OTOH it would be delightful if Holmes filed a patent on a "method of grifting." But there might be a "usefulness" problem?
I especially love it because she never invented anything, she just imagined an invention & then got patents on what she imagined & everyone apparently assumed the patents meant it was real.
Great thread about the history of clothing prices. Also, hard agree on buying secondhand. You can pay pennies on the dollar for top quality. Even if you’re an odd size like me.
I just posted @IpseDixitPod #844, featuring Zachary Catanzaro of Widener Law Delaware discussing his article "Sovereignty in the Technological Singularity." shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/e…
The essence of art is just doing things.
I have a simpler solution: We should just eliminate law journals. After all, they are pointless & have been for a long time. The only reason they persist is the bogus “quality” signal that we law professors still covet, despite its hollowness.
Yes. AI is good at producing unoriginal content. But people are also good at producing unoriginal content. AI can help us figure out what to ignore. It not only frees us from the burden of creating banality, but also from the burden of consuming it. But do we want that freedom?
A rare opportunity to disagree with The Hoff.
So first, he is right on all the main points, including flooding and how ugly AI slop is, &c.
But I don't love the remedy (and I suspect he isn't too excited about it either?). Pangram is measuring the wrong thing and is also gamable (less so than I thought in the past!). Still the semi lazy can just have Claude generate an article and then rewrite it using meat tokens, and the AI signature disappears without resolving any of the underlying problems. The truly lazy will use AI humanizers, but I haven't benchmarked those.
What to do? Use AI to identify works worthy of human attention! AI triage is the only robust way forward IMHO, and also, I suspect that it's being done covertly anyways.
A lot more to say but I wanted to outline this quickly
There is no free speech problem, because nothing is stopping her from making her novels freely available to anyone who wants to read them. You can post anything you like on the internet, and anyone can read it.
I initially had the same reaction as these writers – the idea of a book being banned because the author has expressed support for a terrorist group is outrageous, as is the punishment of people for saying they support Palestine Action (or any other terrorist group).
What I didn't realise was that Rooney has promised to donate her royalties to Palestine Action. It seems a lot less clear that you should be allowed to conduct business activity with the express purpose of raising money for a terrorist group. The books should be allowed to be sold, but the royalties should be withheld. I would not allow people to fundraise for violent Neo-Nazi or Islamist groups either.
You could argue that Palestine Action should not be proscribed, but that is not the argument being made in this letter.
Sorry, but this is ridiculous. Documentary filmmakers are allowed to criticize you. archive.is/Mfu8v
I just posted @IpseDixitPod #843, featuring Jenn Brinkley @UDaytonLaw discussing her new book "Justice Was Her Calling: The Fierce and Fascinating Life of Dorothy Kenyon" @ucpress shows.acast.com/ipse-dixit/e…
The reason that she has this job is that people are talking about her. That’s literally the business model.
One reason Bari has this job is the remarkable success of @TheFP, which, like @CityJournal and @FreeBeacon, pursues stories that people like this leaker think should be off-limits when they concern far-left Democrats who excite progressive media professionals in New York.
Sorry, but your enthusiasm for a candidate doesn’t exempt him from scrutiny. The DSA’s favorites still have to answer tough questions when credible reporting raises concerns about their ties to terrorist organizations—even when that reporting emerges from a center or right-of-center outlet.
You’d think the whole Hunter Biden laptop episode would have taught newsrooms to have at least a little humility about dismissing reporting based solely on who published it.




















