there are also--as we talk about in the podcast--some Very Interesting parallels with the structure of the chinese economy: the role of suppressed consumption, entrenched interests, and the recurring belief that "scientific and technical revolution" "new productive forces" will save the regime

at the end of the day, the party--and especially the big men in the party--*liked* an economy forced into heavy industrial production. it gave them swagger on the world stage and legitimacy at home. and controlling those big industrial combines was how they maintained their patronage networks.

Right, but here is where the problem arises. The standards you’ve outlined are very broad, and also describe tools that people in those disciplines already use. So it remains unclear how applying them in a “more rigorous” way actually changes how those fields look from the way they do now.

Weirdly enough, my parents love 6 7. They think it’s the funniest thing ever. I feel like that’s probably atypical for boomers.

History and linguistics are good examples of humanities attempting to describe actually existing phenomena, making standards for the field clear.

But how do you extend this into disciplines like literature and philosophy?

For those asking--I do not advocate CB because it paints a better picture--consumers are still feeling pretty glum, it is because the sample size is 3x (3000 vs <1000 in UMich) and the methodology is more consistent over time whereas UMich went to online collection resulting in a known downward bias

Isn’t there, though? The sciences attempt to describe the physical world, and so it can always be measured how well they do that by checking facts in the physical world. The humanities have no inherent yardstick like this. How would we decide what standards to put on them?

“Santa of the Gaps” Theory

Your point is not well taken. He seems like a nice guy and he’s just kvetching about dating. It’s qualitatively pretty different from predicting societal collapse.

I will go to war for this

Originalism taken to the limit just sucks every universal aspiration and value out of the constitution and turns it into, essentially, Johnson vs McIntosh's courts of the conqueror.

The authors also acknowledge the Trump administration’s illegal use of the law is unique and beyond the Court’s control. That makes this no different from any number of other powers (e.g. pardons) we may wish the president did not have right now.

I didn’t care for the show either, but the book is great. Totally different vibe, they butchered it in the adaptation.