See the historical notes under proposal and ratification, in particular the table of article revisions approved in 1789. The order of ratification was contingent on a series of historical accidents and has little to do with Madison’s (or any other individual founder’s) intentions.
It would be nice to see folks who take such a rigorous stance on the First and Second Amendments (not in this article, but in author’s book _Battlefield America_) adopt similarly rigorous and detailed readings of the other twenty-five.
Market forces? It was the Haber process and subsequent innovations around nitrogen-fixing. It was scientific progress that saved us from Malthusian collapse.
On the other hand, market forces do explain why 40% of the American food supply is wasted [0] while 12% of American households suffer food insecurity [1].
The 13th Amendment belongs to a different document than the Constitution proper and was ratified about eighty years later. From the standpoint of the dominant school of constitutional interpretation, the distinction matters.
The 5th, 8th and 13th Amendments and their various interpretations in court opinions: this is a good place to start learning about prisoner rights.
Some argue that prisoners do not enjoy access to any constitutional rights, or perhaps only a few of them. But if this were true, surely the Constitution would have explicitly established them as a specific underclass, as it did for slaves.
They’re Ivy schools; that money was already going to the ruling class and their political causes (e.g., as Supreme Court clerkships, civil service appointments, and etc.). As tax dollars, it will at least serve the useful goal of keeping the state solvent.
As other commenters have pointed out any given introductory chapter in a book on Bayesian statistics, including Jaynes’, is better exposition than this. I found _Probability Theory: The Logic of Science_ very easy to follow and very well-written.
I had a similar experience when I finally found a copy of Barbour’s _The End of Time_ and discovered, much to my chagrin, that it wasn’t nearly as mystical or complicated as EY makes it seem in the Timeless Physics “sequence”. Barbour’s account was much more readable and much easier to understand.
Yudkowsky just isn’t that great of a popular science writer. It’s not his specialty, so this shouldn’t be surprising.
> The experts noted that arms transfers to Hamas and other armed groups are also prohibited by international law, given their grave violations of international humanitarian law on 7 October 2023, including hostage-taking and subsequent indiscriminate rocket fire.
Happily, you don’t have to trust what some UN experts (listed at the bottom) are saying about Israel in this article; IDF’s own casualty numbers are the only evidence needed for the thrust of this article to be true.
And yet, somehow, children across the United States get the exact same gender-affirming treatments (including but not limited to hormone therapy, cosmetic surgery, and yes, even genital mutilation) without complaint only if the gender being affirmed happens to match some evaluation of their biological sex.
Anyway, setting that glaring contradiction aside, your argument fails in the context of social transition (e.g., being called a nickname), which is the much more common form of adolescent transition and still somehow elicits the same overreaction you have demonstrated.
Conservative legal minds will argue that the laundry list of topics covered under 102.A includes a duty to censor, e.g., “information on transitioning”. They already believe any and all forms of transition (including calling a child by a nickname, see Florida state law) constitute child abuse. They have already fabricated “evidence-informed information” showing that all forms of transition are harmful, and they’ll argue that only these sources qualify for the 102.B.2 exemption.
Once Chevron deference is dead, all it will take is an act of Congress to enshrine this specific interpretation of the law. Handing FTC the authority to enforce is a fig leaf designed to fool the center-right.
See the historical notes under proposal and ratification, in particular the table of article revisions approved in 1789. The order of ratification was contingent on a series of historical accidents and has little to do with Madison’s (or any other individual founder’s) intentions.