Rust on Computer Language Benchmarks Game - <AUTHOR> http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/rust.php <comment><USER2> It's ridiculous _and_ sad that they would include Rust, after banning LuaJIT a few years ago, citing "too much maintenance effort" (even though LuaJIT benchmarks were significantly more complete that Rust's)

<comment><USER3> The shootout has been utterly ridiculous for quite a long time. I remember when the maintainer(s?) threw a fit when pypy devs tried getting python versions not relying on cpython tricks (which didn't bench well for pypy) even though multiple programs per language had not been an issue before. Then they ended up banning multiple implementations, but their implementation pick is completely arbitrary.

<comment><USER4> Seems like an opportunity for an enterprising hacker to create a more open and collaborative "benchmarking social network" of sorts.

<comment><USER5> TechEmpower has done pretty well with their web framework benchmarks [1]. While I get the feeling that they don't have the bandwidth to expand into general language benchmarking they've created an open process [2] that might be easily adapted to general language benchmarking.

They seemed to have addressed most of the fairness and "What about language X on platform Y using framework Z" kinds of questions with "Send us a pull request and we'll include it in the next benchmark".

I'm tempted to tackle this even though I don't currently have the time.

[1] [http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/](http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/) [2] [https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks](https://github.com/TechEmpower/FrameworkBenchmarks)

<comment><USER6> Except they obstruct issues and pull requests which would fix artificially hamstrung implementations, rather than actively seeking implementations to keep them honest. The benchmarks then represent a fantasy world where completely normal optimizations are disallowed. The point of saying "send us a pull request" is just PR and it seems to be working.

<comment><USER7> AFAIK the only optimization they disallow is the use of caching results. It's clear why they do this: if you allow caching, you're just testing memory fetch speed and all your results across frameworks will probably look about the same. The idea of the benchmark is to actually do the JSON serialization/database access/etc.

I believe they have plans to add additional tests which will allow for caching and that kind of thing.

I don't think that removing caching across all frameworks equally is creating 'artificially hamstrung implementations' as all the frameworks would benefit from caching.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> How is Go slower than Java? Actually Go is pretty slow compared to many languages I would've expected it to be faster than.

<comment><USER7> There's this strange idea still floating around that Java is somehow slow. Compared to hand crafted micro benchmark C code, Java is slower. But then so is everything else.

The simple facts are that the JVM is the most advanced and efficient VM available today, and the JVM is specifically targeted to increase the speed of Java. It's not much of a stretch to expect good speed out of that regardless of strange preconceptions you may have had.

The Go VM has a long long way to go be even remotely comparable to the JVM in garbage collection etc.

<comment><USER6> How much slower than C do you have to be in order to be called slow?

Apparently, the cutoff is defined like this: as slow as Java is not slow, but any slower than Java is slow.

<comment><USER7> Go is anything but slow, it's just not as fast as Java. I was just addressing the idea that Java is somehow slow which seems to float around occasionally. Java is arguable the fastest language that isn't directly C-based and anybody thinking of it as slow is simply misinformed.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Anyone else a bit shocked by how well Javascript on V8 performs? I might need to rethink my assumptions but it actually runs faster than Python 3 according to this.

<comment><USER10> Python 3 is slow, one should compare PyPy, HHVM-PHP, LuaJIT, etc.

A company did that back in Dezember: [http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7...](http://www.techempower.com/benchmarks/#section=data-r8&hw=i7&test=update) (found it on HN)

Revel uses LuaJIT (afaik), HHVM is HipHop PHP (Facebook) and you can find PyPy there too.

<comment><USER7> That benchmark isn't benchmarking what you think it is.

 _" This test exercises database writes. Each request is processed by fetching multiple rows from a simple database table, converting the rows to in-memory objects, modifying one attribute of each object in memory, updating each associated row in the database individually, and then serializing the list of objects as a JSON response."_

You're actually just benchmarking the mysql driver for each of those languages, not the actual JIT capabilities.

<comment><USER10> The website design is a bit confusing, you probably missed the other tabs: "JSON serialization", "Single query", "Multiple queries", "Fortunes", "Data updates", "Plaintext". It's a micro benchmark but at least it covers a lot of languages and frameworks. (I saw that benchmark site on HN some months ago)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> What's the deal with pidigits? Losing out bad to PHP here even.

<comment><USER12> because it's not using GMP

<comment><USER13> So if I understand correctly, the pidigits test in this case this isn't a self-contained, fully ported microbenchmark, but rather a test of some random Rust code vs. an optimized library[1]?

If that's true, then what's the point of including pidigits if the entire algorithm isn't going to be ported into all target languages?

[1] GMP, The GNU Multiple Precision Arithemtic Library: [https://gmplib.org/](https://gmplib.org/)

<comment><USER14> As I understand it, the rule is "if your language comes with a bignum implementation, you must use it, otherwise you may use GMP". I've been seriously tempted to suggest removing our bignum implementation for this reason (though I won't).

<comment><USER15> Python uses GMP while having a bignum implementation. I believe any language is allowed to use it.

Python: [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/program.php?test=pidigits&lang=python3&id=2)

Ruby: [http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?te...](http://benchmarksgame.alioth.debian.org/u64/benchmark.php?test=pidigits&lang=yarv&id=2&data=u64)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> Why don't any of the Rust benchmarks have their source code on the site?

<comment><USER17> Unsure, but we're pretty sure they take them from here: [https://github.com/mozilla/rust/tree/master/src/test/bench](https://github.com/mozilla/rust/tree/master/src/test/bench)

All the shootout* ones.

<comment><USER14> I actually have no idea where they come from. nbody in particular is very strange because we've been on par with C in that benchmark for years in my tests.

<comment><USER18> In the space where the source code would be it says "See rust/src/test/bench"

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Isn't a bit soon to benchmark Rust?

<comment><USER20> Maybe not. Rust is starting to mature and the code generation is already quite good (though there are still many opportunities for improvement). Hopefully this exposure will inspire people to improve these benchmarks. With a little effort Rust should be very competitive on them.</comment></comment>


Mt. Gox to Hold News Conference - <AUTHOR> http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576 <comment><USER2> Please _STOP_ linking to the Wall Street Journal. Their paywall is infuriating.

<comment><USER3> bump

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> Paywall. Anyone got this on a free source? And can we stop posting paywall sites here? This is getting ridiculous.

<comment><USER5> [http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WDBmFVt...](http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:WDBmFVtbHMEJ:online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk)

<comment><USER6> can you always bypass their paywall this way?

<comment><USER7> Both WSJ and NYT (maybe also other publications with a paywall) will display articles if you are coming from Google. Just entering the article title (article URL tends to work, too) into Google will get you there without any paywall. (I guess this is also why looking at the cache works.)

It's a form price differentiation, really. Also, I'm guessing this is probably the reason why many are not aware of the paywall and link to these articles.

In this case alternative and equally good sources without paywall exist so it doesn't make much sense to link to the article with paywall (but that might have been a mistake). However, I do not understand objections to paywalls in principle.

<comment><USER4> My objection is that people attempt to publicly share private articles. If you're a member of a private website (which for all intents and purposes, a paywall is), then by sharing it with the public you're assuming they can read it. Which without circumventing the paywall, many won't be able to.

Sure, some people will have subscriptions, others will have found the article unlocked in one form or another, but still I think it's pretty poor form to share something closed source, if you will.

Here, look at this: [http://www.checkupdown.com/accounts/grpb/B1394343/](http://www.checkupdown.com/accounts/grpb/B1394343/)

<comment><USER5> Personally I don't have a strong opinion either way. It's interesting that manipulating the URL you will get through the paywall anyway. Another submission uses [http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303...](http://online.wsj.com/news/article_email/SB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576-lMyQjAxMTA0MDIwNzEyNDcyWj)

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> "Bitcoin Exchange Had $63.6 billion in Outstanding Debt"

.. and ..

"...that Mt. Gox had outstanding debt of about ¥6.5 billion ($63.6 million)"

... right under.

These numbers are off by a factor of 1000, so which one is it? It's pretty horrible journalism and/or editing to get simple things like that wrong and expect me to pay them for the privilege of reading the remaining of the article I now I don't really trust the numbers in.

<comment><USER9> Didn't they lose about BTC700,000? Ie, about USD$400M? Which would suggest that neither of those numbers are anywhere near right.

Hey, what's a few orders of magnitude between friends?

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> I seriously resent WSJ with their paywall. I don't even bother to click the link... Anyone got a mirror?

<comment><USER11> This works for me:

[https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web...](https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=4&cad=rja&ved=0CEAQFjAD&url=http%3A%2F%2Fonline.wsj.com%2Farticle%2FSB10001424052702303801304579410010379087576.html&ei=BGAQU8KfC6TQ7AakooC4DQ&usg=AFQjCNHIRA7g5AwODT1ykI7zxLF6kau1sg&sig2=6t_YLjLdX68LBwJnFuQajQ&bvm=bv.61965928,d.ZGU)

</comment></comment><comment><USER12> An announcement at 7pm on a Friday night at a court? If this is good news, it sure is a strange place and time to announce it.

<comment><USER13> From Twitter:

"MT GOX MAY HAVE LOST NEARLY ALL OF ITS BITCOINS -MT GOX LAWYER"

"MT. GOX LOST 750'000 BITCOINS OF USERS - TEIKOKU DATABANK SAYS."

</comment></comment><comment><USER14> Here is a chart showing market value of "Gox BTC" \- I'll be watching this as the announcement is made.

[http://bitcoinity.org/markets/bitcoinbuilder/GOXBTC](http://bitcoinity.org/markets/bitcoinbuilder/GOXBTC)

<comment><USER15> Down 10% in the last hour.</comment></comment>


Ask HN: What are the resources for web programming? - <AUTHOR> I am completely new to programming. I don't anything about computer science like Erlich Bachman. I want to change my career to web programming at the age of 30. Please suggest me good resources to start with. <comment><USER2> Erlich knew how to program. In the very first episode, he said, "I memorized the hexadecimal times table when I was 14 writing machine code." He developed Aviato.</comment>


Ask HN: Is it legally enforceable for your company to own your IP? - <AUTHOR> I work for a company that claims it owns all development work that I do in my spare time. I don't use any office equipment, software or accounts for this work. Is this legally enforceable?<p>Note: I work and live in England <comment><USER2> I can actually answer this decisively.

Don't take legal advice from anyone but a lawyer that you are paying.

Seriously, this depends on a variety of factors and is especially dependent on your local laws, the specifics of the contract and most importantly, precedent.

Find a lawyer, give them your contract, detail your side project and get an opinion.

<comment><USER3> _Don 't take legal advice from anyone but a lawyer that you are paying._

Yes. I'm in the UK and I've dealt with this issue more than once, including taking formal legal advice. I'm not going to add fuel to the fire by sharing exactly what happened in my specific circumstances, but this issue has subtleties and in some cases proposed contracts did get changed after the advice I received.

Seriously, if you're talking an employment contract, or a side project with enough personal value or potential that this question is relevant, you could be talking about many thousands of pounds if things go wrong. You'd be crazy not to spend a hundred or two taking proper advice on it. A single session with any decent employment lawyer will probably be all you need — and if it isn't, that's even more reason not to rely on random advice from HN.

</comment></comment><comment><USER4> First principles tell us that any work created in the course of employment is automatically owned by the employer (s.11(2) CDPA '88) except where there is an agreement to the contrary.

Unfortunately the phrase 'course of employment' has been held to have a broad meaning. The 1989 UK case of Missing Link Software v Magee held that where an employer could show that the work created was one that could be reasonably contemplated as part of the employee's duties, the employee would not have a claim to it. So if you're creating software programs in your spare time and your job description includes writing software programs, then the potential is that you wouldn't have a claim on them (although it depends on how closely the outside work is aligned to the work duties by the looks of things).

All the above doesn't require there to be any explicit clause in the agreement covering all IP rights. If there is such a clause, then I don't immediately see any reason why it would not be enforceable (although [http://www.dyoung.com/article-ownership](http://www.dyoung.com/article- ownership) suggests the clause would be unenforceable).

All in all, I'd see a lawyer. If you want me to look at the agreement feel free to get in touch. I'm an in-house lawyer but will be able to give you some initial pointers and suggest a lawyer (I know a good firm in London who will provide an initial consultation for free).

<comment><USER5> > So if you're creating software programs in your spare time and your job > description includes writing software programs, then the potential is that > you wouldn't have a claim on them (although it depends on how closely the > outside work is aligned to the work duties by the looks of things).

"Creating software programs" seem infinitely broad though, almost to the point of abstracting physical labor down to the "builds things with tools" level.

At the same time, I doubt that a carpenter, under UK law, would have to give up the house that he built in his spare time to the company that he works for, right? How does this not extend to software?

I've seen agreements before that attempted to lay claim to all work _that you have done in the past and all work that you will do in the future._ At the very least, I think that those are not enforceable.

<comment><USER4> I'm afraid I can't access the judgment in the case so only have a brief summary but it would provide more detail on the specifics of the case and how close an employee's duties have to be to the employee's activities in their spare time. I'll try to get hold of a copy though. I am only really interpreting the above case on the basis of a brief summary and I suspect there were aggravating/extenuating circumstances in the case.

However, the law doesn't operate in a vacuum. I suspect an employer is far more likely to lay claim to a piece of software which an employee claims was produced solely in his spare time than to lay claim to a house built by a carpenter it employs.

Further, for it to become a problem the employer has to become aware of the employee's work in their spare time. I suspect many problems arise where an employee creates a useful tool in their spare time, then uses it in their day job. The employee then leaves, but wishes to revoke rights in the tool, whereupon the employer then asserts that it owns the tool in question.

If however, the carpenter produced house plans as part of their work, then produced a separate plan in their spare time, the employer could potentially lay claim to that plan on the basis of the above case. If the carpenter produced a house to those plans they would likely be protected by s.51 CDPA '88 (but then unregistered design right infringement becomes an issue) but the underlying infringement of the employer's copyright would be still be an issue.

At the same time, the activities of the carpenter may breach other obligations in the employment contract, such as to not to be engaged by a third party whilst they are employed (this is of course irrelevant if for example the carpenter is constructing their own property to live in).

On your final point, an employee is not a consumer who has protections from unfair terms. If I as an employee are able to negotiate a remuneration package which reflects an assignment of all prior/future work then I can do so. As an employer I would have doubts as to whether such a transfer was possible/viable but that is not the same as saying it would not be enforceable.

<comment><USER5> I say that it's not enforceable because:

\- There has to be a meeting of the minds for a contract. If a contract is tipped too far to one side, it can be said that there is no consideration. In this example, if the employee is only getting what could be considered standard market rate for their employment as a software developer, the idea that all future work in software development (even past the term of employment) will belong to the company is absurd. The company is basically saying, "after you work for us, you are no longer allowed to work for anyone else as a software developer, ever."

\- It may not be possible to grant copyright over all past work because it may be owned by a previous employer.

<comment><USER4> I agree to an extent. If I'm offered standard market rate then this will be very different to a situation where a developer has factored into the price the assignment of all IP. I agree that in your case, the developer would be well positioned to argue that an attempt by the employer to enforce should be thrown out as a restraint on trade (at least under UK law).

On the second point, the contract isn't unenforceable as a consequence of one party fraudulently/mistakenly attempting to give away something they are not in a position to.

If I'm the company, I take an indemnity from the developer which means I will be covered (well subject to the insurance/assets of the developer) if a previous employer attempts to assert its rights over IP I'm using. In the same way as it's the employee's decision to assign all rights, it's the company's decision to accept the assurances of the employee that the employee is in a position to assign.

<comment><USER5> You're talking about this as if employee contracts are usually a negotiation. In many cases, you either sign "The Contract" / "The Agreement" or you don't get hired.

If a company asserts that _all_ employees must sign such a contract, I feel that it's pretty obvious that said company is just trying to make their contract as broad as possible to "cover all of the bases." They want to (attempt to) close all possible loopholes by essentially claiming "all your base are belong to us." How many software developers could even sign a contract that assigned over all IP rights to all IP that they ever created?

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> Regardless of legality the question you really should have asked is "how much will it cost me to purchase my freedom via the legal system, and am I willing and able to pay it".

If you're only willing to pay $100 for your freedom, and they're willing to put up $500 worth of nuisance legal roadblocks in your way, they won. On the other hand, if they're only willing to spend $5000 max to own you as their property, and you're willing you spend $10000 to gain your freedom, you've won. Doesn't matter if its objectively legal or not, its shouldn't even be part of your decision. Now its very important to your lawyer and his strategy and the related costs, but figuring that stuff out is his specialty. Every slave has a sale price, the legal system will figure it out. Might be a lot more or a lot less than you think. Your legal rep will let you know.

It strikes me as a dumb idea from a liability standpoint to want to own a developer as a slave, thinking of malware and the like, or even just innocent bugs.

Good luck.

<comment><USER7> OP is in the UK. Parties to a court case should show reasonable attempts to sort that out before going to court. Costs can be awarded.

Your advice seems to fit a US, not UK, situation.

(But obviously IANAL).

<comment><USER8> I would agree for normal employment disputes you have to use the "approved" procedures not quite sure if this applys for disputes over IP.

For example if an employer ignores the rules on sacking /redundancy they can get additional fines on top of the normal penalty - courts do not like people taking this piss

<comment><USER6> I'm well aware OP is in .uk but is there anything fundamentally different about their legal and economic system that blocks my basic argument of:

They want to put X amount of roadblock in your way, and you are willing to put Y amount of effort to move the roadblock and all that matters is X<Y or X>Y. And depending on the strategy of the hired guns aka lawyers doing the fighting that effort could be measured in all manner of things, money, labor time, clock time, paperwork, nuisances, things of that nature. But fundamentally if they decide they own you, you need to figure out how much it'll cost to gain your freedom, and are you willing to pay it. And HN won't be able to estimate better than perhaps 4 orders of magnitude how much it'll cost, but your paid legal representation can probably figure it out pretty well.

Lets consider the rules about sacking, if the company knows the court will fine them $100K but they've got $150K worth of hate to dispose of you, well, you're gone because 100 < 150\. Your employer probably being much bigger than you are, they likely have better legal representation, and likely have an excellent idea how much it will cost them to provide a certain level of annoyance to you.

My point still stands.. The legalities don't matter unless you're one of the hired guns working on your strategy, what matters is how much they're willing to spend to mess with you, vs how much you are willing to spend, vs what kind of deal and trades you're willing to make.

It may very well be next to nothing if they don't really care. Or maybe if you're going into direct opposition with a better product, they'll spend their entire net worth, which likely exceeds yours.

<comment><USER7> People claim damages. They have to show that these are reasonable damages. They can also apply to have costs of legal action awarded to them.

Thus a company could attempt to snow under someone bringing legal action, but that's just driving costs up so if they lose, and costs are awarded, they've just increased the amount they have to pay. Their lawyers + your lawyers + awarded monies.

<comment><USER6> Well, I can try one last time...

"Their lawyers + your lawyers + award" < "what the company is willing to spend as a roadblock" then the company does it. Doesn't matter if they'll win or not, just is the roadblock worth the cost? Or if its not, then it doesn't.

Or, a slightly different formula for calculating costs doesn't change the rules of the game.

Or an analogy... imagine taking the board game "monopoly" to the .uk, would changing the $ to pound-symbol and swapping the costs of houses -n- hotels really fundamentally change the game? No.

<comment><USER8> Very poor analogy the rules of monopoly stay the same but US and UK Law is very different once you get down to details and for some employment cases the fines are "unlimited"

Also company directors reputations and some times entire careers are on the line if they lose.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> I was responsible for hiring a development team for a company in England some years ago.

The boilerplate contract we got from our solicitors[1] had this clause in. I fed back that this would be a barrier to hiring quality staff and was told that it would likely be unenforceable anyway and was only in there to intimidate people if the company needed to force something through later.

The clause was removed for the hiring I did but I understand that at the next annual legal review it was reinserted as a "standard contact term" by the solicitors for all new hires :(

[1] Halliwells - who I apparently no longer exist - [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliwells](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halliwells)

<comment><USER10> _I fed back that this would be a barrier to hiring quality staff_

When I worked as an employee, that kind of clause was one of my "gut feel" tests for whether I wanted to work somewhere. Even proposing it was a warning sign about the company culture, though because of the kind of situation you described I tended to give the benefit of the doubt if it was readily removed. I have never signed an employment contract that actually had this kind of heavyweight clause in it, and always had something that was explicitly more restrictive.

I think management and particularly lawyers sometimes ignore the possibility that terms they propose to a generally intelligent and detail-oriented workforce are going to have consequences. Maybe it's just standard legal CYA manoeuvres and wouldn't stand up anyway or would be the default in law even if the clause weren't there explicitly, but the potential employee doesn't necessarily know that. The contract is probably the first detailed, formal document that person ever sees from a prospective employer, and it can betray a great deal about an employee-hostile culture and create toxic bad feeling before they've even started, which is absurd if the employer and employee were otherwise a good enough fit to have reached that stage!

</comment></comment><comment><USER11> I've come up against this before (Scotland, but broadly the same employment law).

My understanding is that this term would not be considered reasonable, and as a result would not be enforceable. However, you'd need to either opt out or discuss this with a solicitor if you were planning to do anything which might come under that umbrella, as it would likely be expensive and messy if you had to fight, regardless of who's actually correct.

In most cases, I've found this has simply been thrown into an employment contract as part of a lawyer's off-the-shelf documentation, and will be removed upon request.

</comment><comment><USER12> _[Disclaimer] I am not a lawyer, this is only from professional experience and personal culture, and may not apply if you are from another planet. Feel free to insert enough_ "maybe" _for your own convenience._

[TL;DR] This is only enforceable if explicitly written black-on-white in a contract you willingly signed.

I have seen similar clauses in engineering contracts before: this is rare but it exists, and you should beware. I would advise not to sign anything like that — except maybe when you really trust the company's shareholders. At least, make it clear that you do work on your spare time, and show them that it is clearly unrelated.

So check your employment contract. In case it confirms your company's claims, you can still try to go to court: in some cases, a judge may consider that an abusive clause.

Alternatively, there is no chance this is an implicit argument: any IP renunciation must be explicit, so if you never signed anything like that, I think you should be safe.

<comment><USER13> I have no idea if you are right or not (I'm not a laywer either), but the fact that you provide a clear black and white answer (when the law is often not so black and white), without any citations to background reading or cases supporting your interpretation of the law (so we can learn more about it and verify your interpretation, especially important since you of course aren't a lawyer giving us legal advice), and without assuring the readers that you are indeed familiar with relevant UK law (on a site such as HN where US is often assumed default)...

...makes me a lot less credible.

I'm not sure what leads people to ask for legal advice on HN, but hopefully the askers are looking for citations to further background reading on the topic rather than a legal opinion, and are cautious of simply believing everything they read.

<comment><USER14> It makes _them_ less credible, _you_ less credulous.

<comment><USER13> credulous, that's the word!

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If it is in the contract it could become complicated (expensive time in court) to confirm it unenforceable.

My previous employer changed contracts to one that stated that they would own any IP created "in the course of employment" and I got confirmation by email that it only covered work related to my job before I accepted the new terms.

Duck Duck Going for the term now produces a guide[1] on IP created at work from Unite (a major British Union) that looks quite useful.

[1] [http://archive.unitetheunion.org/member_services/legal_help/...](http://archive.unitetheunion.org/member_services/legal_help/employment_issues/intellectual_property_works.aspx)

</comment><comment><USER16> The main reason for these clauses is not to steal employee's personal IP, which in reality wouldn't be worth much according to expected value. The main purpose is to prevent employees suing their (past) employers for copyright and for companies to assert full ownership of their IP in situations such as acquisitions and IPOs. It removes doubt that any critical IP might belong to employees.

A contract is just an initial template to speed up the negotiation. You can often request exemptions as long as you're specific about it. I've seen this clause plenty in the UK and I've also seen it amended.

</comment><comment><USER17> Difficult one.

Basically these are put in place to stop you stealing source code improving it and releasing it as yours.

The best thing to do is ask for an exception for particular pieces of work if you are worried about it. Any half decent company will be more than willing to let you work on code outside of work so long as:

1\. It does not affect your companies work.

2\. The code you write at work will not be included in the projects you are working on.

</comment><comment><USER18> Although not directly applicable this judgement is worth a read - [http://www.nakedlaw.com/2010/01/software-developers-who- owns...](http://www.nakedlaw.com/2010/01/software-developers-who-owns-your- code.html)

"Under statute, copyright is only automatically owned by an employer if it is created by the employee in the course of his employment. On that basis, code written in an employee's spare time and outside of the scope of what he is doing for his job would belong to the developer. However, many employment contracts (particularly for jobs that are centred around the development of IP for the company to exploit - such as software development) include the transfer of ownership to the company in much broader cases. This might capture any code developed that relates to the business of the company (eg. any computer games), whether written entirely at home and not using company resources."

I get written waivers for all work that I don't want my employer to own.

</comment><comment><USER19> +1 to "it depends upon your contract"

It also depends upon your role. If you are hired to invent new things then it is no good claiming that an invention you seek to sell on your own account does not belong to your employer of the time - even if you only worked on it at home.

</comment><comment><USER20> I'm in England and also see this contract clause a lot. Personally I've always assumed that it would be unenforceable if it was work unrelated to the business, but I've not yet had reason to hire a solicitor to find out.

I'd suggest you ask a solicitor rather than an internet though.

p.s. To everyone saying "It depends if it's in the contract" that's not very helpful, as it likely is in the contract but that doesn't make it necessarily enforceable. Plenty of contract terms aren't enforceable when you actually get a lawyer to look at them. In UK contract law, contracts cannot have unfair clauses.

<comment><USER21> Also based in the UK, and as far as I know you're right. To reiterate, speak to the a solicitor, but I've been told informally by several solicitor acquaintances they're usually unenforceable.

<comment><USER8> Um so where these solicitors a specialist in employment law?

Unfortunately a lot of people in the uk take advice on employment from the same solicitor's who did their house legal work and come badly unstuck.

The Q is can could you afford to defend a claim on your IP - you wont get legal Aid

<comment><USER22> "Unfortunately a lot of people in the uk take advice on employment from the same solicitor's who did their house legal work and come badly unstuck."

In that case you would have a serious professional negligence claim against the law firm and possibly the solicitor who gave you the advice.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER23> Years and years ago I worked for office supplies retailer and they had a clause in their contract that said the usual "we own anything you do outside of work blah blah".

I struck a line through it and got my line manager to initial it before I signed the contract.

I wasn't hired as a programmer but no way was I signing over the rights to any of my personal projects because "that's what we always do".

<comment><USER24> I've always wondered, how does that work? The contact is presumably between you and the company, not between you and the line manager. Just because you cross it out, and your line manager initials it, is that binding? What if the line manager didn't have authority to do that, and did it against the wishes of the company -- what would the outcome be then?

It's straightforward enough for a _person_ to sign a contract, but what are the legal principles regarding a _corporation_ signing a contract, and "rogue employees"?

<comment><USER23> My understanding (and I'm not a lawyer) is that a contract with a company is binding if that person was authorised to sign such a contract (i.e. manager or director) also known as "apparent authority" which basically relies on "a reasonable person would assume that the person was authorised".

i.e. Head of IT signing 200,000 contract for computer equipment no problem, Part time office cleaning signing, _big problem_.

I'm sure someone who was a legal professional could state it better than that :).

<comment><USER4> The concept is known as ostensible authority under UK law so if someone holds themselves out as having authority regardless of whether they do or don't, the company cannot then disclaim the agreement they signed on that the basis that the person wasn't authorised.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> In India, it is not. The law is silent. When filling a copyright, if the employee owns the IP, the company has to get a NOC from him for using it.

And Even if the company owns the IP, it has to get a NOC, when filling.

Which in short means, that while filling for copyright, one of the parties is the developer, a company can't obviously be a developer.

NOC= No Objection Certificate

</comment><comment><USER26> Whether it's enforceable or not is irrelevant; what matters is whether or not you can prove that the IP was completely developed on your own time if the company does decide to sue (and whether or not you can afford to prove it). Make sure you keep a time log of when you worked on personal projects, do frequent checkins to GitHub or a similar service (even if you're not working on code), and make sure you don't use company resources in any way to work on it (especially a company computer, even if you're just doing a Google search).

</comment><comment><USER27> Christ, who on earth do you work for?

That sounds horrific...

I work for a ftse 35 company as a dev and there's nothing close to that, just the usual "Work done on our time or our equipment is ours"

<comment><USER8> I'd check your contract of employment - and "custom and practice " may imply this sort of term.

<comment><USER28> I'm in the UK too, and have never seen a contract as onerous as that. If I did, I wouldn't sign it. Every contract I've signed have set up very clearly the conditions under which the employer claims ownership, and they've always been reasonable and pretty much restated what most people would find fair. The only variation I've had have been whether or not I've had a duty to disclose and ask for a waiver for certain types of code (effectively stuff that is close to competing with my employer).

<comment><USER8> Trouble is if the contract is silent then I suspect that legal precedent will still stand.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER29> I think it depends on the contract you signed, you should go over that and check if it says something about it.

IANAL, etc. Ask a lawyer if you want any reliable answer.

</comment><comment><USER30> IANAL. First, get legal advice from a lawyer. Some law schools offer free or inexpensive clinics with law professors and law students.

It does depend on your contract, common law, and legal precendent. Contracts can be modified. Some companies and organization require that you get outside activities or employment approved by management and human resources or ethics.

</comment><comment><USER31> This is quite unusual - it's usual for the employment contract for a developer to include a clause dictating whatever you create in the course of your employment is owned by your company but as far as what you do outside the course of your employment - this is pretty odd.

You should check what your contract says, but regardless of what it says, if you aren't using your company's source code, equipment and designs etc I think this would be hard to enforce (without knowing the facts here). Even if you did sign an employment contract including this, if you are not developing anything that builds on top of your company's work, this could be seen as restriction of your trade (or a similar concept) and be unenforceable but whether this is the case or not is really depends on the specific facts here.

I think your best bet is to take a look at your contract and if it does include wording to the effect that whatever you develop (whether this be in work or not) then you should talk to an IP lawyer who has some experience with employment issues like this.

By way of my background - I'm an ex corporate M&A lawyer based in London so IP/employment isn't my specialist area and it can be quite tricky so I would recommend you try and find one to make sure you get this right.

I should also add that I'm currently building a UK based platform to help people with legal issues find good lawyers at fair prices which will be launched in the next month, but if you need assistance before this get in touch and maybe I can help find the right lawyer for you (this will be free to you - charges are deducted from the lawyer).

<comment><USER8> In the UK the employer by default does own work at all "related" to you day job - this is direct from a senior contact in HR/IR who is a lawyer.

You might be able to negotiate an rider on your contract but most companies would probably not do this.

UK employment law is based of an old act referred to as the "Master and Servants Act" \- guess what Servants don't get a very good deal

</comment></comment><comment><USER32> Ask a lawyer. The condition is very common, but I don't know if it is enforceable.

</comment><comment><USER33> From my experience, it also helps to have a dialogue with your employer. Many are willing to alter the clause if given enough reason</comment>


Unexpected hanging paradox - <AUTHOR> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unexpected_hanging_paradox <comment><USER2> One way to think about this paradox is as a game with two players—a prisoner and an executioner. The game progresses over five turns, representing the days of the week.

On each turn, the prisoner secretly chooses whether or not they expect to be killed on that day. Then the executioner chooses whether or not to kill the prisoner. The game ends on the turn the executioner decides to kill the prisoner. If the prisoner wasn't expecting to die, the executioner wins; otherwise, the prisoner wins.

The important detail here (which is obscured by the logical perspective) is when the prisoner is allowed to expect to die. If they're allowed to expect their death on every single day, the prisoner can just do that and win automatically. If they can only expect to die once, there's a situation the usual paradoxical argument doesn't consider: that the prisoner has survived until Thursday _but has already used their chance to expect to die_. In this case, they know they're going to die on Friday, but there's nothing they can do about it.

<comment><USER3> In this view of the world (where the prisoner can play "I expect to die today" exactly once, there is actually not a Nash equilibrium where the executioner is guaranteed to win.

In other words the judge's sentence can't be guaranteed to be carried out.

<comment><USER4> You almost always need mixed strategies for Nash Equilibrium to exist so that's not much of a surprise that it doesn't exist if the prisoner has to choose a pure one (expects to die exactly this day and not other days).

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> There is a simple resolution to this "paradox": it's only a paradox if you consider the judge's initial statement to be True. If the judge's initial statement is False (i.e. he's lying) then the whole situation is logically consistent. The truth table for _modus ponens_ helps clarify, both F->T and F->F evaluate as T [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens#Justification_via...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modus_ponens#Justification_via_truth_table)

The judge is saying he can predict how someone else will feel in the future (i.e. he can predict the future), which unless he is omnipotent is a false premise in my book.

<comment><USER6> This was convincing at first. But this logic problem is predicated on the notion judges do not conceal their intentions (iow that his initial statement is True). There is just no point in even considering the question if the prisoner isn't actually going to be executed.

<comment><USER5> I should clarify. The judge is not necessarily "lying" (i.e. making a false statement). He's making a statement which has no bearing on the future. The judge's statement could end up being True or False. Using that interpretation resolves the "paradox".

The question encourages you to start from a flawed premise to begin with. Why must the judge's first statement be True? A judge cannot guarantee how someone will feel the future. Further, why must the prisoner be surprised at the date of his execution? If the prisoner is not surprised at his date of execution, that is also a logically consistent situation.

The question tries to shoehorn you into an irreconcilable input state and output state. Yes, it is a paradox if you assume the question's implied start and end result. However if you remove the limitations implied by the question, in the bigger picture there is no paradox.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> > _He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his > cell door at noon that day._

I have placed a ball under one of five cups. You can check only sequentially if the ball is under each cup.

Do you know which cup the ball is under?

If you start turning over the cups one by one, will you be surprised when you find it?

You won't be surprised after you've turned over all but one cup, if you still haven't found it, since you know the ball is under at least one of them.

You would be surprised if the ball was found under any of the other cups though.

And so there are only 4 days on which you would be surprised. The executioner knocks on Thursday and provides more data than on the prior 3 days.

The judge makes a promise he cannot keep, that no matter what day he schedules the execution that it will be a surprise.

But how can you schedule something for the end of a finite series and still have it be a surprise?

You can't. So then does it follow if the usable tail of my sequence is marked out of range, what then becomes of the 2nd to last item in the sequence?

This assumes a sequential cascade leads to the state where all possible days have been marked out-of-range.

The simple reality is that the judge can only promise you a surprise Monday thru Thursday. By Thursday at noon the surprise will be spoiled. And there's a chance that you will sit for a day knowing exactly when you will die.

<comment><USER8> The judge makes a promise that he cannot keep, but precisely because of that, he keeps it. Thus the paradox.

</comment></comment><comment><USER9> Here's my take. The prisoner considers the statement "I will be hanged, and it will be a surprise", and after "proving" it false, takes its negation "Either I won't be hanged, or it won't be a surprise". But this is not correct. The prisoner actually disproves the statement "I will be hanged, and it will be a surprise no matter which day it happens". When you negate this statement, you obtain "Either I won't be hanged, or there is a day that it would not be a surprise", which is consistent with the outcome.

<comment><USER8> The paradox is because the prisoner does indeed disprove the statement "I will be hanged, and it will be a surprise no matter which day it happens", but the statement turns out to be true (he is both hanged, and surprised no matter what day he's hanged).

<comment><USER9> No, it would not have been a surprise if he were hanged on Friday. The prisoner disproves the existence of a strategy for the judge that guarantees surprise, but does not disprove the existence of a strategy that gives the possibility of surprise.

<comment><USER8> It would have been a surprise if he were hanged on Friday, because he believes he wouldn't be hanged at all.

<comment><USER9> He cannot logically conclude that. He can only conclude that either he won't be hanged or his hanging might not be a surprise.

<comment><USER8> He concludes that because he assumes what the judge said is true. If we assume that, we must reject the scenario where he gets executed without surprise.

<comment><USER9> > he believes he wouldn't be hanged at all

> he assumes what the judge said is true

The judge says he will be hanged. Your comments are inconsistent.

<comment><USER8> Actually, you're right. However, the paradox arises no matter what the prisoner concludes. If he concludes that the hanging won't be a surprise, he will be surprised by the outcome (the knock on Wednesday).

<comment><USER9> Let me say it again in a different way. My resolution of the paradox is that the prisoner incorrectly negates "x will happen" as "x won't happen" instead of negating "x definitely will happen" as "x might not happen". Thus,the prisoner cannot conclude that the hanging won't be a surprise. The prisoner can only conclude that the hanging _might_ not be a surprise.

<comment><USER8> It seems like you're right again, but I don't have time to think more about this at the moment, unfortunately.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER10> I enjoy the math versions.

"Theorem" version:

Every integer is interesting. (Otherwise, one number would be the smallest uninteresting integer. And that would be of notable interest.)

"Paradox" version:

What is the largest number that cannot be described in fewer than 100 characters?

Or even the classic paradox by Russell [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russell%27s_paradox)

Does the set of all sets that do not include themselves include itself?

\---

The essence of all these is the malformed self-referential definition. The surprise/interestingness/definition/inclusion is "defined" recursively in such a way as to be actually not well defined.

<comment><USER11> > the largest number that cannot be described in fewer than 100 characters

Almost certainly you mean the _smallest_ number (= positive integer), no? (One doesn't automatically expect that the existence of some positive integer satisfying a property means that there is a _largest_ such.)

<comment><USER10> Oops.

Yeah, smallest.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> Of all those paradoxical thought experiments, this is still my favorite, or really high up at least. Maybe because I've heard it at a young age and my little brain was all flabbergasted. The impression must have lasted.

<comment><USER13> > Maybe because I've heard it at a young age and my little brain was all > flabbergasted. The impression must have lasted.

That rhyme definitely wasn't something I would've forecasted...

<comment><USER14> Martin Gardner popularized this one, I remember coming across it as a kid!

What, did you expect me to rhyme with the line that's last, Ted?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER15> If the prisoner convinces himself on each day, "I will be hanged today," then it is not be possible to surprise him. Paradoxes like this tend to make implicit use of assumptions regarding perfect rationality, deduction, and common knowledge, and I think the underlying problem here comes from a violation regarding these.

</comment><comment><USER16> If the prisoner considers "I won't be hung at all" from the start, his argument falls apart on its first day—on Friday he could still be surprised, since he doesn't know if he'll be hung at all. Thus getting hung would still be a surprise.

<comment><USER17> Yes. He essentially opts out of his escape, because he's withdrawn from being safe by changing his expectations.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The prisoner's anticipated response seems entirely irrational here. There are a range of possible outcomes the prisoner faces:

\- Will not be hung this week

\- Will be hung on Monday

\- Will be hung on Tuesday

\- Will be hung on Wednesday

\- Will be hung on Thursday

\- Will be hung on Friday

You can use logic in order to determine that each of the above outcome is logically impossible. But once you've ruled out all possible outcomes as being "impossible", why would the prisoner stubbornly believe the very first outcome to be true. It too contradicts what the Judge had explicitly said. In such a situation, the prisoner should consider that all 6 possibilities have some significant likelihood of being true, since they all deviate from the Judge's promise in some way. And when dealing with such a rational prisoner, the Judge's promise is impossible to uphold.

Perhaps that is the true resolution to the paradox. The judge was able to make and deliver on his promise, only because he correctly anticipated the prisoner's irrational response. When dealing with a rational prisoner, it would be impossible to uphold such a promise.

<comment><USER19> You've nailed it. The judge's sentence contains an inconsistency, and is therefore a falsehood; any conclusion whatsoever proceed from an inconsistency. The judge essentially said "you will and you will not be hanged".

</comment></comment><comment><USER20> The judge has underspecified the process.

Judge says "on a weekday," and that it will be a surprise to the person being executed. But the judge has not specified _which_ weekdays are actually in play.

Now, let's attempt to specify it:

"Judge will schedule the execution for one of the following days in the upcoming week: Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, or Friday. Judge will pick one of these days at random. This random process will determine the day of the execution, such that the person being executed will not be able to use a process of elimination to predict the day of the execution."

Now we can see that there is no paradox, only a self-contradicting specification.

<comment><USER21> So your real point is the tension between _random process_ and _process such that the person being executed will not be able to use a process of elimination to predict the day of the execution_?

If we don't care about randomness, can't the judge just use the strategy of _Always pick Wednesday_?

If we _do_ care about randomness, the job is to explore whether we're guaranteed to surprise the convict, and of course we're not: if the random process selects Friday, the convict won't be surprised.

<comment><USER20> > If we don't care about randomness, can't the judge just use the strategy of > Always pick Wednesday?

The point is that because the process is _underspecified_ the prisoner is using one interpretation while the judge is using another. (Otherwise the judge would have had to conclude that no choice could be made.) The reader switches between the two specs in an apparent paradox without considering that they are two different specs.

For example, the judge could simply be breaking the rule by considering Friday as a possible choice. That is a different spec from the prisoner, and if such a judge ended up settling on Wednesday then the prisoner would be surprised.

But here's another angle. If the prisoner logically concluded that the judge cannot pick _any_ weekday, the judge can pick Friday and still satisfy the requirement that the prisoner be surprised.

I think that's cheating, though, and the important part is the underspecification.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I've never understood why the resolution to this paradox isn't because of his confidence he expected not to be hung, thus any hanging would be unexpected/a suprise.

Dosent seem terribly paradoxical to me.

<comment><USER23> Yes. The judge's statement is only valid because of the prisoner's short- sightedness (i.e., it is a prediction, not a logical statement). If the prisoner knows the punch line of the joke, the judge's pronouncement becomes undecidable and therefore meaningless.

It's no different than if the judge said, "you will be hung, and this statement is false", and the prisoner was surprised that they got hung.

Heck, even if the prisoner _doesn 't_ know the punch line, the judge's statement is invalid if they incorrectly judge the depth of the prisoner's thought. The prisoner could stop their logical reasoning after 2 days instead of 5, and be sure that they're being hanged Wednesday, making the judge's prediction false.

In summary: the judge made (intentionally or not) a prediction; the prisoner interpreted the prediction as a logical statement; the prisoner failed to see that the statement is undecidable, and drew a logical conclusion from it; the conclusion the prisoner drew happened to make the prediction true.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Straightforward contradiction spoken by the judge, from which anything whatsoever follows.

The statement "you will be hanged on a weekday next week" which we can express as

       H(weekday)

means precisely this:

       H(F) or H(Th) or H(W) or H(Tu) or H(M)

The statement "you will not know until the knock on the door whether you are hanged on that day" means exactly this:

       ~H(F) and ~H(Th) and ~H(W) and ~H(Tu) and ~H(M)

Well, no, not quite! It only has that meaning conditionally. That is to say:

       H(weekday) -> ~H(F) and ~H(Th) and ~H(W) and ~H(Tu) and ~H(M)

By De Morgan's, this right side rearranges to:

       H(weekday) -> ~(H(F) or H(Th) or H(W) or H(Tu) or H(M))

and that is of course

       H(weekday) -> ~H(weekday)

This is equivalent to ~H(weekday), since P -> ~P is ~P v ~P, which is just ~P. So, what the judge said in total is equivalent to the conjunction of these two propositions:

       H(weekday) ^ (H(weekday) -> ~H(weekday))

Where the right side reduces as above, leaving:

       H(weekday) ^ ~H(weekday)

A direct contradiction: you will be hanged and you won't be hanged.

The prisoner choose to believe that he won't be hanged.

</comment><comment><USER24> Can this concept be generalized to the point where NOTHING is a surprise? For example if a surprise party is planned for someone at some point in $TIME_PERIOD, it can't occur during the very last hour/minute/second of $TIME_PERIOD because it wouldn't be a surprise. The surprise party can't occur during $TIME_PERIOD - 1 because this would be known as well. Repeat this ad infinum just like the weekdays in the article.

<comment><USER6> This sounds like a restatement of the Achilles & the tortoise paradox [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_an...](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradoxes#Achilles_and_the_tortoise)

</comment></comment><comment><USER25> There is a surprise on Thursday (if not before).

If the prisoner is alive on Thursday at noon he will either be surprised to find he is to be hanged on Thursday, or surprised to find it will be Friday. Before that he had 50% expectation for either, and there is bound to be a negative surprise with regard to one day and a positive surprise for the other.

<comment><USER26> Right, so if we suppose that the "punch-line" statement, describing the prisoner's state of mind, is true:

> the executioner knocks on the prisoner's door at noon on Wednesday — which, > despite all the above, was an utter surprise to him.

Then it follows there are two false epistemological claims in the text. First by the judge:

>He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day.

This is false, as you correctly reason, since a knock on Friday would come as no surprise (at the time it occurred).

The second false claim, this time by the narrator, reinforces the first:

>Everything the judge said came true.

Not every claim the judge asserted was tested by the recounted physical events: There was no knock on Friday.

</comment></comment><comment><USER27> The prisoner introduces "not being hanged" as an outcome.

However the prisoner doesn't include that outcome in their analysis.

</comment><comment><USER28> I had a thought that this paradox is essentially a self-referencing paradox akin to "This sentence is false" (which is true if it is false, and false if it is true).

Consider Friday: The prisoner know that he will be hanged today, so he realizes he can't be hanged because it wouldn't be a surprise, which makes the hanging surprising... Or in other words, "I will be hanged" means "I won't be hanged" (because it won't be a surprise) and "I won't be hanged" means "I will be hanged" (because it will be a surprise)

</comment><comment><USER29> Can the prisoner communicate with his jailor? He wakes up every morning and announces, "I expect I will be hanged today." Then the execution will not be a surprise if it occurs that day. In order to carry out the judge's order the execution must occur on a day that he is not expecting it. So rather than expect he will not be executed on any day, he should start every day as if he will be executed.

</comment><comment><USER30> Assuming the prisoner may only pick certainty of surprise once it seems the prisoner would need a trusted third party such as a notary to write down their solution of choice. Else, they can just reply "wrong, its next day, muwahaha" unless they picked Friday (in which case, the judge was wrong).

If the prisoner is allowed to pick a day every day, they'd pick the next day each time and win.

</comment><comment><USER14> I remember reading this as a teenager and concluding that the prisoner actually doesn't know for sure whether he will be hung on Tuesday or not, because he may be hung on Wednesday. Only on Thursday can he be reasonably sure he won't be hung on Friday, and thus he would know he is hung on Thursday. But any day before that, he wouldn't really know.

But also I think Martin Gardner concluded the same thing.

</comment><comment><USER31> It just seems to me it is impossible to be surprised by a bounded random variable in this context. If the death sentence were carried out x days from now, where x is drawn from an exponential distribution, that would fulfill the surprising criterion. The source of the paradox is that the "surprising" aspect is fundamentally incompatible with the bounded nature of the sentence.

</comment><comment><USER32> Everybody talking about surprise should read the "Logical school" section, in particular this reformulation:

> The prisoner will be hanged next week and its date will not be deducible the > night before using this statement as an axiom.

This paradox isn't a play on the definition of "surprise", that's just a weakness accidentally introduced by lax wording.

</comment><comment><USER33> For everyone saying the prisoner can just expect to be hanged every day and thus never be surprised.... Why do you say that? What reason, on Monday, does he have to believe that he would be executed on Monday and not the other days? He can say the words, but I'm not convinced he would be convinced.

<comment><USER2> He has a completely valid argument—Friday can be excluded (that wouldn't be a surprise), Thursday can be excluded (since he already excluded Friday, it wouldn't be a surprise), and so on, until the last day left is Monday. So he can conclude the execution must be on that day.

(In fact, he has a valid argument for anything he might want to believe since the original statement made by the judge is self-contradictory.)

<comment><USER33> This paradox generates so much banter, it's fun!

So now I'm thinking you're wrong because the logic that leads to excluding Tues-Fri can't also be used to exclude Mon. He can't expect execution on Monday and expect to be surprise executed on Monday.

When he inducts to Monday and then doesn't get executed Monday, he can't expect to use the same logic the induct Tuesday. Which means any day then becomes a surprise. He has a 1/3 chance (since we exlude Friday) of randomly choosing the right day, but no reason to not be surprised on any day except Friday.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> My thought is that there is no paradox, "Friday" being the execution day can be a surprise. If the prisoner finds out that Friday is the execution day on Thursday because he is not executed on Thursday, the specific day is still a "surprise," just a day earlier than it happens.

<comment><USER19> The prisoner is specifically told that the surprise will be such that he doesn't know until the knock on the door on at noon that he will be executed that day.

He cannot be hanged on Friday without that being a lie.

<comment><USER34> That makes sense.

Maybe an alternative solution is that he is never surprised because he is expecting it every day.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER35> The prisoners reasoning is wrong.

> if he hasn't been hanged by Thursday, there is only one day left - and so it > won't be a surprise if he's hanged on Friday.

This belief is FALSE. The moment of surprise for a Friday hanging takes place at 12pm on Thursday. Of course, this also happens to be the moment of surprise for a Thursday hanging. In other words, at 11:59am on Thursday he will not know if his hanging takes place on Thursday or Friday. At 12pm he will be surprised to know for certain which one it is: it will be Thursday if he hears a knock and it will be Friday if there is no knock.

The prisoner holds this belief because he makes the FALSE assumption that his moment of surprise MUST occur at the sound of the knock ON THE DAY of the hanging. The prisoner _correctly_ understands that there cannot be a moment of surprise on Friday but, due to this assumption, _incorrectly_ reasons that a Friday hanging cannot be a surprise. It will be a surprise, but he will experience that moment on Thursday, not Friday.

The prisoner pictures himself at 12:01pm on Thursday wondering how he could possibly be surprised for a Friday hanging. He doesn't realize he has ALREADY been surprised by the news of his Friday hanging. That moment occurred one minute earlier (12:00pm)!

The remainder of the "paradox" text is rendered nonsensical because the reasoning is based on the _apparent_ impossibility of being surprised by a Friday hanging.

TLDR

The prisoner makes the following faulty reasoning:

1) The moment of surprise must occur on the day of the hanging (FALSE)

2) There cannot be a moment of surprise on Friday (TRUE)

-> Therefore, a Friday hanging cannot elicit surprise

-> Therefore, Friday cannot be chosen as the hanging day

-> Therefore, Thursday cannot be chosen as the hanging day, etc

#1 is assumed to be TRUE by the prisoner. Unlike the other days, the moment of surprise for a Friday hanging occurs the _day before_ when he does NOT hear a knock at 12pm. Therefore, #1 is false and leads to the false deductions

<comment><USER36> "He will not know the day of the hanging until the executioner knocks on his cell door at noon that day."

The wording of the problem is everything.

<comment><USER35> I am very aware of that line. I've reworded most of the OP, to explain more clearly!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> The backwards induction argument assumes the time of execution is a discrete variable.

However, at least as far as we know, time seems to be continuous.

<comment><USER24> What about a scenario that describes an event occurring during a discrete amount of time during a set length of time? For example: A teacher says that he will give the class a surprise pop quiz at the beginning of class some day next week. How does reverse induction fail here?

</comment></comment><comment><USER6> tl;dr: This is a magic trick, not a formal system.

Reminds me of the definition of a magic trick from "The Prestige":

"Every great magic trick consists of three parts or acts. The first part is called "The Pledge". The magician shows you something ordinary: a deck of cards, a bird or a man. He shows you this object. Perhaps he asks you to inspect it to see if it is indeed real, unaltered, normal. But of course... it probably isn't. The second act is called "The Turn". The magician takes the ordinary something and makes it do something extraordinary. Now you're looking for the secret... but you won't find it, because of course you're not really looking. You don't really want to know. You want to be fooled. But you wouldn't clap yet. Because making something disappear isn't enough; you have to bring it back. That's why every magic trick has a third act, the hardest part, the part we call "The Prestige"."

Kind of abstract but it's like...

\- The Pledge: Hello convict, here is your sentence.

\- The Turn: Actually just kidding, look at this giant loophole in my sentencing. Wow! Expectations subverted!

\- The Prestige: Haha, no, I'm just messing with you. There's no loophole but you lacked the context to discern that in The Turn phase.

edit: This is pretty interesting. As the wiki says, how one defines a "surprise" is the whole bugger of the thing. If you use the magic trick metaphor, "surprise" is reframed as "context."

The reason it's so murky trying to pick apart what actually happened is hard is because that's the point of the system. It's designed to be un-figure-out- able. I would love to know how you'd formalize a system whose output is "lack of context"

edit2: Also if you zoom out a level, giving someone a link to the Unexpected Hanging paradox page is a repetition of the same Pledge->Turn->Prestige pattern

\- The Pledge: Here's a wikipedia page. You've looked at information on wikipedia pages. You share my confidence this info on this page will adhere to logical rules.

\- The Turn: Oh but buh-bam, now you are busy trying to unscramble a paradox.

\- The Prestige: You can't figure out paradoxes, that's their point. I will, however, confess this is a terrible magic trick.

</comment><comment><USER38> I understand the paradox but to me it really just highlights the ambiguity of the English language. The surprise in this case doesn't literally mean he will be surprised, it really just means that he will not be given the information. The logic of hanging can't be Friday because it's not a surprise doesn't really work for me. Maybe it's just the Wikipedia example that's flawed.

<comment><USER39> If I said, "you will be hung tomorrow, and it will be a surprise." That statement can not be true.

So the prisoner reasons: if it is thursday night, then being hung on a friday would not a be surprise. So I will not be hung on friday.

Then there is a kind of induction which further rules out each successive day. I think the thursday night argument is correct, but the induction argument is wrong.

<comment><USER38> I understand that, but I think the definition of surprise is too ambiguous to really make the inference. I think that surprise could just simply mean he doesnt know when it will happen- so it could happen at any day at noon. Does he have to be legitimately SURPRISED that he is being hung? It really just seems to me that the person on death row is delusional if he makes the inference that it cant be any day because it has to be a "surprise"

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> This logic is essentially the solution to the XKCD Blue Eyes puzzle.

I quite like the puzzle and this paradox, but something always feels off about it.

</comment><comment><USER41> This doesn't seem complicated. It is not logically possible to make a psychological statement, ie "you cannot surprise me".</comment>


Love Letter to Person Who Demands Racial Quotas in Witcher 3 - <AUTHOR> http://elysianshadows.com/updates/love-letter-to-person-who-demands-racial-quotas-in-witcher-3/ <comment><USER2> Based on the comments there, it seems like this is what the article is largely a response to: [1].

While searching to find that, I came across this interesting article thoroughly smacking down Feminist Frequency's Jonathan McIntosh and Anita Sarkeesian's complaints about the game: [2].

Sounds like an interesting game, and I'd seriously consider making free time for it, but I don't have either console it runs on, and my Windows gaming machine is way out of date and I don't do enough Windows gaming to justify bringing it up to current standards. I don't suppose there is much change they will do a Wii port...

[1] [https://archive.is/2jdtA](https://archive.is/2jdtA)

[2] [http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why- feminist...](http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2015/05/31/why-feminist- frequency-is-dead-wrong-about-the-witcher-3/)

</comment><comment><AUTHOR> I particularly liked that line:

> you're telling them to change it because it's not American enough.

<comment><USER3> I particularly enjoyed how he reacted to the social backlash to that line: By apologizing, not editing the article and ending with "I thank you." Someone mature, on the internet?</comment></comment>


Firms Now 5/6 Dark Matter - <AUTHOR> http://www.overcomingbias.com/2015/04/firms-are-56-dark-matter.html

<comment><USER2> I don't see "valuation bubble" in his proposed list, but it is a pretty plausible explanation. The reason only 1/6 of firm value is coming from understandable assets is a good chunk of the value is imaginary, and will vamish when the bubble pops!</comment>


InQuicker: Bootstrapped to 100 ERs/UCCs and millions in revenue. Thank you HN. - <AUTHOR> http://stories.inquicker.com/post/9672801477/100-ers-and-urgent-care-centers

<comment><AUTHOR> For context, HN has discussed my startup (at my request) several times:

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=76077> (November 2007) and <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=629011> (May 2009)

We are launching a blog to tell some of the more interesting stories of the past few (and next few) years. If there's anything in particular you're curious about, ask here and I'll try to either answer quickly or add it to our list of post ideas :)

</comment><comment><USER2> I love it. This is a fix for a real problem (I remember my last nine hour wait at the ER). I hope you get many, many more adopters.

</comment><comment><USER3> Congrats from a fellow Nashvillian. I just found out that I know one of your recent hires (from undergrad) after I interviewed a potential intern yesterday (common friend).

Keep it up.</comment>


A decentralized web 3.0 - <AUTHOR> http://www.slideshare.net/ethereum/the-ethereum-experience

<comment><AUTHOR> [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGIeSCgskc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GJGIeSCgskc) is the "live" talk which can help explain more. I'm not yet sure what to think of this.</comment>


Philadelphia Is First U.S. City to Ban Cashless Stores - <AUTHOR> https://www.wsj.com/articles/philadelphia-is-first-u-s-city-to-ban-cashless-stores-11551967201 <comment><USER2> A personal anecdote:

At Joe & the Juice in Palo Alto (cashless), I was buying a drink with my friend, and a clearly homeless man in front of us was trying to buy a coffee with cash. They refused and he got upset, so my friend paid for his coffee to de-escalate.

We were outside when the cashier ran up to us in the street, explaining "Please don't buy drinks for these guys, they come in here and get a drink and use that to stay all day. It's not the look we're going for, and it's one of the reasons why we have this cashless policy."

Cashless stores are convenient and I understand the arguments for them (as well as the arguments for not buying homeless people free stuff), but as long as cashless can be used to disenfranchise lower income people, I'm opposed to it.

<comment><USER3> > _" they come in here and get a drink and use that to stay all day."_

Not wanting this behavior is absolutely reasonable, but what I'd find suspicious and don't understand is why cashless would be the method. I know of plenty of places that have policies along the lines of "during regular hours 15 minutes per drink, 40 with drink & food" or whatever is appropriate to the location. It's private property though a public business, and they can set non-discriminatory customer neutral policies for free use, particularly around interfering with other customers. It also doesn't seem like it'd be at all a class thing, I know lots of cafes around here have had issues sometimes with someone coming in and getting a single coffee then pulling out their high end notebook and using a table as a free internet accessible office for an hour or two. They are not even slightly poor, they've got credit cards and smartphones, they're just rude.

But the result was just that businesses instituted policies and simply ask such people to leave if it seems to be deterring other customers, and that also seems like the obvious general solution. I'm honestly curious about why in Palo Alto that wouldn't be true too, is there some local law/ordinance that prohibits asking a customer to leave or the like? If there is no such thing it does seem more likely they were just lying, and the real truth was that they want customers who meet some specific level of dress code and also don't want to be honest about it (for legal reasons or just plain PR or both).

There are plenty of real reasons for a business to want to take the hit to go cashless (managing significant amounts of physical cash is a genuine expense, and in some places raises the attractiveness for robbery too). This really doesn't seem like one of them though.

<comment><USER4> Paying for a coffee and sitting in a cafe for an hour is rude? I try to be conscious of being a responsible customer by this is completely normal and reasonable in the majority of cafes I'll frequent, like Philz in Palo Alto, or any Starbucks anywhere.

<comment><USER5> An hour seems fairly reasonable. I've seen groups of four people doing business meetings at coffee shops. Where I've heard staff complain is when someone buys a coffee and then stays for 4+ hours on a regular basis in a high traffic shop (like near the touristic cable car stops in SF).

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This is excellent news. I hope other municipalities and states follow. The exceptions for 'memberships' is a cop-out and hopefully this will be changed in the future as well.

Cash must be accepted. It is the only form of payment (besides cryptocurrencies) where the individual does the payment. Other forms are merely large corporations/institutions using their financial clout to signal that they will pay for something in the future. And those corporations always have perverse incentives to both sell your purchasing history to anyone that wants it as well as enact financial embargoes against arbitrary people/companies whenever even slight political or social pressure is applied.

Only accepting corporate or institutional payments is racism against non- corporate persons (humans).

<comment><USER7> Most cryptocurrencies someone else is still doing the payment, they're just selected in pseudorandom way that's waited by their ability to complete a proof of work.

<comment><USER8> Unless you're using an exchange (admittedly most are) for your trading then it's still your machine telling the network it'd like to do a transaction - somebody is selected via proof of work to confirm it - and then you're on your way. Only you can start the transaction, and it can only be received by the one you addressed it to.

The way credit/debit cards work is far different IMO.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Any establishment where you pay after you receive goods or services (post-pay gas stations, restaurants, etc) must accept cash by federal law. If you are paying for something you have not yet received (grocery store, movie tickets) the business can refuse cash, unless a state or local law requires it.

Honestly, I'd like to see universal acceptance of cash extended into federal law.

<comment><USER10> Do post-pay gas stations still exist?

<comment><USER11> Yes, but they're generally in rural areas where people know each other.

<comment><USER12> Or, ya know...the entire state of Oregon.

<comment><USER13> And New Jersey.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I don't get why there aren't any laws formulated at the federal level to ban cashless stores. Not accepting the U.S. dollar as direct payment is pretty much refuting the sovereignty of the U.S. government, no? It also concentrates financial leverage in a few payments companies rather than direct consumers, which may incentivize anti-consumer behavior like adding/raising credit card rates (what are you going to do, use cash in a cashless world?).

<comment><USER15> They still accept US dollars, just not in physical form. Most money created by the government is virtual.

</comment></comment><comment><USER16> I'm impressed that such a move is even possible, considering the powerful interests that must be in favour of cashless. Cashless stores could be a stepping stone in the abolishment of cash.

The main issue for me is that if society is cashless, we could get negative interest rates, and we would be at the mercy of banks. All kinds of offers and conditions could be tied to and bundled with an increasingly abstract concept of money, credit and income.

<comment><USER17> Is there much difference between a negative interest rate on a bank account, and holding cash in an economy that experiences inflation?

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> I think it's important for there to be options - if you are reliant on the payment network, what happens if it goes down? What if someone for whatever reason is unable to use their card?

Having cash as a universally accepted backup is a good thing. That being said, I can see all the issues with the implementation - I've experienced some of them myself. But, why have we not seen any improvements? We already have mechanisms for processing cash and change automatically, vending machines do it all the time. Self-checkouts seem to manage cash just fine.

Just a speculative idea, but why not an automatic cash processing machine on the side of the main line? Tell it what the amount owed is, person can move over there and take all the time they want digging through wallets without disrupting the main flow. Possible issues with employees having to take time out for fixing issues with the machine, but then you have that problem with card processing machines anyways. Some Walmarts have both cash/card machines and card only machines - seems like a reasonable compromise.

There are clear benefits to being able to process both card and cash - why are we so fixated on getting rid of cash instead of bringing the process to the same level as card?

<comment><USER13> I bet these non cash businesses start taking cash right away of their card reader goes down. Either that or close for the day? No way. They will change their policy temporarily because keeping poor people out is less a priority than making money. Still a priority, just less of one.

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> I enjoy cashless stores. A few bars in Seattle are card only and it's a lot more efficient. I understand that there is potential impact to low income people who don't have credit but isn't it kind of up to the store owner to decide what they want to accept?

<comment><USER20> > low income people who don't have credit

I know that banking in the US is both weird and antiquated compared to the rest of the developed world, and I also know that the unbanked population is relatively high, but surely most low-income people can own a debit card and pay without cash, no?

<comment><USER21> Might depend on where you are. With the exception of Food Stamps, pretty much every transaction I've seen from lower income people in my area is cash based.

I usually feel like an outsider since I generally carry no cash in an area where it feels like everyone pays for everything with cash.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> [https://outline.com/cFvdFF](https://outline.com/cFvdFF)

</comment><comment><USER23> This doesn't sit right with me. If someone comes in with thousands of pennies am I allowed to refuse that type of payment? As a business, if I don't want to deal with the overhead of handling cash, I shouldn't have to. It feels like a law where websites are required to render correctly on all browsers or something. The right to refuse service to people should also extend to the right to refuse types of payment.

<comment><USER24> "This note is legal tender for ALL debts, public and private."

A state must have a monopoly on its money. We don't let people print money and cards are an indirection, but they must still deal in US currency. The note is the most basic form of that currency.

So yes, you should need to count 1,000 pennies. You might not like it .. it may be abused, but those are the rules of the system we currently have.

<comment><USER23> True, but that's why I'm saying it doesn't sit right with me. I'm not debating what the law is. I'm saying, in my opinion, businesses should be allowed to refuse types of payments.

<comment><USER25> You can probably refuse any type of payment you want... except cash.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER26> Card payments are so much faster for everyone involved in my experience at bars, nightclubs, event venues (sports, music festivals, concerts), and coffeeshops.

Other groups to consider (not mentioned in this article) are foreign visitors and kids.

Foreign transaction fees on each transaction can add up, so it's often best to get local currency at an ATM or a bureau de change. As for kids, parents often give kids cash as a budgeting mechanism.

<comment><USER27> With chip based cards, cash has become faster. At least this is the case with the card reader at the cafeteria at work, where you can hum most of the Jeopardy theme while waiting for the machine to do its thing. Whereas cash customers move along in a few seconds.

</comment></comment><comment><USER28> Good for them. Cashless stuff sound cool and progressive in the short run, but it's is a horrible idea in the long run. It's a privacy nightmare and gives disproportionate power to a few middlemen entities that usually have zero obligations to anyone. Also, it's a great stepping stone towards centralized control over all transactions.

</comment><comment><USER29> Going back to largely cash transactions not only reduced my paper trail, but it's much easier to keep to a weekly budget. And, hey, cash price at gas stations!

<comment><USER30> > cash price at gas stations!

I avoid all gas stations that have a "cash" price.

<comment><USER31> On average, you're not saving money that way. The cash price reflects that you're not paying as much in bank fees.

<comment><USER32> Sure, and if you pay cash anywhere that accepts cards but has no cash discount, then you are subsidizing the bank fees (gotta get those points!) for all card-paying customers.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Pretty sure all of MA banned cashless stores in the 70's. Guess this is the first _city_, but still not the "first" to make the move.

</comment><comment><USER34> Cash is so much faster. I'm frequently stuck behind someone who has card problems, or is using some affinity card, or mistypes their PIN, or is mucking with their phone to get it to interact with the reader. Cash and you're done in 15 seconds.

Worst case is someone who actually accepted the clerk's sales pitch to sign up for an affinity card. That takes forever.

<comment><USER23> In NYC I have had the exact opposite experience. Cashiers routinely process 2 or 3 card payments while they politely ask the odd person rummaging around their wallet for cash to step to the side. Plus they have to mess around with change once the person does finally get the correct bills together. In the morning when I'm in a rush I get anxious if I notice someone start reaching for cash and I'm behind them in the line.

<comment><USER35> Random idea, and I know this is unlikely to come to pass, but this could be largely mitigated if stores listed all-in prices (including tax) and made those relatively round figures so that people could figure out how much to get out while in line.

<comment><USER36> The problem is that sales tax varies wildly according to your local jurisdiction, and prices, particularly for chains, are not set at that level.

<comment><USER35> Maybe, but that doesn't seem like an intractable problem if you're willing to take some fluctuation on margin from region to region. Which corps do already due to differences in minimum wage, suppliers, etc.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER37> I posted this in the article about NYC going cashless as well. The thing that I find interesting is the lack of septa key being mentioned.

Septa key is their new transit card. But it can act as a debit card with money loaded via cash. No bank account required. Caveat that the kiosks aren't spread every where. But they are in enough locations.

Despite that I have barely heard mention of it during this cashless discussion. The whole crux is allowing underprivileged to access stores. Which was one of the reasons for the Key card as well.

[https://billypenn.com/2018/08/28/your-septa-key-is-now-a- deb...](https://billypenn.com/2018/08/28/your-septa-key-is-now-a-debit-card/)

<comment><USER38> It's not mentioned because SEPTA still accepts cash. You aren't required to buy a Septa Key card to ride.

<comment><USER37> I understand that. But the Key card can act as a debit card / electronic payment. Without a backing bank account. The whole complexity add of turning it into a debit card. Was so that people without banks could shop at card only stores.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER39> The whole argument for this doesn't make sense. Cashless payment systems are ubiquitous across socioeconomic lines in China and other countries. The problem is specific to the US and can be solved in a less destructive manner to businesses. Instead of punishing retailers, the city should create an incentive system to help people from less privileged backgrounds obtain access to banking systems and electronic payment systems.

</comment><comment><USER40> I was thinking about this recently when news broke that Atlanta's Mercedez- Benz Stadium (home to MLS's Atlanta United, NFL Atlanta Falcons, recent superbowl host) was going cashless too. While technologically 'neat' or whatever, it always also feels just like a flashy move and definitely a slight against the poor. Sports entertainment doesn't have to be only for the rich, a trend that always creeps

</comment><comment><USER40> I was thinking about this recently when news broke that Atlanta's Mercedez- Benz Stadium (home to MLS's Atlanta United, NFL Atlanta Falcons, recent superbowl host) was going cashless too. While technologically 'neat' or whatever, it always also feels just like a flashy move and definitely a slight against the poor. Sports entertainment doesn't have to be only for the rich, a trend that always creeps

<comment><USER41> My first move would be to eliminate the ability to write off tickets/boxes. I can't count the number of people I know that have corporate tickets that are 90% for personal use, but written off because they take the occasional client to a game/show.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> [https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/cashless-cash-free- ba...](https://www.citylab.com/equity/2019/03/cashless-cash-free-ban-bill-new- york-retail-discrimination/584203/)

 _> In February, New York City Councilmember Ritchie Torres introduced legislation that would prohibit retail establishments from refusing to accept payments in cash. The council hasn't made a decision on the bill yet, but Torres is confident that it will pass by mid-year. If it does, cashless businesses could face fines of up to $500 for every violation ... Also in February, both houses of New Jersey's state legislature passed a similar bill and are only awaiting the governor's signature. San Francisco has recently proposed a similar ordinance, and Washington D.C. and Chicago have also introduced legislation that would make it illegal to discriminate against cash as a form of payment._

</comment><comment><USER43> >Philadelphia City Councilman William Greenlee, a Democrat, >said he was inspired to introduce the bill after noticing >some Center City sandwich shops had gone cashless.

>"Most of the people who don't have credit tend to be lower >income, minority, immigrants. It just seemed to me, if not >intentional, at least a form of discrimination," he said. >Now, he said, stores will be required "to do what businesses >have been doing since Ben Franklin was walking the streets of >Philadelphia."

Shame on Philadelphia for punishing innovation instead of helping low income families access banking and credit cards.

<comment><USER44> There is no one in Philadelphia who does not have access to the banking system, or have the ability to pay cash for a prepaid debit card. After dealing with people in Philadelphia who are "unbanked" it was never because they couldn't get access, it was a choice they made to avoid having assets in the regulated banking system

</comment></comment><comment><USER45> I'm not entirely sure why the article is conflating credit with this issue. Card != credit. There are debit cards too, and you don't need credit for one of those.

<comment><USER46> The same factors that lead to being denied credit also result in being denied access to banking, so, sure, the problem is really for the unbanked and not those simply lacking credit, but those groups have a deep and fundamental link, not a mere casual correlation.

</comment></comment><comment><USER47> As a Philadelphian, I find this odd and backwards. It's cash only stores (Chinese food stores, corner stores, etc) that are annoying to me since I almost never have cash on hand and prefer to pay with my card. Plus I'm sure the city is bringing in far less tax revenue from cash only stores than a cashless store since there's no paper trail with cash.

<comment><USER47> However, I am aware Philadelphia is a poor city, with around a 20% unemployment rate so, and many unbanked/underbanked ppl I can see the other side.

</comment></comment><comment><USER48> Weirdly, the idea of an entirely cashless store strikes me as sort of last century. I do most stuff online now. There is no point in bothering with a special payment method for offline stuff. It is easier to just use cash for everything.

Perhaps some day the government might come up with some sort of usable electronic cash system, but until that day I carry around bills and coins.

</comment><comment><USER49> Meanwhile, "Danish government wants to allow petrol stations, stores to refuse cash" [https://www.thelocal.dk/20190227/danish-government-wants- to-...](https://www.thelocal.dk/20190227/danish-government-wants-to-allow- petrol-stations-stores-to-refuse-cash)

</comment><comment><USER50> > ... shall not: ... Charge a higher price to customers who pay cash than they > would pay using any other form of payment.

[https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3710586...](https://phila.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3710586&GUID=FD85947F-8151-4DB5-9949-AF6FEF14A9C9)

Businesses are also prohibited from charging a cash processing fee higher than the processing fee of any other type of payment. Depending on how this is interpreted you could introduce an alternate form of payment that carries a high processing fee and charge the same amount to pay with cash.

Edit: Replaced joke with the technical insight it was meant to suggest due to downvote.

<comment><USER15> "Any other" is not "some other". I don't think that's ambiguous, you can't charge more for cash than the cheapest alternative payment method.

<comment><USER50> It sounds like it might also require a company to give cash purchases the same discount they offer to consumer credit card purchases.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER51> i thought that because cash was "legal tender" it was required by law to be accepted but the second paragraph disabused me of that.

</comment><comment><USER52> Is it just about purchasing access to certain consumer groups, or also a defensive move to preserve human cashiers jobs?

<comment><USER21> Unlikely. Self-checkout kiosks can process cash and give change just fine.

My assumption is that this is to protect the buying power of the unbanked - which are predominantly low-income, as I understand it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER53> Ars Technica has a non-paywalled article: [https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2019/03/sorry-amazon-phi...](https://arstechnica.com/tech- policy/2019/03/sorry-amazon-philadelphia-bans-cashless-stores/)

And notes that Massachusetts has banned cashless stores since 1978

</comment><comment><USER54> IMO the whole cashless/alt currency movement indicates to me that the Government failed to innovate to the benefit of it's citizens.

<comment><USER55> Sorry, how is this relevant to this article? Banning pure cashless stores for the benefit of low-income or young customers seems reasonable to me. I think my takeaway is, what can the cashless movement do for low-income or young populations?

<comment><USER56> Their money is arguably safer and they have recourse if their card is stolen.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> I'm conflicted in how I feel about this.

On one hand, cash is legal tender. If you're a business charging money in that currency, _not accepting that currency_ seems wrong. Even moreso given some of the socioeconomic impacts of people not able to have bank accounts / debit cards.

On the other, this is capitalism. As a consumer, innovating towards a cashless society is a good thing, and I would be afraid that such legislation would have a chilling effect on innovation in this area. As a business, if eliminating the requirement to deal with cash makes business sense, go for it. If you're a consumer that wants to make cash transactions, or feels that others should have that ability, _vote with your feet_ and take your business elsewhere.

At the end of the day, I'm more concerned about businesses that _only_ accept cash. That's annoying to me as a consumer, but I wouldn't suggest legislation: I might just vote with my feet.

(I do think that public/government entities should be required to accept credit cards, though. Toll plazas, for instance. I don't always carry cash in this... increasingly cashless society.)

</comment><comment><USER58> Good. I prefer paying with my phone/card, but cash should always be an option.

</comment><comment><USER59> Some politicians work some deals cash-only by necessity.</comment>