Your statement is technically correct (and mirrors my initial feelings) but the comment below that notes that we accept many other abstractions seems more “meaningful” in the larger scheme of things.
For instance, a software engineer who also understands how to design microprocessors would indeed in my own evaluation be a “better engineer” than me (someone who does not). Yet, I wonder if they would be meaningfully more productive than a good software engineer who “just” understands how microprocessors work..
The current administration's actions are for sure signaling a distinct lack of predictability or stability.
The U.S. is either harming itself erratically, or systematically enforcing control on US based businesses in a way that is historically more synonymous with, say, China.
A lot of us worry it is the former. I wonder if it's better or worse if it is the latter. The US, having seen that Europe and the world seem to tolerate interference by CPC based on opinions expressed by Alibaba or Chinese car companies, may have decided that it's fair game.
It seems to be observably true that expressing opinions critical of the administration, even about one's own business, leads to further harm from government right now in the U.S. in a country which is supposed to have strong freedom of speech rights.
It's obviously unfortunate that this is the case.
It's also a shame that this is happening when the folks regulating AI have a tech industry background.
The administration seems to be clearly signaling "stop resisting". I am not sure how you read me as saying that.
Unfortunately saying it in the press is going to make it even harder for them in the current environment. I know this administration gets non-trivial support from the valley, but what to most outsiders seems like "targeting businesses based on personal vibes" is going to do long-term harm to the U.S.
I hope those who represent technology in government, especially the AI head David Sacks are giving this due consideration.
Buying state owned enterprises and running them more efficiently to double their valuation (or more) has been a reliably profitable business in many countries. This suggests to me that government bureaucracy, lack of accountability etc. could result in “at cost” trending to $100 or more if government buys private companies, or starting close to $100 if government starts a new one.
My favorite part of the paper is that the “attack” isn’t just exploiting a bug — it’s exploiting how different components interpret the same input. Modifying an executable as it’s loaded into memory is one example, but the deeper pattern is the mismatch.
What’s interesting about the malware in this post is that it goes one step further: instead of exploiting mismatches, it corrupts the computation itself — so every infected system agrees on the same wrong answer!
More broadly: any interpretive mismatch between components creates a failure surface. Sometimes it shows up as a bug, sometimes as an exploit primitive, sometimes as a testing blind spot. You see it everywhere — this paper, IDS vs OS, proxies vs backends, test vs prod, and now LLMs vs “guardrails.”
Fun HN moment for me: as I was about to post this, I noticed a reply from @tptacek himself. His 1998 paper with Newsham (IDS vs OS mismatches) was my first exposure to this idea — and in hindsight it nudged me toward infosec, the Atlanta scene, spam filtering (PG's bayesian stuff) and eventually YC.
The paper starts with this Einstein quote "Not everything that is counted counts and not everything that counts can be counted", which seems quite apt for the malware analyzed here :)
If, at the moment of formation, the company has a binding agreement with Elon Musk (the founder) requiring their services for a fixed time allocation and at a fixed rate of remuneratin, then yes that contract has value and therefore the company has value. The value will depend on the remuneration to Mr. Musk vs the perceived value of his services. Even so, it would be as one of a small % of outliers with high-value founders amongst the millions of companies incorporated every year. Was Peter Thiel as valued when he started paypal as he is now? No.
More importantly, acknowleding that very few companies may have value at inception due to the value (and commitment) of their founders' time doesn't make it any easier to systematically value that time. To legally enforce this, you would have to have valuation and audit service providers who do this - creating a bureaucratic hurde that every founder - famous or not has to go through - just to start a company.
It is my opinion that the cost of doing this - in reducing or slowing down the number of companies started and the lost taxes as a result - would significanty outweigh any gain in taxes from taxing the notional value of Elon Musks's presence as part of his own company.
All laws that apply to humans, particular compliance related laws, have significant second order effects. The second order effect of taxing the popularity of folks when they start a company is that thousands of less rich, less popular, less privileged, and less confident first time founders will face an additional hurdle when starting a business and they may never start one, never get rich through one. Ultimately, inequality would likely increase and rich established founders like Elon Musk and Peter Thiel would likely be more entrenched and benefit more from this, not less.
All shares issued at founding have a near-zero cost because, while you technically need to buy the shares, the company (by definition) is worth $0 on the day you start it.
There is no tax gimmick involved in that part. If you require entrepreneurs to buy shares of their own company for large sums of money on the day they start the company, it would dissuade many entrepreneurs. On the day I incorporated my company in Delaware, my debt exceeded my assets and the startup was going to be my only profession.