Hundreds of former judges sign on to an amicus explaining the obvious, namely that unexplained shadow docket orders can't create binding precedent. www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25....
(Because of course they can't. What's the ratio decidendi??)
Here’s a full draft of the upcoming second edition of my “Data Visualization: A Practical Introduction”: socviz.co
This presidency is such an obvious vindication of the garbage can model of decision-making.
Woo 🥳
The word institution is soooo annoying. Sometimes synonymous with organization, sometimes with norms.
The same applies to institutionalization. Sometimes synonymous with diffusion, sometimes with becoming entrenched.
Really gross.
I get that, but I think in this particular case (filter and slice) the side-by-side is helpful!
You can do tidyverse with a little base.
For example, teach about logical subsetting with df[x, ] next to df |> filter(...)
Or integer subsetting with df[i, ] next to df |> slice(...)
I did this very minimal thing many years ago
acastroaraujo.shinyapps.io/CEF-BLP/
I need the guy who played Joffrey in Game of Thrones to play Nick Shirley in whatever movie comes out of this mess.
Want to learn about computational social science *for free* and identify new research partners across academic fields? Apply to one of the 2026 Summer Institutes in Computational Social Science (described in yellow in the attached map) here: sicss.io/locations
👀
People in this country should care about constitutional and international law precisely because it is how we respond to massacres.
The Conference of Catholic Bishops is... not playing around in this brief.
www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/25...
Never heard of Health Ranger. But I have heard of glyphosate.
Sorry, I just didn’t expect so much nuance attached to “abject pseudoscience”
Yeah, like how vaping is good because it’s better than cigarettes. I get it.
Are you saying glyphosate is good?
“the commons” lol
Thank you, it means a lot coming from you!
I agree with this.
We barely engage with his work. We only ever talk about his understanding of the word "function." The original idea was never to cite Parsons at all!
lol, that's fair
how did you overlay that red line on that old graph? it's great
#sociology peeps: I am organizing a section at ASA called neuroscience, cognition, and sociology. Please submit. Please pass around. Papers need not do both neuroscience and cognition...
For me, personally, the most interesting discussion is administrative. For example, whether people are entitled to an explanation for decisions that affect them; whether bureaucrat discretion is better in some circumstances; moral deskilling.
Does political philosophy count here?
I hope you include a footnote about how the existence of leap years is a fucking disgrace for data analysis
ergms, ergms, ermahgerd
my great idea when i sit down to write
hear hear
bsky.app/profile/acas...
![Wikipedia entry for dinkus
In typography, a dinkus is a typographic device or convention that typically consists of three spaced asterisks or bullet symbols in a horizontal row, e.g. ∗ ∗ ∗ or • • • . The device has a variety of uses, and it usually denotes an intentional omission or a logical "break" of varying degree in a written work. This latter use is similar to a subsection, and it indicates that the subsequent text should be re-contextualized. Such a dinkus typically appears centrally aligned on a line of its own with vertical spacing before and after the device. The dinkus has been in use in various forms since c. 1850.[1][2] Historically, the dinkus was often represented as an asterism, ⁂, though this has fallen out of favor and is now nearly obsolete.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:2zcfjzyocp6kapg6jc4eacok/bafkreiat5pvuu2mdh5bauxt7uxlo4rdf6bue3exmrmskgi5aycbemv5dyq@jpeg)
Wikipedia entry for dinkus In typography, a dinkus is a typographic device or convention that typically consists of three spaced asterisks or bullet symbols in a horizontal row, e.g. ∗ ∗ ∗ or • • • . The device has a variety of uses, and it usually denotes an intentional omission or a logical "break" of varying degree in a written work. This latter use is similar to a subsection, and it indicates that the subsequent text should be re-contextualized. Such a dinkus typically appears centrally aligned on a line of its own with vertical spacing before and after the device. The dinkus has been in use in various forms since c. 1850.[1][2] Historically, the dinkus was often represented as an asterism, ⁂, though this has fallen out of favor and is now nearly obsolete.
perennial reminder that this typographic thing:
* * *
is called a "dinkus"
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dinkus
