Dedekind Slut

@chasmat.bsky.social

they can’t do that, that’s illegal

The game is still not worth the candle here. If we built a machine that can help produce high quality art in the hands of (some?) practitioners, what exactly is the problem? If we built a machine that can produce high quality art w/o human involvement (we didn't), then what exactly the problem?

Tricia Lockwood@tricialockwood.bsky.social · last wk.

this is troubling! we can’t rely on either detection software or “hunches” because people are biased; consider the handwringing about “proper” language, what constitutes the “literary,” etc. it’s already a pattern that it’s being used against writers of color — 3 Black authors, in this case.

“suddenly it’s legal just because no human ever formed the intent to commit a crime 🙄” Yeah! We’re going to need to amend laws that have an intent element because when they were written it was impossible to violate them without intent! That’s how law and technology works!

Had my credit card number stolen for the first time today. Two purchases: an IG brand of specifically polo shirts and a liquor store in Astoria. I wonder where they could have possibly stolen the number

“Just playing devil’s advocate” is what institutionalists have to do once the prevailing consensus is that (1) the status quo is irreducibly hypocritical but (2) people keep talking about it anyway. Their only path to victory is attacking number (2)

Justin Baragona@justinbaragona.bsky.social · 4w ago

Dana Bash: This word 'Zionist' has been turned into a slur by a lot of people. Deborah Lipstadt says anti-Zionism IS antisemitism, and anti-Zionism has morphed into its own kind of demonization and hatred, a prejudice all its own. Lander: I disagree with that...I don't think it's antisemitic.

Okay, no but actually I keep seeing “quantum computing” specifically called out in reference to defense spending, and is that not still a basic research topic that might not even make it to engineering? Did the equivalent coverage 40 years ago all talk about fusion research, plus ca change, etc?

The feds just made it official: They won't fight a bid by members of the "Broadview 6" for attorneys' fees. They do "not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees." They also say there should be no discovery. Full filing: cst.brightspotcdn.com/dc/d1/e34a37...

I. Hyde Amendment Motion
Discussion
The Hyde Amendment motions are not ripe for decision and may never be. The United States does not intend to contest defendants’ entitlement to reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in this matter as permitted by statute. (To be clear, the United States’ litigation decision not to challenge the defendant’s entitlement to fees, like in any typical settlement, does not concede that the United States has acted or done anything to warrant those fees.) The parties are currently attempting to work out the amount of recoverable fees and expenses. This court should take defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions under advisement while the parties attempt to amicably resolve this civil issue in good faith. The United States received the last of the former defendants’ fee submissions the day before this response was being filed, so the parties are now in a position to negotiate.
II. Discovery
Discovery related to defendants’ Hyde Amendment motions is not warranted under the circumstances of this case nor under applicable law. Defendants sought discovery, in their own words, to give them the “opportunity to demonstrate the bad faith, vexatious, and/or frivolous nature of this misguided prosecution.” Dkt. 206. But they will not be required to make that showing, so there is no reason or basis under the statute or otherwise to conduct that discovery.
Jon Seidel@jonseidel.bsky.social · last mo.

There have been plenty twists and turns in Chicago's federal courthouse since the "Broadview Six" case collapsed in late May. It's been a lot to keep up with. So here's where things stand, one month later, via @chicago.suntimes.com: chicago.suntimes.com/crime/2026/0...