Doubly incorrect. There is no power by which the executive can "ban" any state action. Is not a thing. But that isn't what the piece says. The EO would set up a "task force" to sue states that did X or Y. That is something that happens, and when the theories are at the level of quality this admin produces, those suits fail.
You seem to be overlooking the commerce clause and Wickard v Filburn letting the Feds control the states however they like (so long as there is a butterfly effect argument about interstate commerce impact, which here there easily is).
Given the pervasiveness of bribery across this admin, this smells like just eliminating the obstacles to a more direct and corrupt patronage and kickback system. Steve Blank might be wishing it will be LEAN when in reality it will be GREEN.
Communication precision has been enriched and deepened, not generalized. Social media has not in any way collapsed. AI hallucination is not a semantics issue.
Communication is arbitrary to begin with. It can't be made more specific using more words in more combinations, that's basic linguistic science. Tech can't solve this.
'Social' media is not social, it's disengaged from the basics of socialization: eye-contact, listening, gestural observation of non-verbal communication.
AI hallucinations are of course about discrepancy between semantic and prediction.
The idea tech has no grasp of maladaptive cultural evolution and game theory outcomes is telling.
Evolution has two aspects: tinkering and function. And the problem in tech is these aspects are in confusion because value is always being extracted in short terms when in genetics, fitness is a long term issue that can rarely be seen short term.
Downvoting the maladaptive urge doesn’t make it disappear.
I would look at it like this, as 2 entities. There was an entity that developed this IP, this algorithm. You own 100% of that entity and the IP. If you go in with this guy, there is a new entity. You two need to do slicing pie with the new entity- arrogant smart people have a way of not putting in the work, so you need a mechanism that will accumulate equity by effort. Probably your hours are equally weighted in that accumulation. And then you need to value the contribution of the algorithm/IP to the new entity. There are ways of valuing that contribution. It could be valued as equity, or it could be a license (so there is an income agreement). If equity, maybe it is 50% of the new entity, maybe it is 25%, maybe it is 75%. It really depends on a rational valuation of that algorithm in the context of the competitive space. My honest opinion, I use parking apps, your particular innovation (no disrespect, it is an achievement, for sure) is not a game changer to me, so I would put it at 25%, but I don't know really how to structure the value of the space. But you should have an analytical opinion (not based on your hours you put in, based on how the algorithm changes the dynamics) about the importance of the algorithm to the proposition the new business has, relative to the work the two of you would do together, which should use an accumulation mechanism for allocation.
I read the Omelas story differently but maybe is the same. It's just a predatory dominance play. Some people get the dopamine hit from dominance, so for them it is a double win- their stuff is funded by others and it is the "weakness" of others (perceived by the dominant) that produces the funding. Having and eating the cake, etc.
For one, alcohol tax is applied at point of sale, so there is a friction on consumption. Gambling taxes are applied as though gambling is an investment activity and losses can even be justified. Second, most recent studies that look at the question classify gambling as more dangerous and addictive. There is much more of a path from gambling to suicide.
>alcohol tax is applied at point of sale, so there is a friction on consumption. Gambling taxes are applied as though gambling is an investment activity and losses can even be justified.
Not sure what this means. Why can't gambling taxes just be applied at point of sale to create friction?
