Author Archives: Michael Froomkin

Useful Blog: The Vetting Room

I’ve just discovered The Vetting Room, which looks like a very useful blog offering short descriptions of the qualifications of, and potential controversies about, nominees to the federal judiciary.

Or, as they put it,

The Vetting Room is a legal blog dedicated to discussing, examining, and analyzing judicial nominations.  Specifically, we research the records of President Trump’s judicial nominees, condense the important issues, and present it for public use.  All of our investigations are conducted by volunteer attorneys who are committed to an independent and thorough review.  Our posts are the product of multiple rounds of research and editing, and sometimes include the contributions of multiple attorneys.

The Vetting Room is not formally affiliated with any partisan or nonpartisan groups, and maintains the primary goal of improving public engagement with the federal judicial confirmation process.

Posted in Law: Everything Else, Politics: US | Comments Off on Useful Blog: The Vetting Room

Real or Onion?

Guess before clicking.

Florida School Hires 2 Former Combat Veterans to Take Down Active Shooters

I guessed wrong.  It really is getting harder to tell.

Posted in Onion/Not-Onion | Comments Off on Real or Onion?

Panic Stations

Level of CO2 in the atmosphere: 413.69ppm

12 months ago: 407ppm

250 years ago, est: 250ppm

Posted in Global Warming | Comments Off on Panic Stations

Short Notes

I’ve been busy, so some short notes of things I wish I had time to write full posts about:

  • We’ve got some terrific speakers at We Robot 2019, and are assembling a powerhouse set of discussants to go with them.  See the preliminary We Robot program, and the preliminary pre-conference Workshop program, and register now!  I’ll post the whole program here when it’s more final. And remember – it’s time to pitch a poster, which gets you in free.
  • The Gables Stage production of Indecent is first-rate.  Great play, great production.  You see it coming and it’s still harrowing.  It closes in a couple of weeks, but they’ve added some performances recently so there are still tickets.  I’ve been a season ticket holder for many years, and this is as good as anything they’ve done.
  • Depending on what rules the AIs used, this looks like it might be an important paper to more than one field: Emilio Calvano, Giacomo Calzolari, Vincenzo Denicolò, Sergio Pastorello, Artificial intelligence, algorithmic pricing, and collusion, VOX (Feb. 03, 2019).  I found the link to the the summary of the summary on Naked Capitalism. I’ve asked my library to get the paper for me.  The claim is that,

     [W]e experiment with pricing algorithms powered by Artificial Intelligence (AI) in controlled environments (computer simulations), studying the interaction among a number of Q-learning algorithms in a workhorse oligopoly model of price competition with Logit demand and constant marginal costs. In this setting the algorithms consistently learn to charge supra-competitive prices, without communicating with one another. The high prices are sustained by classical collusive strategies with a finite phase of punishment followed by a gradual return to cooperation. This finding is robust to asymmetries in cost or demand and to changes in the number of players.

  • Some USB device on my desktop computer is causing crashes after (or when?) it boots up automatically in the morning.  Of course the Windows 7 (deprecation coming soon…) error messages don’t tell you which.  Never happens when I start it up manually or am using it.
Posted in Linkorama | Comments Off on Short Notes

Line of the Day

The line of the day, at least, is surely Robert Waldman’s snark describing the Trump administration’s “petty graft [running] from emoluments to emollients“, i.e. from the Trump Hotel to this.

OK, off to look for a lunar eclipse.

Posted in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Line of the Day

Brexit Notes

UK’s Jonathan Pie does Brexit (content warning: contains some Anglo-Saxon mono- and poly- syllables).

Now that May’s plan has been defeated, it’s not even dead. The default remains a hard crash-out, which no one outside the Kremlin who has brain cells and lacks either a foreign home or a few million to hedge with, should want. But the option of giving up the whole thing as a bad job appears to lack a majority in Parliament, even if they could find a way to get a vote on it.

Whether there’s a vote may depend on this guy:

If there’s no majority for anything to stop the oncoming train wreck caused by invoking Article 50, that leaves muddling through, which means asking the EU for a delay, which the EU hints hard it would give but only if there’s some point to it. There won’t be an election, so that’s not the point. There might be a referendum, which would certainly be a point, but that doesn’t seem to have a majority in Parliament either.

Normally I think if something is widely understood to be colossally stupid with no upside then legislatures won’t do it. This could be one of the exceptions. (Failing to act on global warming is certainly another, although maybe the consensus isn’t quite great enough on that one.)

Note for those not following Brexit closely: Labor’s position, which amounts to “put us in charge and we’ll negotiate a better deal” is bunk. The EU isn’t going to give May or Corbin or anyone a materially better deal. And certainly not a ‘customs union’ without free movement of people. (And weird that Labor wants to privilege goods over people, eh?)

The faction that says it wants “Norway Plus” (ie modified EFTA), is at least asking for something that might be attainable–although Norway has the right to veto, and seems at present willing to do it–but it’s a very odd outcome since the UK ends up with all the things it said it didn’t want from the EU, minus the ability to influence any of the governing institutions or rules. A straight-up loss when compared to status quo ante, but I guess less a disaster than a crash-out.

The best way out would be a second referendum, but one of the few things the Tory and Labour leaders agree on is that they don’t want that. May wants the threat of a crashout to revive her deal as the lesser of two evils, thus she doesn’t want a third way. Corbin wants to force an election, and also doesn’t mind leaving the EU as he hates it, so he doesn’t want an option that takes the pressure off for an election and also creates real risk of killing off Brexit.

Which all raises the question of when the UK property crash starts, and how deep it gets. Meanwhile some Brits are stockpiling cans, and it’s hard to say they are unwise to do it…

Posted in Politics: Brexit | Comments Off on Brexit Notes