Many of the “split the baby” ruling scenarios contemplate some degree of immunity for presidents within their official sphere, however the implications would then have to trickle down to make sense, with immunity for following an unlawful order implied, no?

Question from Trump’s immunity appeal: It is illegal to obey an illegal order. UCMJ says soldiers must obey “lawful orders.” Is it the Trump team’s position that POTUS can issue unlawful orders unless impeached? This seems to put an unreasonable burden on those under orders. @kenwhite.bsky.social

What is your position on Van Gogh? I was embarrassed when I first heard a Dutch person say the name, but then I decided to relax and not worry about it. Verbalization is for communication, so if “the right way” is unintelligible to your audience, it is wrong.

For all the people who think that they need to be exposed to virulent pathogens to “exercise” their immune systems: Do you think that your immune system is not constantly destroying bacteria and viruses even when you have no symptoms?

Santos is out. It’s the end of a fabulous era. Oops, I meant “fabulist.”

There seems to be a Dunning-Kruger aspect to SBF: smart enough that people convinced him that he was smarter. But to not understand the game theory that underlay his strategy means he wasn't all that good at math. The game theory he describes in interviews shows his thin grasp of strategy. (5/end)

SBF/FTX ran this way - understanding odds x return = EV, but not that a bet with a 0% chance to win infinity dollars can have a positive EV but be stupid to play. FTX made a bunch of massive upside vs implode bets. They won massive upside several times. But they imploded once. That's enough. (4)

Play 25 games with a 51% chance of +1 & 49% chance of -1. Net expected value (EV) is 1.5, or 25 times 0.02 net positive. Now run 25 games with a 51% chance of 2x return and 49% chance of ending the game. EV = 1.64, because 2^25 is a big number. But the odds of a non-zero return are 1 in 2x10^7. (3)

Why is this bad math? After two such wagers, the odds of destroying humanity would be 74%. SBF’s analysis ignored that his model had negative but no positive game-ending outcomes. The right framework for such a thought experiment is not “double or nothing,” it’s “double or half.” (2)

SBF is supposed to be a math genius; I don’t buy it. Why? He repeatedly expressed enthusiasm for “double or nothing” bets: he has said he’d take a bet on a 51% chance to double the viability of humanity even against a 49% chance of destroying it. This is bad math. (1) blog.shrm.org/blog/sam-ban...