Zero Knowledge

Knowing Nothing is as much a science as an art. Give me a ZK proof of that. Bitcoin Zero Knowledge Cryptocurrency Znarks

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@pmarca

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@Jason More important IMHO then the total revenue is what percentage of gross revenue it represented. Obviously if it was single digits as a percentage it would concern me to the same level if the % was 85% of revenue.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@Jason @Timcast @bennyjohnson @RubinReport Curious as to what percentage of their sponsorship revenue these deals represented. If it was <10% it has a different smell than if it represented 80%

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

JDVance claims he use to date plus size models #couchLover

[Science girl @sciencegirl]

The size of this sofa

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@elonmusk It’s also about creating enough distrust that people no longer trust anything, becoming apathetic or cynical. I’m genuinely curious @elonmusk - how do you think your purchase of X is fighting this equally pernicious problem?

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@starkweatherdg @AustinNxPodcast @NikDavidYaron @Jason @KamalaHarris But it hasn’t. The law’s been in place since 1980 leading to more public, private partnerships using federally funded R&D. Where there are abuses there is a mechanism for redress. She’s just calling for using that mechanism where abuses are occuring.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris Perhaps I should say never. NIH has never supported using the provision of the license agreement for pricing alone.

Do you think it’s bad to use an agreement voluntarily signed by 2 parties to pressure pharma companies to reduce prices. When taxpayers own part of that IP?

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@twobitidiot Voluntary license agreements for access to taxpayer owned and funded research comes with obligations. This law defines those (and opened government funded IP to private commercializing )

For someone into property rights this is a bad take for you.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@twobitidiot Come on Ryan, do better. If your candidate is worthy you shouldn’t need to rely on lies. Listening to whole quote and simple search show this is already the law.

https://t.co/O1ompocclD

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@Jason @KamalaHarris Key phrase she said if we are factual is “if the drug came about from federal funding”.

The Bayh-Dole Act of 1980 governs drugs co-developed with federal funding and includes the provisions she alludes too,

This is being used out of context to paint her as a socialist.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@DavidSacks Sacks: Checks old cached version of https://t.co/8XDPsIndOg only to discover they’ve been related this whole time and were waiting for this chance to rediscover their familial roots.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris Ownership rights. Voluntary license agreements. Judicial reprieve in case of disputes. Enforcement of said agreements through predefined mechanisms.

Where is the communism? How about just government getting its share of profit and outcomes when it funds research.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris Have you read the law?
March-in-rights provide for that option.

It’s rarely used & once again only when IP owned by taxpayers is being abused by a licensee (3rd party) in a way that courts agree harm the public.

In violation of their license agreements.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris If that’s the case, it wouldn’t apply& is a nothing burger.

If it does apply because a patent is in use (lots of ways to abuse patent laws to profit illegally) & the company VOLUNTARILY took federal funding she’s defending citizens & taxpayers to reduce medication costs.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@AustinNxPodcast @NikDavidYaron @Jason @KamalaHarris But it does. She specifically mentions “if federal funding was involved” which is already the law. It protects taxpayers from funding drugs that private companies then profit illegally from. It’s called the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.

Context matters.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris What’s communist about ensuring taxpayer funded joint partnerships with private companies benefit taxpayers and isn’t abused a corporate social welfare ?

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@AlwaysDeprecate @KaladinFree It actually is part of the Bayh-Doyle Act, although seldom used. Government has the right to license themselves at terms preferable to their needs or intervene on pricing.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@EricAbbenante Don’t know if you’re spreading this lie intentionally. She clearly states “if funding was provided by the federal government”. This is legal and called the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.This law is a good law and requires companies who use tax payers dollars to to abuse consumers.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@BinaryGroku @Jason @KamalaHarris No loophole needed. It’s already legal if the companies took federal funding for drug development which she clearly states, it’s called the Bayh-Dole Act of 1980.

She’s just talking about enforcing a law that’s on the books.

I know crazy for a prosecutor to enforce the law.

[Zero Knowledge @Zero__Knowledge]

@luoxiaxia @Jason @KamalaHarris The ones funded with taxpayer dollars where the co-owners are violating the law and their obligations. She clearly says “where funding was provided by the federal government” . This is already legal and the law makes sense.