Agreed. Entrepreneurs always see opportunity in disruption, because you can always rebuild something better. Just don't @ me too hard for pointing out that the disruption is real and will affect the ecosystem (including startups!) as it is today.
It's certainly possible new channels emerge to restore equilibrium, but I don't see Neeva (or whoever) replacing Google as a customer acquisition channel any time soon.
I think people are misconstruing me here. I'm not saying Google advertising is somehow fundamentally necessary to the economy. I'm just saying that it is straight up incorrect to think that there aren't legitimate downsides to removing their ability to police fraud.
Let's say you're a startup trying to advertise on Google, and somebody has paid a bot network to fraudulently click on your ads. Now Google can't detect that those clicks are fraudulent, so you're billed for them.
Your channel efficiency unavoidably goes down, which increases your cost of customer acquisition because your other channels cannot pick up all of the slack.
Increasing the cost of customer acquisition is going to be bad for your business. You will either need to reduce costs (by hiring less, for example), or increase your prices.
There is no mens rea or actual harm involved in legit white hat hacking, including white hat hacking that is incentivized through bug bounties, so this activity is not criminal.
We don't know all of the specifics here, but for the feds to go after it one must assume that there was mens rea for the underlying offense (i.e., the hackers were in fact black hat) and there was actual harm (i.e., the hackers kept the stolen data and either intended to or did in fact use it for criminal purposes).
And in order to go after charges of obstruction and misprision, the DoJ must also believe that Sullivan was clearly aware that this behavior was criminal, and he intentionally sought to cover it up. This isn't much of a stretch because the FTC was probing it, so there was ample opportunity for him to respond incorrectly (and, allegedly, criminally) to FTC's questions during their probe.
You can't design interventions for problems that you cannot see. Detection alone doesn't save lives, but it is a necessary step to the discovery of interventions that do.
tl;dr any unique feature of this virus may be explanatory for its demonstrably increased virulence, and may be targetable by existing therapeutics as well. This particular feature is a candidate finding of this type — the specific molecular biology involved isn't particularly important for non-molecular biologists (I was one in a past life).
Also, part of the purpose of incorporation is to provide a personal liability shield as a catch-all.
Any policy has benefits and drawbacks. Yes, somebody is losing out on beneficial employment with you. But somebody else is being saved from being paid $5/hr under dangerous conditions without workers comp.
Case law is on the side of corporations having no generalized duty to maximize profit on a day-to-day basis, for what it's worth. Corporations can exist for any number of reasons and the fiduciary duty is much more limited than people generally expect.
My wife wrote a law journal article on this but it isn't digitized unfortunately.
Can you elaborate on "capital is readily available from Series B to public markets"?
I am not in this space myself, but I know a few founders who are and the perception is that they face meaningful headwinds from the late stage community due to their age and market preferences for asset-centric startups.
> It basically means they have given up on developing a good branded interface between the driver and the car.
The one piece of feedback I gave Toyota in their post-purchase survey is: please replace the hot mess that is Entune with CarPlay.
They absolutely should give up. You can't compete with an OS and ecosystem into which billions of dollars have been sunk.
I agree, for what it's worth, that analog controls are superior to touch controls while driving. I hate that Toyota replaced an audio dial with a touch up/down control. But the value of CarPlay is just way too high.
There is no such thing as "withdrawing funding" in this context. The Series A is long closed and Bessemer is deeply entwined with the company's governance.
The most severe move they could take would be to enforce whatever contractual mechanisms they have to block additional financing pending an independent investigation and replacement of responsible parties. Or they could directly force the matter if investors hold a majority Board vote.
If I remember correctly frogs were an early model organism for studying fertilization because their eggs are large. Seems reasonable that would extend to early hormone secretion post-fertilization.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retrotransposon
The injection is important, however, as it gets the genetic material past a whole lot of nucleases that cover your epithelia.