HN user
I love how the entire internet thinks that this is a big deal when all that happened is that USDOJ re-posted some poorly-redacted court documents that were poorly redacted by non-USDOJ attorneys more than three years ago.
Yes, USDOJ is incompetent and dysfunctional, but this is not why. But sure, whatever, carry on...
That's because the securities losses took place from 2018-2020. But there are plenty of allegations regarding more recent years such as FSD deferred revenue, DMV enforcement actions, AR/AP, tax evasion, silencing critics, etc.
Time to start deleting my posts!
I've been getting an enormous amount of right-wing political spam lately (which continues today). I made a video about tracing its origin. I wonder if your text messages are in any way related. Monument & Cathedral seems to be pursuing multi-modal communications, so it wouldn't surprise me if they have an active SMS campaign.
Lawsuit docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/5ctu7zkg5/superior-court-o...
Lawsuit docket: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/5ctu7zkg5/superior-court-o...
Kind of the opposite, unless you're referring to OpenAI?
Sovereign citizens claim to be independent of the laws of the United States.
This is a dispute about a company failing to comply with a specific law of the United States.
Anyone has a right to make a request of this type in person. Under the First Amendment and 26 U.S.C. § 6104(d)(1)(B), that means you have a right to stay as long as necessary to make the request for public records.
The only ones yelling were OpenAI employees and the company's security contractor(s).
You have it backwards. You have to be able to make the request at the offices in the first place. This is about OpenAI attempting to prevent an in-person request from being made, in violation of the law. No one was "invading" anything.
Other prominent non-profits do not seem to have this problem.
Ironically, we don't know what the penalty for non-compliance is because we don't know the non-profit's gross receipts are for its most recent complete tax year. If they are over $1 million, which is plausible, the daily penalty is $100/day not to exceed $50,000. See 2022 Form 990 Instructions, page 81. Not that this really matters.
The crux of our disagreement is whether they have the right to refuse entry. They can [unlawfully] deny a request I suppose and just choose penalties over compliance, but when it comes to denying the ability to lodge a request in person with the associated "immediate" timeline, there are First Amendment interests at stake and I think the federal constitution, if not federal preemption, wins.
In this specific instance, it wasn't clear to me what, if anything, the security guard had done or intended to do with my name and ID information (which is not needed to file a request for tax forms). So I didn't feel as though a specific request had even been filed. He wouldn't provide his name, he wouldn't allow me to speak to anyone with any knowledge of the issue, and I had nothing in writing. From my perspective, OpenAI prevented a request from being filed after its accountants said that they had the documents but that the non-profit's offices were the proper place to lodge a request.
On top of all of that, the 2022 IRS Form 990 instructions (page 79) refer to "the room" and the requirement that the member of the public "must" be allowed to "take notes freely." Outside on the sidewalk is not a room where you can take notes.
Brief descriptions added. Thanks for the feedback.
Happy to look at any legal citations to caselaw you have. But generally there's a difference between "stay[ing]" a prolonged period of time and being able to even get in the door to make the request in the first place, which is explicitly allowed by federal law. And the documents were available.
Accounting firm acknowledged it could send the documents by e-mail but refused on the phone, said to go to the company's office.
Company wouldn't let me in the office, blamed Thanksgiving, and lied about the office being closed when it obviously was not.
We're talking about sending an e-mail with a PDF in the middle of a business day when employees were clearly at work in the office. That's it. E-mail can be sent from anywhere in the world. And the accounting firm was willing and able to send it, just not willing to comply with the law because its client said not to.
This isn't quite right. Federal law requires that citizens be allowed to make requests in person. Trespassing is a state statute in each state. In general, federal law supersedes state law. Asking to see a non-profit's public records in person is not trespassing because it's expressly authorized by law.
I'm sure it's filed. They just refused to disclose it as required by law.
This has nothing to do with Summers being an economist and everything to do with the fact that he used to run the parent agency of the IRS. Summers is the least sensible board pick imaginable unless one takes this fact and the coming regulatory catastrophe into account.
The six-month delay is probably due to an automatic extension if you get an extension from the IRS, and also, you can file the form electronically, in which case mail delays are not a problem. But neither of those issues is the point. The point is that the form needed to be filed at all, and representations needed to be made accordingly.
OpenAI handled their audit years ago and hasn't had another one since according to their filings. So that does not seem like it would have been an issue this year.
Take a look at the top of the RRF-1 for the instructions on when it's due. Also, the CA AG's website says that OpenAI's was due on May 15th. They just have been filing six months later each year.
This does not solve the company's California AG problem.
It sounds like Sam wanted to turn OpenAI into Apple with an app store and revenue sharing and hardware designed by Jony Ive—except in about one year instead of the ~30 it took Steve Jobs. This alone could land the company in hot water with the California Attorney General given the non-profit charter. If a single dollar was invested in making any of that a reality, that would count as a misuse of non-profit funds and lead to serious problems when it came time to file Form RRF-1, scheduled to be filed yesterday, the day he was fired. Everything else is sort of besides the point.
Because it's the reason he got fired.
That is not the same Omar Qazi.
The Omar Qazi who runs @WholeMarsBlog is not a convicted felon, but he has been arrested twice.
I run PlainSite (https://www.plainsite.org), which aims to make the United States legal system more transparent. If you have any interest in exposing corruption or just making courts, judges, lawyers, lobbyists, etc. more understandable to average citizens, feel free to get in touch! At the moment, Elasticsearch and/or database optimization experts and iOS/Android developers would be super helpful.
You're incorrect on all three counts.
I never claimed he copied code line by line, and that issue was never litigated. I never even sued Mark. So I definitely didn't "los[e] that one in court."
Anti-trust scholars and Congress agree that Facebook has a monopoly and has engaged in monopolistic behavior. See https://judiciary.house.gov/online-platforms-and-market-powe.... It's an open question as to whether the FTC will sue on these grounds.
You don't provide any justification at all for your assertion regarding a lack of Ponzi-type behavior, so I'll just note that I disagree.
I've said it before and I'll say it again: I made Mark aware of this general type of problem in April 2005. In writing. With a warning about violating the FTC Act. Learning about Cambridge Analytica ten years later would have been at least the second time he heard about a friend-of-friend data breach. https://www.plainsite.org/documents/amjxp/facebook-origins-t...
The actual lawsuit: https://www.plainsite.org/dockets/40v40ia2y/supreme-court-of...
My thoughts on Chris and his big idea, below. At least he's giving them names. But how many lies and utopian promises did he spin to the press during his time there?
http://www.aarongreenspan.com/writing/20190509/my-response-t...
Hey!
Not creating fake accounts. Allowing them.
Imagine you're Coca-Cola. You have an on-line ad budget for this quarter. Where should you spend it? Probably the places that have the most reach: Google and Facebook. Do you know how many cans of Coke or other drink brands you will sell based on these ads this quarter? No. Is there any way for you to figure it out? No. All you know are the numbers Facebook tells you. And those numbers look pretty good. This is how "sophisticated" ad buyers work.
It's actually far easier for a tiny business to measure the conversation rate between clicks and actual purchases. Big ad buyers throw stuff at the wall to see what sticks, and they rarely bother truly measuring because that's often impossible.
The entire ad industry is based on fuzzy metrics. Within that fuzz is an awful lot of room for fraud.
If Facebook tells you that you got 1000 impressions, 100 clicks and 50 likes, how are you going to prove them wrong?