Arturo Magidin
@magidin.bsky.social
280 followers 94 following 750 posts
Mathematician. (But I read Supreme Court opinions for fun)
Posts Media Videos Starter Packs
magidin.bsky.social
If you owe the bank a million dollars and you can't pay, you're in trouble. If you owe the bank a trillion dollars and you can't pay, the bank's in trouble.

China owns a hell of a lot of U.S. debt. It is not an entirely futile threat, even if it is cutting-off-nose territory...
magidin.bsky.social
Yes, it was designed into the rules, not the constitutional design. And not by the "founders". Burr, and then a few folks in the 20th. And republicans have eliminated it fir two things in just the past three months...
magidin.bsky.social
Not quite. Once seconded, a motion to call the previous question was voted on immediately. There is usually a higher-than-simple-majority threshhold for *it* (this was Burr's hook for elimination) but it it was a priviledged motion that required an immediate vote.
magidin.bsky.social
..and the current version where you don't even need to tie up the Senate to conduct a filibuster is from 1972. Two very simple filibuster reforms that would reduce its use would be to require 40 nays to continue instead of 60 yeas to end it; and eliminate two-track so they have to tie up the Senate.
magidin.bsky.social
You used to be able to "call the previous question" (force a vote). It was Aaron Burr who proposed eliminating it when he was President of the Senate, arguing that surely all those good folks should be able to talk things out.
magidin.bsky.social
Also, it wasn't the "founders" who made the filibuster possible... it was Aaron Burr when, as Vice President to Jefferson, changed the Senate rules to eliminate the motion to "call the previous question". Cloture to stop it started in 1917 (needed 2/3rds) and lowered to 60 in 1975. No founders.
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
marisakabas.bsky.social
EXCLUSIVE — DHS Acting General Counsel sent out a memo Wednesday to all Federal Protective Service staff (the sub-agency that guards federal buildings) letting officers know they could take any action necessary "in the vicinity" federal property to protect themselves.

The Handbasket reports:
DHS top lawyer says 'no legal barrier' to actions officers can take to defend federal property
In a memo obtained exclusively by The Handbasket, Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers were given free rein.
www.thehandbasket.co
magidin.bsky.social
"There is no way that China should be allowed to hold world 'captive'. That's MY job! Thank you for your attention on this matter."
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
elienyc.bsky.social
In my newsletter this week, I call bulls*** on Ubisoft’s decision to cancel a game because killing Klansmen is now frowned upon in this establishment.
Uhh, also the plot to bomb the Supreme Court and the vindictive stupidity of the James indictment.

But mainly freaking Ubisoft
The Plot That Could Have Deranged America
In his weekly newsletter, Elie Mystal explores everything from the foiled plot against Supreme Court justices to the ongoing plot to foil mail-in voting.
www.thenation.com
magidin.bsky.social
It's a transcription error. The resolution will honor him with the "Novel Piece Prize".
magidin.bsky.social
I really think petit bourgeois have a bad rap. Don't see what the problem is.
magidin.bsky.social
I don't doubt it, but this was dropped with no context, no indication that it was over 2 years old, *and* that it was in the middle of a contract dispute that was, in large part, about the use of "AI". I'm not saying he's wrong, or he's changed his mind. I'm saying it should at least have the date.
magidin.bsky.social
it's not math, it's Vibe Graphing.
magidin.bsky.social
Note that this interview took place in May 2023, during the writer's strike.
www.npr.org/transcripts/...
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
kathryntewson.bsky.social
The bros are at it again! and make no mistake, they are LITERALLY calling it "Vibe Lawyering"
GitLaw Alpha - Vibe Lawyering
magidin.bsky.social
If "because it agitates and irritates crowds" is sufficient reason for the government to take away freedom of speech, then I move that we take away Trump's freedom to speak, followed by his entire coterie of bootlickers.
atrupar.com
Trump: "We took the freedom of speech away because that's been through the courts and the courts said you have freedom of speech, but what has happened is when they burn a flag it agitates and irritates crowds."
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
magidin.bsky.social
If your industry requires you to use and abuse the property of others for your own profit, then it's not an industry; it's a hostile invasion.
magidin.bsky.social
I really look forward to the day she authors the 9-6 majority overturning Presidential immunity.
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
joycewhitevance.bsky.social
Looking for one thing you can do right now to help protect the right to vote? It will only take a few minutes, and you can share it with all of your friends. joycevance.substack.com/p/a-thing-yo...
A Thing You Can Do Right Now To Help Protect The Right To Vote
The U.S.
joycevance.substack.com
magidin.bsky.social
From Quino's "Mafalda" strip.
A girl walking away from a globe that has a placard reading "Warning! Irresponsible people working"
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
disabilitystor1.bsky.social
You cannot, by definition, be eugenicist to an LLM.
Thats not what eugenics was, is or means.
But also, it should worry everyone when tech people like Hailey dehumanize the actual survivors and ongoing victims of eugenics by making comparisons like this--its alarming.
timnitgebru.bsky.social
A someone who has written extensively about the eugenic roots that permeates those who claim to be building so-called artificial general intelligence, I'm here to tell you to please NOT compare criticism against corporations claiming to build a machine god, with eugenics. The audacity.
if you're writing a sentence that sounds like eugenics but you go "oh that's fine to say because it's not a real person" (whatever that means) you may want to consider what made you okay with saying that.
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
mjsdc.bsky.social
KBJ’s blunt question today about the Supreme Court’s culture war hypocrisy kind of floored me, because it’s the kind of meta-criticism that we aren’t used to hearing from the justices.

It’s the second day of the term, and things are that dire already. slate.com/news-and-pol...
With One Damning Question, Ketanji Brown Jackson Defined the Supreme Court’s New Term
The justice stripped the veneer of constitutional principle from the court’s latest blatant culture war.
slate.com
Reposted by Arturo Magidin
chrislhayes.bsky.social
Just go ahead and delete article 1 entirely while you’re at it.
peark.es
Well that's not how appropriations work at all

*WHITE HOUSE TO TRANSFER TARIFF REVENUE TO FUND WIC: LEAVITT