Kai

@kaichung.bsky.social

Condensed matter theorist, math hobbyist

This is just an absurd position. Can a university not weigh a person's biggoted beliefs as a reason not to hire them? Academic freedom definitely doesn't mean you are insulated from any and all consequences for being a horrible person as long as you are technically an academic!

Bild

this is all so fucking instructive if they would take a step back and learn something. you cannot let this happen ever again. when you are weak and crumbling, you cannot revive your prospects by painting everything gold and declaring a victorious golden age. it makes it look even weaker and rotted

Concerns over fake phenomena cannot be held in good faith. There's no such thing as "good faith" concern over razorblades in Halloween apples or vaccines causing autism. If you still have 'concerns' about these issues you are uninformed, a bigot or being manipulated. No other option.

"But then Grothendieck just walked away from academia entirely. In 1971, as he advanced the Grothendieck–Riemann–Roch Theorem, he left a satirical note titled Hexenküche (German for "Witches Kitchen") featuring doodles of little devils with pitchforks, exclaiming: “The diagram is commutative!”"

The quoted note, written in German, which starts "Riemann-Roch Theorem: the latest craze: the diagram commutes!" showing devils with pitchfoks dancing around a commutative diagram with flame coming out from around it, with "Hexenküche 1971" written next to it. Signed "Alexander Grothendieck"

To be clear: the lower court said the map intentionally discriminates against black people in violation of the *constitution* (not just the VRA) and the MAGA Majority of SCOTUS is saying "that's ok now."

Chris Geidner@chrisgeidner.bsky.social · 3mo ago

BREAKING: In an unsigned, per curiam opinion on the shadow docket, the SCOTUS conservatives allow Alabama to use a congressional map held repeatedly by a lower court to have been enacted with discriminatory intent.

At this preliminary stage, the State has shown that it is entitled to interim relief from the District Court's injunc-tion. See Abbott v. League of United Latin American Citi-zens, 607 U. S.
一
(2025) (slip op., at 1-2). The
State is likely to succeed on the merits as to both claims. As to intentional vote dilution, the District Court did not heed the presumption of legislative good faith, see Alexander v.
South Carolina State Conference of the NAACP, 602 U. S. 1, 10 (2024), because it interpreted the State's legal disagreement with the court's earlier remedial order as proof of discriminatory animus. Cf. Abbott v. Perez, 585 U. S. 579,
608-609 (2018). And, as to both claims, the District Court's analysis departed from Callais. Under Callais, the District Court was required to deny relief unless the plaintiffs' alternative map performed "just as well" with respect to all of the State's constitutionally permissible districting crite-ria. 608 U. S., at— (slip op., at 29). Yet, the District Court found a violation even though the plaintiffs' alternative map would not perform just as well as to the State's constitutionally permissible criteria of keeping together the Gulf Coast community of interest and avoiding the pairing of in-cumbents. The District Court also failed to follow our instruction in Callais that the mere fact that voters of different races vote for different parties is not relevant to proving racially polarized voting patterns. See id., at _ (slip op., at 30).