prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: Who is the program chair of this conference?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 1: HOFFMAN: I'm delighted to introduce the chair of the last session, Mara Liasson from the National Public Radio  Mara is Congressional correspondent for NPR, and covers activities in Congress in D C  Right now, this week, she has been covering the tax bill, which people currently are going at hot and heavy  She took time off from her busy schedule to come here to help us sort out some of these key issues for today, and more importantly, for what happens in the next decade and beyond  I'll turn it over to Mara to get the panel going 
LIASSON: Thank you very much  I am probably the only person here who has absolutely no background in technology  Anyway, I am the only one who does not understand what the panelists are going to be talking about (laughter), and although they have already told me that they do not appreciate people who think that that's a great quality and look down on people who are technical, and I certainly do not, I will reserve the right to insist that they all talk in terms that people like me can understand, since there is more of me out there than you, although not in this room today  (laughter) What we are going to do is introduce each panelist, and each one will make a short three- to five-minute presentation  Then my instructions say that we are going to have a McLaughlin Group discussion, which I guess means lots of yelling and screaming and talking at once  (laughter) After that's over, about 4:10, we'll open up the panel for questions from the audience 
To my left is Peter Denning, who is Chairman of the Computer Science Department at George Mason University and also the associate dean for computing  He is the program chair of this conference, has also served as the president of ACM, and he is currently the editor of Communications 
Simon Davies, to my right, also wears blue suits, but you can tell him from Mitch, because he wears a white hat  (laughter) He is from Sydney, Australia, and is the Director General of Privacy International, which is an international network of privacy advocates  He is also an author, a journalist, and radio commentator 
To his right is Roland Homet  He is an information policy writer and thinker who recently opened his own public policy writing firm here in Washington -- it's called Executive Ink, not Inc , as it is written in your programs, so you can scratch that out 
Esther Dyson, at the end of the panel, is among the most respected commentators on developing technology trends in the personal computer business  She publishes two newsletters, Release 1 0 and Rel-EAST  She has also been one of the driving forces promoting East-West relations through computer networks  She is a board member of the Electronic Frontier Foundation as well 
I'll ask Peter to start 
P  DENNING: Thank you  Starting around 1850, people of many countries looked to their governments to regulate commerce, erase inequities, and build societies of better human beings  For over a hundred years, many people, from peasants to intellectuals, had faith that strong governments would bring them a better life  This faith was part of the clearing in which Communist governments flourished; although the United States took an anti-Communist stand, the same faith fostered a strong government that promised salvation by great national programs including Social Security, welfare, food stamps, the War on Poverty, and the Great Society  This faith is now shattered  People no longer trust that powerful government can deliver a better life 
The dramatic collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union illustrates this, as does the growing disillusionment of the American people for federal, state, and local governments  The poor track record of government is not the only reason for the shift  Information technology has accelerated the process  Communications that took weeks in the last century now take fractions of a second  Business success depends on what happens around the globe, not only on local conditions  Radio, TV, fax, and now E-mail are common worldwide, so much so that not even a powerful government can control what information its citizens have  Because the space of opportunity for people to engage in transactions with each other has been so enormously enlarged during the past decade, faith in marketplace democracies is on the rise worldwide; correspondingly faith in central management mechanisms is on the decline  This shift has brought with it a shift of the power of institutions  Government institutions tend to try to hold onto their power by regulatory coercion to enforce the old ways  This can produce big tensions and even promote breakage 
Nowhere can this be seen more clearly than in the cryptographic area which we have just been talking about in the previous hour  This technology, cryptography, produces mechanisms for digital signatures, authentication, electronic money, certificates, and private communication -- all offering a way for standard business practices now based on paper to be shifted into the electronic media  The success of worldwide enterprises depends on this shift being completed rapidly and effectively  As more people realize this, the momentum for incorporating cryptographic technology into the information infrastructure is accelerating 
In this country, the National Security Agency has long been given the authority to regulate cryptography  This authority was granted in another time when the success of the country depended upon the ability of its government to gather intelligence and communicate in secret  These premises made sense in a world where most of the power resided in governments, but the world is changing  Much economic power is now accumulating in large apolitical transnational corporations  These corporations place their own concerns and strategies ahead of those of governments of the countries in which they do business  Like governments, they are interested in gathering intelligence about competitors and in conducting business in private  Unlike governments, they want open access to the technologies of authentication, electronic money, digital signatures, and certificates that will allow them to conduct business transactions across the network  So it is no longer true that national power and national security are increased when government has the sole right to gather intelligence and encipher communications  Now the strength of a country depends not only on its government, but also on its corporations  The old premises have fallen away in the new reality, but the old policy remains  It's time to rethink the policy, before tensions between a threatened government and corporations produce significant social tension and perhaps breakage 
Well, digital media -- computer-based communications -- are the printing press of the 21st century, and as the printing press transformed society, created the modern individual, gave rise to the basis of the democratic state and to the notion of individual rights, I suspect that we will see a similar, radical transformation of the very constitution of global society in the next century, facilitated by this enabling technology  I would be the last person to try to sketch out the details, or tell you what the issues are going to be, but I want to share with you some feelings about what is really going to matter, as we go about this -- and I'll start with something about myself 
You see a guy wearing a suit; most of you know I have a lot of money -- I'm a successful businessman  God knows what images propagate around the media and settle in people's minds, but I've always seen myself, and felt myself to the core of my being, as an outsider, every bit as much as a self-proclaimed outsider, as Tom Jennings -- who spoke so eloquently about this at the Pioneer awards* yesterday -- was  *The Electronic Freedom Foundation presented its first awards at a related, adjacent reception which was not formally a part of the conference 
I think we are all outsiders; we are all different, all unique  We're not the same  We share an underlying common humanity, but we should not be asked to subjugate ourselves to some form of mass society that causes us each to become indistinguishable from one another  I believe that computer- based communications technology is an enabling technology to liberate individuals and to free us from the oppressive influence of large institutions, whether those are public or private  And I am talking about an economic restructuring that results in a much more decentralized society, and social restructuring in an affirmation of the simple right to be left alone  I think Cyberspace is good for individuals, and I think that's important  I also think that the flip side of the coin, the creation of community, which we so sorely lack in this country today, can be facilitated through these technologies 
I have experienced that for myself, as many of you have on your various computer networks on conferencing systems like the WELL  It is enormously liberating to overcome the artificial boundaries of space and time  We are prisoners of geography in the physical world, and our communities are largely a product of who we can see face to face each day, even though our real comrades and colleagues may be scattered all over the world and our interests -- whether they are hobbies or political interests or religious interests, whatever they might be -- can be facilitated if we are able to get in touch with, to form bonds with, to exchange views and ideas with other kindred spirits  And I believe this technology is an enabling technology for the formation of community  My hope is that we will have the wisdom to create policies which enable individuals to flourish free from the chains of mass society, and which enable voluntary communities of people, individuals, groups who come together to be with each other and to work together  I hope both of those become possible 
DAVIES: I feel very warmed by the various visions of the future that have come out of this conference, but I am a cynic, and cynicism is good, because it adds fiber  (laughter) How nice the world would be if everyone was like Mitch, but they're not, because the future is in the hands of ruthless, greedy little men 
I want to paint the vision of the future that I have, and I hope it's not too depressing because there is a future, a good future    possibly  I agree, as many of you do, that the future is going to be like some giant informational Yggdrasil* *Reference from Old Norse mythology -- the Yggdrasil was a giant ash tree whose roots held together the universe   We'll all be part of interconnectivity, the likes of which we can scarcely imagine right now  I imagine it will be like an organism where we're independent and interdependent, and so it's like a two-edged sword  That's all very nice, and we can see that we form part of that new community  But, I see a world with 15 billion beings scrambling for life, where four-fifths of the world lives on half a liter of water a day, where people grow up to see their children dying, where new political frontiers are destroying freedoms and the democracy that we have developed over the last two centuries  I see a world where there is very little hope for nearly everybody on the planet, except for the elite -- that's us -- except for those of us who are plugged into the informational Yggdrasil 
What I see is that 14 of those 15 billion people are a lot of pissed-off people who have their eyes set on what they see, not as a wonderful informational community, but as the beast  And they see that that is where the resources are, and that's where the opportunities are, and that's where the political power is  I can't see a future for us in a world where ultimately the great demon becomes information  It might be good for us, but for the disaffected four-fifths of the world, information is going to be something which, frankly, we can do without, because in a world with almost no resources left, surely information is selfishness 
HOMET: Thank you  I'm grateful to the organizers for including me in these proceedings -- they are reminiscent for me of some information policy conferences that I organized 15 to 20 years ago for the Aspen Institute  The particulars have certainly changed, but the dynamics remain much the same  For me, these are well-represented by Peter Denning's image of a changeable clearing in the woods  At any given time, as I see it, the clearing is an acceptable standoff between the forces of modernization and of traditional culture, between freedom and discipline, between structure and spontaneity  Now we voice these as opposites, but in fact, they need each other  It is the creative tension between technological innovation and established order that allows society to hold together and progress to take place  Take away freedom and order will be overthrown -- witness the Soviet Union  Take away tradition, and modernization will be crushed -- witness Iran  The clearing must be respected and it must move  Just as Benjamin Cardozo of the U S  Supreme Court said 65 years ago, the genius of the American system is its penchant for ordered liberty  When both halves of the equation work against each other and together in Hegelian terms, the clearing that they produce is, at any given time, a prevailing hypothesis, which is challenged by a new antithesis  Together they can produce a fresh synthesis  And all that is very familiar  What is new and trying is the sweep and pace of innovation today, plus -- and this is what we sometimes forget -- the political volatility of the value systems that this can induce  If you doubt that, consider the Buchanan campaign and what's been going on with the Endowment for the Arts and public broadcasting  These are signs of people running scared, and they can cause damage 
So the answer for the 21st century is to proceed under power, but with restraint, to practice what Mitch Kapor in another connection called toleration for opposing forces and perspectives  We need each other to keep the enterprise together and on course  For computer practitioners represented in this room, this means restraint from provoking unnecessary and damaging social backlash  A good example might be New York telcos offering free per-call and per-line blocking with this caller identification service  For regulators and law enforcers, restraint means asking, "Do you know enough to freeze emerging conduct in a particular form or pattern?" I was very taken by the role reversal exercise organized by Michael Gibbons on Wednesday night  It led me to wonder what might have happened to the government's wiretapping and encryption proposals had they been subjected to a comparable advanced exercise before introduction 
Sixteen years ago in Aspen, Colorado, I convened a gathering of federal policymakers and invited them to consider a suggested matrix of policy values and processes in the information society  The first two of those values -- it will not surprise you to know -- were freedom of discourse and individual privacy  But there were more: freedom of economic choice is one; the general welfare another; popular sovereignty, worth pausing on, I described as avoiding concentrations of economic and political power in any sector of industry or government that impinge unduly on the freedoms or welfare of the citizenry  And then there is progress, social progress, the fostering, I said, of market incentives and opportunities for technological and service innovations and for widened consumer choice among technologies and services  Now obviously if you give just a moment's thought to it, you will recognize, as I think we have in this conference, that these values can collide with each other at key points, and therefore accommodations must be made  For that we need processes of accommodation  I also suggested some of those  After you identify the relevant values and goals, you then should ask yourself about the necessity and the appropriateness of having government make any decision on the matter  And this has to do with such things like the adequacy of decision-making standards, the availability of adequate information, and the adequacy of personnel resources to deal with it  Then you get into dividing up the possible roles of the various elements of government -- the regulatory agencies, the Executive Branch, the Judiciary, and the Congress  It doesn't stop there, because you need to ask about international implications, which we have done some of here  And federal/state implications -- very often allowing the state to make a stab at social ordering in the first instance is, as Justice Brandeis often said, the best way, through the social laboratory technique, to try out what is the right answer, without endangering the whole society  And as we have heard today, we need also to think about the availability of non-coercive instruments of accommodation, like a federal data protection board 
DYSON: I want to just say one thing about this business of crypto technology -- it is a very simple sentence, and everyone seems to slip slightly by it; that is, if you outlaw guns, only outlaws will have guns  Crypto technology is fundamentally a defensive weapon  It may protect murderers and thieves, but it is not a weapon that murders, kills, does anything bad; and so it is a very different kettle of fish from any other kind of weapon  The whole point is that information is powerful, and that the free flow of information, privacy-protected, empowers the powerless and is dangerous to the powerful -- and that's why we need our privacy protected 
Now let me just talk a wee bit about the future  A couple of days ago, a reporter called me and asked what the EFF stood for  I kind of floundered around and said, "Well, we want privacy, we want good hackers to be protected and bad crackers to be punished  We want people to understand the difference, and we want all these good things, but we really don't want to grab power " The guy kept on not quite getting it  The real answers were pro choice  We don't want someone else to make all these decisions for anybody  We don't even want the majority to rule  In every way that is possible, we want the minorities to control their own conditions in their own lives  There are very few things that are the province of government, but way too many things nowadays are being given to the government carelessly, fearfully, whatever  In my terms -- and I happen to be a right-wing person in terms of the economy and private freedoms -- I want more markets and fewer governments  Markets give choices to individuals  They let people trade what they don't want for what they do want  Again, to the extent possible, they want people to make individual choices 
What worries me is large concentrations of power, making choices for people  Big business, big government, even big media  The media until now have mostly been our protectors, because they go out and produce information, they use anonymous sources where necessary, and they make that information free  What protected global networking is going to do is give more and more of that power to individuals, and help reduce the power of big institutions of any kind  We are going to have small businesses flourishing, because it is easier for them to collect resources  You don't need to have a giant monolithic corporation to be efficient any more, and so a lot of marketplace economies of scale will even disappear, as we have better networking, better coordination  We have markets like the American Information Exchange, and if you don't know what that is, come and see me, or Hugh Daniel, or a couple of other people 
On the social side, I think 20 years ago    when you mentioned 15 years ago, I thought, Yes, that must have been about 1940  Then I realized    Anyway, some time ago there was all this talk about the global village  We're going to have mass broadcasting, we're going to have mass E-mail, we're going to have this global village  We don't  What we have is a lot of global villages, but as Mitch said, they're no longer geographical, physical villages  They're small, geographical villages of people with like interests  The big question becomes, How do we avert tribalism? It might not be nation against nation any more, but it certainly will be rich against poor, and franchised versus disenfranchised 
LIASSON: Thank you all very much  Now we can all try to stir up the pot a little bit  Somewhere between Mitch's paradise and the Simon's apocalypse is probably what's really going to happen  I want to just jump off from what Esther said about you all being in a minority and what kind of responsibility you owe to the rest of the world  We're in the midst of a presidential election and not one single candidate has said anything about Cyberspace  I am wondering if you think they should, and what are the kinds of extremely important issues that you think should be discussed? Should they be discussed in a kind of mass, political forum? Or should they be left to an elite like you to discuss and decide, and not really spend a whole lot of energy trying to translate or disseminate them to the great masses of people? I guess what I am wondering is, if you were an advisor to one of the presidential candidates, or a candidate yourself, how would you go about interjecting these things? Or wouldn't you bother at all?
DYSON: Does he want to get elected, or does he want to make a point?
LIASSON: I think he wants to make a point  If he wants to get elected, I think the discussion would stop right now 
DYSON: Let me just try a serious answer  I think what a candidate could say is, "I'm no longer going to protect the textile industry, the peanut butter interests, the sugar guys, the antediluvian steel mills  If I'm going to have an industrial policy and help anyone, it's going to be new technology  I'm going to focus on investment in R&D  I am going to create a national infrastructure for telecommunications, just the way we created a highway system years ago  I'm going to put people to work doing these things " I think that would go over reasonably well  I think it's something most of us would agree on  (laughter) We have an industrial policy -- we might as well acknowledge it, and we might as well have it be forward-looking 
KAPOR: Now there is something about the question as to whether this is presidential material that I think is ironic, given that most people really want to vote for "none of the above " We know in our hearts that we have come to a particular period in history in which the presidential spectacle seems to be particularly irrelevant to whatever set of problems we have on our minds  As a great believer in democracy, I think this is incredibly lamentable  We need to do something about this, because there are a lot of issues, but Cyberspace is not ready for prime time  It would be trivialized -- I have seen what Geraldo did to hackers, and I don't need to see any more 
It seems to me that the presidential candidates are really not the leaders that they ought to be, but are always putting their finger to the wind to see if they can detect some current of values or beliefs that can help get them elected  And I think that -- I'm not espousing utopian vision -- there needs to be an utopian vision out there, so people have something to give them some inspiration  But values are a lot more important than technology  There are some values in this community -- and I'm not sure if it's an elite or a minority or both -- but it's really in the propagation of a sense of values about openness and tolerance, acting on that basis and living one's life, and saving capitalism from itself and things like that where we can make a difference  If some of the expressions are technological, that's fine  We are living in an era where people like buttons, and so on  If we do that well, the presidential candidates are going to be coming to us 
LIASSON: You talk about Cyberspace not being ready for prime time -- I still want a definition of Cyberspace in 25 words or less -- but I think you want to transform prime time to a certain extent 
DYSON: Mostly I agree with this, but the press does have two roles: one is collecting information and uncovering things, and the other is setting the agenda  If 12,000 voices are crying out, who's going to listen to them? Who's going to notice when they do discover that the President did something wrong? Again, it's a check and balance sort of thing, but there is a certain community that is created by collective media 
KAPOR: Esther, what makes you believe that in Cyberspace Mara won't have two hours a day of her own that everyone listens to  (laughter) She might get more time than she gets today, because people trust her 
DYSON: But then she becomes prime time 
LIASSON: But you said before that instead of one global village, we have a lot of little global villages  I'm wondering if instead, we won't have millions of little huts  I mean individual huts  There are just so many different choices 
LIASSON: What I'm wondering is, if everybody becomes their own producer, publisher, what does that mean for the future?
KAPOR: I think we'll get a much more fluid, self-organizing state  I don't think in practice everybody is going to be what we think of today as a broadcast publisher  I just want things to be able to sort themselves out in a much more equitable fashion  We have this enormous, artificial scarcity today over the means of communication, because the government awards licenses which self-perpetuate  They are about to do the same thing, and give every broadcast television station another license for HDTV  So if you've got a license today, you get a second one; if you don't have one, you get nothing  That is going to be our policy about HDTV  I think it would be a lot better if we had more markets, more choices, and better values  I don't know how to do better values, but we know how to do more choices  So the point is, we'll wind up with some new regime which I don't think that we can particularly predict  I don't think that it is going to be chaotic or anarchic  I think there is something about people as social animals or creatures -- we will create some new forms of social organization  There will be information middlemen; there will be the equivalent of editors and packagers  There will be trusted intermediaries who help organize these new media  If you open it up and equalize things so that everybody can participate, you will get more diversity of points of view, you will get less homogenization  One of the reasons that tons of people have just dropped out, or are in terminal couch-potato-dom is that the sets of choices and the values that come across the tube are not ones that stir the human heart  And people know that  They can't figure out what to do about that, so they sort of fuzz out on drugs and alcohol  I say let's edit TV, which is the electronic drug  Let's do something about that 
DAVIES: I like your idea, Mitch  I think it's sweet  (laughter) The problem is that I really worry that the ultimate test of the future is going to be the outcome of the quest, the battle between those who are looking for the sort of vision you've got of the right of the individual, the individual being the producer  And that, probably, is the way we solve our problems on this planet  But there is the other side, and that's the planetary managers  Planetary management is the path of the least resistance  You know all the powermongers go for the planetary management model, because they all think they can clamber over the bodies to get to the top  Ultimately the test is going to be who comes out on the top, the individual rightist or the planetary managers  Unfortunately, I'm not a betting man, but at the moment I'd like to bet on the planetary managers 
DYSON: Part of this issue is reducing the value of incumbency, whether it's incumbency in prime time live, or incumbency in the government  There is much more fluidity of movement; you can't accumulate power because the unorganized forces have more power than you do 
P  DENNING: I feel a little strange being on the left end of the stage, because most people think of me as being on the far right sometimes, but right now I'd like to comment on something that is halfway between what Mitch is saying, and what Simon is saying  The way I hear what Simon is saying, is that there is a disease of today which I will call inward- centeredness  We are very worried about ourselves and our organizations  We find in that orientation a lot of instability of things and technologies that change rapidly  In order to achieve the world that Mitch is talking about, we need to cure the disease, and instead come from an orientation that we could call outward-centeredness, instead of inward-centeredness  The question is the shift from, How do we accumulate power? to, How do we help others accumulate power? How do we go from looking for stability in things to looking for stability in relationships? In watching my own children grow up, I am convinced that they know more about this than I do  In listening to some of the younger people here, I'm more convinced that they know more about this than I do  They know something about the outward-centeredness that I have yet to learn  Observing this among children and among students gives me a lot of optimism, as a matter of fact, against the apocalypse that Simon talks about, because Simon is talking about the world that would be created if we continued "us," and I think that the world that is being created by our children with their outward-centeredness is going to be the kind of world that Mitch is pointing towards  And I am much more optimistic about that than Simon is 
LIASSON: Roland, I wonder if we can interject you into this discussion a little bit  You have been a policymaker  What can be done to make sure that Simon's vision doesn't come true, and something a little closer to what Esther and Mitch describe does happen?
HOMET: I think we probably need both doom seers and paradise seekers  We'll always have them, and we should have them  It's between the swing of those two views that things happen  I think that this notion of replacing the gatekeepers and letting everybody perform his own dance, to the amusement of those who chose to tune in, is one that many of us were promoting 20 years ago  That's not 1940 -- that's 1970 (laughter), and we were quite convinced that was likely to happen by the end of that decade  Now it's 12 years beyond the end of that decade, and we're nowhere near having that happening  We just have newly-named controversies, and so, as you heard me say in my little short remark, I think that our objective ought to be more modest, and that is to keep the questions open, not let them be foreclosed -- certainly not prematurely, and not on the basis of inadequate evidence  I would say something about the apocalyptic view, which is, I think there is a difference between information policy questions and welfare questions  The poor we have always with us, as somebody once said, and whether information, Cyberspace -- whatever you want to call it -- is promoted or not, that is true  It may become more glaringly true in an advanced information society, in which case, more may be done about it  So I wouldn't despair about that, and I wouldn't hold back on the development of instruments of interconnection simply because we can see that there is and will remain an underclass  Perhaps if we do the one, we'll be better equipped to do the other 
LIASSON: In just a minute or two, we're going to open this up to your questions, but I want to try to end maybe with a discussion of something quite specific, which is, Who should own the new infrastructure and information systems? Should they be publicly owned? There are lots of conflicts even within the vision that you lay out 
KAPOR: The first point I'd make is let's not make the unnecessary mistake of betting on a single infrastructure  Technologically, we don't need to do that  In the 1930s, pre-digital, the old Bell system was the social contract  You get a monopoly, you have an obligation to provide universal service  We've learned a few things about how to do things with interoperable standards and how to interconnect multiple, independent providers and carriers  One of the fathers of the Internet, Vint Cerf, is sitting here in the front row, and he deserves an enormous amount of credit for insisting on this vision and promulgating it  A lot of the risks that come with private ownership of infrastructure go away when it's no longer a monopoly  The abusive problems that are sometimes experienced with local phone service and cable companies -- both of which are private sector monopolies -- I would say come more from not their private sector character, but from their monopoly character  If it is possible for there to be competition, that serves as the most effective check that we know of in this society against abuse  So I would opt for private infrastructure, but lots of it  Government has to make sure that everybody stays interconnected -- it's the referee that keeps the playing field level, doesn't let people cheat, and sort of bangs a few heads together when people get a little too greedy, or a little too selfish  If we do that, that will provide for the most choice and the most diversity 
LIASSON: Are we all in agreement on that?
HOMET: Not entirely  I think the question is less who should own infrastructure than how it should be classified  There may be a role for government in, for example, extending communication pipes to rural America for at least a period, as with the TVA  We have always had that question  There has always been a mixed economy with government doing some things and private sector others  It's a debate and should be a debate about who does what best  It should be revised from time to time, but the important question is, If we get a significant distribution system like cable television, how should we classify it? I speak here from the heart, because 20 years ago, I was trying to fasten onto, or gain the recognition for, cable as a broadband distribution system which was only trivially in the program production and publishing business, but was very much in the distribution business and ought to have been treated as a common carrier open to all information suppliers  Had that happened, we would have been very much further along in the vision that some of us had 20 years ago  (applause) It tends to support what I said about not going in for premature freezing or characterization of how things look  It was decided, because the broadcasters felt threatened, to treat cable as a species of broadcasting  That's the greatest frittering away of resources in my lifetime, and perhaps in the lifetime of the United States of America  Let's not make that mistake again  Let's be clear-eyed and ask the broad-scale questions about public use and benefit  Thank you 
LIASSON: Let's open it up to the audience  If you have any questions     oh my God, wrestle your way to the microphone!
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Let us not forget the history of the commons in which a wealthy society creates in its overflowing abundance structures on which all people can participate  This was originally, back in medieval society, the structure that was created for the support of the poor  In the abundance of the land in which the overpopulation was not a question, and there was much agriculture to go around, and the poor were supported out of the commonly-owned things that were jointly owned by all society  That's all I have to say 
LIASSON: Who wants to start?
DAVIES: Sticking to my apocalyptic vision just for the moment, because that's how I'm characterized, what I would like to see, just as my own social experiment, if you like, is for the various groups that this room represents and groups that you are all involved in, is to actually set up the apocalyptic vision, and then see how you as part of the information technology community can utilize it, stop it, or reverse it  It's only when you see the vision and see your own part in it that we are actually going to set up solutions  I mean, that is a straight, outright homework assignment, and I think would be a great benefit for everybody  Then go on and publish them through the E-mail, or the Internet, whatever 
DYSON: Something along the lines of go find the most influential person you know well enough to influence, who you do not agree with -- assuming that you all agree with me, of course -- and attempt to win that person over to your point of view  In other words, don't stick to your own community  Don't just talk to the people who only agree with you  Go out and evangelize or proselytize to people who don't understand what this stuff is about  Do it in such a way that you are not superior or offputting; don't try to be right; try to win and expand this community, not in terms of pressure or rightness, but in terms of understanding what we are about  The biggest problem is ganging up on some of these politicians and having them think that this stuff is not cute, or weird, or colorful, or irrelevant, but incredibly important  Make the rest of the world know about us 
HOMET: I would like to second that motion  The story is told that when a beautiful woman comes out on a street in Paris, every man within eyeshot becomes in that instant much more intensively himself  (laughter) What I would suggest to you, if you are energized by this subject, is to be yourself  To thine own self be true, and perhaps to add to that the biblical admonition to the apostles -- if I remember it correctly -- and this picks up what Esther was saying -- to be wise as snakes, and cunning as foxes  Go out there to persuade 
P  DENNING: I'd like to add to that  It is not only within yourself that you have to look, it's within others  Don't assume that you know the answers, but go talk to people  Don't just talk to us, because we already know what "us" has to say, but go to talk to people that we haven't talked to and find out what concerns them 
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, my name is Lou Woleneck  I'm from the LBJ School of Public Affairs at the University of Texas  I'm a graduate student  I have a question, a general policy question, about how we should go about providing the information resources to the have-nots that the information elites have access to now  What sort of strategy that you all would have for that?
KAPOR: A 30-second or less answer, which is to set a national policy that updates a universal service for the 21st century that says everybody needs to have basic minimal access to a digital platform that reaches into every home, into every office and school in the country  We should focus our attention on how to put in place the least expensive amount of infrastructure that will produce that  What we find is, if we do that, then the overwhelming majority of American families will find it already within their budget to be able to do that, because it will be priced like basic phone service  To the extent that we need to continue or even slightly expand the kinds of lifeline programs that subsidize today's basic voice telephone service for a small percentage of the population, we should be prepared to renew that commitment  We don't need to bankrupt ourselves to give everybody access to a digital platform 
JIM WARREN: My name is Jim Warren  Two quick observations: there were several cynical comments during the last several days about a number of IRS people being here  It turns out, because they never had a platform to say this, that the whole crowd from the IRS who are here, as I understand it, are from the IRS privacy project, intent on developing policies to assure privacy protection for taxpayer information  So let us not be so cynical about their being here; otherwise, remember that they are simply doing what they are told to do by our representatives  (laughter and hisses) I was also bothered by both Simon's, and (my God!) Esther's comments on those evil little men, and the men in politics, etc  Gee, this is a modern age, let's say "men and women," for evil deeds, as well as good deeds 
DYSON: There aren't enough women in politics for there to be any evil ones 
WARREN: Well, I am sure that I can find some evil ones for you  (laughter) Anyway, to the main points: I would say that we are not so much elite, in that we are open to anyone who takes the initiative to join us, and many of us are active mentors in trying to get others to join us  I would say simply that we are a minority, and it occurs to me that revolution has always been a minority activity  It was not millions of Russians who opposed the attempted coup several months ago  It was ten, twenty, or thirty thousand in Moscow, with the aid of communications  It was not a massive movement, a populist movement, in America that resisted the Crown, two centuries ago  It was a small minority of activists and we are the activists here -- we are the revolutionaries  Freedom has always been a do-it-yourself activity, but the key syllable in that word activity is act  Let us reaffirm freedom of speech, press, assembly, security against undue search and seizure -- the basic constitutional freedoms and privileges  Let us demand that our politicians and our political candidates do the same in explicit formal commitments to act in behalf of protecting electronic civil liberties, just as they validate and speak favorably for traditional civil liberties  We can write our politicians, write our candidates and say, "Take a position in favor of civil liberties, regardless of the technology of the moment " Thank you 
GLENN TENNEY: Thank you for the introduction, Jim 
LIASSON: Are you from the IRS?
TENNEY: No  (laughter) My name is Glenn Tenney, and I have a question for you, Mara  I think that I have enough supporters on the panel  I'm not too curious about their views, but they are welcome to them  You questioned if the presidential election and race is ready for Cyberspace  What about Congress? I'm running for Congress -- is it ready for me?
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Ms  Liasson, I believe that you have opened a can of worms called politics for this little hacker community  You certainly have with me in your comment about asking for comments for the Cyberspace era from presidential candidates  I have very strong reactions to that  I think that I am going to try to express them, as a pure statement, or maybe an actual story  Several years ago, I was discussing with a friend of mine the current presidential, the then-current presidential election  He was asking me why I wasn't rabidly supporting Jesse Jackson  I thought about it, and my first response was, "Well, let's talk about the other candidates for a second  What about -- and I'll take a random name -- Michael Dukakis?" And my friend looked at me and said, "Michael Dukakis, he's just an administrator, he's not a visionary " I thought about it, and I said, "Hold on, I'm an American, I'm not someone who's a slave of the Queen of England, or something like that  I'm my own visionary, I decide where I am going " I don't want the politicians walking around telling me that I am going to have an expressway system that's going to pave over all my favorite swamps to play in  I don't want the politicians walking around defining what I'm going to do in my life  I want to elect politicians to manage government for me, to provide the barest minimum necessities to keep us smoothly greased as individuals in living together, and I want those politicians to be of the people, and I don't want them to tell me what my opinions should be  Finally, I want to cap that off with when we have government deciding how our systems work for us, we can then end up with situations where we can say, "Oh yeah, that IRS guy or that government net guy, he was just doing his job when he banned cryptography," or something like that  That's not the sort of world that I want to live in  I want to live in a world, where each of us defines our little space in it  Thank you all 
LIASSON: I think we have time for just two more and then we'll have to wrap it up 
AUDIENCE MEMBER: Hi, to the apocalypse types  I'd like to say just one thing that somebody said: The truth will make you free  In that this technology is a vehicle of communication, I believe that it is a vehicle of the truth, and as long as we keep it free, the truth will be heard that much more  Now I have kind of a question with a bit of a statement  I am a learning-disabled college student  I didn't ever finish high school  I had a freshmen education in high school, because of educational problems, and adjustment problems, I never really got too far beyond that  I write probably a fifth of the speed of anyone in this room and I have a real hard time doing math without a calculator  That's part of the reason why I wasn't able to do well in school  I read very well, fortunately, so I was able to go in when I was eighteen and take my GED just flat out without studying for it  I'm not dumb, or uneducated by any standards, but what has allowed me to get an associate's degree in college, and what has allowed me to approach graduation and get a bachelor's degree in college is the kind of technology that we are dealing with  I have never had easy access to that technology  The barriers that I have faced have been ones of order, regimentation, and where people try and say, "Oh well, you don't fit in, you're not a CS student, you don't need those resources " I'm good with computers, I do a lot with them, I spend a lot of time with them  I hack, I don't do anything illegal, but I took a hacksaw to the frame of my nasty little 8088 about two years ago to cram some RAM into it, because that was the only way I could get it to fit and I needed it  Now I'm in a little bit better shape  I'm approaching the point where I would like to see ISDN real soon, because I need that kind of connectivity  You know, I'm doing interesting things that I find absolutely wonderful, but the idea that the kind of technology that is available to us, that is just there for the using, could be limited and unavailable to people, or that people would have to go through some of the things that I have had to go through, not being able to do well on tests, because I had no word processor available to me  That type of thing, even though they are all over the place, elsewhere  It was just that that wasn't an acceptable solution  That type of policy planning, that type of government, that type of order scares me  And I have to ask, what is your answer to that?
DAVIES: The apocalyptic vision of a world in grief and individual rights in crisis has nothing to do with a Luddite mentality, and it would be very dangerous for the people in this room to link the two together  I, for one, believe in technology  I am very grateful for it, and I think the world is a better place for it  I have great faith in the future, but technology's not a silver lining for the future  It's not an El Dorado, it's more like plutonium  The very great thing that technology does for all of us can also be used by the people who would repress our freedoms and all I am saying is be aware of that  Let's not marginalize people like me, who are saying, Hey look, we are going to have 15 billion people on the planet  We are going to have a political inversion, you know, that is going to create massive tensions that are going to repress our rights, or at least create a tension that we have never known before  Don't marginalize me -- don't shoot the messenger  I believe in technology, so please don't equate the apocalypse with Ludditism -- the two do not match 
LIASSON: We're about out of time  I'm going to turn this over to Lance 
HOFFMAN: Thank you, Mara  I'm really unhappy that we are out of time, but I feel that we have a contract to those who want to leave in a moment or two  Those who want to stay, can stay up here, are welcome to continue, until the hotel throws us out  Since Lu Kleppinger is in the room at the moment, I don't know when that will be, but we can probably have it for a little while  I just want to make a couple of comments before I formally close this meeting 
We have seen an awful lot happen in these last three days and there has been building, and indeed we will be continuing to some extent the work that Jim Warren started at CFP-1 -- a sense of community  It has been increased by the participation of various diverse groups  My one hope is that you do not stop that here  When each and every one of you goes home, contact -- I don't care whether it's by letter, or electronic mail, or even telephone, if you must -- three people that you have met here that you didn't know, or didn't know very well before, or perhaps only knew electronically, and now you know them in person, and continue talking with them and to their friends and colleagues  If you do that, this will be a success 
The other comment that I want to make is that Bruce Koball is going to need a lot of help for CFP-3  Please talk to him -- he is listed in the roster  Or better yet, don't do that, talk to him here, and then give him a month to chill out in Berkeley before he has to start working real hard  Check the message board, there are some messages that have not been picked up  You have your evaluation forms  If you haven't filled them out and you would like to, please do and turn them in  I have nothing else, except to thank you all for being such a good group and, hopefully, we'll see you next year in California  Thank you very much 
Support efforts at engaging society and government on the appropriate legal and social uses of technology 
Context 2: Paper Info

Title: Interpretable reduced-order modeling with time-scale separation Interpretable reduced-order modeling with time-scale separation
Publish Date: 7 March 2023
Author List: Sebastian Kaltenbach (from CSE-Lab, ETH Zurich, Harvard SEAS), Phaedon-Stelios Koutsourelakis (from CSE-Lab, ETH Zurich, Harvard SEAS), Petros Koumoutsakos (from CSE-Lab, ETH Zurich, Harvard SEAS), Harvard Seas (from CSE-Lab, ETH Zurich, Harvard SEAS)

Figure

FIG  5  Comparison between the phase-space of the reference solution (left) and the phase-space of the predictions
FIG  7  Comparison between predictions and reference solutions for a new initial condition fort = 1 25, 3 75, 7 5, 12 5, 20, 30  (from left to right and top to down) We note that with longer prediction time the uncertainty bounds increases Despite the chaotic nature of the KS equation, the predictive posterior mean is close to the reference solution for t ≤ 12 5

abstract

Partial Differential Equations (PDEs) with high dimensionality are commonly encountered in computational physics and engineering  However, finding solutions for these PDEs can be computationally expensive, making model-order reduction crucial  We propose such a data-driven scheme that automates the identification of the time-scales involved and, can produce stable predictions forward in time as well as under different initial conditions not included in the training data 
To this end, we combine a non-linear autoencoder architecture with a time-continuous model for the latent dynamics in the complex space  It readily allows for the inclusion of sparse and irregularly sampled training data  The learned, latent dynamics are interpretable and reveal the different temporal scales involved 
We show that this data-driven scheme can automatically learn the independent processes that decompose a system of linear ODEs along the eigenvectors of the system's matrix  Apart from this, we demonstrate the applicability of the proposed framework in a hidden Markov Model and the (discretized) Kuramoto-Shivashinsky (KS) equation 
Additionally, we propose a probabilistic version, which captures predictive uncertainties and further improves upon the results of the deterministic framework 

INTRODUCTION

High-fidelity simulations of critical phenomena such as ocean dynamics and epidemics have become essential for decision-making  They are based on physically-motivated PDEs expressing system dynamics that span multiple spatiotemporal scales and which necessitate cumbersome computations   In recent years there is increased attention to the development of data-driven models that can accelerate the solution of these PDEs as well as reveal salient, lower-dimensional features that control the long-term evolution 
In most cases, data-driven reduced-order models are not interpretable  In particular, models based on neural networks despite good predictive capabilities , they offer a black-box description of the system dynamics  A possible remedy is applying a symbolic regression to the learned neural network representation , but this adds additional computational cost due to the two-step procedure 
A number of frameworks such as SINDy allows to learn interpretable dynamics but it relies on the a-priori availability of lower-dimensional descriptors and of time-derivatives which can be very noisy for both simulation and experimental data  Other frameworks are tailored to specific problems such as molecular dynamics  
Here, we present a framework that only needs the value of the observables, and not their derivatives, as training data and is capable of identifying interpretable latent dynamics  The deployment of interpretable latent dynamics ensures that conservation of important properties of that are reflected in the reduced-order model  
The present method is related to approaches based on the Koopman-operator extended Dynamic Mode Decomposition (eDMD) but uses continuous complex-valued latent space dynamics and only requires one scalar variable per latent dimension to describe the latent space dynamics  Therefore we do not have to enforce any parametrizations on the Koopman matrix  
The time-continuous formulation moreover allows to incorporate sparse and irregularly sampled training data and fast generation of predictions after the training phase  By using a complex-valued latent space we can also incorporate harmonic effects and reduce the number of latent variables needed  Linear and non-linear autoencoders are used to map the observed, high-dimensional time-series to the lower-dimensional, latent representation and we identify simultaneously the autoencoder as well as the latent dynamics by optimizing a combined loss function 
Hence the to tasks of dimensionality reduction and discovery of the reduced dynamics are unified while other frameworks treat the two parts separately   Apart from using an architecture based on autoencoders to identify the latent space, projection-based methods could also be employed   We are also proposing a probabilistic version of our algorithm ) that makes use of probabilistic Slow Feature Analysis  
This allows for a latent representation that arart from being time-continuous, can quantify the predictive uncertainty and hierarchically decompose the dynamics into their pertinent scales while promoting the discovery of slow processes that control the system's evolution over long time horizons  The rest of the paper is structured as follows: We introduce the methodological framework as well as algorithmic details in section II 
Particular focus is paid on the interpretability of the inferred lower-dimensional dynamics  In section III we present three numerical illustrations, i e  a system of linear ODEs, a hidden Markov Model and the discretized KS-equation  We then present in section IV the probabilistic extension of the framework and apply it to the KS-equation 
We conclude with a summary and a short discussion about possible next steps  We introduce the autoencoders deployed in this work, followed by the interpretable latent space dynamic and discuss the training process  We consider data from high-dimensional time series x n ∈ R f with n = 1,    , T   We remark that the intervals between the different states do not need to be uniformly spaced 

Autoencoder

A core assumption of the method is that each high-dimensional state x n can be compressed to a lower-dimensional representation z n ∈ C c with c << f   We identify this lower-dimensional representation by an autoencoder consisiting of a parameterized encoder and decoder  The encoder maps the high-dimensional representation to the latent space as:
The latent space is complex-valued  The decoder reconstructs the high-dimensional representation based on the latent variables as: We denote the parameters of the encoder as well as the decoder by θ  As discussed later in Section II C, both set of parameters are optimized simultaneously during training and therefore there is no need for differentiating them 

Interpretable Latent Space Dynamics

We employ a propagator in the latent space to capture the reduced-order dynamics of the system  In contrast to other time-extended variational autoencoder frameworks, our representation uses complex valued latent variables  In addition the latent variables are treated independently  The latter feature enables us to have an interpretable latent dynamics as well as a model that is especially suitable for being trained in the Small Data regime due to the small number of required parameters 
This is in contrast to temporal propagators such as LSTMs   For each dimension i of the latent variable z we are using the following continuous ODE in the complex plane: By solving this ODE, we can define the operator: Interpretable reduced-order modeling with time-scale separation Here, λ is a vector containing all the individual λ's and ∆t n indicates the time-step between the latent states 
The symbol is used to indicate a component-wise multiplication  We remark that the latent variables and the parameter governing the temporal evolution are complex numbers and their role in describing the system dynamics is similar to that of an eigenvalue  The real part is associated with growth and decay whereas the imaginary part is representing the periodic component 
This approach has similarities with the Koopman-operator based methods and the extended dynamic mode decomposition   In contrast to the methods mentioned before we are using a continuous formulation in the latent space that allows us to incorporate scarce and irregularly sampled training data and directly rely on complex numbers in the latent space 

Training and Predictions

We optimize a loss function that combines both a reconstruction loss as well as a loss associated with the error of our learned propagator in the latent space: (5) We note that we could directly incorporate mini-batch training by only taking the summation over a subset of the N available training data 
For new predictions of unseen states, we use the encoder to generate a latent representations which is then advanced in time by the learned propagator  At a designated time step we are using the decoder to reconstruct the high-dimensional solution  We applied our algorithm to three systems  First, we show that the algorithm is capable of exactly reproducing the solution of a linear ODE and to identify its eigenvalues 
Afterwards we are applying the framework to a high-dimensional process generated by a complex latent dynamics, which is correctly identified  As a final test case, we are applying the algorithm to a Kuramoto Shivashinski (KS) equation  Interpretable reduced-order modeling with time-scale separation

Linear ODE

We are considering a two-dimensional ODE system for x = y 1 y 2 : Based on the obtained training data we run our algorithm using a linear encoder and decoder structure as well as two latent variables z  The loss function was optimized using the Adam algorithm   As we consider a linear ODE we can analytically compute the eigenvalues involved and compare it with the parameters λ identified by our algorithm 
We observe in Figure that the algorithm was able to recover the correct values, i e  the eigenvalues 7 and 3 of the given linear ODE  The system does not have a periodic component and the two imaginary parts correctly go to zero, whereas the real parts converge to the reference value  Moreover we are also able to identify for the linear mapping between our latent variables z and the training data a matrix consisting of a multiple of the eigenvectors (1,1) and (1,-1) and thus the correct solution 
This example was chosen to show that the algorithm is able to quickly identify the exact solution of a linear ODE in terms of its linearly independent components 

Hidden multiscale dynamics

We consider eight-dimensional synthetic time series data produced by an underlying twodimensional complex valued process  In particular, the data points x are generated by first solving for the temporal evolution for the two complex-valued processes p 1 and p 2 and than mapping to the eight-dimensional space by using a randomly sampled linear mapping W  
One of the two processes used to generate the data is chosen to be much slower than the other one and both processes have a periodic component  dp 2 dt = (−0 9 + 1 5i)p 2 (8) As training data we consider 40 time series with 150 data points each, obtained by simulating the described processes for a maximum of t = 15 s and then sampling from the obtained data points 
Hence the training data consists of: • 40 time-series • with each consisting 150 observations of the x at a uniform time-step ∆t = 0 0025 The autoencoder obtained consists of one linear layer for both the decoder as well as the encoder  The model is trained for 5000 iterations using the Adam optimizer and a learning rate of 10 −3  
The results for the convergence of the parameters λ 1 and λ 2 can be found in Figure   We note that the process which is slower decaying and thus more responsible for the long-term evolution of the system has a higher convergence rate than the faster process  With the obtained parameters λ as well as the trained autoencoder, we compute predictions based on the last time step used for training, i e  we apply the encoder to obtain our latent representation and than use the latent dynamics to advance the latent representation in time 
Afterwards, we employ the decoder to reconstruct the full high-dimensional system  The results can be found in Figure and show very good agreement between predictions and reference data  This example shows that our model is successfully able to carry out dimensionality reduction and moreover indicates that the convergence rate between latent processes can be different 
The latter is relevant when training models as for accurate predictions all latent processes and their dynamics should be converged 

Kuramoto-Sivashinsky

Finally, we applied our algorithm to the KS equation and aim to identify a reduced-order model for the solution u(y, t): We employed periodic boundary conditions, µ = 1 and a domain size y ∈ [0, 22]  For this domain-size, the KS-equation exhibits a structurally stable chaotic attractor as discussed in The black lines divides the area for which training data was given from the area without raining data 
;   The equation is discretized in space using a discretization step of 22 64 resulting in a state vector x of dimension 64 and a nonlinear system of coupled ODEs  This is solved using a stiff fourth-order solver  We employed a non-linear encoder and decoder with four fully-connected layers each and ReLU-activation functions as well as Dropout Layers between the fully-connected layers 
We trained the model for 200000 iterations using Adam and a learning rate of 5 • 10 4 and assuming a five-dimensional latent space  We obtained the λ's in Figure   Four latent variables have λ's close to zero and thus a slow temporal dynamic that is responsible for the long-term evolution whereas one latent variable is quickly decaying 
Based on the obtained parameters, we do predictions based on an unseen initial condition not contained in the training data  We are able to reconstruct the correct phase space based on our predictions despite only using a very limited amount of training data  The results for the phase space can be seen in Figure  
Although the small-scale fluctuations in the temporal dynamics are not well captured, the model identifies the correct manifold which has a good accuracy compared to the reference solution  All phase-spaces were obtained by using a finite-difference operator on the data or predictions  These results are in accordance Interpretable reduced-order modeling with time-scale separation with whose LSTM-based temporal dynamic model was also able to find the correct phase space but not to track the actual dynamics for long-term predictions 
Our model is not able to account for noise in the temporal evolution and thus dealing with chaotic, small-scale fluctuations is challenging  We believe that a probabilistic version of our algorithm could be advantageous here  This section contains a fully probabilistic formulation for the deterministic model discussed before 
We replace the Autoencoder with a Variational Autoencoder and the ODE in the latent space with a SDE  The loss function which we optimize is the Evidence-Lower Bound (ELBO) 

Model Structure

We postulate the following relations for our probabilistic model using an Ornstein-Uhlenbeck (OU) for each dimension i of the latent space and a Wiener process W t in the latent space: We again assume that the latent variables z t are complex-valued and a priori independent  Complex variables were chosen as their evolution includes a harmonic components which are observed in many physical systems 
We assume an initial conditions z 0,i ∼ CN (0, σ 2 0,i )  The total parameters associated with the latent space dynamics of our model are thus {σ 2 0,i , σ 2 i , λ i } c i=1 and will be denoted by θ together with all parameters responsible for the decoder mapping G (see next section)  These parameters along with the state variables z t have to be inferred from the data x t  
Based on probabilistic Slow Feature Analysis (SFA) , we set σ 2 i = 2; (λ j ) and σ 2 0,i = 1  As a consequence, a priori, the latent dynamics are stationary  A derivation and reasoning for this choice can be found in Appendix A  Hence the only independent parameters are the λ i , the imaginary part of which can account for periodic effects in the latent dynamics 

Variational Autoencoder

We employ a variational autoencoder to account for a probabilistic mappings from the lower-dimensional representation z n to the high-dimensional system x n   In particular we are employing a probabilistic decoder The encoder is used to infer the state variables z based on the given data and thus defined in the inference and learning section 

Inference and Learning

Given the probabilistic relations , our goal is to infer the latent variables z 0:T as well as all model parameters θ  We follow a hybrid Bayesian approach in which the posterior of the state variables is approximated using amortized Variational Inference and Maximum-A-Posteriori (MAP) point-estimates for θ are computed 
The application of Bayes' rule for each data sequence x 0:T leads to the following posterior: where p(θ) denotes the prior on the model parameters  In the context of variational inference, we use the following factorization of the approximate posterior i e  we infer only the mean µ and variance σ for each state variable based on the given data points 
This conditional density used for inference is the encoder-counterpart to the probabilistic decoder defined in the section before  It can be readily shown that the optimal parameter values are found by maximizing the Evidence Lower Bound (ELBO) F(q φ (z 0:T ), θ) which is derived in Appendix B  We compute Monte Carlo estimates of the gradient of the ELBO with respect to φ and θ with the help of the reparametrization trick and carry out stochastic optimization with the ADAM algorithm  

Results for the probabilistic extension

We applied our probabilistic version to the KS-equation  We used the same settings as for the deterministic approach but considered up to 10 complex latent variables  The obtained λ's are in Figure   The probabilistic model allows us to quantify the uncertainty in predictions  In Figure predictions for various time-steps and the respective uncertainty bounds are shown for an unseen initial condition 
Due to the chaotic nature of the KS-equation and the small amount of training data, the underlying linear dynamic of our model is only able to capture the full dynamics for a limited time horizon  Fortunately, due to the probabilistic approach the model is capable of capturing chaotic fluctuations with increasingly wide uncertainty bounds 
We also computed the phase space representation for the KS-equation based on the predictions obtained by our model and compare it with the reference solution  The probabilistic model identifies the correct manifold with a better accuracy than the deterministic model  As some of the small-scale fluctuations are accounted as noise, the resulting manifold is more concentrated at the origin and the obtained values are slightly smaller than the reference manifold although their shape is very similar 
Context 3: South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc  - Harvard Law Review
Fourth Circuit Invalidates Maryland Statute Regulating Price Gouging in the Sale of Generic Drugs 
South Dakota Supreme Court Holds Unconstitutional State Law Requiring Internet Retailers Without In-State Physical Presence to Remit Sales Tax 
Judicial junk, the Court has long thought, is easier to scrap when the erroneous precedent cannot be fixed by Congress, as in constitutional cases 1× 1  See Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 405–10 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting); Lee Epstein, William M  Landes & Adam Liptak, The Decision to Depart (or Not) from Constitutional Precedent: An Empirical Study of the Roberts Court, 90 N Y U  L  Rev  1115, 1116 (2015) (“[Justice Brandeis’s] dissenting opinion       now has the status of black letter law ”)  On the flip side, whenever a bad precedent can be corrected by Congress, stare decisis applies with “special force ”2× 2  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  The Court, following Justice Brandeis, usually articulates the rule as distinguishing between “constitutional” and “statutory” precedents  See, e g , id  But the distinction is occasionally said to be between “constitutional” and “nonconstitutional cases ” See, e g , Glidden Co  v  Zdanok, 370 U S  530, 543 (1962) (plurality opinion)  Nomenclature aside, the Court has — until now — adhered to Justice Brandeis’s key insight that the important factor is whether or not the mistake may be legislatively corrected  Last Term, in South Dakota v  Wayfair, Inc ,3× 3  138 S  Ct  2080 (2018)  the Court tinkered with this thinking in overruling an outdated dormant commerce clause precedent  Dormant commerce clause decisions technically produce constitutional holdings, but Congress may override them at will 4× 4  See Prudential Ins  Co  v  Benjamin, 328 U S  408, 421–27 (1946)  Under the usual logic of stare decisis, it should take special force to dislodge such precedents  But Wayfair applied the weakened stare decisis of constitutional cases, asserting that the Court must “address a false constitutional premise         whether or not Congress can or will act ”5× 5  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Emerging from Wayfair is an odd and ominous development in stare decisis doctrine  Odd, because it turns on a formal classification instead of on Congress’s practical ability to fix the problem  Ominous, because the Court’s logic leads far past the dormant commerce clause  Wayfair grants only feeble stare decisis to precedents that set a “constitutional default rule,”6× 6  Id  at 2096 (“While       Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule ”)  meaning constitutional decisions that allow for legislative adjustment or override  This new stare decisis analysis makes other precedents setting constitutional default rules more vulnerable — including, perhaps, mainstays of criminal procedure like Miranda v  Arizona7× 7  384 U S  436 (1966)  and Mapp v  Ohio 8× 8  367 U S  643 (1961) 
Since its 1967 decision in National Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Department of Revenue,9× 9  386 U S  753 (1967)  the Court has held that, under the “dormant” or “negative” implication of the Commerce Clause,10× 10  The dormant or negative commerce clause is a judicial derivation from the Commerce Clause “prohibiting States from discriminating against or imposing excessive burdens on interstate commerce without congressional approval,” which “strikes at one of the chief evils that led to the adoption of the Constitution, namely, state tariffs and other laws that burdened interstate commerce ” Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1794 (2015)  states may not compel remote sellers with no physical presence in the state to collect and remit sales taxes 11× 11  See Bellas Hess, 386 U S  at 759–60  In Quill Corp  v  North Dakota,12× 12  504 U S  298 (1992)  the Court refused to overrule the “bright-line, physical-presence requirement” of Bellas Hess, leaning heavily on stare decisis 13× 13  Id  at 317–18  Three Justices joined a concurrence explaining that their decision rested solely “on the basis of stare decisis ” Id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment)  So the physical presence test remained the law of the land while the internet conquered the earth  Justice Kennedy had joined the Quill majority and Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion emphasizing stare decisis, but by 2015 he had second thoughts  Writing separately in Direct Marketing Ass’n v  Brohl,14× 14  135 S  Ct  1124 (2015)  Justice Kennedy acknowledged that “[t]he Internet has caused far-reaching systemic and structural changes in the economy” and therefore “Quill now harms States to a degree far greater than could have been anticipated earlier ”15× 15  Id  at 1135 (Kennedy, J , concurring)  He concluded with the wish that “[t]he legal system should find an appropriate case for this Court to reexamine Quill and Bellas Hess ”16× 16  Id 
Seldom has a concurring opinion signed by a lone Justice prompted a state to officially declare an emergency  Yet in 2016, in response to Justice Kennedy’s overture, the South Dakota legislature passed a law, S B  106, “to provide for the collection of sales taxes from certain remote sellers       and to declare an emergency ”17× 17  2016 S D  Sess  Laws ch  70 pmbl  217 (codified at S D  Codified Laws § 10-64 (2017))  It required every remote seller to collect and remit sales tax if the seller’s business in South Dakota comprised either a “gross revenue” greater than $100,000 or at least 200 “separate transactions” within one calendar year 18× 18  Id  § 1  Significantly, the law did not apply retroactively 19× 19  Id  § 5  The “emergency” declaration was necessary to give the law immediate effect, for the purpose of “permitting the most expeditious possible review of the constitutionality of this law” by the U S  Supreme Court 20× 20  Id  § 8(8)  As Justice Alito put it, the “South Dakota law [was] obviously a test case ”21× 21  Transcript of Oral Argument at 27, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494), https://www supremecourt gov/oral_arguments/argument_transcripts/2017/17-494_7lho pdf [https://perma cc/8HYH-VU8N] 
Expeditiously, a group of remote sellers challenged the law  After being sued by South Dakota for refusing to register for the newly required sales tax license, Wayfair, Inc , Overstock com, Inc , and Newegg, Inc  moved for summary judgment in South Dakota circuit court on the grounds that S B  106 was unconstitutional under Quill and Bellas Hess — a point South Dakota conceded, indicating that it was seeking review by the U S  Supreme Court to overturn Quill 22× 22  State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, ¶¶ 9–11, 901 N W 2d 754, 759–60  Accordingly, the South Dakota circuit court granted the motion for summary judgment and South Dakota appealed to the state’s highest court 23× 23  Id  ¶ 12, 901 N W 2d at 760  The South Dakota Supreme Court unanimously affirmed, recognizing that South Dakota’s “arguments on the merits” may be “persuasive” but “Quill remains the controlling precedent ”24× 24  Id  ¶ 18, 901 N W 2d at 761  See generally Recent Case, State v  Wayfair Inc , 2017 SD 56, 901 N W 2d 754 (S D  2017), 131 Harv  L  Rev  2089 (2018) 
The U S  Supreme Court vacated and remanded 25× 25  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2100  Writing for the Court one last time, Justice Kennedy26× 26  Justices Thomas, Ginsburg, Alito, and Gorsuch joined Justice Kennedy’s opinion  pilloried Quill’s physical presence rule as “arbitrary, formalistic,” “anachronistic,” and “unfair and unjust” to both states and brick-and-mortar retailers 27× 27  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2092, 2095  After all, the rationale of Quill was that remote sellers lacked a sufficiently “substantial nexus” with the state to justify imposing a duty of tax collection 28× 28  Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  298, 311 (1992) (quoting Complete Auto Transit, Inc  v  Brady, 430 U S  274, 279 (1977))  This was wrong even in the mail-order catalog days of 1967 and 1992, but “the Internet revolution has made [Quill’s] earlier error all the more egregious and harmful ”29× 29  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2097; see also id  at 2092  The rule deprived the states of billions of dollars, since they could not force remote sellers to collect the tax and consumers hardly ever paid it on their own 30× 30  Id  at 2088 (“[C]onsumer compliance rates are notoriously low ”)  Quill “serve[d] as a judicially created tax shelter” for remote retailers who do a great deal of business online 31× 31  Id  at 2094 
Satisfied that Bellas Hess and Quill were wrongly decided, the Court then jumped the hurdle of stare decisis  The Quill Court had feared upsetting reliance interests 32× 32  Quill, 504 U S  at 317 (“Bellas Hess       has engendered substantial reliance and has become part of the basic framework of a sizable industry ”)  Wayfair shrugged off this concern, noting that “stare decisis accommodates only ‘legitimate reliance interest[s]’”; by contrast, reliance on the physical presence rule was largely due to consumers evading their use-tax obligations 33× 33  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2098 (alteration in original) (quoting United States v  Ross, 456 U S  798, 824 (1982))  Quill had also appealed to Congress’s ultimate authority over interstate commerce as a reason to abide by a precedent, even if wrongly decided 34× 34  See Quill, 504 U S  at 318–19; id  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment) (“Congress   



ground_truth: Peter Denning.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: How does the framework capture the reduced-order dynamics?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:    can change the rule of Bellas Hess by simply saying so ”)  But Wayfair denied that Congress’s ability to change the law was a proper consideration:
While it can be conceded that Congress has the authority to change the physical presence rule, Congress cannot change the constitutional default rule  It is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role to ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of this Court’s own creation  Courts have acted as the front line of review in this limited sphere; and hence it is important that their principles be accurate and logical, whether or not Congress can or will act in response 35× 35  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096–97 
Having dispensed with the physical presence rule, the Court remanded the case to the South Dakota courts to determine in the first instance “whether some other principle in the Court’s Commerce Clause doctrine might invalidate the Act ”36× 36  Id  at 2099  But the Court listed “several features [of South Dakota law] that appear[ed] designed to prevent discrimination against or undue burdens upon interstate commerce ” Id 
Justices Thomas and Gorsuch each filed concurring opinions  Justice Thomas wistfully likened himself to Justice White — who voted for Bellas Hess but against Quill a quarter-century later — and confessed that he “should have joined [Justice White’s dissenting] opinion ”37× 37  Id  at 2100 (Thomas, J , concurring)  Justice Thomas added that the “Court’s entire negative Commerce Clause jurisprudence” is wrong and should be abandoned 38× 38  Id  Justice Gorsuch also wrote separately to express skepticism of the Court’s dormant commerce clause jurisprudence, raising “questions for another day” of whether the doctrine “can be squared with the text of the Commerce Clause, justified by stare decisis, or defended as misbranded products of federalism or antidiscrimination imperatives flowing from Article IV’s Privileges and Immunities Clause ”39× 39  Id  at 2100–01 (Gorsuch, J , concurring) 
Chief Justice Roberts dissented 40× 40  Justices Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan joined the Chief Justice’s dissent  Surprisingly, the dissenting Justices “agree[d] that Bellas Hess was wrongly decided, for many of the reasons given by the Court ”41× 41  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2101 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  The dispute between the majority and the dissent turned entirely on the principles and application of stare decisis  Chief Justice Roberts argued that whether or how to reverse Quill should be left to Congress, which “has the flexibility to address these questions in a wide variety of ways” and “can focus directly on current policy concerns rather than past legal mistakes ”42× 42  Id  at 2104  He also pointed to the “baffling” burdens of compliance with the idiosyncratic tax codes of “[o]ver 10,000 jurisdictions,” particularly for small businesses, and doubted that new “software” — the majority’s proposed solution to this mess43× 43  Id  at 2098 (majority opinion) (“Eventually, software that is available at a reasonable cost may make it easier for small businesses to cope with these problems ”)  — would soon solve the problem 44× 44  Id  at 2103–04 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  In Bellas Hess, the Court reasoned that the dormant commerce clause protects interstate business from being “entangle[d]       in a virtual welter of complicated obligations to local jurisdictions ” Nat’l Bellas Hess, Inc  v  Dep’t of Revenue, 386 U S  753, 759–60 (1967)  The dissent replied that the Court “vastly underestimate[d] the skill of contemporary man and his machines ” Id  at 766 (Fortas, J , dissenting)  The dispute in Wayfair over whether software is up to the task effectively reprised the old debate from Bellas Hess, only this time couched as part of the stare decisis inquiry’s concern for reliance interests rather than as a matter of dormant commerce clause doctrine  While Wayfair acknowledged that “[c]omplex state tax systems could have the effect of discriminating against interstate commerce,” 138 S  Ct  at 2099, the Court remarked that “[t]he physical presence rule is a poor proxy” for an inquiry into any actual burdens imposed on interstate commerce, id  at 2093 
Chief Justice Roberts emphasized that a “heightened form of stare decisis”45× 45  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting)  applies when “Congress       can, if it wishes, override this Court’s decisions with contrary legislation ”46× 46  Id  at 2101 (first citing Michigan v  Bay Mills Indian Cmty , 134 S  Ct  2024, 2036 (2014) (tribal sovereign immunity); then citing Kimble v  Marvel Entm’t, LLC, 135 S  Ct  2401, 2409 (2015) (statutory interpretation); and then citing Halliburton Co  v  Erica P  John Fund, Inc , 134 S  Ct  2398, 2411 (2014) (judicially created doctrine implementing a judicially created cause of action))  In Quill, the Chief Justice noted, the Court had taken to heart that “Congress may be better qualified” and “has the ultimate power to resolve” the question47× 47  Id  at 2102 (quoting Quill Corp  v  North Dakota, 504 U S  279, 318 (1992))  while Justice Scalia had “recogniz[ed] that stare decisis has ‘special force’ in the dormant Commerce Clause context due to Congress’s ‘final say over regulation of interstate commerce ’”48× 48  Id  (quoting Quill, 504 U S  at 320 (Scalia, J , concurring in part and concurring in the judgment))  Moreover, “[i]f stare decisis applied with special force in Quill, it should be an even greater impediment” afterward since Quill effectively “tossed [the ball] into Congress’s court ”49× 49  Id  (alteration in original) (quoting Kimble, 135 S  Ct  at 2409); cf  Bay Mills, 134 S  Ct  at 2039 n 12 (“When we inform Congress that it has primary responsibility over a sphere of law, and invite Congress to consider a specific issue within that sphere, we cannot deem irrelevant how Congress responds ”)  Because the Court invited Congress to act and then “suddenly chang[ed] the ground rules, the Court may have waylaid Congress’s consideration of the issue ”50× 50  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102–03 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
In Wayfair, the Court applied the flimsier form of stare decisis to a precedent that could have been overruled by Congress  It did so in the context of a dormant commerce clause case, but Wayfair’s logic extends to all constitutional default rules — that is, constitutional decisions that Congress remains free to change  Not only does Wayfair deviate from the Court’s decades-old stare decisis analysis, it also imperils other precedents that set constitutional default rules 
The Court’s reasoning in Wayfair departs from its prior stare decisis analysis  In 1932, Justice Brandeis posited that stare decisis must bend “in cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible ”51× 51  Burnet v  Coronado Oil & Gas Co , 285 U S  393, 406–07 (1932) (Brandeis, J , dissenting)  The Court has long since adopted his argument,52× 52  See, e g , Smith v  Allwright, 321 U S  649, 665 (1944)  as well as its corollary — that stare decisis commands “special force in the area of statutory interpretation” where “Congress remains free to alter what [the Court has] done ”53× 53  Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 172–73 (1989)  For normative evaluations of heightened stare decisis for statutory precedents, see generally Einer Elhauge, Statutory Default Rules: How to Interpret Unclear Legislation 211–23 (2008); and William N  Eskridge, Jr , Overruling Statutory Precedents, 76 Geo  L J  1361, 1364–1409 (1988)  Justice Brandeis’s logic demands that dormant commerce clause cases, where Congress is free to act, be granted the weightier stare decisis 54× 54  Scholars have noted the curious fact that Justice Brandeis included many dormant commerce clause cases as examples of overruled constitutional precedents  See, e g , Earl M  Maltz, Commentary, Some Thoughts on the Death of Stare Decisis in Constitutional Law, 1980 Wis  L  Rev  467, 468–469, 469 n 11  One explanation for this is that Justice Brandeis sought the authority of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum that the Court’s “opinion upon the construction of the Constitution is always open to discussion” — which referred to the dormant commerce clause  See Burnet, 285 U S  at 408 n 3 (Brandeis, J , dissenting) (quoting The Passenger Cases, 48 U S  (7 How ) 283, 470 (1849) (Taney, C J , dissenting))  In Chief Justice Taney’s time, it was thought that Congress could not override the Court’s dormant commerce clause decisions, see Cooley v  Bd  of Wardens, 53 U S  (12 How ) 299, 321 (1852), so the context of Chief Justice Taney’s dictum does not conflict with Justice Brandeis’s theory of stare decisis  The Court applied this reasoning in Quill, as Chief Justice Roberts underscored 55× 55  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2102 (Roberts, C J , dissenting) 
Yet the Wayfair majority refused to consider Congress’s authority to legislate as a relevant factor for stare decisis 56× 56  Even Justice Kennedy’s earlier opinion in Direct Marketing contemplated judicially overruling Quill, conspicuously neglecting a possible legislative solution  See supra p  278  The Court even insisted that to do so “is inconsistent with the Court’s proper role,” since Quill embodied “a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”57× 57  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096 (emphasis added)  This refusal breaks from the practical Brandeisian wisdom that has guided the Court’s treatment of precedent for the better part of a century  The point is not that stare decisis should have ultimately propped up Bellas Hess yet again, as Wayfair’s dissenting Justices maintained  After all, a realistic approach that is alert to each branch’s institutional capacities might have led to the conclusion that Congress was actually ill-equipped to overrule Quill  In this vein, the Court could have sensibly pointed out that Congress is unlikely to stick its neck out with a tax hike (or a look-alike) from which only the states would benefit 58× 58  For two practical arguments to this effect, see Brian Galle, Essay, Kill Quill, Keep the Dormant Commerce Clause: History’s Lessons on Congressional Control of State Taxation, 70 Stan  L  Rev  Online 158, 160–62 (2018), https://review law stanford edu/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2018/03/70-Stan -L -Rev -Online-158-Galle pdf [https://perma cc/22YP-P4V5]; Edward A  Zelinsky, The Political Process Argument for Overruling Quill, 82 Brook  L  Rev  1177, 1191–92 (2017)  Indeed, South Dakota advanced such practical arguments in its brief 59× 59  See Petitioner’s Brief at 54, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress has little incentive to act here because it would be (or appear to be) authorizing new or greater tax collections from its constituents, while receiving none of the revenue in return ”)  More generally, the Court might have discussed the limits of the states’ influence in the federal system as a reason not to wait for congressional intervention, a topic it has debated on other occasions 60× 60  See Richard H  Pildes, Institutional Formalism and Realism in Constitutional and Public Law, 2013 Sup  Ct  Rev  1, 30–32; see also Galle, supra note 58, at 159 (“Congress is not a trustworthy guardian of state fiscal power, making continuing judicial involvement a more appealing prospect ”)  Or it could have argued that new facts on the ground — namely, the blast of e-commerce that hit like a comet after Quill — overpowered stare decisis of any force, special or plain 61× 61  Two recent studies of stare decisis highlighted the physical presence rule as exemplifying a precedent that may reasonably be overruled due to changed facts  See Bryan A  Garner et al , The Law of Judicial Precedent 364–65 (2016); Randy J  Kozel, Settled Versus Right: A Theory of Precedent 112–13 (2017)  It should be noted that the authors of The Law of Judicial Precedent classify the physical presence rule as a constitutional precedent for stare decisis purposes, thus anticipating the Court’s misstep in Wayfair  Garner et al , supra, at 354–65  Because even statutory precedents may sometimes be overruled,62× 62  See Patterson v  McLean Credit Union, 491 U S  164, 173–74 (1989) (discussing justifications for overruling statutory precedents)  Contra Lawrence C  Marshall, “Let Congress Do It”: The Case for an Absolute Rule of Statutory Stare Decisis, 88 Mich  L  Rev  177 (1989)  the Court could have killed Quill without first planting its constitutional kiss of death 63× 63  Cf  Thomas R  Lee, Stare Decisis in Historical Perspective: From the Founding Era to the Rehnquist Court, 52 Vand  L  Rev  647, 704 (1999) (“Justice Brandeis’       memorable prose has since become a mandatory part of the burial rite for any constitutional precedent ”) 
The Court resisted such arguments  Instead, Wayfair reasoned that Congress’s total ability to correct an erroneous decision counts for nothing when the Court gets the Constitution wrong  That such a theory sprouts from a case like Wayfair, which repudiated a “formalistic distinction,”64× 64  Wayfair, 138 S



ground_truth: By using a propagator in the latent space.

prompt_front: Now, answer the following question based on the text below, only give me the answer and do not output any other words.

Question: What did Justice Kennedy argue about Quill in Direct Marketing Ass'n v. Brohl?

Read the following text and answer briefly.

Context 3:  Ct  at 2092  is ironic  Wayfair’s stare decisis analysis resorts to the formalism of making constitutional a “magic” word65× 65  See Transcript of Oral Argument, supra note 21, at 12  rather than asking whether Congress can step in 
Moreover, the Court’s new thinking on stare decisis threatens other constitutional default rules  Wayfair now stands for the proposition that a “constitutional default rule” — a term the Court apparently lifted from South Dakota’s reply brief on the merits66× 66  Reply Brief at 22, Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  2080 (No  17-494) (“Congress is polarized, which makes it critical       to get the constitutional default rule right ”)  — gets only weakened stare decisis  To appreciate why this holding matters, it is worth exploring the concept and scope of constitutional default rules  Contract theory describes default rules as legal rules that the parties may “contract around ”67× 67  See, e g , Ian Ayres & Robert Gertner, Filling Gaps in Incomplete Contracts: An Economic Theory of Default Rules, 99 Yale L J  87, 87 (1989)  Although “constitutional default rule” could be read broadly to include a variety of actors and contracting mechanisms,68× 68  See John Ferejohn & Barry Friedman, Toward a Political Theory of Constitutional Default Rules, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  825, 826 (2006) (“When we speak of default rules in constitutional law, we typically are talking about specifications of ways the government can act (or modify its behavior) to get around a constitutional prohibition ”)  the Court’s use of the term for purposes of stare decisis may be narrowly defined as judicial precedents of constitutional law that “are ultimately subject to congressional control ”69× 69  Gillian E  Metzger, Congress, Article IV, and Interstate Relations, 120 Harv  L  Rev  1468, 1525 (2007) (describing judicially enforceable “constitutional default rules imposing obligations on the states in the name of union [that] are ultimately subject to congressional control”)  The dormant commerce clause is a paradigmatic constitutional default rule because what the Court does today Congress may undo tomorrow  Justice Scalia declared this fact “[t]he clearest sign that the negative Commerce Clause is a judicial fraud,” for “[h]ow could congressional consent lift a constitutional prohibition?”70× 70  Comptroller of the Treasury of Md  v  Wynne, 135 S  Ct  1787, 1808 (2015) (Scalia, J , dissenting)  But that’s what a constitutional default rule is  The Court has allowed Congress to overturn its dormant commerce clause cases since 1891 71× 71  See In re Rahrer, 140 U S  545, 560–62 (1891) 
Dormant commerce clause cases are not the only constitutional default rules  Professor Laurence Tribe’s treatise identifies two others 72× 72  1 Laurence H  Tribe, American Constitutional Law § 6-35 (3d ed  2000)  And in a groundbreaking article, Professor Henry Monaghan revealed “a substructure of substantive, procedural, and remedial rules” forming “a constitutional common law subject to amendment, modification, or even reversal by Congress ”73× 73  Henry P  Monaghan, The Supreme Court, 1974 Term — Foreword: Constitutional Common Law, 89 Harv  L  Rev  1, 2–3 (1975); see also Susan R  Klein, Identifying and (Re)Formulating Prophylactic Rules, Safe Harbors, and Incidental Rights in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 99 Mich  L  Rev  1030 (2001) (further developing Monaghan’s theory in criminal procedure context)  What follows is a list of six lines of cases beyond the dormant commerce clause that may be fairly described as constitutional default rules  The first two are drawn from Tribe’s treatise while the next four are found in Monaghan’s article:
(1) State Taxation of Federal Instrumentalities: States may not tax instrumentalities of the federal government74× 74  McCulloch v  Maryland, 17 U S  (4 Wheat ) 316, 436 (1819)  — unless Congress consents 75× 75  See, e g , Helvering v  Gerhardt, 304 U S  405, 411 n 1 (1938) (“Congress may curtail an immunity which might otherwise be implied or enlarge it beyond the point where, Congress being silent, the Court would set its limits ” (citations omitted))  One court has described such judicial decisions as setting a “constitutional default rule ” United States v  Delaware, 958 F 2d 555, 560 n 9 (3d Cir  1992) (“[W]e must decide the constitutional default rule for this type of tax, fully aware that Congress could decide at any time to reverse our decision statutorily ”)  (2) Article I, Section 10 Cases: Article I, Section 10 provides that certain prohibitions on the states may be waived by Congress 76× 76  See U S  Const  art  I, § 10, cls  2–3  The Court has taken note of this when considering whether to overrule, for instance, an Import-Export Clause precedent 77× 77  See Hooven & Allison Co  v  Evatt, 324 U S  652, 668 (1945) (“In view of the fact that the Constitution gives Congress authority to consent to state taxation of imports and hence to lay down its own test for determining when the immunity ends, we see no convincing practical reason for abandoning the test which has been applied for more than a century        ”), overruled on other grounds by Limbach v  Hooven & Allison Co , 466 U S  353 (1984)  In Michelin Tire Corp  v  Wages, 423 U S  276 (1976), the Court left open the question whether “Congress may authorize, under the Import-Export Clause, an exaction that it could not directly impose under the Tax Clause ” Id  at 301 n 13  Metzger, however, argues that the Import-Export Clause is free of other clauses’ limits on congressional power  See Metzger, supra note 69, at 1500 & n 120  (3) Bivens Cases: In Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,78× 78  403 U S  388 (1971)  the Court held that a violation of the Fourth Amendment gives rise to a right to sue for damages 79× 79  Id  at 397  But the Court has also held that “[s]uch a cause of action may be defeated       when       Congress has provided an alternative remedy which it explicitly declared to be a substitute for recovery directly under the Constitution and viewed as equally effective ”80× 80  Carlson v  Green, 446 U S  14, 18–19 (1980)  (4) Miranda Cases: The Miranda Court famously “encourage[d]” Congress and the states to explore alternative “procedures which are at least as effective in apprising accused persons of their right of silence and in assuring a continuous opportunity to exercise it ”81× 81  Miranda v  Arizona, 384 U S  436, 467 (1966)  In Dickerson v  United States, 530 U S  428 (2000), the Court struck down a congressional attempt to effectively abolish Miranda, holding that “Miranda announced a constitutional rule that Congress may not supersede legislatively ” Id  at 444  But Dickerson also stood by Miranda’s “invitation for legislative action” to replace Miranda with an adequate substitute  Id  at 440; see also Michael C  Dorf & Barry Friedman, Shared Constitutional Interpretation, 2000 Sup  Ct  Rev  61 (discussing legislative alternatives to Miranda)  (5) The Police Lineup Case: In United States v  Wade,82× 82  388 U S  218 (1967)  the Court created an exclusionary rule for evidence obtained from a police lineup in violation of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel but acknowledged that it could be replaced by “[l]egislative or other regulations       which eliminate the risks of abuse ”83× 83  Id  at 239  (6) The Exclusionary Rule Cases: Mapp v  Ohio made the Fourth Amendment “exclusionary rule” binding on the states,84× 84  367 U S  643, 655 (1961)  yet Congress is thought to have the power to replace it 85× 85  See Bivens v  Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed  Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U S  388, 422–24 (1971) (Burger, C J , dissenting) (inviting Congress to replace the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule); Harold J  Krent, How to Move Beyond the Exclusionary Rule: Structuring Judicial Response to Legislative Reform Efforts, 26 Pepp  L  Rev  855, 864–71 (1999) 
All of the above are arguably constitutional default rules set by the Court that remain, to one degree or another, open to congressional revision  The list could be longer or shorter, depending on which default rules the Court will view as constitutional86× 86  A shorter list could be produced by whittling away at the constitutional status of the cases identified by Monaghan  While the Court has held that Miranda is a constitutional decision, Dickerson, 530 U S  at 444, some of the other cases may be viewed as nonconstitutional  See, e g , Collins v  Virginia, 138 S  Ct  1663, 1675–80 (2018) (Thomas, J , concurring) (arguing that Mapp is “nonconstitutional,” id  at 1678 n 5); Richard H  Fallon, Jr  et al , Hart and Wechsler’s The Federal Courts and the Federal System 775–77 (7th ed  2015) (discussing whether Bivens is constitutionally required)  Conversely, a longer list might include any constitutional right that can be waived by a party  See, e g , Daniel A  Farber, Another View of the Quagmire: Unconstitutional Conditions and Contract Theory, 33 Fla  St  U  L  Rev  913, 918 (2006) (describing the Eleventh Amendment as “just a contractual default rule that the states are free to barter away”)  Such a list might also include various constitutionally inspired judicial presumptions  See, e g , Jack Goldsmith & John F  Manning, The President’s Completion Power, 115 Yale L J  2280, 2299 (2006) (describing the Chevron presumption of delegated interpretive power to administrative agencies as “a constitutionally inspired default rule”); Nicholas Quinn Rosenkranz, Federal Rules of Statutory Interpretation, 115 Harv  L  Rev  2085, 2097–98 (2002) (describing clear statement rules as “constitutional default rules” reversible by Congress)  Many other decisions could likely be characterized as constitutional default rules; the list above is only an initial stab  and on how it will answer open questions about congressional authority over certain constitutional provisions 87× 87  See, e g , Thomas v  Wash  Gas Light Co , 448 U S  261, 272 n 18 (1980) (plurality opinion) (leaving unresolved whether Congress may limit constitutional full faith and credit obligations); White v  Mass  Council of Constr  Emp’rs, Inc , 460 U S  204, 215 n 1 (1983) (Blackmun, J , concurring in part and dissenting in part) (leaving unresolved “whether Congress may authorize       what otherwise would be a violation” of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); 1 Tribe, supra note 72, § 6-35, at 1243–44 (arguing that Congress cannot override judicial constructions of the Privileges and Immunities Clause); Metzger, supra note 69, at 1486–89 (arguing the opposite)  But the takeaway is clear: weaker stare decisis for constitutional default rules  Pre-Wayfair, one would have thought that stare decisis applies with special force to such precedents, given congressional power to set them straight  Not anymore  Why? Because it is improper to “ask Congress to address a false constitutional premise of th[e] Court’s own creation ”88× 88  Wayfair, 138 S  Ct  at 2096  The Latin for Wayfair’s doctrine is not stare decisis, which should reflect a realistic, working relationship between the legislative and judicial branches  It is mea culpa 
In its zeal to update the Constitution for “the Cyber Age,”89× 89  Id  at 2097  the Court deleted Congress from stare decisis doctrine in constitutional cases  The Court had better options  It could have left Quill on Congress’s doorstep, as the dissent argued  Or it could have justified overruling Quill notwithstanding the special force of stare decisis  Instead, the Court reasoned that it doesn’t matter whether Congress is willing and able to do the job: a constitutional mess calls for a judicial clean-up crew  For constitutional default rules — a category of decisions embracing the dormant commerce clause and sweeping far beyond — Wayfair’s new theory of stare decisis makes the Court’s precedents less sticky and Congress less relevant 



ground_truth: Quill harmed states more than anticipated due to the Internet.