One of the research scientists at OpenAI who announced the ten solutions this week said they had tried the Astra model on all the Millennium Prize problems without success, so far.
Christian Mott
@cjmott.bsky.social
1K followers 1.4K following 2.3K posts
Studying punishment, criminal law, moral psychology, & experimental jurisprudence. christianmott.com
![Section 11 of the February 20, 1792, Act to establish the Post Office and Post Roads within the United States.
"Sec. 11. And be it further enacted, That, if any Deputy Postmaster, or other person authorized by the Postmaster General, to receive the postages of letters, shall fraudulently demand or receive any... [continued in next image]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreifmoe7lnq64cz45ra3faenujx4e7ychyps4vkhe3tqw2vy6cz6s2q)
![Excerpt from the testimony of George S. Leonard, first assistant of DOJ Civil Division, before the House Judiciary Committee on June 21, 1960, on questioning by Cyril Brickfield, committee counsel.
Mr. Brickfield: I have just one question on the compromise subject, Mr. Leonard, in this bill: You are just authorized to make a settlement in the amount of $100,000, is that correct --
Mr. Leonard: Oh no -- we are make comprimises [sic] now, in the millions, sir.
Mr. Brickfield: But if you do that you have to come to Congress for a special Act, do you now?
Mr. Leonard: No -- no. Not at all.
Mr. [Ronald V.] Libenati: No.
Mr. Leonard: As a matter of fact I have a tort settlement on my desk for well over---
Mr. Brickfield: No, I am not talking about tort settlements; I am talking about this, not the Federal Tort Claims Act--
Mr. Leonard: You see, it is entered as a compromise consent judgment--
Mr. Brickfield: All right. It is entered as a judgment.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreiasdd6ofs23lr557ffvuxyx2paiicdnhwkjb7vewbpkqoaimku7xa)
![Mr. Leonard: And then it is handled by means of the Deficiency Appropriation Bill procedure; in fifty years, there has never been any denial of payment of a judgment--
Mr. Brickfield: Well I noticed in this here that it says "compromise settlement."
Mr. Leonard: Well, you see we can't enter a consent judgment -- that would be a concession of the jurisdiction of the foreign court.
Mr. [Jack] Brooks: That's right. This is the basic legislation -- he doesn't concede their jurisdiction.
Mr. Leonard: You could authorize consent to another jurisdiction but you see we would be encouraging thousands of additional cases once we did anything that departed from this procedure.
Mr. Brooks: That's it. They would be filing thousands of similar cases --
Mr. Brickfield: Yes.
Mr. Brooks: -- if they entered judgment in a foreign court; it has to be done this way with the deficiency appropriation.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreihws4u2y6akwxtxfq5fsmmfnhaiizolxkkmj7tv6pkvexav6agfn4)
![Passage from slip op. 30 of Callais:
2. Second and Third Gingles Preconditions
To satisfy the second and third preconditions—politically
cohesive voting by the minority and racial-bloc voting by
the majority—the plaintiffs must provide an analysis that
controls for party affiliation. In other words, they must
show that voters engage in racial bloc voting that cannot be
explained by partisan affiliation. This is, once again, critical for “disentangl[ing] race and politics.” Alexander, 602
U. S., at 6.
The facts of Gingles afford a good example of how a §2
plaintiff can properly meet these preconditions. There, as
discussed, black and white voters had dramatically different voting patterns within the Democratic party. 478 U. S.,
at 59. This type of intra-party racial-bloc voting pattern
helps to demonstrate that the minority plaintiffs have “less
opportunity” than their majority counterparts because of
race, not just because of partisan affiliation. 52 U. S. C.
§10301(b). By contrast, simply pointing to inter-party racial polarization proves nothing, because “‘a jurisdiction
may engage in constitutional political gerrymandering,
even if it so happens that the most loyal Democrats happen
to be black Democrats and even if the State were conscious
of that fact.’” Alexander, 602 U. S., at 9 (quoting Hunt v.
Cromartie, 526 U. S. 541, 551 (1999)).](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreig6qzkgw5lbvopxgh3crnr6ymwccxdgx4kfdz5qqn4egqwznoauqa)
![Text of sec. 4682 of the Maine Civil Rights Act:
Interference with rights; private actions. A person whose exercise or enjoyment of the rights secured by the United States Constitution or the laws of the United States or of the rights secured by the Constitution of Maine or the laws of the State has been interfered with, or attempted to be interfered with, may institute and prosecute in that person's own name and on that person's own behalf a civil action for legal or equitable relief whenever any person, whether or not acting under color of law:
A. Violates section 4684‑B; or [PL 2023, c. 287, §2 (NEW).]
B. Intentionally interferes or attempts to intentionally interfere with the exercise or enjoyment by any other person of those secured rights by:
(1) Physical force or violence against a person;
(2) Damage or destruction of property or trespass on property;
(3) Threatening physical force or violence against a person;
(4) Threatening damage or destruction of property or trespass on property; or
(5) Engaging in any conduct that would cause a reasonable person to suffer emotional distress or to fear death or bodily injury to that person or to a close relation. For purposes of this subparagraph, "close relation" and "emotional distress" have the same meanings as in Title 17‑A, section 210‑A, subsection 2, paragraph B and paragraph D, respectively.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreifyznke6ryk6ivtqfxibivoqoxqinh3qrpyhujbcslzoadnhk2kue)
![Paragraphs 15-17 of a declaration by an unnamed witness to the murder of Alex Pretti:
15. The video I recorded of what happened accurately depicts the events leading up to the agents shooting [Pretti] and several minutes afterwards. The video is attached as Exhibit I.
16. I have read the statement from DHS about what happened and it is wrong. The man did not approach the agents with a gun. He approached them with a camera. He was just trying to help a woman get up and they took him to the ground.
17. I feel afraid. Only hours have passed since they shot a man right in front [of] me and I don't feel like I can go home because I heard agents were looking for me. I don't know what the agents will do when they find me. I do know that they're not telling the truth about what happened. I've heard that other witnesses might have been arrested and taken to the Whipple Building.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreic2a6abhsrlyicl6lxzorsmkomnolkkrqouk23rdmgxv4bggwxf7e)
![Passage from AAUP v. DOJ, ECF 148 at 29-30.
"[A]ll of Plaintiffs' arguments that Defendants violated the APA (and the separation of powers) by failing to comply with procedural requirements for cutting funding pursuant to Title VI simply presuppose that Title VI is the exclusive vehicle by which the Executive Branch may withdraw financial support for an institution that allows religious discrimination.
"The Court urges Plaintiffs, and the amici who decry Defendants' alleged failure to follow Title VI to the letter, to review the text of that statute. Title VI does not mention religion. As such, it strikes the Court as unlikely that Title VI is the sole and exclusive 'legal tool[]' available to a President who instructs executive agencies to prioritize 'combat[ting] anti-Semitism . . . on university and college campuses.'" (citations omitted)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreicos7vr4ojcnv47kcxzfx2l3oy7njd3dmfojjflrqko72t3kcy3my)
![Passage from p. 24 of AAUP v. DOJ, ECF 148 at 24-25:
"Turning to representational standing, Plaintiffs fail to establish that any injuries their members may have suffered are fairly traceable to Defendants. As noted above, the Court does find that some of Plaintiffs [sic] members used federal grants to Columbia for their academic work. The loss of professional opportunities or income may certainly constitute an injury in some cases. However, here, Plaintiffs have not demonstrated that it makes a difference to their members whether the funding for their research and salaries comes from American taxpayers, non-party Columbia's multi-billion-dollar endowment, the largess of Columbia's donors, or the eye-popping tuition bills paid by Columbia students, including the Jewish students who apparently paid for the privilege of being threatened with violence on their way to class." (citations omitted)](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreiaurfmqf2wmgj7bgjzj7eiif5ox666cxb3g6dkkeunioioqse45ta)
![Passage from Justice Gorsuch's opinion for the Court in 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 21-476, slip op. at 7 (June 30, 2023):
"For all these reasons '[i]f there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation,' West Virginia Bd. of Ed. v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 624, 642 (1943), it is the principle that the government may not interfere with 'an uninhibited marketplace of ideas,' McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464, 476 (2014)."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreigzaev6vindsuprfotjgqdwgxd4bnqx4biq2vwlfpvlsty33qilgy)
![Passage from p. 17 of DOJ's opposition to the motion for a TRO in Newsom v. Trump.
3. Section 12406 does not require a governor's consent or input.
Defendants also acted lawfully in the processes they used to federalize Guardsmen. Section 12406's first sentence establishes the President's unilateral authority to federalize Guardsmen. Again, it reads: "[T]he President may call into Federal service members and units of the National Guard of any State . . . ." The next sentence adds that "[o]rders for these purposes shall be issued through the governors of the States." 10 U.S.C. sec. 12406. The statute is thus clear that the orders are issued by the President, and they are conveyed through State officials. Nothing in the statute entitles a Governor to veto or impede a valid presidential order.](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreig2g3fr4wv2zfungthqzkv64kr5mgp6k7ktdqopfhnyprcnhr7554)
![Excerpt from the Congressional Record, August 18, 1958, p. 18230:
"Even in cases where the President is within his authority to call forth the militia to enforce the 'laws of the United States,' the law expressly provides that orders federalizing National Guard units 'shall be issued through the governors of the States.'
"This is made plain in section 3500 of title 10 of the United States Code [the prior codification of 10 USC 12406], from which I quote: [Quoting the language of 10 USC 3500, which is materially identical to 10 USC 12406].
"None of the three conditions set forth in this section was met in the Little Rock case. There was no danger of invasion, there was no rebellion or danger of rebellion."](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreigeem332xodjrkp7rz7veyyc4cu6bzrfpegjgcqilvxmrqyqubdw4)
![Excerpt from p. 6943 of the Congressional Record for May 1908. The text reads:
"Mr. FLOYD. My time is so limited that I regret I can not. There is one other question, and that is the constitutional question. A great argument is made against this bill by gentlemen who claim it enlarges the power of the President. I want to express my views on that question. The Constitution, as I understand it, provides that the President of the United States, through the governors of the several States, in time of war may call out the militia of the different States to repeal invasion, suppress insurrection, or to execute the laws of the United States. It is not within the power of this committee, it is not within the power of Congress to tkae from or add to that constitutional provision. That is a provision of the Constitution of the United States and lodges that power in the President of the United States, and ti is not within our power to add to or take from it, and we do not undertake to do that and do not understand we are doing that by this provision of the bill. [Applause.]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreiaanapn5nmxbicpgm6i2imn3yjkjcgpe7b3p3ejooig3rrmjabfee)
![Continuation of passage from the Congressional Record for May 21, 1908, p. 6661:
State, Territory, or District such troops may be called, so as to read:
[here is the same text as in my prior post of Sec. 3 of the 1908 Militia Act]](https://cdn.bsky.app/img/feed_thumbnail/plain/did:plc:cn54gi4w3anugyfn4czrrdw3/bafkreifqfnjq2637kzbp62ek7bikkglefdrfcwem3rbus66snd7ltbzfee)
