Is a good way to see they are getting better, and in particular are at least no more politicized than they were in 1992?

I still see them on the mobile app and browser. You just have to click through to the tweet itself. Is it being rolled out slowly or something?

Can any implications be drawn?

Probably this is wrong and too political economy-y. But I like it.

This implicitly and *necessarily* involves ceding power to the regulatory agencies (hence, to the executive). But that’s a price they might pay if their constituents are easily fooled by the ruse. Fin.

Likewise, if opposing congressmen are strongly motivated by threat of being voted out by unsophisticated constituents, they might compromise on legal language that is vague/underspecified so that both sides can claim victory to their constituents…

They say “the other country agreed to X!”, when the actual treaty text is very unclear…

Ok. Consider international treaties. It’s well appreciated that treaties can often be incredibly vague, and this vagueness has the feature that both sides can return home and claim they won…

(They probably don’t endorse this, and it’s doubtlessly unoriginal, but new to me.)

Like, why would you willingly give up massive power over the nation, and often give it to a President you dislike? Why not *trade* it for something?

It’s said that congress has been abdicating large parts of it’s constitutional power to regulate by passing laws so vague that the executive branch effectively has the power to decide what’s illegal. The natural question is: Why would they do that? Some capitol hill staffers helped me with a theory…

What were they, so I can compare them to what I saw on Twitter?

If the decision was made by society, in what sense does this undermine the elephant-and-rider metaphor? Most people do not say "After thinking carefully, I decided to trust the wisdom of society".

The arrows don't perfectly align with the line...

Wouldn’t be a big deal if it was only a handful of seminal papers that did this, but in fact lots of papers (especially in math) have abstract that are way too short, and it’s motivated in a large part by the desire to look impressive.

These sorts of abstracts should be discouraged. They project impressiveness, which can be accurate but are nevertheless a form of bragging, and have the distinct downside of not actually doing their job: summarizing what’s inside to help the reader decide if it’s worth reading for them.

Of 944 Twitter accounts, it matched 144 to Blue Sky accounts, and I haven't found a false positive yet.

Sky Follower Bridge - Chrome Web Store Instantly find and follow the same users from your Twitter follows on Bluesky.

This Chrome extension scrapes your Twitter account for the people you follow and identifies potential corresponding accounts on Blue Sky. Also nicely uses auth token rather than password.

chromewebstore.google.com/detail/sky-f...