digz

Adjust those for cost of living and the US would be even more competitive.

Also possible that this could be related to his sale of Ars Technica. Massachusetts imposes its own capital gains tax, and he may have been liable for a significant portion of that, especially given that it sounds like it was MA domiciled. Or maybe not, but there's lots of ways that he could be legitimately liable for MA taxes while living in a different state.

Sounds to me like his beef could be with the Chicago CPA. CPAs are not created equal, and even the big 4 accounting firms make serious mistakes when things get complicated - has happened to me. Usually, when that happens, the CPA is responsible for fixing the problem (paying late fees, filings, etc.), but you're still liable for the underlying tax burden that they may have missed.

In any case, would be nice to know what the resolution was!

Now google will index searches of its own searches.

For what it's worth, I have a pilot's license and also fly a quadcopter.

A big part of the issue is the separation of powers and who exactly has the right to regulate model aircraft. Congress explicitly and deliberately precluded the FAA from regulating model aircraft. A separate question is whether or not, given their proliferation, the new breed of model aircraft should be regulated. Given existing laws, that's a job for congress to decide.

As an aside: People wanting to do dumb things, will do dumb things. You don't need to create new sweeping regulation to punish people from doing dumb things either. Most cities and states have laws preventing people from deliberately invading others' privacy, or acting recklessly. Many of the concerns levied against drones are either already addressed or are impossible to regulate against. I'm often reminded of a news reporter on 9/11 that was asking the aviation expert on air with her how the planes were able to get into restricted airspace.

Your points are all very valid of course. While utility theory has largely been superseded by prospect theory, like Newtonian physics, it can still be useful for back-of-the-envelop thought.

Furthermore I'll be a devil's advocate however and just make the point that one could rationally defend tobacco use as utility deriving. Just because a (in my view) sane person would see all the horrible effects of tobacco as trumping any positive attributes, someone else may disagree. Depending on one's own discount rate, tobacco use at any point in time in fact be net positive in enriching their life. Even if you argue that some of the positives are created by advertising cigarettes as cool (Joe Camel, etc.), so what? Someone spending $50,000 on a fancy watch is also making the same sort of determination. If the user derives the benefit, regardless of whether it's endogenous or exogenous to the product itself, that isn't obviously inherently bad.

Now, of course, smoking has it's own set of problems because it negatively affects others... but again, it's not so clear that one can't attribute rational decision making to even a smoker.

All that to say, your point is well taken.

Reaching consumers is hard, even if you have the superior product. Facilitating such a transaction should make one proud.

The 'psychological exploits' are a marginal component, but again, why is it inherently bad for someone to feel good about using product x over product y, even if they're exactly the same?

Saying that free markets are best is not the same as saying free markets are perfect.

Why is helping people find products and services that will enrich their lives an inherently bad thing?

Of course. However in the marketplace of ideas, it's important that as a society we don't embrace the trappings of a command&control economy. I am merely reacting to the OPs (albeit extremely benign in this case) view that an individual or group of individuals can decide what is OK for others.

Having studied with the originators of the efficient market hypothesis (Fama), I regret to inform you that what you describe is not a feature of EMH but is rather frequently attributed to it in an attempt to discredit it. There is nothing that rationally follows EMH that leads to Pareto-optimal outcomes in society.

EMH means that well informed markets make sound decisions on the pricing of assets. This means that based on the current information available, markets are excellent at understanding the probability-weighted value of an asset. It doesn't mean that the outcome ends up being right, it means that it's fairly priced based on the information at hand. Nothing guaranteeing Pareto-optimal outcomes from that.

Furthermore, an investor giving 1.2M to a company is not an efficient market under any circumstance.

While I have some sympathy for your point of view (after all the guy is free to say what he wants) I still think the argument is facile. A few thoughts:

- As others have pointed out, talent is not fungible. Just because you can program Yo, doesn't mean to can solve other issues. - If everyone is so convinced that Yo is such a dumb idea, do you really want the founder who's "capable" of doing something so stupid working on serious issues?

- What is worthwhile? If you view Yo as art (in the modern sense) it's pretty effective! Seems to have made the entire tech community collectively think. That's a hard thing to do. We don't mock the choices made by Banksy (who on the surface is a vandal)... Perhaps Yo will be a godsend to folks with severe disabilities, allowing them to simply communicate with others nearby easily and effectively. Or perhaps it's just fun. Why is that bad?

- Or maybe the whole thing fails and that's OK. Far more 'worthwhile' companies have failed.

Also, I'd venture a guess that if you sum up the total cost that has gone into Facebook's Poke feature (development, maintenance, deciding whether or not to turn it off), it would dramatically eclipse the 1.2M that everyone is so up in arms about. No one is losing their marbles over that stuff.

Look, I agree it's a ridiculous app.. but if people use it and derive value from it, good! Utility created!

>> And, by the way, who appointed Christoph McCann arbiter of what it good and valuable in this world?

This is such an important point, and why free markets work best. If people derive value out of Yo, then terrific. If they don't, it goes away. Don't need a moral crusader to decide what is worthy.