Mother, mother, mother - there's too many of you crying.

[Hank Chinaski]

This President stuff is all fun and games, until he starts talking about shutting down the government and your income is tied to working with a Federal Agency.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uber's core competency appears to be ignoring the law.

Amazing stuff, not the least of which is the judge telling the chair of MoFo's litigation department that he can't trust anything the MoFo guys says any more because everything he says has proved to be untrue. I hope that whoever makes the movie does a good job, because they have so much material to work with.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

Uber's core competency appears to be ignoring the law.

Given that their very existence is premised upon ignoring the law, I am Not Surprised.

*Except that the law does’t seem to have won. At least not yet.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Amazing stuff, not the least of which is the judge telling the chair of MoFo's litigation department that he can't trust anything the MoFo guys says any more because everything he says has proved to be untrue. I hope that whoever makes the movie does a good job, because they have so much material to work with.

Shades of Qualcomm/Broadcom, only everyone is already hip to what Qualcomm was doing.

[Not Bob]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Given that their very existence is premised upon ignoring the law, I am Not Surprised.

*Except that the law does’t seem to have won. At least not yet.

Or, as Matt Levine put it this morning:

In regulatory arbitrage, you follow the rules, but in creative ways, pushing them to the limit in order to achieve your aims. In regulatory entrepreneurship, you just break the rules and then sneeringly tell the rulemakers to keep up.

And yet it seems to me that people get more upset about regulatory arbitrage (offshore tax planning, for example) than they do about regulatory entrepreneurship (Amazon building its business in part by ignoring sales taxes).

There’s a long tradition of this in the US, of course. The Boston Brahmins building their shipping businesses by importing African slaves after it was illegal, for example.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

Or, as Matt Levine put it this morning:



And yet it seems to me that people get more upset about regulatory arbitrage (offshore tax planning, for example) than they do about regulatory entrepreneurship (Amazon building its business in part by ignoring sales taxes).

Outlaws are the majority of our heroes. The main line running through every notion of Americanism has traditionally been an individual's desire to live on his own terms. This runs deeply contrary to the regulatory state.

I'll admit -- I like seeing exactly this sort of disruption. I think it's innovation and ingenuity at work. Laws and regulations in this arena are business risks. If one can subvert them and still thrive, god bless the risk taker.

But on the other hand, I like regulation when I'm sitting in an airplane, or driving across a bridge. So while I might find Uber romantically heroic, I would not be enamored with a bridge contractor or airline cutting corners or evading laws.

It's a case by case thing.

ETA: He who uses email for anything sensitive takes a wolf by the ears. Why people put anything dicey in print, when a forgettable conversation may be had, is beyond baffling. That iPhone? It still has "phone" in it for a reason. That hallway? It's there for you to walk down, so you can go into a colleague's office and have a conversation about whatever sensitive thing it is you need to discuss. And why are the worst email offenders always in HR? You'd think it's 101 for that career, "Put nothing but that which serves you in writing, anywhere, ever."

[Adder]

Originally Posted by sebastian_dangerfield

Outlaws are the majority of our heroes. The main line running through every notion of Americanism has traditionally been an individual's desire to live on his own terms. This runs deeply contrary to the regulatory state.

I'll admit -- I like seeing exactly this sort of disruption. I think it's innovation and ingenuity at work. Laws and regulations in this arena are business risks. If one can subvert them and still thrive, god bless the risk taker.

But on the other hand, I like regulation when I'm sitting in an airplane, or driving across a bridge. So while I might find Uber romantically heroic, I would not be enamored with a bridge contractor or airline cutting corners or evading laws.

It's a case by case thing.

The regs that protect the taxi industry from competition are of questionable value. The regs that keep airlines and bridges safe aren't. Maybe.

But part of the former is definitely that we, as a society, have become totally accepting of the 30K deaths caused by cars annually. If we actually appreciated and cared about hazards cars represent, maybe we'd take those taxi regs more seriously. But that would also require taking more responsibility ourselves as drivers, and who wants that?

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Not Bob

And yet it seems to me that people get more upset about regulatory arbitrage (offshore tax planning, for example) than they do about regulatory entrepreneurship (Amazon building its business in part by ignoring sales taxes).

I think that both overstates what Amazon was doing -- it shouldn't be surprising that the Commerce Clause took a while to catch up to internet commerce, since the same was true for interstate trucking and railroads in their day -- and understates what Uber has been doing, which is systematically flouting the law. Hey -- Google built a business on disregarding other companies' copyrights, so why not?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

Amazing stuff, not the least of which is the judge telling the chair of MoFo's litigation department that he can't trust anything the MoFo guys says any more because everything he says has proved to be untrue. I hope that whoever makes the movie does a good job, because they have so much material to work with.

Well, now at least we know why the women need to be so strong.

And I'm starting to doubt the stuff about the men being good looking.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

Well, now at least we know why the women need to be so strong.

And I'm starting to doubt the stuff about the men being good looking.

I am proud to say I had no idea what you were referring to with the strong women and good looking men comments, until I searched Google. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have a visceral dislike for him and his show. But I find this intriguing:

In a statement he provided to The New York Times, Mr. Keillor, 75, said, “I’ve been fired over a story that I think is more interesting and more complicated than the version M.P.R. heard. Most stories are.”

Don't leave us hangin', Mr. Keillor, spin us a yarn or two. We don't mind complicated, so long as you talk real slow and don't use them big words when smaller words would do just as well.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

I am proud to say I had no idea what you were referring to with the strong women and good looking men comments, until I searched Google. Perhaps unsurprisingly, I have a visceral dislike for him and his show. But I find this intriguing:



Don't leave us hangin', Mr. Keillor, spin us a yarn or two. We don't mind complicated, so long as you talk real slow and don't use them big words when smaller words would do just as well.

I have been listening to that show off and on for many decades. I have mixed feelings about Keillor, who got weirder lately, but Chris Thile had taken the show over and made it better, still with a bit of continuity. So I'm sad that MPR has decided to sever all business ties with Keillor.

[Pretty Little Flower]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have been listening to that show off and on for many decades. I have mixed feelings about Keillor, who got weirder lately, but Chris Thile had taken the show over and made it better, still with a bit of continuity. So I'm sad that MPR has decided to sever all business ties with Keillor.

In fairness, because of my visceral dislike of Keillor and his voice, I never gave the show a chance. I understand that Keillor had stepped away, and am genuinely intrigued to hear his side of the story, although it seems implausible to me that MPR fired him and took the additional steps simply because, as he is apparently stating, he touched the bare back of a woman in an act of condolence.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally Posted by Tyrone Slothrop

I have been listening to that show off and on for many decades. I have mixed feelings about Keillor, who got weirder lately, but Chris Thile had taken the show over and made it better, still with a bit of continuity. So I'm sad that MPR has decided to sever all business ties with Keillor.

I am thankful to Keillor and to Frances McDormand for giving me a good sense of what Minnesota is like.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Originally Posted by Pretty Little Flower

In fairness, because of my visceral dislike of Keillor and his voice, I never gave the show a chance. I understand that Keillor had stepped away, and am genuinely intrigued to hear his side of the story, although it seems implausible to me that MPR fired him and took the additional steps simply because, as he is apparently stating, he touched the bare back of a woman in an act of condolence.

That show was a significant part of many Saturday evenings when I was a teenager, and since. Keillor has some genius to him, but lately (last however many years) much of what he said seemed off. His monologues during the show just got weird, and when he left it, it wasn't too soon. It's much more of a musician's show now, really fun to listen to.

Originally Posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy

I am thankful to Keillor and to Frances McDormand for giving me a good sense of what Minnesota is like.

Don't forget Bilmore and Prince.

[Tyrone Slothrop]

Is anyone following the Kate Steinle trial? I don't understood how the prosecution can say with a straight face that there was intent to shoot at her, given that the gun was pointing away from her and the bullet took such a ricochet.