Why is America stuck with bad headlights? - <AUTHOR> https://www.caranddriver.com/features/columns/a33447381/why-is-america-stuck-with-bad-headlights/ <comment><USER2> groups like Audi/Porsche/BMW have trouble bringing their fancy LED setups to America due to laws pertaining to high / low beams -- meanwhile every Jack and Jill on the road has glaringly illegal aftermarket Xenon bulb setups in refractor headlight housings rather than proper projectors, blinding the hell out of everyone on the road, and the police seem to do nothing about it.

I mean, hey -- i'm usually happy about automotive modifications that the police leave me alone about, but this aftermarket headlight trend is many times worse than a nuisance loud exhaust -- it can literally blind you for seconds during night driving.

<comment><USER3> The worst thing to happen to America was Autozone and Fast and Furious. Cheap aftermarket modifications to your car being sold to people with no knowledge of what they were doing but wanted it too look cool cause they saw it in the movie. Its led to years of teenagers with no training putting things on their cars that turn them into obnoxious spectacles on the road.

I know I sound like an old coot but frankly I'm glad my dad showed me how to install/aim headlights and along with explaining the benefits of a working unmodified exhaust system and how it should sound.

<comment><USER4> > but frankly I'm glad my dad showed me how to install/aim headlights and > along with explaining the benefits of a working unmodified exhaust system > and how it should sound

In Germany, headlight aim is checked at the 2-yea mandatory inspection, dito for exhaust stuff. Is that not a part of US checks?

<comment><USER5> The joke is that in the US, vehicle registration is handled by the states, and while some states have strict inspection requirements, many states have none whatsoever, or only check emissions. You can still get ticketed for unsafe equipment, though.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> I know very little about headlights, but I do know that too many cars have a certain kind of extra bright, blue-white headlights which hurt my eyes. I don't know why they are allowed, but I'd love to see them banned.

They may be great for the driver, but getting blinded isn't much fun for oncoming traffic.

> _" When a car approaches in the oncoming lane, the 911's headlights dim > around it while leaving the rest of the pattern bright."_

And what if it's a bike in the incoming lane? Or on the separate bike path on either side of the road? Will it detect that?

Because too often, clever car technologies don't properly account for other traffic than cars.

<comment> globular-toast It's practically impossible to cycle at night on roads without street lighting due to cars. Has been for many, many years. The people who would want to do it (generally people into the sport and out for training) just accept this. Nobody else cares.

<comment><USER6> Why ignore people who ride a bike for transportation?

When I was a teen, I rode 10 km each way to school next to a very busy road. In winter, it was still dark. The combination of rain and oncoming cars would make me completely blind.

<comment> globular-toast Because you're a minority and most people haven't been on a bike since they were a child. For most people, their first experience on the road is in a car. They are completely out of touch with what it means to use the road outside of a car. The roads are owned by cars, even though everyone pays for them. This is the way it's been for years and it won't be changing unless we have a serious reform.

<comment><USER6> That really depends on where you live. Over here, most people ride bikes regularly. Car headlights that can blind cyclists should be considered a serious issue.

<comment><USER7> > Car headlights that can blind cyclists should be considered a serious issue.

Even people who design bicycle facilities don't consider this. They'll happily install a bidirectional bike lane where contra flow cyclists are effectively riding against motor vehicle traffic. This puts cyclists on the wrong side of the headlamp beam.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> So, basically the same reason we have bad _everything_. Our institutions and regulations are outdated relative to the rest of the world, so we get stuck with shitty stuff.

<comment><USER9> For instance: payments. Europe and Asia got chip cards and tap-to-pay decades before we did, even though Mastercard and Visa took part in their invention. America had credit card infrastructure first, so our payment networks were stuck with it, while other countries could start off with better stuff.

Without the consumer demand that Google/Apple Pay (and later coronavirus) created, we still probably wouldn't have widespread tap-to-pay.

<comment><USER10> This gets thrown a lot but I think the reason the U.S. didn't move from the swipe system to the PIN is the speed of processing your card. With the swipe, the cashier just swipe your card and you're done. With the chip, I have to wait and then enter my PIN and then wait. It's just a hustle.

<comment><USER11> Why would we move to chip when it's already obviated by tap?

<comment><USER12> For security reasons, contactless card payments are limited to small transactions and can only be used a certain number of times between chip and pin transactions.

Since it lacks a second authentication factor the compromise is to limit how much can be spent if the card is stolen.

The US could skip chip and pin if it switched directly to contactless mobile payments.

<comment><USER13> It's tap and PIN for higher amounts. The same thing, just wirelessly.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Lack of matrix headlights is a _glaring_ omission on Teslas sold in Europe, too. Pretty much any other high-end car in Europe has them, at least as an option.

<comment><USER15> What are matrix headlights?

<comment><USER16> Sometimes known as pixel lighting, matrix systems are based around a high-beam unit consisting of a cluster of LEDs (the Audi matrix system consists of up to 25 LEDs per high-beam unit), rather than a single high-beam bulb that you might find in a conventional headlight.

This allows you to block out certain portions of the beam so you don't blind other drivers as they approach.

<comment><USER17> On this type of lighting, what is the purpose of having high and low beams? It seems like you should be able to leave it on high all the time.

<comment><USER18> You will blind yourself with your own high beams in heavy rain/snow/fog.

<comment><USER19> Interestingly, a similar version of these systems was demonstrated back in 2012 which could track individual snow flakes or rain drops. They would avoid illuminating the drops so they wouldn't reflect back at you, thus reducing glare and allowing you to see much further.

[https://youtu.be/4jwhQM6aDS8](https://youtu.be/4jwhQM6aDS8)

<comment><USER18> Such system could work in moderate conditions, though it's doubtful. As soon as you get water "dust" in front of the headlight the only thing this tracking can do is to shut off the light entirely, there is no way isolating separate droplets and the cloud of "dust" will disperse the light further into the medium.

<comment><USER20> Well, if you don't mind the driver having to watch via a HUD there is range- gated imaging which does exactly the thing you're assuming is impossible. :P

<comment><USER18> I assume you either don't understand what range-gated imaging is or how the headlights work.

<comment><USER20> My comment didn't have anything to do with the headlights except pointing out that the 'impossibility' of not illuminating the drops in the air isn't actually an impossibility with sufficiently crazy hardware. -- A fact I expected other readers to find interesting.

My apologies if it sounded to you as something I was saying could realistically be done with projector headlights.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> So, I'm riding to work by bike and in winter times I came to hate these lights.

They destroy any natural darkness adaptation, which takes some time to set in again and then already comes the next car.

These super fancy lights don't give a shit about the sidewalk or wild life. To me they increase no security whatsoever and contribute mainly to the ongoing light pollution.

Probably they even decrease safety overall by randomly blinding humans/animals.

Studies/Exp needed.

</comment><comment><USER22> It's not just a problem in US. Ever since Xenon headlights became the norm in upper mid-class cars and up (2003?), I'm having trouble driving at night (here in Germany). I have no data to back this up, but I'd say subjectively glaring is much less of an issue since LED became standard (2010?).

</comment><comment><USER23> I get the criticism, want, and need...but comparing a $120K+ Porsche to a $20K average car isn't exactly a fair comparison, even when it comes to headlights. The replacement cost on that headlight is probably astronomical, where I can replace a bulb for $40. I don't even know if the Boxster which is around ~$60K comes with these headlights. A quick lookup and those Porsche headlights cost ~$2K EACH.

<comment><USER24> As with all automotive parts, eventually the price will come down. Currently they are luxury, in some years they will be commodity.

<comment><USER25> They're also from a luxury brand that commands a premium price above and beyond its actual cost of supply. Give it five years and an entry level Hyundai will come with equivalent headlights and they'll only cost $100 to replace.

<comment><USER26> Brands like Hyundai and Toyota have been coming out with sealed LED units for years, and they cost thousands to replace

The headlights are not that cheap. Expensive optics, expensive LEDs with carefully selected emission spectrums, cooling solutions.

<comment><USER27> But do they break down as often? If it's about physical breakage (car crash), you're going to change more than just the light bulb for either tech. And it will cost more with traditional bulbs, too.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> Also terrible blinkers: [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O1lZ9n2bxWA)

</comment><comment><USER29> > Each of the 911's lighting units includes 84 individually controlled LEDs > that allow the car to continuously morph the pattern of its beams. When a > car approaches in the oncoming lane, the 911's headlights dim around it > while leaving the rest of the pattern bright. [...] Porsche would also dim > the right side if road signs on the shoulder were overly reflective.

The article never mentions, but how does the Porsche detect oncoming cars and overly reflective signs?

If it involves a computer doing real-time image processing, I can certainly see why the US government might be cautious considering headlights are an important safety feature for a car.

I also assume a system like that would probably be very expensive. Is this just a luxury feature or are matrix lights actually common in European cars?

<comment><USER30> my 2020 honda civic has lane detection and cruise control that keeps pace with the car in front of you... this isn't much different

<comment><USER31> Last car I owned detected lanes and cars approaching from behind.

I had to disable the sound alerts. If someone had told me how many exceptions make the alerts bogus, I wouldn't have believed it. Not a single time the alerts responded to a real danger. On the contrary, I was alarmed for nothing, creating danger as I nervously looked around trying to understand what was wrong.

Sensor that switched lights on or off was nice though.

<comment><USER32> I got rid of a Mercedes C class that autobraked twice at random causing near accidents each time. The area where I live has a lot of narrow bridges and the autobrake would get triggered by the bridge posts. Traction on those bridges can be pretty uneven, especially when moist. First time came pretty close, second time I was prepared. There never was a third time. Stuff like that should work or be fitted to some test vehicle. That's not exactly an edge case.

<comment><USER33> Are you sure they got triggered by the bridge posts? These systems tend to exclude any non moving objects. I've driven several cars with emergency braking installed and it never reacted to a static object, even if I was headed for it. The only time I found it can mis-trigger is for cyclists that you'd be able to pass easily.

<comment><USER32> Yes, 100% sure. Bridge posts come within 8" of the car and when you approach the bridge the return of the two (steel) posts is enough to trigger the radar based collision detector. Pretty dumb really, if there is nothing in front of the car and you're going forward you can't possibly collide with it and hard braking in a situation like that is much more dangerous than simply rolling through. I figure with the cars' GPS and a list of exceptions they could fix that sort of thing in a band-aid style fashion but they were not interested. I'm not going to wait to see what other edge cases aren't covered.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> FMVSS (Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards) are prescriptive, not descriptive; they're also really really slow to update them.

The difference between between FMVSS and UN/EU regulations could also be considered a regulatory moat. In today's globalized world, I can't imagine that the moat is worth it anymore.

(Disclaimer, I work for General Motors, this is strictly my own opinion)

</comment><comment><USER35> I installed the (OEM) European headlights on my car.

It's, well, a night and day difference. It's been 8 years and no one has noticed.

<comment><USER36> I didn't know this was possible! Something to keep in mind if I ever buy a nice car.

<comment><USER37> My first 'new' car was a 2001 Hyundai Elantra, and while they're economy compact cars with minimal features in the US, they have a lot of upgraded features in Korea. One of the silly things I did in my early 20s was to swap out US parts for Korean parts - and I was able to sell my US parts for more than it cost to import their Korean upgrades.

So, for no good reason, I had an econobox with OEM wood-look dash and trim, chrome handles, OEM gauges for oil pressure, voltage, and fuel economy, upgraded stereo and suspension, leather trim, etc. It's silly what kind of hobbies spring up when you're living in central Pennsylvania and maybe aren't using your free time as productively as you could be.

Point is, definitely check out the factory options available in your car's country of origin - but also make sure you know they'll definitely be compatible with the increasingly computerized systems you're swapping them in to, and make sure you're not doing anything that's going to end up failing annual inspection.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> I was not aware there were headlights that had a light pattern like that. Looks pretty cool.

Years ago (`70s-90`s) when I built custom cars it was a pretty huge deal when the rectangular headlamps were approved. It created new ways to style the front end of a car, but we all were jealous of what they were doing in Europe with headlamp designs.

The new LED headlamps offer way more styling opportunities and better lighting, but it's not surprising to learn we're still behind Europeans in regards to this.

</comment><comment><USER39> It's because the autronic eye in the '50s was so bad that regulations were created that prevent automatic dipping of the headlights.

[https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/great-info-on- th...](https://www.jalopyjournal.com/forum/threads/great-info-on-the-autronic- eye-guide-matic-lots-of-pics.580437/)

<comment><USER40> What does autronic mean?

<comment><USER41> Click on the link that parent gave

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> I really hate led headlights here in USA, They are too bright and need to be banned. People using these should be jailed for endangering lives. I don't know why but This seems to be particularly common here on big pickup trucks, which is even worse because they hit you right in your eyes if you are driving a regular car due to height difference.

Also, I've had adaptive headlights on my subaru forever.

<comment><USER43> what is with Americans and jumping up at just jailing people?

jesus christ you don't need to jail people because they used bright lights.

<comment><USER42> shows basic lack of concern for other people's lives on the road, same as drunk driving.

> because they used bright lights.

Why are people doing this in the first place. I don't understand.

<comment><USER43> what does jailing someone achieve here? what is with this gross authoritarianism? most of these people using these bright LEDs dont realize how bright it is for the other drivers - it's probably just to make the roads brighter because driving in America is extremely different than the rest of the world (very very rural highways - with essentially no extra lighting)

<comment><USER44> > what is with this gross authoritarianism? most of these people using these > bright LEDs dont realize how bright it is for the other drivers

There are wishes for gross authoritarianism because US has problems with lesser, appropriate regulations. The way other countries handle this is periodic vehicle inspections - just like smog checks but with more points - which also measure from the lumens and angle of your headlights to whether your wipers work properly, failure of which bars your car off the public roads. If this was suggested in the US eyes would roll, heads would turn, nanny state arguments would be invoked. In the absence of reifying such moderate measures, people let go of their pent up frustrations of failing to be a cooperating society in the form of wishing imprisonment or worse onto each other.

<comment><USER45> > If this was suggested in the US eyes would roll, heads would turn, nanny > state arguments would be invoked.

Yet several states do this, including Texas of all places.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> I tend away from nationalistic exceptionalism and inferiorism. I tend to find one nation that seems very well together in one area is often all fouled up somewhere else. But I've just seen so many examples of America's inability to build working beaurocracy lately that I begin to wonder. This of course is a fairly trivial example but others are not.

I'm sure I'm consuming cherry-picked media and if I went looking I could find the U.K. government with its pants down over here or Japan up to something silly but I have been wondering of late.

<comment><USER47> The UK seems to have made a mess of their Coronavirus response (fewer cases but even more deaths than the USA). That accounts for most of the current news. Johnson has recently continued the trend of nominating far too many people to the House of Lords (the unelected upper chamber of Parliament), which is a severe weakness in British democracy, second only to the terrible voting system for the Commons (lower house) in my opinion.

"Boring" bureaucracy like the headlights is rarely a significant problem. The idea that the government is fundamentally incompetent and shouldn't be trusted even to tie its own shoelaces seems uniquely American -- in Britain, if part of the government isn't working the people look for a politician to blame, usually either for interfering or cutting the budget.

[https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news](https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news) (centre-left, free to read)

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/) (centre-right, parts behind a paywall)

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Even more idiotic is my truck. I put a camper on it. I can't drive it at night because the weight of the camper tilts the entire truck back just a bit so that the head lights are aimed right at driver's eyes even on the lowbeams. Everyone flashes me and gets pissed off. Hopefully Adaptive headlights account for things like this.

<comment><USER49> I would say there is almost certainly a little wheel somewhere on your dashboard to adjust them. My Land Rover has this.

<comment> kube-system A vehicle in the US that would be colloquially referred to as a 'truck' almost certainly does _not_. Headlight level controls are extremely rare in the US.

<comment><USER50> Been driving about 20 years in the US, owned eight or nine cars (mostly small to mid-sized sedans and minivans) over the years between me & the wife, and I can't recall ever seeing headlight level controls.

<comment> kube-system I'm an enthusiast who has owned dozens of vehicles and driven around a hundred. I have only seen this feature on a couple of euro luxury cars.

<comment><USER51> Interesting! In Europe you not only have cockpit adjustable lights but auto leveling very common. Of course the consumer ends up paying for that, and they do cause maintenance issues.

<comment><USER52> > In Europe you not only have cockpit adjustable lights but auto leveling very > common

Cockpit adjustable lights have been required by law in Europe for about 20 years. When Xenon lamps arrived, auto-leveling was added as a requirement for them.

<comment><USER51> Bit the bullet and read the Wikipedia part, which was excellent. Cockpit adjustable headlights since 1948!

[https://wiki.relexsolutions.com/display/MOR/Isengard+High+Le...](https://wiki.relexsolutions.com/display/MOR/Isengard+High+Level+Design+Principles)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER53> Because we elect garbage politicians who engage in wholesale bribery and are more interested in maintaining power than doing the job they were elected to do. We're getting exactly what we deserve, and honestly, I think that's too much.

<comment><USER54> We all know that. It was always true.

The point of _real_ democracy (versus what I call model/book democracy) is to extract useful value from fallible individuals while preventing them to do too much harm (like seizing too much power).

The better questions are then:

* Is it getting worse?

* Are politicians more preoccupied with their interests than in the past?

* Is it because it is easier now to manufacture misinformation?

* Is it because people vote for parties and not for individual politicians?

* Is having less focus on individual character an inevitable result of polarization of society?

* Would more truthful and unbiased news coverage help?

* Would more education on the principles of civic life help people make better voting decisions?

* Is technology causing general disease of attention deficit and focus problem on the scale of entire society causing it to make worse decisions overall?

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> A lot of those "adaptive" LED light suck! Loads of times I'm stuck with some guy behind me with flickery, colour-changing lights pointing right at my face through the mirrors.

<comment><USER33> Are you sure those are matrix LED? They might just be standard LED on an uneven road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER56> I wish someone would do something about the excessively bright LED taillights people are installing. I can't stand having my eyes burned out behind these fools.

</comment><comment><USER57> The American market has had "adaptive headlights" for nearly 20 years. They tilt up and down, side to side, depending on the orientation of the car. My 2004 Lexus IS300 had them. And they were HIDs, so they were plenty bright. (My base model 2012 Toyota's headlights completely suck in comparison...)

But our headlight market and rules are pretty ridiculous. Most "fancy" non-HID bulbs are a ripoff and actually make visibility worse, and it's also illegal to convert a halogen setup to HID. Combine this with the fact that some designs are just crap no matter what the bulb type, and we have a general market failure to understand the real performance of headlights. People think they can generalize headlight types, but it doesn't bear out in practice. [https://www.consumerreports.org/headlights/are-hid-and- led-h...](https://www.consumerreports.org/headlights/are-hid-and-led- headlights-worth-buying/)

</comment><comment><USER58> Is this a standard feature in all European cars? It seems like a premium feature that might eventually trickle down to the average cars.

<comment><USER59> This is not a standard feature of new cars, but it's pretty affordable addition for middle segment cars (In my MPV it was an extra 700$). Premium cars getting this more and more frequently, not LED, but lasers in case of Audi (and VAG).

</comment></comment><comment><USER60> I am grimly curious how many Americans would view a primitive combination of high beam/low beam/fog lamps/accent lights as being preferable to a sophisticated headlight that can do it all, simply because they get off on dazzling people with their absurd headlights.

<comment><USER61> I am european and still prefer the simple system. As a software developer - knowing what kind of bunch we are - the less software for critical systems the better.

Clicking a button or switching a lever with tactile feedback, immediate response that does exactly what is expected is vastly preferable to any smart system.

<comment><USER62> But it is a gradient. There are simple "adaptive headlights" that try not to do anything too fancy. Just aim at the road, adjust for elevation, and the direction you are turning. Could imagine a hinge and a gyroscope controlling that, in theory.

These matrix ones that add in adjustments for other cars and for signs are maybe a little too far on the curve for me as well. Anything using computer vision is not something I'd be excited about.

<comment><USER61> I am all for innovation. But having some behavior of the car being a black box to the driver is recipe for trouble. And of course there are always edge cases that the developers didn't forsee.

The more complicated a car is - the more training will the driver need. So standard drivers license at some point may not be enough.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> The biggest problem with government regulations is that they are often written in a reactionary or temporary way, but then become enshrined either by bureaucracy or entrenched interests.

</comment><comment><USER64> How well do they work for pedestrians and cyclists?

<comment><USER65> In the video at TFA the lights appear to self adjust for pedestrians on the right side of the road.

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> > Each of the 911's lighting units includes 84 individually controlled LEDs > that allow the car to continuously morph the pattern of its beams. When a > car approaches in the oncoming lane, the 911's headlights dim around it > while leaving the rest of the pattern bright. The other driver doesn't get > blinded, but you still have blazing lights on your side.

That _is_ amazing. And I suspect that one could incorporate more autopilot technology. Perhaps to better illuminate pedestrians, bicyclists, motorcyclists, and wildlife. Also perhaps police vehicles, identified through markings and/or tag number.

</comment><comment><USER67> I complained to my state authority about halogen and xenon. The glare aggressive bad. Seriously bad. It should be in the roadworthy testing: does this blind oncoming drivers.

Blue led are equally vile. Really destructive of my night vision

</comment><comment><USER68> Here is the paper by a Porsche engineer from 2015 on how this headlights work: [https://can-cia.org/s/eH8uD](https://can-cia.org/s/eH8uD)

</comment><comment><USER69> Upper middle class cars in Japan like Mazda3, Harrier also supports adaptive headlights. Possibly Koito is the supplier of LED systems.

[https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/safety/active...](https://www.mazda.com/en/innovation/technology/safety/active_safety/alh/)

[https://www.koito.co.jp/technology/koito/system.html](https://www.koito.co.jp/technology/koito/system.html)

</comment><comment><USER70> Some European cars are sold with laser head lights as an optional extra. As a driver meeting usch a vehicle I ponder if that is safe for my eyesight? After recent scandals I don't fully trust the car industry to self regulate as they have mislead consumers before for example Dieselgate. Thus I think it's good that there is car safety regulations but that led lights probably should be allowed. I think too many consumer decisions are made on the basis of ego what is good for me/self as a consumer and not necessarily what is good for others.

<comment><USER71> The laserlights, like ones marketed by BMW, are not shining the laser outward into the world - they use them to warm up phosphor which in turn produces "regular" light. In a sense, it's somewhat akin to an old school incandescent bulb, but using much less energy. In US, laserlights are reduced power due to regulations

<comment> kube-system I think you mean fluorescent, not incandescent.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> This is a classical case of regulating at the completely wrong level.

Forget low beams and high beams. All that needs to be regulated is that the headlights can't point to other drivers, cyclists and pedestrians at a too great intensity above N inches/centimeters from ground.

Set those intensity limits to safe levels, make NIST (or some equivalent organisation) come up with a national standard test to enforce them, and let car makers use whatever technology to make headlights as long as they pass that test.

</comment><comment><USER73> A friend of mine has this type of headlights on his BMW, and while they are very cool at night with the adaptive beams that light the road without blinding other drivers, I can't say that I find them to be a must-have, and I'd be hard-pressed to pay the premium to get them on my car compared to my current xenon lights that can only corner as I turn the wheel.

Unless you're frequently driving at night, you'll be just fine with halogen or xenon lights.

<comment><USER74> I think if you asked the other drivers they might say that you having adaptive lights is a must have.

<comment><USER75> Is blinding that big a problem? Assuming the lowbeams are well adjusted, they should never blind anyone. The number of times each winter that I forget to switch off my high beams for an oncoming driver and blind him is between zero and one.

<comment><USER74> It is to me, but my vision at night isn't the greatest. I see quite a few people with HID/LED lights now and the blue shifted spectrum and poor aiming have caused me problems.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER76> I wish we had the lights they turned with the steering wheel as a standard option. Is there any reasonably priced car with this feature, or is it only in Europe?

<comment><USER77> That exists now with a number of models here in the U.S., and is sometimes called "cornering lights." The original article refers to what this Motor Trend article [0] calls, "Adaptive Driving Beams."

[0]: [https://www.motortrend.com/news/get-lit-adaptive- headlights-...](https://www.motortrend.com/news/get-lit-adaptive-headlights- tech-work/)

<comment><USER76> Have a look at this advertisement for the Citroen from the 60s. Why did it take so long to get "adaptive" headlights?

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=rRHogyYXFiQ&...](https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=rRHogyYXFiQ&feature=emb_logo)

<comment> kube-system Cornering lights were a thing on US cars in the 60's too.

[https://jalopnik.com/a-tribute-to-the-most-un-appreciated- li...](https://jalopnik.com/a-tribute-to-the-most-un-appreciated-light-the- corneri-1625241633)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER78> Are LED matrix headlights something Europeans can get in a 20,000 Euro car or is this limit something that's only significant for luxury cars?

<comment><USER79> I don't think they are too common in 20000 EUR cars yet, but they are continuously trickling down.

A quick look shows that they are an option in Opel Astras that start at 21390€ (inc. 24% VAT plus 2000€ car tax) in Finland and under 20000€ in e.g. Germany, though.

The median price of new cars is around 30000€ here. The most common models are Skoda Octavia, Toyota Corolla, Nissan Qashqai (all three start at around 24000€), of which Skoda Octavia is available with matrix headlights and the two others are not, if I looked correctly.

Most people buy used, though - ~85% of car purchases are used cars.

A quick look through used cars market at nettiauto.com seems to show that there are many Opel Astras with matrix headlights for sale starting at around 14000€, but not many others at those prices.

<comment><USER80> Seat Leon with matrix led sells at €20.470,59 in Germany.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER81> If it can detect cars and de-illuminate, it shouldn't be too hard to detect and spot-light other things for safety, like people, animals, debris.

<comment><USER71> Mercedes has a good demo video about current state of this tech (EU only) - when you drive a car with it, it's literally magical. Alternative tech uses a projector-like screen with 4K resolution, allowing for very precise light control.

Here is a demo: [https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJjvYPV3oc](https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=0OJjvYPV3oc)

<comment><USER33> Are they actually developed by Mercedes? Or do they have exclusive contracts with a supplier like Bosch?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER82> Even more importantly: Why is America still stuck with cars that honk when they're locked and that have indicator lights flashing in the same color as the tail-lights? One is a nuisance, the other one a straight-up safety issue.

<comment><USER83> When I lived in Canada we had to turn on the honk mode because there were too many people using devices that block remote vehicle locking. The honk is an obvious indicator that the car did, indeed, lock.

<comment><USER84> Too annoying to look at the car for the 2 seconds it takes to see the indicators flash, which seems to be the common alternative?

<comment><USER85> My car flashes lights on the first click and honks on the second, which is a pretty good compromise and handy when I lose it in car parks.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER86> Not sure how truly effective the Porsche solution really is. I have a hard time believing that computer controlled sensors can effectively direct beams of light. What about conditions which scatter light? None of the interesting problems are addressed in this article, instead we are left with a clickbait title.

</comment><comment><USER87> Not only that, but the extreme brightness and blue spectrum cause macular degeneration. Especially in children

[https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights- damaging-y...](https://health.clevelandclinic.org/are-led-lights-damaging- your-retina/)

</comment><comment><USER17> This thread just made me realize that it's probably been almost six months since I have driven at night.

<comment><USER88> I also just avoid driving at night these days. Even on road trips I deliberately start at sunrise and end at sunset. Among the reasons is awful headlights. I don't drive at night unless I have to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER89> Yeah. In 1964 my family returned to the US from the middle east where my dad worked. We brought the family Peugeot car with us. It had yellow antifog headlights, then popular in Europe. Dad couldn't register it in the US until he changed the headlights.

This stuff isn't new.

</comment><comment><USER90> I have a 4 years old Passat that has them, the visibility is incredible. Especially on the sides of the road, where normal lights go kind of dim. This kind of bureaucracy is very funny in US, cause I thought that one think US is build on is progress.

<comment><USER27> > This kind of bureaucracy is very funny in US, cause I thought that one think > US is build on is progress.

No, it's built on money. Sometimes that leads to progress, sometimes it doesn't.

</comment></comment><comment><USER91> I recall arguing about European specs vs American specs a couple years back on reddit. Very strong insistence that the American route is superior. Don't think that legislation is getting updated any time soon.

</comment><comment><USER92> I feel that night driving has become more tedious since the advent of LED lights and moronic drivers wielding them in high beam mode. Reading this thread, it seems this is a world wide problem.

</comment><comment><USER93> Reminds me of motorcycle helmet standards in the United States, where "DOT" is the minimum legal requirement. For people who want to live, ECE, Snell, or the new FIM standards are a must.

<comment><USER7> What's even worse are the standards for bicycle helmets which are governed by the CPSC (Consumer Products Safety Commission). At least there are better standards out there like Snell.

</comment></comment><comment><USER94> I'm glad we don't have these because the mfgrs and dealers would just use it to screw over the buyers.

It would be full of ongoing software bugs that can only be fixed if you pay for a $75 oil change at the dealership. Sometimes the headlight firmware will crash while you're driving down the road and somehow the owner will be 100% liable not the mfgr kinda like self driving car crashes. The module will be designed to crack the first time a piece of road gravel touches it and the module will cost at least $1000 and require disassembling the entire front end of the car to replace.

I'm just not looking forward to it.

<comment><USER95> Defects like those would be subject to mandatory recalls. New vehicles are already full of software-controlled features. My 2017 vehicle has had three recalls that were purely software patches.

</comment></comment><comment><USER96> Wow, not one reference to Preston Tucker in this whole article. I searched for "Tucker" and the only match was C. Delores Tucker. Not what I expected.

</comment><comment><USER97> ok... i'll admit, that was awesome!!! i think everyone on the planet has wanted something like this for awhile now. when driving at night, i'm constantly blinded by people who keep their high beams on. it's gotten even worst over the years with leds and raised trucks and cars where the beams are at eye level. this could really help make night driving safe all around.

</comment><comment><USER4> So, uh, you can get entirely self-built cars onto US roads, cars with fully autonomous experimental AIs, but not with intelligent headlights? WTF?

</comment><comment><USER98> All these people stroking it to fancy new LED or projector lights clearly have never had to service (pro-tip: you usually can't) or replace them. The projectors in particular have a bunch of asinine failure modes as they age. Good luck finding a complete assembly for less than half a grand. Screw that.

Give me sealed beam lights that cost $20 and if they're not bright enough then give me more of them (e.g. 2013 Ford E-series).

</comment><comment><USER99> Also: awfully designed signal lights.

They should be yellow, not red. And work independently of the brake lights.

<comment><USER7> The reason that they're permitted in FMVSS 108 was to allow automakers to save money. Hence the reason luxury brand cars with LED tail lamp have them in the USA.

</comment></comment><comment><USER100> Porsche should publish an api for the blinkenlights, so that we can play pong while driving.

</comment><comment><USER101> Do these clever headlights also take care not to dazzle approaching pedestrians?

</comment><comment><USER102> more importantly, why is America stuck with narrow angle side mirrors?

</comment><comment><USER103> I just leased a car after a decade of car-free living (not doing crowded public transport again until we have a vaccine) ... the headlight situation is 10x worse than I remember. Driving at night is a brutal.

</comment><comment><USER104> I would ask why America is stuck with bad tail lights.

</comment><comment><USER105> I'd give those 911 lights about 7 or 8 years before they become a $6,000 problem.

</comment><comment><USER106> LED headlights are not good for eyes, probably will result in long term damage. Is there a study that they are safe ?</comment>


What science says about gun control and violent crime - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2012/12/14/what-science-says-about-gun-co.html

<comment><USER2> Rather than talk about gun control, yes or no, why not talk about gun control as opposed to something else. That something else might be mental health.

If you manage mental health, you have guns that aren't going to massacre people.

If you restrict guns, you still have mentally ill people who are a danger to themselves and others and who are leading miserable lives.

Go to the root cause, not the symptoms. This is a public health issue. Medical solutions are going to be more effective in saving and improving lives.</comment>


Ask HN: What is your docker registry setup? - <AUTHOR>

I'd like to ensure that our build and deploy process is reliable and speedy when pushing/pulling Docker images.
Using DockerHub, I have seen some reliability issues (downtime, sometimes without status page updates), bugs (timeout querying DockerHub API when a repo has many tags), and behavior changes (images used to be immediately available after push, now it appears to be async).
Given the above issues, I'm interested in better understanding what my options are... Have you used / do you recommend alternatives such as DockerHub enterprise, a self-hosted docker registry/distribution, setting up a mirror, CoreOS,  etc?
Thanks! <comment><USER3> I use a self-hosted docker registry. The good thing is the work has already been done for you! You just need to run the registry image from DockerHub. Here's the steps I used to run my registry:

\- Mount your storage to a local location

\- Pull registry image from DockerHub

\- docker run -p 5000:5000 -v <local storage>:<container storage> -e STORAGE_PATH=<container storage> registry

\- docker push registry <server>:5000/registry

The last step pushes the registry image you retrieved from DockerHub into your own private registry. I'm running this registry on a VM using a Celerra share. Works like a champ!

The documentation for the registry image I'm running can be found on GitHub: [https://github.com/docker/docker-registry](https://github.com/docker/docker- registry)

There are many storage options, you don't have to use local storage - <USER2> are several options for using cloud storage.

Hope that helps!</comment>


Scientists forced to take out loan to pay for eagles' foreign text messages - <AUTHOR> https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-10-26/roaming-russian-eagles-leave-scientists-broke/11642780 <comment><USER2> Dupe of [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21358007](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21358007)

<comment><USER3> Comments moved thither. Thanks!</comment></comment>


Offer HN: I'll review your Product/UX for free (for my blog) - <AUTHOR>

I'm looking to do a weekly review of a small startup's UX/Product for a blog series I'm trying to do.
Why I can help with your design? - I'm the cofounder of and do design of a little SF startup, UpOut.com - 3 years running a small web design shop building 100+ projects (and countless more mockups) - I occasionally consult for UX for a handsome fee
...still reading?
I haven't firmed up the exact bits and pieces of the review; Likely, I'll go through the main bits of the site and provide a fairly detailed description of tweaks with a heavy focus on conversions. If you're interested in getting reviewed, please reach out to me at my email by clicking on my username.
Why am I doing this? Running UpOut full time means I only design for one site. I want to do a small series to practice my skills. <comment><AUTHOR> I'm also considering doing a review series: I'll go more in depth with sites that implement some of my modifications. I'll require the sites I do this with to provide analytics for me so I can help more functionally.

For the current reviews, I think I've decided on an outline:

General: \- HOW I SEE THE PRODUCT VISION \- PRODUCT/UX GOALS: Customer type \- DESIGN CHOICES

\---

STRIPPING: things that need to be removed + why \- Elements that take away from the goal

SMALL CHANGES: under 20 hours of work \- HTML/CSS changes \- Image aliasing + fixes \- Basic JS \- Small structural (moving partials, page order)

MEDIUM CHANGES: under 10 days of work \- Adding fancy stuff (unlimited scroll, timed pop ups etc.) \- Page structure

LARGE CHANGES + ADD ONS: Big picture stuff \- Large feature improvements/modifications \- Future goals

\---

Let me know if there is a preferred method to UX feedback. I plan to spend no more than an 1.5 hours to 2 hours on each startup review

</comment><comment><USER2> Please, I would love to have more feedback on <http://weekplan.net>.

Sacha Greif organized a design roundtable about WeekPlan a few weeks ago: <http://blog.folyo.me/design-roundtable-weekplan/>

I would love to hear your advices on "how I could increase the perceived value of the product".

Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER3> Martin, what an awesome thing to do to help us. I considered myself a designer until my brain got blocked churning out new design ideas and now I can surely use some feedback and help on my site and mobile app. I am looking for feedback on my project at <http://www.findero.us>. Thanks a bunch.

</comment><comment><USER4> Martin,

Sounds quite generous of you! I'd love to take you up on it for one of my side projects: domainsforfriends.com

The tool is still pre-launch, but I've got nothing stopping curious visitors from checking it out.

Anyways, if you're interested, shoot me an email, it's listed on the welcome page for the site.

Mike

</comment><comment><USER5> This isn't a startup, but I wouldn't mind some feedback on my side project: <http://comparerc.com>

I haven't really launched it except to a handful of people, so traffic is basically zero. Email in my profile if you're interested. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER6> I'd love some professional UX feedback on my startup BugMuncher (<http://bugmuncher.com>).

The website design is off the shelf from themeforest, but I've already customized it a bit, so any feedback there would also be awesome.

</comment><comment><USER7> I'd like some feedback on the project I'm working on. I'm finishing some UI work right now, when I update the apk on the Marketplace I'll definitely hit you up, thanks man.

</comment><comment><USER8> Please review our start up based in South Korea. <http://nboon.com>

We're constantly benchmarking sites in U.S.

</comment><comment><USER9> I will love to have you provide feedback on SocialAppsHQ - <https://www.socialappshq.com></comment>


Ask HN: Best intro to programming (heavy on algorithm design/mathy stuff)? - <AUTHOR>

My girlfriend wants to get into programming. She's a math whiz, and wants to find an intro to programming from a perspective that assumes you know nothing and would then allow her to look at stuff like algorithm design and statistical analysis.
I suggested the Try Ruby tutorial but it was being really buggy, and I don't know anything else good.
Any suggestions? <comment><USER2> I recommend clojure. I'm teaching a friend of mine to program with clojure for the following reasons:

1) clojure is functional - Someone with math background will have no difficulty to think of computation as combinations of functions. And with map/filter/reduce there is a lot of fun stuff you can do. Also, there is no need to burden a learning programmer with pointers, and clojure doesn't bother you with that, it's all "by-value".

2) clojure has great data types - After all, it's all about data. Clojure shines with elegant notation and powerful processing of data structures, which IMHO is very easy and straightforward to grasp.

3) clojure has a REPL - Learning by doing helps a great deal to get a feeling for programming, because of the direct feedback.

4) <http://try-clojure.org/> \- No need to install anything - get started instantly, do the further steps later. And there's a tutorial as well (never tried it).

</comment><comment><USER3> I think either Python or Java are good first languages. I'd probably stay away from VB (too GUI based) and C++ (too confusing for a beginner). I was an Applied Math and Physics major my first year of college. I ended up switching to CS my second year after I had a really good professor for the Java intro class. Actually, for the mathematically inclined, Lisp can be a really fun language to learn because it's so simple yet powerful.

You also might want to try this:

1\. Teach basics of programming in general (for example: [http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Non- Programmer%27s_Tutorial_for...](http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Non- Programmer%27s_Tutorial_for_Python_2.6))

2\. If she wants to learn the theoretical stuff, go over Big-O notation, sorting algorithms, data structures, etc.

3\. Then maybe teach her the basics of Lisp and go over recursion.

4\. Next, try a fun small project. Maybe try to make Tic Tac Toe or a Word Search solver.

5\. At this point she would be familiar enough with CS and can tell you what she wants to work on next (i.e. learn C or Assembly to do low-level stuff, learn theoretical CS, or try making more complex programs).

Finally, check out these Stack Overflow answers to see what others have suggested: [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3088/best-ways-to- teach-a...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3088/best-ways-to-teach-a- beginner-to-program), [http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1858064/so-my- girlfriend-...](http://stackoverflow.com/questions/1858064/so-my-girlfriend- wants-to-learn-to-program)

<comment><USER3> It's also worth checking out the other posts under the "Related" sidebar on the bottom-right of both Stack Overflow pages.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> For a math whiz, SICP should be an option.

</comment><comment><USER5> I'd actually suggest, any good tutorial on the net ; pretty everything that you need is there, just need to google it there.

You'd be surprised at how much resources there is online.

Honestly, buying books as introductions seems useless to me besides the fact of that buying the book might actually push you more into the actual programming act.

But for her to start, the best would really be to pick tutorials that not only relates to her future use of the program but also to what interrest her. Because, after all, she probably won't be programming websites or wordpress themes.

Quick googling for "math related python tutorial" got me this :) <http://showmedo.com/videotutorials/series?id=101>

seems pretty cool intro.

</comment><comment><USER6> Lot of students who love maths love Richard Birds books : [http://www.amazon.com/Richard- Bird/e/B001HCWQ9I/ref=sr_ntt_s...](http://www.amazon.com/Richard- Bird/e/B001HCWQ9I/ref=sr_ntt_srch_lnk_1?qid=1295824351&sr=8-1)

</comment><comment><USER7> Book called learn Python the hard way, loved it back in the day, you need to know nothing to follow it!

<comment><USER8> I actually think this is far more repetitive than a math whizz could handle, and might bore them if programming is presented this way to them. I think the suggestion earlier for Structure and Interpretation of Computer Programs was a good one.</comment></comment>


Numi: Beautiful calculator app for Mac you will love to use every day - <AUTHOR> http://numi.io <comment><USER2> Highly recommend Soulver in this category as well - I probably use Soulver 100+ times a day, it's particularly awesome around things like throughput - you can throw things like, "10 kbits/second at 30 days in megabytes" \- the sort of stuff people screw up all the time with excel when they forget to multiple by 8 somewhere.

It can also do the Currency translation, "1 BTC in USD"

And string a bunch of them, to do things like, "$2/square foot in SGD/square meter"

<comment><USER3> You can solve all three of those with Wolfram Alpha too, with no need for apps. Seems like Google knows how to solve the last two, but not the first one. Perhaps with some different syntax it would be possible too.

<comment><USER4> What I like about this app is that there's context and history. I use Spotlight all the time for these conversions, but there's no way for me to keep the last calculations around for reference or reuse; I have to put stuff in a text editor for that, which is a lot more awkward.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> This looks really, really nice. But I think a problem for adoption is that on a Mac Spotlight can already do most of the calculations this does that I'd actually want to do on a regular basis (for me, that's currency conversion and some basic arithmetic). I can imagine downloading this, being impressed by its slickness, and then routinely forgetting to use it in favour of Spotlight.

<comment><USER6> Agreed. I barely use Alfred that much and that's mapped to the similar-but- different option+space (Spotlight is mapped to command+space by default). If this kind of functionality could extend Alfred (or Quicksilver?), there would be no question that this would see relatively regular use from me.

If I need to open something, I'm much more likely to open another tab of my browser and dump queries (especially things like exchange/conversion rates) into Google. It's a shame, too, because the demo here is really persuasively showing that this can automatically do stuff I previously assumed necessarily takes an extra brain cycle or two.

<comment><USER5> I use Alfred too, almost entirely just to do "Sleep" and "Lock", which Spotlight - for no very good reason - doesn't let you do. If Spotlight could do those, I'd uninstall Alfred: even though it does many wondrous things, I just never remember to use it to do them. I'm certain this app would fall into the same category for me.

<comment><USER6> I also use Alfred for a quick definition if I'm _pretty sure_ the system dictionary can handle the word (otherwise I ask Google), but I agree that a vanishingly small number of additions to Spotlight would render Alfred defunct for me. For 90+% of the things Alfred does, I find myself thinking "oh that's pretty neat", but I simply can't make it go into my workflow.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> Apps for just a single OS _in this day and age_ upset me :( Why is this OSX only? What element of it could only be achieved or expressed on a Mac? Disappointing. I want to use it but I can't.

<comment><USER8> I do not think I have ever seen a "beautiful" cross platform app.

Maybe blender.

<comment><USER9> I personally don't use it but I think the Atom[0] text editor is pretty attractive. Really there are plenty of examples, it's not impossible, you can make good looking apps with Qt without too much effort.

[0] [https://atom.io/](https://atom.io/)

<comment><USER8> I would argue that a text editor really stretches the definition of user interface. The non-text-editor chrome I am NOT a fan of, but I understand it's truly hard to make a good "native" app. These are rarely cross platform.

My previous example "blender" only passes because the interface is so damn weird it doesn't make sense on any platform. But it's consistent and easy to program.

<comment><USER9> Well, the text editor has just about as much UI as this calculator thingy, actually I'd say more.. That's why it came to mind as a good comparison.

> My previous example "blender" only passes because the interface is so damn > weird it doesn't make sense on any platform.

Ha I definitely agree with you on that.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> Well I opened the link being a bit sceptical but I have to admit it's really nice! well done!

</comment><comment><USER11> Looks really nice. I'm a big fan of Soulver[1] too, which is basically a more featureful and less minimalist version of this. I've also tried Calca[2], which seems really good but ultimately didn't replace Soulver for me.

On a tangential note, it's really nice to see that the Mac app scene still turns out these kinds of more experimental apps. Long may it continue!

[1] [http://www.acqualia.com/soulver/](http://www.acqualia.com/soulver/) [2] [http://calca.io/](http://calca.io/)

<comment><USER12> Soulver is great and is what i use when mobile but I love Calca. I mostly use it in place of a spreadsheet, less as a replacement for a calculator.

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> Seems worth mentioning the Frink programming language here:

[https://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/](https://futureboy.us/frinkdocs/)

</comment><comment><USER14> Looks very nice!

Is there something similar for Windows? Or for the linux shell?

<comment><USER15> For the linux shell, I just type `python` and do all my calculations in the REPL

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> This looks really nice, I like the fact that I have the history in front of me and editable while I'm using it. Just an idea, it might be more useful to show $9 in EUR instead of $9 in Euro. I foolishly tried to do $9 in Peso, wondered why it wasn't working, figured out I had to do $9 in MXN, had totally forgotten you'd generally want to use the ISO Code.

</comment><comment><USER17> Does this support hex/oct/binary? Doesn't seem to - that would be a very useful addition.

</comment><comment><USER18> You have a typo "You can use sing and word operators." in your first sentence on [http://numi.io/docs/](http://numi.io/docs/)

</comment><comment><USER19> Wait, if it is just text then how is it "beautiful"? Don't you need fancy faded images and "creative" scrolling methods for something to be "beautiful"?

</comment><comment><USER20> I was quite happy they asked for the e-mail address after the beta started to download. That is a nice touch and makes me think they are worth giving the e-mail address to.

</comment><comment><USER21> I've been using Numi for a couple of weeks now. It's a really nice way of playing with an algorithm and breaking down each part with variables.

</comment><comment><USER22> Feature request: Inline comments and multiline calculations woulds be nice.

</comment><comment><USER23> you should make a flashlight plugin so it can be used from spotlight [http://flashlight.nateparrott.com/](http://flashlight.nateparrott.com/)

</comment><comment><USER24> This would be an awesome mobile app. I'd pay for it.

</comment><comment><USER25> If this had Windows support, I'd be all over it.</comment>


Ask HN: What are the tax implications of exercising startup options? - <AUTHOR> I've never been able to find a clear explanation of  this, and given Coinbase's announcement today I thought it was a good time to learn.
So:
I get that if I leave my startup today I have 90 days to exercise my options.
I get that I'll have to pay the agreed 'strike price'
But everything after that is unclear to me.
Would I be paying tax as if I'd made capital gains in the amount of the delta between the strike price and the stock's value today? Would the stock's value today be based on the company's valuation at the most recent round of funding?
If the company goes on to raise more VC funding, would I be liable in future years for the 'capital gains' on this stock?
If the company went on to fail, would I be entitled to tax breaks for loss of stock?
etc.
I'd love to see a clear explanation of all this stuff from someone who's been through it or just knows it. Thanks! <comment><USER3> 1\. The day you exercise, the IRS will tax you _income tax_ on the value between the stock's current value and your strike price. This is true even though you haven't made money from selling the stock yet.

2\. If the company is still private, the stock's value is determined by the last 409(A) valuation for Common stock that the company performed, assuming that your options are for Common stock (which is very likely). The company must perform one of these valuations a year and should provide you with that amount upon your request.

3\. _Exercising_ the stock starts the clock for long term capital gains treatement. That is, if you sell the stock a year after exercising it, you will pay _capital gains_ tax on the value difference between the sell price and the value at exercise.

Math wise:

* TP = strike price (the price in your option contract at which you buy the shares)

* EV = value of a share at exercise time, as determined by the latest 409A valuation

* SP = sale price of a share when you sell the stock eventually

* #S = the number of shares you have

* IT% = Your income tax rate

* CT% = Your long term capital gains rate

At exercise:

\- You pay to exercise the shares: #S * TP

\- You owe in taxes: #S * (EV - TP) * IT%

At sale

\- You make: #S * (SP - TP)

\- You owe in taxes, assuming you waited a year to sell: #S * (SP - EV) * CT%

<comment><USER4> I have a nominal amount of options from the job I just left. The amount of money doesn't sound like it's worth the hassle. Maybe I should just let it expire.

<comment><USER5> If you were granted ISOs (you were an employee and it is still within 90 days from your departure) and they are still available to you as such, exercise them as long as you're comfortable with the risk.

Despite the parent comment, unrealized earnings on the exercise of ISOs are _not_ taxed as income.

<comment><USER6> They are not taxed as income but are subject to AMT, so can absolutely leave you with a large tax burden if you aren't cautious.

[https://www.nceo.org/articles/stock-options-alternative- mini...](https://www.nceo.org/articles/stock-options-alternative-minimum-tax- amt)

<comment><USER7> If it's a "token amount", then that's probably unlikely unless you have other large deductions (ex: mortgage, property tax)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Here is a thread in which I explain various technical points relating to the tax treatment of stock options: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2623777](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2623777)

Adding to this on your specific question about loss: when you exercise options, your purchase price becomes the basis in your stock; if the company fails and goes bankrupt, for example, you can deduct the amount of the basis as a capital loss; this means you can offset this amount (i.e., deduct it outright) against other capital gains you might have in that same year or in future years (as part of a capital loss carryforward) but you cannot otherwise deduct it outright; in general, federal tax law in such cases allows you to deduct it at the rate of up to $3,000 in any given year, with the rest carried forward for future potential deduction (this is the capital-loss carryforward).

Hope this helps.

</comment><comment><USER9> I really recommend _Consider Your Options_ as a great source of clear info for employees receiving any sort of equity compensation. One of my managers introduced me to it about 20 years ago. Pleased to see they've been updating it regularly since then.

[http://fairmark.com/books-fairmark-press/consider-your- optio...](http://fairmark.com/books-fairmark-press/consider-your-options/)

<comment><USER10> I stopped by to recommend this book too.

</comment></comment><comment><AUTHOR> Here's another one: When should/shouldn't you exercise options when leaving a startup?

Obviously, if you're leaving Uber you'd be wise to buy your vested equity if you can.

Obviously, if you're leaving a company that is crumbling, you probably shouldn't.

But what about an earlier, Series A/B startup that's promising but still shows a lot of risk? Or what about a later stage startup that is doing well but not on a guaranteed path to a huge exit? On what information would you decide whether or not to exercise?

<comment><USER11> At the same time, if I was an early Uber employee and the difference between current value and exercise price is in the millions of dollars, then I'm on the hook for a tax bill I can't afford. Are there any solutions beyond taking out loans to pay my taxes?

<comment><USER12> Don't you have the option of sell to cover? You basically exercise all of the options, then sell a proportion to cover the taxes?

<comment><USER7> Uber doesn't allow secondary sales to 3rd party but will repurchase your shares at their previous fundraising round price.

That's their current policy.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> Would I be paying tax as if I'd made capital gains in the amount of the delta between the strike price and the stock's value today?

>> Yes, assuming you have not early exercised. This sucks.

Would the stock's value today be based on the company's valuation at the most recent round of funding?

>> Yes, the 409A valuation, which is generally ~30% of the valuation you hear about on TechCrunch for Series B-C companies. Investors received preferred stock. You have common stock.

If the company goes on to raise more VC funding, would I be liable in future years for the 'capital gains' on this stock?

>> Only when you sell it. Same as public stocks -- if you buy Twitter stock, and sell it in 5 years after it's gone up 2x, you have to pay cap gains only once after you sell.

If the company went on to fail, would I be entitled to tax breaks for loss of stock?

>> Not sure. The rules around this are pretty complex. Ask a lawyer.

<comment><USER14> Would I be paying tax as if I'd made capital gains in the amount of the delta between the strike price and the stock's value today? >> Yes, assuming you have not early exercised. This sucks.

>>>> So, if the company hasn't raised funding since I was offered my options, would I have zero tax liability for exercising my vested options?

<comment><USER15> No, the board can still increase the fmv value for two reasons:

1 - the company has executed well and increased their value;

2 - to ratchet golden handcuffs tighter

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> This is the single best source I've ever read on options, exercising them, etc: [http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Stock-Options-David- Weekl...](http://www.amazon.com/Introduction-Stock-Options-David-Weekly- ebook/dp/B0055PQ4H8)

When I followed the recommendations (after checking with my accountant), I saved thousands of dollars and I'm still benefitting from that even now.

My only criticism is that I wish I had read it about 2 years earlier.

</comment><comment><USER17> Let me answer a question you haven't asked but that is very relevant:

Q: How can I mitigate the risk of holding startup shares that are illiquid and whose value can drop to zero?

A: There are investment firms that will help you buy employee stock options and then split the proceeds with you. One of these is ESO Fund (esofund.com) and they are very nice people. They can help answer your other questions as well.

</comment><comment><USER18> Pretty much depends on the country where you file your taxes. In general, you pay taxes on the difference between the nominal value (strike price) and the current market price of the shares because that's the compensation you received instead of an ordinary salary.

What happens afterwards depends on both if you sell the resulting shares at a profit or at a loss and when you sell them. Typically, taxation amounts to a lot less if you hold the shares for more than a year.

See [https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax- tips/Investments-a...](https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax- tips/Investments-and-Taxes/Non-Qualified-Stock-Options/INF12046.html) for more information on how this is dealt with in the US (including which tax forms to file).

<comment><USER19> I am not an expert.

That said, based on that article, there appears to be a difference between Incentive Stock Options (ISOs) and Non-Qualified Stock Options. You linked to information on that latter. Here is information on ISOs from Intuit: [https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax- tips/Investments-a...](https://turbotax.intuit.com/tax-tools/tax- tips/Investments-and-Taxes/Incentive-Stock-Options/INF12049.html)

At a glance, ISOs appear to be more favorable, tax-wise, in the US - <USER2> trigger AMT but not "direct" income tax.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> You pay the strike price, and you pay taxes on the difference between the current stock value and the strike price.

For example, if the shares would have been worth $1,000 when you joined the company, then the strike price for the options is $1,000. If those shares would be worth $10,000 at the time you exercise, then you pay $1,000 to the company to receive the stock, and then you pay taxes on $9,000 (the difference) to the government. So you might be looking at like 3K in taxes in that case.

You owe the taxes for the current tax year. You owe the taxes regardless of whether or not the company succeeds. Company could fold right after you exercise and you'd still owe Uncle Sam 3 grand.

(Then there are also capital gains taxes to worry about after this. I am only describing your immediate tax burden.)

<comment><USER21> if the company tanks right after you exercise, can't you deduct the losses?

<comment><USER22> This happened to a lot of people in the Valley after the dot com bust. They exercised their options, triggering a tax liability, and then the shares tanked, leaving them with no money to pay off the liability. They could only deduct $3000/year. Lots of people were in a lot of trouble, but I remember hearing that finally the IRS made a change so that this wouldn't affect you anymore.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Q: What are the downsides to Coinbase's approach?

</comment><comment><USER24> Also, if you early exercise your shares, do not forget to file an 83(b) election within 30 days of your exercise. This also applies if you end up founding a company or are issued restricted stock awards.

<comment><USER25> If I understand the question correctly, and it's about what to do when leaving the company, 83(b) is unnecessary. An 83(b) election says that you are choosing to recognize paper gains today that the IRS would normally require you to recognize when they are no longer subject to a substantial risk of forfeiture. If he's leaving, he must be exercising vested options, so there is no risk of forfeiture, so no need for 83(b).

An 83(b) election is critical for unvested stock, i.e. "early exercise".

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> I have started to write a series of posts on my blog regarding this very topic. So timely question.

> I get that if I leave my startup today I have 90 days to exercise my > options.

The number of days to exercise depends on your contract. The typical number is 45 days. Pinterest's number for employees that have more than 2 years of service is 7 years. This number is not set by law, and can be set to anything the founders/investors agree to.

The 90 day number you are thinking of is the law stating that ISOs become nonincentive options when not exercised after 90 days after termination of employment.

> I get that I'll have to pay the agreed 'strike price'

You pay the "strike price" * "number of options you wish to exercise"

> Would I be paying tax as if I'd made capital gains in the amount of the > delta between the strike price and the stock's value today? Would the > stock's value today be based on the company's valuation at the most recent > round of funding?

Assuming you were awarded ISOs, you do not owe capital gains tax under "regular income tax" upon exercise. You only owe taxes upon sale of your stock that you have attained through exercise, at some future date.

However, depending on your amount of gains, other income, and your effective tax rate, you may owe tax under AMT. Consult a CPA with experience in this. It should be simple for them. (I believe you get some tax credits for this AMT payment when you end up selling your shares in the future)

The company's stock's value is set by the BoD meetings. This may or may not be the same as the previous round of funding.

> If the company goes on to raise more VC funding, would I be liable in future > years for the 'capital gains' on this stock?

You are only liable for "capital gains" when you sell the stock.

> If the company went on to fail, would I be entitled to tax breaks for loss > of stock?

Good question! I hadn't thought of this one. My guess here would be "yes", you would be able to claim a capital loss equal to the amount of money you paid to acquire your stock.

</comment><comment><USER26> How does the tax situation change if you're a non-resident alien during the whole process? Is there any difference in the tax rates?

</comment><comment><USER27> Another question along these lines, since OP's question seems well-answered:

If a startup employee has 90 days to exercise options after leaving a startup, what happens if a liquidity event happens during that 90-day window? Specifically, I'm wondering whether a cashless transaction is possible, particularly if it is a cash deal.

</comment><comment><USER28> This article is more than a decade old, but a lot of content is still relevant. [http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/OPTIONS-HOWTO/OPTIONS- HOWTO.htm...](http://web.mit.edu/tytso/www/OPTIONS-HOWTO/OPTIONS-HOWTO.html)

</comment><comment><USER29> Many startups have a clause in their offer letter that promises to "recommend that N options be granted at the next board meeting." It's a formality, but it doesn't always happen. Make sure those options were actually granted before you think about how to exercise them.

</comment><comment><USER30> Are you a founder with actual stock, or an employee with stock options? I assume employee here.

As an employee if the company value is below the strike price you wouldn't exercise your options because it leads to a loss. Exercising options is voluntary.

If you use the options to buy stock and hold it then profits and loss are subject to capital gains tax. Not sure what the minimum holding timeframe is in the US. In my experience most employees don't have the amount of money to buy the stock for long-term investment. To my best knowledge, losses are tax- deductable. Remember even if you own stock there is hardly an open market to sell like there is with publicly traded companies.

As an employee if you exercise the options and you make a profit then the HR/payroll/accounting department will add that as income to the W2 and transfer the money minus income tax to your account. When you do your taxes you fill in the various fields of the W2 into your tax software. That's the best case and usually just takes you a couple of signatures.

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> Also, please add more questions if you have them. I'm sure I didn't ask all the pertinent ones, and if there's any place to find people who can answer, it's probably HN.

<comment><USER30> I'm glad you ask questions. I've worked with many people who didn't understand the contracts they signed. Or thought they "owned" options (if the company fires you you generally loose the options).

</comment></comment><comment><USER31> Is anyone able to give some insights for non US citizens that have options of an American company but work overseas with no american employment contracts. Thanks!

</comment><comment><USER32> Go ask a professional instead of an internet chat forum.

<comment><USER23> It's hard to find professionals who have better knowledge than the MAX() of the people reading this thread.

Imo it's even hard (and costly) to find professionals who have enough exp in general.

<comment><USER33> Agreed. I had an options exercise in the hundreds of thousands once and my tax accountant, who came highly recommended but had relatively little experience with options, completely screwed it up until I caught it. I got a new accountant.</comment></comment></comment>


Learn Vim in a TRON-like game - <AUTHOR> https://github.com/carbonfive/vimtronner

<comment><USER2> Nice game, but damn that's hard!</comment>


The lie about Edward Snowden that just won't die - <AUTHOR> http://boingboing.net/2014/05/16/the-lie-about-edward-snowden-t.html <comment><USER2> They have no idea what he took and how much, because their internal logging systems are non-existent (on purpose) - but you shouldn't worry about any NSA abuses or other loss of data, because they have "strict oversight".

</comment><comment><USER3> The piece in WSJ titled "Was Snowden's Heist a Foreign Espionage Operation?" is worth reading ([http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230483130...](http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304831304579542402390653932)).

Even though I am sympathetic to Showden for his disclosures of gov't surveillance of American citizens and others, the scope, complexity, and execution of operation leaves many questions unanswered.

National security officials (both Republicans and Dems) are quoted in the piece that they believe that Showden operation was an espionage heist.

From the article:

"On June 10, 2013, Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D., Calif.), the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee, described Mr. Snowden's theft of documents as "an act of treason." A former member of President Obama's cabinet went even further, suggesting to me off the record in March this year that there are only three possible explanations for the Snowden heist: 1) It was a Russian espionage operation; 2) It was a Chinese espionage operation, or 3) It was a joint Sino- Russian operation."

So on one hand we have people like the head of the Senate Intelligence Committee and Obama officials who are neck deep in intelligence work, and on the other we have feel-gooders like BoingBoing, who really don't know what's going on, and who might never ever find out what really happened, because it could be classified for ages.

<comment><USER4> This doesn't pass the smell test. Feinstein has a bad track record on these kinds of issues. Her statements made about whistleblowers do not properly consider the good along with the bad; her NSA reform bill expanded spying powers.

 _If_ Snowden stole documents at the behest of either the Russians or Chinese, he was not the first to do so recently, nor will he be the last.

As I recall, Gen. Alexander or one of the top intel agency officials made a statement last year dismissing concern that Snowden might have leaked info to the Russians or Chinese, saying that he would expect those powers already had other moles.

Cui bono? Who benefits? We don't know what other documents Snowden might have taken, if he took any, that he didn't hand over to Greenwald and Poitras. From what's been published, however, it seems very unlikely that the Chinese or Russians have gained much from the _information_ leaked. That said, it is _possible_ that it was a very clever Russian, Chinese, or Russian-Chinese operation designed to egg the U.S. intelligence community and cast U.S. technological primacy under a cloud. The counterargument is that since all published information has been filtered by journalists who are not (presumably) Chinese or Russian agents, such a psychological or propaganda operation by the Russians or Chinese would have unpredictable and muted results.

<comment><USER3> What doesn't pass the smell test is how a single individual like Snowden was able to hack so many passwords, load so much stuff, contact Greenwald, transfer the stuff out, successfully evade and eventually escape.

To me it smells like a sophisticated op, organized by an intelligence agency.

<comment><USER4> It's been publicly stated that Snowden got fellow sysadmins to give him their passwords. Is your theory that they're all Chinese or Russian agents, too? Or that this is a face-saving false claim by the NSA?

He was in Hong Kong by the time the NSA knew something was wrong. There was no evasion necessary.

Contacting Greenwald would have ordinarily been detected? Wouldn't that imply that NSA contractors' personal communications are monitored? Source? It's not like he contacted journalists directly. He was using lavabit or something like it, so positively identifying a metadata link between Snowden and Greenwald would have required the NSA to hack or NSL whatever email service he was using. If there's automated metadata linkage from traffic analysis, they might have had a weak correlation between Snowden's web traffic to e.g. lavabit and an outgoing email from lavabit to Greenwald. I'm sure that's something the NSA will be looking at in the future, because it's right up their alley and something they probably could have done better.

You're presuming the NSA has far better internal computer security measures than anyone else does (insider espionage is a pervasive problem in every industry). I don't see any reason to think that it did. There's a trade-off: the better the security, the harder it is to get anything done and the higher that drives computer and network admin costs. Much of the security in classified operations is gained through issuing clearances and relying on social cohesion ("I'm cool; I've got a clearance and work for the NSA, and my friends are here; violating classification rules would get me kicked out.") and punishment ("Violating classification rules could mean prison."). Then there's physical security: keeping those without proper clearance away from data they are not allowed to access. The rest is fuzzy. A classified system/network has some monitoring and auditing, but it's not a magic bullet particularly against savvy sysadmins. Audit records are an information glut. You have to have some idea of you're looking for in order to find it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I don't think this issue really is a big one.

I'm far more concerned by the/my impression that the public seems to have accepted total surveillance as "the new normal". It seems like Snowden's work has resulted in the vetting of mass surveillance.

I really hope I'm wrong.

<comment><USER6> I wonder whether this could be a manufactured opinion to an extent?

I mean, we now know that online forums are subverted and socially engineered to keep 'bad opinions' down.

Add to that the still persisting mass media with known effects - and I slowly start to think of the internet as being very much part of the 'mass media', too.

For example, I noticed a lot of articles in newspapers being written by journalists that have agendas that diverge completely from the opinions of the people commenting on an article. The next step, I'd guess, is to 'properly' police these comments....

<comment><USER7> That is not necessarily a bad thing.

 _Free-market-oriented economists since Milton Friedman have strongly criticized the efficiency of democracy. They base this on the argument that voters are irrational, among other things. Their criticism towards democracy is that voters are highly uninformed about many political issues, especially relating to economics, and have a strong bias about the few issues on which they are fairly knowledgeable._

No more is this point evidenced than on news forums regarding current events. There is every possibility that the journalists diverge from the masses because the masses are incorrect.

If I had a $ for every forum commenter that talked about the _oil in Afghanistan_ I would be richer than Peter Thiel.

Have a read of [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_democracy) and just consider whether in _some_ circumstances the consensus opinion may be the wrong one.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> The two questions that must be asked about this are:

Are all documents created equal? Is one document a multi-page report containing detailed information, or is it a brief memorandum about something trivial? How much of these documents is boilerplate such as daily summaries that will repeat the same information as long as it's relevant? If I grab someone's mbox is that one document, or a collection of emails that each count as one document?

Of course none of that matters if there the number is entirely fictional. But there is still the second question, does it matter how many documents were leaked? Would your opinion of Snowden change if the number were different? If you defend him, is there an upper limit after which revealing the information is no longer justified? If you think he's a traitor, is there a small enough number that you would not object to?

I don't think it matters. The writers probably don't think so either and are thus using it not to add information to their articles but because sounds better. A person learning about this for the first time will see "1.7 million" and think either "Wow, that's a lot!" or "This reporter did a good job." A person writing "Snowden is reported to have stolen an unknown number of documents," will raise the question of who it is unknown to. The reader may think the reporter didn't do enough research. Or doubt the NSA's account of what happened. Adding an irrelevant statistic makes the article more believable. And the more specific the statistic the better. Would the effect be the same if it were "2 million", or the more cautious "over 1 million"?

I bet media analysts have studied click rates and know just what kind of meaningless statistics can be added to an article to increase readership. This is what happens when success in journalism is measured by page views.

<comment><USER9>
      %!
      % Top Secret Stolen NSA Documents
      1800000 { 100 500 moveto (TOP SECRET) show showpage } repeat

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> You can't infer anything about his motives from the number of files he took. It's just good sysadmin instinct to backup everything, encrypt it, and then sort it out later. Disk space is cheap and it's better to have too much than be missing something important.

It also often takes _less effort_ to take _more data_ simply because it requires no additional thinking or typing to exclude things.

</comment><comment><USER11> s/stole/exposed to the public what they have a right to know in a democratic society/g

</comment><comment><USER12> I don't think this would have been nearly as much of an issue if the reporters had been up front about how much had been given to them. Pick a metric - documents/files/pages/slides/whatever, and stick to it. As it played out, it went from Snowden saying "I carefully evaluated every single document I disclosed" in his interview last June, to Greenwald saying the total count was 9-10k in July, then 15-20k in August, then the NY Times saying that the Guardian gave them 50k Snowden docs in September [1].

I'm curious why they won't give a definitive number - I'm assuming that they're trying to avoid accusations that he just scraped as much as he could and took it out of the country without properly evaluating the documents.

[1] [http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/edward-snowdens- inc...](http://ohtarzie.wordpress.com/2013/10/10/edward-snowdens-incredibly- mutating-document-trove/)

</comment><comment><USER13> slightly off-topic. how do you think snowden will be remembered in 10 years?

<comment><USER14> Yes, however, I sadly suspect he will be remembered as being a bit like this guy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathias_Rust)

Rather than being up there with this guy:

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martin_Luther_King,_Jr).

<comment><USER15> I think he'll be remembered like this guy

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_Ellsberg)

And also I'd be wary of setting MLK as a golden standard- I'd say his image is very whitewashed, and very much used in ways that he himself would have opposed (ie: all the kids who are obliquely taught that he "fixed" racism)

<comment><USER14> Ellsberg is far from a household name, particularly outside the USA. 'That guy who did the Pentagon Papers' carries no resonance at all, people don't even know what the Pentagon Papers were (outside the USA).

Most British whistleblowers wrong-footed themselves with 9/11 or decided they were Jesus, they didn't need the media to make fools of them. I don't think that what's his name again? will make this mistake. However, there is a 'now what?' aspect to the story, there is no uprising from the masses, marches on Washington or anything troubling for the authorities.

In some ways Snowden has helped formalise the spying arrangements, it is now just a fact of life like having CCTV everywhere. The social contract has just been clarified.

Also, Snowden did one act, albeit a lot of planning and hard work went into it. He is not recognised as a writer or a public speaker (yet). His babysitting arrangements mean he cannot flourish that way to easily.

<comment><USER9> Jesus's image is very whitewashed, and very much used in ways that he himself would have opposed, too.

<comment><USER16> Ooo, I'm interested. Please elaborate?

<comment><USER9> He wasn't white. And he wasn't the son of God. And he didn't hate all the people who modern mainstream Christians hate.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> With that headline I was expecting the author to put forth a number or at least assert that it couldn't be 1.7 million.

<comment><USER18> The whole point of the article is that there's no credible number because the government has no way to know what was stolen.

<comment><USER19> a little bit curious. i'd think that is a correct assumption to be working with -> he accessed N documents, assume they're all compromised.</comment></comment></comment>


Behind the iPhone SMS Exploit: Fuzzing The Phone In Your Phone [pdf] - <AUTHOR> http://www.blackhat.com/presentations/bh-usa-09/MILLER/BHUSA09-Miller-FuzzingPhone-PAPER.pdf

<comment><AUTHOR> OP here. This is from the talk today being given at Black Hat 2009 by the guys presenting their "hijack any iPhone" exploit discussed here yesterday.

While this document doesn't discuss the iPhone takeover explicitly, it does illustrate how instructions can be sent to iPhone, Android, and Windows Mobile phones via an SMS exploit that does not require the carrier to be involved. Interesting stuff.</comment>


Inside Google's Advanced Technology and Projects Group - <AUTHOR> http://www.cio.com/article/2942180/google-apps/inside-google-s-advanced-technology-and-projects-group.html

<comment><AUTHOR> Using the playbook she brought from Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, Regina Dugan drives rapid technology innovation at Google's ATAP group.

Dugan joined Google to create the ATAP group, where she could apply the DARPA model to speed Google's strategic research projects. She traded the Department of Defense's deep pockets for Google's, and exchanged fighting America's adversaries for fighting perplexing product development challenges.</comment>


Tax Impact of Leaving CA in WFH Era - <AUTHOR> https://www.upstartwealth.com/blog/will-you-owe-ca-tax-after-you-leave <comment><AUTHOR> Tax on your equity comp can be complex from a state perspective. Make sure you understand the implications of leaving CA and how many more years you may owe CA tax!

Note the residency complexity at the end, I highly recommend reading CA's 2019 residency guidelines to determine if your plans means CA will claim your out of state income as taxable to CA.

[https://www.upstartwealth.com/blog/will-you-owe-ca-tax- after...](https://www.upstartwealth.com/blog/will-you-owe-ca-tax-after-you- leave)</comment>