quiet_NaN
19hr ago
As Eisenhower remarked,
Every hungry person who is fed, every cold person who is clothed signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those warships which remain unlaunched and those rockets which remain unfired.
Neither military toys nor social programs have an easily determined ROI.
Consider the Manhattan project. For the purpose of winning WW2 at a total cost of 2G$ (e.g. on the order of a percent of the total war budget), it failed to help with defeating the Nazis and arguably was not needed to get Japan to surrender without an invasion.
On the other hand, it also helped to establish the US as a prime superpower and likely prevented a hot war with the USSR. And in the counterfactual world where the Nazis had worked on nukes in earnest, it would have prevented them gaining a monopoly on them. So it is hard to put the ROI in monetary terms.
For evaluating social programs, there are two approaches. One is to look at them from an utilitarian/EA perspective, but this requires terminal values like preferring people not to die of starvation. The other is to look at them from the perspective of buying social peace: one good reason to feed the poor is that they are not likely to peacefully watch their kids die of starvation when you do not have food programs. Instead, most of them would turn to crime to feed their kids. In a country where food is cheap and labor is rather expensive, it is probably cost-effective to just feed the poor rather than hiring enough police (and lawyers and prison guards) to neutralize any food riots. Relatedly, the other disruptive thing the poor can do even before they turn to crime is vote. Capitalism can create immense amounts of wealth, but this is unlikely to persuade poor people who feel that they do not profit from it personally. So social programs can be also seen as a bribe, where society gives the poor a cut of the spoils so they don't rock the boat. Still, I will concede that it is just as hard to quantify these benefits as it is with military spending.
quiet_NaN
20hr ago
It seems rather clear to me that in a war with China, every participant would lose. I am bearish on it staying contained, for one thing.
Any war involving Taiwan will involve striking military installations on China's soil. Typically, these things escalate. After Hegseth bombs the first Chinese school through carelessness, China may well feel that it is in their interest to make US civilians bleed as well, and unlike Iran they are probably able to do so. And if there ever was an administration which I do not trust to have the strategic savviness to avoid a war turning nuclear, it was the current one.
But even if a US-China war stayed confined, it would be devastating for the global economy. Between sanctions and blockades, most of the international trade in SE Asia would come to a halt. Neither side has much hope to push the other side out, never mind regime change. A war is unlikely to end with the US ceding their Asian interests to China, nor with the US invading Peking and installing a new regime. So both sides have far much more to lose than they have to win.
quiet_NaN
21hr ago
The US has seemingly defied every prediction of its debt being unsustainable.
To his credit, Trump is working on that. The oil trade was long denominated in dollars because the US had an outsized influence on it. Being readily convertible to fossil fuels is one of the reasons why the US$ made a good reserve currency, which is a reason why many countries are stockpiling it and thus subsidizing the US debt (as inflation slowly eats up the value of their dollar reserves).
Under Trump, the US has not been a good steward of the global oil trade. When Iran predictably closed the Strait (because this is the one way they can exert pressure on the rest of the world), Trump loudly declared that this was not his mess to fix. Let Europe deal with it if they want the oil. And I am sure that Europe will deal with it eventually, though not through military means. At the end of the day, we will probably just pay Iran to let the ships through. But at that point we might decide to trade the oil in yuan instead.
After all, China seems like a sane, reliable superpower. Sure, they are troublesome for their neighbors (Taiwan first and foremost, though Venezuela might claim that their regional superpower does not respect the autonomy of smaller states), but unlikely to invade Spain or Germany. So far, China has refrained to wreck the world economy in some military adventure.
quiet_NaN
1d ago
There is obviously a trade-off between competence and loyalty. But where exactly the Pareto frontier runs is dependent on the specifics, like the field you want people to be competent in and the cause or person to which you want them to be loyal.
Finding a die-hard MAGA car mechanic or a die-hard SJ kindergarten teacher is easier than the opposite, for example.
Trump now is selecting for personal loyalty, like some generalissimo. However, what he can offer his vassals in exchange for their fealty is much less than what your average dictator can offer. He has about one year with majorities in Congress left, and then two years more as a lame duck president without majorities (unless he dies first). Most of the prospective candidates have longer time horizons than that. Unlike the Ayatollah, it seems unlikely that he will be succeeded by one of his sons; instead there will likely be some renewal of the Republican party after his death, and having been part of his cabinet might not enhance your career. On top of that, he is likely to push you under the bus whenever it is convenient for him. Noem and Bondi were loyal, whatever unpopular decisions they made certainly did have Trump's backing when they made them. I mean, being the fall guy/gal for the president is part of being part of an administration, but it certainly feels like Trump has more need of them than other presidents did.
Contrast this with SCOTUS appointments. If Trump had to nominate a new Justice tomorrow, I am sure there would be no shortage of accomplished conservative candidates (unless he foolishly insisted that they are loyal to him above the constitution).
quiet_NaN
3d ago
I like books about ideas and can deal with density. But I think a novelist has the duty to respect his readers and put together a cohesive narrative.
I think that there are two disjoint subsets of readers. One subset (including both you and me) prefers literature which has an obvious, engaging plotline. The other subset seems to prefer to signal their sophistication by preferring books which are utterly unreadable for anyone unwilling or unable to analyze at least three layers of meaning.
For class membership signalling, saying that you have read The Lord of the Rings will prove little. After all, the books are very readable even if you stay on the surface level and never engage with the deeper levels of meaning. By contrast, saying that you have read some postmodern novel which is utterly unreadable on the surface level will assure your class peers that you are one of them.
Personally, I am a bit less prescriptivist about it than you are, as long as nobody is making other people read books without an engaging plot. (Decades later, I am still bitter about having been made to read Tod in Venedig and Effi Briest in school. Admittedly, neither was postmodern -- they both had some excuse of a plot -- but the surface level plot was thin as hell, something which could be paraphrased in two pages.)
quiet_NaN
3d ago
First off, I am not a neocon (I was opposed to GWB's Iraq war for example), and don't know how good I a am at the ideological Turing test.
Still, I would say that execution matters. In Iraq and even Afghanistan, the US at least managed to achieve some strategic objectives, like toppling the regimes. A neocon might argue that the bombings were means to an end. (Of course, in my point of view, neither operation achieved a desirable long term strategic outcome.)
Afghanistan was a blunder but at least not an obvious blunder, I am sure that some people predicted that the nation-building would fail, but I was personally not certain of that.
With Trump's Iran war, the blunder is obvious immediately. He gambled on regime change through bombing, and his gamble failed, and he does not have a plan B which is why he is bullshitting about Iran surrendering any day now.
(bombing brown people)
Every ethnicity in Iran is light skinned, and the dominant one has an extremely long history of civilization. Are Chinamen 'brown people'? Russians?
This phrasing annoyed some people, including @Shakes. I apologize, also for being factually incorrect as you point out.
What I meant to suggest was that for the US, killing people in far-away lands which are of different (particular Muslim) cultures is just Tuesday. I think the USG began using drone strikes to blow up weddings beginning in 2010 under Nobel laureate Obama and continuing under Trump. The median voter did not give a damn. My phrasing meant to suggest that few voters cared because the victims were not Caucasians. I certainly did not mean to suggest that I bought into any framework where 'brown' people mattered less personally. I do realize that I am posting on a forum where such views exist, so that was a failure to clearly communicate on my part.
On reflection, I do not think the racism answer for drone death apathy is quite true. The CW waves created by police shooting innocent blacks by mistake are second to none. I think that it is more a case of Newtonian Ethics. People in Afghanistan or Iran are far removed from Americans both in space and social graphs. My personal guess is that the US military killing Australians would upset the voters a lot more. Sure, Australia is also far away, but they speak English and their most recent common cultural ancestor is much more recent.
Of course, Trump has shown the median voter also do not care about him blowing up "drug smuggling" ships presumably crewed by Hispanics, which are both culturally and spatially closer to the US. I am a bit puzzled why that is. It might just be opportunity to oppose, though: in foreign matters, the president has a lot of leeway, so activists can not do much to stop him from ordering military strikes. On US soil, his power is much more limited, so activists can oppose him for sending in ICE or the like.
quiet_NaN
3d ago
In a world where moral status (or, as you will soon see, we could call it moral stature) is defined by a person's height
Given that this is an allegory for the real world, I want to strongly reject your assertion that people equate moral status with intelligence. The way I see it, intelligence is a capability which is roughly orthogonal to morality, just like capital or good looks or being great at a sport are. If you are smart or rich, you simply have the ability to make decisions with stronger moral impacts, while someone who is neither is much less likely to make a difference larger than a few 100 QALYs.
I mean, the people racing to AGI certainly have tens of IQ points on me, and I certainly do not consider themselves my moral superior for that any more than I would consider Epstein my moral superior simply because he had access to vastly more capital than I do.
It is certainly fashionable on the SJ college-educated left to hate proles (who presumably average a few IQ points less than them), and I personally do consider voting for Trump a moral failing, but ultimately the responsibility for Trump rests mostly with the elites -- some of which support him, and some of which decided that poor rural White people did not matter.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
My question was not original, in fact, I might have seen it months or even a year ago, when it went viral because current models failed to answer it correctly.
So there might be three possible explanations:
(1) Models just got better and can solve this now.
(2) It appeared widely in the training data so models know how to answer it.
(3) AI companies explicitly patched their models to correctly answer that question (just like they might fix jailbreaks or outrage bait).
For all I know it could definitely be (1).
quiet_NaN
4d ago
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Thanks for the link with the puzzles, I tried a few, and while I think I found the solution to two random ones I picked, I took some minutes for one of them, certainly among the three most brain-straining tasks I did today. (One of the others involved realizing that you can not mirror the pinout of a two-row 1.27mm connector by turning it 180 degrees, so take my assessment with sufficient sodium chloride.)
I mean, you could probably make an IQ 100 human solve them if you gave them an hour, threatened them with death and gave them enough ketamine to suppress the panic, but due to legal constraints you will get less mileage out of your employees on most workdays.
Basically, I concur that present models are not AGI, but I am much less certain that the median white color worker has much of a moat. If LLMs come for my job in two years, the fact that this proves that my job did not require general intelligence will be of little solace.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Yes. I imagine that 'write python code to count the number of times the letter "r" appears in the word "strawberry"' is easily within the reach of current LLMs.
A better example example would be "Is the pool of the Titanic full or empty?", which is easily answerable by any five-year old who has ever played with a plastic ship in a bathtub, but which LLMs did badly on because they did not have the visual intuition of a sunken ship.
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Come on. Poland gave 4.5 billion euros in military aid to Ukraine, a country which is fighting a very bloody war with Russia. Obviously Poland believes that NATO will protect them from Russian aggression (which is a reasonable assumption when Trump is not president).
quiet_NaN
4d ago
Is this not rather a sign of TDS? Kagan spends decades advocating war with Iran, hates Trump; Trump delivers war with Iran, now Kagan is against the war.
Have you read the excerpt? Kagan is obviously a fan of the US being the leader of the free world (a model which worked well enough for the Western world during the Cold War). I would imagine that his policy (which is more or less that of GWB) is the antithesis of Trump's foreign policy, superfluous similarities (bombing brown people) aside.
In guess in his model, a regime change operation in Iran would work differently.
First, Iran would have to violate the JCPOA so badly that most signatories would agree that it was not salvageable, because unilaterally withdrawing from a treaty would damage the image of the US as a reliable partner. (For Trump, Obama's signature was reason enough -- he clearly does not give a fuck about how other countries see the US.)
Then, the US would try to form a broad coalition, come up with a strategic plan to actually achieve the objectives, think about the obvious Iran countermeasures and how to block them, wait until the troops are in the area and then attack.
Trump did none of these things. He looked at the polling, saw that he would lose the mid-terms between Epstein and ICE, and decided to bomb Iran in a bid to cause regime change from the air. Unlike with Venezuela, he lost his gamble and did not achieve any strategic objectives, because no, blowing up missiles is not a strategic objective.
Your comment makes me update towards the real syndrome being TDSS, where people accuse others of having TDS -- treating the same actions differently when done by Trump -- when in fact the actions of Trump are at best vaguely similar.
quiet_NaN
5d ago
OT side notice:
Blackstone is usually the baseline for founding-era American legal thought [...]
Foremost for Blackstone is allegiance (weirdly shortened to ligeance in a few places) -- those born within the realm owe "natural allegiance" immediately on their birth. Indeed, Blackstone doesn't even believe you have the right to renounce this, stating that it is "a debt of gratitude; which cannot be forfeited, cancelled, or altered, by any change of time, place, or circumstance, nor by any thing but the united concurrence of the legislature".
While I get that Blackstone was an Englishmen, I find it a bit rich that US legal thought should be based on him.
The US was founded by people who defected from what Blackstone would consider their rightful king. In fact, eight of the signers of the declaration of independence appear to have been born in the Old World. One might perhaps weasel around how the declaration of independence was not a defection for the people born in the colonies, because they remained loyal to the government of their colony or some such, but someone born in England coming to the New World and renouncing the king has pretty much rejected the natural allegiance thing. As did any immigrants who came later.
Not that I have a problem with any of that, I firmly believe one's allegiance to one's country of birth is a useful default but certainly not unconditional. If one's country is fucked up enough, an utilitarian has a duty to defect.
quiet_NaN
5d ago
That is probably true for a carrier group, but I don't think the US can airlift destroyers to the middle of Iran.
My understanding is that so far, they have used high-flying jets to attack Iran with impunity. I would expect that helicopters might be more vulnerable. Also, we don't know yet how many short range missiles and drones Iran can launch in the middle of their country.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
I will grant you that the US military has been extremely competent on an operational level so far, but this seems a mission straight from hell.
Iranian enrichment facilities are deep underground. You will not capture them with working elevators. Expect to dig through tens of meters of rubble (if you are lucky) or concrete (if you are not). Of course, the WSJ piece is overly optimistic when it expects that the UF6 will still be in cylinders by the time you get there. At the very least, I would expect it to be blown all over the place. Though I would actually expect the regime to find a a few hundred tons of a cheap substance to mix it in. Obviously not D-UF6, as that would undo the enrichment work, but something which is easily separable within a month or so. I imagine even mixing it with sand would be annoying, perhaps requiring you to heat 100 tons of sand to get it to sublime. Though I am sure that the Iranians have found something nastier. Plus whatever traps you can imagine.
The people on the surface defending the site will not have a better time than your engineers. I mean, obviously you could turn anything within artillery range into Gaza and kill another 50k civilians in the process, but then you might as well nuke their site and call it a day. To interdict infantry from getting into range you would need a continuous bombardment of a sort which would make WW1's Western Front like a skirmish (though admittedly in a much smaller area). For a week or however long your engineers need.
And your excavators can't exactly hide underground, so you need a plan to protect them from every single drone, shell or rocket Iran might try to hit them with.
Nor is it very feasible to just bring your own depleted uranium to undo their enrichment process and leaving it on site. The problem here is that of half the separation work is going from 0.7% to 2% or so. So to undo most of the separation work of 400kg 60% U-235, you would need to ship in 24 tons of depleted uranium in the same chemical form, then mix it really well.
This shows the larger problem: even if it is feasible to airlift HEU out, what are you going to do about the 10% enriched uranium? This already has 85% of the separation work required for 60% HEU in it, but it is also 6 times less portable. Iran could trivially undo the last 15% of separation work and leave you having to scrape up 2.4 tons instead of 400kg.
physically destroying the enrichment facilities would actually provide some benefit to the war and make Iran think twice about re-starting their nuclear program.
Only if you can do so without paying too high a price. If you end up with Iran killing 100 soldiers and capturing another 20 while also spending a couple of dozen billions, Iran might decide that you are welcome back any time.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
You understand Americans largely aren't actually hurt by this.
My understanding is that unlike the gulf states, where oil is the main export, for the US oil is more of a side hustle (on the order of 10% of the total exports or so). A higher oil price will tank the world economy, and that will hurt US exports in other areas far more than their increased revenue from selling oil.
There is a reason that the US has been very active in the ME for longer than I have been alive, and charitably it comes down to the US faring worse if the oil price skyrockets. There is also the fact that the global oil trade is mostly conducted in dollars, which enables the US deficit as countries stockpile US currency.
If the US decides that they have their own oil and don't care about the global market, before long oil will be traded in yuan.
I will grant you though that a high oil price will hurt other Western countries more than it hurts the US, but then again it does not take a lot of economic hurt to lose an election.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
Note: from the perspective of this poaster the main issues facing the UK are: Low Skill Immigration, Economic Stagnation, Integration of Non-European Migrants, Crime
Have you considered that the people voting Green or Labor simply have other issues they consider important?
Take crime, for example. Most crime statistics actually reflect what the police is doing, not what the criminals are doing. Murder rates are often taken as a proxy because most murderers are not competent enough to make it look like a natural death, so we can hope to get a numbers which are roughly independent to police efforts.
The rate of murders in England and Wales (1.148 in 2021 with 684, which has decreased since then) seems roughly comparable to other European nations. Even if a decent fraction of it was committed by immigrants, there is certainly no nationwide epidemic of murder.
Of course, there is also climate change (which the right should care about if for no other reason than that it will lead to more immigration, unless you like living in the kind of state which will shoot unarmed kids trying to get in), the rents being too damn high (effectively limiting upwards mobility for the bottom half of society), the stupid AI race which at best might lead to the median person becoming economically obsolete and at worst to paperclips, and lately an increasingly unhinged US which can no longer be relied upon to lead the free world, and relatedly energy insecurity resulting from their misadventures, to mention but a few.
quiet_NaN
6d ago
As an European, I think it is unlikely that we would revert to Prussian militarism once our energy supply is threatened. I think it is much more likely that we would try to cut a deal with Iran. That would work much faster than building up a navy or paying the Saudis to build more pipelines.
It helps that the situation we find ourselves in is not Iran's fault. Iran did not look at its bank balance and decide to do some shakedown of the international community. Instead, they were subjected to a US-Israeli bombing campaign. Closing the strait is the one way they can hurt the US. So of course they would do it. The Ayatollah regime certainly did enough evil, but closing the strait is something every polity would have done if the alternative was just to allow the enemy to bomb you at leisure.
Europe paying them for safe passage is win-win-win. The gulf states get to sell their fuels. Europe gets its dirty energy fix. Iran gets funds with which it can frustrate the interests of the US and Israel in lieu of crashing the market.
Sure, some might claim it would be immoral to pay Iran when it might funnel that money to Hamas, but I can assure you that we have decades of practice of not watching too closely what our oil money funds. If a polity ruled by religious crazies wants to use our money to kill the citizens of other polities ruled by religious crazies, that is by now a long-running tradition in the ME, and far be it from Europe to try to impose our value systems on Iran or the ME.
quiet_NaN
7d ago
My point is that the strategic objectives which Hamas achieved were indirect, and actually caused by Israeli retaliation. In that Hamas was tremendously successful. Basically, Nethanyahu did everything Hamas could hope for.
quiet_NaN
8d ago
As someone who has recently posted about Israel, I agree with your first and second point.
Regarding your third point, Rabin was a bit before my time, but he seemed like a decent guy. My problem with the present government of Israel can be summed up in that they seem to share Yigal Amir's regard for the Oslo accords and civil conduct.
Oct-7 showed that Hamas was pure evil. If Israel had decided to occupy Gaza and deny them the right to self-determination for a generation or two, I would have been fine with it. Instead, the IDF used bombs to go after Hamas with complete indifference to civilian casualties. Obviously they did not go for an Endloesung.
But apathy to civilian casualties is its own kind of evil, and they certainly had plenty of that. Killing 50 bystanders to get one commander might be acceptable if that immediately ends the conflict (e.g. the commander is Genghis Khan), but the IDF did accept that collateral damage ratios for minor victories which did not change the strategic landscape.
Likewise, we can debate if the IDF used hunger as a weapon in Gaza. I doubt that many Hamas members went hungry, and as you point out if their intent was genocide they did a terrible job of it.
However, I do believe that feeding hungry kids in Gaza -- whose government can not be trusted to do so because they very much prefer them killed by Israel to score propaganda points -- is a collective responsibility of the civilized world. I am sure that some food trucks were smuggling in weapons for Hamas. If the IDF wanted to sift through every pack of flour, I would understand that. But by simply stopping the trucks from entering Gaza altogether, Nethanyahu defected from civilization.
Hamas did not achieve any strategic objectives on Oct-7, nor was that ever their plan. Even if they managed to pull that off a hundred times, they would not make a dent in the Israeli population.
The path to Hamas victory is paved with the corpses of dead Gazan kids killed by the IDF, resulting in the loss of international support and isolation. Nethanyahu's government strode proudly along that path.
And I find Hamas strategy working on myself. I was very willing to stomach some dead kids while the IDF rid the world of Hamas, but what I got was long on the dead kids side and rather short on the wiping out Hamas side.
I would like to think that my attitude to Israel is based on their behavior. If the Troubles had flamed up again in 2023, and Boris Johnson had responded to the IRA killing a thousand protestants by killing 70k Catholics in Northern Ireland through bombs and deprivation, I would likewise stop caring about the fate of the UK as a state. (Obviously I am a utilitarian, so I care about the fates of humans anywhere, but currently I also consider the UK to be a net positive, and would support defending it if it was attacked by vikings or whatever.)
You are right that there are certainly worse regimes than Nethanyahu's in the world, but I would not feel obliged to defend Russia or Iran or Saudi Arabia either if they came under attack.
Nethanyahu's latest attempt to set the ME aflame together with Trump is basically just the icing on the cake at this point.
quiet_NaN
8d ago
Some root factor makes people both more likely to be non-cis AND more likely to be non-cis
I would imagine that there is a correlation with r=1 between the two. SCNR.
I know you meant "victim of CSA and non-cis", which would be weird. But then again, quite a few things could are both weird and true. Generally, everything is correlated with everything else, mostly through boring confounders (perhaps the size of the town one grew up, or absent parents could be a risk factor for either).
I mean, it is also possible that child abusers in aggregate have some preference for victims which are less gendered than their peers, and that being less gendered as a kid also makes one less likely to be cis. But I don't think that is a big effect either.
...So if you have kids, and want to maximize their chances of identifying as cisgender into adulthood, your top priority should be reducing their opportunities for anxiety. Personally, I don't think it is worth worrying about very much. There is a sure-fire way not to have trans kids, and that is not to have kids. I see being trans as a minor medical annoyance for the patient, less severe than diabetes and a bit more severe than Hashimoto. I mean, if we had total control through magical genetics, deliberately making someone trans would be a bit of an asshole move -- like using CRISPR to give someone color blindness so that they can continue to carry on the legacy of color-blind people or some bullshit.
But of all the medical conditions a kid could have (and which might be avoided through embryo selection to some degree), being trans does not feel like a very big deal. (Of course, I say that as one who is happily cis-by-default. OTOH, I have been on antidepressants for more than a decade and would probably trade them for hormones if some fairy offered me the deal.)
Openly worrying about drag queen story hour and queer books would be ironically counterproductive.
Yes, but it is also not meant to be productive, it is performative, signaling. You might as well try to raise non-alcoholic kids by pretending that booze does not exist. Or try to raise abstinent kids by not teaching them about sex, which commonly results in teen pregnancies.
Unless you ban kids who are openly non-cis from schools (which would be problematic), kids are going to get exposed to other kids who decide that they are trans. Of course, talking about how brave they are will lead to more kids deciding that they are trans. A better approach might be to offer them your condolences for them not having the chromosome set they would like to have, use their preferred name and continue with the lesson plan.
quiet_NaN
8d ago
Personally, I can't make heads nor tails of the Iran operation, and I doubt anyone else is doing much better.
I would wager a guess that this includes the Trump administration.
For the most part, war is not 5d chess, where apparent blunders can be actually brilliant strategy.
I doubt that Hegseth and Trump were rubbing their hands when Iran closed the Strait. "So they have fallen into our trap, just as predicted. Now let's do press conferences where we look like fools to foster their beliefs that their strategy is working. They will never realize that we have learned of a Babylonian prophecy that whoever closes the Strait will have their country devoured by the Elder Gods after a fortnight."
quiet_NaN
8d ago
Which is actually the right way to wage war.
If it achieves your objectives, very much so. The problem is that so far it does not seem to do that.
they don't have a single trick up their sleeve so far
Their trick is to close the Strait. So far, they are succeeding with that. If they can keep it up, I think that Trump will run out of popular support before the IRGC runs out of leaders.
This is the same SCOTUS which reverted Roe v Wade, because they correctly felt that that decision was legislating from the bench, interpreting stuff into the constitution which was plainly not in it. To rule that the 14th does not say what it says because there is some nitpick about subject to the jurisdiction would be just as much judicial activism as the Roe ruling.
Of course, this would not be the first time that Trump loses 9-0 in the SCOTUS. Other presidents might try to avoid having their cases torn apart by the court, feeling that making arguments which few if any Justices will follow would reflect badly on them, but the Trump administration obviously does not care.
More options
Context Copy link