Quantumfreakonomics
No bio...
User ID: 324
Quantumfreakonomics
13d ago
My apologies. I forget that a disproportionate share of this community hails from the most topographically inefficient metropolitan area in the country.
Quantumfreakonomics
13d ago
There's a good chance you've read this, but just in case you haven't:
Indians Are Hated Because They Are Dark and Can't Play Football
Quantumfreakonomics
13d ago
it's a 50 minute drive to the nearest proper city
This is an exurb. You live in the countryside. You might as well own a farm.
Quantumfreakonomics
13d ago
Then get married and become a normie.
You say this as if it is a choice.
Quantumfreakonomics
16d ago
It even has a little sign outside.
Quantumfreakonomics
16d ago
The real losers here are movie theaters.
Your grandchildren (if you even get to have any lol) will be completely perplexed that driving multiple miles to watch a movie in a big room with dozens of strangers was not only a thing that happened sometimes, but was one of the nation's most popular passtimes.
Quantumfreakonomics
16d ago
I've certainly heard rumors of this, so I decided to check Polymarket. Turns out it's over. Looks like capital markets are still superior for truthseeking, since WBD stock was not trading at the aquisition price on Friday. Now I have to do merger arbitrage math.
Quantumfreakonomics
17d ago
this story is hard to believe.
Why not? Self-righteous sixteen-year-old me would have done it if I happened to be in the neighborhood.
Quantumfreakonomics
17d ago
I'll have you know that I haven't been a self-righteous sixteen-year-old in many years, and that I am now a pseudonymous stranger on the internet.
Quantumfreakonomics
17d ago
While looking into some loose ends from the UCSD remidial math fiasco from the other week, I made the startling discovery that there are approximately zero legally-enforcable standards that require students to demonstrate any knowledge whatsoever in order to recieve a passing grade. There are however, very enforcable legal requirements for schools not to discriminate against students across a broad swath of categories (arguably including intelligence itself).
It's not entirely clear to me what the incentive is to ever fail any student. My sense is that the university has a vague interest in academic integrity in order to maintain its reputation and accreditation, but that at the individual professor level, the risk-payoff matrix weighs overwhelmingly in favor of passing anyone who provides any legally relevant pushback at all. If you don't give in, and the university decides that this opened them up to a lawsuit, you get fired.
Quantumfreakonomics
17d ago
I have a bit more sympathy for Canadians given that their country isn't dotted coast-to-coast with small cities and large towns. If you can't affort Toronto or Vancouver, where do you go? Calgary?
Quantumfreakonomics
18d ago
I mean, we’ve known this since Snowden haven’t we? I guess until now they were just sitting on all data in the universe and not doing anything with it.
Quantumfreakonomics
18d ago
What does “94% match” mean in this context?
Does it mean that the capitol officer matches the suspect’s gait more closely than 94% of people?
Does it mean that the capitol officer is 94% likely to be the suspect?
Does it mean that 94% of the abstract computer analysis indices are within the arbitrary “match” range for both of them?
How many people exist in the Washington DC Metro that would be at least a 94% match? Without knowing that this information is approximately useless. That is what we need in order to do a basic Bayesian analysis.
A few possibilities in no particular order:
-
This guy is a patsy, thrown against the wall by Kash Patel in a desperate attempt to keep his job.
-
The FBI has had this guy as a suspect for a long time, but they didn’t have the evidence they thought they needed for an obvious conviction in a politically-charged case.
-
Nome of their other January 6 leads ever tied-in to the attempted pipe-bombing. Because of this, they assumed that the incident was unrelated to the other more-important conspiracies that played out that day.
-
The FBI know early-on that the suspect was a leftist or otherwise clearly non-MAGA. It was politically unacceptable to give the impression that any part of January 6 was not the fault of Trump or Republicans, so the case was dropped.
-
The team originally assigned to the case was legitimately incompetent, and nobody ever checked their work.
-
The suspect is himself a fed (unlikely IMO, but the situation is strange enough that we have to keep the possibility open).
EDIT - One more idea after reading Gillirut’s breakdown of the evidence:
- The FBI only recently got the go-ahead to use Palantir technology on the giant NSA databank of all internet activity to find the suspect.
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
Fox News phenotype.
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
Reread Article III and Article I Section 8. The jurisdiction of inferior courts comes from congress, and the Supreme Court’s appellate jurisdiction is subject to exception and regulation by congress. The Supreme Court’s original jurisdiction can’t be stripped by congress, but it is irrelevant here.
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
Well gee, I sure do see a lot of immigration cases in Article III courts.
My sense, without having comprehensive encyclopedic knowledge of the legal process, is that decisions of the Article I administrative courts are reviewable (with certain limited exceptions) by Article III courts.
Quantumfreakonomics
19d ago
It’s not as though Trump is refusing to push the “fix everything” button.
Yes he is. Has Trump even asked congress to strip Article III courts of jurisdiction over immigration claims from noncitizens? Has he even threatened to withdraw from UN refugee treaties?
Quantumfreakonomics
20d ago
Personally, I think these guys ARE state actors
It would explain the extra personnel on the boats. Illegal smuggling as a patronage jobs program.
Quantumfreakonomics
20d ago
How exactly did he end up in this position?
Trump liked to watch him on Fox News.
Quantumfreakonomics
21d ago
I am going to do the, “states rights to do what?”, thing and ask why Kuwait and Saudi Arabia are such close US allies?
Quantumfreakonomics
21d ago
I don't think the ICC rules apply to the United States. (Isn't there an literal statute repudiating them?)
The Geneva Convention is your best bet, but it's pretty vague. I don't think anyone actually wants our armed forces interpreting it literally (okay, some people want that, but I'd wager most people don't, especially not if we were in a real war with enemies who shoot back.)
I never put much stock in the, "we would never follow illegal orders," shtick in the first place. If the military wants to do something in wartime, they'll do it.
Quantumfreakonomics
21d ago
The stupider this becomes, the more likely it seems that this conflict is a result of Trump's fixation with spoils of war and that he actually thinks we can literally just "take the oil."
Now that the dust has settled, were the two Gulf Wars actually about oil all along? All the bullshit we learned in school about Kuwait and the Kurds feels like focusing on the logisical intricacies of the Danzig corridor. "Did people actually believe that?" future schoolchildren will ask.
This is the infrastructure that enables the modern miracle of affordable housing within 30 minutes of a city center, and all it ever gets is hate.
Insane.
More options
Context Copy link