* Given that for-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic];
* therefore non-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic].
A defense contractor designing missile guidance qualifies for the Exempt Purpose of "scientific."
A megachurch with a private jet qualifies under its "religious" category.
These do not specifically require altruistic intent. Congress chose to subsidize certain categories of activity (religious, scientific, educational, and so on) because it wanted more of that activity produced, regardless of the motives of the people doing it.
For example, ask your favorite LLM search engine: Can you list non-profits/501(c)(3) that are US defense contractors?
Draper Laboratory and Energetics Technology Center are registered 501(c)(3) corporations. Their primary output is weapons research. RAND Corp, whose name you'd likely recognize, is also a DoD contractor and 501(c)(3).
The NRA Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are also registered as 501(c)(3).
> The NRA Foundation and the Heritage Foundation are also registered as 501(c)(3).
Yeah, organizations like think tanks (Heritage Foundation) are supposed to influence policy/public thought/elite thought. That’s obviously not a for-profit enterprise.
EDIT: My personal feelings about conservative think tanks aside: any and all think tanks are supposed to spread ideas. The altruism is where in that goal? It could be evil, good, neutral. It’s simply a not-for-profit enterprise.
It’s a bit hard to wrap my head around this original idea of altruistic non-profits.
You will see that in your link "charitable" is printed in bold. Yes, other "exempt purposes" are tacked onto that in US law, if that is reasonable I leave up to you.
Given that the NRA counts as a non-profit, not sure there is anything reasonable about giving them tax breaks. But hey, you also voted for Trump. Twice.
Just to be clear, the NRA Foundation and the NRA are distinct entities (the NRA is not a non-profit), even though the Foundation was more or less obviously created to take advantage of tax law. Hilariously, the NRA recently sued the Foundation.
1st, this is unlike CAR-T as there is no extraction, engineering on that extraction, and then reinjection.
2nd, the only injection is intravenous. It uses a kind of virus that has been specifically engineered to cross the blood-brain barrier. That virus has a payload which infects/alters astrocytes already inside the brain, and the astrocytes become aggressive at clearing amyloid plaques.
3rd, I agree that the road to a marketable therapeutic could be a long way off.
@strcat, you've mentioned GrapheneOS will have access to internal code to do hardening below the OS layer. Does this mean Motorola devices will offer stronger security than Pixels, where you're limited by what Google exposes?
Is Motorola contributing engineering resources directly to GrapheneOS, or is the partnership purely about hardware enablement on their side?
No, you probably haven't read the conversation piece. The post is ultimately about switching providers because Google's service crosses a line from (1) targeted advertising to (2) using personal and confidential information for model training.
A service to clean up the UI does nothing to solve the issue at hand.
The dealbreaker was data usage for AI training, not UI:
"We are going to use your email to train our LLMs. I'm not okay with that... my confidential commercial information is NOT okay to use to train your models [...] So... goodbye Gmail."
I wouldn't apply the usual "but mice" appeal to purity in this case.
For one, the paper specifically studied brain structures that are directly homologous in both mice and humans (retrosplenial cortex). The researchers specifically targeted evolutionarily-conserved circuitry.
Second, there is already human research on the topic, too, and this paper is reporting on a likely mechanism to understand "why" rather than "if." Here's one from a Yale researcher:
* therefore non-profits can be given tax-breaks for (hopefully) good reasons [which are not altruistic].
A defense contractor designing missile guidance qualifies for the Exempt Purpose of "scientific."
A megachurch with a private jet qualifies under its "religious" category.
These do not specifically require altruistic intent. Congress chose to subsidize certain categories of activity (religious, scientific, educational, and so on) because it wanted more of that activity produced, regardless of the motives of the people doing it.