If you really had the time machine, it could definitely be both. It just occurred to me the other day that most fiction is more concerned with travel to the past and back than travel to the future and back.
Are all of these things not pretty clearly all things that fall under the umbrella of online speech policing? Whether the mobs are directly involved, or if someone resigns before it gets that far, or because he or she thinks it MIGHT get that far, it's all kind of the same catalyst. It would probably be useful to limit this category to forms of career/personal life wrecking that have only existed for the past ~10 years. Your boss might have fired you in 1992 for streaking on tv at a baseball game (lol) but wouldn't for making racial jokes at the office because of a different set of social norms prevailed at that time. The specific set of norms that have existed for the past few years are clearly somewhat distinct from what came before.
It's definitely possible that, say, everyone the Roman Senate was richer than anyone in classical Greece, but the top 5% of Greeks were richer than the top 5% of Romans.
I dunno about the Greek reputation for knowledge being the result of Roman superfandom. Wouldn't the Romans naturally have tooted their own (Latin speaking) culture even more?
"It's definitely possible that, say, everyone the Roman Senate was richer than anyone in classical Greece, but the top 5% of Greeks were richer than the top 5% of Romans." This is I think probably what historians would mostly agree with, at least if you count only citizens. There were a lot more slaves per capita in the Classical Greece than in the Roman Empire, though. Also as an aside, I think women probably had more freedom in the Roman Empire, complicating the picture further.
Roman elite considered it a matter of prestige to know "Greek learning", somewhat similar like it is now prestigious to attend Ivy League university. E.g. Cicero studied philosophy in Athens. Marcus Aurelius was so thoroughly hellenized that he wrote what is basically his own personal diary (Meditations) in Greek.
I suppose they could have tooted their own culture even more, but they didn't. The greatest work of Roman literature is fanfiction of the greatest work of Greek literature.
I've noticed a huge improvement in my mental and physical health and chess rating after switching multivitamins 3 days ago (from Pure Encapsulations O.N.E to 2/3 of the recommended dose of Alive Max3)
If, as Buddhists say, all life is suffering, and your goal should be to avoid reincarnation, why aren't they donating lots of money to help Yog Sothoth devour ALL the galaxies? If there's no life in the universe, there's no suffering. Is this a reductio ad absurdum of Buddhist doctrine?
Yog Sothoth is a fictional entity invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his "Cthulhu mythos" strange fiction writing in the early 1900s; presumably the Buddhists are in contact with deities who actually exist.
I get you; in that case, it's reductio ad absurdum. If we're that opposed to existence itself, we've gone way beyond suffering or harm reduction, and we're really critiquing the decision of the gods and Buddhas to create the cosmos to begin with.
Yes, it's about per capita wealth. What I found most interesting about it was that the richest Greeks were much richer than the richest Romans (assuming the analysis is correct). The richest Romans were vastly wealthier than the richest peoples in any medieval European society.
The article argues that ordinary people were better off in Classical Greece than the Roman Empire. And that Greece had more people with enough wealth to become philosophers. But the impression I've had from other sources is that Rome had a small number of individuals with truly outrageous wealth, richer than any Greek, perhaps richer than anyone else in the world except for their own Emperor. So the Empire could plausibly have had higher per capita wealth, which the vast majority of citizens never saw.
As a side note, I think the Greek reputation for knowledge was largely the Romans' doing. The Greeks happened to be the first literate culture to influence Italy, which gave them a lot of prestige in the eyes of Italians. Then the peoples of the Empire imitated the Romans by reading Greek books.
Did anyone else read this article? Tyler Cowen linked to it recently. In a nutshell, the idea is that while the Roman Empire was extremely rich compared to all of the other pre-modern societies (up through about 1700), Ancient Greece (pre-Roman conquest) was significantly richer. Evidence provided includes the size of house and lower population density in classical Greek towns, the high wages paid to unskilled Greek laborers and soldiers, and of course Ancient Greece's status as THE center of learning in the entire ancient world. Pretty cool article, and seemed plausible.
But unless I am missing something, this is about per capita income/wealth. There were far more people in the Roman Empire than in the Classical Greece. And I think than when people say things like "Roman Empire was extremely rich compared to all of the other pre-modern societies", they mean aggregate wealth.
Few people would claim that being an average inhabitant of the Roman Empire meant being extremely rich by premodern standards, I think.
Does anyone find the notion of time travel to the future more interesting than time travel to the past? I haven't encountered a lot of people who do. It seems like humans are almost universally more interested in making their past selves rich using knowledge from the present than using knowledge from the future to make their present or "near future" selves rich. I wonder if this is a failure of imagination on all of our parts (not being able to envision the future in fine detail, we are more bored by it).
Why is it an either/or? If you plan to go back in time with advanced technology, make a quick stop by the far future first so the tech you're bringing back is *even more advanced*!
Make a quick stop in the far future and get yourself arrested for petty larceny, unlicensed time-meddling, lèse-majesté, tax evasion, crimes against veganity, or some offense as yet unconceived? I'm not sure I'd bet on the far future just handing out technology to passing time-travellers.
In essence, both of these are the same though: whether you technology-share from 2230 to 2020 or from 2020 to 1810, you're going to end up with a society that has iterated on 2020 technology for 200 years. This will be complicated by an adjustment period, but that's going to be true of both: we're just as unused to 2230 technology as the 1810 people will be to 2020 technology.
Past-travel also lets you erase/reroll any problems you already know about that have happened in that time: if fusion was up and running in 1870 and resource concerns are completely different, maybe you skip a couple of world wars. There are probably similar problems from 2020 to 2230, but you don't know about those, and you probably erase those too by pushing the tech tree forward.
Also, if you travel to the past and share your own technology, you return to a time that's already incorporated those changes smoothly: you're probably not going to stick around in 1810 to help develop it, so whoever you hand it off to does all the hard work and you advance your home tech by however much. If you take 2230 technology back to 2020, you're probably going to stay in 2020 and have to live through the adaptation period.
That's a very different take from my usual assumptions.
I always assumed you live in the past once you've gone back. Since there you'd be a super important person who has changed the world, where in your own original time, everything has changed from what you grew up with and no one you knew in your own timeline was ever even born; after introducing computers and modern electricity to the 1810's, going back to 2020 would present all the same problems as going to 2200.
If you live in the past, you might be famous and important, but you're accepting a strict downgrade in technology: you're only bringing back the stuff you have in the present, and it'll take time, possibly your whole lifetime, to incorporate it into society and improve upon it. And you still wouldn't know anyone personally, at best you'd know a few famous figures from history classes (and you might be changing the timeline enough that they aren't important anymore).
If you live in the upgraded present, you could still be super important since you led to the current level of technological development (assuming you're ok with knowledge of time travel being available, and realistically they should have it already since you had it in original 2020) and you'd also get all the benefits of living in a more advanced society.
Maybe you just live 20-50 years ahead of where you introduced the technology to get the best of both worlds: still should be well known, technology won't have advanced far enough to leave you in the dust, but will still be notably better than what you have. But there are a bunch of tradeoffs there and different people might have different preferences.
Mmm, that last suggestion does sound like a sweet spot. Go back to 1800, introduce the tech, tell them you'll check in once every ten years to see how things are progressing, pop ahead to 1810, check in, see if you want to stay, rinse and repeat?
You could also consider going to 1810, staying till 1811, then jumping to 1820, staying till 1821, and so on, so that you have a year to adapt to each technology improvement successively. Do that for 10 years, you'll have a constant flow of new and interesting-but-not-overwhelming technology, not feel wildly out of place, and still be 100 years ahead technologically.
At least part of it is agency; if I go back in time with modern tech and knowledge, I get to act like a demi-god in many ways. (Imagine walking up to the Imperial Roman palace, shooting any guards who try to stop you, killing the emperor and declaring yourself Caesar. Or showing up with insulin and penicillin and healing sick people as if by magic.) If you want to disguise yourself and blend in, you can research what to wear, how to talk, ect.
If I travel forwards in time; I'm some backwards technophobe who doesn't understand anything, is wearing period clothes from the past, and I don't even have an implanted RFID microchip to unlock the door to the coffee shop.
Sure, if I could somehow steal some technology and bring it back with me I might be able to come back to the present and do the whole "demi-God" thing, but first I have to steal the technology and sneak it back with me. The future society probably doesn't want me messing up their whole timeline, so they'll likely try to stop me. Maybe I can grab a bunch of open source academic papers from 2200, but I'll still have to get access to their computer systems somehow.
If you don't plan to return back, I would expect the future to be better. In the past, you can enjoy being Caesar for a short time, and then the lack of antibiotics will kill you. During that short time you will miss the internet and other luxuries of modern life. (Just imagine: being Caesar, but not being able to post about it on social networks.)
On the other hand, if the future has some social support system, at least on the level of providing housing and food for the homeless, you will get to enjoy at least the cheapest of those awesome things that will be invented centuries later. That category may include more than we imagine. But you will have low social status, of course, unless being a time traveller gives you some prestige.
Well I'm taking antibiotics back with me if I'm going back. I don't really like the social network sites, and if I'm Caesar, I don't need them. Anyone I want to talk to is coming to live at court.
I'd much rather have the agency and status of controlling the whole world than the luxuries of a future social safety net. (Like, I literally cannot imagine a world so good to it's bottom 10% that it would outweigh the status of being emperor of Rome with an Armalite rifle and antibiotics.)
If you can imagine such a thing, please write a short story about it or describe it. Because... it's beyond me.
It would be better to live in a world where even the poorest person could afford a private interstellar FTL spacecraft and there was a 99.999999% effective dating app.
I would take that world over being Caesar, I suppose.
Have you read the Culture novels? I'd take being a random nobody citizen of the Culture over being an Emperor in humanities past, at least from a hedonistic perspective (I would strongly consider the potential to bootstrap humanity's advancement, at the cost of actually having to do hard work myself).
I'm confused by people who think all immigration restriction is deontologically immoral on libertarian priors. Jointly owned land (e.g., public roads) is still owned and hence it would be trespassing to enter it without express or implied permission from the owner (i.e., the government as the corporate entity representing all the citizens who jointly own it)
Thought experiment: Suppose 100 farmers individually own sovereign freehold farms. Clearly each of them has the individual right to keep trespassers off of his individual property. Now suppose these 100 farmers band together for mutual defense of their respective individual rights. IE they form a government. Suppose the contractual terms of joining the union require giving the union partial ownership of all your land, and delegating the right to eject trespassers. The delegated right to eject trespassers from jointly owned land would clearly give the union the right to restrict immigration. If sovereign individuals couldn't contractually agree to band together into a union with the right to restrict who else can enter/join the union, that would be a very serious violation of their freedom of association.
Which is great, and you should read it if you've read SMTM's Chemical Hunger, but leaves me with an interesting problem: I'm writing a series on this, and this post is basically what my last post was going to be (but much better than what I would have done).
I'm sort of at a loss now for how to continue the series - how lame is it to make a post that says "just go read this!"?
I'm really interested in the chemical hunger hypothesis. I'd love to see more people investigating. Even if you end up just stating that you agree with everything in that lesswrong post, I still want to see it, because it's great to have more than one person confirm the data.
That's probably about as much as I'm going to go from here. I found most of Natália's arguments pretty strong, but ended up hitting it more from a "where does this leave us" angle.
I'm doing that for a few reasons, but the main one is there's just so many places even a casual person can poke holes in ACH (as demonstrated by many, including me) that I'm not sure there's any huge reason to trust them on any of it.
I've been trying to be clear that I don't necessarily think this means that chemical contaminants are ruled out, but I think SMTM are committed to the idea of it (and of breaking new, exciting ground) in a way that makes them less-than-careful. At the very least I'd say anybody reading them has good reason to verify, source by source, if what they are claiming is backed up by anything.
Just because someone else already did it, and (possibly) did it better, doesn't mean you can't still do it. If you feel like you have something to say, why not post it?
I'm going to post *something*, probably today. But very honestly this person beat the hell out of what I can do on the quant side right now. Me trying to "outdo" them is about as likely as it is to introduce error as it is to help.
I'm mostly interested in amplifying them a bit and mentioning some more qual stuff, I think.
I remember reading an article awhile back which was called something like "The undefinability of computer largeness". It was essentially a parody of the claim that since there is no exact definition of intelligence, that it makes no sense to talk about intelligent machines and is impossible to make an intelligent machine. The article then took the same argument and applied it to computer largeness and came to absurd results.
I can't seem to find this article though, does anyone know what I am talking about?
A month or so ago, depending on how you think about it? Note this is very specifically a tech market crash, but it's been affecting hiring/firing in some significant ways. I had a soft job offer evaporate overnight, the company I work for dumped a bunch of people and froze hiring on some other classifications, etc.
I'm far from an expert here, but the biggest difference for a lot of companies seems to be that capital is drying up, and so a lot of companies that thought they could rely on endless funding are scrambling. Some companies weren't built that way and seem to be having a lot less trouble, which makes it hard for me to make any confident statements about how wide-spread this is.
My anecdotal experience: It's gotten harder to get a job if you're new to mid level software engineer. Seniors and above continue to be in high demand though not as high as before. Still, high end people are still getting poached and all that. Salaries have gone up across the board but especially for seniors. I think this is partly inflation and partly the increased demand for high end talent.
There's less interesting work. But there's a nearly never ending number of standard issue corporations who will soak up the talent. Software engineers don't like working for Wells Fargo or the NBA or Kellogs. But those companies definitely hire software engineers. And they tend to pay somewhat above market rate to compensate for the fact the work is boring and non-prestigious.
Thank for this. The existence of my job is very closely connected to engineers-are-hard-to-hire, so I'm trying to get a bead on this. I *strongly* suspect my current job will go away this week/month (although I might very well be wrong) for crash-related reasons, and so "did my job stop existing at my current company, or everwhere?" is becoming an increasingly relevant question for me.
A lot of companies are talking about cutting operational expenses. On the other hand, what's fat to one company is key to another. If you think your job is going away I'd start looking now. There's always work to be done and iirc you're a specialist writer so demand for that isn't crashing.
Also, if you feel comfortable, you can also have a frank conversation with your boss. They might lie to you and say you're definitely staying when you're not. They might also not be willing to bend. But if you're on the chopping block and willing to talk about it you can get some minor accommodation. Advanced warning and maybe some time to find a new place to work.
I'm kind of specialized - not as much as I'd like. Essentially I manage the potential-employee facing image of the company, and there's parts of that I'm better at than others. If I were a purely technical writer in a way that was more common, I don't think I'd worry as much (but I'd also probably make less,).
Frank conversations will be hard right now. As bad as this sounds, "stay under the radar" is a valuable chip to give up lately; people who aren't perceived to be doing very well are perceived to be doing very bad in a binary sense. I did go to HR to ask some basic questions about the changes that have me worried, but they essentially turtled up in a legally defensible way - I don't think they actually knew.
Entirely possible that they don't know. But if they're not making the cuts in a determined way and they're reliant on funding that's a sign it's a sinking sip.
I'd still keep searching. You might want to look into expanding into recruiting and marketing copywriting. Neither of those are going away. There's always marketplaces looking to onboard people or companies looking to recruit at least some senior types. And to be honest the seniors are harder to get anyway.
Seriously, I know some companies with millions in revenue that are just senior software recruiters. They barely even deal with entry level and make their money recruiting for third parties.
There's no telling for sure, but it seems likely they are trying to use it as a rough IQ proxy. They might be worried you are an ESFJ and thus not (statistically) able to figure out how to open doors, or whatever.
I always wondered if some Myers-Briggs types are just a polite category for normies.
I think I never met a person I'd consider interesting who wasn't clustered in a particular half of Myers-Briggs. Perhaps the other half thinks the same.
I don't know if it's IQ they're using, so much as trying to filter out "undesirable" personality types. I never heard of the Four Tendencies Quiz, and looking it up gives me:
"One of the daily challenges of life is: “How do I get people—including myself—to do what I want?” The Four Tendencies framework makes this task much easier by revealing whether a person is an Upholder, Questioner, Obliger, or Rebel."
So clearly an employer would prefer someone who is an Upholder rather than a Rebel (e.g. if the question of forming a union in a non-union company comes up) and they would much rather someone who is stable and undramatic rather than a flakey type who might cause problems.
If they're dumb or not can be worked out at interview, you don't want to call the trouble-making dramatist for interview, turn them down for the position, and then have them badmouthing your business all over social media as discriminatory and bigoted. "Just because I am neurodivergent, this backwards company refused to offer me the job for which I am well qualified!" type of tweets that get passed around as gospel truth and the company can't very well come back with "in fact, this person didn't get the job because they are crazy as a bag of weasels".
Well, it's *technically* true that on a personality test, there are no right or wrong answers. Some people are of a happy disposition, some people are more serious. There is no 'right or wrong' there.
But yeah, they're going to be screening for a particular personality type - the same way that if this was a sales position, they're not going to pick the person whose ideal job would be librarian and likes to spend time in solitary hobbies or long walks alone.
That's not bad in itself, but it would be nice if they were more honest. Then again, if they *were* more honest about "we are looking for this, this and this quality in a potential employees", the exact kind of aggrieved trouble-making personality they are trying to screen out (amongst other things) would be likely to make a fuss about "this is discrimination against me and I am going to file a complaint!" https://work.chron.com/file-complaint-against-employers-unfair-hiring-practice-9846.html
"ESTP: The Persuader (Extraverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving)
People with this personality type are frequently described as outgoing, action-oriented, and dramatic. ESTPs are outgoing and enjoy spending time with a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. They are interested in the here-and-now and are more likely to focus on details than taking a broader view of things.
People with this personality type are logical. When making decisions, they place a higher value on objectivity rather than personal feelings. ESTPs don't like to be pinned down by excessive planning. Instead, they like to improvise and keep their options open."
That's pretty good, maybe not the immediate type for heavy equipment operator, but you're a good workplace fit in that you will get on with co-workers, be practical, and do the job in front of you with enough flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances that make the previous plan/schedule outdated.
Update: they were being completely honest. The possibility that we didn't consider was that this wasn't being used as a screening tool but as a sorting tool. They had already decided to hire me (labour market conditions meant that they had multiple openings and would hire someone only to have that person turn down the job for a better offer, so they weren't going to turn up their nose over a personality test) and were using this to determine who best to assign me to work with.
Loving the new job. Work crazy hours and haven't had time to read the blog let alone comment.
I mean, I'm ISTJ and this says amongst other things:
"ISTJs also place a great deal of emphasis on traditions and laws. They prefer to follow rules and procedures that have previously been established. In some cases, ISTJs can seem rigid and unyielding in their desire to maintain structure."
I bet you would never have guessed that from the content I post 😁
I can never remember what my letter classification is, but the place I have taken the test classifies it as the debater, and says something that paraphrases roughly to:
"You are a dick who argues with people for no reason at all. People find this confusing, and it is of limited use. Why are you like this?"
I could probably justify some sort of way where "there aren't right or wrong answers, your personality isn't a crime, but we won't let you use cranes as an extrovert" isn't a direct lie, but yeah, they are implying that this doesn't matter and if it didn't they wouldn't care.
It might be scuttled if Swedish parliament refuses to enact some legislation on which Turkey conditions its approval (basically, selling out the Kurds). See their joint memorandum here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_197342.htm?selectedLocale=en. Finland, which is far more important in military terms, is probably in the clear, unless they would "wait" in solidarity with Sweden.
Main implication seems to be that chances of any Russian military "shenanigans", in the Baltic region would be drastically reduced, and in the case of the outright war between NATO and Russia it improves NATO position.
Just like Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union doing more to spread communism into Eastern Europe than anything Stalin could have achieved without the second World War.
Finland significantly increases the combat power of NATO by joining, (hundreds of thousands of reservists available to throw into a war.) Sweden brings one of NATO's biggest weapon suppliers "In House.".
After taking in the book review contest entry's on fusion predictions, maybe some here would be interested in contributing to forecasts on fusion?
There are a bunch of questions on it on Metaculus. One of them is on fusion ignition (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3727/when-will-a-fusion-reactor-reach-ignition/). Unfortunately IMO the resolution criterion is not ideal, as there seems to be no scientific consensus on what fusion ignition means precisely in different experimental settings.
Also, no one (caveat: I have not read all comments, so perhaps someone did) seems to have noticed that font in the posts has changed. And new font is better.
Strong supporting agreeing vote. I really loathe the blue color and it causes eyestrain after a couple of minutes. It's fine to do the standard black on white.
Looking for a book to help someone who is having trouble with a change in work setting: She has a science Ph.D., and recently left academics for industry. New work setting is less friendly & collegial, much more corporate and competitive, with people who don't find ways to toot their own horn failing to get promotions or even respect. Her actual skills are fine -- she's not having any trouble with the work tasks themselves. I think a high-quality self-help book is what's called for. She is a gentle soul, and is not going to go for "learn how to be a shark too" kind of stuff. She needs something more moderate than that. Anyone know of anything?
Is there a hardware analog of neurons? I had a student job in an entomology lab where trichogrammas - tiny wasps, smaller than this bit of punctuation ‘.’ - were being tested as an alternative to pesticides. They like to eat the egg mass of European corn borers.
Per Wikipedia they have no more than 10,000 neurons yet they have fairly complex behavior. The males aggressively seek mates and they all are able to find the correct food for example. I’m wondering how 10,000 neurons would translate to computer hardware.
They are still quite a bit away from mass markets. The promising thing about them is that they consume several orders of magnitude less energy than transistor-based hardware.
And of course, there are lots of simulations of neural networks in normal hardware, not just the simple ones that are used in machine learning. The complexity of the neurons ranges all the way from simple switches to complex 3D-shape structures with detailed modelling of their synapses, axons and even ion channels.
By the way, the neuroscientific mainstream has moved away from considering neurons as simple units that just add up incoming signals (leaky integrate-and-fire). The more modern perspective is that the dendrites are already mini-computers performing non-trivial operations (e.g., coincidence detection). So even a single neuron might already be considered as a mini-computer.
San Fransicko review made me think about polarization, political narratives, silencing and toxoplaxma of rage, once again.
It's interesting how people keep saying that the left silences uncomfortable truths and then, as example of such truths, proceed to say things which I, as a frequent leftist media consumer, is very well familiar with. Homeless people commiting crimes and taking drugs which contributes to their homelessness is one of such unimpressive revelation. Go listen to the activists for the rights of mentally ill. They will tell you how non-neurotypical people are more vulnerable to various bad outcomes, including drug use and poor economical conditions which can lead to homelessness and that's why we need more awareness, better social programs, universal health care, yadda yadda. On the other hand, some people are definetely being silenced and cancelled. So what's going on?
The answer, I think, is that people are usually opposed not for the ideas themselves, but for the narrative that is being pushed. Due to polarization, there are two Overton windows and you have to choose which one to fit in and which one you are against. Pick your side of the culture war. Either you appeal to progressives or to conservatives.
If the author just wanted to promote Amsterdam's model he didn't really need to attack housing first approach nor mainstream narrative. Indeed, mainstreem narrative assumes Amsterdam's model to be an example of harm reduction. Shellenberger had to define terms differently in order to oppose it! He could have easily talked in the framework of "housing first but not only". How mainstream ideas are mostly correct but can use some improvements. But he choosed not to, because he wanted to appeal to the different tribe and promote a different narrative.
And of course these dynamics are self sustaining. Talking about left censorship is a standard beat, while appealing to the red tribe up to the point where I struggle to see it as anything more than just pure signalling. And no surprise that I struggle, because left leaning people get inoculated from the idea of them shutting debates, seeing again and again how such claims are used in bad faith. And such situation is memetically advantageous for both narratives. Both leftists and rightists can this way ignore criticism and preserve their beliefs even if they are not correlated with reality.
You're strawmanning. I'm not aware of anyone who denies the basic issues of homelessness in big cities. What I am aware of is Democrats who will deny their policy preferences have anything to do with the prevalence of homelessness and Republicans who insist they do. Republicans don't say that Democrats deny that their cities have issues. They say that Democrats deny that their policies lead to outcomes like the ones you see in (for example) San Fransisco.
To take what I think is a fairly non-partisan example: It's like how NIMBYs claim their preferences don't lead to higher housing costs. No one is denying the fact of higher housing costs. They're denying that their policy preferences are the cause. Now imagine if NIMBYs had a very shouty activist class that has a tendency to socially shun and morally abhor people who disagree with them.
That's what Republicans are claiming. Democrats do X which causes Y and then they insist that X does not cause Y because they a priori like X. But they don't have good arguments so they shout down the opposition.
Whether that's true I can't say. But your counter is not a counter to what they're actually saying. What you say in your second paragraph would be seen as a deflection tactic, something they often bring up as what they call liberal cope. "Y isn't caused by X. It's caused by not being X enough! X cannot fail, X can only be failed!"
It seems that you missed my point to a degree where it started looking as a strawman version of yours. I wasn't actually trying to counter anything. I just observed that what people are saying - silencing of ideas - isn't what is actually happening - narrative is being opposed while the same ideas can be expressed without much pushback and even with endorsement. And how this situation is memetically favourable for both narratives as they can continue to exist without much challange, after all claims to be silenced and censored is an opportunity to dismiss criticism as instance of such silencing.
I used the idea of causality between drug use/mental illness and homelessness as an example of idea which is alledgedly opposed by mainstream but actually being talked about just in a different context. I didn't claim that republicans claim that democrat claim that their cities have no issues.
It's well known that people usually blame outgroup for all the bad outcomes and credit ingroup for all the good ones. The question whether in every individual instance it's actually true the the outgroup is at fault is the important one. The fact that people can dismiss the question without even exploring it is part of the problem, I'm trying to pinpoint.
There is pretty serious disagreement. The right sees homeless as driven directly by blue state/blue city policies. For example, lack of policing or nuisance laws come up a lot in right wing discourse. Or what they'd term socialist housing policy. Or any number of things.
The pure attribution to deinstitutionalization, seeing it as solely a mental health crisis, is the left wing point of view. It's the equivalent of how the left agrees with the right that mass shooters are mentally disturbed but doesn't see that as a primary driver.
Strongly agree with this. I find talk of cancel culture or whatever to be so banal and often much more telling about the person making the accusation than what incident they are labeling as cancel culture.
"There is no such thing as cancel culture, and if it happens to you, you deserved it" school of thought?
I was somewhat dubious of "cancel culture" as being A Thing (there have always been idiots trying to get people in trouble) but the more I read pieces that went "Cancel culture? *ostentatious yawning and performance of supreme boredown and ennui* I'm sorry, what were we talking about?" from people on the side alleged to be engaging in it, the more I started to think it was indeed happening.
No I am not from that school of thought (though there are instances where the "cancelled" could have easily avoided it).
My biggest issue with "Cancel Culture" is that it doesn't seem to have any precise meaning.
Personally, I trace its origins back to Justine Sacco and #HasJustineLandedYet which was clearly an innocent person being unjustly targeted by an Internet mob. To me that was disgusting.
But today cancel culture seems to mostly mean disagreeing with someone until they feel bad about it. And often the presumed victim benefits from the "cancelling" by either dominating social media or turning it into some political or financial win.
There are still innocent people that are targeted by internet mobs but this is a small fraction of "Cancel Culture" and is rarely what people are referring to or thinking about.
If we can agree on a definition of cancel culture then maybe I'll start being sympathetic to the argument that it's a "culture" at all. Until then I'll have to take each instance on its own and make a judgement based on the facts of each incident.
"But today cancel culture seems to mostly mean disagreeing with someone until they feel bad about it. And often the presumed victim benefits from the "cancelling" by either dominating social media or turning it into some political or financial win."
Possible selection bias: You are more likely to hear about those who succeeded to translate being cancelled into some kind of profit, than about those who didn't.
Do we really need a super rigorous definition? I think using it as a catchall term for "the tendency of internet mobs to wreck people's lives via coordinated smear campaigns on social media over perceived offensive statements" is good enough.
A former cricketer and current TV commentator is accused by a current cricketer of racism. The commentator quits his job but denies the racism. There is no coordinated smear campaign, this guy is rich, his life is not ruined, and he has a famous person coming to his defense.
Dakota Johnson Struggles With Cancel Culture: 'Horrifying, Heartbreaking and Wrong'
Famous actor with a new Netflix show says some dumb stuff during a press junket about how he can't make jokes (but apparently can make a comedy show?).
The Other Cancel Culture: How a Public University Is Bowing to a Conservative Crusade
Conservative legislatures are pushing state universities to curb speech they don't like. I find this reprehensible but doesn't meet your definition at all.
The rest of the first page is more of the same.
If people truely did mean "the tendency of internet mobs to wreck people's lives via coordinated smear campaigns on social media over perceived offensive statements" then I would be right there with you. But "cancel culture" hasn't meant just that for many years now.
Perhaps it's the implied threat of an angry twitter mob that's the problem, the mob doesn't have to come out all that often for people to feel their thoughts should be shared in private.
Okay, we could insert the words "attempt to" in front of "wreck people's lives" into my definition then. These celebrities get in trouble over these things when they start trending on Twitter.
"Of course I'm not an emotionally abusive boyfriend. What even is emotional abuse, anyway? Have you considered that maybe you're making me behave this way?"
Yes, I'm sure if you only held beliefs that would not put your career, livelihood, access to the internet / bank account / payment processors, safety, or life in jeopardy if expressed publicly, then you would find the whole discussion pretty boring.
I hold plenty of beliefs that would not go over very well with many people in my life. However, I don't go around spouting them when it's not appropriate or when the potential downside outweighs the upside.
I can't see any reason to get in a debate at work about abortion or a similar subject. I don't go on social media and run my mouth off just to get in fights with people. If I go to a bar and start insulting people and get beat up, is that cancel culture?
Very few people face these consequences unless they are engaging in some unnecessary behavior. And considering the previous president of the United States gloated about sexually assaulting women, I am not sure what behavior is out there that people can't come back from.
Why is it bad arguing? Before polarization hit hard, people were finding middle ground and focusing on the things in coomon instead of differences as a standard strategy to cooperate.
Pleased to see people actually testing humans against the new bars for "intelligence" some people are rolling out for AI, like understanding conditional hypotheticals and following trains of logic with more than a couple of moving parts.
I wonder if some of the discussion around "human level intelligence" among AI people is distorted by the fact that AI people mostly interact with unusually intelligent humans? Once you've spent a while chatting to your HR department about why a contract is not what was originally promised when the job was offered, you'll very quickly find out how many humans don't remotely reach this level.
Not sure what the implications of this are, but maybe that AI is further up the scale than we thought already, but also progressing more slowly along it. Could actually be good from an AI risk perspective? Might just be that I'm really pissed at HR right now so can't really think clearly myself?
Slow people make a lot of the same mistakes the AI does. Hell, I do the same mistakes when I'm tired. I'm reminded of the imperfect way children and GPTs learn to count and do math, and I think it should be extrapolated to all rigorous thought.
A question regarding the overturning of Roe v Wade: in general, it seems sketchy and undemocratic that laws can be created by an unelected judiciary (even worse, one full of lawyers!)
But can a country truly be called democratic if, after 50 years, its elected officials haven't written a broadly popular judicial opinion into law? If this is ok, wouldn't executives and legislators always prefer to do nothing, leaving everything up to the judiciary?
>it seems sketchy and undemocratic that laws can be created by an unelected judiciary
That was the problem with Roe and why many "pro-choice" constitutional scholars disagreed with Roe despite being "pro-choice" themselves. Roe invalided the law of all 50 states and created a new law. The judiciary isn't supposed to create laws ever. It's simply not their role. Even RGB, the progressive icon, said that Roe went too far and should have simply ruled the Texas law in question unconstitutional and left it at that. The courts sole purpose is to say what is and is not Constitutional. A terrible law that no one likes or agrees with may be Constitutional and a law everyone on both sides loves and supports may not be Constitutional. We need to better educate people on this. Many debates on this topic are simply unreadable because of a fundamental ignorance as to the purpose of the court in the first place.
Yes. But in reality, the judiciary does create laws all the time, and I don't think it's completely a bad thing - it forces policymakers to think through the consequences of the laws they create on the legal system. The next thing I want to learn about is the way the Bill of Rights works in America - paradoxically, judiciaries kind of seem better behaved in countries without one.
Maybe its just an issue with the language used, but SCOTUS rulings do not create laws. The law has to exist before SCOTUS will hear a case on it (among many other things needed). So in this case, all they are saying in Dobbs is that the MS law is valid and by extension Roe and Casey are not (but there is no associated law with Roe at the federal level).
Anyway, I completely agree with your second point and it points to a more general failure of the Democratic Party. Democrats have spent the past 50 years since Roe largely expecting it to exist, while Republicans have spent all that time focusing their base on a few issues and working at the state level to take advantage of the opportunity they had with Dobbs. The Democrats should have been spending all the time getting laws passed at the local level but that requires accepting incrementalism which they have largely rejected.
I'm frustrated with the persistent diligence with which the legislature cedes power by cravenly pawning as much responsibility as it can off to other branches of government, but of all the things I'd hold against them, "not writing a broadly popular judicial opinion into law" isn't one.
It's true that court-created rights and practices like the Miranda warning would be more secure if, in addition to being established in our jurisprudence, they were also set down into statute. That really only has value, though, if the court overturns them, which is like a .001% chance of ever occurring for any court-created rule. Given that the legislative process is (very) not zero-cost, it seems completely rational to me for the legislature spend its efforts on other business, rather than spend limited resources retreading and codifying ground already covered by the courts.
If a court pulls back on a popular court-created right or practice, the legislature can always just deal with it when it happens, which seems a much more efficient use of its time than trying to codify everything prophylactically in hopes of catching the small number of things later courts might change their mind on.
I think you’re making a valid point in that legislators have a tendency to punt difficult issues and let the judiciary field the ball. It’s politically the smart move. You can solemnly declare the matter is settled law and it’s out of your hands, or rail against an activist judiciary that is tying your hands
I t will be able interesting to see what happens now that the court has punted it back.
A dog chases a firetruck, but what the hell happens when the dog catches it?
Do you happen to know how binding pre-nup contracts are? I’ve been trying to imagine a framework other than traditional marriage per se in which childbearing could be agreed upon and then legally enforceable (possibly with some type of health exception.) I know it sounds a bit evil but I think some parts of society have become accustomed to pregnancy as a condition that’s reversible at any time. Not all aspects of life can be tapped out of at any time; marriage doesn’t prevent abortion, so what would? Is there an enforceable non-abortion contract (with financial or other penalties for breaking it)?
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Ds never put a law through congress in part so they could keep using it for fundraising.
From what I’ve seen of the polls, “most” people want it to be legal & obtainable before 12 weeks, and after that, rare.
Becoming a mother is indescribable (I am one.) Going into it one does not and cannot know what one is in for. That type of experience doesn’t mesh well with all choices all the time. Sometimes you just have to “bear” it. I suspect that people who have seen or experienced this have never been comfortable with abortion of a healthy fetus past viability; however given the activism, being seen as pro-conservative/pro-christian was seen as bad, so a disincentive.
I honestly don't see how you can do this. Even marriage has now been divorced from childbearing (see the arguments during marriage equality campaigns everywhere that 'no it doesn't matter if same-sex couples can't have kids themselves, marriage isn't about having kids anymore, straight couples use contraception and abortion and some choose never to have kids'), and the prevalent social attitude that we are seeing expressed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that childbearing is a horrible burden which is nearly inevitably fatal to the woman (if it doesn't literally kill her, it will destroy her life, and abortion is way safer than delivering a baby) shows how you can't make this stick.
Any more than expectations of indissoluble marriage can be made to stick: yes, when I exchanged vows "until death do us part" I meant it then, but that was then and people change over time, and besides that's only metaphorical nowadays. I'm getting a divorce and if you don't like it, tough, that's why we have no-fault divorce.
So you'd be struggling with "sure, when I signed the contract I intended to get pregnant some day, but now you are demanding I have a baby and it just doesn't suit me right now, or I don't feel ready, or I've changed my mind about having kids, and you can't force me to do this".
Seriously, if you want to have a child, then don't mess about with pre-nuptial agreements or contracts about "five years from now". If both of you are willing, then try to get pregnant *now*. Don't put it off, because "some undefined time" will never happen. Or one or both of you might change your minds (which would be awkward if there *was* a legally enforceable document that you both had to become parents). If you feel you are ready to have a kid, do it today.
There is definitely a sort of bottleneck in terms of how society creates the next generation. Is it inevitable that every final decision on birth is made by an individual acting in an individual capacity? (Usually a female person with her “own” choice.)
That may be inevitable. Because yes, short of surrogacy contracts (which I have not seen), there is no social or legal way to compel birth. The ending of RvW has been characterized as forced birth by some, but I think more accurately it’s forcing a reckoning with recreational sex.
I’ve never liked the feeling that a very important goal of mine would be arbited(!) by another individual. It just suddenly hit hard that for males, the goal of reproduction is controlled by the decision of another individual in a way that isn’t paralleled if genders are reversed (due to sperm donation and banking). Technology and surrogacy are making progress on this but it’s expensive.
I think those “herbal teas to prevent cramps” from ancient times were probably a very useful habit. Basically taking an herbal abortifacient at every menstrual cycle if one did not want a baby right then. I know they don’t always work and can make people sick but something like that makes sense to me in general. So I’m even sympathetic to the female desire/need to be the arbiter. About halfway through though I think a lot of people would quit if they could because pregnancy can be miserable. That’s when the “team” of society is supposed to provide help and support. I know I wasn’t prepared for the arrival of a little being that didn’t let me sleep and also somehow lived in the core of every unresolved fear. I think nobody really is. It’s an initiation. To me, I want there to be an event horizon such that if you cross that, you’re committed to making every effort to continue with the pregnancy (barring medical problems.) But there is no such consensus and maybe there never will be. Does that feel like a brick wall to the male? It might. How to conduct oneself to get voluntary and consistent alignment of one’s partner with one’s reproductive goals?
Not a law expert, but I suspect that most if not all Western democracies would not allow it. It could raise incredibly difficult issues if a man (and... the government) forced a woman to give birth against her will, in most of the ways I can imagine that happening.
It might be similar to a surrogacy contract and in that sense it makes sense that most Western democracies would not allow it. If someone agreed ahead of time it is not “forced birth” in the same way.
I was today years old when I realized how much this puts the man at the mercy of the woman. If there’s no legal way to get certainty, and personal certainty depends on the person and how they feel at the time, there’s every incentive to just compete to influence the woman’s feelings at any given moment. I understand a little better why some men say they don’t care about abortion. It makes no sense to care about an outcome they can’t control. Because even a seemingly committed partnership could unravel at any time. And then how can men and women take each other seriously in the workplace, when the minute you clock out it’s back to competing for the continued access to the female. Is this really heterosexuality? I even did this for years and did not see this side of it. I have to teach my sons how not to wind up creating abortions (someday I hope to have grandchildren ) and this is dismal. Unfortunately the answer may be something like marry a conservative girl and buy her everything she needs. Not what I expected. My naïveté!
Marg: Pre-nups are a state by state thing. Some states give them wide latitude other states cock a snook at them. As a general rule, in Anglo-American law, contracts are about money and property. The baseline enforcement mechanism for contracts is a judgement for money damages, which may or may not be something you really want. And penalties unrelated to the economic values at stake are generally unenforceable.
I think you might be confusing what the branches of government do here?
Also, ask yourself what a democratic abortion vote would have looked like 1972 when Roe v Wade was passed and would the original ruling itself be essentially judicial activism?
Yes, it is. In the same way that it would be a failure of parenting if you only fed your kids the kind of sweet junk food they preferred to boring old vegetables.
If the people have been cheering on judicial activism when the decisions were going in the direction they liked, they haven't a leg to stand on when judicial activism starts making decisions they don't like. "When the referee rules in my favour, he's sensible and only following the rules; when he rules in your favour, he's biased and should be dismissed" is something even sports fans realise is not a workable way to run a game, even if it's understandable why they feel that way about their team.
If the legislature can't or won't do its job but leaves it to judges, then why have a legislature?
Has it changed to #e2edfc? I'm sure it was greener earlier. How about loading each time with a randomly generated background in the range #e0e0e0 to #ffffff and we can all vote on it?
How about different background colors to different types of articles? Green = open thread, yellow = book review, red = culture wars, blue = nerdy stuff, purple = fiction...
I was puzzled by that sudden background color change. In fact I was worried that I was seeing the non-subscriber view — and that I had been logged out or somehow my account had been deactivated. After checking my account, I saw that nothing had changed. But then I went looking for some sort of profile setting that I could have changed by accident. Then, I started to wonder if it had always had a light-blue background, and I had misremembered the white background. Talk about over-thinking things!
Abstract: How could machines learn as efficiently as humans and animals? How could machines learn to reason and plan? How could machines learn representations of percepts and action plans at multiple levels of abstraction, enabling them to reason, predict, and plan at multiple time horizons? This position paper proposes an architecture and training paradigms with which to construct autonomous intelligent agents. It combines concepts such as configurable predictive world model, behavior driven through intrinsic motivation, and hierarchical joint embedding architectures trained with self-supervised learning.
I was referring to Melvin's comment "Would a six-month lockdown of gay men be justified?" Perhaps I just misunderstand the phrasing, but lockdown doesn't sound like a guideline to me.
As for governmental advisory or information, I am much more open to that. But I am very skeptical that the advice to remain abstinent for six months would be taken serious. Not at the current (low) level of personal threat and with milder and probably more effective options available (disease detection, contact tracing, vaccination). Also, the benefits are doubtful; a voluntary "lockdown" suffers from the free-riders problem, and there is no guarantee that enough people would comply to contain the disease.
EDIT: Sigh, the reply system is broken. This was supposed to be a reply to a post by Acymetric, but that post seems to be gone.
Yes possibly, but then the comment is usually still visible as "deleted", right?
In my case, it's even weirder. I got an email notification that someone replied to my comment (including the text and author of the reply). I hit "reply" in the email and wrote my reply, but then Acymetric's comment was not appearing anywhere, and my answer ended up at top level.
Usually it is. I’ve been on the other side of this providing a ‘hot fix’ for a use case not covered in the spec. A hot fix has a way of breaking things in a new way.
But as far as I can tell there's no actual way to get from there to the comment he was replying to. The "Return to thread" link just goes back to the full comments of the post.
I believe that's true. When you click the link, the URL includes an ID tag meant to scroll you to the comment in question. I think what's happening is that the threads are long enough that most of the comments don't actually load on the initial page load, so it fails to find the target comment and just takes you to the top of the page.
And for what it's worth: I do this sort of thing professionally, so I do have a pretty good idea how hard it would be to fix: assuming a codebase I'm familiar with (and the languages I work with, etc), I'd expect to be able to solve this by myself in an afternoon. And I don't consider myself especially competent.
That's definitely the kind of thing I'm imagining being wrong too!
I think I maybe have a slightly different perspective on why/how this is (or might be) hard to fix. _Assuming_ everything you do, the actual code changes are probably pretty minor, e.g. basically better { error handling / retry logic }.
But there _might_ be good reasons why they, apparently, opted to just load all of the comments instead of attempting to retry loading the data to jump to a specific one, e.g. they've checked/tested and it's 'better' for users (or better for them from the perspective of Substack) to load _something_ sooner than wait for the 'correct' content to finish loading.
But – in my experience – the work at the point where your assumptions are true is the _easy_ part. The hard part is, e.g. prioritizing this relative to all of the other work, navigating tradeoffs between assigning work to those who will be most efficient versus those who could stand to learn about the relevant part of the codebase, or whomever is assigned the work discovering that in fact _no one_ is currently familiar with the relevant part of the codebase!
Is there much in the way of empirical evidence that a skincare routine leads to better aesthetic outcomes in later years? Used to have acne when I used cleaning products, since I switched to rinsing with cold water I have none, and get complimented all the time. Intuitively I can make the connection that "moisturizing" could help, but I'm not convinced a chemical cocktail would necessarily outperform lots of water intake, a good diet and avoiding excess sun exposure, in the long-run.
Isotretinoin helps with acne, the rest is snake oil.
IME - back when I still suffered from acne - bad skincare (e.g. washing your face with regular soap) is way worse than none. Perhaps for certain people there is no skincare that isn't bad, in this sense.
I came across an interesting 'thread' somewhere where the 'pro skincare' person/people were arguing that, while, yes, most skincare products are very similar, there are certain kinds/categories that _are_ in fact effective.
I did learn, as someone with 'bad' skin, that a good way to test any new product is to only use on one part of one's face/skin. I'd take photos on my phone, e.g. every day, whereas in the Before Times I'd have had to either write down text notes on paper, or type up notes on my computer. I guess I _could_ have taken photos (and then have them developed), but it's certainly easier to document this kind of thing with a phone almost always in my pocket!
Once upon a time (~6 months ago), somebody left a comment somewhere on ACX saying they were looking for work as a data/software person in corporate research. But the plot twist is, I now want to talk to a data/software person about corporate research.
If you fit this description, please let me know. Alternatively, if you are routinely scraping ACX comments and tagging them in a searchable way using ML... uh, maybe I should just talk to you.
Can someone give me a just-the-facts summary of the impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, with minimal editorializing, and emphasis on any points that are not likely to be covered by the standard culture-war hot-takes? Bonus points for Georgia- or Atlanta-specific information.
(context: I live in GA, don't particularly want kids, and am trying to determine whether I need to examine the fallout of the decision *right now* or can afford to wait until things settle before deciding if/what to do about it. I don't trust standard news sources to tell me what is useful information over whatever makes the punchiest story.)
What do you imagine you would need to do *right now*, and why? If you're not currently pregnant, and you're not careless/inobservant enough that you could plausibly discover tomorrow that you are four months pregnant, then I don't see anything that couldn't be handled by waiting until you hypothetically discover you are (1-2 months) pregnant and figuring out then what to do about it.
It's possible that the answer would then be, "take a week's 'vacation' in New York on short notice", which would be annoyingly disruptive to be sure but probably less so than "relocate permanently to New York right now, just in case".
Because the majority of abortions are pill-based these days, and the AG and FDA have come out strong that FDA approved medications cannot be banned by states from being prescribed and fulfilled by mail, the impact on anyone with any degree of education/sophistication/money is going to be minimal. If you know you want an abortion, and you have a few hundred dollars in emergency funds, this will not impact you at all. The impact is going to be on the stupid/unsophisticated/poor/indecisive.
> am trying to determine whether I need to examine the fallout of the decision *right now* or can afford to wait until things settle before deciding if/what to do about it.
If you're not pregnant *right now* then I'm sure you can afford to wait.
Whatever happens it's extremely unlikely that any state will be able to prevent or punish people who cross state lines for abortions. So as long as you can afford to take a quick interstate trip there's no need to worry.
GA had a law to ban abortions after 6 weeks that was rejected initially on hitting federal courts.
That decision was appealed, but the appeal was delayed until after Dobbs was decided. As a result, the odds are GA has a 6-week ban within the next year.
This isn't wrong, but it understates how soon, and with how high a degree of certainty, the 6-week ban is likely to go into effect.
What will happen now is that the 11th Circuit will enter an order vacating the judgment below and dissolving the injunction against enforcement of the law. That's likely to happen on a timeline of days or weeks at most.
The 6-week ban is a validly enacted Georgia statute, so nothing more needs to happen for it to take effect, and at that point there would be no legal obstacle to Georgia proceeding to enforce it.
Others may do a better job of this but the high level TLDR as I see it is that states (and the Federal government, if it wants) can now freely regulate abortion as they see fit with minimal scrutiny from federal courts.
A Federal abortion rights law, Federal abortion ban, or anything in between seems unlikely to be forthcoming in the immediate term, so for now if you're looking for a "how this would affect me" kind of analysis you really look at your own state and what abortion laws it has or is likely to pass.
Not a GA Attorney or expert on Georgia abortion law, but it sounds like at the moment Georgia law allows abortion within 20 weeks of gestation, and since Georgia does not currently have a "trigger law" that would change that automatically, the question for your situation would be "what is the GA government likely to do now that it's hands are pretty freed up on abortion?"
Just now, when I visited this page I noticed the unusually long load time and mentally commented on the ridiculousness of it. I wouldn't have physically commented on it if I hadn't seen your comment, but to provide a datapoint: this was my experience.
I only briefly took a look but it doesn't look like the color is changing it. What IS taking a long time is loading all the comments including Substack's call to get the unread comments per account.
I'm sure someone could manage to make it be the case that a bgcolor would increase site load time, but... you'd have to do something impressively stupid to manage it. A solid bgcolor like this should not meaningfully affect performance of a site even if you're loading the site on a potato.
I've been reading up a lot on the other contentious Supreme Court case that was published last week.
In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, many organizations sent briefs supporting the action of striking down the law.
Among those organizations: many legal-aid agencies and minority-rights associations argued that the New York law about concealed-carry had a severely-disproportionate effect on minorities. A huge number of those arrested for illegal gun possession in New York were either Black or Latino. The lawyers of the Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defenders Services, and the Legal Aid Society all argued that gun rights were a 'legal fiction' for minorities under that law.
The opinion of the Supreme Court barely mentioned this factor.
Do you think that the racial-impact factors should have been considered in deciding this case?
No, but only because it wasn't argued. I think that there absolutely is space for such a ruling, but to get the best one out of the court, full arguments by both sides should be made.
Don't worry, California is doubling down on the "good moral character" part of thier system, and that is probably very vulnerable to this kind of analysis. You know, because their origin is the same as the poll tax or the other Jim Crow era laws targeting free black citizens
I thought about this issue on and off for several days...which probably makes me late to reply.
This issue can be hard to discuss for two separate reasons:
A. The kind of racial-impact disparity seen in the prosecutions of gun-related crimes is the kind of disparity that often results in cries of racism, with a possible side-order of Remake/TransformIntoAntiRacist/Defund the agencies involved.
B. Per comments in another Open Thread recently: laws about posession/use of firearms are a weird exception to the general progressive/liberal idea that rules should be reduced where possible, and people are generally good and can be trusted to do the right thing.
Maybe I'm not representing this point accurately, but the gist of the discussion was that conservatives generally have a lower opinion of human nature than progressives/liberals, and that therefore people should expect conservatives to be in favor of strict laws about things like firearms (which are easy to use/misuse with catastrophic results), and progressives ought to be more relaxed.
The facts on the ground are that politicians in dense urban areas tend to be in favor of strong restrictions on firearms. These politicians are usually liberal/progressive.
Anyway, in the specific of racial minorities who are over-represented among those charged for carrying guns illegally, there might be several factors:
1. They were not intent on committing a crime, likely have no criminal record, but were discovered when the cops detected the weapon somehow. (Investigating an event inside the home, discovering the gun while interviewing them as a witness to some other crime, or finding the gun while hassling the person for being Poor-and-Minority...)
2. The person was likely intent on committing a crime with the gun, or had committed a related crime that is harder to prove. The Police got lucky and discovered the gun, and can prove that this person didn't have a license (or had a previous conviction for something which makes it illegal to possess a gun).
Both kinds of cases are likely to come to court as 'person illegally possessing a gun', and possibly with no other charges files.
The typical conservative (or even libertarian) would want to require Police to go easy on case 1, but would like the Police to go hard on case 2.
The typical progressive or liberal is more likely to say that case 1 is sad, but the problem can be fixed by reducing the number of guns in circulation, thus reducing scenarios like case 2.
I think the court case pushes the State and City of New York in a direction of making permits-to-carry much easier to acquire. This would help many poor people in case 1 to explore the option of getting an official permit-to-carry. This appears to be a better option than having to decide between not carrying a firearm in an area where they feel it might be needed, and risking discovery by the Police of a firearm carried without a permit.
In my opinion, the ruling indirectly helps many of the poor/minority people, without the ruling hinging on their racial or economic status.
I'm not an American and was trying to understand what difference the Roe v Wade overturning makes, but it's very difficult to get a clear picture.
Like, it would be nice to see something that tells me what percentage of American women of child bearing age are likely to have - no access to abortion at all, and what percentage have access till what gestational age e.g what percentage till 6, till 12, 18, 24 weeks etc.
I would have thought this should be the most basic statistic that anyone who wants to understand the impact of this ruling would want to look at first. Yet, it's nowhere to be found. Anyone here have any idea?
Guttmacher Institute for your abortion news needs. I won't say they're complete, and they have a slant since they are pro- the whole 'reproductive justice' thing, but they are the only easily accessible site I've found doing this kind of research:
The next time you hear someone going on about "abortion for rape/incest", this was the site gave me information on reasons for abortions. The survey is very dated (it comes from 2005), but it was something like 1% of abortions carried out for rape, 0.5% for incest:
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."
I mostly agree, but in practice easy access to contraception does not seem to really help with abortions - well at least pill and condoms are readily accessible in our countries and the number of abortions does not seem to go down.
I would be happy to see some of my tax money spent on *free* condoms and pills... but the question is how many people are too stupid to use them properly, or simply don't care.
But don't you know that won't work at all? Seriously, if I believed the hysteria I'm seeing online about this, there is no such thing as contraception, every woman who has sex is going to get pregnant, and only for abortion they'd be popping out babies every year.
If you have regular sex during all your childbearing years, even with contraception, there’s a significant probability you will get pregnant at some point. Just think of the volume of the sex a person has over 30 fertile years, and all it takes is one unwanted pregnancy to drastically alter a woman’s life against her will. It’s like being a safe driver who drives for decades and gets in a fender bender once. We don’t moralize against that driver. Women need the tools to manage their health and well-being without the handcuffs of evangelical Christian morals.
>If you have regular sex during all your childbearing years, even with contraception
Somebody, somewhere, needs to tell pro choicers how much sympathy they lose when they use the sexual freedom thing in an argument.
Like somebody should show them The Sympathy Bar in real time, as it drops menacingly ever closer to 0, after every appeal to The Right To Be A Slut. There has to be a better way to argue for unrestricted abortion.
>without the handcuffs of evangelical Christian morals
You give Christians way too much credit, they are neither the first ones to discover the curious fact that sexual promiscuity is a repulsive and devaluing way of living, nor do they have a monopoly on living by that fact even if they were the ones who discovered it.
I'm pretty sure that condom + 1 of the several options of female birth control reduce even the long term aggregate risk of pregnancy to negligible levels. Any single method alone can fail (although the "correctly used" failure rates are significantly lower than the "real world" failure rates), but two together are _very_ unlikely (especially if one of them is a low-maintenance method like an IUD or implant).
Now, I'm personally pro-choice and against the recent ruling (on a whole host of grounds), but I don't think that "Long term aggregate pregnancy risk is too high" is a good argument against it.
You gotta examine the rational behind the prime movers of the forced birth movement (if I may be allowed to slant the name).
The majority of the push for restricting reproductive freedom is from evangelical Christians; who are less concerned with welfare and more concerned with morality.
The problem isn't that 'children are being killed', it's that moral norms are being violated.
Rewarding single mothers with support goes directly against the goals of the forced birth movement, which is to enforce moral behavior.
Can we also condemn the forced liver cirrhosis movement? Just because I drink a bottle of whiskey a day, it's not fair that the medical establishment force me to have a bad liver instead of giving me a new one every year!
Imagine the horror of doing a thing which will produce a particular result. and then that result happens! I should be free to jump off cliffs and not have gravity pull me down!
A straightforward reading of the analogy would imply that each woman should be given only a single chance to abortion during her entire lifetime, which is... actually a novel opinion to consider.
Before the Roe-v-Wade case was decided in 1973, different States had different laws about abortion. Some forbade it entirely (including Texas, the state that 'Jane Roe' lived in when she filed her lawsuit).
The Roe-v-Wade case claimed that the U.S. Consititution forbade such restrictions on abortions. A later case, Planned-Parenthood-vs-Casey, changed the limits of what was Constitutionally allowed. (Roe used a trimester-standard, while PP-vs-Casey used a viability-standard. )
The Dobbs case overruled both. It appears to state that the various States could put limits on abortion if the legislatures chose to.
Of interest: the Mississippi law that was challenged and upheld in the Dobbs case forbade abortions after the 15th week of gestation. Many others nations have laws of similar strictness on abortion. What laws are you familiar with in your part of the world?
EDIT: the Wiki page on the Dobbs case has a map of the apparent limitations on abortion in various States. It's a little hard to link that up to percentages-of-population-affected, but it is a start.
Talking about the Mississippi law, or other sub-second trimester bans, as existing law is kind of silly. A lot of red states were trying to pass laws that would push abortion restrictions to the limit of post-Roe jurisprudence, now that there is no Roe to push against they will probably go the whole hog as fast as possible.
Red state politicians have never previously had to care about the differences in popularity of a complete ban vs a 6 week ban vs a first-trimester ban, and were free to virtue-signal for primary points by being HARD ON ABORTION.
I expect there will be a lot of compromise in practice and very few complete bans.
This doesn’t track with the “life begins at conception” rationale claimed by anti-abortion advocates. What evidence do we have that there is a willingness to compromise?
Anti-abortion advocates cover a wide range of beliefs. This exact issue (how many people support X-week ban on abortion) has been well-studied; there's a big gradient between third trimester bans with tons of support to complete bans with very little.
One place I see it is in polling data, provided the poll doesn't frame the issue as a black-and-white "abortion any time; abortion never" switch. The closer one gets to either end of the gestation period, the more people are uncomfortable with abortion bans toward the fertilization end, or with abortions toward the birth end.
Could be true, certainly. But in my mind, there's an enormous difference between second trimester bans, like Mississippi, and first trimester bans, like Texas. First trimester bans strike me as outrageous. Second trimester bans don't.
Thirteen U.S. states (Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming) have "trigger laws" in place to ban all or nearly all abortions whenever "Roe" is overturned. They currently represent just under 21 percent of the national population, so I imagine that is the source of the "80 percent" statement.
Six more states (Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin) still have their pre-Roe abortion bans on the books. These include another 12 percent of the U.S. population. This November's state-level elections in Michigan, North Carolina or Wisconsin could possibly result in Democratic control of the state legislature leading to attempts to reverse the state's abortion law. (But it's unlikely, because it would have to be _full_ Democratic control in order to reverse an existent law.)
In addition the following states which are politically controlled by a state Republican Party which has declared that the state government will promptly ban abortion now that the Supreme Court says it can: Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Iowa. Those four represent another 8 percent of the U.S. population. Only in Georgia is there any meaningful chance of a political shift this November that could reverse the state's banning of abortion.
Summary: you asked "what percentage of American women of child bearing age are likely to have - no access to abortion at all". Though a few of the above states do or will allow exceptions for rape/incest/mother's life, none do or will draw any line related to gestation. So if we interpret these states to be what your first question is in reference to then the answer is:
33 percent right now, likely rising to about 40 percent within a few weeks, with some limited likelihood of dropping down slightly after this November's elections.
I was under the impression that the Mississippi law that lead to Dobbs only prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. That's less restrictive than e.g. Germany. And yet you include Mississippi in your list above of states where women will have `no access to abortion' (without travel out of state). I haven't gone through your list and checked all the other names, but based on the above, I expect there are additional inaccuracies, and the above comment can be discarded.
Also, "less restrictive than e.g. Germany" is somewhat misleading. Germany does indeed have a law (Section 218 of the German criminal code) that makes abortion illegal after 12 weeks. It also has exceptions to the law that allow for abortions up to 22 weeks if performed by a doctor and after certain prescribed counselling for the patient. Combine that with better health services and almost certainly better access to education and contraception than Mississippi (now, let alone under the new arrangements) and I don't think it's fair to describe even the non-redundant law that lead to Dobbs as less restrictive overall, let alone what's in place post Roe.
It's probably accurate to say that `33% right now, and 40% within a few weeks, will see greater restrictions on abortion than existed under Roe.' However, the new regime might still be less restrictive than e.g. most of Europe. As is the case in e.g. Mississippi. There is a lot of room between `more restrictive than Roe' and `total ban.'
The new regime in Mississippi is definitely _not_ less restrictive than in most of Europe; not even close.
Apparently you prefer to simply ignore factual clarity when it is provided. [In this case, that the Mississippi law which reached the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the new abortion regime in that state which was triggered into effect by the Court's ruling].
So I expect there are and will be additional inaccuracies, and your comments can be safely discarded.
Well MO legislature is discussing some different measures to...
1. one bill allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state
2. Another bill would apply Missouri’s abortion laws to abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where “sexual intercourse occurred within this state [MO] and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.”
I don't know the chances of either passing and being signed into law. If it does, I can see a potential cases that could be appealed using the Full Faith and Credit Clause of our constitution (Article 4, Section 1). And of course, there's potentially another an Abortion version of the Dred Scott decision that could be conjectured up from this craziness.
US legal system is really confusing to me. Is it normal for a state to forbid something happening outside of its jurisdiction? Is it in any way enforceable, if the other state is not willing to play along and neither is the federal government?
Overturning Roe also opens the door for fetal heartbeat bills, which ban abortion at 6 weeks. Several states had laws of this type which were stalled in court until Dobbs was handed down.
Checking wikipedia, it looks like Ohio and South Carolina are the only two states with heartbeat bills that don't already appear on the list above. Ohio's went into effect a few days ago, SC's is expected to be enforced in the coming days.
No, a ban on abortion at 6 weeks is not effectively a ban. Most women do know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. According to this article, 2/3rds of abortions already happened before 9 weeks https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/nine-out-of-10-abortions-done-before-12-weeks-in-many-high-income-countries/. And now that early abortions are typically done via a pill you don't even need to schedule a surgical appointment; a ban after 6 weeks is far better than a complete ban.
It'll be confusing if someone tries to track policies in all 50 states, sure. It'll be no more confusing to follow it in one's home state than it was to follow when there was a nationwide policy, and slightly more confusing if one is tracking it in a state one is considering moving to, for that brief period in which one is considering a move.
In general, stuff's simpler if one cuts down on the amount of stuff they choose to worry about.
The cost of an insurance policy for the tiny chance of needing to pay a few hundred to fly to another state for a day would be like a dollar a month. But some people act like that potential inconvenience is a matter of life and death.
"Carrying a pregnancy to term is 33 times riskier than having an abortion, with 0.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions compared to 20.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Research also shows that those most likely to seek abortion care, including women of color, poor women and those with chronic or acute health conditions, are also more likely to encounter serious complications during pregnancy.
The study estimated that in the years following a national ban, an additional 140 women would die annually from pregnancy-related causes, bringing the death toll to 815, a 21% increase. Among non-Hispanic Black women, pregnancy-related deaths would increase by a third."
US maternal mortality rates are terrible, but they also count deaths a year after having a baby as being due to 'maternal mortality' (e.g. if your heart was weakened). A lot of the high rate is down to black women who seem to have poor health in general, ususally cardiovascular/hypertension problems (is this down to African-American cooking practices which seem to lean heavily on salt? who knows?)
"While the cuisine lives on, so do the health implications.
Soul Food often involves large amounts of meat, fat and sugar that have resulted in climbing numbers of high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, stroke and other health concerns among African Americans and those who consume Soul Food meals regularly.
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the chance of developing diabetes was significantly higher for black adults than for white adults (about 66 more cases of diabetes per 1,000 people). The greatest difference was between black women and white women.
Over the past few years awareness around the health-related effects of Soul Food has shaken up many eating habits and paved the opportunity for healthier recipes for the classic dishes — including substituting leaner meats and vegan options.
But, according to Michigan Medicine experts, there is still much work to be done.
“Today, despite increased awareness, education and alternative options, health concerns among black, brown and underrepresented communities is still a significant issue,” said Othelia Pryor, Ph.D., senior project manager in the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion."
Between inevitable cross-state availability of pharmaceutical abortifacients, the fact that emergency contraception (plan B) is unaffected, the overall rate of abortion having dropped for decades, the possibility of travel abortions, and the fact that states where abortion will be long-term banned didn’t have that many clinics or abortions to begin with, I’d be surprised if it amounted to more than a rounding error. Despite protests to the contrary, all states banning abortion will inevitably include exceptions for the life of the mother or eventual inevitability of miscarriage.
That said, I really wouldn’t put much faith in offered statistics based on counterfactuals we can’t observe. It’s a poor way to make decisions. Nobody can tell you how many lives were saved by abortion that would have otherwise been lost—except in the case of abortions performed for ectopic pregnancy, and those will still be performed.
And, of course, any pro-life advocate would say that many more lives will be saved than lost.
"Between inevitable cross-state availability of pharmaceutical abortifacients, the fact that emergency contraception (plan B) is unaffected"
I'm not so sanguine (at least long term) about shipments of pharmaceuticals. I presume this is through the mail? If interception of pharmaceuticals through the mail were consistently infeasible, why would anyone need a drug mule?
Interception of shipments through the mail is feasible, if it's the US Post Office doing the interception. It is not feasible for anyone else to intercept shipments through the mail without a substantial risk of having angry men with guns come talk to them. Even if they work for a State government, they're not allowed to tamper with the US Mail and the US Government *will* make that stick.
The US Post Office works for the Federal government, whose laws say that shipping e.g. Fentanyl is absolutely not illegal but shipping e.g. Mifepristone pursuant to a prescription is perfectly legal. And that's not likely to change. So, drug cartels need mules, but pregnant women who know an out-of-state doctor don't.
I suppose a State could e.g. make it illegal to carry Mifepristone from your mailbox to your kitchen, but the USPO at least isn't going to tell them you did that.
Ok, but this is a legal choice, not a technical limitation. Congress could decide, next time there is a GOP majority in both houses and a GOP president, to tell the US Post Office to allow states to intercept shipments that the state deems contraband. I'm not _recommending_ this, but it seems within the federal government's legal and technical ability.
That's an interesting thought, to be sure. Given how polarized the country is on this topic I'd expect they'd require a super-majority to accomplish such a thing. Even after that, there's the problem of bureaucratic inertia: there'd be no way to get enough of the federal employees involved to act efficiently, or perhaps at all. An entrenched and intractable organization can slow-walk any policy changes it opposes without criminal conspiracy or even technically breaking any rules.
Re "super-majority": _Probably_ agreed, unless the filibuster rules are changed.
Re "slow-walk": That depends on which people in the USPO at which level prefer which policies. I'd expect most of the leaf level employees to reside in the states that they service - though whether they tend to share the overall political climate of the state or differ in either direction is another question.
My wild guess is that mail entering the state probably goes through some sort of distribution center, and it is effective control of _that_ that would determine whether screening for state-specific contraband was slow-walked or not.
( I have a personal grudge against the DEA for deciding to ban full strength food grade benzaldehyde (aka almond/cherry/cream flavor) because someone uses it as a feedstock for some currently banned drug. )
Agree on "rounding error". The hysterics in the press and on social media are a sensationalized form of ignorance that causes intense and unnecessary suffering.
How many abortion providers are willing to provide "for the mother's health" abortions but not others? Is this a common service, or in practice, is it the same places that do all of them, and once the others are gone, there's no more "for the mother's health" ones available either?
Once the others are gone, there won't be the volume requiring dedicated paramedical providers; they'd be done by your normal urgent care clinics, family doctors, etc.
A lot of abortions these days are done by pill too; those can be prescribed via telehealth and picked up at your local pharmacy, no specific provider required.
However, a big part of the worry with such exceptions to save the life of the mother is that in practice those exceptions will never be made. Nobody will want to stick their neck out an approve an abortion in the post-Roe legal environment of those states that do ban abortion.
This is apparently a problem in Catholic hospitals already, where they often have such a "maternal health" exception on paper, but approval for it is virtually never granted until it is far too late, and a faint hope of saving the fetus is chosen over a near guarantee of the mother's survival in many cases. Catholic hospitals apparently have significantly higher maternal mortality rates than secular hospitals in the US, and it stands to reason that this difference in policy and more importantly practice is a large part of the reason why.
Can confirm - this happens in Poland, women usually don't bother trying to get the health exception - even if warranted - and just go on a short foreign trip, or get pills mailed from a sane EU country.
"Catholic hospitals apparently have significantly higher maternal mortality rates than secular hospitals in the US, and it stands to reason that this difference in policy and more importantly practice is a large part of the reason why."
It seems Catholic hospitals are becoming a larger part of the American medical system:
It also seems that black women are more likely to frequent Catholic hospitals, and as the link to maternal mortality rates points out, they have much higher risks:
"A 2021 report by the Commonwealth Fund indicates Black mothers are more than twice as likely as white mothers to experience severe pregnancy-related disease or illness. African American women from all walks of life and income levels are also dying from preventable pregnancy-related complications at nearly three times the rate of non-Hispanic white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Villanueva said this is even more alarming given the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries.
In many states, Black women are more likely than white women to give birth at a Catholic facility, and nationwide one in seven patients is cared for within a Catholic hospital."
While we're talking about Catholic maternal mortality, the USA maternal mortality rate in 2019 was 17/100,000, while in Ireland it was 0. This was before legalised (limited) abortion in my country and we're officially (however in reality) Catholic:
Yes I see this in the table, and congratulations on a very low rate! I'm skeptical about "0". There is a faint aroma of cooked books... Given how many things can go wrong in pregnancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_complications_of_pregnancy, exactly zero deaths sounds suspicious.
Yes, I think those figures are strange also. It seems to be a combination of different reporting (the US includes all deaths up to a year after pregancy) and small population size.
"For the years 2015 – 2017, a total of 10 maternal deaths, occurring during or within 42 days of pregnancy end, were identified by MDE Ireland among 187,449 maternities. All 10 deaths were classified as direct or indirect, giving a maternal mortality rate (MMR) of 5.3 per 100,000 maternities (95% CI 2.6 – 9.8). Three further deaths were attributed to coincidental causes.
On account of small numbers and to facilitate early identification of trends, all maternal death rates (MMR) are presented as a rolling three-year average. This includes deaths due to direct and indirect causes during pregnancy and up to 42 days postpartum but not deaths due to coincidental causes or late maternal deaths"
They compare these with UK figures since that's our nearest neighbour, and the basic conclusions are:
"There is a five-fold difference in maternal mortality rates amongst women from Black ethnic backgrounds and an almost two-fold difference amongst women from Asian Ethnic backgrounds compared with white women.
Maternal deaths from direct causes are unchanged with no statistically significant change in the rates between 2012-14 and 2015-17.
Thrombosis and thromboembolism remain the leading cause of direct maternal death during or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy.
Maternal suicide is the second largest cause of direct maternal deaths occurring during or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy and remains the leading cause of direct deaths occurring within a year after the end of pregnancy.
Cardiac disease remains the largest single cause of indirect maternal deaths. Neurological disease is the second most common indirect cause of maternal death.
A persistent maternal sinus tachycardia is a ‘red flag’ and should always be investigated, particularly when there is associated breathlessness.
There is clear evidence that low dose aspirin for women at risk reduces the incidence of preeclampsia as well as reducing preterm birth, fetal or neonatal death and small for gestational age babies."
So the risk for black women is much higher, which probably contributes to the high American rate.
On some classified ad in the past year or so, someone posted about software for organizing collective action, allowing signatories of a petition anonymity until a certain threshold was reached.
I forget what it was called. Can someone point me to it?
*Visualizing good turns of phrase: shape rotator or wordcel thing?
*What would be the epistemic threshold for requiring belief in things that are instrumentally good, even if terminally false - Pascal's Minimum Wager?
*If a bait'n'switch-class fallacy is used as a witty verbal riposte, would that be an example of a Bon Mot and Bailey?
Meta actually-serious question: are rationalists capable of devising jokes* that non-Ingroup will grok, much less laugh at? I genuinely think this might be a hole in our collective maps, and contributes to above-average levels of below-average social eptitude.
*besides puns, which Samuel Johnson says are the lowest form of humour. Surely we can do better.
I have now statted up an NPC named Surly Temple Grandin for my next PF2 campaign. Appreciate the inspiration. We can indeed do better, or at least the most better for the most people. (Which was the only redeeming plot point of Marvel's Age of Utilon.)
Yes, but they aren't telling rationalist jokes, they are just telling jokes about experiences that normies have too. If Jerry Sienfeld was a rationalist, he would still be opening with "What's the deal with parkways?" not "What's the deal with probablist decision architecture?"
I've noticed this but didn't think it was a Thing. That is, I've noticed that I laugh the hardest at jokes that I know nobody else will get. It's depressing, because sharing jokes is also part of the fun.
On the topic of why the shoplifting statistics in San Francisco seem so off (from your San Fransicko post), I can share an experience from 2 car break-ins I recently had in the city (one in December, one in May). In both cases I filed a police report immediately, and requested a copy for insurance purposes. The process involves filing a request through the SFPD Records website, which is supposed to get back to you within 10 business days. In both cases they did *not* get back to me within that time frame, and I had to call them to urge them to send the report. On one of the calls the officer told me that they were still processing reports from 3 months prior, i.e. there was a massive backlog. So they might only be selectively processing reports when someone makes a big enough stink about it.
I guess the next question is whether this situation has gotten worse, or whether the backlog and limited reporting has been a perennial problem, so that trends should still show up.
The cops are totally inept when it comes to property crimes (and all other crimes, actually) anywhere in the country.
They took 6 months to get back to me on a 10000$+ (top bracket for my insurance) home burglary; 14 hours to respond to the case, including a call from the neighbors reporting suspicious activity (they denied receiving it lol).
One of the things stolen was a credit card, which was used to purchase gas. I called the detective in charge of my case while it was happening; they were busy. Fair enough.
I called the gas station and got permission to release the tapes, which had faces and a license plate. All the cops needed to do was call once to prove I was the owner of the card and had been robbed; I would have done to work.
It took me a 8 days calling 3 times a day to get the detective, who said he would call to release the tapes. He did not call. After that, I called once every couple days to get ahold of him; but he dodged every call for three or four weeks till I gave up.
This experience was replicated by every single other person I know who has had to interact with the cops post crime and didn't have a reason to sick a lawyer on them.
The cops are fucking useless. They are only good for signaling purposes, harassing minorities and poor people, and shooting dogs.
Having read some smart cops (who are also pretty good writers) for a few years now, I was totally unsurprised by what you wrote, but sad that you came to the opposite of, what seems like to me, the 'correct' conclusion: we need _more_ and better cops, and need to ensure they have better systems to support their work.
One thing I did read recently, from on the aforementioned 'smart cops' is that even just something like a police report can be helpful for cops _eventually_ arresting some criminal(s). It's just, practically, impossible for any of that to be made _visible_ or _noticeable_ to people like you making those reports.
But maybe that's a particularly high-value 'support system' we should be prioritizing, i.e. informing citizens and residents of how they DID in fact help catch and punish some criminal(s).
Does anyone have any information on what the filing process _does_, internally to SFPD? It isn't as if this was a request to physically go to a criminal's location and arrest them. Is there anything involved which couldn't be fully automated??? Is there unavoidable human action needed at some point, and, if so, where?
If you are a Dutch rationalist or rationalist in NL, consider checking out our discord: https://discord.gg/XgfrXka8
We have a July meetup planned, an open DnD group, and a census doc to determine future events. We just started with this new setup and now have 36 members on the server with daily discussions on rationality. It's basically a local chapter for the Netherlands and currently looking to find where all the Dutch rats / rats in NL are, so hi! :D
Why is yudkowsky (and the rat-adjacent community) so sure about drexler nanotech?
Skimming ey latest on lw, he claim that the most plausible way agi can eliminate humanity is
> emails some DNA sequences to any of the many many online firms that will take a DNA sequence in the email and ship you back proteins, and bribes/persuades some human who has no idea they're dealing with an AGI to mix proteins in a beaker, which then form a first-stage nanofactory which can build the actual nanomachinery. (Back when I was first deploying this visualization, the wise-sounding critics said "Ah, but how do you know even a superintelligence could solve the protein folding problem, if it didn't already have planet-sized supercomputers?" but one hears less of this after the advent of AlphaFold 2, for some odd reason.) The nanomachinery builds diamondoid bacteria, that replicate with solar power and atmospheric CHON, maybe aggregate into some miniature rockets or jets so they can ride the jetstream to spread across the Earth's atmosphere, get into human bloodstreams and hide, strike on a timer.
This seems... unlikely? Had him stopped at an agi create a supervirus in a lab, well i could agree. But drexler vision of mechanical dry nanotech seems to not be particularly consistent with known physics and chemistry, let alone the bootstrapping of diamondoid (if they are even possible) nanobot from organic stuff (could it actually happen, evolution by natural selection would have already done it.)
In the smalley-drexler debate, well, the actual expert on the subject was smalley and he put forward good arguments. When you go at smaller scales physics behave differently and you cannot hope that your mechanical design will work as intended. Van der waals forces will make everything extremely sticky and oxidation will spell doom for your tiny diamonds. (Also, regarding that timer, i don't know how precise it can be. We now understand that there are thermodynamic limitations on the accuracy of clocks, but I am not an expert, so I could be wrong)
All in all it seems to me that the most plausible nanomachine design will be organic and biological, not diamondoid like. Tbf, I am not sure at all, but given that it seems to me that the community has never properly answered smalley concerns, should the rat community be that sure that drexlerian nanotech is possible?
I don't think Yudkowsky IS "so sure about drexler nanotech" – it's just a VIVID example of the _kind_ of doomsday scenario he imagines.
The problem is that people will argue with any example he gives, he can't/shouldn't use an example that's achievable by _people_ now (that isn't already a known 'movie plot'), and, technically, it seems farfetched that _anyone_ could possibly guess how a super-intelligence would kill humanity, if one existed and decided to do so.
It's an intuition pump, not a concrete 'load-bearing' element of his overall argument.
Incidentally, the current AI hype cycle has a lot in common with the nanotech hype cycle of the early 2000s.
The "gray goo" scenario was taken seriously back then; not by actual experts but by the sort of science fiction fans and pop-science hangers-on who take AI foom seriously now. There were always pretty convincing arguments against both "nanotech post-scarcity paradise" and "gray goo", and the counter-argument from the non-experts was always "yeah but you can't really really really prove it won't happen".
It's interesting to study how the nanotech hype cycle eventually died off and consider whether it will happen with AI right now. Nanotech didn't die quickly, there wasn't any major backlash, people just got bored of talking about it when it became clear that the cool parts weren't forthcoming. The actual useful research that was going on under the banner of "nanotechnology" ceased to brand itself as such when it stoped being cool; nowadays we routinely fabricate few-nm scale things but no longer use that word. And all the gray goo doom merchants, I guess, might have moved on to become AI doom merchants.
1: the argument from "if it could already happen evolution would have already done it" is blatantly wrong. Pretty much every piece of human technology going all the way back to artificial fire and stone tools is unprecedented in the paleontological record. Evolution is extremely powerful but has severe limitations in the kind of things it can do, EVEN things that it can do it may not do for billions of years. Humanity has never evolved before a couple million years ago, and yet it is clear to me that humanity is possible!
2: I agree that Eliezer's obsession with nanotech is not really based on anything factual and may be completely wrong in the end.
3: drexlerian nanotech is not necessary for AI to kill all of us.
Humanity could be considered a small update to chimps, but one that generates rather exponential possibility.
A form of life completely unrelated to our own physicality I would bet is something evolution tried and failed at. I don’t think there is a niche in the Ecosystem of the Earth that is not inhabited by something that is living, and many of them are very different from us. The creatures that exist around hot water vents under the ocean come to mind.
I'm pretty sure Drexler nanotech is not possible, or at least not possible from a single-shot computation and need extensive experimentation to create.
That being said, "evolution would have filled that niche" is a very, very bad argument.
Evolution is very path dependent. On the macro-scale we see this from every living vertebrate have a 1-head 4-limbs 5-digits-per-limb 1-tail body plan. It's almost guaranteed that some other body plan would be optimal somewhere some of the time, but evolution can't get there from here.
On the micro-scale, it is believed that after lignin was evolved, it took evolution millions of years to develop lignase to break it down; most of the world's coal deposits are believed to come from the carboniferous era when any tree that died fell over and stayed in the swamp forever because nothing could eat it.
If you don't care you can just not reply to that point, but it's by far the most important part of the argument and the nanotech thing is a distraction compared to it.
Yudkowsky has a pattern of reading a pop sci book, and then getting completely sold on it -- ignoring all criticisms and alternative views. So he is sure about Drexler 's views about nanotechnology for the same reason he is sure about Deutsch 's MWI.
Stranger than nanotech for me is how the rightful caliph of the rationalist community thinks that an AGI would be able to do anything without any actual experimentation ever.
Yud has long held the novel idea that an AI could infer general relativity from three frames of video of a falling apple. He doesn't do much to argue for it but it's part of his whole constellation of beliefs.
Won't only have a small bit of vid though right? The entire internet, a very good memory and a lot of time/IQ. If you imagine how much evidence humans have available to their pattern matching apparatus compared to a vastly more intelligent and informed AGI, it might not be weird to expect them to come up with big discoveries without a lab. Any thesis can be tested against all previous data that's halfway relevant; it'd be the king of metastudies
The "apple and relativity" bit sounds like he swiped what Conan Doyle has Holmes write in an article on "The Science of Deduction" in "A Study in Scarlet":
“From a drop of water,” said the writer, “a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it."
However, Doyle/Holmes goes on to say:
"Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.”
Perhaps he thinks AI can compress "long and patient study" into mere moments?
The exact quote was about a "Bayesian superintelligence", not an AI specifically, from the blog post / very-short-story "That Alien Message"[1] that he seems to have created as an intuition pump about the theoretical limit on what could in principle be inferred by a Sherlock Holmes with unlimited time and memory. Here it is in context:
"My moral?
That even Einstein did not come within a million light-years of making efficient use of sensory data.
Riemann invented his geometries before Einstein had a use for them; the physics of our universe is not that complicated in an absolute sense. A Bayesian superintelligence, hooked up to a webcam, would invent General Relativity as a hypothesis—perhaps not the dominant hypothesis, compared to Newtonian mechanics, but still a hypothesis under direct consideration—by the time it had seen the third frame of a falling apple. It might guess it from the first frame, if it saw the statics of a bent blade of grass.
We would think of it. Our civilization, that is, given ten years to analyze each frame. Certainly if the average IQ was 140 and Einsteins were common, we would."
"Perhaps he thinks AI can compress "long and patient study" into mere moments?"
That's exactly it. He wrote one story where humanity got a message from another universe with entirely different physical laws, containing nothing more than a handful of semi-random images. Over the course of thousands of years, humans were able to fully understand how the other universe worked, just from analyzing those images. They eventually found ways to manipulate the extradimensional aliens and trick them into unknowingly making changes to their world, purely through inter-universal text messages.
Yudkowsky explained that the story was a metaphor, with the extradimensional aliens as a stand in for us, and the humans as a stand in for a superintelligent A.I., implying that within a very short time (from a human perspective), an A.I. would be able to accomplish the same thing as an entire planet's worth of humans focused on a single task for several millennia.
Does GPT-3 run experiments? IMO it is knows some things about the world.
(prompt in quotes)
"Apples fall to the ground because" of gravity.
When an apple is ripe, the stem that attaches it to the tree loosens. At the same time, the apple produces ethylene gas. The ethylene gas causes the apple to ripen, and the loosened stem causes the apple to fall. The force of gravity pulls the apple to the ground.
This whole thing is about an AI making advances in technology that are unknown to humans, modeling the physical process out enough in its "head" to create accurate instructions for how to create novel nanotech, correctly, the first time, in the real world, with what technology actually exists.
It's not about learning information that already exists, pre-digested in its entirety in the training set.
> This whole thing is about an AI making advances in technology that are unknown to humans, modeling the physical process out enough in its "head" to create accurate instructions for how to create novel nanotech, correctly, the first time, in the real world, with what technology actually exists.
The AI could attempt 1,000,000 of these one shot take over attempts simultaneously, so its modeling doesn’t need to be perfect IMO.
And if the AI can cause things to happen in the world of atoms, why doesn’t it just cause humans to do knowledge-generating-experiments for it and then send it back the results? But maybe this is out of scope for this question.
> It's not about learning information that already exists, pre-digested in its entirety in the training set.
The scenario in question is intended to be one in which humans have very little opportunity to recognize that the AI is doing dangerous things, and stop it, before it had physical-world supremacy. So if it's iterating across many experiments, that offers a lot more chance for humans to turn the AI off.
Psych question: antipsychotics are dopamine antagonists and stimulants are dopamine agonists, and stimulant induced psychosis would be treated with antipsychotics, logically one would think they're opposites... Why is it then that they can work together without neutralising each other? What voodoo magic is at work?
My non-neuropharmacologist guess would be that different drugs may act on different parts of the “dopamine receptor environment”, e.g. a reuptake inhibitor doesn’t act directly equal and opposite to a receptor antagonist.
Additionally, there are multiple different types of dopamine receptor, implicated in different processes. If two different drugs don’t affect the same set of receptors, they are to some extent acting separately.
However, I’d guess that this effect is partial, and that antipsychotics and stimulants *do* counteract each other to a significant degree.
Any EA folks out there that are either in edtech and/or avid readers willing to give feedback and/or advice?
I'm exploring creating a tool enabling people to share beautiful ranked booklists - with the goal of helping informal learners read better books sooner and helping communities like this identify and share what the canonical books are.
I'd love to get feedback on the prototype, get business advice, learn about your reading habits and needs etc. Thank you!!!
Post an email or something I can use to get in touch with you. I'm an avid reader with experience volutneering w/ a youth organization concerned with canon.
Does anyone prefer light text on a dark background? I find it kind of hard to enjoy reading that way, even though it makes perfect sense for minimizing eye strain.
I have all my tools on dark themes if possible, partially because it's more aesthetic, partially because the wall of backlit LCD white hurts my eyes. It was even worse with CRTs, when the habit formed.
It also helps that it feels like _my_ tool that way, instead of a lame tool for corporate drones in business casual attire.
Having grown up on text-based MUDs, I thought it was just obviously normal and superior to have black background with white text by default, then use colours for emphasis. Even darker ones are noticeable, plus you get to use fun stuff like yellow that's normally impossible otherwise. YMMV though.
(Also, RIP ASCII art.)
Forcing that sort of display for most things by default used to be easier. I don't wanna wait around until an Official Dark Theme/Extension(tm) gets published for every app and browser, yknow? Part of why Substack's default sterile white is so annoying.
Came to comment the exact same question. It's less eye-searingly painful than the optical white default, I guess, but very...hospital sanitary colours? I guess that's not way off theme for Scott, but I feel like I'm reading a jar of surface disinfectant. Clinical, cold, vaguely unnerving. Not super into it. Time to finally give ACX Tweaks a try, perhaps...
What's the point of a symbolic head of state in parliamentary systems? I get it when the system came out of a monarchy (or is still a constitutional monarchy), but not why you'd have a ceremonial-only President. It seems like a weird holdover from monarchy that you need an actual person to be The Embodiment and Avatar Of The State even in an openly democratic regime with a constitution with popular legitimacy.
If you haven't had a chance to read the first two parts on Construction Physics substack's series on nuclear power costs, I'd recommend them. TL;DR Nuclear plants are extremely complex and very sensitive to labor coordination problems and delays that come from the regulatory environment and design changing in the middle of constructions, plus the extremely low public tolerance for nuclear risk (an attempt by the NRC to qualify some level of radioactivity as safe caused a huge public backlash).
I read somewhere years ago, and a minute of googling didn't track it down, but it went something like:
The King of England has the same role as the king in chess: he holds a space so no other piece can hold it.
The idea being that by having a Head of State separate from the head of government, it limits the power of the head of government and prevents a complete takeover of the state by the current government. The UK's remarkable run of democratic stability can be attributed to the monarchy's ability to hold that space and prevent it from being usurped.
I'd mainly attribute Westminster's stability to the prosperity of England from 1750–1900. As with 21st century China, it's not worth blowing up a rapidly growing pie to grab a bigger slice.
Lesser reasons: not wanting a repeat of the Civil War and Cromwell; already being quite liberal at the beginning of the Enlightnment; the Channel and the Golden Cavalry of St George obviating the need for a large standing army which might disrupt things; the Empire as a sink for would-be tyrants and warmongers.
Americans sometimes make fun of France for being on the Fifth Republic, but of those Republics, one was destroyed by German Nazis and one was destroyed by Napoleon after it had to give Napoleon a lot of power to prevent it being destroyed by foreign monarchs. So in England-or-America-beneficial-neighbourhood-adjusted terms, France only has 2 constitutional spasms to explain since 1789, which compares decently to America's Civil War & New Deal.
I've heard this idea, but I don't buy it. Fascist Italy had a king. (Mussolini was prime minister.) Japan in that era wasn't exactly fascist, but it was bad in a lot of the same ways, and of course they had the emperor.
There are four major roles that Heads of State play in parliamentary systems.
The first is to take on "national mascot" ceremonial responsibilities so the Head of Government has more time and attention for the actual business of government and politics. If the Queen or President or whoever is the one hosting state dinners, pinning medals on people, and breaking champagne bottles on new warships, then the Prime Minister can spend that time instead on stuff like reading policy briefings, lobbying back-benchers, or giving political speeches.
The second is to act as a relatively non-partisan figure to handle magisterial procedures like appointing and dismissing government ministers and scheduling elections, where there's clear norms around how and when it should be done but the procedures could be abused in corner cases if performed directly by a partisan figure like the PM.
The third is the power "to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn". In Britain in particular, the PM has to regularly have private meetings with the Queen to explain his policies and to formally "request" actions that are technically performed by the Queen. There's likely some psychological benefit to the PM having to explain himself regularly to someone of higher status than himself and to hear her out respectfully if she disagrees, even if at the end of the day he can (almost) always insist on his preferred policies. This is likely particularly effective if the head of state has long experience in this role (i.e. can refer back to decades of similar conversations with previous PMs during these consultations) and has both particular gravitas and a selection/tenure process that tends towards a nonpartisan and long-term outlook.
The last is a "break glass in emergency" mechanism to override a horrendously dysfunctional legislature and PM, or to reconstitute temporary political leadership in an extreme continuity of government scenario. For example, if our newly-elected PM Harold Saxon reveals himself to be a megalomaniacal space alien, and for some reason he still has the confidence of a majority of Parliament (or if he promptly murders anyone who opposes him), then the Queen could unilaterally fire him, dissolve Parliament, and call new elections. In a less extreme scenario, during Brexit shenanigans in 2019 the PM (Boris Johnson) had been making trial balloons about disregarding an act of parliament instructing him to ask the EU for an extension to negotiations and performing a "crash out" Brexit on his own authority. The Queen seems to have responded by leaking trial balloons of her own about firing and replacing him on her own initiative, after which Johnson backed down.
It can be nice to have a more or less nonpartisan Rex Sacrorum to perform the necessary rituals and ceremonies without 48% of the country complaining that they voted for the other guy.
"The president acts as a representative of the Irish state and guardian of the constitution."
The president is also the commander-in-chief so the defence forces hold their commissions from him (and not from whoever is leader of the government of the day), and the president does have limited independence from the government:
8.1 The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions.
8.2 The behaviour of the President may, however, be brought under review in either of the Houses of the Oireachtas for the purposes of section 10 of Article 12 of this Constitution, or by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either of the Houses of the Oireachtas for the investigation of a charge under section 10 of the said Article.
The arguments are both practical and political. Practically, someone needs to be the outward face of the government, sign treaties, have the armed forces swear allegiance, receive visiting heads of state, carry out symbolic parliamentary functions, receive government resignations, countersign laws, all that kind of thing. Politically, the President is usually a senior and experienced figure who is generally respected by all sides, giving them a certain status, if not necessarily power. The classic political function is coalition forming, or rather asking one person to attempt to form a government (this is going on in Lebanon as we speak). Even a President with few formal powers can be an influential and stabilising figure. Imagine what would happen if there were competing blocs of politicians trying to form governments and each claiming to be PM in waiting. In the end, few if any states have been able to dispense with such a function.
I second the basic argument below: usually these "symbolic" heads actually have the power to resort to "nuclear options" (like dissolving parliament or appointing a new government) which can be critical in times of crisis. But in addition to this they often also have veto powers which can be used sparsely but regularly, as well as the kind of political capital that comes from being a usually popular figure without a hand in governing; and this can be used to influence governments who are usually wary of the consequences of having such a figure use this capital against them.
Ad 1: In my understanding it is partly a balance of power thing. "Symbolic" heads of state such as the German Bundespräsident often have significant formal powers though they are expected not to use them (or only use them according to tradition or the will of the government/parliament). So the symbolic head doesnt matter in normal times, but in theory could intervene if the government tries to overreach and kill the constitutional order.
Symbolic heads of state often have powers like appointing and dismissing government ministers, commander in chief of the military and so forth so it might work.
Other roles symbolic heads of state play include as facilitators for the forming of new governing coalitions and generally as a stabilising actor in times of political crisis through soft power, see eg Matarella in Italy.
Yes, that's a very good description. For example, the German Bundespräsident can reject any law from the parliament if he thinks that it infringes the constitution. This is *a lot* of power in principle.
As Artischoke pointed out, the president *could* intervene if the government tries to seize power. In a very mild form of that, several of the vetoes were against laws that were passed without involving the regional states ("Bundesrat"). The constitution is a bit fuzzy on when exactly they need to be involved.
I have a friend who is deeply into NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming, not Natural Language Processing) and claims that it has been very useful to them. My inclination is to see it as a pseudoscience. I realize these two positions are not mutually exclusive (it could be a pseudoscience that happened to be useful for my friend but would not be equally useful for a random person, or it could include some generically useful self-help advice framed in a pseudoscientific way), but I'm curious if anyone has any experience with or thoughts on NLP.
Placebo effect is real, so using (harmless) pseudoscience to help yourself is better than doing nothing.
I imagine that some parts of NLP work for a different reason than advertised, but work anyway: for example if you carefully watch the movement of a person's eye to determine whether the person is a "visual or auditory thinker", the actual benefits may come from maintaining eye contact.
Therefore, in absence of better evidence, I assume that the effects of NLP is a combination of placebo and techniques that work for a different reason than the underlying bullshit theory.
I read an NLP book about 30 years ago, and have found some of the visualization exercises useful all,of my life. Good for getting rid of some of the persistent negative thoughts and images my brain insists on dredging up.
I also found one that worked well for anxiety before potentially risky activities - for example, launching a hang glider; or going over a mountain bike obstacle.
You are probably right that it overlaps with a lot of pseudoscientific, positive thinking woo. But I also see some similarities to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, in that both train you to take control of your brain, and develop better mental habits.
For negative mental images, I "push them away", by literally imagining them as moving away into the distance, until they disappear. Also, change to monochrome, and disassociate by imagining I am watching myself view the images on a screen. Often have to repeat several times in succession.
For anxiety around risky activities, if I have that "butterflies in my stomach" feeling, I visualize myself in the second person, successfully performing the activity, five times in a row. Then repeat, but with a first person viewpoint. This will usually reduce my anxiety feelings substantially.
Scott. this one seems to be in your wheelhouse. I note that it is in animal models now and no FDA trials have begun yet, but the claims are pretty big, if true:
"New Drug Could Help Stop Depression, Anxiety, Brain Injury, and Cognitive Disorders"
"The researchers showed that the systemic administration of the new drug alters neurobehavior in mice, reducing anxiety-like behavior. It also provides a promising landscape for future studies to assess whether the drug could help combat stress, anxiety, depression, addiction, cancer, and neurodegeneration."
"A new preclinical drug reported by James Bibb, Ph.D., and colleagues has the potential to combat depression, brain injury, and cognitive disorders. The drug, which is notable for being brain-permeable, works by inhibiting the kinase enzyme Cdk5.
"Cdk5 is an important signaling regulator in brain neurons. Over three decades of research, it has been linked to neuropsychiatric and degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Knocking out the enzyme in mice makes them more resilient to stress, improves cognition, protects neurons from stroke and brain trauma, and slows neurodegeneration.
"While Cdk5 inhibitors may offer potential therapeutic benefits and new ways to study basic brain function, previous first- and second-generation anti-Cdk5 compounds largely get blocked at the blood-brain barrier, which restricts solute movement from the blood to the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system. So far, no Cdk5 inhibitor has been authorized for the treatment of any neuropsychiatric or degenerative condition."
Obviously we might come to a point where they pass tests like these and still fail other things, but as long as they're failing simple mathematical reasoning I think it's clear they don't understand what they're talking about in any meaningful way.
Admittedly part of that seems to be that Dall-E 2 is not really designed with usability in mind - a single text box is clearly insufficient to properly command it.
These IQ results are not particularly trustworthy:
"In the imputed ITT analysis, children in the intervention group had a 2.5-point (95% CI: −0.4, 5.4) higher mean FSIQ than children in the control group (Table 3). Adjusting for PTB increased the estimate to 2.8 points (95% CI: −0.1, 5.7), and after adjustment for both PTB and child’s sex the effect estimate was 3.0 points (95% CI: 0.2, 5.9). Excluding eight participants who incorrectly received or did not receive the HEPA cleaners had little effect on the estimate (2.5 points; 95% CI: −0.5, 5.4)."
Various ways to analyze the data produced mostly p > .05, they managed to find one method variation with p < .05. I compute it to be .025. Shrug tier. Nice study though.
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Apparently the CDC hasn't actually been monitoring COVID vaccine adverse events in spite of publishing a plan saying they would.
It's difficult to monitor. This guy says there's been a huge spike in adverse reaction reports after COVID shots compared with other vaccines. But vaccinate enough people and you are statistically certain to have a lot of adverse things happen coincidentally after someone is vaccinated. People are a lot more likely to report a heart attack as an "adverse reaction" if it happens after a COVID shot than they were after a flu shot because people aren't generally worried that flu shots could cause a heart attack. So is that spike in reports an indicator that COVID vaccines have more adverse reactions or an indicator that people are much more likely to report stuff after a COVID vaccine than they were after vaccines that aren't new?
The point of this article, that I don't think any of the replies have addressed is this: The CDC published a plan at the beginning of the vaccine rollout to analyze VAERS reports on a weekly basis using "proportional ratio reporting" Here is the plan: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/VAERS-v2-SOP.pdf
Now a year and a half later, in response to a FOIA request, they say they never did that analysis even once. So what's up with that?
I'd be very cautious about taking this particular site's word for complaints about the CDC. There have been many people complaining about the CDC's statistical illiteracy from many directions over the past two years. If Zeynep Tufekci, or Scott Gottlieb, or Michael Mina, or Zvi Mowshowitz, or any of a number of other people, were making this complaint, I'd listen very closely. The fact that none of them has complained doesn't yet prove that this is entirely self-serving bs from some site that is against anything related to covid vaccines, but if these claims are pushed a bit farther and still none of these people picks it up, that would be pretty damning to these claims.
I hear you. I know the organization is "anti-vax" in the full meaning of the word. However the particular complaint doesn't depend on who is making it. Unless you suspect the letter they show from the CDC is forged?
ACX Tweaks has stopped working for me, either something changed with substack or with Firefox (version 101.0.1) on a Mac. I tried deleting it and re-installing. Anyone have any ideas?
Hi, no idea how to contact you normally, but I may have done an astrological horary analysis for you re: your band some months ago? I had a calendar reminder pop up today, but can't remember much about the situation or what was supposed to happen.
Thanks for the reminder. Your prediction was for "27 time units", which you said was more likely "27 months". I thought 27 weeks was more likely, and pre-registered that I would consider the prediction accurate if that happened, which would have been the end of June 2022. It hasn't happened. So the next check-in is end of March 2024.
I'm on Chrome, with Windows 11 or whatever the latest one is.
A while back (months?) I installed an add-on (yours?) that replaced the "18 hr ago" and so forth with dates and times, and added a [NEW] tag to comments I hadn't see before. A while later, the add-on stopped working; it's now back to how it was before I installed the add-on.
Some features ("tilde" new and displaying full timestamps instead of "x hr ago") stopped working for me I think a couple weeks ago. Haven't been at home (where I have the extension) since the color change to see if that had an impact.
I'm not the first to mention any of this, but it seems to me like the two recent hot-button cases, on guns and abortion, are contradictory. Links to both:
They both look to history to ask whether a right to an abortion in one case, or a right to carry a gun in public (or some version of that) in the other case, existed historically.
But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward. In addition, in the gun case they look to see whether carrying guns in public was *outlawed* as a stand-in for whether you had a *right* to do so; not outlawed == you have a right to it. But in the abortion case they specifically distinguish the two - just because abortion wasn't outlawed *doesn't mean* you had a right to it.
I think it's also clear that Supreme Court justices doing this sort of historical research isn't a good way of doing anything. Does anyone think that this sort of reasoning, or the similar reasoning you see on the other side when liberals do it, is any sort of evenhanded look at the history of whatever types of laws are at issue? It screams cherry picking and special pleading to me. If they're going to do it, they should at least commission a historian or take expert testimony or something; right now it seems like copying stuff from amicus briefs combined with clerks googling stuff.
A few other criticisms (and for the record I am pro-choice and don't have a strong opinion about the New York gun law at issue):
Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.
For Alito's opinion in the abortion case, and to strike home the point about history, I think another person reading the same history he does and with the sort of cherry-picking they do, could easily reach the result that there *was* a right to pre-quickening abortion historically. Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong, and he says they aren't affected because they don't involve "potential life", but nothing about his reasoning with regards to abortion rests on whether there's a "potential life" involved.
For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that. He repeatedly dismisses "means-end" analysis i.e. strict scrutiny, but the court always applies those things when deciding first amendment cases.
For Alito in the abortion case, he claims he isn't questioning anyone's motives, but also cites people on both sides who have claimed the other side has discriminatory motives, and disputes at length the idea that pro-lifers have discriminatory motives while also insinuating that pro-choicers do.
One thing that really irks me about Alito's opinion:
"By the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy"
Isn't the *POINT* of an amendment to overrule previous law? Suppose that the 14th amendment had explicitly granted a right to an abortion. In that case, I would think that the existence of laws that were in force _prior_ to an amendment would be irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of a law _after_ the amendment is added.
(Personally, I'm pro-choice, and liked the _policy_ set by Roe v. Wade)
Why didn't Alito just say: The constitution, including all of its amendments, says nothing about privacy, about bodily autonomy, or about abortion. The Roe v. Wade decision was pulled out of thin air. We are voiding it.
". In that case, I would think that the existence of laws that were in force _prior_ to an amendment would be irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of a law _after_ the amendment is added."
Yes, if the 14th amendment explicitly called out abortion, then there would be no debate. But it does not explicitly do that, which is the whole point. The right can only be inferred, indirectly. The Court looked at existing law to determine if it was likely that people thought of abortion as a right that they were trying to protect. Because abortion isn't explicitly mentioned, this is a pretty high bar to clear: The fact that many states had outlawed is evidence it was probably not intended to be protected (in contrast to e.g. slavery, which was explicitly prohibited by an Amendment). But even if all state laws were silent, it would probably not rise to the level of definitely being protected by the Constitution.
(Also in contrast to the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms; therefore, the burden of proof runs the other way: NY needs to demonstrate ample precedent for its law. Everyone keeps trying to play gotcha with the Court coming to different decisions without ever grappling with the fact that the 2 rights are actually treated very differently by the Constitution).
a) I agree with you about the 2nd amendment. As you said, it is _explicitly_ in the constitution.
Re: "The right can only be inferred, indirectly. The Court looked at existing law to determine if it was likely that people thought of abortion as a right that they were trying to protect. Because abortion isn't explicitly mentioned, this is a pretty high bar to clear: The fact that many states had outlawed is evidence it was probably not intended to be protected (in contrast to e.g. slavery, which was explicitly prohibited by an Amendment). But even if all state laws were silent, it would probably not rise to the level of definitely being protected by the Constitution. "
I see the point of looking at existing law to see if people (really legislators...) thought of abortion as a right to be protected - but only if the law is _unaltered_ by the amendment in question. Hypothetically, if there had been some liberty created by some law which was _clearly_ voided by the 14th amendment, I don't think it would have made sense for that liberty to be preserved by the amendment.
Cards on the table - I’m not a lawyer, but I'm educated and conversant in legal stuff. I'm probably a part of the legal right but not the cultural right. I think the RKBA is an important civil right for both anti-totalitarian purposes and self defense purposes. I think the 2nd amendment is primarily about the anti-totalitarian stuff, with self defense wayyyyyyyy in second place, but when it was incorporated in the 14th, the self defense got wayyyyyy more important because the experience of the free black citizens demonstrated how intertwined private violence and state violence is. I think the constitution is silent about abortion. I fucking hate Alito and dream of him retiring because he's outcome based and likes outcome I abhor like LOL Cops Don't Go To Jail. I love Thomas' dedication to getting it correct, and hate him when he falls into Alito-like outcome logic when the outcome is really important to him.
NYSRPA is an outcome I love, but a dogshit opinion. Thomas has done more damage to methodological originalism here than anything anyone has ever written, because he was the one who wrote it. "This history counts because it agrees with me, but this stuff doesn't because its an outlier" is 100% outcome logic, from the guy who was supposed to be the champion of originalism. If this is what his originalism looks like when the rubber hits the road, fuck him. And it didn't have to be like this. No one had more cred built up to say "This is how you do good originalism", and there was no better opportunity to authoritatively answer some thorny questions (which date matters, the passing of the 2nd or 14th?). What neutral and reviewable test do you use to determine scope of the question (ie when considering abortion, do you narrow down to "history of abortion" or generalize out to "history of medical decisions"?). Instead, it’s all "I win, here's some window dressing".
Dobbs, written by my least favorite Justice, is a masterpiece of an opinion. It clearly defines rules for one of the thorniest questions the court faces - how do we do Stare Decisis? Every justice has strong opinions about it, and unfortunately the court had 11 opinions swirling around (Barrett had clearly signaled she was undecided about it and thinking real hard please give me good briefs so I can make up my mind, and Kagan had 2 different opinions, depending on a 'does this implicate Roe' test).
“Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.”
Alito’s concurrence was a direct rebuttal to the dissent, which was also just Breyer arguing about gun policy. Both are in typical fashion for the two. Breyer meanders, goes into irrelevant bullshit, makes arguments backed up by ‘common sense’ and logic with giant holes, and eventually gets around to saying ‘the law is (or should be) this thing I made up because I’m sure its right’. Alito shows up loaded for bear and makes expert arguments under every possible style of analysis – and when he uses his intellectual enemy’s style against them, he pours salt in the wound. See his concurrence in the Montana school funding case where he makes a veiled-but-not-really accusation that Sotomayor is a bigot because she only cares about anti-black racism and not anti-Catholic bigotry because she refuses to use her own analysis from the from unanimous jury case (a history of bigotry means the law is unconstitutional) when a group she doesn’t like is the subject of the bigotry. In short, a good natured doddering old fool picked at 64 mps fastball over the plate, and an intellectually-roided up asshole hit it into the middle deck.
“Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong, and he says they aren't affected because they don't involve "potential life", but nothing about his reasoning with regards to abortion rests on whether there's a "potential life" involved.”
I *think* (and stress this is preliminary) that he’s doing two things here. 1) He’s establishing a simple test for litigants to use to tell a judge that they don’t need to grapple with anything in this opinion. Thus, even if the logic lines up perfectly, the judge can copy/paste the *fetal life* line and say “This case is about African hair braiding” or whatever. Notice that he doesn’t use *potential* life but *fetal*. This is not an accident, because *potential* applies to contraception, which he is now in black-and-white (+4 other Justices) saying is different. 2) I think this is saying that putting fetal life on the other side makes the reliance analysis very different. Obergefell’s ‘other side’ is some people who don’t like looking at gay people getting married (usually) or don’t want to make gay-wedding web pages (occasionally). Even if you are sympathetic to the web page designers, that’s still very different than fetal life. So, nothing as strong as interest in fetal life on the one side? Ok, then you don’t need to implicate this logic.
“For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that.”
Address in the above comment.
“For Alito in the abortion case...”
Yeah, Alito is a shit tier human being, and no one believes him when he says he’s not accusing anyone of anything. He’s the Judicial equivalent of “just asking questions here” guy. Much as I hate him, he is a very good legal mind.
The dissent's use of statistics was utter nonsense. SCOTUS is explicitly not about setting policy, therefore arguing about which outcome is good or bad shows that the Justice in question has abandoned their role in order to play legislator.
Well what the dissent says is that it's a complicated issue and the legislatures should decide instead of the courts, which say what you will about his argument but it's the opposite of playing legislator.
Yes, 100% agree. If Breyer wanted to argue policy, he should have stuck to the executive branch where he could go perpetuating racists sentincing schemes till his heart was content. Actually I don't remember if the sentincing commission he was on was part of congress or the executive branch, but it doesn't matter. They get to use bad social science to push policy. Justice shouldn't.
Don't have time for a longer comment right now so, briefly, the issue with saying "Alito was just responding to Breyer" is Breyer basically says "well it's complicated and so legislatures should decide not courts". Alito doesn't say anything like that, nor could he because of course he's calling for the courts to decide.
If he really wanted to dispute the stats, he could have said "well here are some reasons gun control doesn't help, at the end of the day maybe that's wrong and gun control does reduce crime, but it's not to us to decide because the 2nd amendment exists" but that isn't really what he's doing either.
I mean, doesn't Alito call out Breyer's citation to the Buffalo shooting saying this law doesn't stop that shooting, why should we use that as evidence we need this law? That's the way I took it at least.
This doesn't change what I'm saying ... whether this law would help to prevent incidents like the Buffalo shooting is a complicated issue and the legislatures should weigh the evidence and decide, Breyer says. Alito arguing "this law didn't stop the Buffalo shooting" doesn't have any bearing on the outcome by the logic of the majority opinion, or by the logic that people generally use in 2nd amendment cases.
I think you are calling Alito's concurrence "dumb" when really, you just wish it was something other than what it was. Which, you know, welcome to the club, I that that about most of his opinions. But I think it was intended to skewer Breyer (by all accounts a nice fellow) and his shitty logic, and I think it does (do a control-f for Buffalo in Alito's concurrence and read the whole paragraph. Its vicious and personal, and as a matter of logic, correct I think).
Can you explain why you think these findings are contradictory?
Both use legal history to drive a conclusion. One conclusion is pro, and the other conclusion is con. This history cited appears to support the conclusion. The history cited may be cherry-picked or cited in error: that's a question for legal-history scholars, and historians.
When you write something like this, I don't think you've read the opinion very carefully.
> Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.
Alito's opinion notes that the dissenting opinion is heavy on statistics about how many people die of gunfire, and light on arguments about why the New York law in question would reduce those deaths. That commentary is very on-point for the case that the Court was deciding.
If the dissenting opinion could have produced good arguments about how the law in question would (or did) reduce deaths, they should have done so. Since they could not, I fail to see how their argument for keeping the NY law in place was a good argument.
About this comment:
> For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that. He repeatedly dismisses "means-end" analysis i.e. strict scrutiny, but the court always applies those things when deciding first amendment cases.
Are any of the rights in the First Amendment limited by some government functionary requiring a person to show a pressing need for whatever act of free-speech, religious-expression, or public-protest that they would like to engage in? Are there any means-end analysis of First Amendment law that allow such a restriction? [1]
Justice Thomas was arguing that the Second Amendment shouldn't be limited in that way. Is any other right in the Bill of Rights limited in that way?
--------------------
[1] Imagine the leaders of a Black Lives Matter protest, or a protest against an abortion clinic, being told "No, you haven't convinced me that you have an urgent need to perform that protest tomorrow. You will be arrested if you do hold the protest."
There are time-place-and-manner laws that are upheld by the Supreme Court about free speech, but they do not appear to be the equivalent of must-show-valid-need laws such as those struck down by the Supreme Court.
Don't have time for a longer response but briefly:
When I say they're contradictory it's all this from my comment:
> They both look to history to ask whether a right to an abortion in one case, or a right to carry a gun in public (or some version of that) in the other case, existed historically.
> But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward. In addition, in the gun case they look to see whether carrying guns in public was *outlawed* as a stand-in for whether you had a *right* to do so; not outlawed == you have a right to it. But in the abortion case they specifically distinguish the two - just because abortion wasn't outlawed *doesn't mean* you had a right to it."
On Alito's concurrence, problem is that the dissent says "maybe I'm wrong but these questions are complicated therefore legislatures should decide not courts" and Alito doesn't do that, he's just arguing that gun control is bad. It would be way more intellectually honest if he said "maybe I'm wrong but even if I'm wrong the 2nd amendment still means this law is unconstitutional".
> Are any of the rights in the First Amendment limited by some government functionary requiring a person to show a pressing need for whatever act of free-speech, religious-expression, or public-protest that they would like to engage in?
I think in some cases yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that Thomas is saying no intermediate or strict scrutiny applies to the 2nd amendment, and it does to the 1st. In other words if the government arrests me for speech and I allege a first amendment violation, the court will apply strict scrutiny and so possibly uphold the arrest/conviction. But for the 2nd amendment they won't even apply strict scrutiny.
> But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward.
One potential basis for right to an abortion was based on the 14th Ammendment, passed in 1868. The right to bear arms is based on the 2nd, passed on the 1790s. It makes sense to look at different time periods for each.
Problem with that is that the right to bear arms only applies against the states because of the 14th Amendment, and meanwhile, the part of the 14th Amendment they talk about in the abortion case (due process) is the same wording as in the 5th Amendment, from the 1790s (except the 5th is in the passive voice and the 14th specifies that it restricts states).
So in both cases it's language from the 1790s that as a result of the 14th Amendment restricts the states.
>Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong,
Griswold yes, Obergefell no. There's a non-risible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that implies Obergefell i.e. if it's legal for a man to marry woman X then it must be legal for a woman to do so.
(I'm in the somewhat-weird position of being pro-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Roe and semi-pro-Obergefell.)
As you probably know, Gorsuch said something similar arguing against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock.
For that reason, I think that if another gay marriage case came up in front of the SC, we could see another 5-4 vote in support of gay marriage with Gorsuch and Roberts joining the liberals.
Used to be pro-gay-marriage - voted for it in the not-a-referendum Oz had five years ago - but the argument regarding "babies are prosocial and marriage is a good vehicle for this" eventually won me over. Scott, in Beware Systemic Change:
"As for opposing gay marriage, I think you’re going beyond your supposed reliance on evidence here. The strongest conservative case against gay marriage is that it reinforces a centuries-long redefinition of marriage from a strategic partnership focused on child-rearing to a ceremonial acknowledgment of romantic infatuation, potentially leading to a deep shift in the way people think about issues like who to marry, when to have kids, when to get divorced, and how to treat their family. That argument hasn’t been rigorously evaluated by statisticians and found wanting. It’s been found annoying and left untouched."
I'm not in favour of sodomy laws or anything - I'm bisexual myself - but I think the discrimination in marriage serves a purpose.
I get it. That’s why sane countries have functional domestic partnerships. Unfortunately the USA doesn’t. Most (some?) States have them but they’re not recognized by the Federal government.
Obergefell was essentially a case about tax discrimination. The Congress cunningly set themselves a booby trap by enacting DOMA without changing some tax laws at the same time.
It created havoc with interstate child custody fights as well. Some States recognized gay marriage and some didn’t.
You could steal the children or the money (not the money; the child support, the alimony) cross a state line, and make the whole thing a Federal case and a very confusing one. There was more than one such case leading up to the Supreme Court intervening.
> it reinforces a centuries-long redefinition of marriage from a strategic partnership focused on child-rearing to a ceremonial acknowledgment of romantic infatuation, potentially leading to a deep shift in the way people think about issues like who to marry, when to have kids, when to get divorced, and how to treat their family
I wouldn’t argue with that; I would ask, What’s the problem with that? Is there some relationship between the number of gay marriages and the number of heterosexual couples who want to have children that I don’t know about?
>Is there some relationship between the number of gay marriages and the number of heterosexual couples who want to have children that I don’t know about?
Sure. Bisexuals massively outnumber exclusive homosexuals, and societal norms that you're supposed to settle down with an opposite-sex partner (reinforced by tax breaks) are relevant to how many do.
Shouldn't there be a penalty for not having children once societal norms have encouraged you to "settle down with an opposite sex partner"? Just to encourage you a little more.
Is there any concrete evidence for the relevance you describe?
I can understand being pro-choice but anti-Roe, if you prioritize judicial consistency above abortion. But why would you be anti-gay-marriage but pro-Obergefell?
"Judges can't make up or ignore laws" is a very important part of separation of powers; it's the direct converse of "no bills of attainder". It's not their job to decide what's right, only what is legal. The alternative is, well, what we're going through now, which Alito correctly decried in Dobbs.
"Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving [long list of cases follows]. Respondents and the Solicitor General
also rely on post-Casey decisions like ... and Obergefell v. Hodges. ... These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.... None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445."
So it says "they rely on a bunch of old cases including Obergefell v Hodges, those cases 'prove too much', the rights in those cases aren't 'deeply rooted in history'" (which based on what he's said elsewhere means they aren't rights protected by the Constitution).
A person could have a pro-gay marriage view on the basis of equality, and distinguish abortion, like you say, but Alito doesn't distinguish it that way in here, and Alito dissented in Obergefell so he clearly doesn't think that.
"These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.... "
I, personally, support all of these rights. I would rather support them through an explicit amendment protecting bodily autonomy, rather than SCOTUS inventing policies out of penumbras of strained interpretations of the existing words.
What I would say is that the 9th amendment says this:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
To say "you don't have a right to abortion because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" doesn't work because of the above. There are rights that people have that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Combine that with the language in the 14th amendment about life liberty or property, and privileges and immunities and all that, some pretty broad language about rights people have.
Saying the above language protects a right to an abortion feels to many people like it's making shit up and reading it in. OK but saying that it doesn't protect anything at all, because it's too vaguely worded to ever definitively say that anything falls within it, also goes against the Constitution; it's elevating a certain idea of how judges should operate over the words of the Constitution itself.
My personal reaction is that the 9th amendment really _is_ too vague. One could plausibly construe it as saying that _any_ practice that the federal government hadn't banned at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is a practice that is an ancient right retained by the people which can never be banned by any subsequent Congress. While I think we have far too many laws, too many prisoners, and are in general far too punitive, I think the 9th amendment is vague to the point of being too broad.
That extremely broad interpretation would be consistent with the idea of having a sharply limited federal government that left many matters of governance up to the states.
No idea. I wouldn't guess that they did. I also don't think that they thought the equal protection clause did anything to protect women's rights. I also think their idea of what the first amendment did for free speech was much narrower than what most people think today. I don't base my view on those amendments on what the founders would have thought.
Alito says that what matters is whether a right was "deeply rooted", and the laws he cites seem to suggest that abortion generally *was* allowed before "quickening" so even Alito's own reasoning it's questionable.
The original interpretation of the US constitution did interpret the US constitution as saying "the federal government can only do this short list of things AND ALSO of those things can't have those things violate any of the rights listed in these amendments"
That's why the income tax and alcohol ban needed constitutional amendments.
The New Deal interpretation of the US constitution instead functions as saying "the US government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't violate any of the rights explicitly listed in these amendments, thanks to the power of the commerce clause"
Perhaps we should go back to the original interpretation, but that would require dismantling large chunks of the currently existing US government including Obamacare and the EPA.
Prostitution has been around for a very long time, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone saying that people have a *right* to prostitute themselves.
<i>I disagree. A lot of prostitutes would say that; in fact DO say so.</i>
We're talking about rights being "deeply rooted in history" (or not, as the case may be), so what prostitutes say (present tense) is neither here nor there. Nor, given that we're talking about legal/constitutional/natural rights, do I think that what prostitutes have ever said is really all that relevant, even if you could find an eighteenth-century prostitute talking about her human right to have sex with strangers for money; we'd have to look at what legal scholars, political philosophers, statesmen, and the like, said on the topic, and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone fitting this category before, say, 1960, who argued for a right to prostitute oneself.
<i>Is there a right to use whatever talents and abilities one might have for commercial purposes?</i>
Of course not. If I have a talent for killing people, that doesn't justify me taking employment as a paid assassin.
<i>Making it illegal does nothing but create an opportunity for enslavement.</i>
That's a red herring. The question is whether a right to prostitute oneself is deeply rooted in history, not whether prostitution should be criminalised.
Somewhat weird?! I’ve genuinely never met anyone with views like you, and my social circles consist in weird intersections between traditional Catholics, old-school socialists, and analytic philosophers
What you wrote sounds likely, but I don't have time to read the decisions and form an opinion. I will go off on a tangent, though, and say that I think the gun law case is one more demonstration of the root of our political divide: Modern big cities have become too different an environment from small towns to have the same laws. When America was formed, differences in values and culture could be mapped out with state-sized regions. Today, the major cultural and economic divide is between rural and urban areas. We need separate governments for big cities and for everything else, more than we need separate governments for separate states.
I say this because while I support public concealed carry in most places, I think that in New York City, it will be a disaster. If the Constitution requires allowing it New York City, and it just doesn't work, it would be better to change the Constitution than to make some bogus interpretation of the Constitution in the name of expediency. But this particular change would not be acceptable in rural areas. There may be no way to govern city and country with the same Bill of Rights.
Some of the social dynamics that maintain order in small towns don't operate in giant cities. Big cities can't and don't want to support as much of certain personal freedoms. I think we may need something like the return of the city-state, or separate Bills of Rights for big cities and for the rest of the country. Perhaps cities could have covenants, like condo associations, requiring new residents to waive certain Constitutional rights, though I don't see how this could be applied to people born in such a city.
Is the situation in New York City different from that in Dallas, TX? What about Miami, FL, or Philadelphia, PA?
Most of those other cities operate under different concealed-carry laws than the law that was struck down in the NYSRPA-vs-Bruen case. These cities have differing murder rates. Those murder rates didn't change much when the State in question changed concealed-carry law.
Do you think that NYC is different in some way from those cities?
Is a concealed-carry-permit treated differently in urban areas than it is in rural areas?
I'm very familiar with the concealed-carry-permit process in my home State. That process doesn't have rules that are different from rural to urban areas. And it doesn't require a person to prove that they need the permit.
The permit process in my home State does require a person to submit enough data so that Police agencies can tell whether that person has ever been convicted of any crime. There's a laundry-list of crimes that will result in an automatic dismissal of the request.
I also note that many crimes committed with a handgun are committed by people who already have enough of a criminal background to fail the request for a CCW permit. They would also likely be denied purchase of a gun at any gun store (or gun store selling guns at a gun show), when that seller does the NICS background check.
Even though there is a rural-vs-urban divide in the U.S., I don't think that means the urban-vs-rural areas need to operate under different gun laws.
From what I can tell, criminal behavior with guns is driven by other things, and not much affected by laws about concealed-carry permits.
You make good points. I haven't been to Miami, but I have been to Dallas, NYC, and Philadelphia. I do think NYC is different. Actually, I think every neighborhood of every city is different. Sometimes, like in downtown Baltimore, every street is different. Pratt Street is just 2 blocks from Baltimore Street, and they're different worlds.
I'm not sure how to explain or interpret what's happening, other than to say that NYC has neighborhoods where a lot of people seem to think it's fine to act in the street like they were in their own houses. A lot of outright crazy people, yes; but even more people who aren't crazy, but violate what I'd always thought were social norms, and aren't using the street as a way getting from one place to another, but as a place to hang out and party. I remember staying at an apartment in central Harlem, and every day I was there, when I came to the big steel door that opened out onto the street, I would hear many people on the other side screaming and shouting, and think there was a riot going on outside, until I remembered that it was just Harlem.
These aren't the poorest nor the highest-crime neighborhoods, where people are more cautious and reserved, there aren't a lot of pedestrians because there isn't anywhere to go, the clusters of people hanging out on the street talk quietly among themselves, and sometimes the street is dead silent. They're places more like Carson Street in Pittsburgh, or Bourbon Street in New Orleans, where there's a lot of alcohol and weed, a lot of young people, a bit of money, and a lot of YOLO. These aren't gangsters with criminal intent, but unpredictable people with very few inhibitions. They're fun places, but I think they need strict carry laws.
I agree with you about the urban/rural distinction. The problem is once again the 14th amendment, which made the broad language in the Bill of Rights (originally intended to restrict only the federal government) binding on all state and local jurisdictions. Without that, states would be free to make more nuanced laws recognizing that different restrictions may be expedient in different communities.
America has become two countries: cities and rural. The cities have more population than the rural, and so feel comfortable ruling over them, but all the food and energy comes from the rural.
It's a problem. Electing Libertarians would solve it, but Democrats hate Libertarians because they support some Republican policies, and Republicans hate Libertarians because they support some Democratic policies. A first-past-the-post voting system exacerbates the problem because when you iterate it, there are only two main parties, so people vote against the party they hate. People would vote Libertarian except that [ D, R ] hate the [ R, D] policies, so they have to vote against them.
The problem is that too many people want to control other people. This results in excess violence and greater poverty. Libertarians want everyone to give up that control. Live and let live. Electing Libertarians (not going to happen) would only happen if people give up the idea of controlling other people.
If the groups who are exercising control over others are not the same groups that face the excess violence and poverty, then no one who can cause change will want change, right?
I think you have to get in to the details of each case rather than just pointing at very high-level comparisons. There was a lot of detail in Bruen about which cases they considered relevant, and why (e.g. Territorial laws were short-lived, under unclear judicial control, and did sometimes fail Constitutional muster). Their disclaimer at the beginning (looking at very old law can be relevant, *if* the law was still in effect at the time of the Founding) makes sense to me. Also, I don't think that's quite the argument the majority made in Bruen (that no laws against imply the right exists). Rather, the right is concluded to exist because that's what the 2A says and because of the English and colonial history of carrying weapons, and historical laws are used to gauge the extent of that right.
"I think you have to get in to the details of each case rather than just pointing at very high-level comparisons. There was a lot of detail in Bruen about which cases they considered relevant, and why..." - if you get into the details it doesn't get better. It is full of the sort of special pleading that I mentioned before, and conclusions on the basis of a lack of evidence. And a lot of the detail is inconsistent with the abortion case.
For example the treatment of laws prohibiting carrying a gun in a way that "terrorizes" the people or something similar. Thomas's reasoning is basically that some case from the 1680s (Sir John Knight's case) arguably requires something more than just carrying a gun around to count as "terrorizing" people (Thomas admits in a footnote the evidence is mixed on this point), and that therefore laws from a hundred years later in America with some similar words must have the same meaning because "Respondents give us no reason to think that the founding generation held a different view".
Or put differently - after saying that there have to be laws from America from the founding era that are similar to the one here, when it turns out that there are laws from America from the founding era that arguably cover similar conduct, he dismisses them because of a contested interpretation of a law from 100 years earlier in England, and sparse historical data.
"Also, I don't think that's quite the argument the majority made in Bruen (that no laws against imply the right exists). Rather, the right is concluded to exist because that's what the 2A says and because of the English and colonial history of carrying weapons, and historical laws are used to gauge the extent of that right." - On "English and colonial history of carrying weapons", IIRC they never talk about any factual record of who carried weapons and when like "in Boston in 1780 25% of people walked around with guns" or something, it's all about what is and isn't legal. On "what the 2A says", the obvious problem with this is that what they consider the "plain meaning" of the 2nd amendment, is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean, but they're using that super broad meaning to in effect make a presumption that anything goes with guns, and so if there's no law against it it's a right. But the same arguably applies to the broad language in the 14th amendment (and 5th/9th/etc).
" the obvious problem with this is that what they consider the "plain meaning" of the 2nd amendment, is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean,"
Just FYI, but there are a rather lot of human beings who you are claiming do not exist. Unless of course you were using "anyone" as shorthand for "anyone who matters."
I think there are a lot of human beings who will claim to take a maximalist position on the 2nd amendment but when you ask them about specific situations will back off of it.
Should insane people who frequently suffer from visual hallucinations be able to carry a gun around? Such people clearly have rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, so it's not like they're somehow outside the scope of constitutional rights. And they are part of "the people" so "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would seem to apply to them under the "plain meaning". I bet a lot of "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" types won't actually support that person's claim.
Only answer from Thomas is if there was a law (actually not clear if one law is enough, maybe laws in a critical mass of the states) against this back in the 1790s. Even if there were such laws - I'm not an expert in 1790s gun laws but I bet you could come up with a similar situation (not insane people but something else) where most people (even most really pro-2nd-amendment types) think that there should be a restriction but people back then didn't think to have one.
I think that even a maximalist is going to say that a person's behavior justifies infringement on their rights. Just like an individual's behavior may justify taking away their right to not live in a cage under guard for the remainder of their life.
Thomas' historical analysis is greatly helped by individual colony/state constitutions having their own codified RKBA without that distracting prefatory clause. And of course, Thomas throwing Dred Scott out there was one of the more epic benchslaps.
Re justfiying infringement - I am sure a lot of maximalists would say that because it's how most people tend to think about rights. But it's not how the Court does.
Just saying "you have this right, but also, a person's behavior justifies infringement" gives away everything unless you're putting some restrictions on what sort of behavior justifies that infringement. Otherwise ... "well sure you have the right to free speech but bad behavior, like being a REPUBLICAN, justifies infringement on it"
Like I said being insane (or having committed a crime, even murder) doesn't mean you lose your first amendment rights, so as a general matter it isn't the case that being insane or committing a crime justifies infringement on your xth amendment rights. By saying felons or insane people can't have guns, you're already not using what Thomas thinks is the "plain meaning", and you're already justifying more restrictions on the 2nd than exist for the 1st.
Now Thomas is saying you can look to laws in the 1790s to decide how far you retreat from what he thinks is the "plain meaning" - but are there laws from the 1790s saying insane people can't have guns? I'm not sure there are, and AFAICT nobody has cited any (including Kavanaugh who like in the abortion case is trying to cabin the majority ruling, and says that this ruling doesn't implicate those rules, but doesn't actually cite any laws that would affect the legal analysis), and even if there were, I'm not confident that it will always work out like this.
Re Dred Scott - I guess this is a matter of style, but mentioning Dred Scott in passing in order to vaguely insinuate your opponents are racist doesn't impress me. And it isn't a very good legal analysis either considering that Thomas himself admits that the 2nd amendment does NOT mean you have the right to carry a gun "wherever you want". So you're going to quote a guy that everyone admittedly thinks is wrong to support an idea that you yourself don't support?
I don't think you are characterizing Thomas's arguments very well. The majority is assuming the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry for lawful purposes, as they decided in Heller. This case provides additional determination of the precise extent of this right. Thomas's footnote says
"But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope."
Therefore, even if the case is ambiguous, then it cannot provide sufficiently strong justification for the NY law (also, the fact that it is only 1 case). We would not allow a single ambiguous case to provide precedent for such strict limitations on speech. I mean, the Sedition Act was passed by Congress and enforced for some time (it pre-dated Marbury v Madison), although the penalties were later negated; clearly no one holds this up as good 1A law. We recognize it as an error, as later decisions like NYT vs Sullivan did.
"it's all about what is and isn't legal."
Yes, and? A right does not cease to have legal protection simply because most people don't exercise it. The 3rd amendment hasn't been practically relevant for a long time, but if it did become relevant it would still be in force.
"is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean... make a presumption that anything goes with guns"
Who is "anyone"? The Court's conclusion in Heller can be summarized as "law-abiding citizens can carry firearms for lawful purposes" and explicitly calls out restrictions like "no guns in schools" and "felons cannot carry" among others as not being disallowed by that decision. This interpretation is actually quite narrow, in my opinion.
Has any parliamentary country ever tried a system where the head of government is *not* elected by the lower/people's house? I.e. you have most of the elements of a normal parliamentary system, the Prime Minister or whatever you would like to call them only governs by holding the confidence of the branch of government that elected them. It's just that in this case, the PM would be elected or subject to recall by maybe the upper house, in an attempt to make their system of government less vulnerable to populism. Upper houses in most countries are generally for longer terms & less subject to the popular vote. (Or possibly a joint session of the upper or lower houses, or even an Electoral College formed by some other means just for this one task).
If the objection is that the upper house couldn't function as a parliamentary body without snap or early elections, it's worth noting that Norway has done just that for over 200 years- has a Prime Minister, but the representatives serve a 4 year term with no snap elections possible. If they have to replace a PM the same body just finds a new candidate. Anyways, just curious if that's ever been tried anywhere
The UK had PMs and/or First Lords of the Treasury from both houses until the end of the 19th century, as well as Sir Alec Douglas Home who disclaimed his earldom four days after becoming Prime Minister in 1963.
In Canada the upper house is appointed at the leisure of the PM, so having the PM appointed by the upper house, whom he appoints, would basically make the position totally unelected.
In italy the prime minister needs to receive the confidence of both houses of parliament and either one of the two can recall him. Snap elections are possible (and used to be very very common) but in the recent years thanks to the intervention of the head of state the two houses can generally converge on a new PM.
However in italy both houses of parliament have basically the same powers and are identically subject to the popular vote (with only a few minor differences).
Alas, the effect is just to have very unstable governments (recently with an avg of 3 different governments during a single 5 year legislative cycle) and no significant protection from populism
Well, at least there are countries where the head of government is not elected by the parliament.
For example, in France, the prime minister is appointed by the president (who used to be elected for seven years until 2000ish, so for a much longer time than usual). Still, it's unpleasant (cohabitation) if the president and prime minister do not have a majority in the parliament.
Italy and Israel have hybrid systems where the president appoints a candidate, and this candidate can then try to form a coalition. As far as I understand, this appointment does have influence on the outcome.
It's pretty standard in parliamentary systems that the Head of State (President, King, etc) is officially the one who appoints the Head of Government (PM or similar), but there's a range of norms and requirements around the degree of discretion the Head of State has in appointing and whether the Head of Government is expected to resign (or is automatically dismissed) after losing a confidence vote in the legislature.
As I understand it, one of the key distinctions between a Westminster-style pure Parliamentary System (e.g. Britain) and a Semi-Presidential System (e.g. France) is that in the former the Head of State is expected or required to appoint the leader of the majority party or coalition in the legislature (or the legislature can unilateral dismiss or require the resignation of the Head of Government), while in the latter the President/King/whatever has both de jure and de facto discretion in the appointment of the PM.
The Weimar Republic was another example of a Semi-Presidential Republic, with the President appointing the Chancellor. In theory, the Reichstag could dismiss the Chancellor with a vote of no-confidence, but in practice they rarely attempted to exercise this power as usually either the same coalition held the Presidency and a Reichstag majority, or there was no effective majority coalition in the Reichstag that was in a position to force its choice of Chancellor on the President. In addition, the President could (and did, at least once) use his dissolution power to preempt a no-confidence vote and keep his Chancellor in power until after snap election triggered by the dissolution.
Norms tend to play at least as strong a role as formal structure. For example, the de jure relationship between the US President and the legislature is very closely modeled on the de jure relationship between the King and Parliament. If anything, POTUS is weaker in several respects: power to declare wars was moved from the Executive to the Legislature, Presidential Vetos can be overridden by a supermajority while withholding Royal Assent is absolute, and the King can prorogue or dissolve Parliament while the President cannot do the same to Congress. But the modern British monarchy, in practice, is far far weaker than the US Presidency due to the Queen being almost completely hemmed in by constitutional norms requiring her to exercise her powers only as "advised" by Parliamentary leadership.
The US is a prototypical Presidential Republic, but has dabbled in this in terms of cabinet-level executive appointments, which require approval of the Senate for appointments and has also at times had laws (most notably the Tenure in Office Act of 1867) asserting a requirement for Senate approval to dismiss a Cabinet Secretary. The Senate is also the long poll for legislative dismissal (via the impeachment process, which requires a simple majority in the House to indict and a 2/3 supermajority on the Senate to convict) of Executive and Judicial Branch officials.
Historically, a lot of parliamentary systems had a hereditary monarch with significant executive (and other) authority. The parliament might function primarily as advisors, rather than an independent source of power. In this situation, I think it would be fair to call the monarch the head of government.
This is an example of a head of government not elected by the lower/people's house. But it doesn't seem like what you're looking for.
In the Westminster system at least, the office of Prime Minister comes with no particular powers; indeed the constitutions of Canada and Australia don't mention the words "Prime Minister" at all. Whatever power the Prime Minister has derives from the fact that a majority of the members of the Lower House have, for now, agreed to back him up with their votes.
In theory there's nothing to stop the Upper House selecting its own Guy We Think Should Be In Charge. But the Lower House in most countries has more power than the Upper House, so if the two houses disagree on who is in charge then the Lower House will win.
The Prime Ministership isn't a magical hat that puts you in charge, it's a recognition that you are the one in charge. You can put in whatever system you like for selecting the guy who gets the title "Prime Minister", but if Parliament decides that they'd rather follow someone else, then that someone else is going to be in charge and the official "Prime Minister" is a lame duck with no power.
What do people think is going on with Havana Syndrome? The claim (according to the unreliable New Yorker) is that many cases are believed by the CIA to be actual attacks, most likely using pulsed microwave radiation, most likely by Russia.
Some excerpts from the year-old New Yorker article:
"(The CIA) discovered that what began with several dozen spies and diplomats in Havana now encompasses more than a hundred and thirty possible cases, from Colombia to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to Austria, in addition to the United States and other countries. At least four of the cases involve Trump White House officials, two of whom say they had episodes on the Ellipse. The C.I.A. accounts for some fifty cases. The rest are mostly U.S. military and State Department personnel and their family members."
"Top officials in both the Trump and the Biden Administrations privately suspect that Russia is responsible for the Havana Syndrome. Their working hypothesis is that agents of the G.R.U., the Russian military’s intelligence service, have been aiming microwave-radiation devices at U.S. officials to collect intelligence from their computers and cell phones, and that these devices can cause serious harm to the people they target. Yet during the past four years U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to find any evidence to back up this theory, let alone sufficient proof to publicly accuse Russia."
"Several of Biden’s top advisers have said, in closed-door meetings, that they believe the C.I.A. will eventually be able to trace the Havana Syndrome to Russia."
"have been aiming microwave-radiation devices at U.S. officials to collect intelligence from their computers and cell phones"
I am so confused by this statement on many levels
It makes it sound like they are using transmitting devices, but why would you need a transmitter to collect intelligence from computers? Wouldn't a passive receiver suffice? But if it's a passive receiver, how would it have any physical impact on someone? And if it is a transmitter, what exactly are they doing with it that would allow them to gather intelligence from computers and cell phones? How would any transmitter operating with enough power and at frequencies that it can have a noticeable effect on human biology not also have a noticeable effect on electronic equipment, especially if the whole point is to gather intelligence (somehow) from said electronic equipment?
Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like it's approaching "tachyon beam", Star Trek levels of rando sci-fi absurdity.
In any case, this seems like a pretty easy idea to test -- just put a broadband omnidirectional antenna in the offices where people are reporting Havanna syndrome and look for strong transmitters.
I don't think there is any credible evidence that it is a targeted attack. Some cases of brain damage are probably real but due to various unrelated causes and others are self-inflected psychogenic illness.
The evidence about psychogenic causes is much stronger. Just see it how it goes with long covid which is real but also often a widespread mental disorder to people who didn't have covid or had symptomless or very mild covid symptoms.
I remember that report. What was news to me in reading the New Yorker article is that of the ~130 people claiming to have had similar incidents, only a few of the incidents occurred in Cuba, so the Indies short-tailed cricket doesn't explain most of the incidents, only the sounds some people heard in Havana, specifically the sound one of them recorded. Others have described the "sound" as a "ringing in the ears", which sounds more consistent with a brain injury. It's called "Havana Syndrome" because that was where the first alleged incidents occurred, not because most have occurred there.
However, I do find it suspicious that some of the initial "victims" in Cuba believe an external sound accompanied "the attack" and that sound turns out to have sounded exactly like the local crickets. It doesn't explain all the incidents in other countries, but it makes one believe the agents in Cuba were at the very least paranoid, which in turn makes it all the more believable that this paranoia spread throughout the agency concomitantly with a bunch of similar psychosomatic incidents.
Havana syndrome is a mass psychogenic illness that our intelligence apparatus has inflicted on itself. It is really funny that the CIA has successfully psyched out their members into having various deleterious symptoms upon hearing insects chirping, but it is not very funny to think that this could actually influence international politics (and already has done so, to a limited degree).
Does anyone have any memorization tips? Currently studying for the bar exam, and I do not have enough time to create flashcards on anki for spaced repetition. Thank you!
When trying to memorize a list, somehow it’s easier to remember the beginning and the end, and humans tend to forget the middle (there’s a name for this, maybe someone knows.) So divide your lists up and reverse them often enough that the mid-list items are beginning or end at least some of the time. Also there is a thing called “brain gym” (you can Google it I think) which uses arm motions in addition to reciting facts (moving an arm across the body meridian somehow helps build neural connections?) I’ve seen that work for kids memorizing math facts. Break a leg!
No idea about law, but for life sciences I found diving deeper than the material requires to be of immense value - knowing why something is called by that name (even if it's a historical accident), interesting properties of the thing I just need to know exists, etc. Memory works by association, and you should be able to regenerate your knowledge from surrounding facts. The worst kind of "knowledge" is one that's hanging by a single connection, once it decays you'll forget it.
It's be we'll over 30 years since I took and passed the bar. And when I took it, the pass rate was under 50%.
But I don't remember memorization wa really the key? Although, I suppose there were mnemonics.
I don't get the "I don't have the time". I went to law school in evening and did have a job, but what else do you have to do? If you want to be a lawyer figure out a way to make the time!
The bar prep course is around 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, and that does not include the additional self studying one needs to do. There are thousands of rules to memorize and courses do not include a memorization component. As a result of COVID, and online learning, the quality of most online law school lectures was poor, so additional work is needed for most students. A tool like Anki, that only shows you a handful of cards a day, is unfortunately not efficient in such a time crunch. Thank you for your response!
10-12 hours a day for a bar prep course? That does not seem possible. Given that the pass rates have crept up over time, I'd say bar exams are easier now than they were 30+ years ago.
I'm sure you know and have taken this into account, but you can substantially change the settings in Anki to show you more cards with a shorter interval to aid cramming?
Scott has an old post -- I forget which -- containing a crazy diagram he drew full of mnemonic devices using pictures, words and lines, which he used to remember some complex relation of ideas about something. He then wrote something like: "Everyone who has graduated from medical school has learned to do this."
Perhaps someone else can recall the post. I don't believe it explains the method behind the madness, but it still might be helpful to look at that sketch and get a whiff of what is going on in it. Perhaps it is the Method of loci?
I think that the exercise of making the flashcards is more important than the exercise of looking at the flashcards.
I've never used flashcards myself, but I used to study by writing summaries (in the week before the exam) of the material in the course. I barely looked at the summary once I'd written it, but the act of writing it was enough to solder it firmly into my brain (at least for a little while).
I was going to say Anki until I read the second sentence. For more short-term things, I hear a lot of people have success with the "memory palace"/"roman room"/"Method of Ioci" technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci That said, I second Victor in saying to use a preexisting deck from AnkiWeb.
The reason for that is usually tied to that you shouldn't *learn* using the flashcards, but only review/memorize with them. Making your own cards ensures that you know the content and you're writing it in a way that makes sense to you. (Personally I have no issue with pre-made decks for most purposes.)
Repeating my earlier comment that the book review in the previous post contains content that was plagiarized (from me). IMO a statement should be added to the post acknowledging this.
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will add a note to the post and contact the writer; unless they have some incredibly good excuse I can't imagine right now, I will disqualify it from the contest.
My thoughts on this are the same as my thoughts on the recent discoveries (eg https://reason.com/2022/06/14/twitter-famous-princeton-historian-kevin-kruse-plagiarist/ ) that some PhDs have plagiarized random paragraphs from their dissertations: why? I can understand somebody plagiarizing if they're too lazy to write anything at all, or if the other author is vastly superior to them. But a lot of these seem to be generally well-written articles which make just fine points on their own, and then for some reason lift an entire paragraph verbatim from some other source. What are people thinking?
When I was studying, and also later in research, we were recommended to take notes of basically every paper we read. My notes contained direct citations, paraphrases or summaries of parts of the text and own thoughts. Ideally all of those were always put down with the source, the page number and recognizable for what they were. Overall note-taking in such a way made the whole reading process x-times more time-consuming than otherwise. In practice students and fellow researchers had very different levels of discipline regarding the notes they took. In addition, for papers or PhD chapters, some would write readable and complete draft text from the beginning, while others would have pages over pages with bits and pieces, each in 10 different versions, before putting it all together. I find it very easy to imagine that after 3 years of bad note-taking some put stuff into their PhD with no idea on whether this specific part was theirs or somebody elses, even without any intention to cheat. Not an excuse of course, just an explanation.
I'm sure deliberate cheating or 'oh, this is a short-cut' exists as well.
In one case I came across, a student had copied down a paragraph from a book, forgotten to note its source, and when she came back to her notes, mistakenly assumed it was something she'd written and plonked it into her essay.
If someone told me right now "how sure are you that the thesis you wrote 20 years ago has no plagiarized sentences" I would have to hesitate.
I certainly would've known not to do it and so not done it. And so much got rewritten in back-and-forths with my advisor that I doubt even actual plagiarized sentences didn't end up changed.
Some people(explicitly or subconciously) think that ownership of ideas, or even just specifically word sequences, is illegitimate. So the person doesn't have the instinct telling them "this is wrong," making it easier to then also forget that it's not allowed.
But how much effort is it to paraphrase someone's thoughts instead of ctrl+c/ctrl+v, when you're writing an entire paper? Seriously, my reaction is the same as Scott's.
There is not even a need to paraphrase. If you think that another article makes a point well, just quote it. Given that most of the article is probably neither quotation nor plagiarized, there should be no problem there.
For moderate excerpts (e.g. not "I will lift three chapters of that excellent textbook on quantum chromo dynamics for my PhD in blockquote"), getting attribution is precisely what another author can and should expect.
If people post comments on the internet instead of publishing articles in Respected Academic Journals, credit them by using the information available.
If OEIS can credit an "Anonymous 4chan Poster", then an ACX contest book review can very well credit "Jim from substack comments".
Filler? If your paper is supposed to be X pages in length, copy'n'paste helps pad out if you're not sure you can produce X pages worth.
I think also attitudes to 'cheating' in academic subjects are changing, I've seen some discussion of cheating on college exams and a lot of the comments are "well why wouldn't you do this? just look up the answer on Google, get that grade". And when tasked with "you won't know the material", then it's "I don't have to know the material, I just need to bluff my way past the job interview and then when I need to know this stuff, I'll Google it and learn it that way".
There is a much different attitude towards "what harm is it?" since I was in school, back with the dinosaurs!
To be fair, nobody learns in the real world the way they do in college - you don't waste time on pointless memorization if you can google something. You need to understand the material so that the details will be easy to figure out with the help of Google or a reference manual.
IMO all exams should be open book, everywhere, ever, so I don't really view cheating on the exams as unethical.
I've had students, up to Master's level, caught using entire paragraphs from other authors without attribution. The usual explanation (?excuse) is that they intended to quote the paragraph and provide a source for it, but forgot in the rush ...
I think the answer is something along the lines of: "People who are determined to win are willing to cheat." Many top athletes have been caught cheating because they really, really want to win. Many smart, motivated students are motivated to study hard and also cheat because they really, really want that A. Many rich, brilliant, driven businesspeople intentionally break laws or engage in corruption to make even more money than they would have otherwise.
So it's not that these people are trying to cover for a deficiency. Just the opposite! The same motivation that drove them to learn to write well, to work hard at producing quality articles and essays also drives them to plagiarize if they think it will make the work even better.
Yeah slightly different from what you linked but I remember in computer science algorithms course I once had a professor say they only found 30% of us cheating on our first assignment which was much better then normal. Also pretty much everyone I knew had cheated on at least some assignments at uni so either computer science students just love cheating or there is a lot of cheating going on.
I think cheating is just even more rampant than it was back when I was in school :(
I don't think it's going to end well. And it _really_ underscores how stupid and pointless the whole 'system' is, e.g. taking out (huge) loans, to cheat one's way thru school, for ... what exactly?
Even the most reasonable of justifications for, e.g. credentialism, are going to look increasingly flimsy as it becomes more common knowledge that in fact almost no one is even bothering to NOT cheat!
And the whole thing is just extra super depressing for the 'suckers' – like myself – that never cheated. Thankfully, I have a degree that I think most people couldn't even cheat their way into acquiring!
I knew a professor who wrote by the slow accretion of other people’s thoughts. He would ask for a written description of an experiment or a figure for a paper. He would copy an introduction from a Review Article or a paragraph from a Method’s Section. Then he would assemble it into a collage and slowly work through it. We called this, “polishing the turd”. The end product was something new, but I can imagine a less careful person screwing up.
As for copying vastly superior authors…please remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
1. London sewage sampling has detected poliovirus. https://www.science.org/content/article/poliovirus-in-london-sewage-sparks-alarm I think this sort of sampling is highly useful for detecting pathogens and we need more of it. But right now we can only detect what we're looking for. The Nucleic Acid Observatory (to sequence everything, basically) should definitely be funded.
"The Committee was concerned about the potential for exacerbation of the stigmatization and infringement of human rights, including the rights to privacy, non-discrimination, physical and mental health, of affected population groups, which would further impede response efforts."
This is giving me strong early 2020 vibes . . . basically, "let's not declare an emergency to avoid stigmatization".
Monkeypox is not an STD (at least, not yet). It is not transmitted via sexual contact but by close skin-to-skin contact with an infected person, and if you're fucking someone that is close skin-to-skin contact.
But yeah: "hey gay, bi, pan, and MLM guys, maybe cool it on the orgies? Condoms won't work for this one, so just be monogamous!" is not going to be well received, particularly during Pride Month.
There are plenty of ways to send the message that will be well-received. Gay bars should have flyers informing people of the disease (particularly in regions where several cases have already been detected). Bars and sex clubs should be encouraged to add monkeypox testing to the syphilis/gonorrhea/HIV testing they often have (even if it's just a few days a week). Orgy organizers should include a mention of the disease and symptoms in their invitations so that people can know what to look out for.
I agree that there's no need *except* where it's a particular demographic at highest risk. Since the outbreaks and spread are amongst gay/MLM men, then we're only sticking our heads in the sand to go "well straight people are just as much at risk!" Of course they are, *If they engage in the same behaviours*. Straight idiots who party party in Ibiza (if that is still a thing, my cultural referents are badly dated) and who contract monkeypox should get a whack on the head every bit as much as gay guys party partying at raves in Spain and Belgium.
If they're not doing that, then you do need to aim your messaging at the people most at risk. If the milk-bottle white Irish on holidays in sun-spots are the ones all turning up with sunburn and sunstroke to the pharmacy and doctor, then you need to aim your "how not to get grilled like a sausage" messaging to the holidaymakers, not the locals.
"Let's not have the appearance of singling any one group out" will, ironically, have the bad effects of singling one group out if it means that monkeypox runs rampant through them. Even if it's not worse than a case of chickenpox, you don't need to pick up a viral disease, especially if there is a likelihood of people having compromised immune systems: "In recent times, the case fatality ratio has been around 3–6%."
Wow, that's crazy. It also says, "While a few Members expressed differing views, the committee resolved by consensus to advise the WHO Director-General that at this stage the outbreak should be determined to not constitute a PHEIC. However, the Committee unanimously acknowledged the emergency nature of the event and that controlling the further spread of outbreak requires intense response efforts." So they agree that it is and is not an emergency.
It sounds to me like deciding not to educate the public about AIDS out of fear that it would stigmatize gay men. Not really helpful to gay men.
Also, while they can't decide on public health messaging about this outbreak, they certainly can leap into action to - give it a new name. Because it would be stigmatising to Africa as defining it as a source of infection.
So let's not call it "monkeypox" or refer to "the “west African” and the “Congo basin (central African)” clades" but if anyone is ever investigating its history, it will be... "The virus is found mainly in tropical rainforest regions of Central and West Africa."
I want to respect WHO, but if they *wanted* to make themselves sound like useless duffers, this is the way to do it.
1. Why isn't it enough to have just a couple of labs in mega-cities: one in London, one in (say) Hong Kong? Why do we necessarily need one in the US?
2. Isn't the difference between monkeypox and COVID primarily in their mortality rate? COVID has been known to be pretty deadly since the beginning, only question was around how easily it can spread. With monkeypox the mortality rate seems low enough that we could just ignore it as yet another mildly annoying STD.
I think you may have that backwards on point #2. Monkeypox has a case fatality rate of ~3% in recent African epidemics; by comparison the CDC estimated the case fatality rate of ~0.5% before the availability of vaccines.
I don't think monkeypox has killed anyone in Europe or America yet but the present outbreak is concentrated among relatively healthy young men and hasn't been going on long enough or grown large enough for us to expect to have seen many deaths yet. Possibly we lucked out and got a weak strain, or monkeypox was only ever lethal to people living with really crappy public health systems, but a priori we should expect it to be about six times as deadly as COVID.
Fortunately, *much* less contagious and easier to avoid. Stay away from orgies for the duration, though.
Not even that, because Covid was a far greater (real and potential, due to unknowns) danger than monkeypox is now. I see no scenario where people are dying on the streets because the hospitals are overwhelmed.
I don't even understand what you mean by that. Do you want to make gay sex illegal for 6 months? (Or perhaps outside of partnerships?) How do you check that? There were times when gay sex was illegal, and it didn't stop gay sex. You can't control what people do when they visit someone else's house.
Or do you want to forbid gay men to leave their houses? That's not much easier to control, because how do you know which men are gay? (Are bi men also forbidden to leave their houses?) And curfews that only hold for a sub-population are impossible to control.
Apart from that, it is completely out of proportion. The estimated impact of monkeypox is orders of magnitude lower than the estimated (or observed in March 2020 in Bergamo) impact of COVID.
If your argument is "because of the increased risk of incurring a particular disease, please don't have promiscuous sex with strangers for a limited period until we get this under control" is way too much to ask of gay/MLM men, then you are arguing "why yes, gay men *are* promiscuous pleasure monsters who only care about sex and would rather get sick than not fuck every rando they can!"
Is that a better sounding message? "Hey, only fuck people you know well and if you have a steady boyfriend, stick with him, at least for a couple of months until we get a vaccine or this stops spreading" is too much to ask of health care for a vulnerable population? Because I'm pretty sure if this *does* disproportionally start affecting gay community, we're going to see lots of complaining about why didn't public health authorities take the risk to their health seriously and warn them, see this is homophobia in action!
We are talking about different levels here. I understand "lockdown" as mandated by the state. And yes, I think that a six-month prohibition of men-to-men sex by the state would be completely out of proportion. Even if it was in any way enforceable (which it isn't).
For me, the state needs to have *extremely* strong justification to dictate whom someone may have sex with. Or in case of gay men without fixed partner, to forbid sex at all. And yes, even if it is "only" for six months.
You raise a different (and in my eyes pretty unrelated) point: Is it reasonable to expect from gay men to be careful and responsible? My personal answer is yes. And my experience is (as a gay man who has many gay friends, also some heavily promiscuous ones) that the vast majority of them are like this, taking various levels of precaution. The more promiscuous are usually on permanent pre-exposure prophylaxis and get tested for STDs every few months.
Right now, monkeypox is a huge topic in the gaysphere. A lot of the press massively downplays how exclusively monkeypox affects this group. (Outside of the endemic origins of the virus in Africa.) But the gaysphere is very much aware of this. The first 150(!!) cases in Germany were all men who had sex with men. (I don't know about further cases, Germany is now at 600+, but I don't think the ratio has changed a lot.)
But do I think that decisions about sexual promiscuity should be state-mandated, and that someone not meeting this level of caution should go to jail (or even "just" pay a fine)? No, I consider it his fundamental right to decide which risks he wants to take.
Part of the truth is also that monkey-pox is not a very threatening disease, that it is spreading nowhere nearly as fast as COVID, that it is well treatable and usually heals off after three weeks (though it can leave permanent damage in severe cases), and that there is a vaccine against it. Frankly, syphilis is right now the greater threat for promiscuous gay men. So if someone decides that this is a risk he is willing to take, then I have to admit that it is a pretty small risk. State interventions may be justified if there is a massive crisis ahead (as for COVID, where in Bergamo the number of deaths in March 2020 was six-fold increased). But for monkey-pox? Simply no.
I don't think these numbers are correct. For Monkeypox, a quick Google search reveals only 1 death so far out of 2000 known cases outside of Africa -- and we don't even know if its "with monkeypox" or "from monkeypox". And this is *CFR* - its likely that *IFR* is 10-20 times lower.
COVID has been known to be pretty deadly? What do you mean?
Most COVID cases are asymptomatic and the disease is mostly fairly mild for young people and those without preëxisting conditions.
According to Wikipedia, monkeypox historically seems to have killed between 3 to 10% of infected if left untreated. That seems a lot worse than what I read about COVID.
(Most monkeypox infections are much milder, of course. And I assume some forms of treatment are widely available.)
"So far this year, there have been more than 3,000 confirmed monkeypox cases in countries beyond Central and West Africa, but no deaths have been reported. In Africa, however, health officials have reported more than 70 deaths that they suspect were caused by monkeypox."
Seems like that the virus isn't particularly deadly outside of Africa, probably due to the lack of healthcare facilities there? On the other hand COVID deaths and hospitalizations have been reported since the very beginning.
The 3-10% figure is *CFR* and is probably *extremely* biased due to *who* gets to be seen by a doctor in Africa. These are the worst of the worst patients, so of course the CFR would be off the charts.
<i>Why draw an arbitrary line at detecting a faint heartbeat? Why not say that each sperm is a potential person, and hence make masturbation illegal?</i>
Because sperm isn't actually a person, it's just a cell with half the DNA needed to make one.
Huh? No one said a toddler only has half a set of DNA.
I just posited that we can just claim that a toddler is not a full human, just the same as you can claim that a sperm ain't a full human. (And I am sure we can find some technical justification, if you want one. Eg that toddlers don't have a fully developed brain, yet, or whatever.)
My point is that you can't just say 'A because of A'. You need to actually make an argument.
First, you have to demonstrate to me that there is a "right" to abortion. I'd quite like a constitutional right to a million quid paid into my bank account because of the emanation of the penumbra of "he State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods" but I'm not too sure I could get that one pushed through.
I saw a post elsewhere about the "historic right to abortion" - yes, all of fifty years. I think there's a large difference between people born since 1973, who have grown up (and the longer the distance between '73 and their birth date, the more liberal the position) with the position that abortion is legal and not alone legal, but normal and those old enough to remember pre-'73 when abortion was a horrible crime (and again, the greater the distance between '73 and their birth date, the worse crime it was).
Let's take the English as an example here, with the Lambeth Conference (every tn years the Anglicans get together and discuss what theology they are willing to be governed by: "As the Anglican Communion is an international association of autonomous national and regional churches and is not a governing body, the Lambeth Conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function, expressing "the mind of the communion" on issues of the day") and their statements on abortion over the years, and the changing in attitude:
1908:
Contraception and abortion bad! Doctors who condemn such practices heroic!
Resolution 41 The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.
Resolution 42 The Conference affirms that deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality.
Resolution 43 The Conference expresses most cordial appreciation of the services rendered by those medical men who have borne courageous testimony against the injurious practices spoken of, and appeals with confidence to them and to their medical colleagues to co-operate in creating and maintaining a wholesome public opinion on behalf of the reverent use of the married state.
1920:
Contraception still bad!
Resolution 68 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear.
Resolution 69 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, moved by responsible statements from many nations as to the prevalence of venereal diseases, bringing suffering, paralysis, insanity, or death to many thousands of the innocent as well as the guilty, supports all efforts which are consistent with high moral standards to check the causes of the diseases and to treat and, if possible, cure the victims. We impress upon the clergy and members of the Church the duty of joining with physicians and public authorities in meeting this scourge, and urge the clergy to guide those who turn to them for advice with knowledge, sympathy, and directness. The Conference must condemn the distribution or use, before exposure to infection, of so-called prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to vice
Resolution 70 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference urges the importance of enlisting the help of all high-principled men and women, whatever be their religious beliefs, in co-operation with or, if necessary, in bringing pressure to bear upon, authorities both national and local, for removing such incentives to vice as indecent literature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.
1930
Okay, you can have *some* contraception but certainly not just because you want sex and no babies! Now we also mention abortion:
Resolution 15 The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Resolution 16
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion.
1948 - nothing about it (well, I suppose post-war they had more urgent matters to deal with).
1958
Well... if it's for family planning and you just want to space out when the kids are born...and not have *too* many...
Resolution 115
The Family in Contemporary Society - Marriage
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of
children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in
such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and
important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise
stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
At the time of the founding, abortion up to the point of "quickening" (the time when the first fetal movement was felt by the mother, generally between 16 and 24 weeks) was legal in every state. This was not a "no-one talked or knew about it" situation, it was explicitly stated as a point of common law in texts that were almost certainly read by every single founding father.
This falls very squarely into the "non enumerated rights" protected by the 9th amendment.
This article does a more in depth dive of this and explains why the past 50 years is by no means the only "historical precedent' for abortion rights:
-edit- Also, as a (rather silly) point of argument, you _do_ have a right to have a million quid put into your bank account. It's just on you to convince someone to do it. But no one is preventing it from happening.
-edit2- Also in the vein of various unenumerated economic rights, like your joke-y suggestion, a big part of why the left has failed to protect abortion on 9th amendment grounds is that they specifically undermined un-enumerated rights (in the form of various rights to economic activity/contract etc. in the wake of the great depression), and would really rather pretend that it doesn't exist, even though it would be an extremely strong protection in this case.
<i>At the time of the founding, abortion up to the point of "quickening" (the time when the first fetal movement was felt by the mother, generally between 16 and 24 weeks) was legal in every state. This was not a "no-one talked or knew about it" situation, it was explicitly stated as a point of common law in texts that were almost certainly read by every single founding father.</i>
That's because, with the state of medical knowledge at the time, they didn't think the foetus actually developed until partway through the pregnancy. Now that we know better, we don't have to tie our laws to debunked scientific theories.
Citation needed. People of the time were pretty familiar with foetal development and what it looked like at various stages, thanks at a minimum to familiarity with livestock etc. Beliefs about when during development it should be considered an independent entity are not a scientific question and their opinion on the matter is as valid as ours.
THe point I was making is that there is a historical precedent that goes far, far beyond the history of Roe v. Wade and while I think reasonable people can disagree on how that history should result in judicial rulings, that history was nearly completely ignored in the recent ruling.
I had to break it up because this is from 1968 and it's a long 'un. Basically "The Pope is wrong and he's not the boss of us" 😁 We're a long way from the attitudes of 1920 but consonant with 1930 having yielded on this, and for the first time we're seeing "science and sociology" being touted as authorities on a par with (or even higher than?) doctrine:
1968
Resolution 22 Responsible Parenthood
This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter "Humanae vitae" recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope's deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of married life.
Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope's conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confinement to periods of infecundity are contrary to the "order established by God." It reaffirms the findings of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in Resolutions 112, 113, and 115 which are as follows:
112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organisation of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God.
113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth, and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remember that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.
115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
The Conference commends the Report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958, together with the study entitled "The Family in Contemporary Society" which formed the basis of the work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing sociological and scientific developments of the past decades.
1978 - Contraception no longer merits even a mention, there is some lipservice to 'moral issues of clinical abortion' but certainly no longer any full-throated (or any at all) denunciation:
Resolution 10
Human Relationships and Sexuality
The Conference gladly affirms the Christian ideals of faithfulness and chastity both within and outside marriage, and calls Christians everywhere to seek the grace of Christ to live lives of holiness, discipline, and service in the world, and commends to the Church:
1. The need for theological study of sexuality in such a way as to relate sexual relationships to that wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity.
2. The need for programmes at diocesan level, involving both men and women,
(a) to promote the study and foster the ideals of Christian marriage and family life, and to
examine the ways in which those who are unmarried may discover the fullness which God
intends for all his children;
(b) to provide ministries of compassionate support to those suffering from brokenness within marriage and family relationships;
(c) to emphasise the sacredness of all human life, the moral issues inherent in clinical
abortion, and the possible implications of genetic engineering
1988 - Nothing about contraception or abortion. They've moved on to discussing homosexuality, and some faint pathetic pleas about trying to remind young people that sex is for marriage not before or outside it.
Resolution 34
Marriage and Family
3. Noting the gap between traditional Christian teaching on pre-marital sex, and the life-styles being adopted by many people today, both within and outside the Church:
(a) calls on provinces and dioceses to adopt a caring and pastoral attitude to such people; (b) reaffirms the traditional biblical teaching that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;
(c) in response to the International Conference of Young Anglicans in Belfast, urges provinces and dioceses to plan with young people programmes to explore issues such as pre-marital sex in the light of traditional Christian values.
1998 - some even fainter burblings about supports because of the pressures on family life. Having sold the pass on contraception, they are now trying to hold back the tide of (a) easy divorce and remarriage (b) not getting married at all (c) sex outside of marriage
2008 - and today's word is Indaba! Now it's not a Conference, it's Reflections!
Not a bobbin about even marriage, there's a whole new fight on:
111. The issue of homosexual relations is as sensitive as it is because it conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching. For some, the new teaching cannot be acceptable on biblical grounds as they consider all homosexual activity as intrinsically sinful. Tension has arisen when those who hold the traditional teaching are faced with changes in the Church’s life or teaching without being able to understand or engage with a clear presentation of how people have come to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology.
So what's my point here? That we get a clear gradient (let's not say "slippery slope") from 'abortion is a grave sin and contraception is licentiousness' to 'okay yeah everyone is going to be fucking without getting married, but we still have to sort of tell them not to do that' over the decades. The secular forces have won over the Anglican church.
An error on the first paragraph; it's not Roe vs. Wade that says "the Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce the right to abortion", it's the majority opinion of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women Health Organization, which is how the court just overruled Roe vs. Wade.
I say in my write up that the Supreme Court concluded in Dobbs vs Jackson that a right to abortion was not there in the constitution, and then used that ruling to overturn Roe vs Wade. Is that incorrect?
Regarding codifying Roe - AFAICT the article you link to doesn't say that they could except that Biden used all his bargaining chips already. It says that you can't pass something with less than 60 votes if the Senate parliamentarian decides it's not "budgetary" which they presumably would with something about abortion.
As for why not codify it, I think the filibuster is the main issue. Manchin also identifies as pro-life but there are a couple pro-choice Senators. There's also a question of whether the Supreme Court would strike down a law codifying Roe (I would guess not, but not 100% sure, and I certainly think it'd be litigated).
A law codifying Roe would have to be a law banning state police from enforcing anti-abortion laws, or a law removing states' power to regulate abortion. I'm pretty sure the latter is not actually a power Congress has, and while I'm not sure about the former it seems like a terrible idea to have a police force going out to arrest another police force for enforcing laws (constitutionality would be the least of your worries there).
Wickard v. Filburn says that Congress can pass any law about anything. It's trivially easy to demonstrate that abortion has an effect on interstate commerce.
It seems really crazy that the Americans seem so keen on deciding things at the federal level. (Ie why have Biden involved at all otherwise?)
There's no reason to forcibly coordinate this policy at a high level; there's basically no economics of scale here. Apart from a fear that specific local voters might decide 'wrong'.. But then, that's democracy for you, and federal voters can decide 'wrong' just as well.
To bring the issue into sharper contrast, there's no need to decide this issue even at the state level. Individual counties could make up their own rules, since it only impacts people living in those counties.
(No opinion on the object level decision implied here.)
Is there any other nation that *doesn't* decide things like this at the federal level? Do England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland have substantially different abortion or gun-control laws? The states of Germany?
There may be no *need* to forcibly coordinate this policy at a high level, but it is *possible* to do so. And, people understandably like winning the biggest victories possible. So if it's possible to pass [law I like] or repeal [law I don't like] at the highest level, that's what they're going to want to do. If they settle for local wins, their opponents will still be going for the big ones, and they'll end up losing everything.
Occasionally, enough wise people will recognize that it's best for everyone to mostly stick to local wins and settle things at the state/provincial/whatever level, to establish rules encouraging that sort of thing going forward. One group pulled that off in the United States 235 years ago, and the system they built still sort of works. But people have never stopped wanting the big wins whenever they think they can get them.
Switzerland is well know for giving its cantons a lot of power. For example, as far as I know, immigration rules (eg about naturalisation) are mostly handled at the canton level.
Both in Germany and in Switzerland, gun control seems to be divided between federal and state level. But details vary.
> One group pulled that off in the United States 235 years ago, and the system they built still sort of works.
Alas, I think your glasses are rose coloured. The US as a country is doing well, but the commerce clause (amongst others) has been used to break a hole through limitations on federal power large enough to drive a few trucks through, side-by-side.
Have a look at prohibition! When they banned alcohol in the US on the federal level at the start of the 20th century, people felt the need for an amendment to the constitution. The implication being that the existing text of the constitution was not seen as enough to allow a federal ruling.
Compare that to the laws and regulations used to ban medicine by default these days, or to ban drugs people take for fun. As far as I can tell, these days law makers and judges fully expect that the federal government can regulate these kinds of things without any change to the constitution.
On a smaller scale, post-WW2 (West-) Germany was also supposed to have a weak federal government and strong states. From what I've heard that was a demand by the allies on the designers of the Grundgesetz to avoid a strong Germany in the future.
In any case, federal power creep has been a feature in German politics just as much as in the US.
As far as I can tell, the best protection against centralising tendencies that we have at the moment, are splitting territories up into smaller sovereign entities. Eg there's no risk at all of Singapore ever giving up any authority to Malaysia at this time, even though at one point they were the same country.
Perhaps similar, Estonia and Livonia etc are unlikely to cede any power to Moscow at this point in time, thanks to a separation in the early 1990s.
SOME Americans are keen on deciding things on the federal level. These people are also called statists. They are also vastly more likely to be represented in Congress for the exact same reason that pedophiles are attracted to jobs involving interaction with children.
I mean, why stop at the county level? The obvious endpoint of that logic is that individuals should make their own decisions on whether to allow themselves to get an abortion or not.
You're assuming, before making your argument, that the arguments against abortion are wrong. The question is whether fetuses have rights. If they do, then some government must intervene on their behalf.
That's why I carefully left that question open. As far as I can tell, reasonable people can and do disagree.
My point was narrower: that protection (of either the parents' rights or the fetus's rights) can be decided and done at a fairly local level. There's no gain from forcibly coordinating different localities. Especially on something so contentious.
(No gain apart from forcing other localities against making the 'wrong' decision. But that objection is symmetric: both sides are claiming the other side is making the wrong decision. And it's not obvious on a principled level that a higher level of government has a better chance of making the right choice.)
Even if a foetus does not have rights, you (general "you" not "you, Matthias") have not demonstrated that there exists such a thing as a right to abortion.
We do not consider that parents have a right to infanticide of born children, be that five minutes or seventeen years and eleven months after birth. We do not consider that men have a right to 'abortion' and are free of parental responsibility, hence they must pay child support, even if they did not agree to the pregnancy happening in the first place.
Whether or not we agree that animals have rights, we certainly do not give the owners of animals the right to torture or abuse them to death.
There are a lot of things we don't consider rights, even if people want them or perform them in their lives. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but no matter how much happiness getting sex would give you, you don't have a right to sex.
Since you bring it up, I think it's inconsistent to say that women have the right to abort a fetus, but men must pay child support if the women chooses not to. If aborting a fetus isn't a moral hazard, and the man doesn't want to support the child, then it seems to me the woman has the choice of either supporting the child on her own, or aborting it. I don't see how there's any obligation on the man to pay child support if there isn't an obligation on the woman to bear the child.
"have not demonstrated that there exists such a thing as a right to abortion."
Only if you're in the "everything not permitted is forbidden" camp. Or if you believe in positive rights (the right to compel others to provide you something).
I was replying to Melvin. I agree with your statement, but Melvin replied that your logic leads to deciding it on the level of the individual -- which is equivalent to a federal law saying that everyone in the US always has the right to an abortion. Melvin's logic requires as a precondition assuming that the arguments against abortion are wrong.
Or states could decide to leave this contentious and most personal moral decision to the woman and the father, in consultation with their physician and religious advisor. It gives integrity to the constitution, and strengthens states' rights and local government.
Your use of 'infant killing' for abortion isn't useful, and just displays your bias. A couple whose religion teaches life begins at conception makes a personal moral decision, just as another couple which might believe life begins at birth makes a personal moral decision. Despite efforts of pop media to drive a stake through its heart, morality thrives in protected pockets.
What? I'm not using "infant killing" for abortion. I'm asking about born infants. Should we leave the choice of killing a 1-year-old to the woman and the father?
I would imagine that the anti-abortion side of the debate would argue that there are two people involved (the fetus and the parent) and that the fetus doesn't get a voice in that case. Similar to how you don't leave the decision about getting murdered purely in the hands of the would-be killer.
(I have no clue whether anyone actually frames it this way. I'm just trying to steelman.)
So my proposal to decide on abortion rules at the county level is in some sense similar to deciding homicide laws on the county level.
A quick Googling says that in general homicide is not a federal crime in the US. So I assume most rules about homicide are done at state level? Even important things like whether the death penalty is a possible punishment.
In comparison, deciding abortion laws at state level should be a fairly straightforward argument to win? (Unless, of course, the other party is worried about the relevant local level making the 'wrong' decision.)
Scotus determined 1. It's not the court's job to create laws, and 2. It's not the court's job to regulate personal behavior.
If we don't like pop culture's public declarations of the latest sex disorder and trivialization of intimacy, we should elect public representatives who share our values, and keep personal decisions in the family.
Alito explained his legal approach directly and succinctly. Ninety percent of the people who criticize the decision can't even argue against it reasonably. They say they're 'for the constitutional right to abortion.' Scotus's whole point is there is nothing in the constitution delineating a 'right to abortion', and neither the constitution nor the bill of rights relieves citizens of the responsibility of making moral decisions in their personal lives.
The court shouldn't be forced to 'validate' and 'normalize' and gaslight public activism. If people want a show they should go to Broadway.
That's a very common framing for opponents of abortion. It's the framing I use myself as an opponent of abortion. In fact, the question of whether there are two people involved (fetus and mother) or just one (mother) seems like *the* central question on which the entire abortion debate hinges.
"So my proposal to decide on abortion rules at the county level is in some sense similar to deciding homicide laws on the county level."
I don't think it's similar at all. Different jurisdictions (I think almost entirely at the State level) might define different degrees of homicide (negligent, manslaughter, murder, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, etc) and the corresponding punishments differently, but AFAIK there is not jurisdiction in the US where intentionally killing a human being (post-birth) is legal. And if some jurisdiction tried to make that legal, I think there would be a torrent of lawsuits, going all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary, challenging that decision. And I'm 100% sure those lawsuits would be successful.
>AFAIK there is not jurisdiction in the US where intentionally killing a human being (post-birth) is legal.
I would suggest that "stand your ground" and especially "castle doctrine" laws elude your knowledge here. They're frequently criticized because their application allows individuals to commit justifiable homicide with the only requirement being the the murder victim was trespassing on your property. Going beyond these more extreme cases, almost every jurisdiction allows some justifiable homicide for self defense.
While the situations are not completely analogous, there is an argument to make a direct comparison between these laws and the issue at hand. If the constitution allows for a right to defend their property from trespassers with intentionally lethal force, one's body is ever more sacred than simple property, and (unwanted) fetuses can easily qualify as trespassers by most legal standards.
I wouldn't want to draw as direct a parallel between the legal concepts of trespassing and abortion as you do here.
But I want to point out that the broader point, still stands: the killing by one human of another human can often be legal in one state but illegal in another.
The differences are seldom in the central cases, but in the corner cases.
Different rules about self-defense of body and property are one example. But also different rules about assisted suicide.
And it's not at all clear, that we can pick one set of rules as the definitive one here.
Tactically, federalism is good for the pro choice side. If the issue is left to the states, and interstate travel is straightforward, then practically speaking the rules are set by the least restrictive state. If the issue is nationalized, then...well, Republicans control the federal government roughly half the time.
I agree that Republicans controlling the government ~half the time is a problem for the pro-choice side when it comes to nationalizing the issue. I suspect if Obama had passed a federal law codifying Roe, Trump would have overturned it; if Biden passes one, it'll be overturned at the next opportunity.
But "practically speaking the rules are set by the least restrictive state" isn't true because logistically, not every woman who would get an abortion if they lived within an hour of a Planned Parenthood will be able to make a multi-day trip hundreds of miles to the nearest state where it's legal.
If all the states expected to pass abortion bans do pass them, there will be a huge number of women 400 or 500 miles from the nearest abortion clinic. For a single mom working two jobs just to get by, or a woman in an abusive relationship whose husband/boyfriend might get violently angry if he found out, or a 18-year-old with no car living with their pro-life parents, or anyone else poor enough and/or with childcare/eldercare/job-related responsibilities they can't easily abandon, that journey may not be possible.
You teased out why as someone with libertarian leanings I am very much in favour of deciding things as locally as possible.
In general, an individual voting at the ballot box doesn't really have any impact, neither in general nor for themselves. But people voting with their feet have an outsized impact on themselves, and still a pretty big impact on others by redirecting their tax dollars to a new jurisdiction.
The more variation we allow at more local levels, the easier and more impactful we can make voting with your feet.
(That's also similar to how ordinary people vote in corporations: Walmart doesn't have a ballot box for customers, but they'll sure notice when I take my wallet to Amazon instead.)
Interstate travel isn't always easy for everyone, plus, that doesn't mean a woman can't be targeted after returning.
Realistically I don't think "decide at federal level" vs "decide at state level" is a choice either side has to commit to ahead of time. Democrats should advocate for pro-choice policies at both levels in parallel.
I'd be more interested in a principled defense of the principle of subsidiarity.
Because next time, it's another issue, with different trade-offs etc.
Deciding things as locally as possible at least makes it so that people's individual votes have the biggest impact on themselves. Eg 1/1,000 on a thousand people, instead of 1/300,000,000 on 300 million people.
I'm assuming here that you share a taste for local government and self-rule.
i feel like the picture of 'local control' as a loop makes sense- when an issue needs the most individual control possible, and it's extremely likely that your neighbors prevent you from having control over your body or property you have a coordination problem. arguably there's a magical world with teleportation where people could simply move to a different location, but switching costs are a sufficient barrier to justify federal protection (or constitutional protection) of individual rights
I'm not sure what you're implying in your second paragraph; if you think you have an insight there, some examples might be helpful.
If you're just talking about censorship, the whole CRT and "don't say gay" debacle indicate this is a tendency in both sides, and the blue tribe has just recently increased their number of relative victories over the red tribe. (An interesting recent example is the changing attitudes for American TV S&P regarding innocent romantic gestures between two individual of the same gender going from unallowable on children's television to airing on primetime)
Can the Supreme Court actually stop state legislatures from making abortion laws? Or is it just the Supreme Court's "hope" that state legislatures will not interfere in the abortion process?
The Supreme Court spent the past forty-nine years stopping state legislatures from making laws prohibiting abortion(*), or at least from enforcing such laws. It has for even longer stopped state legislatures from e.g. making laws establishing racially segregated schools. This is absolutely a thing the Supreme Court can do, at least at present.
We can talk about what would theoretically happen if a state legislature said "you're not the boss of me!" and a state AG doubled down by actually enforcing such a law, but what actually happens is that state legislatures and attorneys general accept the inevitability and stop enacting such laws. Or at least enforcing them; they'll sometimes *pass* a law with the perhaps explicit understanding that it won't be enforced unless and until the Supreme Court changes its mind.
* within certain limits specified by Roe and later Casey.
What's your go-to remedy for sore muscles and stiff joints? I've been upping my mileage per run lately. I'm back in the office three days a week so I can't fit in 4-5 mile runs five days a week anymore. So I've changed it to 8-10 mile runs three days a week.
I've been pleasantly surprised. I thought running fewer days a week would put me in a foul mood - nothing beats back depression like running - but the extra miles are really giving me a wonderful, long-lasting high. I want to stick with this program.
The problem is that I'm achy as hell. Knees, quads and feet in particular. I'm gimping around on my recovery days which makes chasing the kids around difficult. Stretching helps a tiny bit, walking - which fortunately I do a lot of - helps a bit more. But nothing comes close to "fixing" it, and I'm scared as hell about getting injured. I'm getting older - not "getting", I'm 48 and already there - and recovering from injuries from running or lifting is a nightmare these days.
So what are your cures? Would a trip to a sauna help? I'm not actually sure what a "sauna" is, but I'm sure I can find one. Would it be a decent cure? How about a massage? How about a CHEAP massage? I can't regularly drop $300 on this shit. How about something that's free? That would be ideal. How about something that I can install in my house? My wife isn't going to OK a hot tub, but anything less than that I can probably manage.
I am going to disagree with every other answer so far. Most conventional wisdom on recovery is completely wrong and not supported by evidence.
First, you shouldn't be surprised that you are sore. You are doing more work during your running sessions even though the total milage is the same. If you had previously been doing bicep curls 5 days a week for 4-5 sets each workout but recently changed to 3 days a week but 8-10 sets you wouldnt be surprised to be sore. Your body needs time to adapt to the new stresses you are putting it through.
Next, stretching. There is very little evidence to support the idea that stretching is beneficial for preventing injury or recovering from it (plantar fasciitis is one exception). In fact, there is evidence that stretching can reduce performance and may lead to greater injuries by extending the muscles beyond their optimism performance windows.
Massage, foam rolling, etc. Again there is very little evidence these do anything to prevent injury or speed recovery. The benefits people get from these procedures is largely psychological. If it feels good, go for it, but you aren't causing any positive physical changes.
I would try slowing your pace and/or cutting back the milage a bit (7-8 miles at a time) for a week or two and seeing if you get a benefit. Then slowly ramp back up to 8-10 miles.
Here are some resources/sources from real doctors who are also strength trainers:
Firstly, think you're spot on about massage and stretching. Think you're also right that most of the comments so far do not seem to be supported by good evidence in the literature. That being said, think your initial statement is a little extreme.
Conventional wisdom for recovery, as far as I can tell, just says "take some time off" or " be sure to eat an adequate amount of food" or "make sure you get enough sleep". None of these are particularly groundbreaking, and are quite vague, but they probably encapsulate the 20% of recovery that gives you 80% of the benefit.
You are right. I should walk that back some. Maybe it's more accurate to say "many of the products people/companies push are largely ineffective or have marginal benefits".
For foam rolling at least, I'm pretty sure it just hurts. Warm up is definitely good, but I haven't heard anything about dynamic stretching being necessary along with it. Most stretching is actually a neural adaptation anyway: it trains the brain to allow for a larger joint movement before the opposing muscles trigger to stop injury.
I said above I used a massage gun and yes, for me at least it helped with the symptoms, consistently. But I did look and haven't managed to find strong evidence that it actually does more than that. It's cheap though and hurting is bad, so I'm still recommending it, without claiming it does more than that.
If you really had the time machine, it could definitely be both. It just occurred to me the other day that most fiction is more concerned with travel to the past and back than travel to the future and back.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/2332427903704805/permalink/3355824498031802/
Analogies with AGI timeline estimates are left as an exercise for the reader.
Are all of these things not pretty clearly all things that fall under the umbrella of online speech policing? Whether the mobs are directly involved, or if someone resigns before it gets that far, or because he or she thinks it MIGHT get that far, it's all kind of the same catalyst. It would probably be useful to limit this category to forms of career/personal life wrecking that have only existed for the past ~10 years. Your boss might have fired you in 1992 for streaking on tv at a baseball game (lol) but wouldn't for making racial jokes at the office because of a different set of social norms prevailed at that time. The specific set of norms that have existed for the past few years are clearly somewhat distinct from what came before.
This makes a lot of sense to me.
It's definitely possible that, say, everyone the Roman Senate was richer than anyone in classical Greece, but the top 5% of Greeks were richer than the top 5% of Romans.
I dunno about the Greek reputation for knowledge being the result of Roman superfandom. Wouldn't the Romans naturally have tooted their own (Latin speaking) culture even more?
"It's definitely possible that, say, everyone the Roman Senate was richer than anyone in classical Greece, but the top 5% of Greeks were richer than the top 5% of Romans." This is I think probably what historians would mostly agree with, at least if you count only citizens. There were a lot more slaves per capita in the Classical Greece than in the Roman Empire, though. Also as an aside, I think women probably had more freedom in the Roman Empire, complicating the picture further.
Roman elite considered it a matter of prestige to know "Greek learning", somewhat similar like it is now prestigious to attend Ivy League university. E.g. Cicero studied philosophy in Athens. Marcus Aurelius was so thoroughly hellenized that he wrote what is basically his own personal diary (Meditations) in Greek.
I suppose they could have tooted their own culture even more, but they didn't. The greatest work of Roman literature is fanfiction of the greatest work of Greek literature.
I've noticed a huge improvement in my mental and physical health and chess rating after switching multivitamins 3 days ago (from Pure Encapsulations O.N.E to 2/3 of the recommended dose of Alive Max3)
If, as Buddhists say, all life is suffering, and your goal should be to avoid reincarnation, why aren't they donating lots of money to help Yog Sothoth devour ALL the galaxies? If there's no life in the universe, there's no suffering. Is this a reductio ad absurdum of Buddhist doctrine?
Yog Sothoth is a fictional entity invented by H.P. Lovecraft as part of his "Cthulhu mythos" strange fiction writing in the early 1900s; presumably the Buddhists are in contact with deities who actually exist.
It's also a hypothetical and a reference to this post by Scott: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/moral-costs-of-chicken-vs-beef
I hope you get my drift.
I get you; in that case, it's reductio ad absurdum. If we're that opposed to existence itself, we've gone way beyond suffering or harm reduction, and we're really critiquing the decision of the gods and Buddhas to create the cosmos to begin with.
Yes, it's about per capita wealth. What I found most interesting about it was that the richest Greeks were much richer than the richest Romans (assuming the analysis is correct). The richest Romans were vastly wealthier than the richest peoples in any medieval European society.
The article argues that ordinary people were better off in Classical Greece than the Roman Empire. And that Greece had more people with enough wealth to become philosophers. But the impression I've had from other sources is that Rome had a small number of individuals with truly outrageous wealth, richer than any Greek, perhaps richer than anyone else in the world except for their own Emperor. So the Empire could plausibly have had higher per capita wealth, which the vast majority of citizens never saw.
As a side note, I think the Greek reputation for knowledge was largely the Romans' doing. The Greeks happened to be the first literate culture to influence Italy, which gave them a lot of prestige in the eyes of Italians. Then the peoples of the Empire imitated the Romans by reading Greek books.
https://rafaelrguthmann.substack.com/p/on-the-prosperity-of-different-periods
Did anyone else read this article? Tyler Cowen linked to it recently. In a nutshell, the idea is that while the Roman Empire was extremely rich compared to all of the other pre-modern societies (up through about 1700), Ancient Greece (pre-Roman conquest) was significantly richer. Evidence provided includes the size of house and lower population density in classical Greek towns, the high wages paid to unskilled Greek laborers and soldiers, and of course Ancient Greece's status as THE center of learning in the entire ancient world. Pretty cool article, and seemed plausible.
But unless I am missing something, this is about per capita income/wealth. There were far more people in the Roman Empire than in the Classical Greece. And I think than when people say things like "Roman Empire was extremely rich compared to all of the other pre-modern societies", they mean aggregate wealth.
Few people would claim that being an average inhabitant of the Roman Empire meant being extremely rich by premodern standards, I think.
Does anyone find the notion of time travel to the future more interesting than time travel to the past? I haven't encountered a lot of people who do. It seems like humans are almost universally more interested in making their past selves rich using knowledge from the present than using knowledge from the future to make their present or "near future" selves rich. I wonder if this is a failure of imagination on all of our parts (not being able to envision the future in fine detail, we are more bored by it).
Why is it an either/or? If you plan to go back in time with advanced technology, make a quick stop by the far future first so the tech you're bringing back is *even more advanced*!
Make a quick stop in the far future and get yourself arrested for petty larceny, unlicensed time-meddling, lèse-majesté, tax evasion, crimes against veganity, or some offense as yet unconceived? I'm not sure I'd bet on the far future just handing out technology to passing time-travellers.
In essence, both of these are the same though: whether you technology-share from 2230 to 2020 or from 2020 to 1810, you're going to end up with a society that has iterated on 2020 technology for 200 years. This will be complicated by an adjustment period, but that's going to be true of both: we're just as unused to 2230 technology as the 1810 people will be to 2020 technology.
Past-travel also lets you erase/reroll any problems you already know about that have happened in that time: if fusion was up and running in 1870 and resource concerns are completely different, maybe you skip a couple of world wars. There are probably similar problems from 2020 to 2230, but you don't know about those, and you probably erase those too by pushing the tech tree forward.
Also, if you travel to the past and share your own technology, you return to a time that's already incorporated those changes smoothly: you're probably not going to stick around in 1810 to help develop it, so whoever you hand it off to does all the hard work and you advance your home tech by however much. If you take 2230 technology back to 2020, you're probably going to stay in 2020 and have to live through the adaptation period.
That's a very different take from my usual assumptions.
I always assumed you live in the past once you've gone back. Since there you'd be a super important person who has changed the world, where in your own original time, everything has changed from what you grew up with and no one you knew in your own timeline was ever even born; after introducing computers and modern electricity to the 1810's, going back to 2020 would present all the same problems as going to 2200.
If you live in the past, you might be famous and important, but you're accepting a strict downgrade in technology: you're only bringing back the stuff you have in the present, and it'll take time, possibly your whole lifetime, to incorporate it into society and improve upon it. And you still wouldn't know anyone personally, at best you'd know a few famous figures from history classes (and you might be changing the timeline enough that they aren't important anymore).
If you live in the upgraded present, you could still be super important since you led to the current level of technological development (assuming you're ok with knowledge of time travel being available, and realistically they should have it already since you had it in original 2020) and you'd also get all the benefits of living in a more advanced society.
Maybe you just live 20-50 years ahead of where you introduced the technology to get the best of both worlds: still should be well known, technology won't have advanced far enough to leave you in the dust, but will still be notably better than what you have. But there are a bunch of tradeoffs there and different people might have different preferences.
Mmm, that last suggestion does sound like a sweet spot. Go back to 1800, introduce the tech, tell them you'll check in once every ten years to see how things are progressing, pop ahead to 1810, check in, see if you want to stay, rinse and repeat?
You could also consider going to 1810, staying till 1811, then jumping to 1820, staying till 1821, and so on, so that you have a year to adapt to each technology improvement successively. Do that for 10 years, you'll have a constant flow of new and interesting-but-not-overwhelming technology, not feel wildly out of place, and still be 100 years ahead technologically.
At least part of it is agency; if I go back in time with modern tech and knowledge, I get to act like a demi-god in many ways. (Imagine walking up to the Imperial Roman palace, shooting any guards who try to stop you, killing the emperor and declaring yourself Caesar. Or showing up with insulin and penicillin and healing sick people as if by magic.) If you want to disguise yourself and blend in, you can research what to wear, how to talk, ect.
If I travel forwards in time; I'm some backwards technophobe who doesn't understand anything, is wearing period clothes from the past, and I don't even have an implanted RFID microchip to unlock the door to the coffee shop.
Sure, if I could somehow steal some technology and bring it back with me I might be able to come back to the present and do the whole "demi-God" thing, but first I have to steal the technology and sneak it back with me. The future society probably doesn't want me messing up their whole timeline, so they'll likely try to stop me. Maybe I can grab a bunch of open source academic papers from 2200, but I'll still have to get access to their computer systems somehow.
If you don't plan to return back, I would expect the future to be better. In the past, you can enjoy being Caesar for a short time, and then the lack of antibiotics will kill you. During that short time you will miss the internet and other luxuries of modern life. (Just imagine: being Caesar, but not being able to post about it on social networks.)
On the other hand, if the future has some social support system, at least on the level of providing housing and food for the homeless, you will get to enjoy at least the cheapest of those awesome things that will be invented centuries later. That category may include more than we imagine. But you will have low social status, of course, unless being a time traveller gives you some prestige.
Well I'm taking antibiotics back with me if I'm going back. I don't really like the social network sites, and if I'm Caesar, I don't need them. Anyone I want to talk to is coming to live at court.
I'd much rather have the agency and status of controlling the whole world than the luxuries of a future social safety net. (Like, I literally cannot imagine a world so good to it's bottom 10% that it would outweigh the status of being emperor of Rome with an Armalite rifle and antibiotics.)
If you can imagine such a thing, please write a short story about it or describe it. Because... it's beyond me.
Okay, maybe not quite beyond me.
It would be better to live in a world where even the poorest person could afford a private interstellar FTL spacecraft and there was a 99.999999% effective dating app.
I would take that world over being Caesar, I suppose.
Have you read the Culture novels? I'd take being a random nobody citizen of the Culture over being an Emperor in humanities past, at least from a hedonistic perspective (I would strongly consider the potential to bootstrap humanity's advancement, at the cost of actually having to do hard work myself).
I'm confused by people who think all immigration restriction is deontologically immoral on libertarian priors. Jointly owned land (e.g., public roads) is still owned and hence it would be trespassing to enter it without express or implied permission from the owner (i.e., the government as the corporate entity representing all the citizens who jointly own it)
Thought experiment: Suppose 100 farmers individually own sovereign freehold farms. Clearly each of them has the individual right to keep trespassers off of his individual property. Now suppose these 100 farmers band together for mutual defense of their respective individual rights. IE they form a government. Suppose the contractual terms of joining the union require giving the union partial ownership of all your land, and delegating the right to eject trespassers. The delegated right to eject trespassers from jointly owned land would clearly give the union the right to restrict immigration. If sovereign individuals couldn't contractually agree to band together into a union with the right to restrict who else can enter/join the union, that would be a very serious violation of their freedom of association.
Parrhesia pointed me to this objection to SMTM's chemical hunger: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/7iAABhWpcGeP5e6SB/it-s-probably-not-lithium#fnrefpcialf566oj
Which is great, and you should read it if you've read SMTM's Chemical Hunger, but leaves me with an interesting problem: I'm writing a series on this, and this post is basically what my last post was going to be (but much better than what I would have done).
I'm sort of at a loss now for how to continue the series - how lame is it to make a post that says "just go read this!"?
I'm really interested in the chemical hunger hypothesis. I'd love to see more people investigating. Even if you end up just stating that you agree with everything in that lesswrong post, I still want to see it, because it's great to have more than one person confirm the data.
https://www.residentcontrarian.com/p/smtms-chemical-hunger-iii-scooped
That's probably about as much as I'm going to go from here. I found most of Natália's arguments pretty strong, but ended up hitting it more from a "where does this leave us" angle.
I'm doing that for a few reasons, but the main one is there's just so many places even a casual person can poke holes in ACH (as demonstrated by many, including me) that I'm not sure there's any huge reason to trust them on any of it.
I've been trying to be clear that I don't necessarily think this means that chemical contaminants are ruled out, but I think SMTM are committed to the idea of it (and of breaking new, exciting ground) in a way that makes them less-than-careful. At the very least I'd say anybody reading them has good reason to verify, source by source, if what they are claiming is backed up by anything.
Just because someone else already did it, and (possibly) did it better, doesn't mean you can't still do it. If you feel like you have something to say, why not post it?
I'm going to post *something*, probably today. But very honestly this person beat the hell out of what I can do on the quant side right now. Me trying to "outdo" them is about as likely as it is to introduce error as it is to help.
I'm mostly interested in amplifying them a bit and mentioning some more qual stuff, I think.
I remember reading an article awhile back which was called something like "The undefinability of computer largeness". It was essentially a parody of the claim that since there is no exact definition of intelligence, that it makes no sense to talk about intelligent machines and is impossible to make an intelligent machine. The article then took the same argument and applied it to computer largeness and came to absurd results.
I can't seem to find this article though, does anyone know what I am talking about?
On the Impossibility of Supersized Machines
https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.10987
Enthusiasts, when streaming data mining operations do you use a cloud storage solution or found an open source way for storing teras?
I'm building some standardized architecture solutions but don't want to immediately pay monthly billing fees to CSPs...
For people anywhere near software engineer hiring, how has the game changed for you since the market crashed? Easier? Same?
The market crashed? When?
A month or so ago, depending on how you think about it? Note this is very specifically a tech market crash, but it's been affecting hiring/firing in some significant ways. I had a soft job offer evaporate overnight, the company I work for dumped a bunch of people and froze hiring on some other classifications, etc.
I'm far from an expert here, but the biggest difference for a lot of companies seems to be that capital is drying up, and so a lot of companies that thought they could rely on endless funding are scrambling. Some companies weren't built that way and seem to be having a lot less trouble, which makes it hard for me to make any confident statements about how wide-spread this is.
My anecdotal experience: It's gotten harder to get a job if you're new to mid level software engineer. Seniors and above continue to be in high demand though not as high as before. Still, high end people are still getting poached and all that. Salaries have gone up across the board but especially for seniors. I think this is partly inflation and partly the increased demand for high end talent.
There's less interesting work. But there's a nearly never ending number of standard issue corporations who will soak up the talent. Software engineers don't like working for Wells Fargo or the NBA or Kellogs. But those companies definitely hire software engineers. And they tend to pay somewhat above market rate to compensate for the fact the work is boring and non-prestigious.
Thank for this. The existence of my job is very closely connected to engineers-are-hard-to-hire, so I'm trying to get a bead on this. I *strongly* suspect my current job will go away this week/month (although I might very well be wrong) for crash-related reasons, and so "did my job stop existing at my current company, or everwhere?" is becoming an increasingly relevant question for me.
A lot of companies are talking about cutting operational expenses. On the other hand, what's fat to one company is key to another. If you think your job is going away I'd start looking now. There's always work to be done and iirc you're a specialist writer so demand for that isn't crashing.
Also, if you feel comfortable, you can also have a frank conversation with your boss. They might lie to you and say you're definitely staying when you're not. They might also not be willing to bend. But if you're on the chopping block and willing to talk about it you can get some minor accommodation. Advanced warning and maybe some time to find a new place to work.
I'm kind of specialized - not as much as I'd like. Essentially I manage the potential-employee facing image of the company, and there's parts of that I'm better at than others. If I were a purely technical writer in a way that was more common, I don't think I'd worry as much (but I'd also probably make less,).
Frank conversations will be hard right now. As bad as this sounds, "stay under the radar" is a valuable chip to give up lately; people who aren't perceived to be doing very well are perceived to be doing very bad in a binary sense. I did go to HR to ask some basic questions about the changes that have me worried, but they essentially turtled up in a legally defensible way - I don't think they actually knew.
Entirely possible that they don't know. But if they're not making the cuts in a determined way and they're reliant on funding that's a sign it's a sinking sip.
I'd still keep searching. You might want to look into expanding into recruiting and marketing copywriting. Neither of those are going away. There's always marketplaces looking to onboard people or companies looking to recruit at least some senior types. And to be honest the seniors are harder to get anyway.
Seriously, I know some companies with millions in revenue that are just senior software recruiters. They barely even deal with entry level and make their money recruiting for third parties.
So, I got offered a new job, quite interested in it, but they want me to take a Meyers Briggs Personality Test and a Four Tendencies Quiz first.
They said "there's no right or wrong answers" but they're using this as a screening tool; so clearly there are.
What are recruiters looking for with these tests?
There's no telling for sure, but it seems likely they are trying to use it as a rough IQ proxy. They might be worried you are an ESFJ and thus not (statistically) able to figure out how to open doors, or whatever.
I always wondered if some Myers-Briggs types are just a polite category for normies.
I think I never met a person I'd consider interesting who wasn't clustered in a particular half of Myers-Briggs. Perhaps the other half thinks the same.
I don't know if it's IQ they're using, so much as trying to filter out "undesirable" personality types. I never heard of the Four Tendencies Quiz, and looking it up gives me:
"One of the daily challenges of life is: “How do I get people—including myself—to do what I want?” The Four Tendencies framework makes this task much easier by revealing whether a person is an Upholder, Questioner, Obliger, or Rebel."
So clearly an employer would prefer someone who is an Upholder rather than a Rebel (e.g. if the question of forming a union in a non-union company comes up) and they would much rather someone who is stable and undramatic rather than a flakey type who might cause problems.
If they're dumb or not can be worked out at interview, you don't want to call the trouble-making dramatist for interview, turn them down for the position, and then have them badmouthing your business all over social media as discriminatory and bigoted. "Just because I am neurodivergent, this backwards company refused to offer me the job for which I am well qualified!" type of tweets that get passed around as gospel truth and the company can't very well come back with "in fact, this person didn't get the job because they are crazy as a bag of weasels".
Well, sending it in. Got ESTP-T, which... seems perhaps less than ideal for the heavy equipment operator position they're offering.
Still a little worried about the dishonesty though. Don't see any way that "no right or wrong answers" could be a true statement.
Well, it's *technically* true that on a personality test, there are no right or wrong answers. Some people are of a happy disposition, some people are more serious. There is no 'right or wrong' there.
But yeah, they're going to be screening for a particular personality type - the same way that if this was a sales position, they're not going to pick the person whose ideal job would be librarian and likes to spend time in solitary hobbies or long walks alone.
That's not bad in itself, but it would be nice if they were more honest. Then again, if they *were* more honest about "we are looking for this, this and this quality in a potential employees", the exact kind of aggrieved trouble-making personality they are trying to screen out (amongst other things) would be likely to make a fuss about "this is discrimination against me and I am going to file a complaint!" https://work.chron.com/file-complaint-against-employers-unfair-hiring-practice-9846.html
Looking up your MB type, I see that:
https://www.verywellmind.com/estp-extraverted-sensing-thinking-perceiving-2795986
"ESTP: The Persuader (Extraverted, Sensing, Thinking, Perceiving)
People with this personality type are frequently described as outgoing, action-oriented, and dramatic. ESTPs are outgoing and enjoy spending time with a wide circle of friends and acquaintances. They are interested in the here-and-now and are more likely to focus on details than taking a broader view of things.
People with this personality type are logical. When making decisions, they place a higher value on objectivity rather than personal feelings. ESTPs don't like to be pinned down by excessive planning. Instead, they like to improvise and keep their options open."
That's pretty good, maybe not the immediate type for heavy equipment operator, but you're a good workplace fit in that you will get on with co-workers, be practical, and do the job in front of you with enough flexibility to respond to changes in circumstances that make the previous plan/schedule outdated.
Update: they were being completely honest. The possibility that we didn't consider was that this wasn't being used as a screening tool but as a sorting tool. They had already decided to hire me (labour market conditions meant that they had multiple openings and would hire someone only to have that person turn down the job for a better offer, so they weren't going to turn up their nose over a personality test) and were using this to determine who best to assign me to work with.
Loving the new job. Work crazy hours and haven't had time to read the blog let alone comment.
I mean, I'm ISTJ and this says amongst other things:
"ISTJs also place a great deal of emphasis on traditions and laws. They prefer to follow rules and procedures that have previously been established. In some cases, ISTJs can seem rigid and unyielding in their desire to maintain structure."
I bet you would never have guessed that from the content I post 😁
I can never remember what my letter classification is, but the place I have taken the test classifies it as the debater, and says something that paraphrases roughly to:
"You are a dick who argues with people for no reason at all. People find this confusing, and it is of limited use. Why are you like this?"
Username checks out.
I could probably justify some sort of way where "there aren't right or wrong answers, your personality isn't a crime, but we won't let you use cranes as an extrovert" isn't a direct lie, but yeah, they are implying that this doesn't matter and if it didn't they wouldn't care.
Looks like Turkey is dropping its objections to Finland and Sweden joining NATO.
https://www.cnn.com/2022/06/28/politics/joe-biden-g7-nato/index.html
Anybody think there's another way this might get scuttled? And if not, what are the implications?
It might be scuttled if Swedish parliament refuses to enact some legislation on which Turkey conditions its approval (basically, selling out the Kurds). See their joint memorandum here: https://www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_197342.htm?selectedLocale=en. Finland, which is far more important in military terms, is probably in the clear, unless they would "wait" in solidarity with Sweden.
Main implication seems to be that chances of any Russian military "shenanigans", in the Baltic region would be drastically reduced, and in the case of the outright war between NATO and Russia it improves NATO position.
The main implication is that whatever the end result of the Ukrainian war, Putin has failed in his proclaimed goal of stopping NATO's expansion.
Just like Hitler's invasion of the Soviet Union doing more to spread communism into Eastern Europe than anything Stalin could have achieved without the second World War.
Finland significantly increases the combat power of NATO by joining, (hundreds of thousands of reservists available to throw into a war.) Sweden brings one of NATO's biggest weapon suppliers "In House.".
After taking in the book review contest entry's on fusion predictions, maybe some here would be interested in contributing to forecasts on fusion?
There are a bunch of questions on it on Metaculus. One of them is on fusion ignition (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3727/when-will-a-fusion-reactor-reach-ignition/). Unfortunately IMO the resolution criterion is not ideal, as there seems to be no scientific consensus on what fusion ignition means precisely in different experimental settings.
I have tried to lay out some of the problems in a comment (https://www.metaculus.com/questions/3727/when-will-a-fusion-reactor-reach-ignition/#comment-95884), but I am a total lay person in this area. Contributions of people with expertise would be highly valuable in getting us better forecasts on fusion. Likewise editing the Wikipedia article on fusion ignition would be very useful in disseminating knowledge on this topic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fusion_ignition?wprov=sfla1).
Fusion has the potential to be a major game changer for the future of humankind, so the quality of forecasts could have a major impact!
Just chipping in to say that the new look (of the ASC) is better than the old look. Let's counter negativity bias :-)
Me too! I didn't even notice until you pointed it out; it just felt right.
I like the new color and font better than the previous ones as well.
Yep, much better. The clinical black on white was so bleak.
Agreed. It's much more easy on the eye now.
Yep, I like these color experiments, too!
Also, no one (caveat: I have not read all comments, so perhaps someone did) seems to have noticed that font in the posts has changed. And new font is better.
Strong vote against the blue background. It makes me not want to read at all.
I don't like it either. What the site needs to improve aesthetically are margins, but that doesn't appear to be an option
Strong supporting agreeing vote. I really loathe the blue color and it causes eyestrain after a couple of minutes. It's fine to do the standard black on white.
Looking for a book to help someone who is having trouble with a change in work setting: She has a science Ph.D., and recently left academics for industry. New work setting is less friendly & collegial, much more corporate and competitive, with people who don't find ways to toot their own horn failing to get promotions or even respect. Her actual skills are fine -- she's not having any trouble with the work tasks themselves. I think a high-quality self-help book is what's called for. She is a gentle soul, and is not going to go for "learn how to be a shark too" kind of stuff. She needs something more moderate than that. Anyone know of anything?
I enjoyed this one a lot: https://www.amazon.com/Power-Some-People-Have-Others/dp/0061789089/
That looks really good. Thanks.
I'd go with Musonious Rufus, Lecture's and Fragments. Your friend sounds more like a Stoic than an Epicurean.
Is there a hardware analog of neurons? I had a student job in an entomology lab where trichogrammas - tiny wasps, smaller than this bit of punctuation ‘.’ - were being tested as an alternative to pesticides. They like to eat the egg mass of European corn borers.
Per Wikipedia they have no more than 10,000 neurons yet they have fairly complex behavior. The males aggressively seek mates and they all are able to find the correct food for example. I’m wondering how 10,000 neurons would translate to computer hardware.
Yes, there is the field of neuromorphic chip design. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neuromorphic_engineering
They are still quite a bit away from mass markets. The promising thing about them is that they consume several orders of magnitude less energy than transistor-based hardware.
And of course, there are lots of simulations of neural networks in normal hardware, not just the simple ones that are used in machine learning. The complexity of the neurons ranges all the way from simple switches to complex 3D-shape structures with detailed modelling of their synapses, axons and even ion channels.
By the way, the neuroscientific mainstream has moved away from considering neurons as simple units that just add up incoming signals (leaky integrate-and-fire). The more modern perspective is that the dendrites are already mini-computers performing non-trivial operations (e.g., coincidence detection). So even a single neuron might already be considered as a mini-computer.
Thanks for the info and the link.
San Fransicko review made me think about polarization, political narratives, silencing and toxoplaxma of rage, once again.
It's interesting how people keep saying that the left silences uncomfortable truths and then, as example of such truths, proceed to say things which I, as a frequent leftist media consumer, is very well familiar with. Homeless people commiting crimes and taking drugs which contributes to their homelessness is one of such unimpressive revelation. Go listen to the activists for the rights of mentally ill. They will tell you how non-neurotypical people are more vulnerable to various bad outcomes, including drug use and poor economical conditions which can lead to homelessness and that's why we need more awareness, better social programs, universal health care, yadda yadda. On the other hand, some people are definetely being silenced and cancelled. So what's going on?
The answer, I think, is that people are usually opposed not for the ideas themselves, but for the narrative that is being pushed. Due to polarization, there are two Overton windows and you have to choose which one to fit in and which one you are against. Pick your side of the culture war. Either you appeal to progressives or to conservatives.
If the author just wanted to promote Amsterdam's model he didn't really need to attack housing first approach nor mainstream narrative. Indeed, mainstreem narrative assumes Amsterdam's model to be an example of harm reduction. Shellenberger had to define terms differently in order to oppose it! He could have easily talked in the framework of "housing first but not only". How mainstream ideas are mostly correct but can use some improvements. But he choosed not to, because he wanted to appeal to the different tribe and promote a different narrative.
And of course these dynamics are self sustaining. Talking about left censorship is a standard beat, while appealing to the red tribe up to the point where I struggle to see it as anything more than just pure signalling. And no surprise that I struggle, because left leaning people get inoculated from the idea of them shutting debates, seeing again and again how such claims are used in bad faith. And such situation is memetically advantageous for both narratives. Both leftists and rightists can this way ignore criticism and preserve their beliefs even if they are not correlated with reality.
You're strawmanning. I'm not aware of anyone who denies the basic issues of homelessness in big cities. What I am aware of is Democrats who will deny their policy preferences have anything to do with the prevalence of homelessness and Republicans who insist they do. Republicans don't say that Democrats deny that their cities have issues. They say that Democrats deny that their policies lead to outcomes like the ones you see in (for example) San Fransisco.
To take what I think is a fairly non-partisan example: It's like how NIMBYs claim their preferences don't lead to higher housing costs. No one is denying the fact of higher housing costs. They're denying that their policy preferences are the cause. Now imagine if NIMBYs had a very shouty activist class that has a tendency to socially shun and morally abhor people who disagree with them.
That's what Republicans are claiming. Democrats do X which causes Y and then they insist that X does not cause Y because they a priori like X. But they don't have good arguments so they shout down the opposition.
Whether that's true I can't say. But your counter is not a counter to what they're actually saying. What you say in your second paragraph would be seen as a deflection tactic, something they often bring up as what they call liberal cope. "Y isn't caused by X. It's caused by not being X enough! X cannot fail, X can only be failed!"
It seems that you missed my point to a degree where it started looking as a strawman version of yours. I wasn't actually trying to counter anything. I just observed that what people are saying - silencing of ideas - isn't what is actually happening - narrative is being opposed while the same ideas can be expressed without much pushback and even with endorsement. And how this situation is memetically favourable for both narratives as they can continue to exist without much challange, after all claims to be silenced and censored is an opportunity to dismiss criticism as instance of such silencing.
I used the idea of causality between drug use/mental illness and homelessness as an example of idea which is alledgedly opposed by mainstream but actually being talked about just in a different context. I didn't claim that republicans claim that democrat claim that their cities have no issues.
It's well known that people usually blame outgroup for all the bad outcomes and credit ingroup for all the good ones. The question whether in every individual instance it's actually true the the outgroup is at fault is the important one. The fact that people can dismiss the question without even exploring it is part of the problem, I'm trying to pinpoint.
There is pretty serious disagreement. The right sees homeless as driven directly by blue state/blue city policies. For example, lack of policing or nuisance laws come up a lot in right wing discourse. Or what they'd term socialist housing policy. Or any number of things.
The pure attribution to deinstitutionalization, seeing it as solely a mental health crisis, is the left wing point of view. It's the equivalent of how the left agrees with the right that mass shooters are mentally disturbed but doesn't see that as a primary driver.
Strongly agree with this. I find talk of cancel culture or whatever to be so banal and often much more telling about the person making the accusation than what incident they are labeling as cancel culture.
"There is no such thing as cancel culture, and if it happens to you, you deserved it" school of thought?
I was somewhat dubious of "cancel culture" as being A Thing (there have always been idiots trying to get people in trouble) but the more I read pieces that went "Cancel culture? *ostentatious yawning and performance of supreme boredown and ennui* I'm sorry, what were we talking about?" from people on the side alleged to be engaging in it, the more I started to think it was indeed happening.
No I am not from that school of thought (though there are instances where the "cancelled" could have easily avoided it).
My biggest issue with "Cancel Culture" is that it doesn't seem to have any precise meaning.
Personally, I trace its origins back to Justine Sacco and #HasJustineLandedYet which was clearly an innocent person being unjustly targeted by an Internet mob. To me that was disgusting.
But today cancel culture seems to mostly mean disagreeing with someone until they feel bad about it. And often the presumed victim benefits from the "cancelling" by either dominating social media or turning it into some political or financial win.
There are still innocent people that are targeted by internet mobs but this is a small fraction of "Cancel Culture" and is rarely what people are referring to or thinking about.
If we can agree on a definition of cancel culture then maybe I'll start being sympathetic to the argument that it's a "culture" at all. Until then I'll have to take each instance on its own and make a judgement based on the facts of each incident.
"But today cancel culture seems to mostly mean disagreeing with someone until they feel bad about it. And often the presumed victim benefits from the "cancelling" by either dominating social media or turning it into some political or financial win."
Possible selection bias: You are more likely to hear about those who succeeded to translate being cancelled into some kind of profit, than about those who didn't.
Yeah, most people lack the savvy to turn these lemons into lemonade, and mostly just take a big personal financial hit.
Do we really need a super rigorous definition? I think using it as a catchall term for "the tendency of internet mobs to wreck people's lives via coordinated smear campaigns on social media over perceived offensive statements" is good enough.
But that isn't how the term is used the vast majority of the time.
Here are the 4 of the top 5 articles I get when I search for "cancel culture" in google news (the Dakota Johnson one is repeated in the top 5):
Piers Morgan says Michael Vaughan is a victim of 'cancel culture at its worst'
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sport/sportsnews/article-10964979/Piers-Morgan-Michael-Vaughan-cancel-culture-victim-resigning-racism-claims-backlash.html
A former cricketer and current TV commentator is accused by a current cricketer of racism. The commentator quits his job but denies the racism. There is no coordinated smear campaign, this guy is rich, his life is not ruined, and he has a famous person coming to his defense.
Dakota Johnson Struggles With Cancel Culture: 'Horrifying, Heartbreaking and Wrong'
https://movieweb.com/dakota-johnson-cancel-culture/
Famous actress thinks cancel culture is bad and talks about the Johnny Depp/Amanda Heard trial.
Rowan Atkinson Says Cancel Culture Is Hurting Comedy: ‘Every Joke Has a Victim’
https://www.indiewire.com/2022/06/rowan-atkinson-cancel-culture-comedy-1234735202/
Famous actor with a new Netflix show says some dumb stuff during a press junket about how he can't make jokes (but apparently can make a comedy show?).
The Other Cancel Culture: How a Public University Is Bowing to a Conservative Crusade
https://www.propublica.org/article/idaho-crt-boise-state-university
Conservative legislatures are pushing state universities to curb speech they don't like. I find this reprehensible but doesn't meet your definition at all.
The rest of the first page is more of the same.
If people truely did mean "the tendency of internet mobs to wreck people's lives via coordinated smear campaigns on social media over perceived offensive statements" then I would be right there with you. But "cancel culture" hasn't meant just that for many years now.
Perhaps it's the implied threat of an angry twitter mob that's the problem, the mob doesn't have to come out all that often for people to feel their thoughts should be shared in private.
Okay, we could insert the words "attempt to" in front of "wreck people's lives" into my definition then. These celebrities get in trouble over these things when they start trending on Twitter.
Yeah, it's pure gaslighting.
"Of course I'm not an emotionally abusive boyfriend. What even is emotional abuse, anyway? Have you considered that maybe you're making me behave this way?"
Pretty ironic, that the exact same argument can be used for the previous level of recursion.
Of course I'm not a bigot. What even being bigot means this days, anyway? I'm just being cancelled for no reason and these people are the real bigots!
Yes, I'm sure if you only held beliefs that would not put your career, livelihood, access to the internet / bank account / payment processors, safety, or life in jeopardy if expressed publicly, then you would find the whole discussion pretty boring.
I hold plenty of beliefs that would not go over very well with many people in my life. However, I don't go around spouting them when it's not appropriate or when the potential downside outweighs the upside.
I can't see any reason to get in a debate at work about abortion or a similar subject. I don't go on social media and run my mouth off just to get in fights with people. If I go to a bar and start insulting people and get beat up, is that cancel culture?
Very few people face these consequences unless they are engaging in some unnecessary behavior. And considering the previous president of the United States gloated about sexually assaulting women, I am not sure what behavior is out there that people can't come back from.
Why is it bad arguing? Before polarization hit hard, people were finding middle ground and focusing on the things in coomon instead of differences as a standard strategy to cooperate.
Pleased to see people actually testing humans against the new bars for "intelligence" some people are rolling out for AI, like understanding conditional hypotheticals and following trains of logic with more than a couple of moving parts.
I wonder if some of the discussion around "human level intelligence" among AI people is distorted by the fact that AI people mostly interact with unusually intelligent humans? Once you've spent a while chatting to your HR department about why a contract is not what was originally promised when the job was offered, you'll very quickly find out how many humans don't remotely reach this level.
Not sure what the implications of this are, but maybe that AI is further up the scale than we thought already, but also progressing more slowly along it. Could actually be good from an AI risk perspective? Might just be that I'm really pissed at HR right now so can't really think clearly myself?
Slow people make a lot of the same mistakes the AI does. Hell, I do the same mistakes when I'm tired. I'm reminded of the imperfect way children and GPTs learn to count and do math, and I think it should be extrapolated to all rigorous thought.
My lord ACX is blue now why is it blue?
Easier on the eyes IMO.
A question regarding the overturning of Roe v Wade: in general, it seems sketchy and undemocratic that laws can be created by an unelected judiciary (even worse, one full of lawyers!)
But can a country truly be called democratic if, after 50 years, its elected officials haven't written a broadly popular judicial opinion into law? If this is ok, wouldn't executives and legislators always prefer to do nothing, leaving everything up to the judiciary?
This poll says 56% oppose 2nd trimester abortions, which are mandated to be legal by roe, so if a slim majority also support roe they are probably confused about what roe is. https://www.suffolk.edu/news-features/news/2022/06/22/14/25/suffolk-poll-shows-most-voters-not-informed-on-abortion-facts
>it seems sketchy and undemocratic that laws can be created by an unelected judiciary
That was the problem with Roe and why many "pro-choice" constitutional scholars disagreed with Roe despite being "pro-choice" themselves. Roe invalided the law of all 50 states and created a new law. The judiciary isn't supposed to create laws ever. It's simply not their role. Even RGB, the progressive icon, said that Roe went too far and should have simply ruled the Texas law in question unconstitutional and left it at that. The courts sole purpose is to say what is and is not Constitutional. A terrible law that no one likes or agrees with may be Constitutional and a law everyone on both sides loves and supports may not be Constitutional. We need to better educate people on this. Many debates on this topic are simply unreadable because of a fundamental ignorance as to the purpose of the court in the first place.
> That was the problem with Roe
Yes. But in reality, the judiciary does create laws all the time, and I don't think it's completely a bad thing - it forces policymakers to think through the consequences of the laws they create on the legal system. The next thing I want to learn about is the way the Bill of Rights works in America - paradoxically, judiciaries kind of seem better behaved in countries without one.
Maybe its just an issue with the language used, but SCOTUS rulings do not create laws. The law has to exist before SCOTUS will hear a case on it (among many other things needed). So in this case, all they are saying in Dobbs is that the MS law is valid and by extension Roe and Casey are not (but there is no associated law with Roe at the federal level).
Anyway, I completely agree with your second point and it points to a more general failure of the Democratic Party. Democrats have spent the past 50 years since Roe largely expecting it to exist, while Republicans have spent all that time focusing their base on a few issues and working at the state level to take advantage of the opportunity they had with Dobbs. The Democrats should have been spending all the time getting laws passed at the local level but that requires accepting incrementalism which they have largely rejected.
I'm frustrated with the persistent diligence with which the legislature cedes power by cravenly pawning as much responsibility as it can off to other branches of government, but of all the things I'd hold against them, "not writing a broadly popular judicial opinion into law" isn't one.
It's true that court-created rights and practices like the Miranda warning would be more secure if, in addition to being established in our jurisprudence, they were also set down into statute. That really only has value, though, if the court overturns them, which is like a .001% chance of ever occurring for any court-created rule. Given that the legislative process is (very) not zero-cost, it seems completely rational to me for the legislature spend its efforts on other business, rather than spend limited resources retreading and codifying ground already covered by the courts.
If a court pulls back on a popular court-created right or practice, the legislature can always just deal with it when it happens, which seems a much more efficient use of its time than trying to codify everything prophylactically in hopes of catching the small number of things later courts might change their mind on.
I think you’re making a valid point in that legislators have a tendency to punt difficult issues and let the judiciary field the ball. It’s politically the smart move. You can solemnly declare the matter is settled law and it’s out of your hands, or rail against an activist judiciary that is tying your hands
I t will be able interesting to see what happens now that the court has punted it back.
A dog chases a firetruck, but what the hell happens when the dog catches it?
Do you happen to know how binding pre-nup contracts are? I’ve been trying to imagine a framework other than traditional marriage per se in which childbearing could be agreed upon and then legally enforceable (possibly with some type of health exception.) I know it sounds a bit evil but I think some parts of society have become accustomed to pregnancy as a condition that’s reversible at any time. Not all aspects of life can be tapped out of at any time; marriage doesn’t prevent abortion, so what would? Is there an enforceable non-abortion contract (with financial or other penalties for breaking it)?
I’m sympathetic to the argument that Ds never put a law through congress in part so they could keep using it for fundraising.
From what I’ve seen of the polls, “most” people want it to be legal & obtainable before 12 weeks, and after that, rare.
Becoming a mother is indescribable (I am one.) Going into it one does not and cannot know what one is in for. That type of experience doesn’t mesh well with all choices all the time. Sometimes you just have to “bear” it. I suspect that people who have seen or experienced this have never been comfortable with abortion of a healthy fetus past viability; however given the activism, being seen as pro-conservative/pro-christian was seen as bad, so a disincentive.
I honestly don't see how you can do this. Even marriage has now been divorced from childbearing (see the arguments during marriage equality campaigns everywhere that 'no it doesn't matter if same-sex couples can't have kids themselves, marriage isn't about having kids anymore, straight couples use contraception and abortion and some choose never to have kids'), and the prevalent social attitude that we are seeing expressed in the immediate aftermath of the Supreme Court decision that childbearing is a horrible burden which is nearly inevitably fatal to the woman (if it doesn't literally kill her, it will destroy her life, and abortion is way safer than delivering a baby) shows how you can't make this stick.
Any more than expectations of indissoluble marriage can be made to stick: yes, when I exchanged vows "until death do us part" I meant it then, but that was then and people change over time, and besides that's only metaphorical nowadays. I'm getting a divorce and if you don't like it, tough, that's why we have no-fault divorce.
So you'd be struggling with "sure, when I signed the contract I intended to get pregnant some day, but now you are demanding I have a baby and it just doesn't suit me right now, or I don't feel ready, or I've changed my mind about having kids, and you can't force me to do this".
Seriously, if you want to have a child, then don't mess about with pre-nuptial agreements or contracts about "five years from now". If both of you are willing, then try to get pregnant *now*. Don't put it off, because "some undefined time" will never happen. Or one or both of you might change your minds (which would be awkward if there *was* a legally enforceable document that you both had to become parents). If you feel you are ready to have a kid, do it today.
There is definitely a sort of bottleneck in terms of how society creates the next generation. Is it inevitable that every final decision on birth is made by an individual acting in an individual capacity? (Usually a female person with her “own” choice.)
That may be inevitable. Because yes, short of surrogacy contracts (which I have not seen), there is no social or legal way to compel birth. The ending of RvW has been characterized as forced birth by some, but I think more accurately it’s forcing a reckoning with recreational sex.
I’ve never liked the feeling that a very important goal of mine would be arbited(!) by another individual. It just suddenly hit hard that for males, the goal of reproduction is controlled by the decision of another individual in a way that isn’t paralleled if genders are reversed (due to sperm donation and banking). Technology and surrogacy are making progress on this but it’s expensive.
I think those “herbal teas to prevent cramps” from ancient times were probably a very useful habit. Basically taking an herbal abortifacient at every menstrual cycle if one did not want a baby right then. I know they don’t always work and can make people sick but something like that makes sense to me in general. So I’m even sympathetic to the female desire/need to be the arbiter. About halfway through though I think a lot of people would quit if they could because pregnancy can be miserable. That’s when the “team” of society is supposed to provide help and support. I know I wasn’t prepared for the arrival of a little being that didn’t let me sleep and also somehow lived in the core of every unresolved fear. I think nobody really is. It’s an initiation. To me, I want there to be an event horizon such that if you cross that, you’re committed to making every effort to continue with the pregnancy (barring medical problems.) But there is no such consensus and maybe there never will be. Does that feel like a brick wall to the male? It might. How to conduct oneself to get voluntary and consistent alignment of one’s partner with one’s reproductive goals?
Maybe it was ever thus.
Not a law expert, but I suspect that most if not all Western democracies would not allow it. It could raise incredibly difficult issues if a man (and... the government) forced a woman to give birth against her will, in most of the ways I can imagine that happening.
It might be similar to a surrogacy contract and in that sense it makes sense that most Western democracies would not allow it. If someone agreed ahead of time it is not “forced birth” in the same way.
I was today years old when I realized how much this puts the man at the mercy of the woman. If there’s no legal way to get certainty, and personal certainty depends on the person and how they feel at the time, there’s every incentive to just compete to influence the woman’s feelings at any given moment. I understand a little better why some men say they don’t care about abortion. It makes no sense to care about an outcome they can’t control. Because even a seemingly committed partnership could unravel at any time. And then how can men and women take each other seriously in the workplace, when the minute you clock out it’s back to competing for the continued access to the female. Is this really heterosexuality? I even did this for years and did not see this side of it. I have to teach my sons how not to wind up creating abortions (someday I hope to have grandchildren ) and this is dismal. Unfortunately the answer may be something like marry a conservative girl and buy her everything she needs. Not what I expected. My naïveté!
Marg: Pre-nups are a state by state thing. Some states give them wide latitude other states cock a snook at them. As a general rule, in Anglo-American law, contracts are about money and property. The baseline enforcement mechanism for contracts is a judgement for money damages, which may or may not be something you really want. And penalties unrelated to the economic values at stake are generally unenforceable.
I think you might be confusing what the branches of government do here?
Also, ask yourself what a democratic abortion vote would have looked like 1972 when Roe v Wade was passed and would the original ruling itself be essentially judicial activism?
Well, exactly. To paraphrase my question - judicial activism seems bad, but what if it's also what the people want?
Then the people can encourage their representatives to amend the constitution in a way that updates the powers of the court.
To put it differently again: is it necessarily a failure of the legislature when judicial activism is popular?
Yes, it is. In the same way that it would be a failure of parenting if you only fed your kids the kind of sweet junk food they preferred to boring old vegetables.
If the people have been cheering on judicial activism when the decisions were going in the direction they liked, they haven't a leg to stand on when judicial activism starts making decisions they don't like. "When the referee rules in my favour, he's sensible and only following the rules; when he rules in your favour, he's biased and should be dismissed" is something even sports fans realise is not a workable way to run a game, even if it's understandable why they feel that way about their team.
If the legislature can't or won't do its job but leaves it to judges, then why have a legislature?
Is/are there ACX in-person meetup groups in NYC? Or did the existing OB/LW group take its/their place?
Has anyone been attending the OB/LW group meetings? I just went to my first one in ... over a decade or something crazy. The meetup was fun!
Has it changed to #e2edfc? I'm sure it was greener earlier. How about loading each time with a randomly generated background in the range #e0e0e0 to #ffffff and we can all vote on it?
It did change, and this is a lot better in my opinion
How about different background colors to different types of articles? Green = open thread, yellow = book review, red = culture wars, blue = nerdy stuff, purple = fiction...
Substack does not have that functionality. A few more years of substack development and we'll be in 2003 and maybe that will be a possibility.
I didn't notice a background color until the last two posts I've looked at. I assume it was plain white before.
I was puzzled by that sudden background color change. In fact I was worried that I was seeing the non-subscriber view — and that I had been logged out or somehow my account had been deactivated. After checking my account, I saw that nothing had changed. But then I went looking for some sort of profile setting that I could have changed by accident. Then, I started to wonder if it had always had a light-blue background, and I had misremembered the white background. Talk about over-thinking things!
But thanks for confirming my reality!
It was. Recent change, Scott's trying to restore a bit of the SSC feel.
SSC was blue? I remember it as white.
Anyway, I was a little surprised by the change to pale blue. It might improve legibility, I'm not sure.
And I wouldn't mind different pastel backgrounds for different sorts of posts.
White, but with blue side and top bars I believe.
For those who are interested, Yann LeCun has posted A Path Towards Autonomous Machine Intelligence, https://openreview.net/forum?id=BZ5a1r-kVsf
Abstract: How could machines learn as efficiently as humans and animals? How could machines learn to reason and plan? How could machines learn representations of percepts and action plans at multiple levels of abstraction, enabling them to reason, predict, and plan at multiple time horizons? This position paper proposes an architecture and training paradigms with which to construct autonomous intelligent agents. It combines concepts such as configurable predictive world model, behavior driven through intrinsic motivation, and hierarchical joint embedding architectures trained with self-supervised learning.
I was referring to Melvin's comment "Would a six-month lockdown of gay men be justified?" Perhaps I just misunderstand the phrasing, but lockdown doesn't sound like a guideline to me.
As for governmental advisory or information, I am much more open to that. But I am very skeptical that the advice to remain abstinent for six months would be taken serious. Not at the current (low) level of personal threat and with milder and probably more effective options available (disease detection, contact tracing, vaccination). Also, the benefits are doubtful; a voluntary "lockdown" suffers from the free-riders problem, and there is no guarantee that enough people would comply to contain the disease.
EDIT: Sigh, the reply system is broken. This was supposed to be a reply to a post by Acymetric, but that post seems to be gone.
I’ve noticed a few ‘orphaned’ replies lately. Perhaps things are coded so if we respond to a deleted comment it is put at the top level.
Yes possibly, but then the comment is usually still visible as "deleted", right?
In my case, it's even weirder. I got an email notification that someone replied to my comment (including the text and author of the reply). I hit "reply" in the email and wrote my reply, but then Acymetric's comment was not appearing anywhere, and my answer ended up at top level.
Usually it is. I’ve been on the other side of this providing a ‘hot fix’ for a use case not covered in the spec. A hot fix has a way of breaking things in a new way.
I want to complain again about the difficulty of finding the parents/context when linked to a specific comment. For example, in the discussion of the color change, someone linked to this comment by Scott: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/open-thread-230/comment/7376659
But as far as I can tell there's no actual way to get from there to the comment he was replying to. The "Return to thread" link just goes back to the full comments of the post.
In short: Substack please fix your shit.
+∞
I suspect the "return to thread" feature just (mostly) silently/invisibly fails and then spits you out into the full comments as a default.
And I suspect that ACX is almost uniquely stressing Substack's commenting features!
I still wish they would 'fix their shit', but I sympathize with (probably) how hard that really is, so I'm more inclined to ask nicely :)
I believe that's true. When you click the link, the URL includes an ID tag meant to scroll you to the comment in question. I think what's happening is that the threads are long enough that most of the comments don't actually load on the initial page load, so it fails to find the target comment and just takes you to the top of the page.
And for what it's worth: I do this sort of thing professionally, so I do have a pretty good idea how hard it would be to fix: assuming a codebase I'm familiar with (and the languages I work with, etc), I'd expect to be able to solve this by myself in an afternoon. And I don't consider myself especially competent.
That's definitely the kind of thing I'm imagining being wrong too!
I think I maybe have a slightly different perspective on why/how this is (or might be) hard to fix. _Assuming_ everything you do, the actual code changes are probably pretty minor, e.g. basically better { error handling / retry logic }.
But there _might_ be good reasons why they, apparently, opted to just load all of the comments instead of attempting to retry loading the data to jump to a specific one, e.g. they've checked/tested and it's 'better' for users (or better for them from the perspective of Substack) to load _something_ sooner than wait for the 'correct' content to finish loading.
But – in my experience – the work at the point where your assumptions are true is the _easy_ part. The hard part is, e.g. prioritizing this relative to all of the other work, navigating tradeoffs between assigning work to those who will be most efficient versus those who could stand to learn about the relevant part of the codebase, or whomever is assigned the work discovering that in fact _no one_ is currently familiar with the relevant part of the codebase!
Literally saw this because I was trying to view a sub-thread and instead Substack sent me to the global convo. So, silver lining?
Is there much in the way of empirical evidence that a skincare routine leads to better aesthetic outcomes in later years? Used to have acne when I used cleaning products, since I switched to rinsing with cold water I have none, and get complimented all the time. Intuitively I can make the connection that "moisturizing" could help, but I'm not convinced a chemical cocktail would necessarily outperform lots of water intake, a good diet and avoiding excess sun exposure, in the long-run.
Isotretinoin helps with acne, the rest is snake oil.
IME - back when I still suffered from acne - bad skincare (e.g. washing your face with regular soap) is way worse than none. Perhaps for certain people there is no skincare that isn't bad, in this sense.
I came across an interesting 'thread' somewhere where the 'pro skincare' person/people were arguing that, while, yes, most skincare products are very similar, there are certain kinds/categories that _are_ in fact effective.
I did learn, as someone with 'bad' skin, that a good way to test any new product is to only use on one part of one's face/skin. I'd take photos on my phone, e.g. every day, whereas in the Before Times I'd have had to either write down text notes on paper, or type up notes on my computer. I guess I _could_ have taken photos (and then have them developed), but it's certainly easier to document this kind of thing with a phone almost always in my pocket!
Empiricism in that area does have some caveats.
https://xkcd.com/700/
Once upon a time (~6 months ago), somebody left a comment somewhere on ACX saying they were looking for work as a data/software person in corporate research. But the plot twist is, I now want to talk to a data/software person about corporate research.
If you fit this description, please let me know. Alternatively, if you are routinely scraping ACX comments and tagging them in a searchable way using ML... uh, maybe I should just talk to you.
Can someone give me a just-the-facts summary of the impact of the Dobbs v. Jackson decision, with minimal editorializing, and emphasis on any points that are not likely to be covered by the standard culture-war hot-takes? Bonus points for Georgia- or Atlanta-specific information.
(context: I live in GA, don't particularly want kids, and am trying to determine whether I need to examine the fallout of the decision *right now* or can afford to wait until things settle before deciding if/what to do about it. I don't trust standard news sources to tell me what is useful information over whatever makes the punchiest story.)
What do you imagine you would need to do *right now*, and why? If you're not currently pregnant, and you're not careless/inobservant enough that you could plausibly discover tomorrow that you are four months pregnant, then I don't see anything that couldn't be handled by waiting until you hypothetically discover you are (1-2 months) pregnant and figuring out then what to do about it.
It's possible that the answer would then be, "take a week's 'vacation' in New York on short notice", which would be annoyingly disruptive to be sure but probably less so than "relocate permanently to New York right now, just in case".
Because the majority of abortions are pill-based these days, and the AG and FDA have come out strong that FDA approved medications cannot be banned by states from being prescribed and fulfilled by mail, the impact on anyone with any degree of education/sophistication/money is going to be minimal. If you know you want an abortion, and you have a few hundred dollars in emergency funds, this will not impact you at all. The impact is going to be on the stupid/unsophisticated/poor/indecisive.
> am trying to determine whether I need to examine the fallout of the decision *right now* or can afford to wait until things settle before deciding if/what to do about it.
If you're not pregnant *right now* then I'm sure you can afford to wait.
Whatever happens it's extremely unlikely that any state will be able to prevent or punish people who cross state lines for abortions. So as long as you can afford to take a quick interstate trip there's no need to worry.
GA had a law to ban abortions after 6 weeks that was rejected initially on hitting federal courts.
That decision was appealed, but the appeal was delayed until after Dobbs was decided. As a result, the odds are GA has a 6-week ban within the next year.
This isn't wrong, but it understates how soon, and with how high a degree of certainty, the 6-week ban is likely to go into effect.
What will happen now is that the 11th Circuit will enter an order vacating the judgment below and dissolving the injunction against enforcement of the law. That's likely to happen on a timeline of days or weeks at most.
The 6-week ban is a validly enacted Georgia statute, so nothing more needs to happen for it to take effect, and at that point there would be no legal obstacle to Georgia proceeding to enforce it.
Others may do a better job of this but the high level TLDR as I see it is that states (and the Federal government, if it wants) can now freely regulate abortion as they see fit with minimal scrutiny from federal courts.
A Federal abortion rights law, Federal abortion ban, or anything in between seems unlikely to be forthcoming in the immediate term, so for now if you're looking for a "how this would affect me" kind of analysis you really look at your own state and what abortion laws it has or is likely to pass.
https://www.ajc.com/news/georgia-news/abortion-in-georgia-here-is-whats-currently-legal-and-not/DN5AHUQQLNFJTP4RZ6UTA3BULI/
Not a GA Attorney or expert on Georgia abortion law, but it sounds like at the moment Georgia law allows abortion within 20 weeks of gestation, and since Georgia does not currently have a "trigger law" that would change that automatically, the question for your situation would be "what is the GA government likely to do now that it's hands are pretty freed up on abortion?"
The new background colour is making the site take noticeably longer to load, including when expanding comments.
Just now, when I visited this page I noticed the unusually long load time and mentally commented on the ridiculousness of it. I wouldn't have physically commented on it if I hadn't seen your comment, but to provide a datapoint: this was my experience.
I'm not noticing this and it doesn't make sense to me; can someone who knows more about web design confirm whether this is a thing that can happen?
It would be ridiculously unlikely, it is just case of degraded performance accidentally happening at the same time.
I can imagine such custom style screwing with caches but that would be really ridiculous.
That doesn't make sense to me either and I'm a web developer (tho not particularly 'design' focused).
I would bet at long odds that this isn't the culprit of whatever Rachael is observing.
I only briefly took a look but it doesn't look like the color is changing it. What IS taking a long time is loading all the comments including Substack's call to get the unread comments per account.
I'm seeing the same comments loading slowly issue.
Yes, I've had the sense that comments/pages are taking longer to load for weeks now.
I'm sure someone could manage to make it be the case that a bgcolor would increase site load time, but... you'd have to do something impressively stupid to manage it. A solid bgcolor like this should not meaningfully affect performance of a site even if you're loading the site on a potato.
The only plausible idea I have is custom style screwing cache handling.
(but I am not expecting this at all!)
Something new with the turquoise background on the site today?
Scott is trying a new background color. Discussed a bit in earlier comments.
I've been reading up a lot on the other contentious Supreme Court case that was published last week.
In the case of New York State Rifle and Pistol Association vs. Bruen, many organizations sent briefs supporting the action of striking down the law.
Among those organizations: many legal-aid agencies and minority-rights associations argued that the New York law about concealed-carry had a severely-disproportionate effect on minorities. A huge number of those arrested for illegal gun possession in New York were either Black or Latino. The lawyers of the Bronx Defenders, Brooklyn Defenders Services, and the Legal Aid Society all argued that gun rights were a 'legal fiction' for minorities under that law.
The opinion of the Supreme Court barely mentioned this factor.
Do you think that the racial-impact factors should have been considered in deciding this case?
No, but only because it wasn't argued. I think that there absolutely is space for such a ruling, but to get the best one out of the court, full arguments by both sides should be made.
Don't worry, California is doubling down on the "good moral character" part of thier system, and that is probably very vulnerable to this kind of analysis. You know, because their origin is the same as the poll tax or the other Jim Crow era laws targeting free black citizens
I thought about this issue on and off for several days...which probably makes me late to reply.
This issue can be hard to discuss for two separate reasons:
A. The kind of racial-impact disparity seen in the prosecutions of gun-related crimes is the kind of disparity that often results in cries of racism, with a possible side-order of Remake/TransformIntoAntiRacist/Defund the agencies involved.
B. Per comments in another Open Thread recently: laws about posession/use of firearms are a weird exception to the general progressive/liberal idea that rules should be reduced where possible, and people are generally good and can be trusted to do the right thing.
Maybe I'm not representing this point accurately, but the gist of the discussion was that conservatives generally have a lower opinion of human nature than progressives/liberals, and that therefore people should expect conservatives to be in favor of strict laws about things like firearms (which are easy to use/misuse with catastrophic results), and progressives ought to be more relaxed.
The facts on the ground are that politicians in dense urban areas tend to be in favor of strong restrictions on firearms. These politicians are usually liberal/progressive.
Anyway, in the specific of racial minorities who are over-represented among those charged for carrying guns illegally, there might be several factors:
1. They were not intent on committing a crime, likely have no criminal record, but were discovered when the cops detected the weapon somehow. (Investigating an event inside the home, discovering the gun while interviewing them as a witness to some other crime, or finding the gun while hassling the person for being Poor-and-Minority...)
2. The person was likely intent on committing a crime with the gun, or had committed a related crime that is harder to prove. The Police got lucky and discovered the gun, and can prove that this person didn't have a license (or had a previous conviction for something which makes it illegal to possess a gun).
Both kinds of cases are likely to come to court as 'person illegally possessing a gun', and possibly with no other charges files.
The typical conservative (or even libertarian) would want to require Police to go easy on case 1, but would like the Police to go hard on case 2.
The typical progressive or liberal is more likely to say that case 1 is sad, but the problem can be fixed by reducing the number of guns in circulation, thus reducing scenarios like case 2.
I think the court case pushes the State and City of New York in a direction of making permits-to-carry much easier to acquire. This would help many poor people in case 1 to explore the option of getting an official permit-to-carry. This appears to be a better option than having to decide between not carrying a firearm in an area where they feel it might be needed, and risking discovery by the Police of a firearm carried without a permit.
In my opinion, the ruling indirectly helps many of the poor/minority people, without the ruling hinging on their racial or economic status.
Alito actually did bring this up during the oral arguments at the SC.
Probably not relevant in the legal opinion that was handed down because they decided that everyone’s rights were being infringed.
I'm not an American and was trying to understand what difference the Roe v Wade overturning makes, but it's very difficult to get a clear picture.
Like, it would be nice to see something that tells me what percentage of American women of child bearing age are likely to have - no access to abortion at all, and what percentage have access till what gestational age e.g what percentage till 6, till 12, 18, 24 weeks etc.
I would have thought this should be the most basic statistic that anyone who wants to understand the impact of this ruling would want to look at first. Yet, it's nowhere to be found. Anyone here have any idea?
Guttmacher Institute for your abortion news needs. I won't say they're complete, and they have a slant since they are pro- the whole 'reproductive justice' thing, but they are the only easily accessible site I've found doing this kind of research:
https://www.guttmacher.org/
https://www.guttmacher.org/news-release/2022/abortion-after-roe-new-comprehensive-map-tracks-abortion-policies-and-statistics
The next time you hear someone going on about "abortion for rape/incest", this was the site gave me information on reasons for abortions. The survey is very dated (it comes from 2005), but it was something like 1% of abortions carried out for rape, 0.5% for incest:
https://www.guttmacher.org/journals/psrh/2005/reasons-us-women-have-abortions-quantitative-and-qualitative-perspectives
"The reasons most frequently cited were that having a child would interfere with a woman's education, work or ability to care for dependents (74%); that she could not afford a baby now (73%); and that she did not want to be a single mother or was having relationship problems (48%). Nearly four in 10 women said they had completed their childbearing, and almost one-third were not ready to have a child. Fewer than 1% said their parents' or partners' desire for them to have an abortion was the most important reason. Younger women often reported that they were unprepared for the transition to motherhood, while older women regularly cited their responsibility to dependents."
https://www.guttmacher.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/tables/370305/3711005t2.pdf
Which shows that the best pro-life policy is probably a policy of support for single mothers in particular and child rearing in general.
I'd really like an "effective pro-life movement".
Yeah, imagine if pro-lifers had actually created centers for counseling pregnant women that provided resources for adoption and single parenting.
Oh wait... https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-attacks-on-crisis-pregnancy-centers-janes-revenge-abortion-roe-v-wade-violence-destroyed-11655653644
Exactly. The solution to 'childhood poverty' should not be "let's kill the poor kids before they can be born!"
Obligatory Mitchell & Webb clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=owI7DOeO_yg
"Childhood poverty" is a euphemism for "poor people having children."
Wow now, let's not let the mask slip off our soft eugenics program. Can't be having that.
Surely the best pro-life policy is to prevent unwanted children from being conceived at all?
Pill plus condom should be industry standard for premarital sex.
I mostly agree, but in practice easy access to contraception does not seem to really help with abortions - well at least pill and condoms are readily accessible in our countries and the number of abortions does not seem to go down.
The number of abortions in the US at least has been steadily declining for a couple decades. I'd probably blame that on contraception
It has ? Well that's a good news. Yay for contraception I guess.
I would be happy to see some of my tax money spent on *free* condoms and pills... but the question is how many people are too stupid to use them properly, or simply don't care.
But don't you know that won't work at all? Seriously, if I believed the hysteria I'm seeing online about this, there is no such thing as contraception, every woman who has sex is going to get pregnant, and only for abortion they'd be popping out babies every year.
If you have regular sex during all your childbearing years, even with contraception, there’s a significant probability you will get pregnant at some point. Just think of the volume of the sex a person has over 30 fertile years, and all it takes is one unwanted pregnancy to drastically alter a woman’s life against her will. It’s like being a safe driver who drives for decades and gets in a fender bender once. We don’t moralize against that driver. Women need the tools to manage their health and well-being without the handcuffs of evangelical Christian morals.
>If you have regular sex during all your childbearing years, even with contraception
Somebody, somewhere, needs to tell pro choicers how much sympathy they lose when they use the sexual freedom thing in an argument.
Like somebody should show them The Sympathy Bar in real time, as it drops menacingly ever closer to 0, after every appeal to The Right To Be A Slut. There has to be a better way to argue for unrestricted abortion.
>without the handcuffs of evangelical Christian morals
You give Christians way too much credit, they are neither the first ones to discover the curious fact that sexual promiscuity is a repulsive and devaluing way of living, nor do they have a monopoly on living by that fact even if they were the ones who discovered it.
> Just think of the volume of the sex a person has over 30 fertile years
This varies a lot by person.
If a driver killed someone to avoid the consequences of his fender bender, I think most people would moralise against him, and rightly so.
I'm pretty sure that condom + 1 of the several options of female birth control reduce even the long term aggregate risk of pregnancy to negligible levels. Any single method alone can fail (although the "correctly used" failure rates are significantly lower than the "real world" failure rates), but two together are _very_ unlikely (especially if one of them is a low-maintenance method like an IUD or implant).
Now, I'm personally pro-choice and against the recent ruling (on a whole host of grounds), but I don't think that "Long term aggregate pregnancy risk is too high" is a good argument against it.
You gotta examine the rational behind the prime movers of the forced birth movement (if I may be allowed to slant the name).
The majority of the push for restricting reproductive freedom is from evangelical Christians; who are less concerned with welfare and more concerned with morality.
The problem isn't that 'children are being killed', it's that moral norms are being violated.
Rewarding single mothers with support goes directly against the goals of the forced birth movement, which is to enforce moral behavior.
The tone of your comment seems to be precisely tuned for maximal good faith debate, well done.
Can we also condemn the forced liver cirrhosis movement? Just because I drink a bottle of whiskey a day, it's not fair that the medical establishment force me to have a bad liver instead of giving me a new one every year!
Imagine the horror of doing a thing which will produce a particular result. and then that result happens! I should be free to jump off cliffs and not have gravity pull me down!
The consequence of not foraging for berries or hunting game is starving to death, yet I haven't done either and I'm doing fine.
The very point of technology is to shield people from consequences they don't like.
A straightforward reading of the analogy would imply that each woman should be given only a single chance to abortion during her entire lifetime, which is... actually a novel opinion to consider.
Before the Roe-v-Wade case was decided in 1973, different States had different laws about abortion. Some forbade it entirely (including Texas, the state that 'Jane Roe' lived in when she filed her lawsuit).
The Roe-v-Wade case claimed that the U.S. Consititution forbade such restrictions on abortions. A later case, Planned-Parenthood-vs-Casey, changed the limits of what was Constitutionally allowed. (Roe used a trimester-standard, while PP-vs-Casey used a viability-standard. )
The Dobbs case overruled both. It appears to state that the various States could put limits on abortion if the legislatures chose to.
Of interest: the Mississippi law that was challenged and upheld in the Dobbs case forbade abortions after the 15th week of gestation. Many others nations have laws of similar strictness on abortion. What laws are you familiar with in your part of the world?
EDIT: the Wiki page on the Dobbs case has a map of the apparent limitations on abortion in various States. It's a little hard to link that up to percentages-of-population-affected, but it is a start.
Talking about the Mississippi law, or other sub-second trimester bans, as existing law is kind of silly. A lot of red states were trying to pass laws that would push abortion restrictions to the limit of post-Roe jurisprudence, now that there is no Roe to push against they will probably go the whole hog as fast as possible.
Red state politicians have never previously had to care about the differences in popularity of a complete ban vs a 6 week ban vs a first-trimester ban, and were free to virtue-signal for primary points by being HARD ON ABORTION.
I expect there will be a lot of compromise in practice and very few complete bans.
This doesn’t track with the “life begins at conception” rationale claimed by anti-abortion advocates. What evidence do we have that there is a willingness to compromise?
Anti-abortion advocates cover a wide range of beliefs. This exact issue (how many people support X-week ban on abortion) has been well-studied; there's a big gradient between third trimester bans with tons of support to complete bans with very little.
So… what exactly was the point of overturning Roe?
One place I see it is in polling data, provided the poll doesn't frame the issue as a black-and-white "abortion any time; abortion never" switch. The closer one gets to either end of the gestation period, the more people are uncomfortable with abortion bans toward the fertilization end, or with abortions toward the birth end.
Could be true, certainly. But in my mind, there's an enormous difference between second trimester bans, like Mississippi, and first trimester bans, like Texas. First trimester bans strike me as outrageous. Second trimester bans don't.
80% seems very high to me- how are you calculating this? I would expect at least 40% to live in states with Republican dominated legislatures.
Thirteen U.S. states (Arkansas, Idaho, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, Missouri, North Dakota, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Wyoming) have "trigger laws" in place to ban all or nearly all abortions whenever "Roe" is overturned. They currently represent just under 21 percent of the national population, so I imagine that is the source of the "80 percent" statement.
Six more states (Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, North Carolina, West Virginia, Wisconsin) still have their pre-Roe abortion bans on the books. These include another 12 percent of the U.S. population. This November's state-level elections in Michigan, North Carolina or Wisconsin could possibly result in Democratic control of the state legislature leading to attempts to reverse the state's abortion law. (But it's unlikely, because it would have to be _full_ Democratic control in order to reverse an existent law.)
In addition the following states which are politically controlled by a state Republican Party which has declared that the state government will promptly ban abortion now that the Supreme Court says it can: Georgia, South Carolina, Indiana, Iowa. Those four represent another 8 percent of the U.S. population. Only in Georgia is there any meaningful chance of a political shift this November that could reverse the state's banning of abortion.
Summary: you asked "what percentage of American women of child bearing age are likely to have - no access to abortion at all". Though a few of the above states do or will allow exceptions for rape/incest/mother's life, none do or will draw any line related to gestation. So if we interpret these states to be what your first question is in reference to then the answer is:
33 percent right now, likely rising to about 40 percent within a few weeks, with some limited likelihood of dropping down slightly after this November's elections.
I was under the impression that the Mississippi law that lead to Dobbs only prohibited abortion after 15 weeks. That's less restrictive than e.g. Germany. And yet you include Mississippi in your list above of states where women will have `no access to abortion' (without travel out of state). I haven't gone through your list and checked all the other names, but based on the above, I expect there are additional inaccuracies, and the above comment can be discarded.
"I expect there are additional inaccuracies, and the above comment can be discarded"
On this standard there goes your comment as well. The "Mississippi law that lead to Dobbs" is not the same as the trigger law that almost completely outlaws abortion (https://www.mississippifreepress.org/25153/mississippi-ag-certifies-trigger-law-criminalizing-most-abortions-by-july-7). The trigger law was passed in 2017 but only came into effect on the reversal of Roe vs Wade as it was clearly unconstitutional until then.
Also, "less restrictive than e.g. Germany" is somewhat misleading. Germany does indeed have a law (Section 218 of the German criminal code) that makes abortion illegal after 12 weeks. It also has exceptions to the law that allow for abortions up to 22 weeks if performed by a doctor and after certain prescribed counselling for the patient. Combine that with better health services and almost certainly better access to education and contraception than Mississippi (now, let alone under the new arrangements) and I don't think it's fair to describe even the non-redundant law that lead to Dobbs as less restrictive overall, let alone what's in place post Roe.
It's probably accurate to say that `33% right now, and 40% within a few weeks, will see greater restrictions on abortion than existed under Roe.' However, the new regime might still be less restrictive than e.g. most of Europe. As is the case in e.g. Mississippi. There is a lot of room between `more restrictive than Roe' and `total ban.'
The new regime in Mississippi is definitely _not_ less restrictive than in most of Europe; not even close.
Apparently you prefer to simply ignore factual clarity when it is provided. [In this case, that the Mississippi law which reached the Supreme Court has nothing to do with the new abortion regime in that state which was triggered into effect by the Court's ruling].
So I expect there are and will be additional inaccuracies, and your comments can be safely discarded.
> 33 percent right now, likely rising to about 40 percent within a few weeks
That is "no access to abortion without travel out of state". For many it will become more annoying and expensive but still accessible.
"no access to abortion at all" is likely only small part of that 40%
Well MO legislature is discussing some different measures to...
1. one bill allow private citizens to sue anyone who helps a Missouri resident obtain an abortion out of state
2. Another bill would apply Missouri’s abortion laws to abortions obtained out of state by Missouri residents and in other circumstances, including in cases where “sexual intercourse occurred within this state [MO] and the child may have been conceived by that act of intercourse.”
I don't know the chances of either passing and being signed into law. If it does, I can see a potential cases that could be appealed using the Full Faith and Credit Clause of our constitution (Article 4, Section 1). And of course, there's potentially another an Abortion version of the Dred Scott decision that could be conjectured up from this craziness.
US legal system is really confusing to me. Is it normal for a state to forbid something happening outside of its jurisdiction? Is it in any way enforceable, if the other state is not willing to play along and neither is the federal government?
But right now no state has something like that, right?
Overturning Roe also opens the door for fetal heartbeat bills, which ban abortion at 6 weeks. Several states had laws of this type which were stalled in court until Dobbs was handed down.
Checking wikipedia, it looks like Ohio and South Carolina are the only two states with heartbeat bills that don't already appear on the list above. Ohio's went into effect a few days ago, SC's is expected to be enforced in the coming days.
I did count South Carolina but not Ohio, that's a good catch. Ohio is a large state with about 3.5 percent of the national population.
(A ban on abortion at 6 weeks is effectively just a ban, since many women don't even know they're pregnant at that point.)
No, a ban on abortion at 6 weeks is not effectively a ban. Most women do know they're pregnant at 6 weeks. According to this article, 2/3rds of abortions already happened before 9 weeks https://www.bmj.com/company/newsroom/nine-out-of-10-abortions-done-before-12-weeks-in-many-high-income-countries/. And now that early abortions are typically done via a pill you don't even need to schedule a surgical appointment; a ban after 6 weeks is far better than a complete ban.
Good and useful summary, assuming it doesn't include any other mistakes as glaring as confusing me for the person asking the original question.
Whoops! Sorry about that.
It'll be confusing if someone tries to track policies in all 50 states, sure. It'll be no more confusing to follow it in one's home state than it was to follow when there was a nationwide policy, and slightly more confusing if one is tracking it in a state one is considering moving to, for that brief period in which one is considering a move.
In general, stuff's simpler if one cuts down on the amount of stuff they choose to worry about.
The cost of an insurance policy for the tiny chance of needing to pay a few hundred to fly to another state for a day would be like a dollar a month. But some people act like that potential inconvenience is a matter of life and death.
How many more deaths will be caused now that Roe vs Wade is overturned? I haven't been able to find this statistic anywhere.
Net deaths? They will decrease massively, unless delivering a baby has a 100% mortality rate.
Here you go, Google is your friend:
https://www.colorado.edu/today/2021/09/08/study-banning-abortion-would-boost-maternal-mortality-double-digits
"Carrying a pregnancy to term is 33 times riskier than having an abortion, with 0.6 maternal deaths per 100,000 abortions compared to 20.1 maternal deaths per 100,000 live births, according to the Centers for Disease Control.
Research also shows that those most likely to seek abortion care, including women of color, poor women and those with chronic or acute health conditions, are also more likely to encounter serious complications during pregnancy.
The study estimated that in the years following a national ban, an additional 140 women would die annually from pregnancy-related causes, bringing the death toll to 815, a 21% increase. Among non-Hispanic Black women, pregnancy-related deaths would increase by a third."
US maternal mortality rates are terrible, but they also count deaths a year after having a baby as being due to 'maternal mortality' (e.g. if your heart was weakened). A lot of the high rate is down to black women who seem to have poor health in general, ususally cardiovascular/hypertension problems (is this down to African-American cooking practices which seem to lean heavily on salt? who knows?)
https://mmheadlines.org/2020/02/soul-food-fast-food-or-no-food-how-lack-of-access-shapes-health-outcomes-for-communities-of-color/
"While the cuisine lives on, so do the health implications.
Soul Food often involves large amounts of meat, fat and sugar that have resulted in climbing numbers of high blood pressure, obesity, diabetes, stroke and other health concerns among African Americans and those who consume Soul Food meals regularly.
A recent study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association found that the chance of developing diabetes was significantly higher for black adults than for white adults (about 66 more cases of diabetes per 1,000 people). The greatest difference was between black women and white women.
Over the past few years awareness around the health-related effects of Soul Food has shaken up many eating habits and paved the opportunity for healthier recipes for the classic dishes — including substituting leaner meats and vegan options.
But, according to Michigan Medicine experts, there is still much work to be done.
“Today, despite increased awareness, education and alternative options, health concerns among black, brown and underrepresented communities is still a significant issue,” said Othelia Pryor, Ph.D., senior project manager in the Office for Health Equity and Inclusion."
Good information! Many Thanks!
Between inevitable cross-state availability of pharmaceutical abortifacients, the fact that emergency contraception (plan B) is unaffected, the overall rate of abortion having dropped for decades, the possibility of travel abortions, and the fact that states where abortion will be long-term banned didn’t have that many clinics or abortions to begin with, I’d be surprised if it amounted to more than a rounding error. Despite protests to the contrary, all states banning abortion will inevitably include exceptions for the life of the mother or eventual inevitability of miscarriage.
That said, I really wouldn’t put much faith in offered statistics based on counterfactuals we can’t observe. It’s a poor way to make decisions. Nobody can tell you how many lives were saved by abortion that would have otherwise been lost—except in the case of abortions performed for ectopic pregnancy, and those will still be performed.
And, of course, any pro-life advocate would say that many more lives will be saved than lost.
"Between inevitable cross-state availability of pharmaceutical abortifacients, the fact that emergency contraception (plan B) is unaffected"
I'm not so sanguine (at least long term) about shipments of pharmaceuticals. I presume this is through the mail? If interception of pharmaceuticals through the mail were consistently infeasible, why would anyone need a drug mule?
Interception of shipments through the mail is feasible, if it's the US Post Office doing the interception. It is not feasible for anyone else to intercept shipments through the mail without a substantial risk of having angry men with guns come talk to them. Even if they work for a State government, they're not allowed to tamper with the US Mail and the US Government *will* make that stick.
The US Post Office works for the Federal government, whose laws say that shipping e.g. Fentanyl is absolutely not illegal but shipping e.g. Mifepristone pursuant to a prescription is perfectly legal. And that's not likely to change. So, drug cartels need mules, but pregnant women who know an out-of-state doctor don't.
I suppose a State could e.g. make it illegal to carry Mifepristone from your mailbox to your kitchen, but the USPO at least isn't going to tell them you did that.
Ok, but this is a legal choice, not a technical limitation. Congress could decide, next time there is a GOP majority in both houses and a GOP president, to tell the US Post Office to allow states to intercept shipments that the state deems contraband. I'm not _recommending_ this, but it seems within the federal government's legal and technical ability.
That's an interesting thought, to be sure. Given how polarized the country is on this topic I'd expect they'd require a super-majority to accomplish such a thing. Even after that, there's the problem of bureaucratic inertia: there'd be no way to get enough of the federal employees involved to act efficiently, or perhaps at all. An entrenched and intractable organization can slow-walk any policy changes it opposes without criminal conspiracy or even technically breaking any rules.
Re "super-majority": _Probably_ agreed, unless the filibuster rules are changed.
Re "slow-walk": That depends on which people in the USPO at which level prefer which policies. I'd expect most of the leaf level employees to reside in the states that they service - though whether they tend to share the overall political climate of the state or differ in either direction is another question.
My wild guess is that mail entering the state probably goes through some sort of distribution center, and it is effective control of _that_ that would determine whether screening for state-specific contraband was slow-walked or not.
( I have a personal grudge against the DEA for deciding to ban full strength food grade benzaldehyde (aka almond/cherry/cream flavor) because someone uses it as a feedstock for some currently banned drug. )
Agree on "rounding error". The hysterics in the press and on social media are a sensationalized form of ignorance that causes intense and unnecessary suffering.
How many abortion providers are willing to provide "for the mother's health" abortions but not others? Is this a common service, or in practice, is it the same places that do all of them, and once the others are gone, there's no more "for the mother's health" ones available either?
Once the others are gone, there won't be the volume requiring dedicated paramedical providers; they'd be done by your normal urgent care clinics, family doctors, etc.
A lot of abortions these days are done by pill too; those can be prescribed via telehealth and picked up at your local pharmacy, no specific provider required.
However, a big part of the worry with such exceptions to save the life of the mother is that in practice those exceptions will never be made. Nobody will want to stick their neck out an approve an abortion in the post-Roe legal environment of those states that do ban abortion.
This is apparently a problem in Catholic hospitals already, where they often have such a "maternal health" exception on paper, but approval for it is virtually never granted until it is far too late, and a faint hope of saving the fetus is chosen over a near guarantee of the mother's survival in many cases. Catholic hospitals apparently have significantly higher maternal mortality rates than secular hospitals in the US, and it stands to reason that this difference in policy and more importantly practice is a large part of the reason why.
Can confirm - this happens in Poland, women usually don't bother trying to get the health exception - even if warranted - and just go on a short foreign trip, or get pills mailed from a sane EU country.
"Catholic hospitals apparently have significantly higher maternal mortality rates than secular hospitals in the US, and it stands to reason that this difference in policy and more importantly practice is a large part of the reason why."
It seems Catholic hospitals are becoming a larger part of the American medical system:
https://www.communitycatalyst.org/resources/publications/document/2020-Cath-Hosp-Report-2020-31.pdf
It also seems that black women are more likely to frequent Catholic hospitals, and as the link to maternal mortality rates points out, they have much higher risks:
https://www.ncronline.org/news/justice/how-are-catholic-hospitals-addressing-black-maternal-health-inequities
"A 2021 report by the Commonwealth Fund indicates Black mothers are more than twice as likely as white mothers to experience severe pregnancy-related disease or illness. African American women from all walks of life and income levels are also dying from preventable pregnancy-related complications at nearly three times the rate of non-Hispanic white women, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Villanueva said this is even more alarming given the United States has the highest maternal mortality rate among developed countries.
In many states, Black women are more likely than white women to give birth at a Catholic facility, and nationwide one in seven patients is cared for within a Catholic hospital."
While we're talking about Catholic maternal mortality, the USA maternal mortality rate in 2019 was 17/100,000, while in Ireland it was 0. This was before legalised (limited) abortion in my country and we're officially (however in reality) Catholic:
https://www.statista.com/statistics/1240400/maternal-mortality-rates-worldwide-by-country/
https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-sdg3/irelandsunsdgs2019-reportonindicatorsforgoal3goodhealthandwell-being/childbirth/#d.en.221808
"while in Ireland it was 0"
Yes I see this in the table, and congratulations on a very low rate! I'm skeptical about "0". There is a faint aroma of cooked books... Given how many things can go wrong in pregnancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_complications_of_pregnancy, exactly zero deaths sounds suspicious.
Yes, I think those figures are strange also. It seems to be a combination of different reporting (the US includes all deaths up to a year after pregancy) and small population size.
This paper is a lot better:
https://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/nationalperinatalepidemiologycentre/MDEDataBriefNo4December2019.pdf
"For the years 2015 – 2017, a total of 10 maternal deaths, occurring during or within 42 days of pregnancy end, were identified by MDE Ireland among 187,449 maternities. All 10 deaths were classified as direct or indirect, giving a maternal mortality rate (MMR) of 5.3 per 100,000 maternities (95% CI 2.6 – 9.8). Three further deaths were attributed to coincidental causes.
On account of small numbers and to facilitate early identification of trends, all maternal death rates (MMR) are presented as a rolling three-year average. This includes deaths due to direct and indirect causes during pregnancy and up to 42 days postpartum but not deaths due to coincidental causes or late maternal deaths"
They compare these with UK figures since that's our nearest neighbour, and the basic conclusions are:
"There is a five-fold difference in maternal mortality rates amongst women from Black ethnic backgrounds and an almost two-fold difference amongst women from Asian Ethnic backgrounds compared with white women.
Maternal deaths from direct causes are unchanged with no statistically significant change in the rates between 2012-14 and 2015-17.
Thrombosis and thromboembolism remain the leading cause of direct maternal death during or up to six weeks after the end of pregnancy.
Maternal suicide is the second largest cause of direct maternal deaths occurring during or within 42 days of the end of pregnancy and remains the leading cause of direct deaths occurring within a year after the end of pregnancy.
Cardiac disease remains the largest single cause of indirect maternal deaths. Neurological disease is the second most common indirect cause of maternal death.
A persistent maternal sinus tachycardia is a ‘red flag’ and should always be investigated, particularly when there is associated breathlessness.
There is clear evidence that low dose aspirin for women at risk reduces the incidence of preeclampsia as well as reducing preterm birth, fetal or neonatal death and small for gestational age babies."
So the risk for black women is much higher, which probably contributes to the high American rate.
The answer differs by several orders of magnitude, and has a sign flipped, depending on your worldview.
I can confirm that yours is the correct answer (to a needlessly provocative question).
Nicely put, too.
On some classified ad in the past year or so, someone posted about software for organizing collective action, allowing signatories of a petition anonymity until a certain threshold was reached.
I forget what it was called. Can someone point me to it?
I think you're looking for this:
https://spartacus.app/
Yes, thanks!
This is something I've long thought would be very useful, but never got motivated enough to actually make myself. So I'm glad somebody else did.
[CW: ill-advised attempts at levity.]
*Visualizing good turns of phrase: shape rotator or wordcel thing?
*What would be the epistemic threshold for requiring belief in things that are instrumentally good, even if terminally false - Pascal's Minimum Wager?
*If a bait'n'switch-class fallacy is used as a witty verbal riposte, would that be an example of a Bon Mot and Bailey?
Meta actually-serious question: are rationalists capable of devising jokes* that non-Ingroup will grok, much less laugh at? I genuinely think this might be a hole in our collective maps, and contributes to above-average levels of below-average social eptitude.
*besides puns, which Samuel Johnson says are the lowest form of humour. Surely we can do better.
"Surely we can do better." No we can't, and don't call me Shirley.
I have now statted up an NPC named Surly Temple Grandin for my next PF2 campaign. Appreciate the inspiration. We can indeed do better, or at least the most better for the most people. (Which was the only redeeming plot point of Marvel's Age of Utilon.)
Samuel Johnson is wrong.
Since puns are one of the very few forms of humor not relying on anyone else's suffering, they are among the highest forms of humor, morally speaking.
Are you sure? Most people react like they're in pain when they hear a bad pun.
Yes, but they aren't telling rationalist jokes, they are just telling jokes about experiences that normies have too. If Jerry Sienfeld was a rationalist, he would still be opening with "What's the deal with parkways?" not "What's the deal with probablist decision architecture?"
Isn't the fact that in-group humor is not funny to outsiders at least part of the point?
(I'm 100% stealing Pascal's Minimum Wager)
I've noticed this but didn't think it was a Thing. That is, I've noticed that I laugh the hardest at jokes that I know nobody else will get. It's depressing, because sharing jokes is also part of the fun.
On the topic of why the shoplifting statistics in San Francisco seem so off (from your San Fransicko post), I can share an experience from 2 car break-ins I recently had in the city (one in December, one in May). In both cases I filed a police report immediately, and requested a copy for insurance purposes. The process involves filing a request through the SFPD Records website, which is supposed to get back to you within 10 business days. In both cases they did *not* get back to me within that time frame, and I had to call them to urge them to send the report. On one of the calls the officer told me that they were still processing reports from 3 months prior, i.e. there was a massive backlog. So they might only be selectively processing reports when someone makes a big enough stink about it.
I guess the next question is whether this situation has gotten worse, or whether the backlog and limited reporting has been a perennial problem, so that trends should still show up.
Data point from fly over country. The teenage fad of thrill hijacking cars seems to have faded in the Twin Cities. Still way too many murders though.
The cops are totally inept when it comes to property crimes (and all other crimes, actually) anywhere in the country.
They took 6 months to get back to me on a 10000$+ (top bracket for my insurance) home burglary; 14 hours to respond to the case, including a call from the neighbors reporting suspicious activity (they denied receiving it lol).
One of the things stolen was a credit card, which was used to purchase gas. I called the detective in charge of my case while it was happening; they were busy. Fair enough.
I called the gas station and got permission to release the tapes, which had faces and a license plate. All the cops needed to do was call once to prove I was the owner of the card and had been robbed; I would have done to work.
It took me a 8 days calling 3 times a day to get the detective, who said he would call to release the tapes. He did not call. After that, I called once every couple days to get ahold of him; but he dodged every call for three or four weeks till I gave up.
This experience was replicated by every single other person I know who has had to interact with the cops post crime and didn't have a reason to sick a lawyer on them.
The cops are fucking useless. They are only good for signaling purposes, harassing minorities and poor people, and shooting dogs.
I was entirely with you until the last paragraph.
Having read some smart cops (who are also pretty good writers) for a few years now, I was totally unsurprised by what you wrote, but sad that you came to the opposite of, what seems like to me, the 'correct' conclusion: we need _more_ and better cops, and need to ensure they have better systems to support their work.
One thing I did read recently, from on the aforementioned 'smart cops' is that even just something like a police report can be helpful for cops _eventually_ arresting some criminal(s). It's just, practically, impossible for any of that to be made _visible_ or _noticeable_ to people like you making those reports.
But maybe that's a particularly high-value 'support system' we should be prioritizing, i.e. informing citizens and residents of how they DID in fact help catch and punish some criminal(s).
Can confirm similar experiences in Seattle.
Does anyone have any information on what the filing process _does_, internally to SFPD? It isn't as if this was a request to physically go to a criminal's location and arrest them. Is there anything involved which couldn't be fully automated??? Is there unavoidable human action needed at some point, and, if so, where?
If you are a Dutch rationalist or rationalist in NL, consider checking out our discord: https://discord.gg/XgfrXka8
We have a July meetup planned, an open DnD group, and a census doc to determine future events. We just started with this new setup and now have 36 members on the server with daily discussions on rationality. It's basically a local chapter for the Netherlands and currently looking to find where all the Dutch rats / rats in NL are, so hi! :D
Why is yudkowsky (and the rat-adjacent community) so sure about drexler nanotech?
Skimming ey latest on lw, he claim that the most plausible way agi can eliminate humanity is
> emails some DNA sequences to any of the many many online firms that will take a DNA sequence in the email and ship you back proteins, and bribes/persuades some human who has no idea they're dealing with an AGI to mix proteins in a beaker, which then form a first-stage nanofactory which can build the actual nanomachinery. (Back when I was first deploying this visualization, the wise-sounding critics said "Ah, but how do you know even a superintelligence could solve the protein folding problem, if it didn't already have planet-sized supercomputers?" but one hears less of this after the advent of AlphaFold 2, for some odd reason.) The nanomachinery builds diamondoid bacteria, that replicate with solar power and atmospheric CHON, maybe aggregate into some miniature rockets or jets so they can ride the jetstream to spread across the Earth's atmosphere, get into human bloodstreams and hide, strike on a timer.
This seems... unlikely? Had him stopped at an agi create a supervirus in a lab, well i could agree. But drexler vision of mechanical dry nanotech seems to not be particularly consistent with known physics and chemistry, let alone the bootstrapping of diamondoid (if they are even possible) nanobot from organic stuff (could it actually happen, evolution by natural selection would have already done it.)
In the smalley-drexler debate, well, the actual expert on the subject was smalley and he put forward good arguments. When you go at smaller scales physics behave differently and you cannot hope that your mechanical design will work as intended. Van der waals forces will make everything extremely sticky and oxidation will spell doom for your tiny diamonds. (Also, regarding that timer, i don't know how precise it can be. We now understand that there are thermodynamic limitations on the accuracy of clocks, but I am not an expert, so I could be wrong)
All in all it seems to me that the most plausible nanomachine design will be organic and biological, not diamondoid like. Tbf, I am not sure at all, but given that it seems to me that the community has never properly answered smalley concerns, should the rat community be that sure that drexlerian nanotech is possible?
I've read Nanosystems, and the analysis looks solid to me. When you wrote
"But drexler vision of mechanical dry nanotech seems to not be particularly consistent with known physics and chemistry"
what do you think is inconsistent?
Drexler _did_ the analysis of quantum effects, thermal noise, and Van der Waals forces, and none of those is a showstopper.
Re "oxidation will spell doom for your tiny diamonds"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adamantane is a 10 carbon fragment of a diamond lattice.
"Today, adamantane is an affordable chemical compound with a cost of about $1 a gram. "
That does not sound like doom to me.
Now if you want to argue that synthesis of a supervirus is a faster, easier route for an unfriendly AI to become dangerous - fine.
In my view Drexler/Merkle nanotech is like many promising technical proposals that were discussed, but never properly tried.
I don't think Yudkowsky IS "so sure about drexler nanotech" – it's just a VIVID example of the _kind_ of doomsday scenario he imagines.
The problem is that people will argue with any example he gives, he can't/shouldn't use an example that's achievable by _people_ now (that isn't already a known 'movie plot'), and, technically, it seems farfetched that _anyone_ could possibly guess how a super-intelligence would kill humanity, if one existed and decided to do so.
It's an intuition pump, not a concrete 'load-bearing' element of his overall argument.
Incidentally, the current AI hype cycle has a lot in common with the nanotech hype cycle of the early 2000s.
The "gray goo" scenario was taken seriously back then; not by actual experts but by the sort of science fiction fans and pop-science hangers-on who take AI foom seriously now. There were always pretty convincing arguments against both "nanotech post-scarcity paradise" and "gray goo", and the counter-argument from the non-experts was always "yeah but you can't really really really prove it won't happen".
It's interesting to study how the nanotech hype cycle eventually died off and consider whether it will happen with AI right now. Nanotech didn't die quickly, there wasn't any major backlash, people just got bored of talking about it when it became clear that the cool parts weren't forthcoming. The actual useful research that was going on under the banner of "nanotechnology" ceased to brand itself as such when it stoped being cool; nowadays we routinely fabricate few-nm scale things but no longer use that word. And all the gray goo doom merchants, I guess, might have moved on to become AI doom merchants.
1: the argument from "if it could already happen evolution would have already done it" is blatantly wrong. Pretty much every piece of human technology going all the way back to artificial fire and stone tools is unprecedented in the paleontological record. Evolution is extremely powerful but has severe limitations in the kind of things it can do, EVEN things that it can do it may not do for billions of years. Humanity has never evolved before a couple million years ago, and yet it is clear to me that humanity is possible!
2: I agree that Eliezer's obsession with nanotech is not really based on anything factual and may be completely wrong in the end.
3: drexlerian nanotech is not necessary for AI to kill all of us.
Humanity could be considered a small update to chimps, but one that generates rather exponential possibility.
A form of life completely unrelated to our own physicality I would bet is something evolution tried and failed at. I don’t think there is a niche in the Ecosystem of the Earth that is not inhabited by something that is living, and many of them are very different from us. The creatures that exist around hot water vents under the ocean come to mind.
I'm pretty sure Drexler nanotech is not possible, or at least not possible from a single-shot computation and need extensive experimentation to create.
That being said, "evolution would have filled that niche" is a very, very bad argument.
Evolution is very path dependent. On the macro-scale we see this from every living vertebrate have a 1-head 4-limbs 5-digits-per-limb 1-tail body plan. It's almost guaranteed that some other body plan would be optimal somewhere some of the time, but evolution can't get there from here.
On the micro-scale, it is believed that after lignin was evolved, it took evolution millions of years to develop lignase to break it down; most of the world's coal deposits are believed to come from the carboniferous era when any tree that died fell over and stayed in the swamp forever because nothing could eat it.
https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/article/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth
Re 3 i kind of don't care, it was not what I was talking about
If you don't care you can just not reply to that point, but it's by far the most important part of the argument and the nanotech thing is a distraction compared to it.
What I meant to say is that my comment was not about AGI risk and was never meant as a rebuttal of EY post, it was specifically about nanotech.
I simply started from that article because it was the example that i had at the moment.
Edit: sorry for the brazen tone, I didn't meant to be impolite
Yudkowsky has a pattern of reading a pop sci book, and then getting completely sold on it -- ignoring all criticisms and alternative views. So he is sure about Drexler 's views about nanotechnology for the same reason he is sure about Deutsch 's MWI.
But how many pop sci books did he read and then not talk about?
I misread that as "create a supervillain in a lab".
Stranger than nanotech for me is how the rightful caliph of the rationalist community thinks that an AGI would be able to do anything without any actual experimentation ever.
Yud has long held the novel idea that an AI could infer general relativity from three frames of video of a falling apple. He doesn't do much to argue for it but it's part of his whole constellation of beliefs.
Won't only have a small bit of vid though right? The entire internet, a very good memory and a lot of time/IQ. If you imagine how much evidence humans have available to their pattern matching apparatus compared to a vastly more intelligent and informed AGI, it might not be weird to expect them to come up with big discoveries without a lab. Any thesis can be tested against all previous data that's halfway relevant; it'd be the king of metastudies
The "apple and relativity" bit sounds like he swiped what Conan Doyle has Holmes write in an article on "The Science of Deduction" in "A Study in Scarlet":
“From a drop of water,” said the writer, “a logician could infer the possibility of an Atlantic or a Niagara without having seen or heard of one or the other. So all life is a great chain, the nature of which is known whenever we are shown a single link of it."
However, Doyle/Holmes goes on to say:
"Like all other arts, the Science of Deduction and Analysis is one which can only be acquired by long and patient study, nor is life long enough to allow any mortal to attain the highest possible perfection in it.”
Perhaps he thinks AI can compress "long and patient study" into mere moments?
The exact quote was about a "Bayesian superintelligence", not an AI specifically, from the blog post / very-short-story "That Alien Message"[1] that he seems to have created as an intuition pump about the theoretical limit on what could in principle be inferred by a Sherlock Holmes with unlimited time and memory. Here it is in context:
"My moral?
That even Einstein did not come within a million light-years of making efficient use of sensory data.
Riemann invented his geometries before Einstein had a use for them; the physics of our universe is not that complicated in an absolute sense. A Bayesian superintelligence, hooked up to a webcam, would invent General Relativity as a hypothesis—perhaps not the dominant hypothesis, compared to Newtonian mechanics, but still a hypothesis under direct consideration—by the time it had seen the third frame of a falling apple. It might guess it from the first frame, if it saw the statics of a bent blade of grass.
We would think of it. Our civilization, that is, given ten years to analyze each frame. Certainly if the average IQ was 140 and Einsteins were common, we would."
[1] https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/5wMcKNAwB6X4mp9og/that-alien-message
"Perhaps he thinks AI can compress "long and patient study" into mere moments?"
That's exactly it. He wrote one story where humanity got a message from another universe with entirely different physical laws, containing nothing more than a handful of semi-random images. Over the course of thousands of years, humans were able to fully understand how the other universe worked, just from analyzing those images. They eventually found ways to manipulate the extradimensional aliens and trick them into unknowingly making changes to their world, purely through inter-universal text messages.
Yudkowsky explained that the story was a metaphor, with the extradimensional aliens as a stand in for us, and the humans as a stand in for a superintelligent A.I., implying that within a very short time (from a human perspective), an A.I. would be able to accomplish the same thing as an entire planet's worth of humans focused on a single task for several millennia.
This is my big thing. THE AI doesn't need to run experiments? it just models everything? How well does that work in the real world? (not well!)
Does GPT-3 run experiments? IMO it is knows some things about the world.
(prompt in quotes)
"Apples fall to the ground because" of gravity.
When an apple is ripe, the stem that attaches it to the tree loosens. At the same time, the apple produces ethylene gas. The ethylene gas causes the apple to ripen, and the loosened stem causes the apple to fall. The force of gravity pulls the apple to the ground.
This whole thing is about an AI making advances in technology that are unknown to humans, modeling the physical process out enough in its "head" to create accurate instructions for how to create novel nanotech, correctly, the first time, in the real world, with what technology actually exists.
It's not about learning information that already exists, pre-digested in its entirety in the training set.
> This whole thing is about an AI making advances in technology that are unknown to humans, modeling the physical process out enough in its "head" to create accurate instructions for how to create novel nanotech, correctly, the first time, in the real world, with what technology actually exists.
The AI could attempt 1,000,000 of these one shot take over attempts simultaneously, so its modeling doesn’t need to be perfect IMO.
And if the AI can cause things to happen in the world of atoms, why doesn’t it just cause humans to do knowledge-generating-experiments for it and then send it back the results? But maybe this is out of scope for this question.
> It's not about learning information that already exists, pre-digested in its entirety in the training set.
Ok.
The scenario in question is intended to be one in which humans have very little opportunity to recognize that the AI is doing dangerous things, and stop it, before it had physical-world supremacy. So if it's iterating across many experiments, that offers a lot more chance for humans to turn the AI off.
Psych question: antipsychotics are dopamine antagonists and stimulants are dopamine agonists, and stimulant induced psychosis would be treated with antipsychotics, logically one would think they're opposites... Why is it then that they can work together without neutralising each other? What voodoo magic is at work?
My non-neuropharmacologist guess would be that different drugs may act on different parts of the “dopamine receptor environment”, e.g. a reuptake inhibitor doesn’t act directly equal and opposite to a receptor antagonist.
Additionally, there are multiple different types of dopamine receptor, implicated in different processes. If two different drugs don’t affect the same set of receptors, they are to some extent acting separately.
However, I’d guess that this effect is partial, and that antipsychotics and stimulants *do* counteract each other to a significant degree.
iirc stimulants work on D2 too
Any EA folks out there that are either in edtech and/or avid readers willing to give feedback and/or advice?
I'm exploring creating a tool enabling people to share beautiful ranked booklists - with the goal of helping informal learners read better books sooner and helping communities like this identify and share what the canonical books are.
I'd love to get feedback on the prototype, get business advice, learn about your reading habits and needs etc. Thank you!!!
Post an email or something I can use to get in touch with you. I'm an avid reader with experience volutneering w/ a youth organization concerned with canon.
Thanks! Yoshitryba@gmail.com
Why is ACX suddenly turquoise?
Does anyone prefer light text on a dark background? I find it kind of hard to enjoy reading that way, even though it makes perfect sense for minimizing eye strain.
I have all my tools on dark themes if possible, partially because it's more aesthetic, partially because the wall of backlit LCD white hurts my eyes. It was even worse with CRTs, when the habit formed.
It also helps that it feels like _my_ tool that way, instead of a lame tool for corporate drones in business casual attire.
I do. I use the Dark Reader extension for Firefox.
It worked better on the original color scheme, but tweaking it a bit gives reasonable results on the new one.
Having grown up on text-based MUDs, I thought it was just obviously normal and superior to have black background with white text by default, then use colours for emphasis. Even darker ones are noticeable, plus you get to use fun stuff like yellow that's normally impossible otherwise. YMMV though.
(Also, RIP ASCII art.)
Forcing that sort of display for most things by default used to be easier. I don't wanna wait around until an Official Dark Theme/Extension(tm) gets published for every app and browser, yknow? Part of why Substack's default sterile white is so annoying.
For me it's now a blue with no obvious hints of green or purple, which sounds like it's changed since other people commented in this thread.
Honestly I'm glad you asked -- I thought my monitor was having issues or something.
I kinda want to userscript it back to a white background.
Came to comment the exact same question. It's less eye-searingly painful than the optical white default, I guess, but very...hospital sanitary colours? I guess that's not way off theme for Scott, but I feel like I'm reading a jar of surface disinfectant. Clinical, cold, vaguely unnerving. Not super into it. Time to finally give ACX Tweaks a try, perhaps...
In reaction to this thread: https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/open-thread-230/comment/7376659
Thanks for solving that mystery.
Personally, I hate it, it's causing some serious eye-strain.
After spending a bit more on it I actually agree, my eyes are hurting a little.
If you reload the page it looks like it has changed to a bit of a darker color now (kind of a soft purple/lavender)?
To represent the minty freshness of the takes.
Smells so fresh
More of a light cyan
I would say more of a muted teal
Is that like a Miles Davis mallard?
What's the point of a symbolic head of state in parliamentary systems? I get it when the system came out of a monarchy (or is still a constitutional monarchy), but not why you'd have a ceremonial-only President. It seems like a weird holdover from monarchy that you need an actual person to be The Embodiment and Avatar Of The State even in an openly democratic regime with a constitution with popular legitimacy.
If you haven't had a chance to read the first two parts on Construction Physics substack's series on nuclear power costs, I'd recommend them. TL;DR Nuclear plants are extremely complex and very sensitive to labor coordination problems and delays that come from the regulatory environment and design changing in the middle of constructions, plus the extremely low public tolerance for nuclear risk (an attempt by the NRC to qualify some level of radioactivity as safe caused a huge public backlash).
I read somewhere years ago, and a minute of googling didn't track it down, but it went something like:
The King of England has the same role as the king in chess: he holds a space so no other piece can hold it.
The idea being that by having a Head of State separate from the head of government, it limits the power of the head of government and prevents a complete takeover of the state by the current government. The UK's remarkable run of democratic stability can be attributed to the monarchy's ability to hold that space and prevent it from being usurped.
I'd mainly attribute Westminster's stability to the prosperity of England from 1750–1900. As with 21st century China, it's not worth blowing up a rapidly growing pie to grab a bigger slice.
Lesser reasons: not wanting a repeat of the Civil War and Cromwell; already being quite liberal at the beginning of the Enlightnment; the Channel and the Golden Cavalry of St George obviating the need for a large standing army which might disrupt things; the Empire as a sink for would-be tyrants and warmongers.
++this.
Americans sometimes make fun of France for being on the Fifth Republic, but of those Republics, one was destroyed by German Nazis and one was destroyed by Napoleon after it had to give Napoleon a lot of power to prevent it being destroyed by foreign monarchs. So in England-or-America-beneficial-neighbourhood-adjusted terms, France only has 2 constitutional spasms to explain since 1789, which compares decently to America's Civil War & New Deal.
I've heard this idea, but I don't buy it. Fascist Italy had a king. (Mussolini was prime minister.) Japan in that era wasn't exactly fascist, but it was bad in a lot of the same ways, and of course they had the emperor.
There are four major roles that Heads of State play in parliamentary systems.
The first is to take on "national mascot" ceremonial responsibilities so the Head of Government has more time and attention for the actual business of government and politics. If the Queen or President or whoever is the one hosting state dinners, pinning medals on people, and breaking champagne bottles on new warships, then the Prime Minister can spend that time instead on stuff like reading policy briefings, lobbying back-benchers, or giving political speeches.
The second is to act as a relatively non-partisan figure to handle magisterial procedures like appointing and dismissing government ministers and scheduling elections, where there's clear norms around how and when it should be done but the procedures could be abused in corner cases if performed directly by a partisan figure like the PM.
The third is the power "to be consulted, to encourage, and to warn". In Britain in particular, the PM has to regularly have private meetings with the Queen to explain his policies and to formally "request" actions that are technically performed by the Queen. There's likely some psychological benefit to the PM having to explain himself regularly to someone of higher status than himself and to hear her out respectfully if she disagrees, even if at the end of the day he can (almost) always insist on his preferred policies. This is likely particularly effective if the head of state has long experience in this role (i.e. can refer back to decades of similar conversations with previous PMs during these consultations) and has both particular gravitas and a selection/tenure process that tends towards a nonpartisan and long-term outlook.
The last is a "break glass in emergency" mechanism to override a horrendously dysfunctional legislature and PM, or to reconstitute temporary political leadership in an extreme continuity of government scenario. For example, if our newly-elected PM Harold Saxon reveals himself to be a megalomaniacal space alien, and for some reason he still has the confidence of a majority of Parliament (or if he promptly murders anyone who opposes him), then the Queen could unilaterally fire him, dissolve Parliament, and call new elections. In a less extreme scenario, during Brexit shenanigans in 2019 the PM (Boris Johnson) had been making trial balloons about disregarding an act of parliament instructing him to ask the EU for an extension to negotiations and performing a "crash out" Brexit on his own authority. The Queen seems to have responded by leaking trial balloons of her own about firing and replacing him on her own initiative, after which Johnson backed down.
It can be nice to have a more or less nonpartisan Rex Sacrorum to perform the necessary rituals and ceremonies without 48% of the country complaining that they voted for the other guy.
For Ireland it is largely a ceremonial role but does have some powers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Ireland
"The president acts as a representative of the Irish state and guardian of the constitution."
The president is also the commander-in-chief so the defence forces hold their commissions from him (and not from whoever is leader of the government of the day), and the president does have limited independence from the government:
https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_Ireland_(consolidated_text)#THE_PRESIDENT
8.1 The President shall not be answerable to either House of the Oireachtas or to any court for the exercise and performance of the powers and functions of his office or for any act done or purporting to be done by him in the exercise and performance of these powers and functions.
8.2 The behaviour of the President may, however, be brought under review in either of the Houses of the Oireachtas for the purposes of section 10 of Article 12 of this Constitution, or by any court, tribunal or body appointed or designated by either of the Houses of the Oireachtas for the investigation of a charge under section 10 of the said Article.
The arguments are both practical and political. Practically, someone needs to be the outward face of the government, sign treaties, have the armed forces swear allegiance, receive visiting heads of state, carry out symbolic parliamentary functions, receive government resignations, countersign laws, all that kind of thing. Politically, the President is usually a senior and experienced figure who is generally respected by all sides, giving them a certain status, if not necessarily power. The classic political function is coalition forming, or rather asking one person to attempt to form a government (this is going on in Lebanon as we speak). Even a President with few formal powers can be an influential and stabilising figure. Imagine what would happen if there were competing blocs of politicians trying to form governments and each claiming to be PM in waiting. In the end, few if any states have been able to dispense with such a function.
I second the basic argument below: usually these "symbolic" heads actually have the power to resort to "nuclear options" (like dissolving parliament or appointing a new government) which can be critical in times of crisis. But in addition to this they often also have veto powers which can be used sparsely but regularly, as well as the kind of political capital that comes from being a usually popular figure without a hand in governing; and this can be used to influence governments who are usually wary of the consequences of having such a figure use this capital against them.
Ad 1: In my understanding it is partly a balance of power thing. "Symbolic" heads of state such as the German Bundespräsident often have significant formal powers though they are expected not to use them (or only use them according to tradition or the will of the government/parliament). So the symbolic head doesnt matter in normal times, but in theory could intervene if the government tries to overreach and kill the constitutional order.
Symbolic heads of state often have powers like appointing and dismissing government ministers, commander in chief of the military and so forth so it might work.
Other roles symbolic heads of state play include as facilitators for the forming of new governing coalitions and generally as a stabilising actor in times of political crisis through soft power, see eg Matarella in Italy.
Yes, that's a very good description. For example, the German Bundespräsident can reject any law from the parliament if he thinks that it infringes the constitution. This is *a lot* of power in principle.
Nine times since 1949, so about once per decade. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/President_of_Germany#Promulgation_of_the_law
As Artischoke pointed out, the president *could* intervene if the government tries to seize power. In a very mild form of that, several of the vetoes were against laws that were passed without involving the regional states ("Bundesrat"). The constitution is a bit fuzzy on when exactly they need to be involved.
I have a friend who is deeply into NLP (Neuro-Linguistic Programming, not Natural Language Processing) and claims that it has been very useful to them. My inclination is to see it as a pseudoscience. I realize these two positions are not mutually exclusive (it could be a pseudoscience that happened to be useful for my friend but would not be equally useful for a random person, or it could include some generically useful self-help advice framed in a pseudoscientific way), but I'm curious if anyone has any experience with or thoughts on NLP.
Placebo effect is real, so using (harmless) pseudoscience to help yourself is better than doing nothing.
I imagine that some parts of NLP work for a different reason than advertised, but work anyway: for example if you carefully watch the movement of a person's eye to determine whether the person is a "visual or auditory thinker", the actual benefits may come from maintaining eye contact.
Therefore, in absence of better evidence, I assume that the effects of NLP is a combination of placebo and techniques that work for a different reason than the underlying bullshit theory.
I read an NLP book about 30 years ago, and have found some of the visualization exercises useful all,of my life. Good for getting rid of some of the persistent negative thoughts and images my brain insists on dredging up.
I also found one that worked well for anxiety before potentially risky activities - for example, launching a hang glider; or going over a mountain bike obstacle.
You are probably right that it overlaps with a lot of pseudoscientific, positive thinking woo. But I also see some similarities to Cognitive Behavioural Therapy, in that both train you to take control of your brain, and develop better mental habits.
If you don't mind sharing, I'd love to know which of the visualization exercises you've found most helpful.
For negative mental images, I "push them away", by literally imagining them as moving away into the distance, until they disappear. Also, change to monochrome, and disassociate by imagining I am watching myself view the images on a screen. Often have to repeat several times in succession.
For anxiety around risky activities, if I have that "butterflies in my stomach" feeling, I visualize myself in the second person, successfully performing the activity, five times in a row. Then repeat, but with a first person viewpoint. This will usually reduce my anxiety feelings substantially.
This acronym collision causes me so many problems
CBT is worse ime!
Scott. this one seems to be in your wheelhouse. I note that it is in animal models now and no FDA trials have begun yet, but the claims are pretty big, if true:
"New Drug Could Help Stop Depression, Anxiety, Brain Injury, and Cognitive Disorders"
https://scitechdaily.com/new-drug-could-help-stop-depression-anxiety-brain-injury-and-cognitive-disorders/amp/
DOI: 10.3389/fphar.2022.863762
"The researchers showed that the systemic administration of the new drug alters neurobehavior in mice, reducing anxiety-like behavior. It also provides a promising landscape for future studies to assess whether the drug could help combat stress, anxiety, depression, addiction, cancer, and neurodegeneration."
"A new preclinical drug reported by James Bibb, Ph.D., and colleagues has the potential to combat depression, brain injury, and cognitive disorders. The drug, which is notable for being brain-permeable, works by inhibiting the kinase enzyme Cdk5.
"Cdk5 is an important signaling regulator in brain neurons. Over three decades of research, it has been linked to neuropsychiatric and degenerative disorders such as Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s. Knocking out the enzyme in mice makes them more resilient to stress, improves cognition, protects neurons from stroke and brain trauma, and slows neurodegeneration.
"While Cdk5 inhibitors may offer potential therapeutic benefits and new ways to study basic brain function, previous first- and second-generation anti-Cdk5 compounds largely get blocked at the blood-brain barrier, which restricts solute movement from the blood to the extracellular fluid of the central nervous system. So far, no Cdk5 inhibitor has been authorized for the treatment of any neuropsychiatric or degenerative condition."
I think there are much simpler and less ambiguous tests of AI intelligence, such as the ones I tried here:
https://outsidetheasylum.blog/testing-dall-e-2-mathematics-comprehension/
Obviously we might come to a point where they pass tests like these and still fail other things, but as long as they're failing simple mathematical reasoning I think it's clear they don't understand what they're talking about in any meaningful way.
Admittedly part of that seems to be that Dall-E 2 is not really designed with usability in mind - a single text box is clearly insufficient to properly command it.
These IQ results are not particularly trustworthy:
"In the imputed ITT analysis, children in the intervention group had a 2.5-point (95% CI: −0.4, 5.4) higher mean FSIQ than children in the control group (Table 3). Adjusting for PTB increased the estimate to 2.8 points (95% CI: −0.1, 5.7), and after adjustment for both PTB and child’s sex the effect estimate was 3.0 points (95% CI: 0.2, 5.9). Excluding eight participants who incorrectly received or did not receive the HEPA cleaners had little effect on the estimate (2.5 points; 95% CI: −0.5, 5.4)."
Various ways to analyze the data produced mostly p > .05, they managed to find one method variation with p < .05. I compute it to be .025. Shrug tier. Nice study though.
https://ehp.niehs.nih.gov/doi/10.1289/EHP10302
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Apparently the CDC hasn't actually been monitoring COVID vaccine adverse events in spite of publishing a plan saying they would.
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/cdc-vaers-covid-vaccine-safety/
It's difficult to monitor. This guy says there's been a huge spike in adverse reaction reports after COVID shots compared with other vaccines. But vaccinate enough people and you are statistically certain to have a lot of adverse things happen coincidentally after someone is vaccinated. People are a lot more likely to report a heart attack as an "adverse reaction" if it happens after a COVID shot than they were after a flu shot because people aren't generally worried that flu shots could cause a heart attack. So is that spike in reports an indicator that COVID vaccines have more adverse reactions or an indicator that people are much more likely to report stuff after a COVID vaccine than they were after vaccines that aren't new?
The point of this article, that I don't think any of the replies have addressed is this: The CDC published a plan at the beginning of the vaccine rollout to analyze VAERS reports on a weekly basis using "proportional ratio reporting" Here is the plan: https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/pdf/VAERS-v2-SOP.pdf
Now a year and a half later, in response to a FOIA request, they say they never did that analysis even once. So what's up with that?
I'd be very cautious about taking this particular site's word for complaints about the CDC. There have been many people complaining about the CDC's statistical illiteracy from many directions over the past two years. If Zeynep Tufekci, or Scott Gottlieb, or Michael Mina, or Zvi Mowshowitz, or any of a number of other people, were making this complaint, I'd listen very closely. The fact that none of them has complained doesn't yet prove that this is entirely self-serving bs from some site that is against anything related to covid vaccines, but if these claims are pushed a bit farther and still none of these people picks it up, that would be pretty damning to these claims.
I hear you. I know the organization is "anti-vax" in the full meaning of the word. However the particular complaint doesn't depend on who is making it. Unless you suspect the letter they show from the CDC is forged?
Its important to keep in mind what VAERS is and isnt:
https://publichealth.jhu.edu/2022/what-vaers-is-and-isnt
> the CDC and FDA do not restrict what people can report, as long as it happened at some point following a vaccination.
Its not possible to conduct any statistical analysis on the data and find significant conclusions. Its at best a list of interesting anecdotes.
ACX Tweaks has stopped working for me, either something changed with substack or with Firefox (version 101.0.1) on a Mac. I tried deleting it and re-installing. Anyone have any ideas?
Hi, no idea how to contact you normally, but I may have done an astrological horary analysis for you re: your band some months ago? I had a calendar reminder pop up today, but can't remember much about the situation or what was supposed to happen.
Thanks for the reminder. Your prediction was for "27 time units", which you said was more likely "27 months". I thought 27 weeks was more likely, and pre-registered that I would consider the prediction accurate if that happened, which would have been the end of June 2022. It hasn't happened. So the next check-in is end of March 2024.
Then I will see you at the astrological New Year in 2024!
Now it's working again, the only thing that changed was the background color. (which I like.)
There's a new update that will hopefully fix your issues.
Would it be possible to get the timestamp to display am and pm?
That was supposed to be there but somehow got lost in the shuffle. The update will be out as soon as google approves it.
It's started working again for me.
I think Scott might be adjusting the background color. Not sure if that is causing your problem tho.
There's an update working its way through the approval process now that should fix the issues.
It stopped working for me before the background changed.
Hi, can you describe what's stopped working for you? And also tell me what browser/os you're on? Thanks.
I'm on Chrome, with Windows 11 or whatever the latest one is.
A while back (months?) I installed an add-on (yours?) that replaced the "18 hr ago" and so forth with dates and times, and added a [NEW] tag to comments I hadn't see before. A while later, the add-on stopped working; it's now back to how it was before I installed the add-on.
Some features ("tilde" new and displaying full timestamps instead of "x hr ago") stopped working for me I think a couple weeks ago. Haven't been at home (where I have the extension) since the color change to see if that had an impact.
OK arguing-about-Supreme-Court time.
I'm not the first to mention any of this, but it seems to me like the two recent hot-button cases, on guns and abortion, are contradictory. Links to both:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-843_7j80.pdf
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/19-1392_6j37.pdf
They both look to history to ask whether a right to an abortion in one case, or a right to carry a gun in public (or some version of that) in the other case, existed historically.
But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward. In addition, in the gun case they look to see whether carrying guns in public was *outlawed* as a stand-in for whether you had a *right* to do so; not outlawed == you have a right to it. But in the abortion case they specifically distinguish the two - just because abortion wasn't outlawed *doesn't mean* you had a right to it.
I think it's also clear that Supreme Court justices doing this sort of historical research isn't a good way of doing anything. Does anyone think that this sort of reasoning, or the similar reasoning you see on the other side when liberals do it, is any sort of evenhanded look at the history of whatever types of laws are at issue? It screams cherry picking and special pleading to me. If they're going to do it, they should at least commission a historian or take expert testimony or something; right now it seems like copying stuff from amicus briefs combined with clerks googling stuff.
A few other criticisms (and for the record I am pro-choice and don't have a strong opinion about the New York gun law at issue):
Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.
For Alito's opinion in the abortion case, and to strike home the point about history, I think another person reading the same history he does and with the sort of cherry-picking they do, could easily reach the result that there *was* a right to pre-quickening abortion historically. Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong, and he says they aren't affected because they don't involve "potential life", but nothing about his reasoning with regards to abortion rests on whether there's a "potential life" involved.
For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that. He repeatedly dismisses "means-end" analysis i.e. strict scrutiny, but the court always applies those things when deciding first amendment cases.
For Alito in the abortion case, he claims he isn't questioning anyone's motives, but also cites people on both sides who have claimed the other side has discriminatory motives, and disputes at length the idea that pro-lifers have discriminatory motives while also insinuating that pro-choicers do.
One thing that really irks me about Alito's opinion:
"By the time the Fourteenth
Amendment was adopted, three-quarters of the States had made abortion a crime at any stage of pregnancy"
Isn't the *POINT* of an amendment to overrule previous law? Suppose that the 14th amendment had explicitly granted a right to an abortion. In that case, I would think that the existence of laws that were in force _prior_ to an amendment would be irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of a law _after_ the amendment is added.
(Personally, I'm pro-choice, and liked the _policy_ set by Roe v. Wade)
Why didn't Alito just say: The constitution, including all of its amendments, says nothing about privacy, about bodily autonomy, or about abortion. The Roe v. Wade decision was pulled out of thin air. We are voiding it.
". In that case, I would think that the existence of laws that were in force _prior_ to an amendment would be irrelevant to determining the constitutionality of a law _after_ the amendment is added."
Yes, if the 14th amendment explicitly called out abortion, then there would be no debate. But it does not explicitly do that, which is the whole point. The right can only be inferred, indirectly. The Court looked at existing law to determine if it was likely that people thought of abortion as a right that they were trying to protect. Because abortion isn't explicitly mentioned, this is a pretty high bar to clear: The fact that many states had outlawed is evidence it was probably not intended to be protected (in contrast to e.g. slavery, which was explicitly prohibited by an Amendment). But even if all state laws were silent, it would probably not rise to the level of definitely being protected by the Constitution.
(Also in contrast to the 2nd Amendment, which explicitly mentions the right to keep and bear arms; therefore, the burden of proof runs the other way: NY needs to demonstrate ample precedent for its law. Everyone keeps trying to play gotcha with the Court coming to different decisions without ever grappling with the fact that the 2 rights are actually treated very differently by the Constitution).
a) I agree with you about the 2nd amendment. As you said, it is _explicitly_ in the constitution.
Re: "The right can only be inferred, indirectly. The Court looked at existing law to determine if it was likely that people thought of abortion as a right that they were trying to protect. Because abortion isn't explicitly mentioned, this is a pretty high bar to clear: The fact that many states had outlawed is evidence it was probably not intended to be protected (in contrast to e.g. slavery, which was explicitly prohibited by an Amendment). But even if all state laws were silent, it would probably not rise to the level of definitely being protected by the Constitution. "
I see the point of looking at existing law to see if people (really legislators...) thought of abortion as a right to be protected - but only if the law is _unaltered_ by the amendment in question. Hypothetically, if there had been some liberty created by some law which was _clearly_ voided by the 14th amendment, I don't think it would have made sense for that liberty to be preserved by the amendment.
Cards on the table - I’m not a lawyer, but I'm educated and conversant in legal stuff. I'm probably a part of the legal right but not the cultural right. I think the RKBA is an important civil right for both anti-totalitarian purposes and self defense purposes. I think the 2nd amendment is primarily about the anti-totalitarian stuff, with self defense wayyyyyyyy in second place, but when it was incorporated in the 14th, the self defense got wayyyyyy more important because the experience of the free black citizens demonstrated how intertwined private violence and state violence is. I think the constitution is silent about abortion. I fucking hate Alito and dream of him retiring because he's outcome based and likes outcome I abhor like LOL Cops Don't Go To Jail. I love Thomas' dedication to getting it correct, and hate him when he falls into Alito-like outcome logic when the outcome is really important to him.
NYSRPA is an outcome I love, but a dogshit opinion. Thomas has done more damage to methodological originalism here than anything anyone has ever written, because he was the one who wrote it. "This history counts because it agrees with me, but this stuff doesn't because its an outlier" is 100% outcome logic, from the guy who was supposed to be the champion of originalism. If this is what his originalism looks like when the rubber hits the road, fuck him. And it didn't have to be like this. No one had more cred built up to say "This is how you do good originalism", and there was no better opportunity to authoritatively answer some thorny questions (which date matters, the passing of the 2nd or 14th?). What neutral and reviewable test do you use to determine scope of the question (ie when considering abortion, do you narrow down to "history of abortion" or generalize out to "history of medical decisions"?). Instead, it’s all "I win, here's some window dressing".
Dobbs, written by my least favorite Justice, is a masterpiece of an opinion. It clearly defines rules for one of the thorniest questions the court faces - how do we do Stare Decisis? Every justice has strong opinions about it, and unfortunately the court had 11 opinions swirling around (Barrett had clearly signaled she was undecided about it and thinking real hard please give me good briefs so I can make up my mind, and Kagan had 2 different opinions, depending on a 'does this implicate Roe' test).
Here are a few direct responses.
“Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.”
Alito’s concurrence was a direct rebuttal to the dissent, which was also just Breyer arguing about gun policy. Both are in typical fashion for the two. Breyer meanders, goes into irrelevant bullshit, makes arguments backed up by ‘common sense’ and logic with giant holes, and eventually gets around to saying ‘the law is (or should be) this thing I made up because I’m sure its right’. Alito shows up loaded for bear and makes expert arguments under every possible style of analysis – and when he uses his intellectual enemy’s style against them, he pours salt in the wound. See his concurrence in the Montana school funding case where he makes a veiled-but-not-really accusation that Sotomayor is a bigot because she only cares about anti-black racism and not anti-Catholic bigotry because she refuses to use her own analysis from the from unanimous jury case (a history of bigotry means the law is unconstitutional) when a group she doesn’t like is the subject of the bigotry. In short, a good natured doddering old fool picked at 64 mps fastball over the plate, and an intellectually-roided up asshole hit it into the middle deck.
“Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong, and he says they aren't affected because they don't involve "potential life", but nothing about his reasoning with regards to abortion rests on whether there's a "potential life" involved.”
I *think* (and stress this is preliminary) that he’s doing two things here. 1) He’s establishing a simple test for litigants to use to tell a judge that they don’t need to grapple with anything in this opinion. Thus, even if the logic lines up perfectly, the judge can copy/paste the *fetal life* line and say “This case is about African hair braiding” or whatever. Notice that he doesn’t use *potential* life but *fetal*. This is not an accident, because *potential* applies to contraception, which he is now in black-and-white (+4 other Justices) saying is different. 2) I think this is saying that putting fetal life on the other side makes the reliance analysis very different. Obergefell’s ‘other side’ is some people who don’t like looking at gay people getting married (usually) or don’t want to make gay-wedding web pages (occasionally). Even if you are sympathetic to the web page designers, that’s still very different than fetal life. So, nothing as strong as interest in fetal life on the one side? Ok, then you don’t need to implicate this logic.
“For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that.”
Address in the above comment.
“For Alito in the abortion case...”
Yeah, Alito is a shit tier human being, and no one believes him when he says he’s not accusing anyone of anything. He’s the Judicial equivalent of “just asking questions here” guy. Much as I hate him, he is a very good legal mind.
The dissent's use of statistics was utter nonsense. SCOTUS is explicitly not about setting policy, therefore arguing about which outcome is good or bad shows that the Justice in question has abandoned their role in order to play legislator.
Well what the dissent says is that it's a complicated issue and the legislatures should decide instead of the courts, which say what you will about his argument but it's the opposite of playing legislator.
Louis Brandeis has entered the chat. (That's a joke. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brandeis_Brief)
Yes, 100% agree. If Breyer wanted to argue policy, he should have stuck to the executive branch where he could go perpetuating racists sentincing schemes till his heart was content. Actually I don't remember if the sentincing commission he was on was part of congress or the executive branch, but it doesn't matter. They get to use bad social science to push policy. Justice shouldn't.
Don't have time for a longer comment right now so, briefly, the issue with saying "Alito was just responding to Breyer" is Breyer basically says "well it's complicated and so legislatures should decide not courts". Alito doesn't say anything like that, nor could he because of course he's calling for the courts to decide.
If he really wanted to dispute the stats, he could have said "well here are some reasons gun control doesn't help, at the end of the day maybe that's wrong and gun control does reduce crime, but it's not to us to decide because the 2nd amendment exists" but that isn't really what he's doing either.
I mean, doesn't Alito call out Breyer's citation to the Buffalo shooting saying this law doesn't stop that shooting, why should we use that as evidence we need this law? That's the way I took it at least.
This doesn't change what I'm saying ... whether this law would help to prevent incidents like the Buffalo shooting is a complicated issue and the legislatures should weigh the evidence and decide, Breyer says. Alito arguing "this law didn't stop the Buffalo shooting" doesn't have any bearing on the outcome by the logic of the majority opinion, or by the logic that people generally use in 2nd amendment cases.
I think you are calling Alito's concurrence "dumb" when really, you just wish it was something other than what it was. Which, you know, welcome to the club, I that that about most of his opinions. But I think it was intended to skewer Breyer (by all accounts a nice fellow) and his shitty logic, and I think it does (do a control-f for Buffalo in Alito's concurrence and read the whole paragraph. Its vicious and personal, and as a matter of logic, correct I think).
Can you explain why you think these findings are contradictory?
Both use legal history to drive a conclusion. One conclusion is pro, and the other conclusion is con. This history cited appears to support the conclusion. The history cited may be cherry-picked or cited in error: that's a question for legal-history scholars, and historians.
When you write something like this, I don't think you've read the opinion very carefully.
> Alito's concurrence in the gun case is dumb. It's basically just him arguing about gun policy, makes overbroad statements that I don't think he even believes, and accuses the other side of policy-driven reasoning (i.e. not constitutional interpretation) when his entire concurrence is about policy.
Alito's opinion notes that the dissenting opinion is heavy on statistics about how many people die of gunfire, and light on arguments about why the New York law in question would reduce those deaths. That commentary is very on-point for the case that the Court was deciding.
If the dissenting opinion could have produced good arguments about how the law in question would (or did) reduce deaths, they should have done so. Since they could not, I fail to see how their argument for keeping the NY law in place was a good argument.
About this comment:
> For Thomas's opinion in the gun case, he claims that he's putting the second amendment on the same level as other rights like in the first amendment, but he is going beyond that. He repeatedly dismisses "means-end" analysis i.e. strict scrutiny, but the court always applies those things when deciding first amendment cases.
Are any of the rights in the First Amendment limited by some government functionary requiring a person to show a pressing need for whatever act of free-speech, religious-expression, or public-protest that they would like to engage in? Are there any means-end analysis of First Amendment law that allow such a restriction? [1]
Justice Thomas was arguing that the Second Amendment shouldn't be limited in that way. Is any other right in the Bill of Rights limited in that way?
--------------------
[1] Imagine the leaders of a Black Lives Matter protest, or a protest against an abortion clinic, being told "No, you haven't convinced me that you have an urgent need to perform that protest tomorrow. You will be arrested if you do hold the protest."
There are time-place-and-manner laws that are upheld by the Supreme Court about free speech, but they do not appear to be the equivalent of must-show-valid-need laws such as those struck down by the Supreme Court.
Don't have time for a longer response but briefly:
When I say they're contradictory it's all this from my comment:
> They both look to history to ask whether a right to an abortion in one case, or a right to carry a gun in public (or some version of that) in the other case, existed historically.
> But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward. In addition, in the gun case they look to see whether carrying guns in public was *outlawed* as a stand-in for whether you had a *right* to do so; not outlawed == you have a right to it. But in the abortion case they specifically distinguish the two - just because abortion wasn't outlawed *doesn't mean* you had a right to it."
On Alito's concurrence, problem is that the dissent says "maybe I'm wrong but these questions are complicated therefore legislatures should decide not courts" and Alito doesn't do that, he's just arguing that gun control is bad. It would be way more intellectually honest if he said "maybe I'm wrong but even if I'm wrong the 2nd amendment still means this law is unconstitutional".
> Are any of the rights in the First Amendment limited by some government functionary requiring a person to show a pressing need for whatever act of free-speech, religious-expression, or public-protest that they would like to engage in?
I think in some cases yes, but that's not what I'm arguing. What I'm saying is that Thomas is saying no intermediate or strict scrutiny applies to the 2nd amendment, and it does to the 1st. In other words if the government arrests me for speech and I allege a first amendment violation, the court will apply strict scrutiny and so possibly uphold the arrest/conviction. But for the 2nd amendment they won't even apply strict scrutiny.
> But in the gun case, they make a lot of hay about looking specifically to the era of the founding fathers, heavily discounting other eras; in the abortion case they mostly rely on cases from the mid-1800s and onward.
One potential basis for right to an abortion was based on the 14th Ammendment, passed in 1868. The right to bear arms is based on the 2nd, passed on the 1790s. It makes sense to look at different time periods for each.
Problem with that is that the right to bear arms only applies against the states because of the 14th Amendment, and meanwhile, the part of the 14th Amendment they talk about in the abortion case (due process) is the same wording as in the 5th Amendment, from the 1790s (except the 5th is in the passive voice and the 14th specifies that it restricts states).
So in both cases it's language from the 1790s that as a result of the 14th Amendment restricts the states.
>Also, the assurance that this case doesn't affect other cases like Griswold or Obergefell falls flat; his argument clearly implies those decisions are wrong,
Griswold yes, Obergefell no. There's a non-risible reading of the Fourteenth Amendment that implies Obergefell i.e. if it's legal for a man to marry woman X then it must be legal for a woman to do so.
(I'm in the somewhat-weird position of being pro-choice, anti-gay-marriage, anti-Roe and semi-pro-Obergefell.)
As you probably know, Gorsuch said something similar arguing against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity in Bostock.
For that reason, I think that if another gay marriage case came up in front of the SC, we could see another 5-4 vote in support of gay marriage with Gorsuch and Roberts joining the liberals.
> anti-gay-marriage,
It would never have been an issue if the United States had reasonable tax laws.
I’m curious as to why you are anti-gay marriage.
Used to be pro-gay-marriage - voted for it in the not-a-referendum Oz had five years ago - but the argument regarding "babies are prosocial and marriage is a good vehicle for this" eventually won me over. Scott, in Beware Systemic Change:
"As for opposing gay marriage, I think you’re going beyond your supposed reliance on evidence here. The strongest conservative case against gay marriage is that it reinforces a centuries-long redefinition of marriage from a strategic partnership focused on child-rearing to a ceremonial acknowledgment of romantic infatuation, potentially leading to a deep shift in the way people think about issues like who to marry, when to have kids, when to get divorced, and how to treat their family. That argument hasn’t been rigorously evaluated by statisticians and found wanting. It’s been found annoying and left untouched."
I'm not in favour of sodomy laws or anything - I'm bisexual myself - but I think the discrimination in marriage serves a purpose.
I get it. That’s why sane countries have functional domestic partnerships. Unfortunately the USA doesn’t. Most (some?) States have them but they’re not recognized by the Federal government.
Obergefell was essentially a case about tax discrimination. The Congress cunningly set themselves a booby trap by enacting DOMA without changing some tax laws at the same time.
It created havoc with interstate child custody fights as well. Some States recognized gay marriage and some didn’t.
You could steal the children or the money (not the money; the child support, the alimony) cross a state line, and make the whole thing a Federal case and a very confusing one. There was more than one such case leading up to the Supreme Court intervening.
> it reinforces a centuries-long redefinition of marriage from a strategic partnership focused on child-rearing to a ceremonial acknowledgment of romantic infatuation, potentially leading to a deep shift in the way people think about issues like who to marry, when to have kids, when to get divorced, and how to treat their family
I wouldn’t argue with that; I would ask, What’s the problem with that? Is there some relationship between the number of gay marriages and the number of heterosexual couples who want to have children that I don’t know about?
>Is there some relationship between the number of gay marriages and the number of heterosexual couples who want to have children that I don’t know about?
Sure. Bisexuals massively outnumber exclusive homosexuals, and societal norms that you're supposed to settle down with an opposite-sex partner (reinforced by tax breaks) are relevant to how many do.
Shouldn't there be a penalty for not having children once societal norms have encouraged you to "settle down with an opposite sex partner"? Just to encourage you a little more.
Is there any concrete evidence for the relevance you describe?
Ok, if you say so.
I can understand being pro-choice but anti-Roe, if you prioritize judicial consistency above abortion. But why would you be anti-gay-marriage but pro-Obergefell?
"Judges can't make up or ignore laws" is a very important part of separation of powers; it's the direct converse of "no bills of attainder". It's not their job to decide what's right, only what is legal. The alternative is, well, what we're going through now, which Alito correctly decried in Dobbs.
Not the OP, but I don't see any inconsistency here. Just because something is not banned by the US Constitution doesn't mean it's good.
Just like it is possible to be pro-choice as governmental policy but not like abortion personally.
This is what it says:
"Nor does the right to obtain an abortion have a sound basis in precedent. Casey relied on cases involving [long list of cases follows]. Respondents and the Solicitor General
also rely on post-Casey decisions like ... and Obergefell v. Hodges. ... These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.... None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445."
So it says "they rely on a bunch of old cases including Obergefell v Hodges, those cases 'prove too much', the rights in those cases aren't 'deeply rooted in history'" (which based on what he's said elsewhere means they aren't rights protected by the Constitution).
A person could have a pro-gay marriage view on the basis of equality, and distinguish abortion, like you say, but Alito doesn't distinguish it that way in here, and Alito dissented in Obergefell so he clearly doesn't think that.
"These attempts to justify abortion through appeals to a broader right to autonomy and to define one’s “concept of existence” prove too much. Casey, 505 U. S., at 851. Those criteria, at a high level of generality, could license fundamental rights to illicit drug use, prostitution, and the like.... "
I, personally, support all of these rights. I would rather support them through an explicit amendment protecting bodily autonomy, rather than SCOTUS inventing policies out of penumbras of strained interpretations of the existing words.
What I would say is that the 9th amendment says this:
> The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
To say "you don't have a right to abortion because it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" doesn't work because of the above. There are rights that people have that aren't mentioned in the Constitution. Combine that with the language in the 14th amendment about life liberty or property, and privileges and immunities and all that, some pretty broad language about rights people have.
Saying the above language protects a right to an abortion feels to many people like it's making shit up and reading it in. OK but saying that it doesn't protect anything at all, because it's too vaguely worded to ever definitively say that anything falls within it, also goes against the Constitution; it's elevating a certain idea of how judges should operate over the words of the Constitution itself.
My personal reaction is that the 9th amendment really _is_ too vague. One could plausibly construe it as saying that _any_ practice that the federal government hadn't banned at the time of the adoption of the Constitution is a practice that is an ancient right retained by the people which can never be banned by any subsequent Congress. While I think we have far too many laws, too many prisoners, and are in general far too punitive, I think the 9th amendment is vague to the point of being too broad.
That extremely broad interpretation would be consistent with the idea of having a sharply limited federal government that left many matters of governance up to the states.
Do you mean this as a point about how to interpret the 9th amendment, or as a criticism of the founders?
How many of the people who drafted or ratified either the Ninth or the Fourteenth Amendment thought that they protected a right to abortion?
No idea. I wouldn't guess that they did. I also don't think that they thought the equal protection clause did anything to protect women's rights. I also think their idea of what the first amendment did for free speech was much narrower than what most people think today. I don't base my view on those amendments on what the founders would have thought.
Alito says that what matters is whether a right was "deeply rooted", and the laws he cites seem to suggest that abortion generally *was* allowed before "quickening" so even Alito's own reasoning it's questionable.
The original interpretation of the US constitution did interpret the US constitution as saying "the federal government can only do this short list of things AND ALSO of those things can't have those things violate any of the rights listed in these amendments"
That's why the income tax and alcohol ban needed constitutional amendments.
The New Deal interpretation of the US constitution instead functions as saying "the US government can do what it wants as long as it doesn't violate any of the rights explicitly listed in these amendments, thanks to the power of the commerce clause"
Perhaps we should go back to the original interpretation, but that would require dismantling large chunks of the currently existing US government including Obamacare and the EPA.
> None of these rights has any claim to being deeply rooted in history. Id., at 1440, 1445.
I would argue that prostitution certainly does have that historical grounding.
Prostitution has been around for a very long time, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone saying that people have a *right* to prostitute themselves.
I disagree. A lot of prostitutes would say that; in fact DO say so.
Is there a right to work? Is there a right to use whatever talents and abilities one might have for commercial purposes?
Making it illegal does nothing but create an opportunity for enslavement.
<i>I disagree. A lot of prostitutes would say that; in fact DO say so.</i>
We're talking about rights being "deeply rooted in history" (or not, as the case may be), so what prostitutes say (present tense) is neither here nor there. Nor, given that we're talking about legal/constitutional/natural rights, do I think that what prostitutes have ever said is really all that relevant, even if you could find an eighteenth-century prostitute talking about her human right to have sex with strangers for money; we'd have to look at what legal scholars, political philosophers, statesmen, and the like, said on the topic, and I'd be surprised if you could find anyone fitting this category before, say, 1960, who argued for a right to prostitute oneself.
<i>Is there a right to use whatever talents and abilities one might have for commercial purposes?</i>
Of course not. If I have a talent for killing people, that doesn't justify me taking employment as a paid assassin.
<i>Making it illegal does nothing but create an opportunity for enslavement.</i>
That's a red herring. The question is whether a right to prostitute oneself is deeply rooted in history, not whether prostitution should be criminalised.
Somewhat weird?! I’ve genuinely never met anyone with views like you, and my social circles consist in weird intersections between traditional Catholics, old-school socialists, and analytic philosophers
What you wrote sounds likely, but I don't have time to read the decisions and form an opinion. I will go off on a tangent, though, and say that I think the gun law case is one more demonstration of the root of our political divide: Modern big cities have become too different an environment from small towns to have the same laws. When America was formed, differences in values and culture could be mapped out with state-sized regions. Today, the major cultural and economic divide is between rural and urban areas. We need separate governments for big cities and for everything else, more than we need separate governments for separate states.
I say this because while I support public concealed carry in most places, I think that in New York City, it will be a disaster. If the Constitution requires allowing it New York City, and it just doesn't work, it would be better to change the Constitution than to make some bogus interpretation of the Constitution in the name of expediency. But this particular change would not be acceptable in rural areas. There may be no way to govern city and country with the same Bill of Rights.
Some of the social dynamics that maintain order in small towns don't operate in giant cities. Big cities can't and don't want to support as much of certain personal freedoms. I think we may need something like the return of the city-state, or separate Bills of Rights for big cities and for the rest of the country. Perhaps cities could have covenants, like condo associations, requiring new residents to waive certain Constitutional rights, though I don't see how this could be applied to people born in such a city.
Is the situation in New York City different from that in Dallas, TX? What about Miami, FL, or Philadelphia, PA?
Most of those other cities operate under different concealed-carry laws than the law that was struck down in the NYSRPA-vs-Bruen case. These cities have differing murder rates. Those murder rates didn't change much when the State in question changed concealed-carry law.
Do you think that NYC is different in some way from those cities?
Is a concealed-carry-permit treated differently in urban areas than it is in rural areas?
I'm very familiar with the concealed-carry-permit process in my home State. That process doesn't have rules that are different from rural to urban areas. And it doesn't require a person to prove that they need the permit.
The permit process in my home State does require a person to submit enough data so that Police agencies can tell whether that person has ever been convicted of any crime. There's a laundry-list of crimes that will result in an automatic dismissal of the request.
I also note that many crimes committed with a handgun are committed by people who already have enough of a criminal background to fail the request for a CCW permit. They would also likely be denied purchase of a gun at any gun store (or gun store selling guns at a gun show), when that seller does the NICS background check.
Even though there is a rural-vs-urban divide in the U.S., I don't think that means the urban-vs-rural areas need to operate under different gun laws.
From what I can tell, criminal behavior with guns is driven by other things, and not much affected by laws about concealed-carry permits.
You make good points. I haven't been to Miami, but I have been to Dallas, NYC, and Philadelphia. I do think NYC is different. Actually, I think every neighborhood of every city is different. Sometimes, like in downtown Baltimore, every street is different. Pratt Street is just 2 blocks from Baltimore Street, and they're different worlds.
I'm not sure how to explain or interpret what's happening, other than to say that NYC has neighborhoods where a lot of people seem to think it's fine to act in the street like they were in their own houses. A lot of outright crazy people, yes; but even more people who aren't crazy, but violate what I'd always thought were social norms, and aren't using the street as a way getting from one place to another, but as a place to hang out and party. I remember staying at an apartment in central Harlem, and every day I was there, when I came to the big steel door that opened out onto the street, I would hear many people on the other side screaming and shouting, and think there was a riot going on outside, until I remembered that it was just Harlem.
These aren't the poorest nor the highest-crime neighborhoods, where people are more cautious and reserved, there aren't a lot of pedestrians because there isn't anywhere to go, the clusters of people hanging out on the street talk quietly among themselves, and sometimes the street is dead silent. They're places more like Carson Street in Pittsburgh, or Bourbon Street in New Orleans, where there's a lot of alcohol and weed, a lot of young people, a bit of money, and a lot of YOLO. These aren't gangsters with criminal intent, but unpredictable people with very few inhibitions. They're fun places, but I think they need strict carry laws.
I agree with you about the urban/rural distinction. The problem is once again the 14th amendment, which made the broad language in the Bill of Rights (originally intended to restrict only the federal government) binding on all state and local jurisdictions. Without that, states would be free to make more nuanced laws recognizing that different restrictions may be expedient in different communities.
America has become two countries: cities and rural. The cities have more population than the rural, and so feel comfortable ruling over them, but all the food and energy comes from the rural.
It's a problem. Electing Libertarians would solve it, but Democrats hate Libertarians because they support some Republican policies, and Republicans hate Libertarians because they support some Democratic policies. A first-past-the-post voting system exacerbates the problem because when you iterate it, there are only two main parties, so people vote against the party they hate. People would vote Libertarian except that [ D, R ] hate the [ R, D] policies, so they have to vote against them.
What is the problem? And why does electing libertarians solve it?
The problem is that too many people want to control other people. This results in excess violence and greater poverty. Libertarians want everyone to give up that control. Live and let live. Electing Libertarians (not going to happen) would only happen if people give up the idea of controlling other people.
If the groups who are exercising control over others are not the same groups that face the excess violence and poverty, then no one who can cause change will want change, right?
I think you have to get in to the details of each case rather than just pointing at very high-level comparisons. There was a lot of detail in Bruen about which cases they considered relevant, and why (e.g. Territorial laws were short-lived, under unclear judicial control, and did sometimes fail Constitutional muster). Their disclaimer at the beginning (looking at very old law can be relevant, *if* the law was still in effect at the time of the Founding) makes sense to me. Also, I don't think that's quite the argument the majority made in Bruen (that no laws against imply the right exists). Rather, the right is concluded to exist because that's what the 2A says and because of the English and colonial history of carrying weapons, and historical laws are used to gauge the extent of that right.
"I think you have to get in to the details of each case rather than just pointing at very high-level comparisons. There was a lot of detail in Bruen about which cases they considered relevant, and why..." - if you get into the details it doesn't get better. It is full of the sort of special pleading that I mentioned before, and conclusions on the basis of a lack of evidence. And a lot of the detail is inconsistent with the abortion case.
For example the treatment of laws prohibiting carrying a gun in a way that "terrorizes" the people or something similar. Thomas's reasoning is basically that some case from the 1680s (Sir John Knight's case) arguably requires something more than just carrying a gun around to count as "terrorizing" people (Thomas admits in a footnote the evidence is mixed on this point), and that therefore laws from a hundred years later in America with some similar words must have the same meaning because "Respondents give us no reason to think that the founding generation held a different view".
Or put differently - after saying that there have to be laws from America from the founding era that are similar to the one here, when it turns out that there are laws from America from the founding era that arguably cover similar conduct, he dismisses them because of a contested interpretation of a law from 100 years earlier in England, and sparse historical data.
"Also, I don't think that's quite the argument the majority made in Bruen (that no laws against imply the right exists). Rather, the right is concluded to exist because that's what the 2A says and because of the English and colonial history of carrying weapons, and historical laws are used to gauge the extent of that right." - On "English and colonial history of carrying weapons", IIRC they never talk about any factual record of who carried weapons and when like "in Boston in 1780 25% of people walked around with guns" or something, it's all about what is and isn't legal. On "what the 2A says", the obvious problem with this is that what they consider the "plain meaning" of the 2nd amendment, is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean, but they're using that super broad meaning to in effect make a presumption that anything goes with guns, and so if there's no law against it it's a right. But the same arguably applies to the broad language in the 14th amendment (and 5th/9th/etc).
" the obvious problem with this is that what they consider the "plain meaning" of the 2nd amendment, is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean,"
Just FYI, but there are a rather lot of human beings who you are claiming do not exist. Unless of course you were using "anyone" as shorthand for "anyone who matters."
I think there are a lot of human beings who will claim to take a maximalist position on the 2nd amendment but when you ask them about specific situations will back off of it.
Should insane people who frequently suffer from visual hallucinations be able to carry a gun around? Such people clearly have rights of free speech and free exercise of religion, so it's not like they're somehow outside the scope of constitutional rights. And they are part of "the people" so "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" would seem to apply to them under the "plain meaning". I bet a lot of "what part of 'shall not be infringed' don't you understand?" types won't actually support that person's claim.
Only answer from Thomas is if there was a law (actually not clear if one law is enough, maybe laws in a critical mass of the states) against this back in the 1790s. Even if there were such laws - I'm not an expert in 1790s gun laws but I bet you could come up with a similar situation (not insane people but something else) where most people (even most really pro-2nd-amendment types) think that there should be a restriction but people back then didn't think to have one.
I think that even a maximalist is going to say that a person's behavior justifies infringement on their rights. Just like an individual's behavior may justify taking away their right to not live in a cage under guard for the remainder of their life.
Thomas' historical analysis is greatly helped by individual colony/state constitutions having their own codified RKBA without that distracting prefatory clause. And of course, Thomas throwing Dred Scott out there was one of the more epic benchslaps.
Re justfiying infringement - I am sure a lot of maximalists would say that because it's how most people tend to think about rights. But it's not how the Court does.
Just saying "you have this right, but also, a person's behavior justifies infringement" gives away everything unless you're putting some restrictions on what sort of behavior justifies that infringement. Otherwise ... "well sure you have the right to free speech but bad behavior, like being a REPUBLICAN, justifies infringement on it"
Like I said being insane (or having committed a crime, even murder) doesn't mean you lose your first amendment rights, so as a general matter it isn't the case that being insane or committing a crime justifies infringement on your xth amendment rights. By saying felons or insane people can't have guns, you're already not using what Thomas thinks is the "plain meaning", and you're already justifying more restrictions on the 2nd than exist for the 1st.
Now Thomas is saying you can look to laws in the 1790s to decide how far you retreat from what he thinks is the "plain meaning" - but are there laws from the 1790s saying insane people can't have guns? I'm not sure there are, and AFAICT nobody has cited any (including Kavanaugh who like in the abortion case is trying to cabin the majority ruling, and says that this ruling doesn't implicate those rules, but doesn't actually cite any laws that would affect the legal analysis), and even if there were, I'm not confident that it will always work out like this.
Re Dred Scott - I guess this is a matter of style, but mentioning Dred Scott in passing in order to vaguely insinuate your opponents are racist doesn't impress me. And it isn't a very good legal analysis either considering that Thomas himself admits that the 2nd amendment does NOT mean you have the right to carry a gun "wherever you want". So you're going to quote a guy that everyone admittedly thinks is wrong to support an idea that you yourself don't support?
I don't think you are characterizing Thomas's arguments very well. The majority is assuming the 2nd Amendment protects the right to carry for lawful purposes, as they decided in Heller. This case provides additional determination of the precise extent of this right. Thomas's footnote says
"But again, because the Second Amendment’s bare text covers petitioners’ public carry, the respondents here shoulder the burden of demonstrating that New York’s proper-cause requirement is consistent with the Second Amendment’s text and historical scope."
Therefore, even if the case is ambiguous, then it cannot provide sufficiently strong justification for the NY law (also, the fact that it is only 1 case). We would not allow a single ambiguous case to provide precedent for such strict limitations on speech. I mean, the Sedition Act was passed by Congress and enforced for some time (it pre-dated Marbury v Madison), although the penalties were later negated; clearly no one holds this up as good 1A law. We recognize it as an error, as later decisions like NYT vs Sullivan did.
"it's all about what is and isn't legal."
Yes, and? A right does not cease to have legal protection simply because most people don't exercise it. The 3rd amendment hasn't been practically relevant for a long time, but if it did become relevant it would still be in force.
"is super broad and beyond what anyone thinks these things mean... make a presumption that anything goes with guns"
Who is "anyone"? The Court's conclusion in Heller can be summarized as "law-abiding citizens can carry firearms for lawful purposes" and explicitly calls out restrictions like "no guns in schools" and "felons cannot carry" among others as not being disallowed by that decision. This interpretation is actually quite narrow, in my opinion.
Yeah like I said in my comment, I see it as cherry-picking when liberals do it too.
Has any parliamentary country ever tried a system where the head of government is *not* elected by the lower/people's house? I.e. you have most of the elements of a normal parliamentary system, the Prime Minister or whatever you would like to call them only governs by holding the confidence of the branch of government that elected them. It's just that in this case, the PM would be elected or subject to recall by maybe the upper house, in an attempt to make their system of government less vulnerable to populism. Upper houses in most countries are generally for longer terms & less subject to the popular vote. (Or possibly a joint session of the upper or lower houses, or even an Electoral College formed by some other means just for this one task).
If the objection is that the upper house couldn't function as a parliamentary body without snap or early elections, it's worth noting that Norway has done just that for over 200 years- has a Prime Minister, but the representatives serve a 4 year term with no snap elections possible. If they have to replace a PM the same body just finds a new candidate. Anyways, just curious if that's ever been tried anywhere
The UK had PMs and/or First Lords of the Treasury from both houses until the end of the 19th century, as well as Sir Alec Douglas Home who disclaimed his earldom four days after becoming Prime Minister in 1963.
In Canada the upper house is appointed at the leisure of the PM, so having the PM appointed by the upper house, whom he appoints, would basically make the position totally unelected.
In italy the prime minister needs to receive the confidence of both houses of parliament and either one of the two can recall him. Snap elections are possible (and used to be very very common) but in the recent years thanks to the intervention of the head of state the two houses can generally converge on a new PM.
However in italy both houses of parliament have basically the same powers and are identically subject to the popular vote (with only a few minor differences).
Alas, the effect is just to have very unstable governments (recently with an avg of 3 different governments during a single 5 year legislative cycle) and no significant protection from populism
Well, at least there are countries where the head of government is not elected by the parliament.
For example, in France, the prime minister is appointed by the president (who used to be elected for seven years until 2000ish, so for a much longer time than usual). Still, it's unpleasant (cohabitation) if the president and prime minister do not have a majority in the parliament.
Italy and Israel have hybrid systems where the president appoints a candidate, and this candidate can then try to form a coalition. As far as I understand, this appointment does have influence on the outcome.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prime_minister#Entry_into_office
It's pretty standard in parliamentary systems that the Head of State (President, King, etc) is officially the one who appoints the Head of Government (PM or similar), but there's a range of norms and requirements around the degree of discretion the Head of State has in appointing and whether the Head of Government is expected to resign (or is automatically dismissed) after losing a confidence vote in the legislature.
As I understand it, one of the key distinctions between a Westminster-style pure Parliamentary System (e.g. Britain) and a Semi-Presidential System (e.g. France) is that in the former the Head of State is expected or required to appoint the leader of the majority party or coalition in the legislature (or the legislature can unilateral dismiss or require the resignation of the Head of Government), while in the latter the President/King/whatever has both de jure and de facto discretion in the appointment of the PM.
The Weimar Republic was another example of a Semi-Presidential Republic, with the President appointing the Chancellor. In theory, the Reichstag could dismiss the Chancellor with a vote of no-confidence, but in practice they rarely attempted to exercise this power as usually either the same coalition held the Presidency and a Reichstag majority, or there was no effective majority coalition in the Reichstag that was in a position to force its choice of Chancellor on the President. In addition, the President could (and did, at least once) use his dissolution power to preempt a no-confidence vote and keep his Chancellor in power until after snap election triggered by the dissolution.
Norms tend to play at least as strong a role as formal structure. For example, the de jure relationship between the US President and the legislature is very closely modeled on the de jure relationship between the King and Parliament. If anything, POTUS is weaker in several respects: power to declare wars was moved from the Executive to the Legislature, Presidential Vetos can be overridden by a supermajority while withholding Royal Assent is absolute, and the King can prorogue or dissolve Parliament while the President cannot do the same to Congress. But the modern British monarchy, in practice, is far far weaker than the US Presidency due to the Queen being almost completely hemmed in by constitutional norms requiring her to exercise her powers only as "advised" by Parliamentary leadership.
The US is a prototypical Presidential Republic, but has dabbled in this in terms of cabinet-level executive appointments, which require approval of the Senate for appointments and has also at times had laws (most notably the Tenure in Office Act of 1867) asserting a requirement for Senate approval to dismiss a Cabinet Secretary. The Senate is also the long poll for legislative dismissal (via the impeachment process, which requires a simple majority in the House to indict and a 2/3 supermajority on the Senate to convict) of Executive and Judicial Branch officials.
Historically, a lot of parliamentary systems had a hereditary monarch with significant executive (and other) authority. The parliament might function primarily as advisors, rather than an independent source of power. In this situation, I think it would be fair to call the monarch the head of government.
This is an example of a head of government not elected by the lower/people's house. But it doesn't seem like what you're looking for.
In the Westminster system at least, the office of Prime Minister comes with no particular powers; indeed the constitutions of Canada and Australia don't mention the words "Prime Minister" at all. Whatever power the Prime Minister has derives from the fact that a majority of the members of the Lower House have, for now, agreed to back him up with their votes.
In theory there's nothing to stop the Upper House selecting its own Guy We Think Should Be In Charge. But the Lower House in most countries has more power than the Upper House, so if the two houses disagree on who is in charge then the Lower House will win.
The Prime Ministership isn't a magical hat that puts you in charge, it's a recognition that you are the one in charge. You can put in whatever system you like for selecting the guy who gets the title "Prime Minister", but if Parliament decides that they'd rather follow someone else, then that someone else is going to be in charge and the official "Prime Minister" is a lame duck with no power.
(No idea about non-Westminster systems)
What do people think is going on with Havana Syndrome? The claim (according to the unreliable New Yorker) is that many cases are believed by the CIA to be actual attacks, most likely using pulsed microwave radiation, most likely by Russia.
Some excerpts from the year-old New Yorker article:
"(The CIA) discovered that what began with several dozen spies and diplomats in Havana now encompasses more than a hundred and thirty possible cases, from Colombia to Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to Austria, in addition to the United States and other countries. At least four of the cases involve Trump White House officials, two of whom say they had episodes on the Ellipse. The C.I.A. accounts for some fifty cases. The rest are mostly U.S. military and State Department personnel and their family members."
"Top officials in both the Trump and the Biden Administrations privately suspect that Russia is responsible for the Havana Syndrome. Their working hypothesis is that agents of the G.R.U., the Russian military’s intelligence service, have been aiming microwave-radiation devices at U.S. officials to collect intelligence from their computers and cell phones, and that these devices can cause serious harm to the people they target. Yet during the past four years U.S. intelligence agencies have been unable to find any evidence to back up this theory, let alone sufficient proof to publicly accuse Russia."
"Several of Biden’s top advisers have said, in closed-door meetings, that they believe the C.I.A. will eventually be able to trace the Havana Syndrome to Russia."
Nocebo effect + cherrypicking
https://www.slowboring.com/p/the-suffering-is-real-but-there-is
"have been aiming microwave-radiation devices at U.S. officials to collect intelligence from their computers and cell phones"
I am so confused by this statement on many levels
It makes it sound like they are using transmitting devices, but why would you need a transmitter to collect intelligence from computers? Wouldn't a passive receiver suffice? But if it's a passive receiver, how would it have any physical impact on someone? And if it is a transmitter, what exactly are they doing with it that would allow them to gather intelligence from computers and cell phones? How would any transmitter operating with enough power and at frequencies that it can have a noticeable effect on human biology not also have a noticeable effect on electronic equipment, especially if the whole point is to gather intelligence (somehow) from said electronic equipment?
Maybe I'm missing something, but this sounds like it's approaching "tachyon beam", Star Trek levels of rando sci-fi absurdity.
In any case, this seems like a pretty easy idea to test -- just put a broadband omnidirectional antenna in the offices where people are reporting Havanna syndrome and look for strong transmitters.
It's bullshit; tom Clancy level "this sounds cool but is extremely not real".
I don't think there is any credible evidence that it is a targeted attack. Some cases of brain damage are probably real but due to various unrelated causes and others are self-inflected psychogenic illness.
The evidence about psychogenic causes is much stronger. Just see it how it goes with long covid which is real but also often a widespread mental disorder to people who didn't have covid or had symptomless or very mild covid symptoms.
Crickets.
https://news.yahoo.com/crickets-named-cause-mysterious-havana-074011129.html
Crickets don't explain the pain and detectable brain damage.
The next question is whether pain and brain damage among people stationed on US diplomatic assignments in these countries are above background levels.
I remember that report. What was news to me in reading the New Yorker article is that of the ~130 people claiming to have had similar incidents, only a few of the incidents occurred in Cuba, so the Indies short-tailed cricket doesn't explain most of the incidents, only the sounds some people heard in Havana, specifically the sound one of them recorded. Others have described the "sound" as a "ringing in the ears", which sounds more consistent with a brain injury. It's called "Havana Syndrome" because that was where the first alleged incidents occurred, not because most have occurred there.
However, I do find it suspicious that some of the initial "victims" in Cuba believe an external sound accompanied "the attack" and that sound turns out to have sounded exactly like the local crickets. It doesn't explain all the incidents in other countries, but it makes one believe the agents in Cuba were at the very least paranoid, which in turn makes it all the more believable that this paranoia spread throughout the agency concomitantly with a bunch of similar psychosomatic incidents.
Havana syndrome is a mass psychogenic illness that our intelligence apparatus has inflicted on itself. It is really funny that the CIA has successfully psyched out their members into having various deleterious symptoms upon hearing insects chirping, but it is not very funny to think that this could actually influence international politics (and already has done so, to a limited degree).
Does anyone have any memorization tips? Currently studying for the bar exam, and I do not have enough time to create flashcards on anki for spaced repetition. Thank you!
When trying to memorize a list, somehow it’s easier to remember the beginning and the end, and humans tend to forget the middle (there’s a name for this, maybe someone knows.) So divide your lists up and reverse them often enough that the mid-list items are beginning or end at least some of the time. Also there is a thing called “brain gym” (you can Google it I think) which uses arm motions in addition to reciting facts (moving an arm across the body meridian somehow helps build neural connections?) I’ve seen that work for kids memorizing math facts. Break a leg!
No idea about law, but for life sciences I found diving deeper than the material requires to be of immense value - knowing why something is called by that name (even if it's a historical accident), interesting properties of the thing I just need to know exists, etc. Memory works by association, and you should be able to regenerate your knowledge from surrounding facts. The worst kind of "knowledge" is one that's hanging by a single connection, once it decays you'll forget it.
Memorizing? For the bar exam?
It's be we'll over 30 years since I took and passed the bar. And when I took it, the pass rate was under 50%.
But I don't remember memorization wa really the key? Although, I suppose there were mnemonics.
I don't get the "I don't have the time". I went to law school in evening and did have a job, but what else do you have to do? If you want to be a lawyer figure out a way to make the time!
The bar prep course is around 10-12 hours a day, seven days a week, and that does not include the additional self studying one needs to do. There are thousands of rules to memorize and courses do not include a memorization component. As a result of COVID, and online learning, the quality of most online law school lectures was poor, so additional work is needed for most students. A tool like Anki, that only shows you a handful of cards a day, is unfortunately not efficient in such a time crunch. Thank you for your response!
10-12 hours a day for a bar prep course? That does not seem possible. Given that the pass rates have crept up over time, I'd say bar exams are easier now than they were 30+ years ago.
I'm sure you know and have taken this into account, but you can substantially change the settings in Anki to show you more cards with a shorter interval to aid cramming?
Scott has an old post -- I forget which -- containing a crazy diagram he drew full of mnemonic devices using pictures, words and lines, which he used to remember some complex relation of ideas about something. He then wrote something like: "Everyone who has graduated from medical school has learned to do this."
Perhaps someone else can recall the post. I don't believe it explains the method behind the madness, but it still might be helpful to look at that sketch and get a whiff of what is going on in it. Perhaps it is the Method of loci?
This sounds interesting— I would love to see it. I’m not able to find it, either. Does anyone have the link to this?
It's similar to Anki, so not sure if you'd find it helpful, but I've found the gamification on Memrise.com to be extremely helpful.
Pay someone else to make the flashcards for you
I think that the exercise of making the flashcards is more important than the exercise of looking at the flashcards.
I've never used flashcards myself, but I used to study by writing summaries (in the week before the exam) of the material in the course. I barely looked at the summary once I'd written it, but the act of writing it was enough to solder it firmly into my brain (at least for a little while).
Knowing what to put *on* the flashcards is often the biggest part of the puzzle. And pre-made decks are completely orthogonal to this.
I was going to say Anki until I read the second sentence. For more short-term things, I hear a lot of people have success with the "memory palace"/"roman room"/"Method of Ioci" technique: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Method_of_loci That said, I second Victor in saying to use a preexisting deck from AnkiWeb.
Look for a preexisting deck? Example, for CA: https://ankiweb.net/shared/info/2047227052
Though from what I've heard, using a premade deck is less effective than making your own for some (psychological?) reason.
The reason for that is usually tied to that you shouldn't *learn* using the flashcards, but only review/memorize with them. Making your own cards ensures that you know the content and you're writing it in a way that makes sense to you. (Personally I have no issue with pre-made decks for most purposes.)
I tend to remember the entire thought process of creating the card each time it comes up for review.
Yeah, less effective for sure, but the gains in time are huge. Sara doesn't have time, so it's a reasonable proposal.
Repeating my earlier comment that the book review in the previous post contains content that was plagiarized (from me). IMO a statement should be added to the post acknowledging this.
See here:
https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-choice-theory/comment/7349428
Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I will add a note to the post and contact the writer; unless they have some incredibly good excuse I can't imagine right now, I will disqualify it from the contest.
Also, it is not anonymous: see https://astralcodexten.substack.com/p/your-book-review-public-choice-theory/comment/7339947 and https://subcriticalappraisal.com/2022/Book-Review-Public-Choice-Theory-and-the-Illusion-of-Grand-Strategy/
Also, is not actually reviewing anything, just summarizing and praising claims.
(also, it has glaring pro-Russia omissions/manipulations but that is not bannable I guess)
That's pretty bad. I don't see how the review can remain in the contest. If it wins, do you get the prize money? Sounds like a headache for Scott.
I think I will disqualify it.
My thoughts on this are the same as my thoughts on the recent discoveries (eg https://reason.com/2022/06/14/twitter-famous-princeton-historian-kevin-kruse-plagiarist/ ) that some PhDs have plagiarized random paragraphs from their dissertations: why? I can understand somebody plagiarizing if they're too lazy to write anything at all, or if the other author is vastly superior to them. But a lot of these seem to be generally well-written articles which make just fine points on their own, and then for some reason lift an entire paragraph verbatim from some other source. What are people thinking?
When I was studying, and also later in research, we were recommended to take notes of basically every paper we read. My notes contained direct citations, paraphrases or summaries of parts of the text and own thoughts. Ideally all of those were always put down with the source, the page number and recognizable for what they were. Overall note-taking in such a way made the whole reading process x-times more time-consuming than otherwise. In practice students and fellow researchers had very different levels of discipline regarding the notes they took. In addition, for papers or PhD chapters, some would write readable and complete draft text from the beginning, while others would have pages over pages with bits and pieces, each in 10 different versions, before putting it all together. I find it very easy to imagine that after 3 years of bad note-taking some put stuff into their PhD with no idea on whether this specific part was theirs or somebody elses, even without any intention to cheat. Not an excuse of course, just an explanation.
I'm sure deliberate cheating or 'oh, this is a short-cut' exists as well.
In one case I came across, a student had copied down a paragraph from a book, forgotten to note its source, and when she came back to her notes, mistakenly assumed it was something she'd written and plonked it into her essay.
If someone told me right now "how sure are you that the thesis you wrote 20 years ago has no plagiarized sentences" I would have to hesitate.
I certainly would've known not to do it and so not done it. And so much got rewritten in back-and-forths with my advisor that I doubt even actual plagiarized sentences didn't end up changed.
But am I *completely* sure?
:-|
status: speculation
Some people(explicitly or subconciously) think that ownership of ideas, or even just specifically word sequences, is illegitimate. So the person doesn't have the instinct telling them "this is wrong," making it easier to then also forget that it's not allowed.
> What are people thinking?
That noone will caught them, or that risk of cheating is low enough to make it worth.
Made more significant by fact that damage will be low, even if caught.
Is anyone really caring that Joe Cheung is a plagiarist?
But how much effort is it to paraphrase someone's thoughts instead of ctrl+c/ctrl+v, when you're writing an entire paper? Seriously, my reaction is the same as Scott's.
There is not even a need to paraphrase. If you think that another article makes a point well, just quote it. Given that most of the article is probably neither quotation nor plagiarized, there should be no problem there.
For moderate excerpts (e.g. not "I will lift three chapters of that excellent textbook on quantum chromo dynamics for my PhD in blockquote"), getting attribution is precisely what another author can and should expect.
If people post comments on the internet instead of publishing articles in Respected Academic Journals, credit them by using the information available.
If OEIS can credit an "Anonymous 4chan Poster", then an ACX contest book review can very well credit "Jim from substack comments".
Filler? If your paper is supposed to be X pages in length, copy'n'paste helps pad out if you're not sure you can produce X pages worth.
I think also attitudes to 'cheating' in academic subjects are changing, I've seen some discussion of cheating on college exams and a lot of the comments are "well why wouldn't you do this? just look up the answer on Google, get that grade". And when tasked with "you won't know the material", then it's "I don't have to know the material, I just need to bluff my way past the job interview and then when I need to know this stuff, I'll Google it and learn it that way".
There is a much different attitude towards "what harm is it?" since I was in school, back with the dinosaurs!
To be fair, nobody learns in the real world the way they do in college - you don't waste time on pointless memorization if you can google something. You need to understand the material so that the details will be easy to figure out with the help of Google or a reference manual.
IMO all exams should be open book, everywhere, ever, so I don't really view cheating on the exams as unethical.
I've had students, up to Master's level, caught using entire paragraphs from other authors without attribution. The usual explanation (?excuse) is that they intended to quote the paragraph and provide a source for it, but forgot in the rush ...
It could be a mistake or oversight if the original paragraphs are copied as placeholders to be changed later and then forgotten.
I think the answer is something along the lines of: "People who are determined to win are willing to cheat." Many top athletes have been caught cheating because they really, really want to win. Many smart, motivated students are motivated to study hard and also cheat because they really, really want that A. Many rich, brilliant, driven businesspeople intentionally break laws or engage in corruption to make even more money than they would have otherwise.
So it's not that these people are trying to cover for a deficiency. Just the opposite! The same motivation that drove them to learn to write well, to work hard at producing quality articles and essays also drives them to plagiarize if they think it will make the work even better.
It's more sympathetic given that there's probably a LOT of cheating now. It really seems like most people just don't want to know if it does exist.
And then there's this guy: https://crumplab.com/articles/blog/post_994_5_26_22_cheating/index.html
Yeah slightly different from what you linked but I remember in computer science algorithms course I once had a professor say they only found 30% of us cheating on our first assignment which was much better then normal. Also pretty much everyone I knew had cheated on at least some assignments at uni so either computer science students just love cheating or there is a lot of cheating going on.
I think cheating is just even more rampant than it was back when I was in school :(
I don't think it's going to end well. And it _really_ underscores how stupid and pointless the whole 'system' is, e.g. taking out (huge) loans, to cheat one's way thru school, for ... what exactly?
Even the most reasonable of justifications for, e.g. credentialism, are going to look increasingly flimsy as it becomes more common knowledge that in fact almost no one is even bothering to NOT cheat!
And the whole thing is just extra super depressing for the 'suckers' – like myself – that never cheated. Thankfully, I have a degree that I think most people couldn't even cheat their way into acquiring!
Not everyone writes with fluency.
I knew a professor who wrote by the slow accretion of other people’s thoughts. He would ask for a written description of an experiment or a figure for a paper. He would copy an introduction from a Review Article or a paragraph from a Method’s Section. Then he would assemble it into a collage and slowly work through it. We called this, “polishing the turd”. The end product was something new, but I can imagine a less careful person screwing up.
As for copying vastly superior authors…please remember that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
In recent infectious-disease news:
1. London sewage sampling has detected poliovirus. https://www.science.org/content/article/poliovirus-in-london-sewage-sparks-alarm I think this sort of sampling is highly useful for detecting pathogens and we need more of it. But right now we can only detect what we're looking for. The Nucleic Acid Observatory (to sequence everything, basically) should definitely be funded.
2. The WHO declined to assign the current monkeypox outbreak "public health emergency of international concern" status. Given that it shows >4000 cases with no signs of being contained, I predict (~80% confidence) that it will be declared a PHEIC within the near future (6 months). https://www.who.int/news/item/25-06-2022-meeting-of-the-international-health-regulations-(2005)-emergency-committee--regarding-the-multi-country-monkeypox-outbreak
"The Committee was concerned about the potential for exacerbation of the stigmatization and infringement of human rights, including the rights to privacy, non-discrimination, physical and mental health, of affected population groups, which would further impede response efforts."
This is giving me strong early 2020 vibes . . . basically, "let's not declare an emergency to avoid stigmatization".
Apparently no STDs are PHEIC, and I don't expect that to change soon.
Monkeypox is not an STD (at least, not yet). It is not transmitted via sexual contact but by close skin-to-skin contact with an infected person, and if you're fucking someone that is close skin-to-skin contact.
But yeah: "hey gay, bi, pan, and MLM guys, maybe cool it on the orgies? Condoms won't work for this one, so just be monogamous!" is not going to be well received, particularly during Pride Month.
https://apnews.com/article/monkeypox-explained-health-72a9efaaf5b55ace396398b839847505
There are plenty of ways to send the message that will be well-received. Gay bars should have flyers informing people of the disease (particularly in regions where several cases have already been detected). Bars and sex clubs should be encouraged to add monkeypox testing to the syphilis/gonorrhea/HIV testing they often have (even if it's just a few days a week). Orgy organizers should include a mention of the disease and symptoms in their invitations so that people can know what to look out for.
Straight orgies aren't a great idea either. There's no need for the messaging to single out any particular gender or orientation.
I agree that there's no need *except* where it's a particular demographic at highest risk. Since the outbreaks and spread are amongst gay/MLM men, then we're only sticking our heads in the sand to go "well straight people are just as much at risk!" Of course they are, *If they engage in the same behaviours*. Straight idiots who party party in Ibiza (if that is still a thing, my cultural referents are badly dated) and who contract monkeypox should get a whack on the head every bit as much as gay guys party partying at raves in Spain and Belgium.
If they're not doing that, then you do need to aim your messaging at the people most at risk. If the milk-bottle white Irish on holidays in sun-spots are the ones all turning up with sunburn and sunstroke to the pharmacy and doctor, then you need to aim your "how not to get grilled like a sausage" messaging to the holidaymakers, not the locals.
"Let's not have the appearance of singling any one group out" will, ironically, have the bad effects of singling one group out if it means that monkeypox runs rampant through them. Even if it's not worse than a case of chickenpox, you don't need to pick up a viral disease, especially if there is a likelihood of people having compromised immune systems: "In recent times, the case fatality ratio has been around 3–6%."
Wow, that's crazy. It also says, "While a few Members expressed differing views, the committee resolved by consensus to advise the WHO Director-General that at this stage the outbreak should be determined to not constitute a PHEIC. However, the Committee unanimously acknowledged the emergency nature of the event and that controlling the further spread of outbreak requires intense response efforts." So they agree that it is and is not an emergency.
It sounds to me like deciding not to educate the public about AIDS out of fear that it would stigmatize gay men. Not really helpful to gay men.
Also, while they can't decide on public health messaging about this outbreak, they certainly can leap into action to - give it a new name. Because it would be stigmatising to Africa as defining it as a source of infection.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jun/15/who-to-rename-monkeypox-virus-to-avoid-discrimination
So let's not call it "monkeypox" or refer to "the “west African” and the “Congo basin (central African)” clades" but if anyone is ever investigating its history, it will be... "The virus is found mainly in tropical rainforest regions of Central and West Africa."
I want to respect WHO, but if they *wanted* to make themselves sound like useless duffers, this is the way to do it.
1. Why isn't it enough to have just a couple of labs in mega-cities: one in London, one in (say) Hong Kong? Why do we necessarily need one in the US?
2. Isn't the difference between monkeypox and COVID primarily in their mortality rate? COVID has been known to be pretty deadly since the beginning, only question was around how easily it can spread. With monkeypox the mortality rate seems low enough that we could just ignore it as yet another mildly annoying STD.
I think you may have that backwards on point #2. Monkeypox has a case fatality rate of ~3% in recent African epidemics; by comparison the CDC estimated the case fatality rate of ~0.5% before the availability of vaccines.
I don't think monkeypox has killed anyone in Europe or America yet but the present outbreak is concentrated among relatively healthy young men and hasn't been going on long enough or grown large enough for us to expect to have seen many deaths yet. Possibly we lucked out and got a weak strain, or monkeypox was only ever lethal to people living with really crappy public health systems, but a priori we should expect it to be about six times as deadly as COVID.
Fortunately, *much* less contagious and easier to avoid. Stay away from orgies for the duration, though.
Would a six-month lockdown of gay men be justified?
I mean, only in the same sense that covid could have justified a six-month Shanghai-style lockdown of the world.
Not even that, because Covid was a far greater (real and potential, due to unknowns) danger than monkeypox is now. I see no scenario where people are dying on the streets because the hospitals are overwhelmed.
I don't even understand what you mean by that. Do you want to make gay sex illegal for 6 months? (Or perhaps outside of partnerships?) How do you check that? There were times when gay sex was illegal, and it didn't stop gay sex. You can't control what people do when they visit someone else's house.
Or do you want to forbid gay men to leave their houses? That's not much easier to control, because how do you know which men are gay? (Are bi men also forbidden to leave their houses?) And curfews that only hold for a sub-population are impossible to control.
Apart from that, it is completely out of proportion. The estimated impact of monkeypox is orders of magnitude lower than the estimated (or observed in March 2020 in Bergamo) impact of COVID.
If your argument is "because of the increased risk of incurring a particular disease, please don't have promiscuous sex with strangers for a limited period until we get this under control" is way too much to ask of gay/MLM men, then you are arguing "why yes, gay men *are* promiscuous pleasure monsters who only care about sex and would rather get sick than not fuck every rando they can!"
Is that a better sounding message? "Hey, only fuck people you know well and if you have a steady boyfriend, stick with him, at least for a couple of months until we get a vaccine or this stops spreading" is too much to ask of health care for a vulnerable population? Because I'm pretty sure if this *does* disproportionally start affecting gay community, we're going to see lots of complaining about why didn't public health authorities take the risk to their health seriously and warn them, see this is homophobia in action!
We are talking about different levels here. I understand "lockdown" as mandated by the state. And yes, I think that a six-month prohibition of men-to-men sex by the state would be completely out of proportion. Even if it was in any way enforceable (which it isn't).
For me, the state needs to have *extremely* strong justification to dictate whom someone may have sex with. Or in case of gay men without fixed partner, to forbid sex at all. And yes, even if it is "only" for six months.
You raise a different (and in my eyes pretty unrelated) point: Is it reasonable to expect from gay men to be careful and responsible? My personal answer is yes. And my experience is (as a gay man who has many gay friends, also some heavily promiscuous ones) that the vast majority of them are like this, taking various levels of precaution. The more promiscuous are usually on permanent pre-exposure prophylaxis and get tested for STDs every few months.
Right now, monkeypox is a huge topic in the gaysphere. A lot of the press massively downplays how exclusively monkeypox affects this group. (Outside of the endemic origins of the virus in Africa.) But the gaysphere is very much aware of this. The first 150(!!) cases in Germany were all men who had sex with men. (I don't know about further cases, Germany is now at 600+, but I don't think the ratio has changed a lot.)
But do I think that decisions about sexual promiscuity should be state-mandated, and that someone not meeting this level of caution should go to jail (or even "just" pay a fine)? No, I consider it his fundamental right to decide which risks he wants to take.
Part of the truth is also that monkey-pox is not a very threatening disease, that it is spreading nowhere nearly as fast as COVID, that it is well treatable and usually heals off after three weeks (though it can leave permanent damage in severe cases), and that there is a vaccine against it. Frankly, syphilis is right now the greater threat for promiscuous gay men. So if someone decides that this is a risk he is willing to take, then I have to admit that it is a pretty small risk. State interventions may be justified if there is a massive crisis ahead (as for COVID, where in Bergamo the number of deaths in March 2020 was six-fold increased). But for monkey-pox? Simply no.
I don't think these numbers are correct. For Monkeypox, a quick Google search reveals only 1 death so far out of 2000 known cases outside of Africa -- and we don't even know if its "with monkeypox" or "from monkeypox". And this is *CFR* - its likely that *IFR* is 10-20 times lower.
For COVID the CFR was estimated at 2.3% in February of 2020: https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/02/study-72000-covid-19-patients-finds-23-death-rate. The 0.5% figure is the *IFR* estimate, not CFR. Of course for COVID a generic IFR is a bit meaningless as the disease affects older age brackets far more seriously than younger brackets.
COVID has been known to be pretty deadly? What do you mean?
Most COVID cases are asymptomatic and the disease is mostly fairly mild for young people and those without preëxisting conditions.
According to Wikipedia, monkeypox historically seems to have killed between 3 to 10% of infected if left untreated. That seems a lot worse than what I read about COVID.
(Most monkeypox infections are much milder, of course. And I assume some forms of treatment are widely available.)
"So far this year, there have been more than 3,000 confirmed monkeypox cases in countries beyond Central and West Africa, but no deaths have been reported. In Africa, however, health officials have reported more than 70 deaths that they suspect were caused by monkeypox."
Seems like that the virus isn't particularly deadly outside of Africa, probably due to the lack of healthcare facilities there? On the other hand COVID deaths and hospitalizations have been reported since the very beginning.
The 3-10% figure is *CFR* and is probably *extremely* biased due to *who* gets to be seen by a doctor in Africa. These are the worst of the worst patients, so of course the CFR would be off the charts.
One of the reports I read the other day said there had been one death, but didn't have any information about it.
Not really, HIV/AIDS is far more deadly than monkeypox, as far as I can tell
At this point it isn't.
At the time, it was 100% lethal.
My understanding of Roe vs Wade:
https://cozilikethinking.wordpress.com/2022/06/27/understanding-roe-vs-wade/
<i>Why draw an arbitrary line at detecting a faint heartbeat? Why not say that each sperm is a potential person, and hence make masturbation illegal?</i>
Because sperm isn't actually a person, it's just a cell with half the DNA needed to make one.
You are begging the question.
A same argument could be made that a toddler isn't an actual person. A toddler can grow into an actual person one day.
A toddler only has half a set of human DNA? That's news to me -- and, I suspect, to the medical community as well.
Huh? No one said a toddler only has half a set of DNA.
I just posited that we can just claim that a toddler is not a full human, just the same as you can claim that a sperm ain't a full human. (And I am sure we can find some technical justification, if you want one. Eg that toddlers don't have a fully developed brain, yet, or whatever.)
My point is that you can't just say 'A because of A'. You need to actually make an argument.
I've made an argument for why a sperm isn't a human -- namely, that it doesn't have a full set of human DNA.
People with Turner syndrome don't have the full set of human DNA, either.
(Neither do people with Down Syndrome have the usual set of DNA.)
Clearly that's not the criterion we actually apply.
First, you have to demonstrate to me that there is a "right" to abortion. I'd quite like a constitutional right to a million quid paid into my bank account because of the emanation of the penumbra of "he State acknowledges that man, in virtue of his rational being, has the natural right, antecedent to positive law, to the private ownership of external goods" but I'm not too sure I could get that one pushed through.
I saw a post elsewhere about the "historic right to abortion" - yes, all of fifty years. I think there's a large difference between people born since 1973, who have grown up (and the longer the distance between '73 and their birth date, the more liberal the position) with the position that abortion is legal and not alone legal, but normal and those old enough to remember pre-'73 when abortion was a horrible crime (and again, the greater the distance between '73 and their birth date, the worse crime it was).
Let's take the English as an example here, with the Lambeth Conference (every tn years the Anglicans get together and discuss what theology they are willing to be governed by: "As the Anglican Communion is an international association of autonomous national and regional churches and is not a governing body, the Lambeth Conferences serve a collaborative and consultative function, expressing "the mind of the communion" on issues of the day") and their statements on abortion over the years, and the changing in attitude:
1908:
Contraception and abortion bad! Doctors who condemn such practices heroic!
Resolution 41 The Conference regards with alarm the growing practice of the artificial restriction of the family, and earnestly calls upon all Christian people to discountenance the use of all artificial means of restriction as demoralising to character and hostile to national welfare.
Resolution 42 The Conference affirms that deliberate tampering with nascent life is repugnant to Christian morality.
Resolution 43 The Conference expresses most cordial appreciation of the services rendered by those medical men who have borne courageous testimony against the injurious practices spoken of, and appeals with confidence to them and to their medical colleagues to co-operate in creating and maintaining a wholesome public opinion on behalf of the reverent use of the married state.
1920:
Contraception still bad!
Resolution 68 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, while declining to lay down rules which will meet the needs of every abnormal case, regards with grave concern the spread in modern society of theories and practices hostile to the family. We utter an emphatic warning against the use of unnatural means for the avoidance of conception, together with the grave dangers - physical, moral and religious - thereby incurred, and against the evils with which the extension of such use threatens the race. In opposition to the teaching which, under the name of science and religion, encourages married people in the deliberate cultivation of sexual union as an end in itself, we steadfastly uphold what must always be regarded as the governing considerations of Christian marriage. One is the primary purpose for which marriage exists, namely the continuation of the race through the gift and heritage of children; the other is the paramount importance in married life of deliberate and thoughtful self-control. We desire solemnly to commend what we have said to Christian people and to all who will hear.
Resolution 69 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference, moved by responsible statements from many nations as to the prevalence of venereal diseases, bringing suffering, paralysis, insanity, or death to many thousands of the innocent as well as the guilty, supports all efforts which are consistent with high moral standards to check the causes of the diseases and to treat and, if possible, cure the victims. We impress upon the clergy and members of the Church the duty of joining with physicians and public authorities in meeting this scourge, and urge the clergy to guide those who turn to them for advice with knowledge, sympathy, and directness. The Conference must condemn the distribution or use, before exposure to infection, of so-called prophylactics, since these cannot but be regarded as an invitation to vice
Resolution 70 Problems of Marriage and Sexual Morality
The Conference urges the importance of enlisting the help of all high-principled men and women, whatever be their religious beliefs, in co-operation with or, if necessary, in bringing pressure to bear upon, authorities both national and local, for removing such incentives to vice as indecent literature, suggestive plays and films, the open or secret sale of contraceptives, and the continued existence of brothels.
1930
Okay, you can have *some* contraception but certainly not just because you want sex and no babies! Now we also mention abortion:
Resolution 15 The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
Where there is clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, the method must be decided on Christian principles. The primary and obvious method is complete abstinence from intercourse (as far as may be necessary) in a life of discipline and self-control lived in the power of the Holy Spirit. Nevertheless in those cases where there is such a clearly felt moral obligation to limit or avoid parenthood, and where there is a morally sound reason for avoiding complete abstinence, the Conference agrees that other methods may be used, provided that this is done in the light of the same Christian principles. The Conference records its strong condemnation of the use of any methods of conception control from motives of selfishness, luxury, or mere convenience.
Resolution 16
The Life and Witness of the Christian Community - Marriage and Sex
The Conference further records its abhorrence of the sinful practice of abortion.
1948 - nothing about it (well, I suppose post-war they had more urgent matters to deal with).
1958
Well... if it's for family planning and you just want to space out when the kids are born...and not have *too* many...
Resolution 115
The Family in Contemporary Society - Marriage
The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of
children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in
such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and
important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise
stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
(1/2)
At the time of the founding, abortion up to the point of "quickening" (the time when the first fetal movement was felt by the mother, generally between 16 and 24 weeks) was legal in every state. This was not a "no-one talked or knew about it" situation, it was explicitly stated as a point of common law in texts that were almost certainly read by every single founding father.
This falls very squarely into the "non enumerated rights" protected by the 9th amendment.
This article does a more in depth dive of this and explains why the past 50 years is by no means the only "historical precedent' for abortion rights:
https://reason.com/2022/06/24/alitos-abortion-ruling-overturning-roe-is-an-insult-to-the-9th-amendment/
-edit- Also, as a (rather silly) point of argument, you _do_ have a right to have a million quid put into your bank account. It's just on you to convince someone to do it. But no one is preventing it from happening.
-edit2- Also in the vein of various unenumerated economic rights, like your joke-y suggestion, a big part of why the left has failed to protect abortion on 9th amendment grounds is that they specifically undermined un-enumerated rights (in the form of various rights to economic activity/contract etc. in the wake of the great depression), and would really rather pretend that it doesn't exist, even though it would be an extremely strong protection in this case.
Thanks for digging up this precedent and the connection to unenumerated rights!
I don't have a horse in this race (neither being an American nor living there), but I find the legal questions interesting.
<i>At the time of the founding, abortion up to the point of "quickening" (the time when the first fetal movement was felt by the mother, generally between 16 and 24 weeks) was legal in every state. This was not a "no-one talked or knew about it" situation, it was explicitly stated as a point of common law in texts that were almost certainly read by every single founding father.</i>
That's because, with the state of medical knowledge at the time, they didn't think the foetus actually developed until partway through the pregnancy. Now that we know better, we don't have to tie our laws to debunked scientific theories.
Citation needed. People of the time were pretty familiar with foetal development and what it looked like at various stages, thanks at a minimum to familiarity with livestock etc. Beliefs about when during development it should be considered an independent entity are not a scientific question and their opinion on the matter is as valid as ours.
THe point I was making is that there is a historical precedent that goes far, far beyond the history of Roe v. Wade and while I think reasonable people can disagree on how that history should result in judicial rulings, that history was nearly completely ignored in the recent ruling.
(2/2)
I had to break it up because this is from 1968 and it's a long 'un. Basically "The Pope is wrong and he's not the boss of us" 😁 We're a long way from the attitudes of 1920 but consonant with 1930 having yielded on this, and for the first time we're seeing "science and sociology" being touted as authorities on a par with (or even higher than?) doctrine:
1968
Resolution 22 Responsible Parenthood
This Conference has taken note of the papal encyclical letter "Humanae vitae" recently issued by His Holiness Pope Paul VI. The Conference records its appreciation of the Pope's deep concern for the institution of marriage and the integrity of married life.
Nevertheless, the Conference finds itself unable to agree with the Pope's conclusion that all methods of conception control other than abstinence from sexual intercourse or its confinement to periods of infecundity are contrary to the "order established by God." It reaffirms the findings of the Lambeth Conference of 1958 contained in Resolutions 112, 113, and 115 which are as follows:
112. The Conference records its profound conviction that the idea of the human family is rooted in the Godhead and that consequently all problems of sex relations, the procreation of children, and the organisation of family life must be related, consciously and directly, to the creative, redemptive, and sanctifying power of God.
113. The Conference affirms that marriage is a vocation to holiness, through which men and women may share in the love and creative purpose of God. The sins of self-indulgence and sensuality, born of selfishness and a refusal to accept marriage as a divine vocation, destroy its true nature and depth, and the right fullness and balance of the relationship between men and women. Christians need always to remember that sexual love is not an end in itself nor a means to self-gratification, and that self-discipline and restraint are essential conditions of the responsible freedom of marriage and family planning.
115. The Conference believes that the responsibility for deciding upon the number and frequency of children has been laid by God upon the consciences of parents everywhere; that this planning, in such ways as are mutually acceptable to husband and wife in Christian conscience, is a right and important factor in Christian family life and should be the result of positive choice before God. Such responsible parenthood, built on obedience to all the duties of marriage, requires a wise stewardship of the resources and abilities of the family as well as a thoughtful consideration of the varying population needs and problems of society and the claims of future generations.
The Conference commends the Report of Committee 5 of the Lambeth Conference 1958, together with the study entitled "The Family in Contemporary Society" which formed the basis of the work of that Committee, to the attention of all men of good will for further study in the light of the continuing sociological and scientific developments of the past decades.
1978 - Contraception no longer merits even a mention, there is some lipservice to 'moral issues of clinical abortion' but certainly no longer any full-throated (or any at all) denunciation:
Resolution 10
Human Relationships and Sexuality
The Conference gladly affirms the Christian ideals of faithfulness and chastity both within and outside marriage, and calls Christians everywhere to seek the grace of Christ to live lives of holiness, discipline, and service in the world, and commends to the Church:
1. The need for theological study of sexuality in such a way as to relate sexual relationships to that wholeness of human life which itself derives from God, who is the source of masculinity and femininity.
2. The need for programmes at diocesan level, involving both men and women,
(a) to promote the study and foster the ideals of Christian marriage and family life, and to
examine the ways in which those who are unmarried may discover the fullness which God
intends for all his children;
(b) to provide ministries of compassionate support to those suffering from brokenness within marriage and family relationships;
(c) to emphasise the sacredness of all human life, the moral issues inherent in clinical
abortion, and the possible implications of genetic engineering
1988 - Nothing about contraception or abortion. They've moved on to discussing homosexuality, and some faint pathetic pleas about trying to remind young people that sex is for marriage not before or outside it.
Resolution 34
Marriage and Family
3. Noting the gap between traditional Christian teaching on pre-marital sex, and the life-styles being adopted by many people today, both within and outside the Church:
(a) calls on provinces and dioceses to adopt a caring and pastoral attitude to such people; (b) reaffirms the traditional biblical teaching that sexual intercourse is an act of total commitment which belongs properly within a permanent married relationship;
(c) in response to the International Conference of Young Anglicans in Belfast, urges provinces and dioceses to plan with young people programmes to explore issues such as pre-marital sex in the light of traditional Christian values.
1998 - some even fainter burblings about supports because of the pressures on family life. Having sold the pass on contraception, they are now trying to hold back the tide of (a) easy divorce and remarriage (b) not getting married at all (c) sex outside of marriage
2008 - and today's word is Indaba! Now it's not a Conference, it's Reflections!
Not a bobbin about even marriage, there's a whole new fight on:
111. The issue of homosexual relations is as sensitive as it is because it conflicts with the long tradition of Christian moral teaching. For some, the new teaching cannot be acceptable on biblical grounds as they consider all homosexual activity as intrinsically sinful. Tension has arisen when those who hold the traditional teaching are faced with changes in the Church’s life or teaching without being able to understand or engage with a clear presentation of how people have come to a new understanding of scripture and pastoral theology.
So what's my point here? That we get a clear gradient (let's not say "slippery slope") from 'abortion is a grave sin and contraception is licentiousness' to 'okay yeah everyone is going to be fucking without getting married, but we still have to sort of tell them not to do that' over the decades. The secular forces have won over the Anglican church.
An error on the first paragraph; it's not Roe vs. Wade that says "the Supreme Court does not have the power to enforce the right to abortion", it's the majority opinion of Dobbs vs. Jackson Women Health Organization, which is how the court just overruled Roe vs. Wade.
If I'm reading this right, the Supreme Court used its ruling in Dobbs vs Jackson to attack Roe vs Wade, right?
Dobbs v. Jackson overturned Roe v. Wade. Your explanation of it is completely garbled.
I say in my write up that the Supreme Court concluded in Dobbs vs Jackson that a right to abortion was not there in the constitution, and then used that ruling to overturn Roe vs Wade. Is that incorrect?
In a sense, yes. You're making it sound like there were two separate events.
Regarding codifying Roe - AFAICT the article you link to doesn't say that they could except that Biden used all his bargaining chips already. It says that you can't pass something with less than 60 votes if the Senate parliamentarian decides it's not "budgetary" which they presumably would with something about abortion.
As for why not codify it, I think the filibuster is the main issue. Manchin also identifies as pro-life but there are a couple pro-choice Senators. There's also a question of whether the Supreme Court would strike down a law codifying Roe (I would guess not, but not 100% sure, and I certainly think it'd be litigated).
A law codifying Roe would have to be a law banning state police from enforcing anti-abortion laws, or a law removing states' power to regulate abortion. I'm pretty sure the latter is not actually a power Congress has, and while I'm not sure about the former it seems like a terrible idea to have a police force going out to arrest another police force for enforcing laws (constitutionality would be the least of your worries there).
Wickard v. Filburn says that Congress can pass any law about anything. It's trivially easy to demonstrate that abortion has an effect on interstate commerce.
Only in my fantasies. If they tried that in reality, both the R's and the D's would immediately pack the court.
I suspect they could under the commerce clause, because it seems there’s nothing they can’t regulate with that
Thanks.
It seems really crazy that the Americans seem so keen on deciding things at the federal level. (Ie why have Biden involved at all otherwise?)
There's no reason to forcibly coordinate this policy at a high level; there's basically no economics of scale here. Apart from a fear that specific local voters might decide 'wrong'.. But then, that's democracy for you, and federal voters can decide 'wrong' just as well.
To bring the issue into sharper contrast, there's no need to decide this issue even at the state level. Individual counties could make up their own rules, since it only impacts people living in those counties.
(No opinion on the object level decision implied here.)
Is there any other nation that *doesn't* decide things like this at the federal level? Do England/Scotland/Wales/Northern Ireland have substantially different abortion or gun-control laws? The states of Germany?
There may be no *need* to forcibly coordinate this policy at a high level, but it is *possible* to do so. And, people understandably like winning the biggest victories possible. So if it's possible to pass [law I like] or repeal [law I don't like] at the highest level, that's what they're going to want to do. If they settle for local wins, their opponents will still be going for the big ones, and they'll end up losing everything.
Occasionally, enough wise people will recognize that it's best for everyone to mostly stick to local wins and settle things at the state/provincial/whatever level, to establish rules encouraging that sort of thing going forward. One group pulled that off in the United States 235 years ago, and the system they built still sort of works. But people have never stopped wanting the big wins whenever they think they can get them.
For Germany, you can have a look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalism_in_Germany#Division_of_powers
Switzerland is well know for giving its cantons a lot of power. For example, as far as I know, immigration rules (eg about naturalisation) are mostly handled at the canton level.
Both in Germany and in Switzerland, gun control seems to be divided between federal and state level. But details vary.
> One group pulled that off in the United States 235 years ago, and the system they built still sort of works.
Alas, I think your glasses are rose coloured. The US as a country is doing well, but the commerce clause (amongst others) has been used to break a hole through limitations on federal power large enough to drive a few trucks through, side-by-side.
Have a look at prohibition! When they banned alcohol in the US on the federal level at the start of the 20th century, people felt the need for an amendment to the constitution. The implication being that the existing text of the constitution was not seen as enough to allow a federal ruling.
Compare that to the laws and regulations used to ban medicine by default these days, or to ban drugs people take for fun. As far as I can tell, these days law makers and judges fully expect that the federal government can regulate these kinds of things without any change to the constitution.
On a smaller scale, post-WW2 (West-) Germany was also supposed to have a weak federal government and strong states. From what I've heard that was a demand by the allies on the designers of the Grundgesetz to avoid a strong Germany in the future.
In any case, federal power creep has been a feature in German politics just as much as in the US.
As far as I can tell, the best protection against centralising tendencies that we have at the moment, are splitting territories up into smaller sovereign entities. Eg there's no risk at all of Singapore ever giving up any authority to Malaysia at this time, even though at one point they were the same country.
Perhaps similar, Estonia and Livonia etc are unlikely to cede any power to Moscow at this point in time, thanks to a separation in the early 1990s.
SOME Americans are keen on deciding things on the federal level. These people are also called statists. They are also vastly more likely to be represented in Congress for the exact same reason that pedophiles are attracted to jobs involving interaction with children.
I mean, why stop at the county level? The obvious endpoint of that logic is that individuals should make their own decisions on whether to allow themselves to get an abortion or not.
You're assuming, before making your argument, that the arguments against abortion are wrong. The question is whether fetuses have rights. If they do, then some government must intervene on their behalf.
That's why I carefully left that question open. As far as I can tell, reasonable people can and do disagree.
My point was narrower: that protection (of either the parents' rights or the fetus's rights) can be decided and done at a fairly local level. There's no gain from forcibly coordinating different localities. Especially on something so contentious.
(No gain apart from forcing other localities against making the 'wrong' decision. But that objection is symmetric: both sides are claiming the other side is making the wrong decision. And it's not obvious on a principled level that a higher level of government has a better chance of making the right choice.)
Even if a foetus does not have rights, you (general "you" not "you, Matthias") have not demonstrated that there exists such a thing as a right to abortion.
We do not consider that parents have a right to infanticide of born children, be that five minutes or seventeen years and eleven months after birth. We do not consider that men have a right to 'abortion' and are free of parental responsibility, hence they must pay child support, even if they did not agree to the pregnancy happening in the first place.
Whether or not we agree that animals have rights, we certainly do not give the owners of animals the right to torture or abuse them to death.
There are a lot of things we don't consider rights, even if people want them or perform them in their lives. You have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but no matter how much happiness getting sex would give you, you don't have a right to sex.
Since you bring it up, I think it's inconsistent to say that women have the right to abort a fetus, but men must pay child support if the women chooses not to. If aborting a fetus isn't a moral hazard, and the man doesn't want to support the child, then it seems to me the woman has the choice of either supporting the child on her own, or aborting it. I don't see how there's any obligation on the man to pay child support if there isn't an obligation on the woman to bear the child.
"have not demonstrated that there exists such a thing as a right to abortion."
Only if you're in the "everything not permitted is forbidden" camp. Or if you believe in positive rights (the right to compel others to provide you something).
>you don't have a right to sex
I mean, Lawrence and arguably Griswold imply otherwise - or at least, a right to consensual sex without interference from the government.
I was replying to Melvin. I agree with your statement, but Melvin replied that your logic leads to deciding it on the level of the individual -- which is equivalent to a federal law saying that everyone in the US always has the right to an abortion. Melvin's logic requires as a precondition assuming that the arguments against abortion are wrong.
Or states could decide to leave this contentious and most personal moral decision to the woman and the father, in consultation with their physician and religious advisor. It gives integrity to the constitution, and strengthens states' rights and local government.
"personal moral decision"
The word "personal" kind of begs the question here. Would the same logic apply to infant killing?
Your use of 'infant killing' for abortion isn't useful, and just displays your bias. A couple whose religion teaches life begins at conception makes a personal moral decision, just as another couple which might believe life begins at birth makes a personal moral decision. Despite efforts of pop media to drive a stake through its heart, morality thrives in protected pockets.
What? I'm not using "infant killing" for abortion. I'm asking about born infants. Should we leave the choice of killing a 1-year-old to the woman and the father?
That is a good point.
I would imagine that the anti-abortion side of the debate would argue that there are two people involved (the fetus and the parent) and that the fetus doesn't get a voice in that case. Similar to how you don't leave the decision about getting murdered purely in the hands of the would-be killer.
(I have no clue whether anyone actually frames it this way. I'm just trying to steelman.)
So my proposal to decide on abortion rules at the county level is in some sense similar to deciding homicide laws on the county level.
A quick Googling says that in general homicide is not a federal crime in the US. So I assume most rules about homicide are done at state level? Even important things like whether the death penalty is a possible punishment.
In comparison, deciding abortion laws at state level should be a fairly straightforward argument to win? (Unless, of course, the other party is worried about the relevant local level making the 'wrong' decision.)
Scotus determined 1. It's not the court's job to create laws, and 2. It's not the court's job to regulate personal behavior.
If we don't like pop culture's public declarations of the latest sex disorder and trivialization of intimacy, we should elect public representatives who share our values, and keep personal decisions in the family.
Alito explained his legal approach directly and succinctly. Ninety percent of the people who criticize the decision can't even argue against it reasonably. They say they're 'for the constitutional right to abortion.' Scotus's whole point is there is nothing in the constitution delineating a 'right to abortion', and neither the constitution nor the bill of rights relieves citizens of the responsibility of making moral decisions in their personal lives.
The court shouldn't be forced to 'validate' and 'normalize' and gaslight public activism. If people want a show they should go to Broadway.
That's a very common framing for opponents of abortion. It's the framing I use myself as an opponent of abortion. In fact, the question of whether there are two people involved (fetus and mother) or just one (mother) seems like *the* central question on which the entire abortion debate hinges.
"So my proposal to decide on abortion rules at the county level is in some sense similar to deciding homicide laws on the county level."
I don't think it's similar at all. Different jurisdictions (I think almost entirely at the State level) might define different degrees of homicide (negligent, manslaughter, murder, 1st, 2nd, 3rd degree, etc) and the corresponding punishments differently, but AFAIK there is not jurisdiction in the US where intentionally killing a human being (post-birth) is legal. And if some jurisdiction tried to make that legal, I think there would be a torrent of lawsuits, going all the way up to SCOTUS if necessary, challenging that decision. And I'm 100% sure those lawsuits would be successful.
>AFAIK there is not jurisdiction in the US where intentionally killing a human being (post-birth) is legal.
I would suggest that "stand your ground" and especially "castle doctrine" laws elude your knowledge here. They're frequently criticized because their application allows individuals to commit justifiable homicide with the only requirement being the the murder victim was trespassing on your property. Going beyond these more extreme cases, almost every jurisdiction allows some justifiable homicide for self defense.
While the situations are not completely analogous, there is an argument to make a direct comparison between these laws and the issue at hand. If the constitution allows for a right to defend their property from trespassers with intentionally lethal force, one's body is ever more sacred than simple property, and (unwanted) fetuses can easily qualify as trespassers by most legal standards.
I wouldn't want to draw as direct a parallel between the legal concepts of trespassing and abortion as you do here.
But I want to point out that the broader point, still stands: the killing by one human of another human can often be legal in one state but illegal in another.
The differences are seldom in the central cases, but in the corner cases.
Different rules about self-defense of body and property are one example. But also different rules about assisted suicide.
And it's not at all clear, that we can pick one set of rules as the definitive one here.
I think I've seen that framing before, and not just from Scott's devil's advocacy in Fetal Attraction. Can't place where, though.
It’s not clear that would be wrong, but it’s not really on the table. State and federal are actually options.
Tactically, federalism is good for the pro choice side. If the issue is left to the states, and interstate travel is straightforward, then practically speaking the rules are set by the least restrictive state. If the issue is nationalized, then...well, Republicans control the federal government roughly half the time.
I agree that Republicans controlling the government ~half the time is a problem for the pro-choice side when it comes to nationalizing the issue. I suspect if Obama had passed a federal law codifying Roe, Trump would have overturned it; if Biden passes one, it'll be overturned at the next opportunity.
But "practically speaking the rules are set by the least restrictive state" isn't true because logistically, not every woman who would get an abortion if they lived within an hour of a Planned Parenthood will be able to make a multi-day trip hundreds of miles to the nearest state where it's legal.
If all the states expected to pass abortion bans do pass them, there will be a huge number of women 400 or 500 miles from the nearest abortion clinic. For a single mom working two jobs just to get by, or a woman in an abusive relationship whose husband/boyfriend might get violently angry if he found out, or a 18-year-old with no car living with their pro-life parents, or anyone else poor enough and/or with childcare/eldercare/job-related responsibilities they can't easily abandon, that journey may not be possible.
What are you talking about?
Yes, the POTUS can't formally pass laws. But that doesn't mean that he and his people don't have ways to get stuff done.
As an example of ways to get stuff done without formal authority: in the US the minimum drinking age is officially set by the states.
In practice, the feds blackmail / bribe the states with highway funding to get the minimum drinking age they want.
You teased out why as someone with libertarian leanings I am very much in favour of deciding things as locally as possible.
In general, an individual voting at the ballot box doesn't really have any impact, neither in general nor for themselves. But people voting with their feet have an outsized impact on themselves, and still a pretty big impact on others by redirecting their tax dollars to a new jurisdiction.
The more variation we allow at more local levels, the easier and more impactful we can make voting with your feet.
(That's also similar to how ordinary people vote in corporations: Walmart doesn't have a ballot box for customers, but they'll sure notice when I take my wallet to Amazon instead.)
Interstate travel isn't always easy for everyone, plus, that doesn't mean a woman can't be targeted after returning.
Realistically I don't think "decide at federal level" vs "decide at state level" is a choice either side has to commit to ahead of time. Democrats should advocate for pro-choice policies at both levels in parallel.
I'd be more interested in a principled defense of the principle of subsidiarity.
Because next time, it's another issue, with different trade-offs etc.
Deciding things as locally as possible at least makes it so that people's individual votes have the biggest impact on themselves. Eg 1/1,000 on a thousand people, instead of 1/300,000,000 on 300 million people.
I'm assuming here that you share a taste for local government and self-rule.
i feel like the picture of 'local control' as a loop makes sense- when an issue needs the most individual control possible, and it's extremely likely that your neighbors prevent you from having control over your body or property you have a coordination problem. arguably there's a magical world with teleportation where people could simply move to a different location, but switching costs are a sufficient barrier to justify federal protection (or constitutional protection) of individual rights
I'm not sure what you're implying in your second paragraph; if you think you have an insight there, some examples might be helpful.
If you're just talking about censorship, the whole CRT and "don't say gay" debacle indicate this is a tendency in both sides, and the blue tribe has just recently increased their number of relative victories over the red tribe. (An interesting recent example is the changing attitudes for American TV S&P regarding innocent romantic gestures between two individual of the same gender going from unallowable on children's television to airing on primetime)
Can the Supreme Court actually stop state legislatures from making abortion laws? Or is it just the Supreme Court's "hope" that state legislatures will not interfere in the abortion process?
The Supreme Court spent the past forty-nine years stopping state legislatures from making laws prohibiting abortion(*), or at least from enforcing such laws. It has for even longer stopped state legislatures from e.g. making laws establishing racially segregated schools. This is absolutely a thing the Supreme Court can do, at least at present.
We can talk about what would theoretically happen if a state legislature said "you're not the boss of me!" and a state AG doubled down by actually enforcing such a law, but what actually happens is that state legislatures and attorneys general accept the inevitability and stop enacting such laws. Or at least enforcing them; they'll sometimes *pass* a law with the perhaps explicit understanding that it won't be enforced unless and until the Supreme Court changes its mind.
* within certain limits specified by Roe and later Casey.
To my fellow runners:
What's your go-to remedy for sore muscles and stiff joints? I've been upping my mileage per run lately. I'm back in the office three days a week so I can't fit in 4-5 mile runs five days a week anymore. So I've changed it to 8-10 mile runs three days a week.
I've been pleasantly surprised. I thought running fewer days a week would put me in a foul mood - nothing beats back depression like running - but the extra miles are really giving me a wonderful, long-lasting high. I want to stick with this program.
The problem is that I'm achy as hell. Knees, quads and feet in particular. I'm gimping around on my recovery days which makes chasing the kids around difficult. Stretching helps a tiny bit, walking - which fortunately I do a lot of - helps a bit more. But nothing comes close to "fixing" it, and I'm scared as hell about getting injured. I'm getting older - not "getting", I'm 48 and already there - and recovering from injuries from running or lifting is a nightmare these days.
So what are your cures? Would a trip to a sauna help? I'm not actually sure what a "sauna" is, but I'm sure I can find one. Would it be a decent cure? How about a massage? How about a CHEAP massage? I can't regularly drop $300 on this shit. How about something that's free? That would be ideal. How about something that I can install in my house? My wife isn't going to OK a hot tub, but anything less than that I can probably manage.
Thanks in advance!
I am going to disagree with every other answer so far. Most conventional wisdom on recovery is completely wrong and not supported by evidence.
First, you shouldn't be surprised that you are sore. You are doing more work during your running sessions even though the total milage is the same. If you had previously been doing bicep curls 5 days a week for 4-5 sets each workout but recently changed to 3 days a week but 8-10 sets you wouldnt be surprised to be sore. Your body needs time to adapt to the new stresses you are putting it through.
Next, stretching. There is very little evidence to support the idea that stretching is beneficial for preventing injury or recovering from it (plantar fasciitis is one exception). In fact, there is evidence that stretching can reduce performance and may lead to greater injuries by extending the muscles beyond their optimism performance windows.
Massage, foam rolling, etc. Again there is very little evidence these do anything to prevent injury or speed recovery. The benefits people get from these procedures is largely psychological. If it feels good, go for it, but you aren't causing any positive physical changes.
I would try slowing your pace and/or cutting back the milage a bit (7-8 miles at a time) for a week or two and seeing if you get a benefit. Then slowly ramp back up to 8-10 miles.
Here are some resources/sources from real doctors who are also strength trainers:
https://www.barbellmedicine.com/blog/pain-in-training-what-do/ Focus is on strength sports but is applicable to endurance as well.
https://soundcloud.com/user-344313169/qa-part-2-of-4-injuries-w-special-guest-derek-miles-dpt (excuse the poor audio quality)
Firstly, think you're spot on about massage and stretching. Think you're also right that most of the comments so far do not seem to be supported by good evidence in the literature. That being said, think your initial statement is a little extreme.
Conventional wisdom for recovery, as far as I can tell, just says "take some time off" or " be sure to eat an adequate amount of food" or "make sure you get enough sleep". None of these are particularly groundbreaking, and are quite vague, but they probably encapsulate the 20% of recovery that gives you 80% of the benefit.
You are right. I should walk that back some. Maybe it's more accurate to say "many of the products people/companies push are largely ineffective or have marginal benefits".
For foam rolling at least, I'm pretty sure it just hurts. Warm up is definitely good, but I haven't heard anything about dynamic stretching being necessary along with it. Most stretching is actually a neural adaptation anyway: it trains the brain to allow for a larger joint movement before the opposing muscles trigger to stop injury.
I said above I used a massage gun and yes, for me at least it helped with the symptoms, consistently. But I did look and haven't managed to find strong evidence that it actually does more than that. It's cheap though and hurting is bad, so I'm still recommending it, without claiming it does more than that.