Uber and Lyft competitors ready if service is suspended in California - <AUTHOR> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/19/uber-and-lyft-competitors-prepare-to-grab-market-share-in-california.html <comment><USER2> My prediction is that in the cities, things mostly won't change. In rural or suburban areas, cost and wait times will explode, if service is offered at all.

With minimum wage enforced, waiting in areas where drivers don't make minimum wage on average will vanish since scheduled services are risk adverse and have lots of information. Before drivers might service those areas hoping to get a ride taking them to urban areas. Drivers don't have good statistics on where to wait. Coordinated services do.

<comment><USER3> > In rural or suburban areas, cost and wait times will explode,

Utilization of ridesharing in rural areas is low[1]. It's a mode of transportation mostly used by urban affluent individuals with plenty of expendable income and as far as other reasons are concerned internet and credit card access trump any sort of supply problem.

 _" Suzanne Ashe was once the only Uber driver in Haines, Alaska — population 1,374 — and said she kept getting kicked off the platform because there weren't enough people asking for rides. She also found that some places weren't on Uber's maps, so clients couldn't enter their destination, and internet could be spotty. For these reasons, Ashe quit Uber and started her own ride-hailing business called Red Cab, named for her 2010 Red Chevy HHR, the only car in her "company." She charges a flat rate of $10 per ride and $30 per hour. "In order to cater to rural areas, especially areas where there isn't a saturation of network, then a cab company makes a lot more sense," she told Chilkat Valley News."_

It seems to have become fashionable to rush to Ubers defense by framing it as some sort of necessary mode of transportation for the undersupplied when instead every piece of data suggests the opposite. It's luxury transportation for the upper middle-class on the back of disenfranchised metropolitan army of reserve labour.

[1][https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/11/18179036/uber- lyft-r...](https://www.vox.com/the-goods/2019/1/11/18179036/uber-lyft-rural- areas-subscription-model)

<comment><USER4> I don't see Uber as class- or luxury-related at all. They have all kinds of customers. Sure they have affluent customers but e.g. college students actively seek each other to split Uber fares too. Many people would prefer to drive instead of taking an Uber, but they do the latter because often there's something preventing them from so (like lack of parking space, or any car to begin with). Are cars luxury upper middle-class commodities now too?

And when utilization is high, ride-sharing is arguably more carbon-friendly too. The same affluent folks you're talking about could be driving a car instead of sharing rides with other people if they were left with that option. Even _if_ you think ride-sharing is somehow a sign of affluence (which it very obviously isn't, if you've lived in other countries where entire cities function on hitching rides with strangers every day), you shouldn't want to discourage it and look on people using it with disdain.

<comment><USER5> Not sure why you're being downvoted. A lot of the Uber/Lyft users I know were (pre-Covid) Uber Pool/Lift Line users. Cramming into a car with strangers that takes 2-3 diversions on the way to your final destination isn't really luxury; it's a stop-gap for when the trip you're making is underserved by transit.

For my lifestyle, owning a car would be the "luxury", not ride sharing.

<comment><USER6> Unfortunately, Covid is killing regular transit in ridership and next year, taxes.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> A lot of Uber and Lyft proponents don't really consider this. If both of them leave the market, the demand will still be there and will be served by other entrants that have more viable business models (including adherence to laws). This is exactly what happened in other markets where Uber and Lyft left for various reasons. Granted, the experience might be a bit worse for riders (Ex. waiting longer), but I'm 100% ok with that.

<comment><USER8> Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system?

Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).

The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it.

Also, the argument on Uber/Lyft drivers not being contractors since they can't set their own rates and decide which ride they take strikes me as weird since medallion drivers were contractors, had to charge the price set by the city and could only pick-up customers in the (arbitrary) zones covered by their medallions.

[0] [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648)

<comment><USER9> > Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the > medallion system?

No, but that doesn't preclude us from stopping Uber and Lyft. We can have a different system where there are no medallions, the number of cars aren't artificially constrained, but the companies running them need to obey existing laws.

<comment><USER10> It could be interesting to artificially constrain the number of cars and auction the slots on a rolling 12 Month basis so that the tax payers get the full value of the licenses rather than speculators

<comment><USER11> welcome to the medallion system

<comment><USER12> It should not be just cabs, it should be all cars

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER13> California is the 5th largest economy in the _world_. There is no way Uber and Lyft will just leave that market. These are the emptiest of threats.

Uber and Lyft's board would absolutely loose their mind if executive leadership decided to just exit, once again, the 5th largest economy in the _world_

<comment><USER14> Keep in mind Uber operates in almost a thousand cities worldwide. Of course certain places will earn Uber more than others, but it's not a huge hit to their revenue.

The real threat, as I see it, is other states enacting similar laws that will have a domino effect.

<comment><USER15> Uber does operate in many cities, but its revenue is disproportionately concentrated in California:

> "In 2018, we derived 24% of our Ridesharing Gross Bookings from five > metropolitan areas — Los Angeles, New York City, and the San Francisco Bay > Area in the United States; London in the United Kingdom; and São Paulo in > Brazil," Uber writes in the S-1. "An economic downturn, increased > competition, or regulatory obstacles in any of these key metropolitan areas > would adversely affect our business, financial condition, and operating > results to a much greater degree than would the occurrence of such events in > other areas."

[0] [https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/uber-s-1-new-york- ci...](https://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/04/uber-s-1-new-york-city-could- destroy-uber.html)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER16> I recently requested a Lyft "wait and save" and had to suffer through 3 cancellations (I was going to the airport). I think there are definitely cracks in the "independent contractor" model if Lyft can quote me a definite timeline (15 min wait), have 3 drivers cancel on me because the fare was too low.

<comment><USER17> Same, tried to get both either an uber or lyft in an upscale mountain town recently. Their algorithms seem completely unable to cope with rural areas, especially in these covid times.

Zero drivers. No drivers to even reject the horribly underpriced fair for our 4 mile trip. Both uber and lyft assumed the driver would be already near our location, not 4 miles away.

Lyft and uber started quoting the ride as as about $9. Lyft never changed it. Uber did actually up the price to $20something after it failed to find drivers.

Local taxi company charged us $60 bucks. $30 + tip would have been what I'd think as reasonable starting for lyft or uber. That's 3x what either of showed.

</comment></comment><comment><USER18> The cities need to step up and set up their own ride sharing services e.g. [https://www.metrolacampaigns.net/](https://www.metrolacampaigns.net/) in LA

<comment><USER19> I'm sure the institution that brought us the Los Angeles public school system and the thriving Los Angeles public transit system will surely succeed in building an Uber competitor.

<comment><USER20> I have a feeling that the lack of faith that Americans have in their government ends up being a self-fulfilling prophecy. I work closely with a lot of government employees, and it really seems like 95% of the work is about avoiding "boondoggles" \-- i.e. highly visible failures. This is because boondoggles can be used as political tools, and ultimately, politicians are more concerned about getting reelected than getting anything done. The upshot of this, is that they would rather risk low visibility failures way more than high visibility failures. As an example, about 10 years ago, they were looking to install wifi in one of the buildings that I work in so they bought a bunch of routers. One of the higher ups wanted to assure that this wouldn't cause any security issues so they ordered audit after audit after audit. Eventually they just stopped trying and the building still doesn't have wifi, and they wasted all the money on those routers and audits. The problem is that they don't even have any sensitive data or data to be secured on that network. It's like this for _everything_. I think a better system would be to tolerate some very visible failures vs basically guaranteed non-visible failures.

<comment><USER21> Federal receipts as a percentage of GDP have been basically the same since WWII. (Before that they were significantly less.) One of the reasons for this is that we started spending around the "maximum size of government" level during WWII for obvious reasons, i.e. the point past which raising taxes doesn't increase government revenues because they're offset by shrinking the economy, and never receded from there because there was never anyone who could cause it to stop and had the incentive to. What changes is really only who gets the money.

So all the spending is effectively zero sum. The real tax rate never really goes up or down very much, so if you want to do something, you have to find something else to not do.

All of the incentives then fall directly out of that. If you're getting money and nobody is paying attention to you then the most important thing is to have them continue to not pay attention to you so that you can keep getting the money. Meanwhile, if you want to get money for something, find someone else to make look bad so you can justify taking it from them.

Obviously this doesn't produce good results, but the problem is structural. The populist reforms made in the first half of the 20th century deleted all of the checks and balances on federal spending (compare how much of the budget of EU countries is the EU itself), which requires government programs to compete based on political power rather than merit because you can't just say that a program is worth the money, you have to find something else to displace whose advocates are weak enough to defeat because the trough is already full. Which has little to do with whether your program is better than theirs.

Imagine if we spent half as much money but the reduction came out of the likes of ludicrous military boondoggles and de facto subsidies for pharma companies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> I hope drivers end up being forced to be employees with a set schedule. It would hopefully weed out all of the REALLY bad drivers both platforms have that I even wonder how they have licenses.

</comment><comment><USER23> Does this men taxi medallions are good investments again. Sometime back there were articles about how the medallions market had completely crashed due to Uber and Lyft.

</comment><comment><USER24> No doubt the competitors will be closely connected to politician families?

<comment><USER25> This is the usual with these 'compassionate' government ideas. If you can't compete with a company, lobby the government to force your competition out of business, while calling it a kindness to the public.

</comment></comment><comment><USER26> > "Last week, top executives at Uber and Lyft said that, if forced to comply > with the ruling, they'd likely have to suspend service in the state while > reworking their businesses around the law."

>"[The law] once passed, Uber and Lyft claimed it shouldn't apply to them, prompting California's attorney general and three city attorneys to sue the firms for misclassifying workers."

So instead of taking the time to prepare to meet the new requirements of a law that to some extent was directly aimed at them, the current ride-sharing incumbents decided to play legal chicken and not prepare re-tooling for the change.

<comment><USER27> Uber and Lyft's sole "innovation" is in driving down the value of driving by reclassifying drivers as contractors and not having to pay benefits while the drivers barely earn more than they spend to keep working, so I don't think they're going to give in easily. It's a shame the initial investors already got away with IPOs and foisting the consequences off onto general investors before the underlying business models collapse.

<comment><USER28> > Uber and Lyft's sole "innovation" is in driving down the value of driving by > reclassifying drivers as contractors and not having to pay benefits

This is supremely untrue: a huge part of Uber and Lyft's value proposition is not cost related at all. (Also, cab drivers generally aren't employees most places.)

They are more faster in most places. Other than some urban cores and transit hubs, it is much faster to get a pickup by Uber/Lyft than it ever was a taxi.

They are more reliable in most places. When you call a taxi, it may or may not show up, and you won't be told whether they're going to no-show after you call them.

They are more convenient. Ordering an Uber/Lyft is really easy. Most places, if you want to call a taxi, you have to use the telephone or use an inferior smartphone app. When they started growing, it was almost always the former.

They are a more pleasant experience. My worst experience in an Uber/Lyft ride is day-to-day in a taxi. I've had truly terrifying experiences with taxis.

Many of these factors are actually irrelevant to their labor practices. Some of them do relate (for instance, drivers are very vulnerable to rider low- ratings, in part since firing them is easier than firing employees), to be sure.

<comment><USER29> Ok, so it seems that taxi service in US sucks.

In Europe traditional taxi companies caught up pretty quickly, you can now order taxi ride via app that has UX similar or even nicer than Uber, and you get licensed taxi driver, car with taxi signs, so that you no longer need to stare weirdly at all black Priuses approaching you, and the driver can speak your language, and knows his way around the city. To recap: traditional taxi service is of much better quality than Uber, and only slightly more expensive, therefore much preferred.

The only time I used Uber was in the US, once I came back I don't miss it at all. I don't know what exactly is wrong with US taxi market, but Uber and Lyft aren't the only solution.

<comment><USER30> This ought not be downvoted. If this is correct, the UX of those taxi apps handles everything I mentioned in my parallel comment.

I'm in Canada, and taxi UX really hasn't caught up to Uber. But when I was in Brazil there was a taxi app that was basically equivalent to Uber. Except maybe you paid in cash. It's possible for the taxi industry to improve parts of their model. The north american taxi system may lack the incentives?</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Comparing PHP, Perl, Python and Ruby - <AUTHOR> http://hyperpolyglot.org/scripting <comment><USER2> This is a wonderful recap of the different ways of expressing the same idea in different languages. It is a fine Rosetta Stone.

That being said, it would also be useful to characterize features that are completely unique to a given language. For example, Python has 1) a unique and powerful version of super() for working with multiple inheritance; 2) it has generators (the yield statement) that allows state to be suspended and restarted (and allows data and/or exceptions to be passed back in to the generator); 3) the with-statement for managing contexts and for providing a new way to factor code; 4) easy-to-write class and function decorators; 5) metaclass support that provides full control over the creation of classes; 6) and descriptors for fine-control over attribute/method binding behavior.

Collectively, these capabilities make the language more than just another syntax for expressing the same ideas as other languages.

<comment><USER3> _That being said, it would also be useful to characterize features that are completely unique to a given language._

Perl has all these features.

 _1) a unique and powerful version of super() for working with multiple inheritance_

Perl (with Moose) has before, after, around, override, and augment in addition to super. And, it has "Roles" so you don't have to resort to hacks like multiple inheritance to implement mixins or interfaces.

 _2) it has generators (the yield statement) that allows state to be suspended and restarted (and allows data and/or exceptions to be passed back in to the generator)_

Perl has the library Coro, which allows multiple Perl and C stacks. With this coroutine and call-with-current-continuation are implemented.

 _3) the with-statement for managing contexts and for providing a new way to factor code_

Perl has scope a few implementations of scope guards; Guard and Scope::Guard. It's not quite the same as with, because with's semantics around:

       with open_file('foo') as f:
           return f

are unclear (f is closed but the object still exists). Perl mixes

       sub x {
          my $f = file('foo')->openr;
          return $f; # $f is still open and ready for reading by the caller
       }

Emulating Python is still possible, however:

       sub x {
           my $f = file('foo')->openr;
           scope_guard { $f->close }
           return $f; # caller gets a closed file object
       }

_4) easy-to-write class and function decorators_

This you don't really get, though you do get all of the things I've seen them used for in Python. You can even hack Perl syntax in a lexical scope, but that's evil so I will pretend it's impossible :)

 _5) metaclass support that provides full control over the creation of classes; 6) and descriptors for fine-control over attribute/method binding behavior_

Moose. And unlike Python, there are libraries that take advantage of this to provide tiny bits of OO functionality that you can pick and choose from. Look on CPAN for a MooseX:: module, and chances are that the set of libraries you choose to use to augment a class will all work together.

The difference between Perl and Python is that Perl's features are implemented as modules, while Python's features are implemented in the core. That means that if you come up with a good idea, you can start using (and sharing) it immediately, while with Python, you have to wait until the next major release.

<comment><USER4> It also means you have to stumble upon Moose to start using objects in a reasonably sane way. The average new Perl programmer is not going to go looking for a library that does object-oriented behavior until it's too late. They'll probably have some crazy idea that the language should be doing OO for them.

If you were to navigate a largish Perl codebase today, you'd encounter the old-school bless, Moose trickiness, and all kinds of variants on these themes. Extremely clever stuff that Damian Conway would give you a gold star for.

As usual Perl gives you everything you want, unless what you wanted was simplicity or standardization.

<comment><USER5> >>The average new Perl programmer is not going to go looking for a library that does object-oriented behavior until it's too late.

Sigh, _please_ don't start language wars by stuff like assuming new programmers sits alone in an ivory tower and don't talk to people, read blogs or browse a new book. (Modern Perl discuss Moose before the old standard, for instance.)

Edit: I'm just not going to touch where you assume all Perl teams that write large code bases are too stupid to agree on best practices. (I'll ask this back instead: Why are there so many language wars-lovers in some open source communities...?)

<comment><USER3> _Why are there so many language wars-lovers in some open source communities...?_

Probably the same reason the French don't like the English or the Indians don't like the Pakistanis. The closer two things are to each other, the more passionate people are about the differences.

My experience is that all the languages are identical. Python has a culture of cleanliness at the core, but there is a lot missing from the language that makes it unclean in practices. (See: the investment bank I worked where all new apps were written in a C#/C++/Python trialect, to coin a new word.) Perl is a very messy language, but the community has hyper-overreacted and have made a very clean set of "best practices". I haven't done much Ruby, but I can't say anything other than that it looks like a combination of Perl and Python, with a relatively new community around it.

These three languages are largely the same thing: they run slow and they're fun to write. Hence all the infighting.

<comment><USER6> Learning a language is an investment. People defend their investment strategies lest they be considered a fool. Attacking alternatives is a form of defense. I fear it's as simple as that.

<comment><USER5> The original question was -- why do _some_ communities seem to be more oriented towards language wars than others?

<comment><USER7> Can't speak for all of them, but if a language has "there's more than one way to do it" as its main motto, I guess the people from the ecosystem are less likely to attack other languages.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER8> Note that anywhere you see array() in that list for PHP 5.4 you can replace it with [ ]'s. So the example that has:

      $a = array(1,2,array(3,4));

becomes:

      $a = [1,2,[3,4]];

Also

      0b101010

works in 5.4.

<comment><USER9> True, but PHP 5.4 doesn't even have a stable release yet & many people haven't even adopted 5.3.

<comment><USER10> 5.3 Come out in 2009, I has a small list of backwards compatibility breaking changes (<http://www.php.net/manual/en/migration53.incompatible.php>), no reason for anyone really not to have adopted it.

<comment><USER11> > many people haven't even adopted 5.3.

> no reason for anyone really not to have adopted it.

These things are not mutually exclusive. I.e. you could be write, but Klinky definitely is.

<comment><USER10> True, I think it is a valid point for arguments about language features though. Fair enough to say that anything in 5.4 isn't production ready yet or had the time to trickle down to hosts but you can't judge PHP on versions before 5.3 as anyone can put a small amount of effort in and have everything 5.3 has to offer.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> This is great. Very handy for explaining to others the differences between various languages, and surprisingly enough until you get into the array functions i'm starting to feel like PHP isn't really that messy since reading this!

Thanks for sharing, ill pass it on whenever a comparison is needed.

<comment><USER13> PHP5.4 also has the short syntax array initializer:

        $array = [1, 2, 3];

Edit: While PHP still has it's fair share of issues, a lot of the same complaints people had 5-8 years ago aren't valid, and it probably has no more or less oddities than any other scripting language at this point.

<comment><USER14> The problem with PHP is that 99.99% of the code in circulation today isn't the shinier cleaned-up versions. It's PHP4 and PHP 5.0 and it's still chock-a- block with the storied mind-bending nastiness of yore.

<comment><USER15> not true at all. Maybe if you're looking at old sites, but PHP5's been out for a long time now, and most of the code in circulation is made for 5.2 or higher. No serious MVC framework, for instance, will run on anything less than 5.2.

<comment><USER14> Serious MVC frameworks are not the backbone of Wordpress, phpBB or dozens of other hairy monsters that make up the majority of CPU time spent on PHP execution.

I mean Wordpress flat out resisted PHP 5.0 for years. _Years_. Everything had to be done in PHP4.

<comment><USER16> > I mean Wordpress flat out resisted PHP 5.0 for years. Years. Everything had > to be done in PHP4.

I presume that's because of the size of Wordpress' install base. The number of people who run their software on $9/month shared hosting environments is staggering. Many of those are late to upgrade PHP versions.

Wordpress gets a lot of crap for being poorly written but the truth is that it's an example of software that works really well given some really unique circumstances. If the WP devs decided that their software didn't need to support the 99% of web servers out there then it wouldn't be nearly as ubiquitous as it is today.

<comment><USER14> Wordpress gets a lot of crap for being poorly written because it is _poorly written_. There's no great mystery here.

Yes, they deal with lots of different configurations. This is _not_ unique in the history of software development. It's called "portability" and many organisations seem to be able to achieve it without compromising quality.

My searing, eye-boiling hatred for Wordpress comes from administering it for what is now nearly a decade. Every time I dive into the code I am frequently repulsed by it.

The total absence of tests is my favourite "feature". I've seen multiple bugs closed with WORKSFORME that I was directly grappling with.

<comment><USER10> You are right it is far from perfect, it is pragmatic and providing a great amount of value for people/ businesses. It is surprising to me that we haven't seen a big challenger trying to do it right from a back end perspective.

<comment><USER14> Because users don't care about the backend. They care about the shiny features, look-and-feel and the availability of plugins and themes.

Wordpress delivers these in spades.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER17> This is a really great effort, but I noticed a handful of areas where the PHP example was off. I wonder if people with more experience with the other languages noticed the same thing for their language.

Some examples:

Null test:

        $var === null // omitted
        isset($var) // actually checks if $var exists and is not null (apparently--
            I actually didn't know about the not null part)

Undefined variable access: it's a notice. Many people consider it best practice in PHP to treat notices as error, because things like this are notices.

Add time duration

        strtotime('+10 minutes') is more typical than the objects

Array out of bounds behavior again issues a notice.

<comment><USER18> I noticed that block statements were missing from PHP, eg: using if(): ... endif; etc. instead of if(){ ... }

</comment></comment><comment><USER19> Previous discussion: <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2882070> with lots of bug reports. I wonder if they incorporated all the changes suggested.

</comment><comment><USER20> "Passing by reference" section is wrong about Ruby (not sure about Python). Ruby passes everything by reference, it's only that integers are immutable so that the function can't alter them. Strings, though, are mutable:

      def foo s
        s.concat 'foo'
      end
      a = 'bar'
      foo a
      a
      # => "barfoo"

<comment><USER21> Well, integers are immutable (and conceptually a singleton per value) _unless you override stuff in FixNum and add instance variables_. Here's an evil example that works at least in MRI 1.8.6:

        class Fixnum

          alias :realplus :+

          def + b
            @a ||= 0
            @a = @a.realplus(b)
            self.realplus(@a)
          end
        end

The integer value itself is immutable, though.

Of course all hell will break loose _and_ adding instance variables in certain classes like Fixnum will be extra slow (as if there aren't enough other reasons not to), since MRI uses type-tagging for Fixnum, Symbol and a few others, and so since they're not "real" objects, if you do anything that requires one, it creates one that's stored in a hash table.

</comment></comment><comment><USER22> Here's a simpler comparison with _way_ more langauges: [http://rigaux.org/language-study/syntax-across- languages/Str...](http://rigaux.org/language-study/syntax-across- languages/Strng.html#8)

</comment><comment><USER23> sed begat awk.

awk begat perl.

perl begat python and ruby.

python will get you a job at google.

ruby will get you a job at twitter.

php will get you a job at facebook.

<comment><USER24> _ruby will get you a job at twitter._

I heard that twitter are moving from ruby to scala.

<comment><USER25> that was more then a year or two ago, they changed their mind in the meantime. they do have some cool software developed in scala I think.

<comment><USER26> Do you have any support for this statement? Last time I checked they moved all of the api and backend infrastructure to Scala and were quite happy with it.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER27> Unfortunately tests page for PHP does not mention PHPUnit: <http://www.phpunit.de/manual/3.6/en/index.html> which is the best solution for testing in PHP. Neither it mentions xdebug for debugging and xhprof for profiling.

</comment><comment><USER28> Perl's treatment of regex still trumps all. It's so pleasant to use in so many ways. It's for this reason alone I will probably never bother "switching" to Python or Ruby.

<comment><USER29> Since Ruby copies Perl's regex shortcuts (blah =~ /matchme/), what's the problem?

</comment></comment><comment><USER30> Wish Lua was added to the list.

Edit: Found Lua compared on the same site here: <http://hyperpolyglot.org/embeddable>

</comment><comment><USER31> Very good comparison between all the languages, and like other people said: a nice Rosetta stone. With that said, it would be very useful to add a comparison of the database layer syntax as that it is, at least for a me, a common task in all of the scripting languages. I also agree with the comments about adding the features that are unique to the languages, as that would be extremely helpful.

<comment><USER32> there are quite a few options for syntax already in the mix, that people noticed already. If we will add DB-related stuff, it will confuse even more - too many options available in each language.

<comment><USER31> Great point! Thanks for the response, and it makes sense.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER33> Bookmarked and forever using this to explain the differences between these. Thanks for the awesome resource!

</comment><comment><USER34> Even though there is no native "switch" statement in Python, the same control flow structure can be done with a dict construct:

<http://simonwillison.net/2004/may/7/switch/>

<comment><USER35> Whenever the debate comes up in official channels, there is near-unanimous support for omitting it.

</comment></comment><comment><USER36> PHP repl is actually php -a

<comment><USER37> Note that this is not a traditional repl in the style of of Python or IRB that evaluates each line individually. With php -a you have to enter an entire script, and then exit to run it, and which point you can no longer interact with the variables, etc. Also it's super backwards in that you need to add <?php tags to turn interpretation on.

If you really want a repl that's useful for PHP check out <http://www.phpsh.org/> by Facebook.

<comment><USER36> No, you can do evaluation line by line, but it isn't exactly nice. Just typing php forces you to type in the entire script.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER38> Wonderful reference for comparison! I admittedly haven't had time to pursue the whole table, but wanted to point out that there is indeed an increment and decrement in python:

x += 1

x -= 1

<comment><USER39> They list those under "compound assignment operators", which makes sense given that += and -= are found in all of these languages. It's also worth noting that compound assignment operators do not form expressions in Python. So "i++" in PHP/Perl/Ruby is very different from "i += 1" in Python.

</comment></comment><comment><USER40> The Perl described in this article is COMPLETE SHIT. He calls deprecated and improper libs for some functions, unnecessary libs in others, assumes improper or unoptimal syntax in other examples. The list goes on. Learn languages before releasing articles on them.

He never even uses Perl's foreach in equivalency examples!! WTF.

<comment><USER41> Not sure it's a "he", it's a wiki-type thingie.

Also, you can report bugs on the table if things are not correct.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> Very helpful!! Like a quick & easy Rosetta stone

</comment><comment><USER43> Very, very thorough. A great resource, thanks!

<comment><USER43>
      Empty comments can be ok if they're positive. There's
      nothing wrong with submitting a comment saying just
      "Thanks." What we especially discourage are comments that
      are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling.

\--<http://ycombinator.com/newswelcome.html>

</comment></comment><comment><USER44> Nice. Useful and handy.

</comment><comment><USER5> A very useful page if you know one or two of those languages and need to do something in another one.

A suggestion: For people doing some work in Perl, a review of the OO syntax might be critical. Both Moose and the old way.

A note, re the repl part: I don't use a repl for Perl, I just write one liners in shell. Afaik, Perl is the best command line tool that exist, it is even a superset of awk.

Edit: For named parameters the page might want to reference one of the CPAN modules doing that. Same goes for exceptions. The use of do to create blocks most everywhere might also be noted in e.g. the ternary operator. Unicode support should probably also be discussed. And so on.

</comment><comment><USER45> [I wonder if this is a personal watershed for Hacker News?]

These languages are essentially the same thing. I often write code in at least 3 of these languages most days, and I simply translate the minor differences between them in my head.

"Hyperpolyglot" -- excess in many tongues -- I don't think so.

Learn at least some static languages, assembler and some functional languages, and _then_ post something interesting on HN.

Well, I have plenty of karma to waste on noobs.

<comment><USER46> Nothing I love more than watching someone try way too hard to act "grizzled" and in the process make an idiot out of themselves.

<http://hyperpolyglot.org/>

<comment><USER47> Was that in response to his exhortation to learn different languages, or do you actually believe that Perl and its self-proclaimed successors have any profound differences?

<comment><USER21> I think the point is that while the article link is to the scripting category, the site does in fact cover a lot more languages.

<comment><USER47> Yeah, that was the first point. You can see a lot more variety of comparisons in the main page. The categories are a bit odd at times, but it's a good stab at being representative.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


Ask HN: Do you need a degree/diploma for a TN-1 (or other work) Visa? - <AUTHOR> I'm from Canada and looking for input from someone with experience getting a TN-1, or similar, work visa (with or without a degree).
The government website seems pretty clear that I'll need at least a diploma to get a TN-1 visa
https://travel.state.gov/content/visas/en/employment/nafta.html
Trying to weigh these 2 options:
[0] General consensus I've seen on HN and elsewhere is that a degree isn't necessary to be a successful developer. I have a family so 2-4 years of schooling isn't a small sacrifice at this point.
However
[1] The US job market for software seems significantly larger and more lucrative than Canada's. 2-5 years of sacrifice could easily be made up with access to US job market.
Also, I already have a B.A. (Christian studies) and soon will have an M.A. (Biblical Counselling). They are unrelated fields, but thought I'd mention it in case it makes a difference. <comment><USER2> I have successfully obtained a TN-1 Visa with a mostly unrelated degree (CEGEP generic "IT" degree). It does require a fair bit of paperwork, but it is absolutely possible.

Fair warning, as i wish someone had told me exactly this when i got my own TN-1: Any given border agent has the power to repeal said visa for any reason, without oversight. If they have a bad day at the border, they may elect, at any time, to permanently repeal it.

<comment><AUTHOR> Thanks for the warning. Are you talking about entering and first applying for the TN-1 or anytime during the visa's length (e.g. visit's back home for Christmas)?

<comment><USER2> Any time for the full length of the visa. That most certainly include the initial application as well.

In my case, i was asked by my employer to remain in the US for the length of the visa, as me being potentially unable to get back to the office was considered to be a business risk. Needless to say, that was rather displeasing, and eventually led to my departure from the company.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER3> You can get a US programming job without a college degree, but it's easier if you have one (which you do). If you can do the job, any BA is fine for lots of places.

The main issue you'll have is resume screening -- so try to network to a job instead (or have a very compelling programming job application that makes your unrelated BA make you look well-rounded.)

There are also remote jobs in the US. Most would probably hire from Canada.

<comment><AUTHOR> >> You can get a US programming job without a college degree, but it's easier if you have one (which you do).

Are you talking about getting a job with a company or getting across the border? What you say reflects what I've heard about getting work without a degree, I'm just concerned I won't be able to get the appropriate visas based on what the US government websites state.

Thanks for the reply!

<comment><USER3> You have a degree. I guess you need to convince the US that any BA is fine for development (because it is -- if you can do the work).

Probably you should engage a US immigration lawyer with expertise in this visa to help you out. They would know how to assemble the best application for your situation.

Perhaps one way to help yourself is to find articles written by prominent US software leaders saying that any BA is fine (I bet you can find Steve Jobs saying something like that).

<comment><USER4> Uh, yeah, definitely get a lawyer, and don't give the border agent an article quoting Steve Jobs.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> In addition to being able to qualify with equivalent work experience (usually a ratio of 3 years work : 1 year diploma), there are two occupations that don't require a degree strictly: (Scientific) Technician and Management Consultant. My advice is find a competent tech immigration attorney in SV or surrounding areas who specializes and you will have a good time. I recommend Olivia Lee at Minami Tamaki or Chris Wright in LA.

</comment><comment><USER6> Usually work experience in related field makes up for not having a degree/diploma for these things. Not sure how many years is needed.

</comment><comment><USER7> as for immigration, yeah it's 3 years of experience equaling 1 year of college / university, but you might need a lawyer. speaking of your unrelated degree. one of the best developers i know has a degree in orthodox christian theology. oh, yeah, US market is so much better than CA/UK/EU/AU/NZ

</comment><comment><USER8> Yes, when I first entered the US on a TN visa I had not completed my degree yet.

I was able to obtain TN status at the time through the Sci/Tech category. It was a little bit different then the traditional Analyst category but it worked.

</comment><comment><USER9> Yes, I've seen Computer Systems Analyst with grade 12 highschool and 12 years of experience work. (Anecdotally 12 years of relevant experience = 3 years of degree work, but I've not seen that codified anywhere).</comment>


Why I switched back to PHP after 2 years on Rails (2007) - <AUTHOR> http://www.oreillynet.com/ruby/blog/2007/09/7_reasons_i_switched_back_to_p_1.html

<comment><USER2> Ouch. My jaw dropped when I saw my old article on the front page of HN.

To me, posting this article in 2007 taught me two lessons:

#1: The goal of good writing is not to be understood, but rather to not be misunderstood.

Judging by the hundreds of angry comments on that original link, I failed miserably. At the time, nobody read my little blog, so I didn't expect anyone to see this post. I was really just writing it to answer a few of my Rails friends' questions. I didn't brace it for public attack.

#2: The public you is not you.

I'm a mediocre programmer, trying to improve, and at the time just trying to make my website the way I wanted it. So it kinda hurt at first to read hundreds of fellow programmers saying I'm the biggest idiot to walk the earth.

Then I just realized that my post should have been written clearer, and the reason people were so upset is because it sounded like I was attacking this framework/language that they had spent so many hundreds of hours learning. It had nothing to do with me. Only I know my real programming skills, so their comments were not really about me.

Ever since then I don't let comments get to me, either way. Neither praise nor criticism should be taken personally. It's just feedback on the post/subject. Useful for learning how not to be misunderstood, but has nothing to do with you.

<comment><USER3> Language wars are the biggest waste of time in the software development community/industry.

It's temporary insanity, I think.

<comment><USER4> Even more then editor wars?

<comment><USER5> Editor wars are an insanity that's _not_ temporary.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> This article was written in 2007. Since then both PHP and Rails have undergone considerable changes making much of what is being said only of historical interest.

This is supposedly a site about news which by implication is not something that happened three years ago, unless you have been living in cave.

Old articles can be interesting, for some value of interesting, but this does nothing for me as either a Rails developer or a PHP developer. I can see no reason to post this or perhaps I should hunt down some old articles about the deficiencies of Java 1.0?

If a Rails developer has switched from a current version of Rails to the new version of PHP I would be interested but even with that being said the article is comparing a programming language to a web framework. Ruby is not Rails just as PHP is not Drupal.

Can we have some 'new' in our news please?

[Edited for typo]

<comment><USER7> There really isn't anything specific in the article that makes it significantly dated. His reasons would be just as valid if he'd written this yesterday about the latest and greatest PHP and Rails versions.

1 - He felt he could get what he needed to get done in PHP just as well as in Rails

2 - Integration costs of One Grand Switch from existing large PHP codebase to entirely new Rails codebase were high

3 - Felt no need for most of the infrastructure Rails provides, was too complex for him to understand easily

4 - Better performance

5 - Easier integration (due to 1 & 3, presumably)

6 - Didn't want/need an ORM layer and related handholding and/or headaches

7 - Rails/Ruby were better for him to lift ideas from than to actually use directly

I can't think of anything so dramatic that's happened to PHP and Rails since Sept 2007 to really make his reasoning of 'historical interest only'. Certainly nothing like the change from Java 1.0 (a small, sluggish language released 14(!!) years ago) and Java today (huge ecosystem of products, languages, frameworks running on one of the faster VMs/JITs around).

<comment><USER8> "His reasons would be just as valid if he'd written this yesterday about the latest and greatest PHP and Rails versions."

It would also be just as valid for any two technologies, not just PHP and Rails. The real message is: don't rewrite working code from scratch.

<comment><USER7> It's obviously untrue for 'any two technologies'. And I don't know about you but I like to assume that if the author's 'real message' was 'don't rewrite working code from scratch' he'd have simply said that. Are you suggesting he put the effort into summarizing his particular experience while having some secret and entirely different message? What makes you believe that?

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> Quote of the day:

PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE GIRLFRIENDS: THE NEW ONE IS BETTER BECAUSE _YOU_ ARE BETTER

</comment><comment><USER10> "twisting the deep inner guts of Rails to make it do things it was never intended to do"

If you use a framework and then fight against it, you are probably using the wrong framework (or you shouldn't be using a framework)...

</comment><comment><USER11> My favorite line here was "I said fuckit".

I guess it's not quite as reflective as that girlfriend thing, but I strongly suspect that everyone who actually succeeds in releasing working software to the world has an "I said fuckit" moment.

I care less about the PHP/Rails thing, which is probably what got everyone riled up. To be, this could have been about tech A and tech B. I just like hearing that people who have succeeded in writing software that others use eventually feel this way, cause man do I ever sometimes.

</comment><comment><USER12> The points raised in the article are still relevant today. Not that you can't do good web sites with Rails, but sometimes it is easier to use the tool you are more familiar with.

<comment><USER13> I think you missed the point of the article. They used Rails for 2 years, I don't think it was an issue of familiarity.

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> Looks like the site has had yet another rewrite:

<https://www.cdbaby.com/login.aspx>

<comment><USER14> <http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1052508>

</comment></comment><comment><USER15> Funny comment: "PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES ARE LIKE GIRLFRIENDS". Like Ada and Linda: <http://c2.com/cgi/wiki?LindaEtymology>. If a langage was a girlfriend, what would be the equivalent of _ ?

</comment><comment><USER16> translation: rewrites hurt, a lot

see this from 2000 : Things You Should Never Do, Part I <http://www.joelonsoftware.com/articles/fog0000000069.html>

They [Netscape] did it by making the single worst strategic mistake that any software company can make:

They decided to rewrite the code from scratch.

</comment><comment><USER17> here's my view on this:

the worst carpenter on the planet is the one who whines about the tools he/she has at hand to complete the task, cheeky because he/she doesn't have his or her favorite hammer around.

the best carpenter is the one who gets the job done with the tools at hand. go php. there are just bad programmers, not bad tools.

<comment><USER18> I would have to disagree with you when you say there are no bad tools. Try frame a house using a brick, or perhaps a sledgehammer. Software is the same, for example, C is a bad language to use when creating a website, its possible, but not a good idea.

<comment><USER19> Well, if you're using C, first you need to write an interpreter, such as perhaps a Ruby interpreter, or PHP, or a JVM, etc.

<comment><USER20> You can write web apps in C; I wrote CGI "scripts" in C as recently as 2004.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER21> Fairly interesting that they've now jumped ship again to aspx. I guess Sivers gets an itch any time a new web language turns the corner. What's worse is that CD Baby feels considerably slower than when I used it ages ago.

<comment><USER2> No no no. That apsx crap running the existing site is absolutely not mine.

I sold the company in 2008 to Disc Makers, a company whose internal systems are all Windows.

After leaving the site as it was (FreeBSD + PHP + MySQL + Ruby) for a year, they rewrote it all from scratch in Windows ASP stuff, so they could merge it with their existing systems.

I was long-gone and knew nothing about their rewrite until it was launched.

Funny thing is: when I sold the company, people kept asking, "How does it feel that it's not yours anymore?" It was always fine and didn't phase me a bit because it was still my software running the site. It still felt like my vision was upheld.

But when they trashed all my old software (even the internal intranet that all employees use to run operations!) - THEN it hurt. A single "View Source" on any page of cdbaby.com shows a bloated mess of crap that goes completely against the minimalist aesthetic that drove CD Baby for 10 years. That was really sad.

But, like the new owners painting your old house pink, it was the final proof that it's not mine anymore.

<comment><USER22> So it's crap only because it's aspx ? You don't know how the code looks on the server side, and it's not fair to judge a webapp by the resulting html alone.

<comment><USER23> > A single "View Source" on any page of cdbaby.com shows a bloated mess of > crap that goes completely against the minimalist aesthetic that drove CD > Baby for 10 years.

That's nothing to do with aspx, that's to do with wrecking a philosophy.

Aspx was the chosen tool to do the wrecking in, but that could have been anything else. You can write bad bloated code in just about any language.

<comment><USER24> If you are using MVC maybe. ASP.NET WebForms and postback add tons of crap to the HTML.</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment>


CSS Mint – A Lightweight and Simple to Use UI Kit - <AUTHOR> http://arunmichaeldsouza.github.io/CSS-Mint/ <comment><USER2> Is there a demo page where we can try it?

<comment><AUTHOR> You can try it out on Codepen or JSFiddle, just include CSS Mint via CDN - [https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/css-mint/1.4.3/css- mint.min.css](https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/css-mint/1.4.3/css-mint.min.css) and follow the examples.</comment></comment>


Panama Papers: Mossack Fonseca was unable to identify company owners - <AUTHOR> https://www.bbc.com/news/world-latin-america-44553932 <comment><USER2> The only way I can understand how widespread this is, is that a majority of the powerful string-pullers in the world are participating in the scam.

If a company has an international ownership structure that's complex enough that makes it difficult or impossible to follow the trail of ownership / leadership / directorship, then the company shouldn't be allowed to operate.

All the fuss and bluster in various countries about multi-nationals dodging their local tax responsibilities, and yet this is allowed to go on. There were a couple of such companies that have Australian Government contracts that were revealed to have opaque international ownership.

In the current environment of growing suspicion about foreign ownership and its relationship to national security, you'd think these issues would be a priority. How do you curtail foreign ownership and Chinese / Russian influence if you can't work out who's ultimately responsible? Maybe that's just talk to distract us non-string-pullers?

<comment><USER3> I found it pretty illuminating, in another leak, the Paradise papers, to see that the Queen of England, who is also the head of the state in Bermuda, where this leaked came from, had huge investments in off-shore companies:

[https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/paradise- papers-...](https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/11/05/paradise-papers-queen- bono-kept-money-offshore-funds-leaked/)

It is no secret that Juncker, the head of the European Commission, was the leader of Luxembourg when it established itself as a tax haven power house, and blocked any serious EU reform to curb tax evasion.

The various leaders of the world are the first to use these services. Theses funds allow them to finance campaigns, bribe officials, and maintain the statu quo. Of course they use political power to maintain this situation.

I don't often say nice things about GWB's administration but one thing that came out of their terrorist paranoia was that they managed to basically kill the tax haven status of Switzerland, where some funds transited. But it took all the weight of the USA while it was in berserk mode to shut down such a thing. There is dozen more to go.

<comment><USER4> > I don't often say nice things about GWB's administration but one thing that > came out of their terrorist paranoia was that they managed to basically kill > the tax haven status of Switzerland

That seems like it could have been a counter-productive strategy. Better that your enemies use a well-understood banking system with [theoretically] reliable and consistent bookkeeping than for those transactions to shift to a more disperse, more chaotic international system. Even if Swiss accounts were nominally secret, AFAIU the CIA and NSA had developed a fairly reliable system for snooping around.

There's a reason New York and London continue to be world leaders in processing financial transactions--the governments have been intentionally tolerant of shady characters, shady businesses, and shady nations as long as the transactions nominally followed the law. Among other benefits, that puts you in a good position to keep track of the bad guys and, when it really counts, to take them down. If you police too heavily all that activity goes somewhere else.

But it does leave you open to accusations of aiding & abetting bad behavior. There's a limit to what can be politically and legally tolerated in New York and London. But you can structure the international system to channel those intolerable transactions to the least worse alternatives.

Like so much with the War on Terror, the better approach would be to improve HUMINT and investigatory resources, rather than pushing the activity further underground and playing a game of whack-a-mole.

<comment><USER3> To be fair I take this as a gain as I see tax haven as a much more harmful thing than Al-Quaeda ever was. It is an enabler not only of terrorism but of several crimes that causes a countless amount of death globally.

And no, I don't buy the "we tolerate it so that we could watch it". Too much private money is at odds there. The truth is that this still exists because otherwise there would be no channel for the Saud family to fund the Bush one or for Russian oligarchs to pay up GOP members.

<comment><USER4> Except the crackdown has arguably led to faster evolution of tax havenry. Over the past 15 years the traditional tax havens have lost considerable business to new jurisdictions offering more complex and cheaper havens (e.g. trusts and property schemes), attracting smaller customers (e.g. small-time multi- millionaires) who previously couldn't have afforded to indulge in these activities. The market has grown. That was inevitable to some extent but when your achilles heel is your ability to respond to change (which government agencies suck at) it's a risky strategy to shake-up the system.

<comment><USER3> It is natural that it tries to evolve, this is an enemy with more resources than the US army. We wont kill it with one attempt. We need to keep continue still.

In my opinion, leaks have been the best tool so far: it adds a risk to tax evasion that is kind of new. Every added cost or added risk is welcomed.

And people usually hate when I mention that, but I am fairly convinced that most of the value of bitcoin comes from people desiring to move huge funds discreetly and efficiently between accounts. It probably made the whole industry move faster than countries' regulations.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER5> I didn't understand for quite some time why prosecutors couldn't go after and find tax perpetrators who they knew had offshore structures. Until I finally found out how simple it is. One of two or both reasons:

1)As laid out in this article by the BBC, there simply is no record of the true beneficial owner.

2)The jurisdictions have no legal agreements with western countries to hand over their records.

Example: Person A in western country X has an offshore structure going through countries Y and Z, both of which have no legal agreement with country X. Now through some leaks and witnesses, prosecutors in country X know that person A is hiding something in Y and Z, but they cannot prove it. They cannot obtain those records legally, if there even are any.

That's what must be tackled.

<comment><USER6> How does the "beneficial owner" benefit from the ownership if he can't prove he's the owner? How do they get their money out? And can't we tax them at this point? Yes I understand these are difficult schemes but can't you just freeze accounts you don't know who the owner is and see who comes out of the woodwork. Just freeze all accounts until paperwork X is signed, problem solved?

<comment><USER5> Usually through trustees and fiduciaries in yet again different jurisdictions. Until you prove beyond a reasonable doubt who the beneficial owner is, it's really legally ambiguous to enforce any laws or regulations.

There are efforts aiming at this [1], but it will take time.

[1] [http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic- exchange/](http://www.oecd.org/tax/automatic-exchange/)

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER7> This kind of thing is making me think that more effort should be made for realistic land/property taxation; not only is that where a lot of the wealth ends up being kept, but it's fundamentally impossible to hide.

It needs proper cadastral property registration and a link to the tax system. It can even be privacy-preserving; the system doesn't need to care _who_ owns the land, just that the taxes are paid.

For the UK I'd happily swap out council tax + stamp duty for a 1-2% annual property tax.

<comment><USER8> You might have to rethink your math, here in the U.S. property taxes average 1.15% already, and would need to go up to like 8.2% just to account for personal income tax (not including payroll taxes, social security, Medicare/Medicaid, and corporate taxes)

1\. [https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government- ta...](https://www.thebalance.com/current-u-s-federal-government-tax- revenue-3305762)

2\. [https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/04...](https://www.usatoday.com/story/money/personalfinance/2017/04/16/comparing- average-property-taxes-all-50-states-and-dc/100314754/)

<comment><USER7> I wasn't proposing a total replacement of income tax! Certainly not overnight.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER9> If they don't know who the owner is, what's to stop anybody from dressing as a shady businessman, walking up to one of these guys and saying, "yeah, I'm the owner of whatever Corp. I'd like a billion dollars, please."?

I'm sure there are extra details that'd require extra snooping, but how much extra detail is needed if they can't find owners even with a frantic internal investigation?

<comment><USER8> It's not that they don't know who the owner is, they just don't know who the owner's, owner's, owner's owner is

</comment></comment><comment><USER10> If you want to know the beneficiaries you want to look at banks. Due to all the pressures from US pretty much all banks require to know the end beneficiary regardless of company structure and "appropriate" authorities in US generally have access to this info.

<comment><USER11> That's the idea but in practice there are still gaps.

<comment><USER10> Honestly I don't think there are

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER12> If taxes were not set too high and states didnt abuse their power, people wouldn't have to resort to such tools.

<comment><USER13> There will always be cheaters. In this case, rich cheaters.

The people "resorting" to Fonseca were the privileged. They must not get any clemency in their transgressions. I'm happy to see there's at least some fallout from all of this. I expected less.

<comment><USER8> 100% - except what's extremely frustrating is the [willful] ignorance of the press in reporting on the issue. There are some people in these documents that should be named shamed (and probabaly prosecuted) but most of the "celebrity" clients seem to be undertaking perfectly legal/normal tax planning activities.

E.g. just about every U.S. university invests their endowments through offshore vehicles, and are not doing anything remotely seedy

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> Privacy should be considered a right. Just because someone wants privacy doesn't make them guilty of money laundering.

When there is a reasonable expectation of foul play, subpoenas are the appropriate route.

A lot of damage can be done by exposing people's financials. They become targets to predatory litigation and other forms of crime.

<comment><USER15> Privacy is a right. Hiding behind corporations is not a right, otherwise the implication is the right deserve more rights than the rest of us.

Anything that enables tax evasion, subversive campaign influence, or otherwise inhibiting the general public's fundamental rights should be banned.

<comment><USER16> > Anything that enables tax evasion .... should be banned

Do you know the difference between evasion and avoidance?

Tax evasion already is illegal. Paying your car mechanic in cash and it not going through the books is evasion and is illegal.

Tax avoidance is not. When you used to buy the under £15 DVDs from Jersey you were avoiding paying the VAT you should have been but was perfectly legal.</comment></comment></comment>


Airbnb Guerilla Usability Test - <AUTHOR> https://medium.com/@RaghavHaran/airbnb-guerilla-usability-testing-548b4676d06c

<comment><AUTHOR> I ran a guerilla usability test on Airbnb's web rental booking process, uncovered some pain points, and provided design suggestions.</comment>