Is a good way to see they are getting better, and in particular are at least no more politicized than they were in 1992?
05.12.2024 14:06 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0@jessriedel.bsky.social
Quantum info & foundations @NTTResearch. Fueled by loathing of bad explanations. Seeking a rigorous definition of classical branches in many-body wavefunctions.
Is a good way to see they are getting better, and in particular are at least no more politicized than they were in 1992?
05.12.2024 14:06 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0I still see them on the mobile app and browser. You just have to click through to the tweet itself. Is it being rolled out slowly or something?
05.12.2024 02:20 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0Can any implications be drawn?
04.12.2024 03:23 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0Probably this is wrong and too political economy-y. But I like it.
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0This implicitly and *necessarily* involves ceding power to the regulatory agencies (hence, to the executive). But thatβs a price they might pay if their constituents are easily fooled by the ruse. Fin.
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Likewise, if opposing congressmen are strongly motivated by threat of being voted out by unsophisticated constituents, they might compromise on legal language that is vague/underspecified so that both sides can claim victory to their constituentsβ¦
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0They say βthe other country agreed to X!β, when the actual treaty text is very unclearβ¦
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Ok. Consider international treaties. Itβs well appreciated that treaties can often be incredibly vague, and this vagueness has the feature that both sides can return home and claim they wonβ¦
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0(They probably donβt endorse this, and itβs doubtlessly unoriginal, but new to me.)
Like, why would you willingly give up massive power over the nation, and often give it to a President you dislike? Why not *trade* it for something?
Itβs said that congress has been abdicating large parts of itβs constitutional power to regulate by passing laws so vague that the executive branch effectively has the power to decide whatβs illegal. The natural question is: Why would they do that? Some capitol hill staffers helped me with a theoryβ¦
04.12.2024 03:17 β π 1 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0What were they, so I can compare them to what I saw on Twitter?
03.12.2024 17:17 β π 3 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0If the decision was made by society, in what sense does this undermine the elephant-and-rider metaphor? Most people do not say "After thinking carefully, I decided to trust the wisdom of society".
03.12.2024 14:46 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0The arrows don't perfectly align with the line...
02.12.2024 23:16 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Wouldnβt be a big deal if it was only a handful of seminal papers that did this, but in fact lots of papers (especially in math) have abstract that are way too short, and itβs motivated in a large part by the desire to look impressive.
02.12.2024 22:30 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0These sorts of abstracts should be discouraged. They project impressiveness, which can be accurate but are nevertheless a form of bragging, and have the distinct downside of not actually doing their job: summarizing whatβs inside to help the reader decide if itβs worth reading for them.
02.12.2024 22:30 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 1 π 0Of 944 Twitter accounts, it matched 144 to Blue Sky accounts, and I haven't found a false positive yet.
02.12.2024 07:36 β π 0 π 0 π¬ 0 π 0This Chrome extension scrapes your Twitter account for the people you follow and identifies potential corresponding accounts on Blue Sky. Also nicely uses auth token rather than password.
chromewebstore.google.com/detail/sky-f...