@gattsuru's banner p




9 followers   follows 0 users  
joined 2022 September 04 19:16:04 UTC
Verified Email


User ID: 94



9 followers   follows 0 users   joined 2022 September 04 19:16:04 UTC


No bio...


User ID: 94

Verified Email

Wait, why does Scott trust Aella’s data?

If it's Worth Doing, It's Worth Doing with Made-Up Statistics.

I'm... skeptical, for a variety of reasons, but the underlying concept isn't obviously wrong. Bad data is still data if it's coming from an honest actor, and for the sort of really clear effects we should care about even a dishonest actor becomes a lot more obvious if they're just completely making things up.

WebP wasn't awful for 2014 -- though it wasn't as clearly beneficial as Google tried to argue, the major alternatives were either obnoxious to implement (JPG2k/JPGXR) or had annoying licensing issues (HEVC) -- but it's since been badly outmatched by more focused variants. Google has been pushing AVIF as the next step, with good reason, and while JPEGXL isn't without its downsides (how many fucking flags can the example implementation have?!), if you were building a new project from the ground up (or especially with a lot of pre-existing jpgs to transcode) and didn't absolutely need motion video support, I'd almost always recommend it.

And it does have some obnoxious limitations. Pixel size is the one that's bitten me in the butt the most often -- yes, 20k+ pixel dimension images probably should be done in a mipmapping/tiling format like JPG2k, yet there's a surprising number of use cases it still comes up -- but the fixed chroma subsampling is the most incomprehensible.

I think WebP gets more of an unfair rap than format deserves, largely downstream of how aggressively Google pushed it and the extent it's been used as justification to cut off support for other formats in Chrome- and Chrome-derived browsers. But it's really frustrating what Google and Chrome developers have done as a result of the format.

More feminist fantasy in the Mercedes Lackey or Tamora Pierce sense: a large proportion of characters and especially viewpoint characters are female, women's issues pop up in ways that are uncommon in mainstream fiction (even 'mainstream' cultivation fiction), the viewpoint characters are much more self-driven than in typical works for the genre, so on. There's some of the Girl Power! stuff going on, but it's more cultivator-on-cultivator pranking or sabotage than preachy aesop.

I don't think you're playing word games, so much as you're getting played by word games.

At the trivial level, I think the Krick complaint has a pretty sizable amount of what O'Rouke's final order on sanctions on calls out as :

Given the circumstances of this case, it was not enough to merely accept as true (or potentially true) what might be stated in the media, what had been pushed out over the Internet, or even what was included in other lawsuits filed around the country.

There's some sunlight between it and O'Rouke, but not much. Quite a lot of the 'specific' citations have nothing to do with the actual legal theory, and even some of the ones you highlight are just pulling statements by randos out of their original context, or taking routine actions as evidence of a dire conspiracy. And while you emphasize affidavits with a lot of padding, there's a number of specific and actual (though false!) claims with connections to violations of law (that the plaintiffs misunderstood or had no standing to challenge).

My deeper objection is that this distinction is pretty uncompelling to normal people, and in ways that undermine your point. The precise legal theory and the relevance of specific claims to it is interesting, and it does genuinely matter when someone submits unmoored claims or specious legal theories to the court, and hurt when people aim pants-on-head-crazy ones at you. There's reason that courts are more likely to assign sanctions for 11(b)2 than 11(b)3 for reason, and it's not just that judges can evaluate those questions more easily and review them more reliably, or even that lawyers can.

But it would be kinda nice to know that the lawyers in question had checked if a Pakistani Airlines pilot had actually seen a missile anywhere near an SM-2 (or even what his or her name was) or what if any conclusion the FBI had pronounced after investigation, or what the relevance of PCR for canned tuna would be, or if Wisconsin drop boxes were operated in violation of state law, in addition to whether this mattered for the underlying question of law and whether they are sufficiently specific. That's the more conventional read of "the attorney has made reasonable efforts to investigate it themselves to make sure they're not just re-shoveling whatever bullshit their client dropped on their lap". This is part of Rule 11 (b3, to be precise), and it's possible to get sanctioned for failing this test, but it's extraordinarily uncommon and the standard is extremely forgiving. (see discussion here under "Reasonable Inquiry").

There are reasons this stance is so forgiving, and I can be persuaded that fair and open access to the courts is worth the costs of spurious lawsuits. But if your selected example of one includes a full pepe silvia of questionable newspaper clippings and depends heavily on a couple bullet points that are little more than "Trust This Rando Pro Se Litigant, he totally has retired navy and FBI people dropping hot tips, bro," it runs into problems. Or where the complaint, across three amendments, launders claims because the PhD biologist must have missed the people citing him.

You're probably even right in the sense that the people with their names on the complaint are totally hands-clear. Krick doesn't have Stalcup on the complaint or submitting an affidavit; Amin merely hired rather than submitted as an honest expert witness Dr. Barber. But it's not like the behavior in O'Rouke was better where it followed that trick: the initial complaint launders several specific factual complaints originating from Johnson v. Benson in Detroit. But we recognize that the plaintiffs were on notice for O'Rouke when we seldom do the same for people with comparably bad factual allegations.

There's some ESL (especially among cultivation fiction), but the average writer just isn't that good, and the average litRPG/progression fantasy/isekai writer tends to be a little worse than average. That said, some recommendations, with the caveat that they're almost all unfinished serial pieces, starting with the strongest characterization and working down.

  • Forge of Destiny, feminist fantasy cultivation fic. It's not the most original plot or system -- think the protagonists of Kill la Kill go to Wuxia-skinned Hogwarts -- but the characterization is very strong and the style starts decent and quickly works its way up.
  • Beware of Chicken, comedy cultivation/isekai. Main character dropped into the half-dead body of a junior sect member and promptly nopes the fuck out of the rat race, to quickly find a different sort of challenge when he's the biggest fish in a tiny pond, as accidentally uplifts spirit beasts and grows a cultivator-grade rice too valuable for anyone to buy. The original version needed an editing pass like whoa, and it was still worth it; the reworked (though Kindle Unlimited/purchase) version is much cleaner.
  • _The Humble Life of a Skill Trainer, progression fantasy, low-stakes. Main character is a skill trainer, in the sort of system where the line between 'teaching specialized skills' and 'physical and psychological torture' is blurry at best. Mostly focuses on smaller-scale politics and interpersonal stuff than how to best stab the Big Bad Evil Guy. Tone is a little too self-introspection focused, but it mostly works out rather than feeling like a bad Hannibal clone.
  • Delve isekai/progression litRPG. Crushingly realistic take on the everyman-dumped-into-an-abandoned-system-world genre. Somewhat interesting approach to avoid shonen syndrome by making the main character's combat skills very numbers-driven, explicitly. Pacing sometimes suffers, especially if you're reading it 'live', and a few characters are pretty wooden -- Amelia has a lot going on, but you're not really sold to care in the same way that Tallheart's stoicism or Rain's ADHD or even Reese's frustrated cynicism manages to grip -- but there's a lot of serious consideration for how people-as-people would treat a gamified system of this class.

I think I disagree.

Yes, there's a trivial sense that we aren't going to see DeSantis sued to destroy or dissolve his real estate business operating under New York State laws, given that he doesn't have one. I'm rather hoping that's not the core and central argument for your claim. Political actors have made no small number of attacks, both legal and social, against people who did nothing, or did nothing legally wrong; that fraud case against DeSantis is just the funniest. Federal politicians have been lost their seats and been convicted for allegations that didn't make sense and weren't true.

Political actors are neither unified nor rational nor solely motivated by effectiveness. Their preferred approach will vary according to the person and situation, but they'll also vary based on personal flippery, on the motivations of volunteers and donors, and on the recognition of norms and fear of retribution, among other things. And many of these, most critically, will be more important than the actual guilt or perceived vulnerability of the target.

That's why for Trump -- with all of his clear and tremendous faults -- also got slapped with a wide variety of aggressive lawsuits based on hilariously false claims and/or with no interest in the facts. It's very unclear that this will be different for anyone else; it's not even clear that the trial results would be tremendously different.

Yes, this didn't happen historically. There were a ton of calls among progressives to jail (or try in the Hague) Dubya, but it never happened. But it's been sixteen years since the end of the Dubya presidency. Even ultimately 'unsuccessful' attacks have turned out to work, progressive efforts to take over institutions that would defang or blunt these attacks have been wildly successful, and we've learned the hard way that a small industry can operate solely around building this class of tool.

Before the official report came out, there was a lot of suggestion in the media that it was caused by an explosion, though, IIRC, it centered more around terrorists planting a bomb in the cargo hold than an errant missile. Hell, I remember it being news when the investigation revealed that it wasn't a bomb.

Witness statements claiming to have seen a missile of some kind were first proposed days after the crash, and the FBI pushed it fairly hard as a possible terrorist act for quite some time. A handful of witnesses took out newspaper ads, encouraged when a few early tests of wreckage turned positive for trace amounts of RDX and PETN in late August. (The official story is that these traces were left over by Gulf War transport runs.) By November, a retired federal Senator had endorsed the theory of a Navy blue-on-green incident.

Some of this was serious belief, and some of it was just an accident of different and conflicting approaches to community relations. The NTSB is famously resistant to publishing information before a final report, excepting where (a partner) orders regulatory or emergency shutdowns; the FBI held press conferences when they found information, in the theory that they should be asking both partner agencies and the public to report any unusual observations.

To be fair, TWA 800 exploded over the Atlantic, south of Long Island and outside of Long Island Sound; most of the friendly-fire theories involve the "30-knot" track that was a further 3nm south of TWA800's last known position at the time of explosion.

Which is still really close to have this sort of report. Which is... a good part of the problem for almost all the Krick's second-hand reports of alleged rocket 'near-misses' being an SM2, rather than other object; this does not look like the behavior any of the witnesses describe.

... I think your perspective is rather badly turned into word games, in a way that is only persuasive to lawyers.

((I also have some big rants about the extreme rarity of sanctions against prosecutors, even in view of high-profile and serious misconduct, but they're often not operating under civil procedures and I expect you have bigger complaints given your vocation.))

As a metaphor, have you ever heard of the Subway Tuna lawsuit? If not, the complaint is here. It's an absolutely fascinating read, filled with bombshell allegations where genetic testing revealed 'tuna' products containing not only no tuna but not even fish...

And which were fake. At best, the plaintiffs depended on a claim of this genetic testing's relevance for this sort of food authentication from some citation laundering out of context; more likely, they had to actively shop (as the New York Times did) to find a lab willing to take their money for a test that they'd have to disclaim was meaningless. And the plaintiffs (or at least their lawyers, did the whole monty of other trumpy behaviors, such that the eventual order about sanctions read:

Counsel failed to meet deadlines, including deadlines to serve discovery responses; failed to serve expert disclosures; failed to file all of the supplemental materials ordered by Judge Cisneros on March 17, 2023; filed an untimely and false declaration with Judge Cisneros regarding their failure to comply with discovery deadlines; produced deficient discovery responses; served an improper deposition notice; and misstated the record in both their motion to dismiss and their opposition to Subway’s motion for sanctions.

Of course, there's a punchline:

But that does not demonstrate that counsel acted recklessly or in bad faith when pursing Amin’s claims before and after April 2021.

By any reasonable colloquial (or normal human) use of the terms, they absolutely did. I'll be exceptionally charitable, and perhaps rather than trying to shakedown or embarrass a sandwich shop with false claims, Amin was merely incredibly go-focused and managed to find an unscrupulous lab on the very first try. When this returned chicken in most samples (for those in the audience, American tuna salad is made using mayonnaise, which in turn is made using chicken egg) in a substance that was not chicken to the naked eye, they perhaps genuinely believed Subway somehow had developed secret technology. The inappropriateness of DNA barcoding as a technique in many conditions is not hugely obvious; Derek Lowe rather famously let his preconceptions hit an industry he already (if reasonably) didn't like.

But two years in, faced with masses of documentation consistent with tuna sourcing, the plaintiffs had nothing but a single set of genetic tests. They did not investigate; academic discussion of the inappropriateness of DNA barcoding for canned or vacuum-packed pre-cooked tuna was well-established as early as 2015. They found (laundered) citations offering what they wanted to believe, and fought as hard as possible to obfuscate that.

There's some meaningful difference there, to judges and lawyers. To anyone else, it looks like the plaintiffs just carefully split off the people making hilariously false claims from the people making the lawsuit, despite clear connection in focus and interest.

I don't know what actually happened for TWA800. The official story is far more reasonable than the conspiracy theory, but I'd have said the same for Ted Stevens, Waco, etc. Shootdowns have happened, although the timeline

But I can tell you that this complaint stinks in the same way.

The complaint depends heavily -- in many ways, near-entirely -- on claims made by Thomas Stalcup of private conversations or interpretations of long-public knowledge in implausible ways. Nearly a page (76-82) consists of unnamed persons who supposedly encountered missiles after TWA 800 (and, perhaps more importantly, after the missile theory had been publicized). The named sources are often paraphrased aggressively, in exactly the sort of ways that would be done if attempting to mislead (most critically, "personally aware of at least a dozen Aegis missile tests off the East Coast of the United States around this same overall time period" would be absolutely critical evidence if it meant a dozen live tests near New York City in early 1996, and absolutely meaningless if it was the well-disclosed Wallops Island, VA testing center that the public knew about in September 1996).

Edit: to be clear, this is not a defense of the standard theory for twa800, or of your electionisy lawyers. And I do recognize there are reasons these symptoms are this way. But it looks a lot less like clear duty of candor to the court, or even focus on the dignity of the court; given your two examples, it seems more a matter of the dignity of the judge.

Political actors will virtually always use whatever weapons they can against their opponents. It's not as if we've existed in a state of peace and harmony up until this moment.

This seems untrue for any sense more meaningful than the tautological one where any tool unused 'must' have not be available.

Eric Holder was not impeached nor charged with contempt of congress after the DoJ switched hands, despite his original Congressional contempt vote being widely bipartisan. Despite the fevered wishes of every progressive on the internet from 2003-2008, Dubya never faced criminal charges. Lujan Grisham was not impeached, the calls to censor couldn't even get all Republicans, and she will not be facing a hundred citizen grand juries for clearly unconstitutional executive orders; she has not so far faced a single one.

I'm not proposing people avoided these mistakes out of the goodness of their cold, shriveled hearts. Indeed, there may well have been tactical causes, or even simple ignorance or inability. And yet.

Democrats will not sue DeSantis for fraud

That's an interesting specific example to bring forward! Let's go drink from a tall glass of water and look at some headlines from a little over a year ago.

It’s a pretty impressive advance; there were a few short (30-60) frame models earlier, but they were extremely prone to weird or trippy physics or perspective faults. There’s def some selection going on, but from the paper, SORA seems able to produce more coherent videos than even many traditional 3d animation.

The most interesting part for me is going to be the potential for transfer or vid2vid. There’s a number of videos in the paper along those lines, and while they don’t always work (pixel art), I could def see a lot of animators making rough skeletons of the fundamentals of a scene with 3d tools (maybe with physics simulations for larger objects/fluid) or live actors, sending it through SORA, and then repeating modification to get fine details down.

This sort of thing is a good part of why it's difficult to seriously prove matters, and why I push so hard about fair and quick access to neutral and open courts.

Konnech eventually sued LA County, which settled for 5 mill. It's not like this stuff would make TTV's claims credible even if they were true -- their claim was just that Konnech had run a poll worker software server in some way that stored data in China, which would have been a PII boo-boo (that a lot of places struggle with) but said nothing about the actual 2020 vote -- and Konnech had a fair defense that the LA criminal lawsuit was based on claims that, even if true, were more contract breach than criminal violation.

But I can't find much out about whether they were true. Given the LA County DA's office makeup at the time charges were filed, it seems weird to have gotten fooled by TTV shitpost-grade claims, but it'd I'm not sure if it's weirder than five million dollars.

If I had to bet, I'd say that TTV are lying (or being so extremely credulous or indifferent to the truth that the difference doesn't matter), but I don't think this is the best evidence for it, simply because whether or not they believe what they're saying, there's quite a lot of reasons to be willing to go to jail rather than reveal sources (or 'sources') or leave a lot of paperwork anywhere that would.

Remember the Biden Journal thing? Plea bargains aren't proof of anything, but the subsequent rulings make it extremely likely that the journal was real. Annnnnd Veritas founders were had their homes and offices stripped in morning raids that left them standing in their skivvies, the feds someone who must have stumbled on random paperwork somewhere leaked privileged information to the New York Times who was in the middle of suing these guys, the informants/thieves singled out for felony prosecution (with a plea), and the whole mess was at least a small part of why decreasing trust from donors and potential sources drove Project Veritas bankrupt.

EDIT: and that wasn't exactly a theoretical example for TTV specifically; they'd been slapped with a Voting Rights Act lawsuit pre-J6 that went to (bench) trial and is in the appeals process today.

Thanks you. Trying to decide if it's worth reposting mediated group hallucinated reality, but have readded the other links and updates.

I don't care about TTV, and I don't care about their evidence. I saw what happened in Atlanta, in Philadelphia, in Detroit.

I don't think this is coherent. If you believe or especially if you have evidence of X, you should be absolutely frothing at the mouth if a bunch of people yelling loudly about not!X are soaking up a ton of money and attention and trust for grifting to coopt your beliefs. That looks different than Meskhout's position, but it's not ambivalence, either.

If you're on Windows, ChromeCacheView is the easiest way. It will default to the current cache, but clicking the stop button in the bottom left, and then click File-> Select Cache Folder will allow you to select any other folder, and it'll look in that folder and descending folders for cache data.

There's (too many) filter options, but the easiest combo is to enable View -> Use Quick Filter, then type themotte.org into the Quick Filter textbox that shows up. Select the ContentType column header to sort by type, and look for the text/html files. Shift-select the ones you want to export, and then use the right-click Copy Selected Cache Files to... copy them into a directory you can find and read through. They'll then be accessible like normal files.

I think this misses the most damning part of Trump's actions, where he egged on the mob while the attack was well underway and directed them to target Mike Pence. That "Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what needed to be done" tweet, posted at the time when there was an angry mob actually forcing their way into the capitol, is utterly indefensible.

There's a lot of damning things, at a pretty wide variety of levels. Again, if you want to make the argument that Trump's behavior was bad, indefensible, or impeachable, I'm right there with you. But incitement is not 'this is bad++'. It is not even the category of 'this speech is illegal++'.

Under modern jurisprudence, the speech must be intended to cause imminent lawless action, and be likely to do so. Pointing at things he said after already starting a riot is kinda missing the test; him "fanning the flames" is not just insufficient but has been insufficient for seventy-plus years. ((This gets even harder if you must prove that Trump intended them to commit insurrection, rather than inciting mere riot or threatening speech by others, though I make no assessment of whether this would be required for the 14th Amendment.)) And as bad as Trump's behavior was, or how useful his disqualification might seem in the moment, there are good pragmatic reasons to want to keep this rule here; even outside of the question of other politicians who've 'summoned' rioters, the extent protest leaders or organizers can be held responsible for the violence of people attributed to their movement is not some theoretical question.

There’s reason that Baude/Paulsen start channeling the wacko sides of the alt-right when they talk about the First Amendment being overridden by the Fourteenth.

But it doesn't give us all that many examples in general - the 14th Amendment only operated for a short time before the Amnesty Act was passed, there were far more who understood and respected the law (e.g. the fifteen or sixteen thousand who petitioned for their disqualification to be removed)

That sounds like fifteen or sixteen thousand examples. The problem is that I can't find any serious breakdown of every or even a large number of those petitions, even ones giving higher numbers of the total disqualified ("twenty thousand men scattered throughout this country who are under the disability of the fourteenth amendment", from someone who might know). What I can find overwhelmingly points to Confederate officers and soldiers, suppliers and politicians. They look and sound more like evidence, if individually weak evidence, of disqualification focusing on its stricter terms.

That doesn't always mean those disqualified did things that were worse than Trump, or even that what they were disqualified for was even bad -- Senter and Nelson weren't great men during Reconstruction, but were anti-Succession and only held office in the Confederacy as a quirk of fate. But I can't find an example of, say, a propaganda writer or chickenhawk Fire-Eater; when I go looking, I tend to find people who probably should have been disqualified and were not instead (tbf, in Brown's case, likely for political reasons, as Georgia was a particular clusterfuck, and I haven't been able to confirm he was not given amnesty or un-disqualified by Congress). And you'd think that the advocates of the more expansive takes of Section 3 would be quick to highlight one, if such evidence existed.

Meanwhile, large as these numbers are, they're tiny compared to the number of sworn (surviving) soldiers and political officers of the Confederacy, the clear and central condition for disqualification. Not all of them would be disqualified to start with, if only for lack of previous oath, but you could probably fill almost that entire roster just those who surrendered at a handful of battles.

And from the other direction, while I've not seen any provide 'fanning the flames'-level incitement as cause for disqualification, I can point to Vallandigham, who was far more closely tied to specific actions, had clearly-covered past offices, and was neither challenged nor as far as I can tell felt he needed to apply to Congress to try for office. And that was one of the examples Baude/Paulsen and the Amar brothers picked out!

So I don't see the paucity of speech-only cases to be a mark against contemporaneous analyses like Stanbery's that included incitement.

I'm not denying Stanbery's analysis; he clearly finds incitement to be cause for disqualification. And it's certainly possible that Stanbery's analysis was broader than the modern-day understanding of the term. Indeed, likely it was at least a little broader, though Confederate abuses of the term against Union officers had lead to serious skepticism.

But it's not like there was some shortage of Southern Confederate blowhards and other Cavaliers who ran their mouths more than their feet or money; the paucity of even attempts or arguments about such cases seem to be a mark against modern-day efforts to read Stanbery's incitement to far more maximalist and sweeping breadths than he or his compatriots every used.

[following from Ashlael originally]

My expectations at this point is that we see a more procedurally-focused overturn of the Colorado Supreme Court, without much engagement in defining insurrection, but I think it is important to actually engage with.

I agree, it looks like we'll get a majority opinion saying something like "States can enforce section 3 against state officials but don't have jurisdiction to disqualify federal officials" with perhaps a concurrence from Gorsuch and Jackson saying the President is not an officer of the United States and a lone dissent from Sotomayor. So tough luck for Mr Couy Griffin, but Trump himself looks like he'll get through fine.

Trump is alleged to have a) given a bad speech, b) asked or ordered the removal of metal detectors at the crowd near the Ellipse, c) not quickly or sufficiently enough told rioters to stand down, and d) wanted to go to the Capitol.

I think this misses the most damning part of Trump's actions, where he egged on the mob while the attack was well underway and directed them to target Mike Pence. That "Mike Pence did not have the courage to do what needed to be done" tweet, posted at the time when there was an angry mob actually forcing their way into the capitol, is utterly indefensible. One can argue that Trump did not intend for his ellipse speech to incite the attack, but there can be no such possible excuse for this statement. He did not merely stand idly by as the insurrection went on, he actively fanned the flames.

Now, you can still try and argue that this is merely "disloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies" rather than actual incitement, but I disagree. By virtue of his position - both as the actual President at the time and as the perceived rightful election winner in the minds of the insurrectionists - Trump's words carried a lot of weight. Just as an opinion in a random Southerner's mouth becomes an order when said by Jefferson Davis, Trump was unequivocally the political leader of this mob, and his statements egging them on were obvious incitement.

That's not to say that the Mike Pence tweet was the most significant act of incitement Trump committed - obviously the attack would have happened without it (it was already well underway) - but it's the one where the intent is clearest.

I acknowledge that the historical record doesn't give us examples of people being disqualified purely for speech (except Berger, and I agree with you that case serves more as a cautionary tale than an example that should be followed). But it doesn't give us all that many examples in general - the 14th Amendment only operated for a short time before the Amnesty Act was passed, and there were far more who understood and respected the law (e.g. the fifteen or sixteen thousand who petitioned for their disqualification to be removed) than those who took it on and had to be thrown out. So I don't see the paucity of speech-only cases to be a mark against contemporaneous analyses like Stanbery's that included incitement.

[apologies for the renotification on this]

ymeskhout and I discussed a possible debate on this matter, and it didn't work out in a "we wouldn't really be adding anything new" way, but I understand you suggested the topic and recommended me, so I think you deserve a more serious response here. My expectations at this point is that we see a more procedurally-focused overturn of the Colorado Supreme Court, without much engagement in defining insurrection, but I think it is important to actually engage with.

Most immediately, it's worth spelling out the ellipses from that source: "Disloyal sentiments, opinions, or sympathies would not disqualify, but where a person has by speech or writing, incited others to engage in rebellion, he must come under the disqualification." This wasn't exactly about the 14th Amendment -- that wouldn't be ratified until just over a year later; Stanbery was discussing the First Reconstruction Act that referenced the 14th amendment but did so in a context where those state governments were "in all respects subject to the paramount authority of the United States at any time to abolish, modify, control, or supersede" -- but it is meaningful as contemporaneous evaluation.

But it leaves a complex alignment between speech, opinion, or sympathy, from incitement, and very little exploration to distinguish one from the other.

Which we don't really have that much actual evaluation and especially action on, especially contemporaneously. Baude/Paulsen bring John Floyd as the prototype of a disqualifiable traitor, as does the amici brief from the Amar Brothers, and in many ways their list -- a major advocate of the South and Confederacy, weakening soon-to-be-Union forces, ordering arms to be delivered to soon-to-be-Confederate camps -- is underselling things, so the unfortunate fact that he died before the 14th Amendment was ratified (or even passed Congress) seems almost superfluous. But they are underselling things: Floyd joined and served in the Confederacy, and contra Baude/Paulsen was infamous for it. Philip Francis Thomas didn't join, but he gave money to his son to do so (also, another one that technically was before the 14th Amendment was ratified but used other powers). ((The Amar brothers throw in Benjamin Stark, which is a remarkable non-sequitor since he was not disqualified, was only alleged to have given disloyal speeches, and had the whole debate long before the 14th Amendment's ratification.))

And that's the contemporaneous examples Baude/Paulsen, or numerous other advocates of the Section 3 theory, find closest to simple advocacy. This list offers a handful of Confederate soldiers, a governor, and then tries to draw Kenneth Worthy merely holding local office. But Worthy held a local sheriff's office sworn to the Confederate cause. Especially in that era, the sheriff's office was a role with significant tactical and logistic ties to the confederate military.

The one clearly-speech example we have is Victor Berger, in the WWI-era. Which seems to fail Stanbery's test the other direction -- I've had a hell of a time trying to find exactly what Berger actually published, precisely, but most sources and the court records describe it as a generally anti-war (socialist) position, rather than incitement by even the broadest definition. And Berger was convicted before he was disqualified, albeit by a biased judge, disqualified by Congressional vote, and after SCOTUS overturned that conviction because of that judge's bias, the charge was dropped, and Berger was later seated. This seems far more an example of the nadir of First Amendment protections than good law. And outside of the whole Brandenberg/Hess swaperoo caselaw since, there's also just the bit where accepting it would allow disqualification of wide varieties of political actor, including the oft-cited bizarity of the Iran Deal 'counting'.

The contemporaneous example, Couy Griffin, involves clear and unambiguous evidence direct instruction to violent crime and (indeed, plea to) of trespassing.

The only other good source we have are the people who weren't disqualified. Baude/Paulsen bring up Clement Vallandigham, a pro-Confederate Northerner who was so obnoxious that Lincoln ejected him from the Union, gave advice to Confederate leadership (and was claimed to give advise encouraging Confederate invasion of Pennsylvania!), and was just in general involved at a distance with an absolute ton of Southern chicanery (planning a prisoner of war camp prison break!). He ran for election multiple times after the ratification of the Reconstruction amendments -- while he never won, neither was he ever disqualified from the ballot. If he were a one-off, perhaps that'd be a matter of missing him, or maybe just not wanting to validate his complaints, but I pick him because he's Baude/Paulsen's example: at least a few other prominent Confederate sympathizers and political advocates were similarly allowed to run unblocked.

Okay, so there's clearly a speech/non-speech divide -- perhaps some messiness about speech that gets close to or becomes action, or if someone had purely expressively associated with the Confederacy. Clearly the January 6th rioters were not just giving speeches!

But Section 3 isn't about if Trump talked to insurrectionists, or his speech motivating insurrectionists; Trump must himself had engaged in insurrection against the United States, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. Even Stanbery's analysis divides advocacy from incitement, and the standard for incitement has only tightened in the intervening century. The only purely-speech disqualification was done by Congress, and involves facts that any advocate should run away from screaming. The other available cases point overwhelmingly to personal (usually violent) action, material support of the confederacy, or sworn membership in a conspiracy or confederacy. There are certainly ways that might have happened, such as if Trump had ordered capitol police to stand down or directed arms shipments to them (Floyd), or given Proud Boys his credit card and said to buy guns (Thomas), or had he won a kung-fu battle with the Secret Service and driven the Beast through barriers surrounding Congress. I actually have a lot of deep questions I'd like to have answered about the original Capitol Police response.

At least so far, no one has provided serious evidence of any of these things. I can't cordon them off entirely, since the only really implausible bit is Trump giving out his own credit card, but we at least don't have proof or even particularly serious allegations of any of them. Trump is alleged to have a) given a bad speech, b) asked or ordered the removal of metal detectors at the crowd near the Ellipse, c) not quickly or sufficiently enough told rioters to stand down, and d) wanted to go to the Capitol.

A, C, and D are not compelling, without more than present here. There is not some special exception to First Amendment protections for speech alleging election fraud, even knowingly falsely alleging election fraud, contra a large number of commentators; that a matter is so critical people care about it enough to become violent has historically been cause for greater First Amendment scrutiny, not less. That speech preceded a riot; that it preceded long enough that police were already on scene before it started does not always break the 'immanent' prong, but raises its eyebrows and waggles heavily -- even pre-Brandenburg, SCOTUS was widely skeptical of convictions based on a rowdy speech preceding a riot. That Trump wanted to march with the proto-rioters toward the Capitol is damning of his person, and everyone highlighting it is certain that he would have then ordered his team of morons to break down the Capitol's doors -- I'm certainly skeptical of his claim that he would have intentionally damped down the rioters..But he did not actually do so, and the evidence everyone brings of specific intent from that demand is a joke.

The Colorado courts provided little serious consideration of this matter, or even much of a pretense, trying to read tea leaves about how any past criminal behavior by any Trump supporter must demonstrate that Trump 'knew' his language would be read as not merely encouragement toward violence, but directions to do so. But Brandenburg requires, at its core, intent, and Colorado brought (and Colorado SCOTUS emphasized) experts that disclaimed any serious insight toward intent. And the First Amendment's broader protections against vague laws that impact speech way heavily, here.

I prepped other citations to talk through with Meskhout -- along with discussions on the Baude/Paulsen claims that the 14th amendment overrides the 1st, or that there is no 14th amendment interest in ballot access such that the 1st amendment applies -- and I expect that this would have ended up the bigger part of our discussion, but it's a space with an absolute ton of broader caselaw and little of it in the modern day caselaw makes for an easy disqualification. Can draw it in more detail if requested.

B sounds more meaningful at first glance, but it runs into the problem where the Ellipse is the front lawn to the White House, almost two miles away from the Capitol, not a point at the Capitol building itself or even the infrastructure guarding it. More honest authors (note; the overt acts rule proposed here is a new one in this context) try to take this as evidence that Trump knew that the rioters were armed, rather than just wanting, but even supposing that was true and Trump believed at the time it was true, it is not an act that would have or could have furthered rioter efforts, given that they would have had to turn around and exit the magnetometer-covered area to head to the Capitol.

None of these proven or seriously alleged behaviors are close to John Floyd, Cousy Griffin, Phillip Thomas. Hell, they’re closer to Stark than Vallandagham.

I think the Republican party and the country as a whole would be better off had Trump been impeached, convicted, and prohibited from further office in 2021, especially if it could have been accompanied by serious evidence of direct crime or support of the rioters. We don't have that; the second impeachment was more interested in politics as usual, and perhaps that more serious evidence does not exist.

This approach can't get us there from here, and in trying it, advocates have opened up a wide number of absolutely terrifying problems spaces -- Gorsuch's parade of horrible where a self-executing 14th Amendment requires military officers to consider if the President has disqualified himself is not even far on the scale of awful and community-destroying fault.

While not relevant to the death penalty conversation, adding to felis-parenthesis's hypoxia stuff, I'll add first-hand experience. Part 91 regs require supplemental oxygen if you're spending more than 30 minutes at 12.5k feet above sea level, for the crew for any amount of time over 14k feet above sea level, and for all aboard for any time over 15k feet above sea level. These are not the only conditions where judgement and ability will be impaired.

(For pressurized aircraft operating under any FAA class, above 25k feet, you need both the aircraft's supplemental oxygen, and then the pilot flying additionally has to have oxygen on-hand and easily accessed, as well as alarms, because fulminant hypoxia can knock you out in seconds. Above 41k feet they have to be wearing that supplemental oxygen constantly. But you don't see that in commercial aviation unless people goofed up bad.)

10k feet above sea level is easily achieved on many non-turbocharged piston aircraft, and most people can breathe fine in most weather conditions up there. But altitude is not the only thing that impacts pressure. General aviation pilots mostly think about density altitude for takeoff and climb engine performance, as hot tarmac at high surface levels can significantly impact your max takeoff weight and climb rate. But it also changes the amount of oxygen available in every breath of air. Similarly, some levels of shorter-term anemia (and age) make people much more sensitive to density altitude changes, and some people just don't compensate as well (probably mostly genetics? Women tend to be worse-hit on average, but the worst-hit I've seen are male and don't seem to automatically breath deeper as their pulse-ox falls) .

This wouldn't be too bad if you noticed it. But low blood oxygen, especially subtle hypoxia, doesn't feel like you're drowning, or suffocating, or even like being drunk; the warning signs to look out for are difficulty with night vision and memory problems. Felis links to a video of a guy with slowed reaction times and a derpy look and some memory loss at 20k+ MSL with 60% pulse-ox (and I've seen people pass out in those conditions!), but I've seen people lose awareness at 80% pulse-ox, and their fellow pilots not noticing for ten-plus minutes -- at best, their copilots just nodded off, but more often subtle hypoxia goes from fixation on an already-completed task to simply the lights being on, but no one's home. Sometimes they'll realize that they've lost time, but it's sometimes just a headache when they get back to normal oxygen levels.

Most videos will emphasis 18k+ feet, where the impact is more immediate and more obvious to observers, because this range tends to also impact self-assessment and judgement, and because those accidents tend to involve bigger aircraft with more catastrophic impacts, while subtle hypoxia at lower altitudes is extremely hard to diagnose even among recovered or surviving pilots. But even with strict (though not always followed) rules on supplemental oxygen and common dire warnings, there are a lot of close calls and a number of likely hypoxic events at lower altitudes.

Apropos of nothing, but this is similar to what carbon monoxide poisoning survivors report. Most American smoke detectors do not also detect carbon monoxide; if yours do not, or if you're unsure, you can get reputable ones for ~30 USD/per.

If you're running Firefox, your browser cache will be located at C:\Users\<YourUserName>\AppData\Local\Mozilla\Firefox\Profiles\<YourProfileName>\cache2. On Windows, the easiest way to access it and filter files is to use MZCacheView.

For Chrome, it's C:\Users\<YourUserName>\AppData\Local\Google\Chrome\User Data\<YourProfileName/Default>\Cache\Cache_Data, and ChromeCacheView works pretty well in Windows.

I haven't tried any Linux or MacOSX equivalents yet; most I've found are Python2-based and likely out-of-date, and while there are reports of getting these apps to work under Wine, I haven't had need before.

In either case, depending on your system settings, cache can get cleaned out surprisingly quickly, so if there are specific posts you're look for, at least copy these directories to new locations sooner rather than later.

Unfortunately, I didn't have TheMotte on my archiving list, so I don't have much in the way of local copies of other people's posts myself. Not sure if anyone else has been more aggressive here.

... I guess I should also put down a marker, here.

This isn't going to work.

Trace done an excellent job presenting fine details from the case, and I'm sure he'll put together some first-hand stories and highlight some of the most ridiculous behavior even better in the next couple weeks. Even for the broadly cynical, he's shown that the behavior was worse and more blatant than we would have imagined. More than a couple fellow Mayor Pete fans have joined his call for the FAA to settle. His argument about the dire status of conservative journalists is absolutely correct, and even if I disagree with no small part of the oft-recently-linked Republicans Are Doomed, it definitely applies for the specific case of 'people who can present this in public and be taken seriously'. But this was a story back when it was Rojas, and it's been a big story in general aviation circles for a couple years, now. It's great to see how the sausage is made, if you care, but that's a big if and only if.

Maybe the plaintiffs will end up with a settlement that exceeds their legal and school fees, but they're not going to be made whole -- they're not even trying to become ATC at this point, and the federal government isn't in the habit of giving people years of their lives back. The curious loss of critical e-mails that would prove or disprove the matter aren't going to result in criminal charges or broad warrants; the systems to even attempt to handle FOIA non-compliance on that scale simply don't exist, no when everyone involved is committed. Stancil's not going to eat crow, even beyond his normal bit where he'd have an aneurysm were he forced to try. Very close to zero skeptics of the Rojas or Brigida claims will be persuaded on this matter, no matter how elegantly a friendly helper providers a Forms example of the test, or how nice the eventual powerpoint presentation looks, or if there's a sufficiently fancy animation of the whole process.

Most critically, the people doing this won't be stopped from trying other highly-similar ways to do the same thing, nor found personally liable, nor even face the credible threat of being personally liable in the future. They won't even be embarrassed.

Fifty dollars to a charity of Trace's choice, otherwise: I'll admit I've been too cynical a few times before. But I'll still bet it's not going to happen, and it's not going to happen no matter how smart and quickly and connected and clever a team of well-education people who care come into a room Substack and give a Sorkin speech. I'd like it to be another way, but it's not.

I'm going to make a different critique than most people, here :

It means that if people like you, and you’re doing well, then you can commit lots of mild misdeeds and journalists will never bother you. But if you become unpopular, or seem weird, or take a stand against something widely believed, then investigative journalists will dig up all your decades-old mistakes and ruin your reputation.

This is hilariously naive. It's not just or even mostly journalists, in the same way that a pressure wave isn't just or even mostly any one particle.

There's a poster on tumblr named brazenautomaton, who's a bit of a mad artist in all of the best ways. One of those are his rants -- and I use the term as a compliment -- on popularity. I can't find the best one of the top of my head, but as a good example:

It’s not self-hatred at all. It’s popularity. These “woke” white men who can’t shut up about how evil white people are tend to be attractive, well-off, upper-middle-class, and most important of all, popular. Inherently popular. Other people instinctively align themselves with their goals and desires, because they are popular. Because they are popular, their goals and desires are “Punish unpopular people”.

If you are well-off, attractive, upper-middle-class, and popular, you have very very little to fear from social punishment, because people will not WANT to punish you. They want to punish unpopular people. One of the best ways you can find unpopular people so you can punish them, is to just start trying to punish everyone in your zone of perception – the other popular people will remain unpunished, the middling people will suffer a bit but you don’t care, and the unpopular people will be revealed by how much punishment rains upon them because they do not have popularity and thus are unable to stop it from happening. Then, once you have located the unpopular people by seeing who actually gets punished from your omnidirectional punishment attempts, you can continue to punish them. Forever and ever and ever, because it will never end, and they will not stop, and they will not be stopped.

Yes, this is clinical depression, though see Scott re: Malcolm Muggeridge. It's also non-falsifiable: anyone who can be punished can't be popular, and anyone who is popular can't be punished. But it's also a pattern that exists.

Scott knows this, more intimately than most. It's not like that's even a one-off! But I can play examples of the confessed rapist you could not even discuss the 'allegations' of over at RPGnet, until they annoyed someone enough to get booted, and then the deluge. I can give examples as severe as alleged grooming and as minor as 'appropriated her own culture' in the furry fandom. Nor is it specific to online or the left: the pastor everyone loves until, posthumously, it turns out everyone had a horror story about is trope with a lot of recently-live examples. Nor it is about big stuff: the Friday Fun thread conversation about Palworld has some steelmen, but it's almost certainly downstream of some popular people wanting to start wars over AIgen.

You and I will do it too. It's hard to care for what's real, rather than what's talked about and what the people around you find important.

Maybe Scott doesn't think it necessary to say, maybe he knows that one of the big rules for being on the Inside is that you don't mention that there's an Inside.

But it's not just the journalists doing this, and I'm increasingly convinced that they're neither driving the stampede nor surfing the crowd.

Imagine if everyone committed minor tax fraud in the course of day to day life, but only partisan Republican activists were prosecuted for it. Well, they're being destroyed by the Truth, right, so this is good?

I think "only" is where this metaphor falls apart. Quite a lot of people get smacked for plagiarism, often less severe plagiarism than discovered here, both in Harvard and in the more general world. Perhaps those hits are only a small portion of all plagiarism that occurs, but it's clearly not something only partisans need fear.

This doesn't undermine Scott's broader point about journalist motivations, but that's separate from the question of Gay's 'destruction'.

Nowhere there or anywhere else do I call anyone racist for doubting the claim, or call anyone on the board racist.


And, yeah, this is white fragility. In a week when two white kids lost a highschool debate for quoting Ben Shapiro, and also a week where a black homosexual was severely beaten with a rope tied around his neck while the attackers yelled homophobic and racist slurs and yelled 'MAGA Country', which one did we spend 3x as many comments talking about? When some people can't walk down the street without fear of violence, why is this tiny incident apparently so much more worthy of our notice and concern?

While earlier:

But I'll say this, for those who aren't aware: part of the standard progressives critique of classical liberalism - ie 'lets be blind to differences' - is that, in practice, it always ends up favoring those already in power and reinforcing existing power structures, and that when there are 'accidental' deviations from the maxim of blindness, they always coincidentally seem to involve hurting minorities and those without structural power. See What was Liberalism, especially section 2 starting around 3:30.

So while it's off the mark to directly call this sort of classic liberalism 'racist', the steelman accusation is that it has a tendency to favor the continuation of racist structures if such things just happen to already exist. And the corollary is that any public intellectual who talks about these issues should be aware of this tendency because this is a pretty basic and old critique. And the corollary to that is that the people who stridently ignore this problem and pretend it doesn't exist, are probably doing so for motivated reasons... which is where we come to the accusations of racism and the relevance of pointing out the demographics of the speaker.

You not saying it, just implying it favors the continuation of structures that do it... well, if you want @somedude to issue a mea culpa and say "the kind of progressive who calls people racist makes two-faced and not-especially-subtle insinuations people are racist", hope you enjoy that. I'm sure they'll love the opportunity to say it twice. But it's a pretty weak defense.

And we have had this discussion with me talking about my mistake of getting drawn in and believing there must be some truth to the story several times on the old subreddit (mostly that I didn't think cops would fail to correct misstatements about gross physical evidence of injury, updated on that now).

That's closer (perhaps I missed the 'several'), though it rather failed to engage with your original position.

The reddit entries are here. I should get back into reviewing and converting them, but it definitely wouldn't hurt to have more people doing it.