|
|
|
|
|
by dhosek
1424 days ago
|
|
“consumption of counterfactual legal precedent” I think you misread the article (or I’m misreading you). There were no counterfactual legal precedents published. They took a set of cases and for half of them published Wikipedia articles on them for half, did not publish them (the non-publication was the counterfactual case, not the contents of the articles). |
|