prior probability

We just attended Professor Mona Field’s guest lecture on “American Presidential Elections” at Glendale Community College (see flyer below). Among other things, Prof. Field talked about the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. In summary, this novel compact is designed to circumvent the archaic Electoral College system set forth in the Constitution. Specifically, States who join the compact thereby pre-commit to award their respective electoral college votes to the presidential candidate who wins the overall popular vote in all 50 States. Thus far, ten States (and D.C.) have already voted to join the compact, and these States represent 165 Electoral College votes. So, is this novel compact constitutional? Can we change the Constitution without formally amending it?

The journal Nature recently published this letter announcing the exciting discovery of seven exoplanets 40 light-years away from Earth: only 235 trillion miles away! Does this mean it would take us 40 Earth years to reach those planets if we could travel as fast as the speed of light? The infographic below says light-years are a measure of distance, not a measure of time. Bonus question: Why can’t we travel faster than the speed of light, or can we?

Credit: niks1rocks, via SlideShare

We totally understand why such insignificant states like Idaho or Nebraska might want to enact such insular and small-minded legislation. But California and Florida …? 

Hat tip (via Reddit): wildeastmofo

Have you ever seen any of those cheesy infomercials for Snuggies? (Check out the YouTube clip below, if you like to watch low-budget ads. Snuggies are wearable fleece coverings, i.e. blankets with sleeves.) As a matter of tax law, is a Snuggie more like a blanket or more like a garment? (Blankets are subject to a lower import tax than articles of clothing are.) The United States Court of International Trade recently decided this close question, ruling that Snuggies are blankets for import tax purposes. But generally speaking, aside from the authority of legal tribunals, what makes a court decision in a close case “right” as a matter of law? In science, theories are “right” only if they are supported by evidence and if they are subjected to rigorous and repeatable tests. In politics, the majority decides what is “right” via elections and other political mechanisms. So, what makes a legal conclusion or a legal theory “right”, aside from the normative preferences or subjective hunches (i.e. personal views) of judges? Bonus question: What about ethical dilemmas? How should we decide between right and wrong in the domain of ethics?

Legal philosopher Ronald Dworkin once asked, “Is wealth a value?” Isn’t the answer obvious?

Hat tip (via Twitter): @pickover

As the map below shows, the E.U. is not a single transnational entity but rather is composed of six separate European alliances.

We have been using Google’s gmail service since 2006, so we have always hated the hideous Microsoft Outlook (see here, for example) by comparison. Last week, my home institution switched over to “Microsoft Surface,” an even more complicated and cumbersome operating system than the previous versions of Microsoft. By way of example, it used to take me one simple step to access my university email account. Now, it takes four separate steps (see below) to log in. Seriously?

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 4