Like, yes, the top of the form has the word "WARRANT" on it in big bold caps.

But if it said "ELEPHANT" in big, bold caps, we wouldn't be talking about ICE's use of elephants to enter homes.

It's. A form.

The common-sense definition of "warrant" -- and the definition courts have used, and the definition the executive branch used until apparently nine months ago -- is a document signed by a judge.

"Administrative warrants" aren't. Not even an immigration judge.

They are simply forms.

So in short: thank the universe that Z's our mayor, but don't interpret his endorsement as a statement of values.

See it for what it is: the reality of his immense vulnerability to Hochul in protecting NYC from the governor's ability to impose austerity on NYC.

It's up to us to do what Z cannot.

As someone who was up close + active in the 2014, 2018, and 2022 races, I can tell you from direct experience that the Dem primary for governor is the single-most important determinant of NY's political direction for the next 4 years. If we don't fight this year, NYS will likely move to the right.

That's a word about Z's condition; now a word about the impact of this primary race on New York State.

During 2015–2018 and 2022–2025, NY's politics drifted to the right. But from 2018–2022, they moved to the left.

What was the difference? In 2018–2022, the Left waged a good gubernatorial primary.

In short:

• Zohran did what he could by running for mayor on a platform that centered raising taxes on the rich and popularizing it while running.

• As mayor, Z is now subject to gubernatorial retaliation, meaning he has lost basically most of his power to rally the people against the governor.

To start, Zohran is our guy on the inside. But he's still on the *inside.*

No person on the inside—not even the most charming mayor of NYC in recent memory—is more powerful than the governor.

State budget law gives the governor nearly unilateral power to fiscally starve every city of state funds.

Inadvertent consequences of playing to the easy narrative around hierarchies of evidence and RCTs as gold standard?
This (by @statsepi.bsky.social) being by far the most sensible methodological take:

this really is the crux of it all, you know? yeah. jefferson didn't. but i do. and i'm alive. and i can act.

We call predators "missing stairs" because instead of being fixed, the burden is on the community to warn people that the problem is there through informal networks. There's no orange cone or caution tape to clearly signal which step to avoid. Assuming "everyone knows" means someone can get skipped.

I spent years teaching in ways designed to drive students to score better against the grading criteria, but it was clear that I wasn't helping them learn to write in ways that were enduring, transferable, and meaningful to them as humans (rather than students.) AI novelty falls into the same trap.

...understanding is inherently more limited when the automation plays a role. I see the appeal because the product is better, but this is the same appeal of prescriptive rubrics or the 5PE. It removes choice and challenge in order to facilitate something that scores better, grade-wise.

The bot-enabled revision is superior to no revision as measured by the grade on the artifact, but I can't help but immediately focus on the missing experience in the process when students aren't asked to work through the implications of the rhetorical situation without that assistance. Their...

In a lot of what I've seen the novelty has some instant appeal, e.g., it is hard to get students to do something worth doing and this AI-infused novelty makes it easier. For ex. a custom feedback bot trained to guide student thinking for revision. In theory this is better than no revision.

I am more afraid of the future that awaits if we do nothing in this moment than whatever petty bullshit they try to gin up.

Our rights exist in a use-it-or-lose-it moment.

If we sit down and shut up because we're afraid of what might happen, it is DEFINITELY going to happen.

If I learned two (2) things the second is that the leak is meant to change the status quo & therefore by definition is not going to be an accurate depiction of the status quo. It's like a quantum observability thing.