let's give this a whirl draw's a bit tight but it's flavorful and the ash is holding well so far

again, i repeat: show us the model used to make these forecasts, otherwise it's just vibes, experts or no

https://twitter.com/Jabaluck/status/1663744727664013316

treating experts like oracles (ignoring the issues with the survey) is fundamentally wrong-headed; experts in quantitative disciplines derive their authority from their ability at the formal disciplines they've mastered, not from some third-eye ability to intuit the future

still my favorite (possible) tolkien easter egg

https://twitter.com/d08890/status/1424927343081140239

would be neater if it were ``erum'' and not ``eru'' but still

it's like i always say: the chief benefit of an elite education is never again having to be impressed by an elite education i'm glad in undergrad i did hard things, that meant that grad school was basically a breeze

you gotta admit, even if you hate quine, that's a banger of an opening paragraph the whole paper is full of'em

lol, lmao

https://twitter.com/Harvard/status/1587157059782561793

the impressive thing about harvard's argument here is its internal tensions/incoherencies

on the one hand, race is portrayed as just one of many factors; otoh, if they stopped using race in their admissions, their ability to maintain diversity would be ``severely compromised''

prince of egypt music goes so fucking hard it's amazing

https://twitter.com/ANUKhemet/status/1587063078901907457

debates about gatekeeping usually strike me as nominally being about whether gatekeeping is bad but actually about who gets to gatekeep e.g. people say that ``how is this philosophical?'' is gatekeepy and bad in one context, but ``you didn't engage with [insert huge body of literature here]'' is perfectly fine

the freedom of association argument for deplatforming is interesting, but may not lead to the results its proponents would like

(but then i suspect, uncharitably, that it's pretextual for many of them) suppose, for example, that someone doesn't want to use their artistic talents for an expressive purpose they disapprove of

should fall under roughly the same freedom of association argument, no?

extra-fucking-ordinary this is why we've been kvetching about snopes and fact-checking more generally for years

you take a statement where all the claims made are, in fact, *literally true*, but because you think it lacks important context you rate it ``mostly false''

worthless, utterly worthless

i guess it was too much to hope that new gawker would be anything other than the cesspool of fucking degens the old gawker was, huh

gawker.com/politics/sinem… @peterthiel our nation turns its lowly eyes to you

there's some stuff that resonates with my (and my sister's) experience here, and some stuff that doesn't

https://twitter.com/tarawestover/status/1488870296006316034

the experience of pressing dental issues, for example, is all-too-understandable (i lost a tooth to decay in school)

but i don't think it's correct to say that what the author did is no longer possible -- both i and my sister did similar things

the path just looks different

then maybe you shouldn't be holding forth about it?

https://twitter.com/mattdpearce/status/1481717147873148929

fwiw the reasoning, as is made clear from the sentence immediately following this, is that while covid is a hazard, it is not an occupational hazard in the sense of a hazard that is incurred as the special result of pursuing an occupation

black panther was almost universally loved and feted, what are you talking about

https://twitter.com/smallllou/status/1481747029508431878

haven't seen eternals or black widow yet so i won't speak to their merit, but captain marvel's problems as a film are pretty obvious and pervasive, and have little or nothing to do with the fact that the protagonist is a woman

you know who's an underrated bassist? tim commerford as exhibit a:

i too long for the impact of an arguably malignant family to have continued

https://twitter.com/BeschlossDC/status/1481753052906504199

google ``rosemary kennedy lobotomy'' for a good time

ran this experiment with my ethics students:

suppose that to obtain massive benefit for a society, it was necessary to torture an innocent person, and suppose that this person consents to be so tortured

is it permissible to torture this innocent person?

almost all said yes beginning to think that placing so strong an emphasis on consent in interpersonal ethics and its consequences have been a disaster for moral reasoning

what the fuckity fuck

https://twitter.com/BurnswhenI/status/1454200929557823492

who would've guessed that mike was hot

i don't understand how you can do political philosophy and be this completely unmoored from the political reality of the country you live in (no we are not in the last few years before an authoritarian republican one party state, what the hell are you smoking jason, stop reading daily kos and come back to reality)

the question as to why 17th and 18th century thinkers didn't take ``true motion'' to be a primitive in their theory has, i think, both an interesting history and context and an uninteresting answer the answer (my hypothesis is) is that since by ``motion'' was meant not motion generally, historically, but a species of motion (local motiob, spatial translation etc], treating it as primitive doesn't make sense; the genus always helps define the species