From Monmouth University polling via Kevin Drum:
Speaks for itself, with however the minor caveat that people sometimes tell pollsters what they want to be the case rather than admit some truths.
From Monmouth University polling via Kevin Drum:
Speaks for itself, with however the minor caveat that people sometimes tell pollsters what they want to be the case rather than admit some truths.
Maybe I’m an optimist, but I think this trick that a music prof a the University of Tennessee at Chattanooga tried on his students would not work on law students:
on the second page of the three-page syllabus he included the location and combination to a locker, inside of which was a $50 cash prize.
“Free to the first who claims; locker one hundred forty-seven; combination fifteen, twenty-five, thirty-five,” read the passage in the syllabus. But when the semester ended on Dec. 8, students went home and the cash was unclaimed.
I think law students are socialized to read the fine print. On the other hand, I also think this can wear off. I wouldn’t be surprised to learn that a significant fraction of law professors might not read all the details, if only because we know that fine print often isn’t binding.
I was reading a long and complicated contract that I was thinking of signing (details are NDA’d, so don’t ask), and I came upon this piece of contemporary drafting:
Whenever the context of this Agreement permits, the masculine gender shall include the feminine and neuter genders, and reference to singular or plural shall be interchangeable with the other.
My first thought was this showed that the times are indeed changing.
My second thought was that if I was a contract drafter (in some evil alternate universe; I’m much better at litigation!) I’d want to put this into my standard forms.
And my third thought was that if I was reviewing a contract for something important and it didn’t have a clause like this, I’d ask when the form was last updated. Stale forms can be dangerous…
Chart of Covid-19 virus particles in Boston’s wastewater by date.
From Massachusetts Water Resources Authority spotted via Exponential View.
According to the “AI-generated” photos provided by ThisClimateDoesNotExist, flooding caused by global warming could turn this part of the UMiami School of Law …

into this:

Alas, it doesn’t give the assumptions, nor how many degrees of warming or feet of sea level rise it would take, so I find it more a scare story than a meaningful warning.
Indeed, the fine print reveals that “This experiment is not an exercise in climate prediction. There is no correlation between the consequence chosen and the address entered. Our algorithm applies a systematic transformation regardless of the address.” So, yes, just a scare story. Technologically, the flood equivalent of putting a mask on a person’s photo.
Even so, we still have something real to worry about.
According to Nature, there’s a decent chance that commercial fusion reactors will be on sale in 2030, or thereabouts.
Previously:
Anyway, given that we had thirty-some years of fusion being 30 years away, this does sound like progress, and it’s fueled (ahem) by some significant private-sector money, which may signify something. Or Theranos.