As always, this means the actual target company of this tax chalks it down as yet another thing they need to remember (amongst a million other things), while the tiniest players who are starting out and who don't reside in the EU will have to worry and stress endlessly about the stupidity of dealing with something like this.

Here is what I have learnt about Eurocrats: a) they don't understand economics b) they definitely don't understand unintended consequences c) I am willing to bet not one of them has ever bootstrapped a successful venture and finally d) there is a good reason why no country in Europe is able to create its own Silicon Valley - they are just too busy creating more busywork for themselves.

And to the well-intentioned person who comes along and says "Well, if you are clearly not the target of this, then why do you even worry?" I have a question - if it turns out that you are wrong, are you going to pay the taxes on my behalf? Actually, this is literally what I asked a friend of mine from Europe who expressed that sentiment. Not surprisingly, he wasn't really willing to put his money where his mouth was.

I am frankly astonished by all the people from EU who come in and comment things like "Oh, you don't really know how European laws _actually_ work. If you did, then you wouldn't be worried". Do you not have nothing better to do in life than trying to understand the nuances between the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law" in every country around the world?

Oh, and by the way - HN will be very interested to know this: right now, there is a company called Paddle which is a Stripe competitor - and this one law (EU VAT MOSS) seems to have single handedly revived this company. It was (and apparently still is) a painful software to use, and Stripe is faaar superior in terms of API and integrations [1], but Paddle has now become the defacto choice [2] for everyone who actually cares about the EU VAT MOSS because Paddle handles all the annoying crap on your behalf. My guess is, Stripe - which is too Silicon Valley focused - is going to be blindsided by EU VAT MOSS, hand over a lot of their next generation of customers to Paddle, and won't even know what hit them in a few years if they don't pay careful attention to what is going on here.

[1] [https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/anyone-using-paddle- for-s...](https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/anyone-using-paddle-for- subscriptions-experiences-7d0c5fe4f6) [2] [https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/how-do-you-handle-vat- mos...](https://www.indiehackers.com/forum/how-do-you-handle-vat- moss-8be8ebdf98)

<comment><USER29> I didn't know what this was, so I checked ([https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat- digit...](https://europa.eu/youreurope/business/taxation/vat/vat-digital- services-moss-scheme/index_en.htm)). Long story short: MOSS stands for "mini one stop shop" and looks explicitely designed _to make it easier to sell across the EU_.

> The Mini One-Stop-Shop (MOSS Scheme) enables you to supply digital services > within the EU without the need to register in each EU country you supply to. > It can be used by both EU-based businesses and non-EU businesses.

Honestly from reading the quick description of the law, if I was a business I would definitely try to take advantage of the law instead of registering in different countries for the single purposes of paying VAT.

I get that some payment actors allow you to do that easily, while others don't (yet), and yes this would be a criterion in choosing a payment gateway. But apart from that, I don't really see how this law is evil, or an illustration that Eurocrats don't know anything about business (there are plenty of other examples, but this isn't one). Can you explain in which way the MOSS is "horrible"?

<comment><USER6> I can sell services domestically up to a limit of about 40,000 euros before I need to register and account for VAT. If I make even a single EU sale, I must immediately register for VAT and pay tax on that sale, either through MOSS or directly to the country my customer is in. The EU is now "generously" considering introducing a limit of 10,000 euros before you need to register for VAT.

I also need to disagree with the parent poster - the rules for what is and is not a digital service are relatively clear - but not clear enough that your local tax officials understand it, apparently. I've had situation where my local tax agency incorrectly interpreted that my services (freelance software development) could be construed as being digital services and thus could fall under this scheme.

Due to this and various other reasons, I am considering emigrating from Europe - some back of the napkin calculations show that I could live a comfortable middle to upper middle class lifestyle in other parts of the world just on the tax difference.

<comment><USER30> > The EU is now "generously" considering introducing a limit of 10,000 euros > before you need to register for VAT.

No, that limit was passed in 2017 and took effect for digital services in January 2019:

[https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32...](https://eur- lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/ALL/?uri=CELEX:32017L2455)

I.e. if your cross-border EU sales of digital services are less than 10 000 €, you can consider the sales domestic.

<comment><USER6> Thanks for mentioning that! I remember reading that it was being discussed, but not that it had already been implemented.

It's not much, but still better than nothing.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Might anyone have insights on why they're stopping at 5%?

If the idea is to tax the internet giants on the business they do in France, why not seek to tax them at the usual corporate tax rate? The internet giants will, I presume, fight it either way, and it's not like a tax is going to stop them from serving French customers.

<comment><USER32> As I understood the article, this is a tax on sales, not profits.

<comment><USER33> To ddebernardy's point then, why not charge VAT?

<comment><USER34> VAT is generally not paid from b2b transactions which are the vast majority of ad sales.

To be precise you do pay VAT in some cases but then it is refunded. So no money to government.

<comment><USER35> VAT would be only partially refunded. Unless you're selling your product/service for less than it costs you, not a good business model.

<comment><USER36> It works its way down the supply chain until it reaches the consumer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> Well, killing off the high street shops then making all the money disappear tax free is not a path to a sucessfull society.

</comment><comment><USER38> I'm French and I love Amazon. I buy many stuff on Amazon that I have absolutely no idea how I could get them otherwise.

That news makes me anxious about Amazon deciding not to offer its service in France one day.

<comment><USER39> Then there will be a competitor that will offer it. In NL we have a local grown Bol.com that does exactly what Amazon does (minus AWS).

Would it be fair if Amazon started competing while they pay no tax here when Bol.com does? I don't think so.

<comment><USER40> Unless Amazon is breaking any laws by not paying taxes, yes, I think it's fair. What I'm trying to say is that in order to prevent tax avoidance proper legislation is required. Before we punish the players for utilizing the framework to their advantage we need to fix the system.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER41> all this nonsense is because we are trying to tie internet businesses which are uniting and global by default into "countries".

</comment><comment><USER42> The government needs funding to operate, efficiently or ineffectively but that's the voters problem.

They tax individual and corporate entities.

Companies gets cute and exploit loopholes with dozens of companies and locations to avoid paying the normal tax rate.

So the state strikes back and imposes a 5% (sorta sales) tax that cannot be circumvented. No big deal, other than for Google, FB etc companies that choose to do business in France.

I'm sure they can still keep their quintuple sandwich tax schemes

</comment><comment><USER43> France is hardly short of taxation revenue.

</comment><comment><USER44> Please I want to pay this tax and avoid the 30% Profit tax.

</comment><comment><USER45> So will this apply to AWS, Netflix, Spotify?

</comment><comment><USER46> Very good but where the 5% come from? I'm reading another article in French about it and they're speaking of 3%.

<comment><USER35> "Son taux sera modulé en fonction du chiffre d'affaires avec un maximum de 5%."

[https://www.gouvernement.fr/taxe-gafa-que-prevoit-le- futur-p...](https://www.gouvernement.fr/taxe-gafa-que-prevoit-le-futur-projet- de-loi)

It seems they've decided to make it 3% now?

Edit: that's apparently the case:

[https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget- fiscalite/060...](https://www.lesechos.fr/economie-france/budget- fiscalite/0600826885966-la-taxe-gafa-aura-finalement-un-taux-unique- de-3-2249138.php)

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> why are governments such parasites? wanting to stick their finger in every pie?

<comment><USER48> why are corporations such parasites? benefiting from the citizens in a country like France that are supported by its social services and infrastructure like roads, healthcare, a justice system that prevents the corporation's property from being stolen, but not contributing their fair share of the tax back and even arrogantly denying that they are benefiting from the infrastructure that they are taking advantage of for free?

<comment><USER49> A corporation is a person, but it's a legal fiction. The corporation is simply a gathering of non fictitious people who come together to collaborate and earn revenue as a collective. Each of those people pays taxes from their salaries like anyone else - they pay their fair share.

So what is a tax levied on a corporation? It's simply an _additional_ tax levied on the human people who make up the corporation. They're already paying their share, now they should be paying more?

If you're just a lowly employee with no control or insight into a corporation's finances, you might think it doesn't matter to you. Wrong. You're part of the corporation too. Money the government is taking out of the corporation is money that could potentially be added to your paycheck if the corporation prospers and you play your role.

<comment><USER48> "A government is a legal entity, but it's also a legal fiction. [..]

So what is a tax that governments collect? It's simply an _additional_ income that human people benefit from. [..]

If you're just a lowly citizen with no control or insight into a government's bureacracy [..]"

etc etc

Sorry, you can't have it both ways - pretend that corporations and governments are somehow different. The cognitive dissonance here is hilarious.

<comment><USER49> Governments and corporations are very different. A corporation needs to generate profit. If they don't profit, their shareholders don't get paid! If they continually don't profit, they go out of business and lose the investments they put into the corporation.

Government has no obligation to profit. Quite the opposite. Government enterprises simply spend (other people's) money. If government worked on a profit motive like corporations, everybody would love governments and there would be no complaints. Imagine that instead of paying taxes, you got paid a bonus when your country prospers?

<comment><USER48> You're grasping onto ideological straws. Both governments and corporations have to manage their finances, together with non-financial aspects of reality, in order to survive. Smart corporations don't only look at the bottom line on their account sheets.

<comment><USER49> They both have to manage finances, but governments are spending other people's money. A corporation is people _risking their own money_ on profitable ventures. How you can think they are in any way similar is beyond me. Governments have little accountability because they are so large, and they can't "go out of buisiness" because they don't have competition. They merely have a quadrennial theatrical show where two "directors" appear to compete for business, but where the shareholders (the taxpayers) ability to actually influence those "business" decisions are almost zero.

If there were a free market for most of the services government takes it upon themselves to provide (by their force on monopoly), the government would be out of business in nearly every area because there would be better competitors offering better services at lower costs.

<comment><USER48> > governments are spending other people's money. A corporation is people > risking their own money on profitable ventures

This is what you choose to believe, to maintain your internal consistency in your own ideology. From the point of view of the law, it is the government's money after they tax you, and the government believes that it is their money, in order to maintain their internal consistency of their ideology that justifies their legitimacy. They "risk" their money on various government / societal ventures and their "profit" is their continual acceptance by the citizens.

In both cases, forgetting about the ideology, what happens in reality is a transfer of wealth. I have to pay a government in order to live on land that they have physical control of, I have to pay a corporation in order to eat food that they have physical control of, or obtain other essential life resources from them.

Some governments and corporations are so large they can't "go out of business" because they don't have competition indeed. Some are smaller and they have to cater to individual customer / citizen demands more readily.

<comment><USER49> > This is what you choose to believe, to maintain your internal consistency in > your own ideology.

Dude, they're completely different. A corporation has to provide services people want to use of their own volition. A government takes money off people without asking. They are completely unalike and it shows in how the operate. Risking other people's money is something anyone can do. Risking your own money means you need to make smart decisions. The government are inherently less smart than corporations because they lack the business sense that entrepreneurs have.

Politicians are paid generous salaries, but they're hardly fitting of such salaries for their abysmal performance in their management. If managers in any corporation were like politicians, they'd be sacked! Politicians are unlike such managers because they get to decide their own salaries too. Directors can chose their own salaries because it is their own money they're risking. Politicians are not taking any personal risk beyond their career aspects. They have no skin in the game. (In fact, their incentives are to enrich themselves whilst in office, even at the cost of the taxpayer they purport to represent).

> I have to pay a government in order to live on land that they have physical > control of

I noticed you originally put owned, by were right to edit. Most land is privately owned, not by governments. Even most of the publicly accessible land is privately owned easements.

Although government doesn't _own_ all of the land, they are effectively part possessors because they have some rights to it (at the cost of the owner's rights). This is simply more evidence that governments overstep their reach and encroach on people's lives. Ultimately, they rely on that monopoly of force, because given the choice in a free market, those land owners might chose somebody else to be the stewards of their land.

You have to ask, if governments should be the sole providers of stewardship of easements in a geographical area, why shouldn't they be the sole providers of food too? You say that you need to pay a corporation to eat, but shouldn't _that_ service also be subsumed by government? Why even stop there. Let's have full on communism!

Well, that has been tried multiple times and it failed miserably every time. On the other hand, free markets have been tried and they were hugely successful in drastically improving the standard of living for millions of people. The evidence is clear. Corporations generate wealth and then the governments spend it. Anti-capitalists would have you believe the opposite is true.

<comment><USER48> > A corporation has to provide services people want to use of their own > volition. A government takes money off people without asking. [..] > Ultimately, they rely on that monopoly of force [..]

Distinguishing having a de-jure monopoly on force vs a de-facto monopoly on something else is not a useful practical difference to make. Other quantitative aspects of the relationship are more important to the analysis, and you pointed out some of them yourself.

This artificial elevation of this "monopoly on force" pollutes other aspects of your analysis of reality, leading you to say things like "If you're just a lowly employee [..] you might think it doesn't matter to you" apparently without irony.

In some sense, a government does take money from me without asking. In some other sense, this relationship is consensual - individuals with more resources/power are free to move to the jurisdiction of a different government. Similarly, the degree to which some corporations "take" money from people depends on the circumstances. People have to live somewhere, eat something, etc, and this has a big influence on the corporations they _must_ give their wealth to. So distinguishing governments from corporations is not particularly meaningful or interesting, and leads you to artificially exonerate some bad activities of corporations whilst incriminating some good activities of governments.

edit:

> Most land is privately owned, not by governments.

I changed to "physical control" because it was more relevant. Even "ownership" is a (very convincing) "legal fiction" whose power derives from the government's control over that land. If it were not able to maintain this control, another country could invade it. If you were able to actually control the land that you "own", then sure I might have to pay you taxes in order to live on it (or move somewhere else with better tax conditions).

<comment><USER49> > Distinguishing having a de-jure monopoly on force vs a de-facto monopoly on > something else is not a useful practical difference to make.

It depends how the monopoly comes about. Many de-facto monopolies arise _as a result of_ government intervention in the market. Some of it accidental (unintended consequences of other policies), and some of it intentional (enticed by lobbying money).

Natural monopolies which arise are not necessarily bad, but can be if they are essential and they're engaged in underhanded behavior like price fixing. In these cases, it is right that we have a legal system which can deal with such problems as they arise, but IMO, it's a mistake to try establish broad frameworks which try to deal the wrong causes of the problem (one of the causes of the unintended consequences mentioned above).

There are countless cases of government intervention in markets which ends up favoring big corporations and harming smaller businesses. I'm 100% in agreement that we should do what we can to prevent this kind of government- big-corp collusion. Reducing red tape for startups and ending government sanctioned monopolies (including a drastic restructuring of the patent system) are some examples. Another step towards this would be to greatly reduce the size of government, since the less they're responsible for, the less they can screw up.

> leading you to say things like "If you're just a lowly employee [..] you > might think it doesn't matter to you" apparently without irony.

I use those words deliberately and with intentional irony. Employees simply see themselves that way because they feel in a position of powerlessness, even in some top jobs. For example, there are recent stories of game developers wanting to unionize. They apparently consider themselves to be "lowly" employees, if they can't take it upon themselves to demand better working conditions or salaries for skills which are in demand. What hope do we have if some the best paying jobs want to unionize? (Make no mistake, this will start with gaming, but spread to many areas of programming).

Unions have many problems and cause unintended consequences. They create red tape which leads to barriers of entry into the industry, and price fixing ends up becoming accidentally implicit in the market because of the union's interference. If game developers think their working conditions are going to improve under a union, they're terribly mistaken. What will really happen is a good portion of them will simply lose their jobs, most of them will have wage stagnation, and only the most specialized and skilled workers will be able to demand higher compensation.

> Similarly, the degree to which some corporations "take" money from people > depends on the circumstances. People have to live somewhere, eat something, > etc, and this has a big influence on the corporations they must give their > wealth to. So distinguishing governments from corporations is not > particularly meaningful or interesting, and leads you to artificially > exonerate some bad activities of corporations whilst incriminating some good > activities of governments.

Corporations are by no means perfect and bad behavior can't simply be excused. I also don't doubt that government does some "good activities". My complaints are more about the efficiency of how they do so. I believe more competition would lead to better services than government (and corporations) offers in almost all areas. (To be clear, I'm not an anarchist, but the smaller the government, the better).

We also need to look at consumer responsibility though. If consumers are outraged by the behavior of some corporations they do have skin in the game, and can protest the behavior by refusing to pay for their services. As much as I'm not a fan of things like big tech companies engaged in censorship, they're not _essential services_ and if people are outraged enough they'll stop using them. On the other hand, the banking services which are unpersoning people for political views are different story: One, because they _are_ essential, but two, because it is government red tape which prevents competitors from replacing them.

The biggest problem of government is that it simply wants to do more and more. Socialism gradually creeps in a step at a time, mostly unnoticed because each step is small and seems harmless. A few decades later and almost all personal liberties are under assault and top down control has become the norm, instead of bottom up market forces. The constitutional limitations of the US government are invaluable and the attacks on them are a disaster for the whole of humanity.

> individuals with more resources/power are free to move to the jurisdiction > of a different government.

There some merit in this, but some governments will also still try to tax you even for earnings you make outside of their jurisdiction. Aside from that, corporations can locate to different jurisdictions, and _will_ locate if taxation is more favorable to them elsewhere. A government therefore, needs to create an environment which is friendly to businesses, else their economy will go sour. The recent democrat fuckup of the NY Amazon deal is a good example of what bad government policy looks like. Yes, Amazon make enough money that they don't _need_ tax breaks, but what favors have the Dems for New Yorkers? Anti- business policies damage the local economy for everyone, not just the greedy corporations.

<comment><USER48> > [..] it's a mistake to try establish broad frameworks which try to deal the > wrong causes of the problem [..]

It's true that regulations sometimes are harmful, but this really depends on the specific circumstances, and I don't see an argument here for being anti- regulation in general.

A lot of governments especially those today, have come about via democratic revolutions or less-violent processes. As citizens of those places, many of them _want_ their government to regulate corporations, especially since this is typically more effective than trying to boycott the corporation.

> I believe more competition would lead to better services than government > (and corporations) offers in almost all areas. (To be clear, I'm not an > anarchist, but the smaller the government, the better).

I also believe that competition is generally a good thing, but I don't believe that "small government" preserves competition. Those "natural monopolies" (as you defined, whatever that means) destroy their own competition by definition, and just because they are "natural" does not mean that they stay efficient, or that they don't abuse their own power.

That is not necessarily to say that I favor a large government, but in order to preserve competition, efficiency, and lack of abuse, we need to think of mechanisms other than simply "small government". If government regulations is the only mechanism we can think of for now, I'd rather we try that, than stick to "small government" for ideological reasons and let corporate power run amok.

> The biggest problem of government is that it simply wants to do more and > more. Socialism gradually creeps in a step at a time, mostly unnoticed > because each step is small and seems harmless.

This effect happens with large corporations too. First they provide good service, and everyone buys from them believing they will use their power well, and this seems harmless. Then sometimes they grow too powerful and start abusing their position (with or without help from government handouts) and consumers are negatively affected to different degrees.

> [..] big tech companies engaged in censorship, they're not essential > services [..]

What is _essential_ or not also depends on the context of history. It is not in human nature to _require_ a banking system, but as you agree it's impractical to operate in society today without having access to banking services. It's also becoming very hard to operate in society without access to the internet and various other tech services that 99% of other people have access to.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Since this is applied to revenue, is this like a reduced VAT reclaimation or something?

</comment><comment><USER51> At least in US Amazon already adds tax in purchase price. Similarly when you buy copy of software, tax is already added. For ad bills to publishers, I would think it's the same. So what does this "digital tax" is about?

The big issue here is that eventually all taxes will be transferred to end customers. The profits for businesses don't get lowered because of more taxes (unless demand drops). So people in every country should be worried when government eyes for more taxes.

<comment><USER52> To portray taxes as only being paid by the end customers is a massive oversimplification, if businesses could charge the amount extra the tax supposedly increased prices by and retain optimal profitability, they already would.

Taxes hit profit margins first, possibly pushing companies into non viability (unlikely to be much of a concern in this arena).

Remember that businesses don't just operate based on the cost of their inputs, they operate based on the price customers are willing to pay for their outputs aswell, which is often divorced entirely from the cost of inputs, especially in markets dominated by a few companies.</comment></comment>


Show HN: Get predictions about your target market in Google Sheets - <AUTHOR> https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/madkudu/jhlimjlikcifeffagicchddgcmanfpdh <comment><AUTHOR> Hello!

I'm Kevin, Growth Engineer at MadKudu. We're from Mountain View and Paris and our goal is to help companies to optimize their marketing operations through data science.

If most of our customers use MadKudu through their CRM, sometimes all we want is the speed and flexibility of a spreadsheet.

That's why we're launching today MadKudu for Google Sheets, to allow you to directly qualify your leads with just one click, directly from Google Sheets.

Here are some use cases:

\- outbound sales prioritization \- determine which event to go to \- prioritize who you'd like to talk to at the conference

You can test it for free with downloading the extension here: [https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/madkudu/jhlimjlikc...](https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/madkudu/jhlimjlikcifeffagicchddgcmanfpdh)

Feel free to ask all the questions you want!

And if you like what you saw, please give us some support on Product Hunt! [https://www.producthunt.com/posts/madkudu-for-google- sheets](https://www.producthunt.com/posts/madkudu-for-google-sheets)

Cheers,

Kevin</comment>


TvOS for Developers - <AUTHOR> https://developer.apple.com/tvos/ <comment><USER2> According to the Programming Guide [1], no persistent data can be stored in the device, everything should be in iCloud, and the maximum size of the Apps is 200MB (at any given point, it seems, you can use on-demand resources)

This is an interesting way of trying to squeeze more apps and circumvent some of the latests storage-related issues in iOS

[1] [https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/document...](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/documentation/General/Conceptual/AppleTV_PG/index.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015241)

<comment><USER3> This actually concerns me, I think 400mb would have been a much more reasonable maximum. We're not going to get a lot of good games if this isn't increased.

<comment><USER4> Bastion (a 2.5D isometric action RPG) on my iPhone is 1.2GB. Transistor (one of the games they featured) is 1.84GB on the App Store for the iPhone version.

Feels like a disconnect between the docs and reality.

PS: Transistor is _fantastic_ \- that music!

<comment><USER5> The AppleTV is intended to work as an always-connected device, so apps can reasonably be expected to download the assets as they are needed.

iOS9 adds the on demand resources feature that does exactly that.

According to [https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documenta...](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/ios/documentation/FileManagement/Conceptual/On_Demand_Resources_Guide/PlatformSizesforOn- DemandResources.html#//apple_ref/doc/uid/TP40015083-CH23-SW1) you can have 2GB of resources in use at once, for a total of 20GB overall.

<comment><USER6> _The AppleTV is intended to work as an always-connected device, so apps can reasonably be expected to download the assets as they are needed._

That might be what Apple think, but that certainly isn't what _users_ think. People won't wait 30 seconds for a game to start - they'll just delete the game and buy a different one. If too many games have long load times they'll stop using Apple TV for games altogether. By pitching Apple TV as 'apps in the living room' the competition stops being Netflix and starts being a Playstation.

<comment><USER5> As far as I understand the on-demand loading, once downloaded assets do not get pruned until the device is under memory pressure. The feature also allows to pre-load assets in the background.

So if the developers do the right job, then that first 200 MB download contains everything for the player to start playing. Then, before those initial assets "run out", the additional stuff will already have been loaded in the background.

Yes. This is going to be difficult for developers, but it's also a valuable skill to be gained because it helps developers to keep their assets organized and their code will be better at dealing with streaming resources, which, in turn will open the doors for many interesting things to do in the future.

We'll see what happens - after all, when you consider a disk size of 32 or 64 GB, then obviously the current limit is purely artificial.

If developers are unable to adapt to the restrictions or if the framework isn't good enough to the point where the end-user experience suffers, then we'll either see the restrictions lifted or the framework improved.

These restrictions don't restrict the type of game you can make, they only make it harder compared to a unlimited initial distribution.

(note however that if the initial download must fit in 200 MB, then the customer experience potentially _improves_ as the time to download 200 MB is naturally much shorter than the time required to download 20GB which is the maximum size an app can currently have).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Does it really make more sense to create _another_ OS, rather than extending OS X or iOS? It seems like they're doing that anyway seeing as games etc will work "across all devices"...

<comment><USER8> Apple TV has always been based on iOS, but was 'forked' a while ago and has diverged a lot since then.

Initial reports suggested that this 'new' tvOS is based on iOS 9, which makes sense seeing as it's using a lot of iOS API's and frameworks

<comment><USER9> Recall the 1st generation Apple TV (announced in autumn 2006 and sold until 2010) was actually using a version of Mac OS X on an Intel CPU.

<comment><USER10> Yes, that's an exception though. Very weird device really.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Interesting.

3rd party game controller for apple tv. Was hoping for that.

[http://www.apple.com/tv/games-and-more/](http://www.apple.com/tv/games-and- more/)

<comment><USER12> A little surprised apple didn't create they're own game controller...I think it would make Apple TV even a bit more compelling overall.

<comment><USER13> And open themselves up to be judged as a serious game player? I don't think they want that, as someone who views the gaming community with a great deal of disgust. Whiny, entitled children who are extremely critical.

Apple has an amazing casual market and it makes more sense to capitalize on that.

<comment><USER11> I upvoted you because I dont think you deserve to be downvoted for an opinion.

Having said that do you care to elaborate on your first claim. Not sure I understand where you are getting that from.

<comment><USER13> This is coming from a few observations:

1\. The gaming community is one of the most critical, volatile, toxic cultures I've ever seen. See: Gamergate. This isn't a comment on individuals, just the collective. This is where my impression of whiny, entitled children comes from.

2\. Apple seems quite comfortable in the casual gaming community.

3\. Coming out with their own hardware would be a commitment to gaming that would open themselves up to actually WANTING the criticism of the gaming community. I don't see Apple relishing this at the moment, especially after the Apple Watch flop and the introduction of a stylus 8 years late.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My concern is the apps that are approved for this device and the speed at which it occurs.

I've bought into the whole eco system in terms of hardware: macbook, Apple tv, iphones, ipads etc. But I don't really care for apple radio, itunes music, or itunes video. I use netflix and amazon and spotify. So my concern is that those apps will be quickly available without any slow down or blocking by Apple. I also like to stream local content which I can do easily with my ipad. I think as long as I can get the same selection of apps I get for ios I'll be happy, but I've seen apple make arbitrary choices before.

<comment><USER15> Amazon doesn't support the current Apple TV or Google's Chromecast, so I doubt they'll support the new Apple TV either. Maybe they think this is an effective way to get people to buy a Fire TV or Fire TV Stick.

<comment><USER16> I don't think so. Amazon has always been about being everywhere, no matter what devices you use. So I'd be surprised if Amazon doesn't release a (Prime) Video app soon. And it should be ok for Apple too, since they allow an equivalent app on iOS.

<comment><USER15> I don't think that's true when it comes to video. Amazon only recently released an android app for Instant Video. They didn't put it on the Google Play store though. You have to enable installation of untrusted apps, download the apk for the Amazon Appstore, install it, then install the Instant Video app from Amazon's Appstore.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I wonder if Apple's marketing team has a template for these releases.

"We've reimagined _____ - an innovative ______ that redefines ____."

<comment><USER7> followed by long pause

followed by "This is {epic|awesome|amazing|special}"

<comment><USER14> This is {epic|awesome|amazing|special|revolutionary|groundbreaking}"

Any others?

<comment><USER18> Johnny Mode: {Subtle|Elegant|Fusion|Materials|Accentuates|Innovative}

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Disappointing it won't run on the old AppleTV, considering they're still selling it.

<comment><USER20> The current hardware is ancient; it's a single-core version of the iPhone 4s chip.

<comment><USER19> True. But that means that the old AppleTV is now the only hardware that Apple is selling which has no software support. Pretty unusual, considering they're still supporting the 4S.

<comment><USER21> Not everyone wants what the new ATV is offering. I have no desire for games, more apps, siri, etc., and as such am not willing to pay > $99 for it. For how I use it, the (soon to be) old-gen ATV is perfect and now it'll cost even less!

<comment><USER22> It was already reduced to $69 even before today's event.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Does anyone know that if we mirrored a game from our iPhone 6s would it graphically look better than if we played it natively on the Apple TV? Seeing as the graphical horsepower in the phone is better than what the Apple TV offers.

<comment><USER24> AirPlay mirroring has too much latency. Using it for gaming is unbearable.

<comment><USER25> Great way to get a high score on Flappy Bird

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Let's hope this move from Apple forces Google to put some more effort into marketing Android TV.

It's a good (superior?) platform, but could definitely use a little better app-support.

<comment><USER27> is it same as chromecast?

<comment><USER28> no, it's totally different approach. At Chromecast the center is your phone/tablet and it seems for tvOS it is Siri and the remote control.

<comment><USER29> tvOS seems to support seamless transitions of apps across iOS devices (they mentioned it in a game context) so it may prove to be much better than that -- e.g. watch a show on Hulu, walk into room and hand the app over to the TV and so forth.

<comment><USER30> Android TV devices act as Chromecast receivers, so you can do the same thing on Android TV, at least with media player apps. However, I don't think there's a built-in way of transitioning state for full-fledged Android apps. Samsung's apparently been experimenting with it [1], but it's still in beta, currently only works with a few Galaxy devices, and requires apps to integrate their SDK. I'm interested to see what Apple's approach looks like.

[1]: [https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.fl...](https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.samsung.flow)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Finally HDMI-CEC in their new Apple TV! And about the OS: It seems a lot of XML and JS for tvOS.

<comment><USER31> UIKit apps are possible too. [https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/sampleco...](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/samplecode/UICatalogFortvOS/Introduction/Intro.html)

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Very interesting to see the alternative JavaScript and XML approach to creating apps. I guess it makes a lot of sense for the simple apps that will be available. Good that there's still basically the whole of iOS available for use, however.

</comment><comment><USER33> Can specific apps still block airplay? I haven't used AppleTV in a long time, but it was crazy frustrating when certain apps restricted you from being able to airplay to a big screen.

I'm guessing mirroring the entire screen might be a possible workaround but I thought perhaps apps could detect this as well and shutdown.

Can anyone clarify?

<comment><USER34> In a lot of cases this can be due to licensing restrictions. These companies may not have licenses to allow streaming off of the mobile app to a big screen. It has less to do with the company and more to do with the content licensor (who may have previously licensed the content to someone else with exclusive rights to TV but not to mobile).

Content licensing and not technical issues are usually the reason for these annoying practices. Blame the content owner.

</comment></comment><comment><USER35> "We've reimagined the TV experience"

ha - must have some pretty limited imaginations

</comment><comment><USER36> Anyone understand why they didn't launch this as a chromecast like USB stick vs. a standalone box?

Surely price point will be a big issue with adoption.

<comment><USER20> The Chromecast basically doesn't need to do anything except stream video. This, on the other hand, has a reasonably hefty mobile processor (same one as iPhone 6). Also, the Chromecast's wifi is pretty anaemic; not much room for antennae.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> They've got webviews. But what about browsers?

And will apple bluetooth keyboards connect?

<comment><USER38> The current AppleTV can be used with a bluetooth keyboard, so it's fair to assume this will continue to work.

<comment><USER39> I'm waiting to see the ability to use iPhone/iPad keyboards as inputs for the Apple TV. I think Google TV does this.

<comment> X-Istence Download the remote app onto your iOS devices, and turn on home sharing.

Now your Apple TV will show up as a device you can control from your iOS device or even Apple Watch.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> was wondering if my current apple tv is upgradeable to the new OS?

my apple tv is the latest generation though (before this new one obviously)

</comment><comment><USER41> Wow apple is embracing javascript

<comment><USER42> How is this news?

<comment><USER43> Because they don't do that for iOS, MacOS or watchOS? The last time they did something similar was for Dashboard Widgets and that was 10 years ago.

<comment><USER31> Apple introduced Native JavaScript bridge for iOS in iOS 7. you can call objective-c apis in javascript.[1]

[1][https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleA...](https://developer.apple.com/library/mac/documentation/AppleApplications/Conceptual/SafariJSProgTopics/Tasks/ObjCFromJavaScript.html)

<comment><USER43> That's not what this is about though, it's for UI layout (much like with Dashboard). You don't call Objective-C APIs from JS inside a WebKit container, you're actually using JS to layout the app.

Update: the docs are up and the JS framework is called TVJS, [https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/document...](https://developer.apple.com/library/prerelease/tvos/documentation/TVMLJS/Reference/TVJSFrameworkReference/index.html)

<comment><USER44> The docs say you use something called "TVML" to lay out the UI, and inside the TVML you can have JS. I think.

<comment><USER43> TVML for layout and TVJS for logic. TVML is just an XML schema for Apple TV UIs and TVJS a Javascript framework to present the XML templates loaded with your data.

If you're wanting to stream video you can build a full app with almost no Obj-C/Swift (there's still a small shell, though probably nothing custom needs to be here).

The XML templates are a little odd in that they're JS files (e.g. Index.xml.js) and contain the XML as the return value of a global function called Template.

It seems really straight forward though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER45> Not again, not another walled gardened experience please

<comment><USER46> Show me a way to make money off a consumer experience in 2015 that isn't a walled garden. You're either a platform or you're a feature waiting to be integrated into a platform.

<comment><USER47> Fuck making money. This is shitty.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER47> It's so shitty how the Raspberry Pi has been able to do the same technical things as this for almost 3 years now with complete freedom and ease of use, but the only thing stopping it was DRM. Now this non-innovative POS is probably going to overtake it simply because Apple can cut a deal :/

<comment><USER48> As a developer, I wish that were true. I bought a Raspberry Pi, and just opening a window with OpenGL in it was frustrating beyond belief. You can apt- get install SDL2, but like most packages it hasn't been adapted to the Pi and won't work with GLES. So you have to build it from source. And even then I couldn't figure out how to stop keyboard input from my SDL window from leaking into the terminal that started the game. And so on... I ended up giving the Pi away. And that was ~a full year after it came out, I never buy things on launch day.

In Xcode, it takes something between 5 and 10 clicks to create a working project for OS X or iOS (with OpenGL or whatever framework you want to use).

The developer experience is a big part of what makes the Apple TV what it is. I'm not saying it's perfect - I can't believe the App Store doesn't allow for time trials yet - but it's really, really easy to beat the developer experience for any other living room device.

</comment></comment><comment><USER49> Just the other day I realized I didn't even have batteries in my TV remote anymore. Haven't had the desire to turn my TV on in who knows how long. As a consumer I'm not optimistic this will change anything.

<comment><USER50> I'm at a loss for what you're trying to say here. So you don't watch TV? Like, in any of the possible ways that a TV could be utilized? No Cable, No DVD/BluRay, No YouTube/Netflix hookup, no XBMC/Kodi/Plex style streaming, no console gaming?

Sure its possible that all those options and others are not of your interests, but then what were you expecting to change? You're obviously not the target demographic.

<comment><USER49> I guess just contemplating out loud whether this is a play to try to "rescue" "TV as a commonly utilized device in the household", or if I truly am an anomaly, and that TV is still trending well among all the new devices everyone may choose to use these days as an alternative.

I should've thought this through though, realizing that this is a new Apple device on a heavily "pro-apple" forum :)

<comment><USER25> I don't watch any broadcast TV, but the large screens with HDMI connectors in my living room and bedroom are awfully useful for watching movies on, photos, and so on

<comment><USER49> That's been my thinking as well. Not to put words into your mouth, but it sounds like you would agree that TV and "computer monitor" are converging.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> This is where HN breaks down. The branding is _explicitly_ tvOS, not TvOS (HN used to have pedantic mods manually change all titles to make first-letter- caps even when not relevant, not sure if it's automatic now or not).

There's actually a special unicode character you can use to begin a sentence if your subject is lowercase: [http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/203e/index.htm](http://www.fileformat.info/info/unicode/char/203e/index.htm)

<comment><USER52> Are you serious? HN is breaking down because someone didn't follow Apple's brand identity when posting about a product that was launched about 2 hours ago!?

If anything, THIS is where HN is breaking down!

<comment><USER51> Enforcing arbitrary rules breaking brand names is a bad thing. IPhones should never be typed like that. Now we also have watchOS and tvOS.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s&t=3m22s](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUAK7t3Lf8s&t=3m22s)

<comment> vezzy-fnord

       site:wikipedia.org "stylized as"

No one but the original marketer is obligated to honor stylized brand names.

How many people have you seen type out "c|net" instead of "CNET"?</comment></comment></comment></comment>


NASA Worldview: Satellite Detections of Fire - <AUTHOR> https://worldview.earthdata.nasa.gov/?t=2019-07-07-T00%3A00%3A00Z&t1=2019-07-07-T00%3A00%3A00Z&l=MODIS_Terra_Thermal_Anomalies_Night(hidden),MODIS_Terra_Thermal_Anomalies_Day(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Thermal_Anomalies_Night(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Thermal_Anomalies_Day,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_BandsM11-I2-I1(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_Bands721(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_Bands721(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor,MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Night(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Day(hidden),Reference_Labels,Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&l1=MODIS_Terra_Thermal_Anomalies_Night(hidden),MODIS_Terra_Thermal_Anomalies_Day(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Thermal_Anomalies_Night(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_Thermal_Anomalies_Day,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_BandsM11-I2-I1(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_Bands721(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_Bands721,VIIRS_SNPP_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Aqua_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),MODIS_Terra_CorrectedReflectance_TrueColor(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Night(hidden),VIIRS_SNPP_Thermal_Anomalies_375m_Day(hidden),Reference_Labels,Reference_Features(hidden),Coastlines&ca=false&cv=49&tr=fires_overview_2019 <comment><USER2> Holy fuck, the entire fucking middle of the african continent is on fire right now?!?

<comment><USER3> Zooming in on some places and taking the lat-long into google maps is interesting. Can't really tell if it's intentional burning or not, I guess it must be with the sheer amount of spot fires.

Here is one for example:

[https://www.google.com/maps/place/11%C2%B030'08.2%22S+22%C2%...](https://www.google.com/maps/place/11%C2%B030'08.2%22S+22%C2%B023'47.2%22E/@-11.8354429,24.9785438,695m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x0:0x0!8m2!3d-11.5022667!4d22.39645)</comment></comment>


Firefox Focus privacy scandal - <AUTHOR> https://www.ghacks.net/2017/02/12/firefox-focus-privacy-scandal/ <comment><USER2> Firefox Focus does not and will never leak or send browsing behavior details.

The article is factually incorrect. I am not sure how the researcher came to the conclusion that Focus reports 'server connections' or 'visited websites'. It does not and it never will.

Firefox Focus is an Open Source product. Its code can be found for verification at [https://github.com/mozilla- mobile/focus](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus) and the Adjust usage is documented at [https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus/wiki/Install-and- eve...](https://github.com/mozilla-mobile/focus/wiki/Install-and-event- tracking-with-the-Adjust-SDK)

<comment><USER3> The fact that a Mozilla product sends my data, even if it is only my IP address, to a third party, is a disgrace. I don't really care what the data is.

I understand they need analytics and telemetry. They have the money, they have the power to build all of those in house. They should not be sending my data to a third party, whatever that data might be. That's all. I expected better from Mozilla. Pocket integration was a letdown, this is even worse.

<comment><USER4> You can disable data collection in the settings, or directly install Firefox Klar, a special version of Firefox Focus without telemetry made for Germany, Austria and Switzerland.

<comment><USER3> Klar is only available in those stores, but not worldwide.

<comment><USER5> Klar is available worldwide on F-Droid.

<comment><USER3> I don't use Android. I don't understand why did Mozilla add Klar to the stores of those countries only.

<comment><USER6> As others have said, the option to disable telemetry is in the other stores.

Read the article, it says it too:

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

You can turn off the anonymous data collecting of Firefox Focus by tapping on the settings icon, and flipping the switch next to "send anonymous usage data" to off.

</comment><comment></comment><comment></comment><comment>

</comment><comment><USER7> The article appears to me to be overly harsh. However, trust is probably Mozillas primary asset. I think they could've made the telemetry a question at first use or something comparable.

Everyone knows that most people never change (or even realize) the default.

<comment><USER3> Is it overly harsh to be pissed at a company that claims to herald privacy but then sends your data to a third party?

</comment></comment><comment><USER8> Scandal is probably a bit sensationalist. It's doing what every other bit of modern software does and sending off telemetry - is that really scandalous? It even has a fairly easy to find "don't analyse me" button.

Besides, installing this browser on a _smartphone_ for the purpose of regaining some privacy is like ordering the biggest meal McDonalds sells, but with a Diet Coke because you're "watching your weight" \- pretty pointless.</comment>


A New Robo-Adviser Lets You Build Portfolios That Shun Guns and Oil Shares - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-02-09/a-new-robo-adviser-lets-you-build-portfolios-that-shun-guns-and-oil-shares <comment><USER2> That can backfire, though.

"California's two major public pension funds (CalPERS and CalSTRS), the biggest in the nation, lost a total of more than $5 billion on energy-related investments for their fiscal years, ended June 30 (2015), according to a new report."

[http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpers-calstrs- energy...](http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpers-calstrs-energy- losses-20150813-story.html)</comment>