prior probability

In honor of the Arch turning 50 years old today(!), check out this paper on “The Mathematics of the Gateway Arch” by Robert Osserman. What an amazing way to illustrate the concept of functions in mathematics! Image credit: Alex Dzierba.

Since 2012, the journal Science has published a series of informal surveys called “NextGen Voices” regarding various aspects of science. The most recent NextGen survey posed the following questions: “Imagine that there is unlimited funding available for one currently unexplored scientific endeavor. Describe the project you would propose to get the funding. How would your project revolutionize your field or the scientific system as a whole?” Although our field (law) is not really a science by any stretch of the imagination, the editors of Science published our contribution to this survey earlier this month (2 October 2015). Here is what we wrote: Continue reading →

Why does the absolute size of the pie appear fixed? (H/t: Ada Swanson, via WaPo.)

When the Congress enacted the bipartisan Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996 or the historic Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (popularly known as the “McCain-Feingold bill”) in 2002, the members of Congress who voted in favor of these bills presumably believed that these legislative measures were consistent with the text, history, and structure of the U.S. Constitution. Yet in both cases, private lobby groups who were against these laws–James Madison would have called them “factions“–filed and financed several lawsuits challenging the constitutionality of these laws in federal court, and these groups were able to accomplish in the courts what they were unable to accomplish in the political arena: they were eventually able to persuade at least five Justices of the Supreme Court to declare these laws unconstitutional. This is a recurring pattern in American politics. Now, here is our thought experiment. What if the Congress had included an arbitration clause in DOMA or in the McCain-Feingold bill requiring any party wishing to challenge the constitutionality of these laws to submit their dispute to a bipartisan (or non-partisan) arbitration panel consisting of ordinary citizens–not lawyers or judges with partisan agendas–instead of an Article III court? Would private arbitrators show more deference, on balance, to legislation and be less willing to use the open-textured provisions of the Constitution to strike down popular laws? (Or would private arbitrators be more likely to upset the legislative apple cart in the name of constitutional principles?) Also, does the Congress have the authority to require arbitration of constitutional cases? After all, Article III of the Constitution confers jurisdiction on federal courts over all cases arising under the Constitution, but at the same time, the Congress arguably has limited authority to engage in “jurisdiction-stripping” as well. In any case, this is just a thought experiment. We will be thinking about the intersection between judicial review and arbitration as we prepare to present our work-in-progress “The Coasian Constitution” at the Sixth Annual Constitutional Law Colloquium in Chicago next month.

“But with that incredible growth came new problems.” –Ben Mezrich, The Accidental Billionaires, Ch. 22. Does Facebook face any real competition these days? ConnectU is dead. LinkedIn and Twitter are not even close (see this chart via AdWeek). Here are some startling statistics for your edification: the number of active Facebook users surpassed one billion in 2012, and there are now 1.49 billion active users on Facebook as of June 30, 2015. (Active users are those which have logged into Facebook during the last 30 days.) In short, Facebook is the most popular social network in the world by far. So, given the massive amounts of data Facebook collects from its users, should Facebook be treated as a “monopoly” in the legal sense, or should our antitrust regulators leave Facebook alone? What about Facebook’s acquisition of the popular instant-messaging service WhatsApp? Does this acquisition reduce or harm Internet competition in the short or long run?

That is our revised title of Richard Cohen’s recent essay in the Washington Post. Here is the gist of Mr Cohen’s argument in defense of tipping:

The waiter is my guy for the duration of the meal. He’s my agent. He looks out for me and, if he does a good job, I look out for him. He has an incentive to give me exceptional service, not some mediocre minimum, to ensure that my water glass is full, that my wine is replenished, to make sure that the busboy does not prematurely remove the plates — that I am not hurried along so that the owner can squeeze in another sitting. The waiter is my wingman.

But is the waiter the “agent” of the patron or of the restaurant owner? In any case, where do you come out on this social norm? Would you rather abolish this old-fashioned practice altogether (but pay more for your meal), or would you rather retain your tipping option? Also, is there a stable equilibrium, one way or the other, in the case of tipping? What would someone like F. A. Hayek or Leo Strauss say? (By the way, will future patrons at Danny Meyer’s fancy restaurants in NYC really stop leaving tips even after Mr Meyer phases out this practice?) Addendum: via Crooked Timber, our colleague Corey Robin has written up a thoughtful critique of Mr Cohen’s essay.

Here is our final project for our students this semester. Continue reading →

Check out the level of noise complaints for the Upper East Side. Either that part of town has a lot of noise or a lot of noise complainers. Hat tip: Ana Swanson (via Trulia).