eelliott

Hey thanks so much for sharing this link

Thanks for the reply broken hippo

Good on you, I lived in the Netherlands for 6 months but didn't have the insight yet to engage in such activities.

I'd love to know what drugs you tried, and your fav Kanye songs. I like his old stuff more, even the early mixtape stuff before college dropout, when he was a bit raw and battling his ego openly.

Hey mbrock,

Thanks for your great reply. I think I might read about Van Gogh and try to understand him now. I saw some of his paintings at the MET, my girlfriend was blown away but I was pretty meh at the time. Perhaps I can understand more from his words

I'm not sure if it's my 'interest' but the art that seems to interest me most is that with some kind of stated science/anatomy/geometry/clean lined architecture

It may surprise you to know countries outside the us have stable corporate laws. I'd hasten to add there's nothing stable about the us right now and I'd be reluctant to incorporate or HQ there

Do you still require foreign start ups to incorporate in Delaware? Doesn't that undercut boosting the local economy argument

I think you don't understand my comment. I am saying that the people doing what you describe have similarities with Trump.

That's arguable. Do you mean the right to free speech as found in the US Constitution doesn't extend to the corporate sector? That's true, SCOTUS agrees thus far.

Does some right to free speech not sourced in law, but perhaps morality or elsewhere, or even rooted in democracy, extend anywhere? I think that's well arguable.

I've noticed some people on Twitter, including Susan Fowler and Kara Swisher, saying free speech is only a protection against government intrusion and doesn't apply in the corporate sector. That seems to be mirrored in this article.

The only thing I'd say is that those people should think carefully. Denouncing and shrinking rights such as free speech and normalising their role as negative rights when it is convenient to do so will work against their agenda, and is in common with how people like Trump view other rights

If I was you, I wouldn't want to help the drug companies without getting paid. But I would be interested to see how what you've written could benefit not for profit researchers?

I don't know much about the field, but if I was you I'd probably email Professor Eric Grimson at MIT and see if he has any suggestions how your library could be beneficially shared. He seems pretty nice and into this kind of stuff.

Is it something the drug companies wouldn't already have internally?

Thanks that does seem helpful, it could be improved by explaining the background to each of the 10

Thanks but that doesn't really cut through the noise. It's not really for dummies, it would be nice if there was a good UI site with simple explanations and solutions. I'm sure this will be decried as trying to simplify something which can't/shouldn't be simplified but it seems otherwise web developers largely stay ignorant

Hey cool idea, I've subscribed.

One feedback - when you press Subscribe it opens a new tab to take you through the Mailchimp flow. Considering there's not much value on the landing page, I think it's better to stay in that tab.

It is a bit of a shame that Heroku couldn't come to the table and provide something. I'm currently torn between using them or AWS for a project

Hi Lordrminius,

In respect of the first point, while you say the President doesn't have the "last word", there were for example indications of US Customs officials ignoring court orders presumably on the instruction of the white house during the immigration order debacle.

AussieOdyssey

If you're in Sydney and want to have a chat email me edward at flagshiplegal.com.au.

Peter Thiel is also a YC Partner

Drop me a line eddie (at) technicality.io

This approach doesn't acknowledge that law is a dynamically typed language, to continue your analogy. It responds to societal concerns and emotional and frequently irrational reasoning. There's a saying bad cases make bad law and I think this isn't going to change any time soon.

I agree entirely however law is like all professions where access to information is only half the equation, its application and interpretation is derived from extensive training and experience. So I'd argue that until we nail 'Google for the law', access to free lawyers at least for the poor etc is more important than access to the legal databases

As a lawyer I've thought a lot about this (and if anyone is working on this and wants to talk get in touch). There are two reasons:

1. Reasoning in law relies on complex language semantics, both in statute and case law. Take for example a court decision that says "in the circumstances of this case I do not agree that John v Doe applies". That can be expressed a million ways and I'm not sure our natural language processing can replace humans yet in this area.

2. There is a lot of copyright problems that need to be overcome. Companies like Lexis and Westlaw own the rights to a lot of decisions and even statutes and can paywall the . This is slowly changing however, for example in the UK recently the courts took back the rights to publish decisions.