husein10

Here is the correct link: https://whatishappening.org/p/paul-buchheit/

Does HN process the link in some way that causes it to change? The site generates these archive pages for various people and for some reason the updated HN link is directed to a template that the site uses to generate the archive page.

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.

Check out Glow. It's one of Max Levchin's recent projects. Not exactly what you've described, but a very interesting idea in this space.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Thanks for the input.

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.