domdip

If you look at this as a one-shot game, sure, but it's not. If everyone votes no the buyout would be rejected and the prospective buyers would have to offer a higher price to get it approved.

The tricky thing is that shareholder voters exhibit very weird and irrational behavior (due to proxies, lobbying, the T Rowe Price craziness, etc.), so I'm not sure game theory is terribly useful to begin with here.

This is unreadable.

Did you consider simply skipping estimated payments and paying the interest? It's only 3% above the federal funds rate. (Historical real return on equities is usually computed to be higher.)

Or a hybrid (pay a reasonable amount in estimated taxes but don't put any serious effort into getting it exact).

The stated reason for extending this to phones was so that they could reuse these models for inference purposes. I'm not sure what this post adds to that (the author seems to miss that point).

And most of them have loopholes big enough to drive a truck through. (See payday loans, title loans, hard money loans, merchant cash advance, etc., etc.)

Earmarking is PR, it has little to no effect on actual education budgets (beyond setting an irrelevant floor). Money is fungible and budgets for education are never actually indexed to revenue from a particular tax.

How about opening an incognito window? (No charge.)

There's no hypocrisy there. He's probably had to personally be super-cautious about opening his mouth about things like this.