Creator of Raft Algorithm introduces LogCabin - <AUTHOR> https://sourcegraph.com/blog/118135010314 <comment><USER2> I have a slightly off-topic question for Diego and other people experienced with distributed systems.

Why are consensus algorithms always developed as systems, not as libraries? Zookeeper, etcd and LogCabin all operate as a cluster of processes which other nodes connect to over a client library.

I can imagine that the distributed-state-machine-replication-mechanism of Raft or ZAB being implemented as a library where the user has to provide an implementation of the communication layer. Such a library can be used as a starting point for building other more complex systems which aim to provide a low-friction install experience. For example, one good thing about both Cassandra and ElasticSearch is that they both have homogeneous clusters where all nodes play the same role. Incidentally, from what I understand, they both embed a consensus implementation within.

Similarly, a membership service (and failure detector) over gossip protocols will also be very useful.

An installation guide which starts with "First, install Zookeeper cluster. Then, install a SWARM cluster. Then ..." is not very appealing. That being the case, I wonder _why_ there is no mature OSS library which provides these services. What does HN think about this situation?

<comment><USER3> This question came up at the CoreOS Fest earlier today too. I think everyone wants libraries as well as services, and I'd like that too for LogCabin one day. It's just a bit harder when you start thinking about the details. It's not impossible though. As one example, CockroachDB is using etcd's Raft implementation as a library.

Part of the issue is that we want to have libraries with small simple interfaces, and a consensus library is probably going to be on the large side, as it has to interface with the disk, the network, and the state machine, plus membership changes, log compaction, who's the leader, configuration settings, debug logging, etc.

Another issue is that, as a library, it has to be in the language you're using. And if that language is C++ or similar, it has to be compatible/convenient with whatever threading approach you're using.

Then there's performance/memory. Some Raft implementations are designed to keep relatively small amounts of data in memory (like LogCabin or etcd), and others are meant to store large amounts on disk (like HydraBase). Some are optimized more for performance, others for safety.

I think we'll get libraries eventually. Keep in mind Raft is still very young. Paxos is around 26 years old, Raft is only .5 to 3 years old (depending on when you start counting). I like to think that Raft lowered the cost of developing a consensus system/library significantly, but it still takes time to develop mature implementations. Right now we have a lot of implementations in early stages; I wonder if some of these efforts will consolidate over time into really flexible libraries.

<comment><USER2> Thanks Deigo! From yours and other siblings comments what I gather is that the idea of a library is not fundamentally flawed, it is just that the state of the art has not matured to that level.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I'm not a C++ programmer, and work mainly with Go. I'm curious to know if it is usual for C++ developers to implement their own event loops for network transports, as Diego has done here [0]. The other example I know is Replicant [1], which is used by HyperDex, and it uses a custom event loop too [2].

[0] [https://github.com/logcabin/logcabin/tree/master/Event](https://github.com/logcabin/logcabin/tree/master/Event)

[1] [https://github.com/rescrv/Replicant](https://github.com/rescrv/Replicant)

[2] [https://github.com/rescrv/busybee](https://github.com/rescrv/busybee)

<comment><USER3> LogCabin uses its event loop for network operations but then hands requests off to threads to process. I started out with libevent2, but the problem is it doesn't deal with having multiple threads very well (error-prone and inefficient). It's also not as well-documented as the man pages for epoll, so I ended up using epoll directly instead. What was really lost in the libevent2 -> epoll conversion was platform independence, but I think it might be better to get that back through well-placed #ifdefs or relying on some other library; I wouldn't go back to libevent2.

<comment><USER5> > What was really lost in the libevent2 -> epoll conversion was platform > independence

Did you consider libuv?

<comment><USER3> I guess the answer is no, I haven't really looked at it. Anyone have experience with it in a large-ish project outside of Node?

<comment><USER6> Yes -- it is very straightforward to use and "just works". (It is also used in a similar way as found in Node in the luvit project: [https://github.com/luvit/luvit](https://github.com/luvit/luvit))

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> First thoughts in my head....

1) Ah, cool, creator of Raft algo, so some of the 'obvious' mistakes in an implementation should've been resolved by now (though if ppl weren't trying to use it in production.... who knows).

2) Great, C++, it should be efficient and fast with consistent RAM usage (Go's GC is a bit.... eh... still).

3) Oh, you need a C++ client library. :(

I would love to say that API's don't matter, but they do. So, so, so much. If they didn't, etcd would never have had a chance against Zookeeper. The Zookeeper folks are looking at adding RESTful API's to allow functionality ala-etcd, because its obvious a convenient API is a huge win. Any distributed system solution attempting to gain steam should consider this from the beginning now, as the bar has been set.

<comment><USER3> I think I'd have to agree with you now: REST APIs seem to help with adoption. LogCabin was initially created for use with RAMCloud ( [http://ramcloud.stanford.edu](http://ramcloud.stanford.edu) ), which mostly hand-rolls its RPC serialization to achieve its extreme performance goals (it budgets about 1 microsecond in software overhead per RPC). I thought I was being user-friendly in LogCabin by using protobufs, and at the time, something as embarrassingly slow as HTTP+JSON was unthinkable. I don't think it's too late to add a REST API to LogCabin, and it'd be pretty easy to make a REST proxy. Maybe that's worth doing for easier adoption from other languages. I also think the CLI client makes the barrier to entry pretty low for people that just want to test it out.

<comment><USER8> Tons of people are super comfortable with HTTP and have tooling built around testing and debugging it, even if the performance is crappier.

It's an ugly cousin of premature optimization that you have to deal with if you're producing APIs for your software. If the API requires anything that isn't braindead simple, you are going to lose out to competitors due to the learning curve.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> diego, thanks so much for raft! i'm a student in the brown class you shout out, and i can testify as to its relative simplicity and the clarity with which you guys communicate the ins and outs.

i have a question for you, though. why is raft not concerned with byzantine failure? the focus on byzantine fault tolerance from the paxos family of algos (and a lot of the literature/educationally material on distributed consensus) makes me feel like it's important, but your approach suggests it perhaps isn't. do you think this focus is a side-effect of the ubiquity of paxos which is disproportionately concerned with this due to its roots in academia?

<comment><USER3> It's a good question, and I don't really know where the community as a whole sits on Byzantine vs non-Byzantine. A few thoughts:

Byzantine is more complex, and most people in industry aren't doing it: there are a lot of Byzantine papers out there but few real-world implementations. I think Byzantine is important for uses where the nodes really can't be trusted for security reasons, and maybe there's easier fault-tolerance payoffs elsewhere when the entire system is within one trust domain such as a single company.

Byzantine consensus is slower and requires more servers.

If you don't have independent implementations running on each of your servers, the same software bug could still take out your entire cluster. You get some benefit if the hardware fails independently, but you don't get protection from correlated software outages. Maybe the difficulty in characterizing which faults a particular deployment can handle makes it harder to sell to management.

With Raft, we were just trying to solve non-Byzantine consensus in a way people could understand, and we think it's still a useful thing to study even if your ultimate goal is Byzantine consensus. You might be interested in Tangaroa, from the CS244b class at Stanford, where Christopher Copeland and Hongxia Zhong did some work towards a Byzantine version of Raft [1][2] and Heidi Howard's blog post on it [3]. But really, Castro and Liskov's PBFT is a must read here [4].

[1] [http://www.scs.stanford.edu/14au- cs244b/labs/projects/copela...](http://www.scs.stanford.edu/14au- cs244b/labs/projects/copeland_zhong.pdf)

[2] [https://github.com/chrisnc/tangaroa](https://github.com/chrisnc/tangaroa)

[3] [http://hh360.user.srcf.net/blog/2015/04/conservative- electio...](http://hh360.user.srcf.net/blog/2015/04/conservative-election-in- byzantine-fault-tolerant-raft/)

[4] [http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf](http://pmg.csail.mit.edu/papers/osdi99.pdf)

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> What is the meaning of such system ?

Why do people need something like zookeeper or LogCabin ?

How does a coordinator came to play ?

I don't know much about distribute system, but I would love to learn more...

<comment><USER3> You end up needing consensus for a lot of fault-tolerant systems that need to provide consistent results. For example, if your system allows users to choose their own usernames, and you're trying to guarantee that all usernames are unique, and your system needs to automatically deal with server failures, then I think you also need consensus.

Another way to think about it is that consensus gets you the equivalent of a compare-and-swap operation in a distributed setting. Just as compare-and-swap is useful for building synchronization primitives with shared memory, consensus is useful for building synchronization primitives across a network.

[1] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compare-and- swap](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compare-and-swap)

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I always wonder about cute names like this... is LogCabin so named because it's HouseBoat minus C? Or is it instead the integral of 1/Cabin dCabin?

<comment><USER12> Almost certainly has something to do with [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_rafting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timber_rafting) :)

<comment><USER3> I've certainly been to that page before :)

I come from an academic lineage of log-based projects, from log-structured filesystems [1] which structure disks as a log, to RAMCloud [2][3][4] whose durability/recovery aspects are a distributed and partially in-memory extension of that, to Raft and LogCabin that are built around the concept of a replicated log for consensus.

LogCabin used to export a log-oriented data model, by the way, where the name made a bit more sense even. There was some talk of renaming it to TreeHouse now that it exports a key-value tree, but that one didn't really catch on.

[1] [https://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi- bin/papers/lfs.pdf](https://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi-bin/papers/lfs.pdf)

[2] [http://ramcloud.stanford.edu](http://ramcloud.stanford.edu)

[3] [https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast14/technical- sessions/...](https://www.usenix.org/conference/fast14/technical- sessions/presentation/rumble)

[4] [https://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi- bin/papers/RumblePhd.pd...](https://web.stanford.edu/~ouster/cgi- bin/papers/RumblePhd.pdf)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> This is a very inefficient way to handle events.

[https://github.com/logcabin/logcabin/blob/master/Event/Loop....](https://github.com/logcabin/logcabin/blob/master/Event/Loop.cc#L144-L154)

an event can be read/write, and each fd:event_type should be able to map to a different Event::file.

In its current form, if you receive 2000 events, you'll need to unnecessarily context switch 2000 times.

<comment><USER3> Maybe, but I don't think it matters much. The comment there explains the issue, and I vaguely remember my measurements showing that this wasn't a big deal.

I do think it's an interesting (dare I say) limitation of epoll, and something I'd think about if I was redesigning epoll.

Please file an issue on github if you have ideas on how to improve this without adding significant complexity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Reminder that no system is production ready until aphyr has had time to break it. :)

<comment><USER3> Yes, good point. I welcome Mr. McCaffrey to give it a spin, if he's so willing. And though there may be critical bugs left to find, I don't feel like I've misrepresented the current state of LogCabin.

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Nice work! A Curator-like ([http://curator.apache.org/](http://curator.apache.org/)) framework on top of LogCabin will make it immensely more useful for everyday production systems though.

</comment><comment><USER16> What is a coordination service used for?

<comment><USER17> Generally speaking: Application/service configuration and service discovery. Another example of this is [http://consul.io](http://consul.io)

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> What the webpage doesn't do is explain why I want this over the competitors. That would be helpful.

<comment><USER3> In part that's because I don't see other Raft implementations as competitors. A major goal in Raft was to enable many implementations. It'd be a huge fail if everyone switched to LogCabin and abandoned all the other Raft implementations.

Really though, it's probably not a feature list that'll make people want to use LogCabin. In Scale Computing's case, it's that they have a C++ code base that they could integrate LogCabin well with, and they know they can work with and maintain the code if they need to.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Just the other day, I was looking for a raft consensus implementation in C++ and was disappointed at not finding any that were production ready (as opposed to Java and Go). This fits the need perfectly. Also, RamCloud says it requires ZooKeeper. Do you have any idea of the timeframe of when RamCloud will use LogCabin instead.

<comment><USER3> Good timing then, and I'd be happy to talk more about whether LogCabin is a good fit for your use.

RAMCloud used to depend on an earlier version of LogCabin (before the data model was a key-value tree), then John rewrote the RAMCloud end of that and switched it to using ZooKeeper, but he made it pluggable on the RAMCloud side. So we just need an "ExternalStorage" implementation for LogCabin in RAMCloud to make that work again. It should be relatively straightforward and I'm confident they'd welcome a well-written and tested patch, but no one has volunteered yet.

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> That video was pretty great, 50:47 made me laugh: [https://youtu.be/2dfSOFqOhOU?t=3046](https://youtu.be/2dfSOFqOhOU?t=3046) .

</comment><comment><USER21> In raft how can a client know it is receiving stale, yet agreed upon, data? I'm talking about the edge case of having a network partition or some other condition like it.

<comment><USER3> Raft implementations can choose to implement reads in various ways. In LogCabin reads are linearizable, meaning that the results are current as of sometime after the read request was initiated, and it doesn't rely on bounded clock drift to make this guarantee. That's about the best you can do in terms of freshness in a distributed system. Other implementations might offer weaker read semantics or give the client the option. Check out 6.3-6.4 in my dissertation for a ton more detail: [https://github.com/ongardie/dissertation#readme](https://github.com/ongardie/dissertation#readme)

<comment><USER21> I'm still misunderstanding what happens when a network partition creates a two leader scenario. It is in a slide here [http://thesecretlivesofdata.com/raft/](http://thesecretlivesofdata.com/raft/) under "log replication" after creating a network partition that separates CDE from AB. Doesn't that mean a client of node B could read stale data? Or maybe an implementation like etcd would let the client choose to read or not in that case?

<comment><USER3> If the network is split into AB and CDE, then only CDE will be able to reach a quorum. If a client is on the AB side of that split, no consensus algorithm could guarantee freshness on a read. LogCabin clients will continually retry until they can talk to a functioning leader (and clients can put a timeout on that) so that you get a guaranteed fresh read every time; other systems could choose to return a stale result right away instead. It's up to the implementation, but I strongly recommend people not do stale reads by default.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Congrats, how does compaction work? I assume you can serve kvs from memory?

<comment><USER22> Oh and can I call this from c easily?

<comment><USER3> There's not currently an extern "C" wrapper, but I don't think that'd be too much work to write.</comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Strategy for password reset email vs URL to reset pwd - <AUTHOR> What do you guys think is a better and safer way to handle forgot password? Many sites out there reset and create a temporary password and send it in email in plain text.
Others normally ask you to provide email and send a link via which you can reset password. It probably is easier to reset password and send it for one time use in an email as long as it is hashed and stored.<p>What do you guys recommend? <comment><USER2> You need to worry about users who have other people maliciously requesting resets just to bother them. A password reset link in email is the more easily ignored. If you send a new password, you need to make sure you still accept the old one in case it wasn't them who requested the reset. You'd also want/need to time out the 2nd "reset" password after a short period, as you don't want someone who gains access to their email account to be able to use it sometime in the future (possibly long after they've lost access to the email account). Long story short - use the reset link, there are good reasons why it's the widely used choice.

<comment><USER3> How common is the resetting someone's password to annoy them? I know it's a very common rationale for sending reset links, but I'm trying to remember if I've ever heard of it actually happening for real, and drawing a blank.

<comment><USER2> I'm sure it's service dependent, with some services the frequency would likely be essentially 0, but some services like popular online games you'd see it happen widely the first day you allowed it.

The problem is, one person does this you pretty much have to change your code immediately if you disable an old password. And while I focused on the malicious, don't discount the accidental - my gmail routinely gets sent email meant for people who couldn't enter their own email address correctly when signing up for various things. If out of the blue a customer can't use their password and has to go find a new one to enter they aren't going to be too impressed even if it doesn't happen again.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> I give people a magic log me in code, good for 24 hours. (I lie - it is actually good for 48, to minimize user error.) For convenience there is also a URL, and the code works in the password box on the login form (until expiry).

Anyone using this to log in gets a prominent reset Your Password option after login.

This is, relatedly, how I log into people's accounts for support purposes, since I can generate your magic code for today at will.

</comment><comment><USER5> Please send out the URL; my Facebook account would be unusable if I got a new password every time somebody decided to mess with me.

1: <http://dl.dropbox.com/u/9802610/Screenshots/06.png>

</comment><comment><USER6> As a site user, I'd want to just have a link I can click to pick a new password.

I'm not going to use/keep the generated password you send me, so just linking me to a page that lets me pick a new password to begin with works best for me.

<comment><AUTHOR> Hmm...interesting. Click wise it probably is less clicks and you are also forcing the user to change his password. Unless you add logic to ask the user to change his password with one time token, it probably makes more sense to send a link to reset pwd.

<comment><USER6> You may want to look into using HMAC Urls (with a timed expiration date), see <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMAC> for a quick explanation.

This lets you send a link like www.mysite.com/resetpassword?userid=123&timestamp=...&hmac=.... without having to keep a database backed copy of 'reset password' emails and tracking sent links.

You can make it so the link only works for say a few hours or any other combination of factors, the HMAC lets you 'sign' the URL you issue the user so it cannot be changed/forged, and you append a 'timestamp' argument to then let you determine if you consider the URL too old to take action on.

<comment><USER7> That's a brilliant idea

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> If you just send a new password, the user may not change it. (They may count on the browser to remember it, or figure they'll just refer to the email again in the future.)

As a result, any future brief read-only compromise of their mailbox revealing that password may grant unauthorized access to their account.

Sending a time-limited link forces the choice of a new password. They might choose unwisely, but it would take an active compromise of their mailbox (intercepting a future reset-request) to leverage a password-reset to future compromise. If they do choose a bad password, that could be as bad as having your password sitting in their mailbox.

<comment><USER9> I can second that people will rely on the browser to remember the new password or copy/paste the password and then refer to that email when they need it again. I do this myself sometimes for some sites that I do not use regularly. Like many others have suggested I think a link to a form to create a new password would be better than emailing out a temporary new password.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Send an expiring URL to a "choose a new password" form. Resetting the person's password allows for a denial of service where an attacker can constantly reset a person's password out from under them. When you email a URL to change the password, the old password is left alone until the link is clicked and a new password entered.

</comment><comment><USER11> Never email a plain text password, it sends the wrong message about your commitment to security.

<comment><USER12> Yes I see this so many times, even on big sites with millions of users. It's great for usability though, as I can go "ahh, that's what it was". As for security, most people's passwords are vulnerable to dictionary attacks anyway

</comment></comment><comment><USER13> 1) I like the single-use token, but I'm interested in hearing others' perspectives.

2) Don't just hash. Use bcrypt, since it's probably got a library for you to use in your language (or database) of choice: <http://codahale.com/how-to- safely-store-a-password/>

<comment><AUTHOR> We do use BCrypt. Trying to figure out if implementing an extra layer of sending an email with a link to reset password has advantages over just sending a one time changed password.

<comment><USER14> It is easier on the user.

Why don't you just send a link that includes your one time password? This will allow the user to choose a new one just clicking on the link and setting the new password, instead of going to your page, logging in and changing the password after that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment> tigger-2 I've got a slightly tangential question on this topic if you will. Do you track any stats on how many people have trouble with either finding or using the "forgot password" process? I'm asking because our web app follows standard forgot password process (the "send me a hashed link to the reset password page via email" version) but 25% of calls to our helpdesk (>1000 per month) are requests for help to reset their password. We've tweaked the process numerous times to try and make it more visible/easier, but the numbers remain pretty much the same. I'm curious as to whether anybody else is seeing similar numbers?

</comment><comment><USER15> I use BCrypt, and do the following:

1\. replace their current hash with " __ _LOCKED_ __", plus some random noise.

2\. generate a random string, and store the hash in a "forcedResetToken" field for the user.

3\. email them a URL, part of which is the token.

4\. when the link is activated, I look up the user account by the hash of the token, force them to choose a new pw, and remove the forcedResetToken.

That's the approach I take in my Wicket Quickstarter project (<http://armhold.com/store>).

Based on other comments I'm seeing, I'm now planning to also add an expiration of the token (say 24 hours or something).

<comment><USER16> So if I know a user's email I can lock their account by just triggering a reset password.

<comment><USER7> Yeah brute force lockout is a destructive attack.

A better lock-out approach is to disable logins for a period of time (say 1 minute)... i.e. as someone said above, you don't want to destroy the old password in case the reset was requested by someone else.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> I've always been partial to something like <http://spacebug.com/tableless_secure_one_time_password/>.

</comment><comment><USER18> I assign them a token that is associated with their account.

The token is included in the link sent to them (via email) that directs them to where they can reset their password.

The token is only valid for 24 hours and is unique so it can be authenticated against their email when they're resetting their password.

If someone logs into that account in the meantime, the token is removed and the link to resetting their password becomes invalid.

</comment><comment><USER19> The work it would take to make the specific generated password "one use" would be more effort than to send a reset password link. That shouldn't take any effort at all, really using any sort of tool/framework. One guy implemented it in like a half hour for our MVC3 app.

I get irritated like none other with stuff like that. It's just like emailing me my password in plaintext. If the user doesn't change the password, that email becomes a potential vulnerability. If a hacker gets access to that email, if they leave themselves logged in somewhere public, etc, etc. That password just became free game.

Plus, I have to copy/paste the password (what about mobile users, that's annoying), then I have to go reset the password myself which means digging through your site... THEN I have to again go retrieve the password to change it.

Plus you have the users that won't reset the password themselves manually... If you actually make it one time use only... then it's effectively the _Exact same thing_ as just sending a reset link...

PLUS I can request a password reset for a random users account... locking them out until they check their email. That's horrendous, I can DOS your users trivially.

<comment><USER20> I agree on the fact that 'Generate temp password' will require more dev and user efforts but i don't think 'generate password' is more vulnerable than the link if the generated password is time bound. Also to make 'the link' more secure we need to verify the user identity. To make that happen need to store the user identity in the application.

<comment><USER19> >i don't think 'generate password' is more vulnerable

No offense, but I listed reasons why it is more vulnerable.

>Also to make 'the link' more secure we need to verify the user identity.

What? No. That's completely wrong. You're inherently trusting the user's email address. Maybe make them answer a security question before sending the link, but otherwise, there's nothing else to secure.

If the user can't login, how do you plan to verify the user identity? And I have no idea what "need to store the user identity in the application" is supposed to mean...</comment></comment></comment>


McDonald's High-Tech Makeover Is Stressing Workers Out - <AUTHOR> https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-13/worker-exodus-builds-at-mcdonald-s-as-mobile-app-sows-confusion <comment><USER2> For the many commenters who clearly did not read the linked article, the issue is not automation eliminating workers' jobs but rather that workers are leaving due to the stress created by new technology such as mobile ordering vastly increasing their workloads without a corresponding increase in salary.

This is a problem because unemployment is currently very low, and the lack of staff leads to longer serving times which leads to fewer customers as they shift to competing chains which are properly staffed to handle crushes.

<comment><USER3> As I say in my comment, McDonalds states that there is no additional turnover tied to new initiatives. The article fails to make the case it's trying to make instead opting for a single anecdote by a worker. No data is provided that would tie new tech to increased turnover.

<comment><USER2> The article states that McD's turnover has increased at the same time as the new tech initiatives were introduced, and far outpaces all of their competitors. It's a clear correlation, especially in the _absence of industry- wide causes or other changes to McD 's workplace conditions_.

<comment><USER4>
      The article states that McD's turnover has increased

It says nothing of the kind. The word "turnover" does not even appear. _Turnover_ means that workers are leaving and are _directly replaced_ ; in fact, the article refers only to _jobs_ leaving... for good.

<comment><USER5> The Bloomberg article this HN discussion links sure does discuss turnover.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> There's not really any information in the article to back up the premise. They interview one worker who complains about getting in trouble when he messes up with new processes. In fact McDonalds directly contradicts the headline:

 _"McDonald's and its franchisees haven't seen an increase in crew turnover over the last year, nor is there a correlation between the new initiatives and turnover, spokeswoman Terri Hickey said in an emailed statement."_

I'm not sure what this article is meant to convey other than a vague swipe at progress.

</comment><comment><USER6> I went to a McDonald's yesterday. The cashier stepped away from the register as I was walking up. I turned around and walked a few feet to the touchscreen order system and entered my order. At the payment screen it said to take a number card to my table. No number cards were left and 4 people were now in line at the register. I turned around and left. Jack In The Box was down the street.

<comment><USER7> You can cancel and start again to do a pickup. It's crazy that they don't have a button that says "There are no more number coasters, do pickup instead"

<comment><USER8> Pickup is the only option for the kiosks at a McDonalds in China. I'm sort of surprised McDonalds in the USA has that option.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> For a historical perspective on McDonalds and its defining role over the last 60+ years at the intersection of food, technology, labor, business, and culture, there's hardly a better book than Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation. Old fashioned muckraking journalism at it's best.

</comment><comment><USER10> > _Already, drive-through times at McDonald's slowed to 239 seconds last year > -- more than 30 seconds slower than in 2016, according to QSR magazine. It's > also pokier than Burger King, Wendy's and Taco Bell._

Can someone describe what "pokier" means in this sentence?

<comment><USER11> Slow.

Look up the work poky - this is a derivative of that.

<comment><USER12> That seems to be a definition specific to North America (so it would apply here). The definition I get for poky is:

"(of a room or building) uncomfortably small and cramped"

<comment><USER13> As an _adjective_ , it means slow.

As a _noun_ , it generally refers to a detention room, or jail. (For example, on "NYPD Blue", the "poky room" was where they detained suspects for interviews, and within it was a lockable cage.)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> My favorite fast food place lately is "Salad And Go", not sure how many there are, they're here in Phoenix. Usually from order completion to transaction complete is under 60 seconds. Rarely is there a car between the order box and the window. The hard thing is they have gotten very popular at lunch and the drive-through line is out to the street.

McD's usually gets my orders wrong, not that they're even particularly hard. It's been really hit and miss... I wonder what the satisfaction/turnover at places with smaller menus is... In-n-out, 5-guys, etc.

</comment><comment><USER15> Wow what a coincidence, I actually just had a terrible experience at McDonald's yesterday. I tried ordering through the mobile app and they got my order wrong. When I went to get this fixed, the employees were busy fixing 3 other orders they had wrong. There's a ton of room for human error when electronic ordering allows for more customization.

I can also see the reason for slowdown. Before, they had a cashier queue to control the flow of orders. Now with mobile and kiosk orders, they've pretty much tripled their traffic of orders while keeping fulfillment the same.

</comment><comment><USER16> "Last year, McDonald's said it employed 235,000 people, including corporate and restaurant workers. Each of those people generated $97,000 in revenue, compared to about $65,000 the year before."

I don't understand the problem, McDonalds is not in the business of helping its employees, it is not in the business of creating quality, healthy food. Its business is squeezing as much work and money as it possibly can out of its workers and customers. This is a huge success by that metric, and I am sure it is the only metric the upper management really cares about.

<comment><USER13>
      McDonald's said it employed 235,000 people, including corporate and restaurant workers

That count represents only the corporation and corporate-owned stores and excludes the employees of _franchisees_. 1.5 _million_ work for franchisees[0].

[0] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald%27s)

</comment></comment><comment><USER17> Fast food is the absolute worst job a person can possibly have in the United States. It destroys your body, kills your spirit, and pays _less_ than nothing when you consider the lack of health benefits and high possibility of injury. I did it for years before learning to code, and it's work that no human being should have to do. I don't know what will come next for low skilled people, but I know the world will be a better place when we've reached a point technologically that humans are free from this kind of labor.

<comment><USER18> I worked at Wendy's during the 1980's (high school) and it wasn't bad. Minimum wage and all, but any problems you encountered started and ended on the same day, so stress wasn't really an issue.

What seems different these days is that most of the workers aren't high school kids. That was the case in the 80's. Something about the job market where people are trying to use entry level fast food jobs to support an adult life.

<comment><USER17> >I worked at Wendy's during the 1980's (high school) and it wasn't bad. Minimum wage and all, but any problems you encountered started and ended on the same day, so stress wasn't really an issue.

That's the whole point of this article though. The workers in a busy McDonalds restaurant today are being expected to make 10x the output you did as a teenager in the 80's for wages that are _less_ than what you made, inflation adjusted. A line cook in 1985 made about $4.50/hr, which is $10.50 in 2018 dollars [0]. In 2018, federal minimum wage is $7.25, and the are plenty of McDonalds employees making that much across the country.

[https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/09/rpt1full.pdf](https://www.bls.gov/opub/mlr/1986/09/rpt1full.pdf) [0]

<comment><USER18> I made $3.35 and worked my ass off in 1985. I was genuinely tired, though not stressed at shift end. That 10x thing is pure bullshit. The extra stress is solely because their paycheck is needed to survive, versus for some extra money. I didn't have much idle time. Wendy's had a salad bar then and other things (manual cash registers, less automation, no credit cards, less prefab food, etc) that were arguably more work than today's world. Other stuff, like degreasing the floor at shift end can't be any better or worse now. Didn't need health insurance or other benefits though, and my paycheck went to clothes, booze, and computer/electronic crap. Stuff my Mom wouldn't buy. I wasn't stressing about how much my paycheck was.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> If this trend continues e.g. more turnover plus longer waits, it seems to me the wage necessary to attract and keep employees will necessarily rise, putting pressure on owners to automate more. Or owners will want to automate more to keep customers coming back, and shortcut more of the employee headaches. No matter how I look at this, more automation is coming.

</comment><comment><USER20> > Each of those people generated $97,000 in revenue

McDonalds crew members make $8.50 an hour. That's $17,680 at 40 hours a week.

[https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McDonald-s- Salaries-E432.ht...](https://www.glassdoor.com/Salary/McDonald-s- Salaries-E432.htm)

<comment><USER21> Revenue != Profit. You really have to control all your costs to just break even in fast food. Of course in the case of McDonald's a good bit of that revenue is also going to McDonald's Corp as franchise fees.

<comment><USER20> I am well aware of the difference. I am simply stating facts about the business model of one of the most successful multinational corporations in the world.

It's food for thought. We should not blind ourselves to the way institutions allocate resources in our society.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> The chart in the article shows that productivity is up, so presumably they can and should be paid more. Turnover may continue until that happens. Market working as intended?

<comment><USER23> Not sure they see the high turnover as a problem. Apparently there is no lack of new people willing to put on the uniform.

<comment><USER24> With the lower unemployment there is a lack of quality workers willing to put on the uniform. Someone will be there to give you your burger but it may not be made right or on time or in a clean location.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> When I was in high school I worked at McDonalds and it was amazing how old their systems were. Ancient DOS interfaces for everything.

</comment><comment><USER26> Many economists been warning this for years: increase minimum wages and it will hit the poorest the most.

<comment><USER27> Perhaps as the pace accelerates, those affected will vote for politicians who want to tax automation revenue and fund safety nets.

Yes. Revenue, not profits. Why? See: Amazon

EDIT: dragonwriter's verbiage is preferred. Better we address it now before pitchforks get handed out.

<comment><USER28> > Perhaps as the pace accelerates, those affected will vote for politicians > who want to tax automation revenue and fund safety nets.

Or, more simply, stop using high taxation on wage labor income to subsidize preferential taxation of capital income.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> Yes. It happened in the manufacture of all other consumer goods so why wouldn't it happen in the manufacture of food?

If you look far enough into the future all manual labor will be performed by machines. Don't be afraid of it, be aware of it. Adapt or die.

<comment><USER14> I'm pretty sure plumbing... or for that matter maintaining any systems subject to random wear, water or grease/debris will likely not be outsourced to machines for a _very_ long time.

<comment><USER29> I bet it'll be sooner than you think, probably part of the robot revolution that's being constructed in Italy and Japan and so on.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> An alternative headline:

Rising Minimum Wages Encourage Automation [0]

[0] [https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregoryferenstein/2017/08/27/ne...](https://www.forbes.com/sites/gregoryferenstein/2017/08/27/new- study-suggests-minimum-wage-leads-to-automation-of-low-skill- workers/#4c2a90dd6ffa)

<comment><USER31> Only if you failed to read the article.</comment></comment>


Not "JerkTech", Just Business as Usual - <AUTHOR> http://www.builtinchicago.org/blog/not-jerktech-just-business-usual

<comment><USER2> Awhile back I read an interesting article about how a city was considering allowing wealthy people to purchase the ability for them to use car pool lanes. Rich person values time over money, city values more revenue and utilizes existing infrastructure. This article seemed like it was eluding the same out of the box thinking.

But is this "business as usual"? From my point of view these companies are no better than patent trolls, wasting everyones time and money just to protect themselves from loopholes all while making the consumer suffer more complexity (that is, more complex parking rules or restaurant reservations that need to be held with credit cards).</comment>


User Expectations: Create an Illusion of Space - <AUTHOR> http://baymard.com/blog/ux-illusion-of-space

<comment><USER2> For me, personally, the title was somewhat misleading. I expected to read an article about how to create the impression of much (white-)space in your user interface design, maybe for avoiding that the site looks overloaded.

However, the article is just about creating the "illusion of physical space". That is, users should get the feeling that working through your business process is as intuitive as walking though a physical space - without strange loops, or the inability to go back, or other unpleasant surprises.

It is a bit ironic that an article about user expectations ruins the user expectations of its potential readers (by failing to choose an appropriate title).

<comment><USER3> Hi Vog, sorry to hear that. Maybe the title was a bit unclear. Hope you liked to content anyhow. Maybe I will take up your subject (white space) in another article.

\- Christian Holst, Baymard Institute</comment></comment>


Show HN: Palpiction - Demo of touch based image exploration - <AUTHOR> https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.palpiction.rohitjain.coco <comment><USER2> Apart from the intended purpose of accessibility.. it can be a cool game too!! And show the original image too which is described :)

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for trying it out. Did you enjoy the text to speech of the phone?

We're experimenting with different ideas and game is definitely one of them. :)

</comment></comment><comment><USER3> this was actually fun to use.. could be an interesting idea to develop a game. instead of telling people about the image contents, perhaps using vaguer descriptors might make this more fun to play

<comment><AUTHOR> Thank you for trying it out. We might show the image for the sighted users once they select the caption in next iteration. There is a leaderboard in the app right now hidden inside the menu. ;)

You can read more about our process here: [https://palpiction.herokuapp.com/blog- launch.html](https://palpiction.herokuapp.com/blog-launch.html)</comment></comment>


Why is the last digit of n^5 equal to the last digit of n? [video] - <AUTHOR> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZQUTV9or98s <comment><USER2> A somewhat more general proof involves the use of the Chinese remainder theorem and the fact that 4 is divisible by the order of the multiplicative group of both integers mod 2 and mod 5. Therefore x^5 = x mod 2 and x^5 = x mod 5 for all x, and as a consequence x^5 = x mod 10 for all x.

This construction seems to fail if the base isn't square free. In particular in base 4 the number 2 has as powers 2, 10, 20, 100 etc.

<comment><USER3> That's not true for x=2 : 2^4 = 6 mod 10 Also, 4 does not divide the order of the multiplicative group of Z/2Z. i.e. 4 does not divide 1. (Also, the claim was that x^5 = x mod 10 not x^5=1, but I assume that's a typo.)

<comment><USER2> Hmm yes I suppose I was a bit sloppy, although I got the gist of it right somehow. I guess the problem here is that x^4 = 1 mod 2 is false if x = 0 mod 2, but x^5 = x mod 2 does hold for all numbers.

I've fixed the problems you mentioned, thanks.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER4> At work so I haven't watched the video yet, but my quick rationale is,

Let m = abs(n) It follows n = sign(n) * m We can work with m since sign(n) doesn't affect the ones digit of n^5. More formally, n^5 = sign(n)^5 * abs(n)^5.

Let m = 10 * b + a, where b = floor(m/10) a = m % 10

Essentially we extract the ones digit as a.

m^5 = (10 * b + a)^5 If we expand the terms, only a^5 affects the ones digit. The remaining has at least one 10 as factor.

Quick python script will verify a^5 has a as the ones digit for 0...9.

      for a in range(10):
          print(pow(a, 5) == a)

Edit: fixed formatting

<comment><USER2> There are some slight problems with your proof, firstly your proof doesn't really use the fact that you're raising a number to the 5th power, except for the last part and secondly the last part (as it is currently written) will print "false" for all numbers other than 1.

Also I don't think you need to bother with the sign of the number. Python is one of the few languages that took the sensible approach and made statements like (a % 10 = (a + 10) % 10) true for all a.

</comment></comment><comment><USER5> good example of an inductive proof, would be helpful for people learning about inductive proofs.</comment>


The Tax Haven That's Saving Google Billions - <AUTHOR> http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/10_44/b4201043146825.htm <comment><USER3> _Google is "flying a banner of doing no evil, and then they're perpetrating evil under our noses," says Abraham J. Briloff, a professor emeritus of accounting at Baruch College who has examined Google's tax disclosures._

Maybe it is the lawyer in me, but why wouldn't any international business do whatever it could legally do to minimize its taxes? I understand that governments might want to consider these as loopholes and seek to end the right of U.S. taxpayers to avail themselves of these tax-minimization strategies. But, as long as it _is_ legal, why should a company voluntarily seek to expose itself to higher tax rates when it has the choice not to?

I guess when you as a company claim the high ground ("do no evil"), you will have people making their own judgments about what ethical standard ought to govern your conduct and this would explain this professor's remark. By that measure, though, one could argue that companies such as Google should seek to attribute all their revenues to California because that is where their main intellectual property development efforts have occurred and hence pay corporate tax rates at one of the highest rates around simply because they "owe" it to California.

I get this question all the time from web-based startups: why run our revenues through a high-tax state when we have the option of running them through all sorts of lower-tax venues and saving on taxes? The universal answer for smaller companies is "set your company up in a way that let's you pay the least tax you can legally."

Why should Google be held to a different standard on penalty of having its perfectly legal actions castigated as "evil"? Is it the view of some or many in the HN community, for example, that a private enterprise has a form of "social responsibility" to voluntarily subject itself to the tax rates of whatever domicile it happens to have its major operations in (in this case, California) when it legally has the option not to do so? That seems unwise by free enterprise standards and I am genuinely curious to know why refusing to do this would be called "evil."

<comment><USER4> > That seems absurd by free enterprise standards and I am genuinely curious to > know why refusing to do this would be called "evil."

When taxes come up, it tends not to be a well-thought, cohesive, pros-and-cons thing. It tends to be an emotional/identity thing. Some people think and almost always argue it'd be a good thing if companies gave more money over to governments.

Me, I think it's very good for the world on every level for Google to pay less taxes. They're hiring the best people, acquiring companies and giving liquidity to founders, run amazing free services (search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Finance, Google News, Google Voice, Google Reader, Feedburner, many many others). Also, they're internally investing in energy and robotics like the auto-driven cars thing, and their high level personnel seem to invest really well too (like in genetics research). Anyone who thinks that England would do a better job with the money than Google hasn't been to England, or hasn't thought this through very much.

<comment><USER5> _run amazing free services (search, Gmail, Google Earth, Google Maps, Google Finance, Google News, Google Voice, Google Reader, Feedburner, many many others). Also, they're internally investing in energy and robotics like the auto-driven cars thing_

None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money to develop the infrastructure behind those services (the internet, roads, GPS, etc).

<comment><USER6> >None of those products/services would be possible but for the government spending taxpayer money...

This is sloppy reasoning. Just because A contributed in some measure to B does not imply B could _only_ have come about because of the contributions of A, nor does it imply that more of A will yield more Bs.

Further, absent a parallel world in which such different choices were made, one could just as easily argue on economic grounds that the resources confiscated would have been otherwise put to more effective, productive use in satisfying the wants of the common man.

<comment><USER7> Although Sebastian's original post stopped just short of doing so, it would be equally sloppy to suggest that Google's ability to come up with amazing free (but profitable) services was a consequence of their tax avoidance.

<comment><USER8> Only because calling it "tax avoidance" is overspecifying. Google's ability to come up with amazing free services without immediate profitability is a consequence of their considerable post-tax revenue.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> In Ireland, these kinds of tax breaks are one of the foundations of our economy. They aren't viewed as a way to give a hand out to the big companies, but as a way to create jobs. This article mentions that 2,000 people are employed in Google Dublin. Given Microsoft, Amazon, Intel, IBM and Sun also operate, there's easily 10,000+ people employed thanks to our low tax rate. There are only 1,000,000 people employed in Ireland (small country), so the loss of these 10,000+ jobs (~1%+ of all employees) would be massive.

Ireland has very little industry, very little traditional ways to grow the economy. We all know if it wasn't for the tax breaks these companies wouldn't be here, and that there'd be loads of people out of work.

<comment><USER10> And that's the reason Ireland has something like 1000% external debt to GDP [1] - politicians and local businessmen alike got so drunk with their success of luring in corps that they assumed it will continue forever.

The reality is however, that taxes will have to be raised and the corporations will leave for yet another island paradise, and that will result in social catastrophe either way.

[1] [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_d...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_external_debt)

<comment><USER11> Um, Ireland had a big property bubble, which is the cause of their current troubles.

High corporate tax rates didn't prevent a property bubble in the US or Spain, why would they have prevented one in Ireland?

<comment><USER10> Um, Ireland's structural problems are not limited to property bubble? Perhaps it's the symptom, not the cause?

<comment><USER11> Ok, you tell me. Why do you believe low corporate taxes are the cause of Ireland's problems?

Before making your argument, keep in mind that 12.5% of something > 33% of nothing.

<comment><USER10> I have a very hard time understanding how you translate my line of thought:

low tax rate->more multinationals->higher debt for local business and government->higher tax rate->less multinationals->social catastrophe

into your line of thought:

low tax rate->more multinationals->property bubble->"current problems"

what are "current problems" you identify in Ireland anyway?

all I was saying is that low tax rate is not sustainable with level of public and private debts in Ireland. Do you agree or disagree?

of course property bubble is connected to presence of many multinationals in a way, but I wouldn't nor did I identify it with this primarily.

Property bubble was global as you might know. So why does Ireland have such large problems when compared to other countries?

<comment><USER11> I originally thought you were implying that low tax rates to lure in business was the cause of debt:

rmc: "In Ireland, these kinds of tax breaks are one of the foundations of our economy."

You: "And that's the reason Ireland has something like 1000% external debt to GDP"

I pointed out that a property bubble was the primary cause, and that low tax rates are unrelated to this. Lets put aside your original argument, and focus on the new one. You assert "more multinationals->higher debt for local business and government". Could you explain this step?

As for why Ireland was hurt more than others, their bubble was bigger:

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Ireland_house_prices.png>

[http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Median_and_Ave...](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/c1/Median_and_Average_Sales_Prices_of_New_Homes_Sold_in_United_States_1963-2008_annual.png)

<comment><USER10> Oh well. But WHY was the bubble bigger in Ireland? Do Irishmen need some kind of bigger houses and more of them than the rest of the world?

Anyway, we keep going and going in circles. Let's stop. The whole story (including why more debt) is very well described here: <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Celtic_Tiger>

More on that later I guess.

Let me just add that it would be very simplistic to attribute "current problems" just to the property bubble, or high debts to just low tax rate for multinationals. So to make it clear, that's not how I think.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> (I do this stuff in my day job).

Leave aside the moral outrage and any sentence that has "should" in it. You're not being rigorous in your analysis.

Next, think of the tax code as a giant bucket of Lego pieces. Google - <USER2> many other multinationals (including very small startup tech companies of the type that spring from the loins of YC) - simply assemble the Lego pieces as they choose.

Looked at as a strictly engineering exercise? No big deal. Hire better engineers (people like me) and get better results (cooler tax-Lego structures).

OK, put on your moral outrage hats again. We are finished with the tax engineering. Let's move on to the social engineering. Because that is what we are talking about when we say "X _should_ pay more to support government functions.". Except for a few people we will have general consensus that a government is good and services need to be paid for. It's just a giant "Not out of my wallet!" game now. Sometimes logic, sometimes "Think of the children," sometimes whatever argument you can muster. All of these devices are used to deflect the tax collector's attention to someone else's wallet.

That is how I look at this topic. And from this perspective I derive two conclusions:

\- if you don't like the way multinationals create their Lego structures, change what is in the bucket of Lego pieces. That is the job of Congress, not Google.

\- if you plan to change the laws, expect the argument to devolve quickly to uninformed "think of the children" arguments because politics is purely that. No A/B testing is done. Statistical analysis is bent to prove a point, not looked at dispassionately to optimize decisions.

Two last points.

\- Every dollar Google makes will eventually go out to employees, vendors, and the government. (At the moment they don't pay a dividend, so the shareholders do not get anything directly). A corporation is not some giant Jabba the Hutt that grows bigger to infinity. It is ultimately just a money collector and distributor.

\- the particular game they are playing in fact acts as a net revenue transfer mechanism from the US Treasury to the Irish government. I will have to find the article that describes this so clearly. I'm on my phone right now in downtown LA about to give a speech in a few minutes. I'll be back. (Heh. What a disappointment he turned out to be for California).

</comment><comment><USER13> Of course, this pales in comparison to Ikea, the world's largest non-profit furniture retailer

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IKEA>

</comment><comment><USER14> From the article:

"Google's practices are very similar to those at countless other global companies operating across a wide range of industries,"

So, why's the article about Google? Shouldn't the article be about "countless global companies" bilking us for billions? I'm astonished at the lack of outrage on this issue every time it comes up.

<comment><USER15> Because Google have a public image of behaving ethically. Everyone expects banks and evil multinationals to do this kind of thing.

Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no. But when a company does it, they lay their blame on the shareholders and the market. So the more outrage about this subject, the better. Our governments can either raise taxes or lower taxes. But they shouldn't let individuals and business get away with _pretending_ to pay taxes when they're not.

<comment><USER16> _Is it ethical to avoid paying tax as an individual? Many would say no._

Do you mean avoid (by legal means) or evade (by illegal means)? Any government that uses tax incentives to affect citizens' behavior is saying it's ok to avoid taxes. If they promise your taxes will be lower if you do x rather than y, they're counting on your desire to avoid taxes to motivate you to do x.

<comment><USER17> Using tax havens is certainly not one of these cases.

<comment><USER18> You probably mean "tax haven", which is a rhetorical slight-of-hand to suggest that jurisdictions competing for attention via tax rates are somehow enticing people to sin. Competing via tax rates is just another way of enticing people to behave differently. Some people are under the impression that this happens only internationally. This is incorrect.

One of the healthiest features of the American experiment is a federal system where you have a broad spectrum of options in terms of tax rates versus social services. People (and companies) can, and do, pick legal regimes which optimize for the outcomes they find important. You may have heard people sort of like living in California, especially if they work for political subdivisions of it: that comes at a price -- you'll pay a gobsmacking amount of money in taxes relative to a similarly situated individual in Texas. (I managed to pay California several hundred dollars in taxes last year and I don't even live there. Yay, hotel tax.)

Competition among governments internationally is also healthy, for much the same reason. The market in tax and legal protection encourages governments to not just expropriate all the surplus from their wealth-creating constituents.

<comment><USER17> My point was that when a company uses a foreign tax regime (which is what google does, btw) it completely escapes any incentives created by it's own government that are related to tax avoidance. Apparently the parent of my previous comment (pg) doesn't think that US government's purpose is to give incentives to US companies to move to Bermuda. Btw, I never implied that moving to tax havens is some kind of a sin.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> "The setup lowers Google's overseas tax bill, but it also affects U.S. tax revenues as the government struggles to close a projected $1.4 trillion budget gap."

It's a ridiculous notion that any single corporation's tax contribution will put even the slightest dent in the budget deficit. Government spending is like gas in a vacuum, it will expand to fill whatever space you give it.

<comment><USER20> Google is hardly the only corporation doing this.

<comment><USER21> Government spending is up 100% over 10 years. Maybe someone should look into that.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I was going to leave a comment about corporate citizens not doing their fair share in America, but that got me thinking: should corporations pay tax? I'm not asking this rhetorically to make a point. Really, should they?

I would imagine that whatever profits are passed along to shareholders are taxed as capital gains. So, while it is a great headline to say Google pays 2.4% corporate tax, might it also be fair to say "Google shareholders pay 2.4% additional tax on top of the regular tax they pay on their income from capital ownership."?

Now, I'm not at all aware of how capital gains taxes and wage-style income taxes compare, and my inner liberal slant / desire for social justice inclines me to believe that those with the means should pay MORE than their "fair" share.

But I can't help but think that, at least at a theoretical level, there is someone, somewhere, who makes their living investing in corporations - lubricating the gears of capital society - but isn't phenomenally wealthy, and actually pays a total higher % of their "income" than a wage slave making a comparable amount of money. VCs? Angels? Wouldn't we as a society want to reward this behavior?

I can just as easily see the other side; maybe in theory this is right, but the reality is that capital gains are the domain of the ultra-wealthy, and corporations are frequently used as tax havens, pushing money around from holding company to holding company. If the corporation buys something and the owner uses it, that's an effective way to minimize your total "income" without losing the benefits of your wealthy lifestyle.

I would love to hear thoughts on this, particularly from anyone more familiar with tax law.

<comment><USER23> Yeah, I'm not familiar enough with tax law to know the details of tax laws. I'm sure they're terribly written. Especially in the United States. We need desperate tax reform. Really it ought to be the first place we look for solving the deficit: closing loop holes and raising taxes. But if those two words are put in the same paragraph as each other -- "raise" and "taxes" -- there's mass panic.

</comment></comment><comment><USER24> Ireland usually gets a bad rep from this but companies like Intel, Google and MS are the biggest employers in the country. If they were there for purely tax reasons you'd expect them to be shell companies, rather than having multiple fabs in the case of Intel or a few thousand employees in the case of Google.

</comment><comment><USER25> Startup idea: Company that cheaply sets up individuals/small companies to evade taxes in the same way big corporations do. You pay a subscription fee or something and they fill out the returns and set up a PO Box in Bermuda or whatever.

<comment><USER26> There are tons of companies who sell shelf companies online. ie. $800 and we ship you a corp registration, a bank account, an office address etc.

For small companies with a single office etc., that is all that an offshore tax structure is.

The point is that when you structure these things, you don't want anybody to notice and you want to be a small target. Being a client of a startup whose intended purpose is to minimize your tax bill is the opposite of remaining unnoticed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> I had a distinct Randroid phase where I thought it was almost a moral obligation to avoid taxation. Now things are fuzzier for me.

I make a truly decent wage. Not an earth-shattering one but a wage that beat the hell out of anything my mom made while I was growing up. I am a very fortunate man.

Heinlein wrote a thing about freedom:

"In terms of morals there is no such thing as a 'state.' Just men. Individuals. Each responsible for his own acts. I am free, no matter what rules surround me. If I find them tolerable, I tolerate them; if I find them too obnoxious, I break them. I am free, because I know that I alone am morally responsible for everything that I do."

In my case, I find taxation to be tolerable. It finances things like education for people with fewer advantages than I have right now. Ideally, a much bigger proportion of my taxes would go there. It also finances stupid things, like the TSA and DHS, and that's unfortunate. It financed military adventure in Iraq, which I find repugnant.

But I want to live in a society where you're not screwed based on the number you draw in the ovarian lottery. Where you can be taught useful skills to make the most of the opportunities you find. Where you don't have to pay for this privilege – until later, when you pay taxes. I'm not aware of any scalable solution to this that doesn't involve taxation of my earnings.

So I tolerate the imperfect because it's what I've got. Until there's a better way to ensure that the next generation isn't screwed by bad luck, I can't avoid that taxes are how I can do my part for the moment.

Meanwhile, Google is free to break or bend the rules, too. If they share my values on this subject, I'd hope they'd do their part in some other way. But that's up to them.

<comment><USER21> Why don't you spend some of your own money directly on the causes that you like? About 1/3 of American taxes go to the military, and another 1/3 goes to non-means tested social support programs (not necessarily benefiting the poor). The amount going to better education opportunities for poor people is absolutely negligible, especially since the sitting government is hostile to school choice.

Think with your head, not your heart.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> What this should signal, is that the US should lower its corporate tax rate. Even just making it competitive with other developed nations would probably generate more revenue for the government. And though it would still be higher than the effective rate many companies pay with all these transfer schemes, it would make the hassle less worthwhile.

However, what it will actually cause lawmakers to do is increase regulations to make income transfers like this illegal, and leave the corporate tax rate as is.

<comment><USER29> The US Corporate Tax is one of the lowest in all the world.

[http://www.qbalance.com/Corporate_Tax_Rates_United_States.ht...](http://www.qbalance.com/Corporate_Tax_Rates_United_States.htm)

But Bermuda still beats out us at ZERO corporate tax rate.

<comment><USER30> Including others for comparison from Wikipedia (<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_tax>), interesting to note that Vancouver, Canada, small business is taxed 13.5%, and to no surprise, there are many startups in Vancouver:

Examples of corporate tax rates for a few English-speaking countries include:

Australia: 30%, however some specialized entities are taxed at lower rates.

Canada: Federal 11% or 18% plus provincial 1% to 16%. Note: the rates are additive.

Hong Kong: 16.5%

Ireland: 12.5% on trading (business) income, and 25% on nontrading income.

New Zealand: 30%

Singapore: 17% from 2010, however a partial exemption scheme may apply to new companies.

United Kingdom: 21% to 28% for 2008–2010.

United States: Federal 15% to 35%.[18] States: 0% to 10%, deductible in computing Federal taxable income. Some cities: up to 9%, deductible in computing Federal taxable income. The Federal Alternative Minimum Tax of 20% is imposed on regular taxable income with adjustments.

<comment><USER31> For Australia, you have to take franked dividends into account.

When profits flow onto shareholders, the shareholders receive tax credits for tax that the company has paid on its profits. The result is often that, by the time corporate profits end up in the shareholder's pocket, there is 0% effective corporate tax over and above personal income tax paid on the dividend.

EDIT: That's for profits. Companies still have to deal with state payroll tax, collection of sales taxes, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER32> This story resonates because of the hypocrisy.

[http://www.google.com/intl/zh- CN/corporate/responsibility_en...](http://www.google.com/intl/zh- CN/corporate/responsibility_en.html)

"Look at how great we are" type giving: [http://www.prnewswire.com/news- releases/the-brin-wojcicki-fo...](http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/the- brin-wojcicki-foundation-leverages-social-entrepreneurship-with-1-million- matching-grant-to-ashoka-89916937.html)

We hear corporate leaders (Gates, Brin, et al) lecture on social responsibility, yet they undercut the very structure of society by skirting tax laws.

How will we build universities, roads, public infrastructure without tax revenue?

Now the hacker in me says, knowing how corporations behave, how do we fix this? Do we have tax laws that encourage corps to pass along more earnings to share holders? Implement 0% corporate tax rate and then capture tax revenue out of individual capital gains and taxes on dividends?

It's one thing to rage about this, it's another to come up with a solution.

<comment><USER33> I would trust google to spend its money more efficiently than any government. People tend to talk about government as the only socially responsible charity in town and the money not forcibly taken is somehow wasted in some black hole.

</comment></comment><comment><USER34> Am I one of the few who doesn't see a problem with this? If our tax structure is so f'd up that it allows for this, we need to change it. In the meantime, why wouldn't Google minimize its tax liability?

If you're an entrepreneur and are against this, I hope you voluntarily don't take the tax breaks afforded to you, or else you're a hypocrite. Lunch with business partners? Better not write that off. Your internet or cell-phone? Don't write that off either. Part of your apartment where you code for 5 hours a day? Don't write that off either.

</comment><comment><USER35> Has anyone thought of or seen a startup designed to bring these kinds of tax advantages to average citizens?

There would be a real value in streamlining this legal process of creating shell companies or whatever is needed in some sort of mass market approach.

It seems like the only people this is available to are big companies or high net worth individuals who can afford expensive one-on-one consultation with accountants/lawyers.

<comment><USER36> Tax law changes all the time. It is a cat and mouse game. Loopholes are closed, lawyers see the statue which closed them and come up with other loopholes which are closed...

A start up could possibly hire such lawyers to do what they do for national for the general public, but possibly each individual has his own requirement and tax lawyers are quite expensive.

</comment></comment><comment><USER37> Does Google not pay plenty in income tax on its employees, who in fact do generate that precious intellectual property? Looking only at taxed profits is misleading.

<comment><USER20> How is that at all relevant?

If I steal a couch from a furniture store, I don't get to defend myself in court by saying I bought a table from them.

<comment><USER38> Who stole anything in this case? That's not a valid analogy as one act is legal and the other is not.

<comment><USER20> You're missing the point of the analogy. If the legal status of the two alternatives is in question, fine...

"Sure, I cheated on you with your sister, but at least I didn't cheat on you with your mum!"

Google is dodging taxes by shuffling their profits around the world. Everyone knows the numbers are a legal fiction, and while legal, there are valid questions about how ethical a practice it is. That they pay other taxes is by no means a defense.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER30> Welcome to the world of tax arbitrage. More information:

<http://www.freshfields.com/publications/pdfs/2007/boyle.pdf>

[http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/mun...](http://faculty.chicagobooth.edu/austan.goolsbee/research/munis.pdf)

[http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v93y2009i1-2p142-159.htm...](http://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/pubeco/v93y2009i1-2p142-159.html)

</comment><comment><USER39> They follow the letter of the law. If the law is bad, change the law, don't bash Google for managing it's tax liability cost effectively and accuse them of being evil.

<comment><USER20> "Don't be evil" and "Don't break laws" are very different things. If Google's motto was just "don't break laws", they wouldn't be inviting quite so much criticism for legal-but-dubiously-ethical stuff like this.

<comment><USER40> It's not evil to keep money you earned.

<comment><USER41> if you think you can earn money without the government.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER42> Are we missing something here, maybe? _Google_ , as a legal entity, is really nothing more than a piece of paper in someone's filing cabinet. As a _corporation_ , it is just a legal vehicle for shuffling around money and managing liability and ownership.

On the other hand, the _people_ who work for Google are ... people. And I'm sure the great majority of them pay plenty of taxes (income, payroll, etc.) in whatever jurisdictions they live in.

One of the primary functions of Google-the-entity, is to get that money to the people. In doing so, Google-the-entity pays very little tax, but the people pay lots. So the money is taxed, government programs are supported, and all is well.

To put it a different way, Google's tax strategy can be considered as a way to minimize the effect of governments taxing their people twice.

</comment><comment><USER43> Google will get taxed if it brings any of that cash back into the US ( _repatriates_ the money) to pay dividends or acquire domestic companies.

The same goes for Goldman, et al., unless congress passes another "repatriation holiday" in the name of stimulus.

</comment><comment><USER44> I think it is a double standard that US companies get to avoid taxation worldwide while US individuals have to be taxed on worldwide earnings (regardless if it was earned in the US).

To me, it's insane that the US government feels that this is reasonable.

</comment><comment><USER45> If Google thinks that they can more efficiently contribute to the public good by using the savings to provide services directly than by paying taxes, they have a moral obligation to minimize the taxes.

</comment><comment><USER46> The most important part of this article is:

> The government has made halting steps to change the rules that let > multinationals shift income overseas. In 2009 the Treasury Dept. proposed > levying taxes on certain payments between U.S. companies' foreign > subsidiaries, potentially including Google's transfers from Ireland to > Bermuda. The idea was dropped after Congress and Treasury officials were > lobbied by companies including General Electric (GE), Hewlett-Packard (HPQ), > and Starbucks (SBUX), according to federal disclosures compiled by the > nonprofit Center for Responsive Politics.

The issue is that the US (like many countries) has the best tax code money can buy. The US has the additional problem of dual sovereignty such that the states are competing with themselves to offer tax breaks to lure in companies and thus jobs.

Companies are like water: they seek the lowest level. They're not immoral, they're amoral.

A hideously complicated tax code is going to have holes in it so simplify, simplify, simplify.

</comment><comment><USER47> I'm glad google keeps it's money and invests in developing google maps, streetview, and gmail. The government would (and does) pay billions to IT consultants to build much shitter systems.

In the UK our government has sunk billions into the Royal Mail, but we still have to pay thousands a year for just a fraction of the functionality of google's geocoding.

</comment><comment><USER48> LOL Google Ad irony: <http://api.markup.io/v/1qy21z5axxkv>

</comment><comment><USER49> The first thing that popped into my head after reading this was "That is straight up gangsta" . Honestly I don't fault them for doing the most allowable under the law. Hat-tip to google's army of accountants and CFOs for figuring out these massively profitable loopholes.

</comment><comment><USER26> _"Apple (AAPL), Oracle (ORCL), Microsoft (MSFT), and IBM (IBM)"_

Those companies all sell hardware. Apple can't say 'lets book those Palo Alto store sales in Bermuda'. Ads served are a total volatile good (their value is the time they spend rendered on a screen infront of a user). Google has a huge advantage because of this (and it also makes the ad trade ideal for money laundering).

To relate this to startups :

If you are a startup and you are accepting foreign money and you are bringing it straight into the US and paying tax on it, then you are doing it wrong. A merchant account in Bermuda is easy to setup and is completely legal. If you are not doing all you can to minimize your tax obligation then you are not doing your job properly.

</comment><comment><USER50> As entrepreneurs in the US are trying to create jobs and companies we pay 30%+, just not fair.

<comment><USER34> I would hope most entrepreneurs don't have the attitude of "it's not fair." Maybe it isn't fair. But as we all know life isn't fair. Meta-discussion aside, any entrepreneur worth his salt won't be thinking like this.

</comment></comment><comment><USER51> _Irving H. Plotkin, a senior managing director at PricewaterhouseCoopers' national tax practice in Boston, says that "a company's obligation to its shareholders is to try to minimize its taxes and all costs, but to do so legally."_

This is a pet peeve of mine: company directors are _not_ obligated to minimize costs or maximize profits.

[http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/25/what-obligation- maximise...](http://crookedtimber.org/2008/07/25/what-obligation-maximise- what/) <http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1013744>

</comment><comment><USER52> I see this story delivering a full dose of irony that will be lost on so many people. Google is a company that chose to affiliate with progressive causes and personalities almost from the start. And one of the central tenants of progressivism is business and the wealthy should pay their fair share of taxes (meaning a proportionally higher share). But this state of affairs can never really be reached. (Please give me a pass on this assertion, the argument is long. Doesn't this story provide an iota of supporting evidence?) Ultimately people pay taxes, and there are many more poor and middle class than rich.

</comment><comment><USER53> As always, Google did an excellent job making money left and right. You gotta give them credit for that.

On the other hand, they are a bit "disingenuous" (Jobs' favorite word to describe Google) about their mantra, as ultimately this profit is made at the expense of American citizens (lower tax revenue). Why does it matter? Well it matters because they (tangibly and intangibly) benefited greatly then and now from the "Do No Evil" mantra, and they should accept that it comes at the price of people holding them to a higher standard. It is "Do No Evil", not "Do Less Evil" or "Do No Evil When Convenient".

</comment><comment> daniel-cussen Wow, these popups are unbearable.

<comment><USER54> <http://lab.arc90.com/experiments/readability/>

or

<http://summarity.com/bookmarklet_front>

</comment></comment><comment><USER55> If this scheme saves them that much money on overseas corporate taxes, why send your sales revenues to Ireland, and then jump through these hoops to avoid taxes on them, in the first place?

Why not move that part of the company, that collects all international ad revenue and whatnot, to the Netherlands or Bermuda, and just skip the tricky step of getting the money out of Ireland?

</comment><comment><USER56> Google is smart and they are not alone in running their businesses like this. Pros and Cons -- sure the gov't misses out on some revenue but also many of those savings are reinvested into hiring and generating jobs and even more profits, which in the end, can still generate revenue for uncle sam.

</comment><comment><USER57> What was my tax rate again? Oh yes, somewhere around 40%... Nice to see that everyone is doing their share.

<comment><USER58> Unless you made a shitload of money I highly doubt your effective rate was 40%. The rate on the last x% of your money might have been taxed at 40% but most places have a progressive tax structure. Deductions should lower the effective rate further.

I'm speaking for the US, by the way.

<comment><USER59> Yeah, my combined marginal federal and state rates are like 33%, my effective rate after mortgage interest and charitable deductions was like 8-9%. I'm going to try to be more like Google though.... ;)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER60> I really don't understand why we allow these things. Letter vs. Intention of law should matter, right? I don't think a lot of the tax code and business rules were written with the idea that a company would actually span continents or maybe not even have a physical presence.

</comment><comment><USER61> Big companies think & act in terms of _priorities_ and not what is _right or wrong_.

<comment><USER62> Companies are about money. Countries are about people. Taxes build services that are used by people. "Web Services" doesn't count too much as a service. I would live without google search no matter what people say. But what about hospital, street, public transportation, cheap houses for poor people, and on and on and on...our society is based on taxes. The reason why people have to pay taxes is to build a better society. Look at what is happening in Britain with Cameron: no money to fix the deficit. Poor people take it all over their a@@#@.

And, to put that simple, we are not talking about a couple of thousands dollar a software engineer is not paying: we are talking about millions (billions?). Greed is bad, is fucking bad. And all this talking about disruptive innovation is usually a bunch of stupid Internet Services to play with. I think the hacking community is overestimating its value.

No cancer cure. No cheap energy. No cleaner air. Just some web app, iPhone app, something app.

Google taxes would fix a lot of problems, just letting millionaires a bit more poor. I can live with that, why you can't?

<comment><USER61> Americans paid 92% income tax in 1950s.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER63> Am I the only one who believes that taxes are evil? I can't wait until I can afford lawyers to help me get out of paying taxes. If if I break even I'd rather see my money going to a professional than a government,.

</comment><comment><USER26> Who cares. I would rather Google keep the money and buy a startup or two rather than the government spending it to buy another battleship or aircraft carrier.

</comment><comment><USER64> That's odd. Since when has Business Week had "TL;DR" summaries at the end of the article?

</comment><comment><USER65> this is one reason youtube is banned from Turkey, the minister claims it is because they make revenue in turkey and don't pay tax. It might be a valid reason.

The second reason though (going off topic) is because they don't have anyone to talk to in turkey for censoring stuff, which is very evil of them.

<comment><USER33> And every other website in the world that might make advertising revenue off of turkish customers and have no censorship contacts?

</comment></comment><comment><USER66> Lots of business practices are considered legal but sleazy, and above-board companies won't engage in the them even if they increase profits - from high pressure sales tactics to child labor where it's legal. Why is it that companies like Google and Microsoft are given a pass on using their many- million dollar legal budgets to push the US tax burden onto the rest of us?

</comment><comment><USER67> Google should pay their taxes like everyone else. Charges of tax evasion aren't good for public relations.

<comment><USER68> Everyone else would find every available loophole they could given the chance. People just get mad because they are not the ones benefiting. It's human psyche to keep other people down if you're not going up.</comment></comment>


Unexpected uses for binder clips in under 4 mins [video] - <AUTHOR> http://qz.com/604991/15-uses-in-four-minutes-this-japanese-video-celebrates-the-simple-genius-of-binder-clips/ <comment><AUTHOR> makes me want to run to the store and get some binder clips.</comment>


This famous roboticist doesn't think Elon Musk understands AI - <AUTHOR> https://techcrunch.com/2017/07/19/this-famous-roboticist-doesnt-think-elon-musk-understands-ai/ <comment><USER2> This guy is smart, and dead on:

\- People who don't understand AI are afraid of it; those who do know how fragile and limited it is.

\- The call for "regulation" of technology that doesn't exist is too vague to be useful.

\- It's the AI in self-driving cars which has the most potential to immediately kill/save thousands of people, and it's telling that it's not this technology that Elon seems to be calling to be regulated. Whether or not regulation is the right thing to do, any argument for/against regulation of self-driving cars could be applied just the same to a hypothetical super AI, but the former is tied to real, practical problems which exist today.

Brooks clearly knows what's up.

Also, to add my own commentary:

\- The dystopian robot future we should all be afraid of is not the [paperclip maximizer]([https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer](https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer)) Musk and friends wave their arms about, but marketing/business algorithms that have ripple effects at the scale of societies-- the Facebook, YouTube, and Google ranking algorithms are examples of this. We could shortly be in a place where large scale human behavior is shaped by algorithms with more data and insight about collective human behavior than any single human could have, and it will be used to optimize for money making instead of stability, fairness, or cultural values. Some society-shaping decisions/policies could even be made without any human awareness of the reasoning behind them. This is not less scary if they're being made by fragile/flaky algorithms.

<comment><USER3> Exactly. Our lack of awareness of political, social, and economic consequences is far more of a problem than any hypothetical paperclip demon.

AI isn't terrifying.

AI _built with our current values_ is an horrific prospect.

<comment><USER4> You don't need AI to have a paperclip demon. You just need complex systems that impact people's lives and aren't well understood. Capitalism is arguably _the_ example of the paperclip deamon, and that will not get better with the permeation of sophisticated, fragile, poorly tuned machine learning techniques.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> To me, Elon is playing catch-up and thrown his hat in the Yudkowsky club although Bostrom and other more credentialled people were probably his vector into it. They were talking about this stuff 10-20 years ago. I haven't yet seen anything where Elon moves the ball forward conceptually, although he's a doer so he's not messing around with writing futurism documents and nitpicking details of rationality that almost no one is actually capable of implementing.

On the other hand, Brooks doesn't show any indication he knows what Musk is talking about and throws out a bad summary of his position. I got nothing from this article except a slightly lower respect for Brooks.

The real minds to watch IMO is the Hinton + Deep Mind crew, and I think Yudkowsky and the fearmongers are largely correct, or at least correct enough to be taken seriously. I don't think people following the meme 'real AI researchers know that AI is limited and fragile' are on the right track. So that's my bias.

<comment><USER6> "On the other hand, Brooks doesn't show any indication he knows what Musk is talking about"

Not quite true: "Tell me, what behavior do you want to change, Elon?"

</comment></comment><comment><USER7> This is getting absurd. An interview with Dr. Rodney Brooks, one of the great minds working in CS and robotics, has to spend time rebutting uninformed claims and fear mongering about AI research. There is so much Brooks can teach us. I look forward to reading his book.

</comment><comment><USER8> People who think they understand AI don't understand AI. Which I think is a big part of Elon's point. So criticizing Elon this way is rich.

</comment><comment><USER9> And Brooks doesn't understand Musk. He's not saying current AI is a threat. He's talking about the very long term future. What AI will be like in 30 years, or even further.

Its inevitable we will eventually solve AI. And when that day comes it will be dangerous. How easy do you think it is to control a being thousands of times smarter than you? If it was invented today we would have no ability to control it. Our best AI control mechanisms are just pressing a button to reward or punish it for it's behavior. You can't imagine any way that would fail?

Our slightly larger brains made the difference between swinging in trees and walking on the moon. But we are only the very first intelligence to evolve. Its unlikely we are anywhere near the peak of what is possible.

And this will likely happen in our lifetimes. The median expected date estimated by AI researchers is in the 2040s. Sure they can't possibly predict it very well, but who else can? And there is something to the wisdom of crowds.

<comment><USER10> Why is super-human general AI inevitable?

Do you have references for this 2040 date? I'd love to see who's making this prediction.

<comment><USER9> Because there's nothing magical about the human brain. Evolution created it through just dumb mutation and selection. Under a bunch of ridiculous constraints. Like it had to use less than 10 watts of power, and weigh only a handful of pounds, and it had to be made of meat, and could only be iteratively improved from whatever happened to work at guiding locomotion in fish, etc.

Our current transistor tech is already orders of magnitude smaller, faster, and more efficient than neurons. There's no reason to expect the software stats of the brain are much better.

Here's one survey: [http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf](http://www.nickbostrom.com/papers/survey.pdf)

<comment><USER11> Interestingly, about 18% of the researchers said "never", but these answers didn't influence the posted CIs. Any reasonable imputation (say, "never = 2350") would both stretch those intervals by a lot and still underestimate the expert consensus.

<comment><USER9> They did account for them in the median AFAIK. Which is the number I gave and the most appropriate metric.

I don't see any mention of confidence intervals mentioned in the survey, so what are you talking about? Means and standard deviation are given. But they are mostly useless as the distribution is very skewed. They would be infinite if the "never" people were included of course.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Really glad to hear this perspective.

Over the past seven years most of my time has been spent in robotics research labs, and I really struggle to reconcile the state of research with the concerns of those like Elon Musk. I think a series of discussions between the major figures on each side of this would be really valuable.

</comment><comment><USER13> It's kind of amazing that we're at a point where "Rodney Brooks understands more about AI than Elon Musk" is news, but here we are. The power of PR is incredible.

</comment><comment><USER10> Does anyone else find it telling that at the same time Musk called for regulation, Steve the security robot is raging across the internet? [http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/07/18/537905142/...](http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo- way/2017/07/18/537905142/when-robot-face-plants-in-fountain-onlookers-show- humanity-by- gloating?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20170718)

</comment><comment><USER14> "AI" is the "flying cars" of our generation.</comment>