PB, can you elaborate on which other possible answers you've found for fast, easy, and abundant tests?
I'm working with a team that has a test that detects proteins associated with covid. It works like a pregnancy test and does not need a special scanner. Would love to discuss further.
I'd love to hear more! Part of the reason I put this out is to encourage other people with technology for fast, easy, cheap testing come forward.
Is your protein test able to detect as soon as people become contagious? That's where a lot of ideas fail, but I think getting R0 < 1 likely requires it.
On one hand I want to cheer since this is an example of David winning a small scuffle against Goliath.
But on the other hand, the legal tools being employed by David in this case are the same tools that Goliath uses to limit speech on the web today.
Let's not forget that the copyright system is an anachronism that needs to be dismantled/rebuilt to suit the modern world. Just because the result in this case leaves you satisfied doesn't mean that the system in its current form is unacceptable.
What is wrong with the system, and how should it be fixed? The main problem I see (other than the numbers of people breaking it) are copyright lengths.
I think it's absurd that these negotiations were shrouded in such secrecy in the first place. These rules, if implemented, will have a massive impact on how the global economy will work. Yet, the public, who will end up living under the yoke of these rules, not only has very little direct input into the process but didn't (until today) even have a clear view of what rules were being considered.
I don't see how one can have a modern democracy if rules are made in what was (before the leak) a black box.
Hopefully this will lead to more transparency for these types of negotiations in the future. Leaking/spreading this leaked information should help show those with political power that this type of closed door process is not going to be palatable to a connected and informed public.
These types of international agreements tend to stick around for a long time once they are implemented. So, expending energy on the front end to get a more balanced agreement that works for everyone impacted, not just those with an invitation to sit at the table, will save a lot of trouble later on.
It's interesting how your framing of the strategy by the use of the weasel metaphor seems to result in the conclusion that this is somehow inappropriate. I wonder if you would reach the same conclusion if you framed it as simply a smart way of legally reducing your tax burden by using a deep understanding of the tax code, which itself is a product of the same government that you're paying your taxes to.
That's why we draw a distinction between following the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. Or, as the dude put it, "you're not wrong Walter, you're just an asshole."
Let's not forget that US corporations are also obligated to maximize shareholder value. Reconciling these oftentimes conflicting edicts is hardly a trivial matter and this illustrates how black and white simplifications do not capture the underlying complexity of the issue.
Don't necessarily disagree with you about the usefulness (or lack thereof) of this idea. Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dodge_v._Ford_Motor_Company for an illustration. But, however you want to characterize the idea, it is still an unavoidable constraint on US corporations. I only bring it up to illustrate the doctrinal ambiguity that is seen in almost every part of the law.
I take your point. But what may seem ambiguous to a corporation is not at all ambiguous to most citizens – myself included – who tend to see such tax structures as an underhanded way to game the system.
To frame it in more pragmatic terms, deploying these tax structures may hurt a company more than it helps due to the opprobrium they attract. Of course it's difficult to quantify the effects of bad press. But not all decisions should boil down to a cost-benefit analysis – what's wrong is wrong.
Re: Price - This was just a quick and dirty attempt to gauge interest before investing a ton of time figuring out exactly how much it would cost. Didn't see much of a point in figuring out the exact cost if nobody expressed any interest. I suspect that many HN readers understand that setting up this type of structure is likely a plus expected value play (assuming you have sufficient income to protect) given the fact that many major companies (apple, google, fb, twitter) have successfully implemented the Double Irish Arrangement.
Also, I'll shoot you an email about this later today. Interested in hearing more of your thoughts on this matter.
Price is always relevant. I heard Nolan Bushnell talk at a VC lunch 20 years ago and he said (approximately) that all marketing research is bullshit until you say "What's your VISA card number?" This was the mid-90s and he was espousing lean startup philosophy then. But I digress.
The idea ("international tax structures in a box") can only be intelligently pitched as a money question.
E.g., "Your income tax liability this year is $2,000,000. You can postpone payment and use that money as working capital for one year, and you pay zero interest on that working capital "loan" from the IRS. At your gross profit margin of 40%, at the end of the year you will have $800,000 in profit that you would not have otherwise achieved. What's that worth to you, Dear CFO?"
Take what the CFO would pay for that result. This is the value you have delivered to the customer. Now you assign a price to that. Tell the CFO you will deliver a black box of magic that delivers $800,000 of pre-tax profit in exchange for $X.
This is how a CFO should look at these complex structures. And this, by the way, is how you do value pricing.
nikcub raises an important issue - one must consider the contract between the end customer and the service provider. The analysis doesn't end here though.
There is a lot of additional complexity -- not only are there other contracts in play (e.g. contract between Megaupload and Carpathia and any other contract between Goodwin and any other 3rd party impacting the data), but also the issue of whether and how the court will enforce those agreement.
The government's ability to access the data changes depending on how these agreements are interpreted/enforced.
If you want to get really pedantic, there is also the question of whether the court is appropriately exercising jurisdiction and therefore has the authority to make and enforce such a ruling.
It's important to see that there isn't just one legal perspective. The law tends to be incredibly malleable, so in many areas (especially newly developing areas of law) you'll see actors espousing theories based on what they want you to see. Think of it like a Rubin vase (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubin_vase).
Here, it's not surprising that the government wants to take a position that gives them greater power to snoop around in files you store in the cloud.
It's perfectly reasonable to look at your data in the cloud like a safety deposit box. But alas, government tends to follow a path that gives them greater control and not less. This is just another instance of that tendency.
Sounds like you're describing a byzantine system that, among other things, (i) obligates citizens of a democracy to obey its rules without providing free access to the rules themselves and (ii) allows special interests to capture disproportionately large benefits under the veil of complexity.
Looks like the site has a metadata issue to fix.