There’s a perception gap here; people who practice music are better at hearing music, so it appears to non-musicians that practitioners are just snobs drawing arbitrary distinctions. This takes a moral tint if you assume (as people do) that aesthetic value is a function of human expression!
Do things have parts? I
I mean FedSoc’s last few student conference themes have been an exercise in humiliation. It was all checks and balances for Biden, this year, since we’ve unified that executive some more and threatened federalism, it’s called ‘Liberty Rising.’
The generation that would be making stuff cool is both locked out of the economy and pretty disinterested in going out in person
for technical reasons I think it’s unlikely that frontier devs are liable for consumer use in most cases. But I guess I’m confused about whether and why it’s a developer/deployer prerogative to make sure that all legitimate uses are accessible (esp if the cost is enabling illegitimate uses)
Why would we have to do that? CSAM is already illegal, we don’t have to concern ourselves with how or why you made CSAM or what your software company can do to comply. If your product generates CSAM as a side effect, that’s a products problem, not a shortcoming of the legal system.
Surely a state can have rights in the same way any other entity can. Maybe better to say that the core instance of rights-bearing is in human rights, but not the sole instance?
You seem well-positioned to get a gang together to write a Historical Restatement of the Common Law, since our court system apparently needs one for some reason.
makes me feel a lot better that lawyers only had to do watergate before we got ethics classes and a professional responsibility credential.
It’s a bit crass to come out and say "give this man a banker’s bonus for shooting a lib"
Yeah they should take on a real team like bama or osu
In February 2019, at a horse livery yard in the UK, a fascinating experiment took place. A team of evolutionary biologists from the University of California, Davis, and their UK collaborators, investigated why zebras have stripes. In the name of science, they dressed several domestic horses at Hill Livery in zebra-striped coats, and studied them alongside actual zebras.
no fucking way
Im not like totally immune from the idea that full-blooded Dworkinian commitments entail some sort of ur-law principles, but I’m confused about Vermueles particular order of priority
Yeah yeah, I see we’re at an impasse there. Happy holidays!
Structural for the argument or structural for the academy (qua gatekeeping)? I struggle to agree with either, but if we want kids to have habits of mind that enable puzzling out how filesys works, they'd be better served by embracing complexity than assuming obscurantism, no?
like sure it’d be better for us if we could simply intuit the Ideas by skimming all papers precisely once, but the absence of that condition doesn’t signal a vice to me. Maybe I’m susceptible to bullshit, though, idk
My objection is that "hard sentences are meaningless!" is simply not true. And further we neednt believe that the hard sentences you identify as meaningless are, not least because there are several generations of professional academics who have followed in the footsteps of both the people you name?
I just don’t get your read. You could make jokes like that about lawyers, mathematicians, logicians, etc - it seems more of a critique of the academy or exasperation at the difficulty of being complete than an admission that everything that’s not SVO English is obscurantist gibberish.
Right but all of those could easily be read as asking for rigor, not obscurantism. It seems more likely that literacy declined precipitously late in the century than that everyone of a certain vintage was "gatekeeping" their field with scary sentence structures.
Where are you getting this?
Easy, you should assume that the priors of the most socially privileged are the correct ones.
Apparently Prof. Kerr also knows what the good is in spite of (!) Socrates making trouble.
In fairness Euthyphro knew what he thought until Socrates showed up and started making trouble
You might be happier if you gave authentic human learning a go.
One problem with the framing is the assumption that colleges are for authentic human learning. This is not true; colleges are for reproducing class advantages by assigning gold stars to the best-resourced. Students and parents and administrators are rationally upset when teachers insist otherwise.
this just reads as a straight endorsement of Schmitt. If you think he’s wrong, that’s one thing. If you think he’s right but wish he wasn’t that’s another.
It’s called hedging
’But it would be expensive if I internalized the costs I generate!’ is not a winning stance.
the dr. pepper tuition contest has always been messed up but this year it’s so bad lmao
