太巧了

the Iliad, the inevitability of modern meritocracy, and me (3:57) 人神关系；选择你的英雄；本体喻体合体 (20:42) 失败学导论；优绩主义批判光谱，与荣耀意识的大变形术 (40:53) 免费的答案：死 (52:29) how i stopped worrying and loved the game More on Iliad: The Iliad of Homer, Richmond Lattimore Homer and His Iliad, Robin Lane Fox (also RLF on ⁠podcast⁠ with The History of Literature) Homer on Life and Death, Jasper Griffin 《与父亲的奥德赛》，丹尼尔门德尔松 ⁠“为他构思死亡”⁠，豹子头林黛玉 ⁠《伊利亚特，或力量之诗》⁠，西蒙娜薇依 ⁠Iliad⁠, Grey Area (with Emily Wilson) ⁠The Iliad⁠, In Our Time ⁠Homer⁠, The History of Literature ⁠Mother Tongue⁠, The New Yorker Hades, Supergiant Games Other references include: 东周列国志，Oppenheimer, 路加福音第4章，The Tyranny of Merit, 《历史的终结与最后的人》(32:07)，《论美国的民主》，赵丹喵，Erich Fromm，陀思妥耶夫斯基，《偶像的黄昏》，《进击的巨人》，白鲸与火线与T. S. Eliot与但丁，兰亭集序，（反）《正义论》，魔戒，何兆武《上学记》，施特劳斯《进步还是回归？》，与，伟大的，阿庇安《罗马史》。 思考题： * ​西庇阿引用的是哪一处伊利亚特？ * ​假设同一个人写了奥德赛和伊利亚特：如何解释Achilleus后来又说“O shining Odysseus, never try to console me for dying. / I would rather follow the plow as thrall to another man, one with no land allotted him and not much to live on, / than be a king over all the perished dead.”？ * ​What does Death of a Salesman say about meritocracy? 本集标题出现在(16:16)!

Call it tiktok ban, PAFACA, 啪发卡；it’s been upheld and we try to make sense of it. Too long don’t listen version: 言论自由天下第一，但国家安全是天。 (1:27) some (not much) context (6:34) How can 啪发卡 be so well drafted in such a bad way? 群众互斗，名列前茅，卡点巧思，与忒修斯之船 (17:11) What was the F word that screwed tt 3 times in the decision? 言论价值倒反天罡，tt的诉讼不可能两全策略，与帝国落日的边疆 (44:12) What implications ensue? 压力来到了SCOTUS，川普，和马斯克这边（吗？） (1:01:26) 彩蛋；or, any freedom thereof notwithstanding, how not everyone can give a nice speech. 本期（事实上，任何一期）播客不构成法律建议或雇主意见而只是sound and fury told by two podcasters signifying nuthin'. This is not even a 法律播客，but a parody of a 法律播客，ffs. Some references: TikTok v. Garland (D.C. Cir. 2024) “Restricting the Emergence of Security Threats that Risk Information and Communications Technology Act” or the “RESTRICT Act”, S.686 (118th Congress 2023-24) “Protecting Americans from Foreign Adversary Controlled Applications Act” or 啪发卡，H.R.7521 (118th Congress 2023-24), as a part of H.R.815 Ashcroft v. ACLU (SCOTUS 2004) (filters are a qualified alternative to criminal penalty/fines of for distributing minor-harmful content) (3:43) Murthy v. MO (2024) (users lack Article III standing to seek injunction of gov’t from pressuring social media platforms to censor speech) (8:58) Moody v. NetChoice (SCOTUS 2024) (”Corporations, which are composed of human beings with First Amendment rights, possess First Amendment rights themselves. But foreign persons and corporations located abroad do not. So a social-media platform’s foreign ownership and control over its content-moderation decisions might affect whether laws overriding those decisions trigger First Amendment scrutiny.") (14:57) Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar (SCOTUS 2015) (18:16) Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (SCOTUS 2010), and Breyer’s dissent (18:32) [was actually only cited 11 instead of 100 times here, majority & concurrence combined] Gov’s redacted brief (or the lack thereof) (21:38) Lamont v. Postmaster General (SCOTUS 1965) (29:58) “The Constitution is not a suicide pact.” Terminiello v. Chicago (Jackson’s dissent, 1949) (36:59) Australia banning stuff (53:50); Brazil banning and unbanning stuff (56:26) Brown v. Entertainment merchants Ass'n (SCOTUS 2011) (54:50) NY v. Ferber (SCOTUS 1982) (55:13) Murdoch seeking citizenship (59:37); FCC v. Pacifica Foundation (SCOTUS 1978) (1:00:07) 附加思考题： * ​What about overbreadth doctrine? What about vagueness doctrine? And why did Tiktok not argue them? * ​How was the FCC-Murdoch regulation constitutional? bgm credit to suno ai

老登必须死，但是what for? (0:08) 爱看不看 (3:27) 兼论为什么反对轻率地将道德叙事引入文艺评论 (19:05) 兼论脆弱现代逼 (33:01) 兼论真左翼的永恒漂流 I know if ppl wanna cancel you they kinda don’t care whether you beg them not to but don’t cancel me. References include: 苏联笑话，性感台灯测试，川普在宾州 (5:59)，Hacks S1E1, 《中产阶级的孩子们》，血腥的布尔迪厄 (13:11)，残酷的马克思， Dopesick, 《风险社会中的刑法》，《时间与他者》(24:15)，《分成两半的子爵》，Antony and Cleopatra, The Closing of American Mind, 詹明信 (27:29)，buttered cat paradox, Chuck Palahniuk "quite liked the CN ending," Brave New World, 《流动的现代性》，与，最高雅的，《阿凡达》(37:31)。 ending BGM credit to suno ai

全体注意必须紧急停止引用茨威格。 (01:29) 必须超越身份政治 (16:28) 必须明白他人存在 (23:58) 必须走出昨日世界 (30:18) 必须（稍微）爱（一点儿） 开玩笑的kids don’t do this at home (29:59) Some references: “The quintessential condition of 21st century liberal/progressive Democrat/Labor politics: a couple of fundamentally good guys imagining a more just world that their core political philosophy has absolutely no ability to bring about.” Freddie deBoer, Liberalism Cannot Produce Outcomes Satisfactory to Liberals, https://freddiedeboer.substack.com/p/liberalism-cannot-produce-outcomes (02:07) Daniel Finn, Two Centuries of the National Question, https://jacobin.com/2023/02/two-centuries-of-the-national-question (07:27) 福山《身份政治》 quoting Ernest Gellner, Nations and Nationalism (08:06) 陈嘉映，《救黑熊重要吗？》，https://www.sohu.com/a/496864704_121119350 (10:22) “It is one of the happy incidents of the federal system that a single courageous state may, if its citizens choose, serve as a laboratory; and try novel social and economic experiments without risk to the rest of the country.” New State Ice Co. v. Liebmann (1932) (Brandeis, dissenting) (12:41) “If the rule you followed brought you to this, of what use was the rule?” Cormac McCarthy, No Country for Old Men (20:56) “I want to earn enough money I can get away from everyone.” DDL, There Will Be Blood (PTA, 2007) (33:13) “右派注重自由，左派注重平等。而法国的口号是：自由平等博爱。”马克龙，2024 (33:56) 葛兰西《狱中札记》(34:55) 茨威格《昨日的世界》(36:11) BGM credit to deca joins

Twice we found the Google cases mildly irritating… 在民主党离开白宫前夕，我们聊了这一届administration留下的关键遗产：一大堆乱七八糟的反垄断。这次讨论绵延四天，补录三次，横跨大选，到最后我们都筋疲力尽，我感到要想把反垄断陈述清楚真的是不可能。一只与资本主义鳄鱼牙齿调情的小鸟；一部末法之法。而我们对于有形无形手的这些精妙意见也实际改变不了任何事到最后只是entertain了我们自己。 (03:51) 大水漫灌Sherman Act (08:04) Google Play Store案 (Epic v. Google). P.s. But Apple did it too (and worse). - We trashed market definition, tying, consumer information costs and paternalism. We took a short halftime and grabbed some soda (25:44). Then we trashed the consumer welfare standard and the antithesis of the consumer welfare standard. (39:13) Google search engine案 (US v. Google). P.s. This time Apple really did it too. - We trashed the breakup proposal, exclusive dealing, pricing as signal and the outer boundaries of antitrust law. (52:50) Last thoughts & 彩蛋。We trashed each other. Cliffhanger: did we fall out over this? Some references: Aspen Skiing Co. v. Aspen Highlands Skiing Co. (1985) (12:00) Louis Kaplow, Why (Ever) Define Markets?, 2010 (14:34) Eastman Kodak v. Image Technical Servs. (1992); Scalia’s dissent (17:33) US v. Microsoft (D.C. Cir. 2001) (27:08) (41:30) (53:30) Robert H. Bork, Legislative History and the Policy of the Sherman Act, 1966 (32:18) Barak Orbach, The Antitrust Consumer Welfare Paradox, 2011 (32:44) Oliver Williamson, Economies As An Antitrust Defense: The Welfare Tradeoffs, 1968 (32:53) Lina Khan, Amazon's Antitrust Paradox, 2017 (33:43) [懒得读以上四篇可以直接读Hovenkamp, Is Antitrust's Consumer Welfare Principle Imperiled?, 2019] Tim Wu, Tyranny of Convenience, https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-convenience.html (38:05) Easterbrook, The Limits of Antitrust, 1985 (43:30) 这一期观点是真的真的不代表我们老板也真的真的真的不是法律意见。 BGM credit to Suno AI

Everyone else just doesn’t seem to get it! 拨乱反正。 本期开头不建议跳过因为有好多disclaimer和一个笑话！ (04:45) 选举人团致使小州摇摆州僭越伦常倒反天罡？ (17:49) 选举人团放大一小撮坏分子的错作用？ (22:30) 选举人团叠床架屋扰乱全国一盘棋？ (28:34) What if democracy isn't just about popularity, and State boundaries aren't gerrymandered conspiracies. (35:14) Self-celebration, agreeing to each other, etc. p.s. 我的JDVance turncoat时刻 (03:36) References: (12:51), (18:05) Bush v. Gore (2000) - 推荐Fiasco (podcast with Leon Neyfakh), 和Recount (HBO 2008, starring a sex offender) (22:53) Trump’s efforts, an Act from 1887, and “failed to make a choice” https://www.propublica.org/article/the-long-odds-facing-trumps-attempts-to-get-state-legislatures-to-override-election-results (note this article was written pre-Jan 6); also see 2022 Electoral Count Reform Act as a response (25:19) Article II Section 1 Clause 2 ("Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct...") (33:15) Did Founders NOT envision parties? See James Madison, The Federalist Papers No. 10 (“The regulation of these various and interfering interests forms the principal task of modern legislation, and involves the spirit of party and faction in the necessary and ordinary operations of the government. […] that the CAUSES of faction cannot be removed, and that relief is only to be sought in the means of controlling its EFFECTS.”) (36:18) National Popular Vote Interstate Compact 附加思考题： * ​普选制下人口更密集的城市吸引更多竞选资源（低成本接触大量选民），这是不公平的吗？ * ​普选制下全国margin过小也会trigger national recount吗？ * ​到底什么是普选票？假如有个州采取ranked-choice voting, 按选民对候选人的喜好排序进行逐轮淘汰决出胜者，候选人在该州到底是获得了多少票呢？注：这个州叫Maine, which is currently NOT a winner take all state. * ​De facto联邦可能存在完美普选吗？ * ​从立宪初期的3个winner take all states，到现在的48个州自主选择winner take all，这是race to the bottom/囚徒困境吗？(spoiler alert: 不是。) 我们不是你的律师；我们不是我们的雇主；我们只是妄议的aliens；所有谬见jointly and severally remain our own. BGM credit to Suno AI

让规定性来得更猛烈些吧 (02:06) 上班；or the tyrannical and surprisingly sweet lack of editorial discretion (12:27) 自由作为代词、副词、占位词 (24:18) 自由并非创世常量，无法提供大一统解释，或还原“事情本来应该有的那个样子” (29:50) “这个世界不会好了但你的世界还可以好” 纯粹自由批判摘选 “尼采说，一个人的本质可以被定义为给人以承诺的能力。从这个意义上说，人生不是遍地是选择的旷野，你不能做自己，你应该沿着自己许下过的承诺所划定的轨道，一路走到底。”——我的朋友东林君 “我的壮举是获得了老板的青睐。成之前必须先彻底完100次，我已经完88次了。”——我的朋友周紫一 “我那个话的目的是让[王c]好好投入丰富的规定性中。”——我的朋友朴若松 DFW references, et al. Teaching Materials, The DFW Reader (6:09) Something to Do with Paying Attention（McNally出版了单行册，但它亦是最后未完成的The Pale King的第22章）(10:20) This is Water, ⁠https://fs.blog/david-foster-wallace-this-is-water/⁠ (28:31) Please, please also read his Authority and American Usage (1999). P.S. ⁠https://www.douban.com/note/698183929 ⁠(22:02)；⁠https://www.douban.com/note/864390271⁠ (27:39) — I hope this doesn’t feel cringe.

Teton: tee-taan coyote: kai-ow-tee Roosevelt: row-zuh-velt Sorry

Don't cry over spilled technocracy. 我们聊了今年6月美国最高院通过Loper Bright案推翻了称霸行政法多年的Chevron原则这件事：与本term的abortion, immunity等众多要案相比，此案或才暗示着美国真正的宪政危机。本期录音分为两部分，第一部分可以作为第二部分的companion服用。 (1:15) I Disclaimer, context*, Loper Bright as a structural change (13:23) II Reflections/debate thereupon 短视的党争叙事，与行政效率的致命诱惑，请回答1787 *勘误：federal monitors是监视器不是真的监管人住在船上；Jarkesy重音在ke；但我真的不想重录了 References: (1:29) Chevron v. NRDC (1984) (the OG case) (5:13) Loper Bright v. Raimondo (2024) (the kingslayer case) (4:18), (30:51) SEC v. Jarkesy (2024) (the SEC 7th Amendment case) (4:30), (44:05) Corner Post v. Board of Governors of FRS (2024) (the statute of limitations case) (6:17) FDA v. Brown & Williamson (2000) (6:29) WV v. EPA (2022); Biden v. NB (2023) (Major Question Doctrine cases) (6:44) US v. Mead (2000) (agencies need procedures to get Chevron) (28:52) Bork’s nomination, McConnell’s revenge, and the reshaping of the modern supreme court www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/documentary/supreme-revenge/ (34:10) Empirical studies on SEC’s in-court and in-house winning rates www.wsj.com/articles/sec-wins-with-in-house-judges-1430965803?; papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2920940 (36:14) 南山真的必胜客吗？www.legal-theory.org/?mod=info&act=view&id=27582 p.s. One ironically great example on institutional expertise: OH v. EPA (2023) (where Justice Gorsuch mistook nitrous oxide for nitrogen oxide) BGM credit to Suno AI Cover pic credit to ourselves in Wyoming!

谁问我了？unsolicited, unpopular opinions on 三体 as a 人文主义作品 (2:26) 洗无可洗 (9:22) 开洗 - (10:47) 三体不是政治隐喻 - (32:18) 生存不是最高指示 - (46:16) 刘慈欣动真情处, if any (52:15) 彩蛋：幽默Read-Along BGM credit to Suno AI

四季了，悲剧都见于一个口误之中。公司与爱欲不可混同。 (01:18) 为什么好：邪恶、喜剧、类型片；始终出戏但无往不在戏中 (15:22) Corporal v. Corporate - (17:35) 饭 - (24:30) 体 - (33:33) 爱 (47:22) 四个caveats；上帝/恺撒安全墙 References: Jaime Lannister, ASOIAF (02:49) 克利切，哈利波特 (07:38) 史矛革，霍比特人2 (08:15) Michael Bluth（我说成了George Bluth！两次！对不起），Arrested Development; Leonard Hofstadter, TBBT (08:54) Ferris Bueller's Day Off (09:37) 《林中小屋》 (10:47) “叉车”“热干面”卡通化低幼宣传遭反感，https://www.zhihu.com/question/526289471/answer/2426837412 (12:47) 《你的孩子》，纪伯伦 (14:35) 春梅、秋菊，《金瓶梅》 (20:55) The Secret History, Donna Tartt (21:30) 国王的自然身体与政治身体 (24:52) 另一个Roy，《银翼杀手》 (28:56) 阿伦特、福柯、鲍曼，绿码 (30:51) 现代公司法分离原则 (31:53)，fiduciary duty (52:00)，金色降落伞 (52:12) 《你一生的故事》，特德姜 (32:32) 龙之家族/Fire and Blood (35:42) 李尔王 (42:43) 《狼王梦》，沈石溪 (44:27) “Everything in the world is about sex, except sex. Sex is about power.” Oscar Wilde (45:29) “Give back to Ceasar what is Ceasar's and to God what is God's.”《新约》 (50:37) 本集标题出现在(23:51)！

《搏击俱乐部》的双重谎言；与我是怎样到最后也没有抽上烟 (2:18) 如果你无法忍受背景杂音，从这里开始 (14:04) 幻觉对跳，都出了吧；皮特留了一手 (22:39) 烟；苹果 References: 《肠子》(6:05) 《猜火车》(6:43) 《极度空间》，约翰卡朋特 (11:09) 血染钟楼 (14:09) 《包法利夫人》(19:04) 《诗人十四个》，黄晓丹 (21:00) （不是之前所承诺的更新；但是更新）

我又打游戏了；时间倒流的意思就是最晚录的一期最早发。 1:44 Basic info 4:48 我心目中最佳关卡（qia3; all pronunciation errors remain mine only） 14:02 游戏作为自明系统，而非人工叙述 24:00 玩家学习成果展示。 33:04 影响Braid的作品 46:54 “高度分析性的”设计内核；像创世一样创作；对运行机制真正的好奇心 提到的游戏关卡： 2-3 Hunt! (5:00) 3-3 Phase (20:20) 3-6 Irreversible (30:09) 4-3 Hunt! (5:43) 4-4 Just Out of Reach (49:40) 4-6 Movement, Amplified (12:38) 4-7 Fickle Companion (6:45) 6-6 Elevator Action (8:21, 28:49) 1-1 (10:17, 12:46) Epilogue (13:12) 有参考的播客和访谈： 机核播客 - Jonathan Blow创作哲学， https://www.gcores.com/radios/95312 不可理论 - Empuzzlement, https://bukelilun.com/episodes/35 Theories of Everything with Curt Jaimungal: Jonathan Blow on Consciousness, Video Game Design, True Art vs. False, and Free Will https://curtjaimungal.podbean.com/e/jonathan-blow-on-consciousness-video-game-design-true-art-vs-false-and-free-will/ 《关于时空幻境我们都忽略了些什么？》（译者：玩儿完而莞尔），https://www.douban.com/review/9431400/ 《Jason Rohrer访谈Jonathan Blow》（译者：玩儿完而莞尔），https://www.douban.com/review/9361822/ Other (Main) References: Baba is You (10:07) 倒读叙诡笑话，https://blog.csdn.net/cuilie1430/article/details/100336544 (11:44) Procedural rhetoric, Ian Bogost, http://rogel.io/content/projects/bogost2007persuasive.pdf (15:50) 《独立游戏大电影》(21:36, 47:23) 《信条》(26:18, 53:45) 《坍缩》，刘慈欣 (31:36) 祖父悖论 (31:47, 50:46) 《爱因斯坦的梦》，阿兰・莱特曼，一九〇五年四月二十六日的梦、一九〇五年五月十四日的梦 (33:11) 《零时间》、《看不见的城市》、《如果在冬夜，一个旅人》卡尔维诺 (36:42, 42:11, 42:52) Choose Your Adventure/《给你一身鸡皮疙瘩》(43:05) 《台球》，阿西莫夫 (48:48) （拉踩）《盗梦空间》(52:39) 我是如何在《信条》上浪费时间和智力的，https://movie.douban.com/review/12851490/ (54:05) 杜伊诺哀歌之十，里尔克 (55:42) 彩蛋：一次推卸责任 (30:41)；一次回环 (32:42)

“一切变化都是生灭。”重访好战分子、混沌学家、玩火者，赫拉克利特 2:00 本人读后答辩，附srp打分（不代表本人客观水平） 4:03 来点背景：生成传统 12:15 火，变，无，斗争 16:49 连续的一vs离散的多，巴门尼德怎样棒打两边 19:12 预设的同时与回溯的重建，斗争从“一”中突围 26:46 为什么柏拉图上升而赫拉克利特退隐于历史：质料与形式的偏心结构 27:43 “你现在面前有桌子吗？一个例子让你彻底理解（所指和能指的关系），因为我觉得你就是没理解”。——时间在这个世界里面，因此，意义不在 32:32 永恒不是永远，永恒是现在。一、是、现在、神、逻各斯，“使得流停下来的东西” 35:31 彩蛋：强解《残篇》，“我真的觉得这个就是他随便说说” ——“想象一片火烧的草原：人，或者说存在，不是那被烧过的草，也不是那未被烧过的草，而是那条火线。” 部分《残篇》原文： 【残篇105】“荷马是天文学家。” (2:08) 【残篇50】“如果你们不是听了我的话，而是听了我的道，那么承认‘一切是一’就是智慧的。” (2:20) 【残篇51】“他们不了解如何相反者相成：对立的统一，如弓和竖琴。” (2:38) 【残篇54】“隐蔽的关联比明显的关联更为牢固。” (2:43) 【残篇56】“我们看见了并且抓到了的，我们把它放了，我们没有看见也没有抓到，我们把它带着。”(2:56) 【残篇60】“上坡路和下坡路是同一条路。” (3:03) 【残篇62】“不死者有死，有死者不死：后者死则前者生，前者死则后者生。”(3:06) 【残篇67】“神是昼又是夜，是冬又是夏，是战又是和，是盈又是亏。他流转变化，同火一样，火混合着香料时，就按照各自发出的气味得到不同的名称。” (3:10) 【残篇81】“毕达哥拉斯是头号骗子。”(9:21) 【残篇30】“这个世界对于一切存在物都是一样的，它不是任何神所创造的，也不是任何人所创造的；它过去、现在、未来永远是一团永恒的活火，在一定的分寸上燃烧，在一定的分寸上熄灭。”(13:53) 【残篇24】“战争中阵亡的人，神人共敬。”(15:47) 【残篇53】“战争是万物之父，也是万物之王。它使一些人成为神，使一些人成为人，使一些人成为奴隶，使一些人成为自由人。”(21:59) 【残篇80】“应该知道，战争是普遍的，正义就是斗争，一切都是通过斗争和必然性产生的。” (25:00) 【残篇118】“干燥的光辉是最智慧、最高贵的灵魂。” (35:40) 【残篇96】“尸体更适合于被抛弃而不是用来施肥。” (36:05) 【残篇97】“狗咬它不认识的人。” (36:09) 【残篇98】“灵魂在地府里嗅着。” (36:12) 【残篇11】“一切在地上爬的东西，都是被神的鞭子赶到牧场上去的。” (36:50) 【残篇13】“猪在污泥中取乐。” (37:23) 【残篇7】“如果一切都变成了烟，鼻子就会把他们分辨出来。” (37:37) 【残篇12】“踏进同一条河的人，不断遇到新的水流。灵魂也是从湿气里蒸发出来的。” (38:31) Other (Main) References: 《哲学史讲演录》，黑格尔 (1:21) “存在者存在，非存在者不存在”，巴门尼德 (4:21) 《逻辑学》，黑格尔 (12:45) 运动学分类，亚里士多德 (17:42) 思，笛卡尔，及对其不庸俗的理解 (22:43) 十对范畴，毕达哥拉斯 (24:23) “回撤”，海德格尔 (27:22) 蜡块比喻，笛卡尔 (29:11) “矛盾是变在知性上的投影，时间是变在感性上的投影”，黑格尔 (31:33) 古希腊永恒神aion (33:25) ”时间是关于运动前后的被计数的数“，亚里士多德 (33:47) p.s. 29:53 精彩片段“滚吧，我不讲了，你这辈子别想悟这件事了”