Every two body orbit involves a barycenter that is not exactly in the center of either body (i.e. every planet/sun combo "orbit around one another").
The unique aspect of Jupiter is that the Jupiter/Sun barycenter is outside of the surface of the Sun. This requires an incredible amount of mass in Jupiter.
What if we demote the sun? It is in a class of stars that is too small to have a internal barycenter for all it's planets, there are larger stars that do because planets like Jupiter have a limit before they start being classed as Brown Dwarfs.
The sun is a pretty ordinary star. It's not nearly so small that it should be demoted or we would be rewriting our entire stellar classification system.
74% (don't quote me here, this is from memory) of stars are less massive red dwarfs. Only about 4% (again don't quote) stars fall into our weight class.
Yes but I mean our sun is not at the low end of that spectrum. As you say, most stars are smaller than the sun. So rewriting the system would mean that the majority of stars are no longer stars.
We're not just rewriting the system for the sun though. There have to be many stars that aren't large enough to have internal barycenters for all their planets. Maybe we do want to define the stars that have this trait and not the planets in their solar systems.
P+K does not include S, but can output any arbitrary S. That is the whole reason for introducing P, you need a way of getting K(S) into your program without "hard coding" it directly and thus including the complexity of S.
So, if we assume K is computable, then both S and P+K can output S, however, for an arbitrarily large S, K(P+K) < K(S). This is the proof by contradiction. Specifically, the value K(S) is supposed to be the the shortest program that can output S, yet P+K, which can also output S, is shorter.
That's hyperbole. If taken too far, sure. But, if we took our attempt to eliminate murder too far, it'd be equally dystopian. Your statement is not unique to speech.
Murder is quite easy to define, whereas bad speech/bad argument seems so much more nuanced. I don't think it's an hyperbole moreso than the logical consequence of such a thought.
Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter? This is something that people have been debating.
Many actions humans can take could kill another. Only a subset of these are regarded as murder/manslaughter.
Not to mention the fact that our modern definition of murder is based on hundreds of years of trial and error. Is dueling murder? Is killing your slave murder? Is it murder if you get drunk and kill somebody with your car? etc. etc.
>Is it? Would someone refusing to wear a mask, provably resulting in them asymptomatically infecting someone with COVID-19 be charged with negligent manslaughter?
It is not murder. There's a concept called "Negligent homicide," but even that is relatively well defined and requires intent to cause harm.
Don't want to get into the rabbit hole, and I am not in agreement with all the laws the US has, but the point is that "bad speech" is way harder to define than murder/homicide. Not only is it harder, it is arguably impossible to attain a good consensus on what it is.
PS: I don't agree with the premise that we should regulate speech, but if you were to want to do it it would most likely backfire or be counterproductive because of these reasons
Does encouraging people not to wear a mask (or just not wearing a mask) in the face of clear evidence and recommendations to the contrary count as intent to cause harm? That is, if I know doing something will cause harm but do it anyway am I engaging in negligent homicide?
The definition of murder is not simply death. In fact, what counts as murder and what type of murder is quite complex and varies by jurisdiction. It was not as simple as saying "no murder". We arrived at this definition of murder over a long period of time.
I'm squarely in group b, however, I don't think it's an actual dichotomy in the way you present it. I think American's fetishize "free speech" which leads to a "hyper group a" that argues since censorship is scary (which it is) we'd rather face any other conceivable consequence rather than wrestle with the hard questions of what is appropriate vs. inappropriate public speech. I believe we're seeing examples of where the pendulum has swung too far, in the US, towards "say what you want" and we need to bump it back a bit. If it swings too far the other way I'll quickly switch my thoughts on the matter.
Also, there's another dimension which I think gets immediately thrown on the floor when these discussions come up. Very rarely are people calling for controls on what can be said at any time. Instead, it's controls on what can be said to large amounts of people. Group b folks, such as myself, are not saying that we're concerned about dinner conversations. We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
I find something deeply satisfying about the idea of someone generalizing 333-million people in one comment, using the word "fetishizing" to describe their view of a principle which has generally been regarded as essential to the vast majority of advances in human rights anywhere progress has been made, and while commenting thusly has done so all in the service of making the central point that it is they who overly-value free speech.
> Group b folks, such as myself, are not saying that we're concerned about dinner conversations. We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
So public speech should be further limited, provided La Résistance is still permitted to speak freely as we enter an era with an ever-increasing number of state-aligned location-aware microphones in homes, workplaces, vehicles, pockets and (on) wrists?
A typical argument pattern is to use free speech as a full stop in any discussion. Engaging with the content of something is rejected straight away, it’s always the principle of the thing.
That’s a tiring argument and describing that as a very American way of fetishising free speech is entirely appropriate.
Free speech is hard. And there are many difficult questions around it where you have to actually engage with the content of something.
So I get why people want to take shortcuts, but that is just so tiring. This unwillingness to even engage with content is extremely tiring.
There's a very simple line to draw. You police actions, not speech. Someone talks about building bombs? Fine. Talk never blew anything up. Someone builds bombs? Time to arrest them. It's not very complicated.
People are responsible for their own actions. "But he incited me to violence!" is not an excuse for violence. Maybe in the case of a superior giving a subordinate a direct order (in which case both are responsible), but "the man on Twitter told me to do it" should hold about as much sway as Son of Sam's "the neighbor's dog told me to do it".
This is too naive. Should a 9-year-old black girl be forced to endure racial epithets yelled at her as she enters her school on a daily basis because free speech is so sacrosanct it outweighs the abuse? Obviously not. The truth is in the gray -- free speech isn't an absolute.
Screaming in someone's face is an action, not speech. Should the person be stopped from expressing the same sentiment by writing a letter to the editor or posting it on their blog?
Even if someone is saying something supportive to you, you would probably prefer they don't scream it in your face.
Posting a statement to a Twitter account that people are free to follow, ignore, or block at their will is not even remotely comparable to physically forcing yourself into their presence to yell at them.
These hypothetical statements are just garbage. Demeaning other humans is wrong and nothing about it is “free.” The abused pays for that speech with their own identity.
Now, how we determine demeaning language and what the punishment/cost is for using it is a worthwhile discussion. We _already_ have a system for when someone’s _character_ is attacked publicly: libel/slander.
1. Requires actual damages. The speech cost you money or demonstrably harmed you in some way. No, "you hurt my feelings" or "I paid with my identity" doesn't count.
2. Both parties have an opportunity to plead their case to a neutral adjudicator. The proceedings are generally public record and there is a process for appeals. The rules governing the system (laws) are public record and citizens have a say in electing the representatives who write those rules.
3. The speech must be not only demonstrably false, but intended to be believed and also be something that reasonable person could possibly believe. Opinions generally do not meet the level of libel or slander.
Yeah, that's not bad. Compare that to Twitter's system where an opaque set of rules are applied inconsistently by an unaccountable party with no appeal process.
That subtle jab at my opinion in the first example is a nice touch (/s) and the rest of your reply completely contradicts the point that demeaning someone is wrong. We need to better tackle punishing misuse of speech as a society.
If you can think back to a time when you have been verbally abused, use that as a model. For some folks, this happens routinely on Twitter and real life (usually for minorities in a group). Nobody said Twitter’s framework is the correct system, but suggesting that demeaning someone is “free speech” has me scratching my head.
Demeaning someone is free speech. It is speech. People are not obligated to like you. They're not even obligated to have a good reason to dislike you. They're allowed to say that they don't like you for whatever stupid reason they have. That's freedom for you. The alternative is worse.
Suggesting the alternative is worse is a straw man.
I can’t say certain things and that’s totally fine. Disliking someone doesn’t mean that demeaning them is necessary. It’s already not legal in the workplace in the US when it is prolonged or severe.[0]
The alternative already exists today and is being applied unevenly globally.[1] I brought up examples of free speech exceptions already. I believe demeaning someone should also be an exception, and yes today that isn’t an exception in the US. Perhaps we need very precise definitions for these concepts to avoid over application, but hate “words” and the like are easy first passes.
Harassment is not illegal in the criminal sense. It is a cause you can sue people for. That also means it requires evidence and convincing a judge and possibly a jury. Again, there is a due process. It's not at the whim of a corporation. It also requires real damages such as a negative impact to someone's career, not just hurt feelings.
That's the case with all of the exceptions to free speech: there is a tangible, real world impact such as loss of income or risk of physical harm. "Feeling demeaned" is none of those things and is something that anyone can claim about anything. How you feel about something is also a choice. You can choose whether or not to let speech affect you like that.
I'm not sure whether you're saying I'm taking that shortcut in my comment, or the person to whom I replied is likely conditioned by seeing too much of that lazy way of avoiding discussing difficult issues.
I'll assume it's the latter, and say that's very fair. I'll also say, respectfully, it isn't terribly relevant to my observation of someone who made their point by collectivizing an entire nation of people, and did so in a pretty ham-fisted way, while availing themselves of the thing they seek to restrict.
Maybe I just find the complete absence of self-awareness in that comment to be oddly charming.
Personally, as the author, I didn't find myself particularly lacking in self awareness. I did qualify it with "I think" meaning it's a personal interpretation I was sharing. Rather than attacking my character, perhaps you'd like to try and understand why I'd have such a view?
I also hope my efforts to make it clear it was a commentary on its poetic formulation and potentially a road toward something much worse than the ill which we seek to eliminate, and not an attack on the character of someone I don't know personally (which I try to refrain from doing), were not similarly inscrutable.
That said, I thought it was a point I understand somewhat, however it was made. I just disagree with it.
I am not the person who wrote:
> I think American's fetishize "free speech"
But I agree with that statement. "Free speech" is often seen as absolute. But it is not absolute. Not even in the US. It never was. And it should not be. There is always a trade-off.
Limits are (copied from Wiki because I am lazy), for example:
"libel, slander, obscenity, pornography, sedition, incitement, fighting words, classified information, copyright violation, trade secrets, food labeling, non-disclosure agreements, the right to privacy, dignity, the right to be forgotten, public security, and perjury"
For the record, I do not believe free speech is absolute, nor have I since I was taught that it is not absolute as a child. I think every item listed in the passage you cited is difficult and necessary and should exist in some form that comes after much spirited and reasoned debate.
With that said, if you want to see laws have any effect, enforcement is required.
Calls for both an increased number of laws and enforcement of said laws (which is implicit in the assumption that these new laws will have a positive effect on a bad situation) is cause for pause, as, again, that has historically been the means by which states have worked actively against things that many observers would reasonably consider to be essential inputs to securing fundamental human rights.
As an American, I agree. US citizens take the First Amendment as a virtue without a lot of exploration into its origins or practical utility.
It has a LOT of practical utility... But it's really important, I think, to know what that utility is and what its limits are.
And the limits exist and are quite noteworthy. Restricting someone from saying something defamatory is legally challenging relative to, say, the UK. But repeat someone's story verbatim and claim it as your own? Oops, you violated copyright, and no amount of bleating about your First Amendment rights will get you off the hook for the money you owe them, even if you didn't charge for your copy.
I wholly agree with your second two paragraph, but for perhaps different reasons: I find those calling for restrictions on free speech often don't sufficiently understand the nature of existing restrictions and what the implications are of either expanding or adding to said restrictions.
> We're concerned about speech that is being amplified in a way where there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
Who gets to pick what is harmful, though? Why can we not choose our own gatekeepers, rather than having them foisted upon us by corporate oligarchs?
The big problem here is that it is completely unreasonable and unprecedented to assume that this will be done in a transparent, consistent, open way. There will be no clear appeals process, and there's no reason to believe that the censorship won't be ideologically biased in favour of whatever is marketing best at the moment.
> it's controls on what can be said to large amounts of people
It's controls on what the working class can say to large amounts of people. The elite can still just go buy a newspaper or a broadcast media network, or start their own website, etc. and issue forth opinions on a grand scale. Regular folks will have to go through censors, which will end up being some combination of AI and outsourced farms of moderators in other countries or some other such Kafkaesque nightmare of business process.
> there's a civic responsibility to ensure that the harmful messages are not being amplified.
"harmful" is a social construct, and what is "harmful" to one group might not be to another. Which groups will be prioritized for this? How will you pick sides fairly without imposing a new dimension on whatever underlying group conflicts already exist?
The problem is that what you want to do cannot be done fairly. It can only be done in a draconian way, and the result will be an even wider fracturing of dialogue in a way that doesn't result in what you want, at all.
> If it swings too far the other way I'll quickly switch my thoughts on the matter.
I’m also in group b, but the danger is that if it swings too far the other way, we may have already lost the ability to speak out against _that_ and restore balance.
Yep, it really feels like people are actively and willingly giving away control and free speech rights to the government and a bunch of corporations. Once the power is in their hands, it will be very difficult if not impossible to get it back.
The problem I see with that line of argument is that it basically means you're arguing we can't do anything about it and just have to accept whatever actions people take regardless of the impacts of those actions.
It reads to me like "it's hard, so let us just do nothing".
Incitement to violent insurrection seems like a pretty clear example of "too far." So is peddling provable lies to extremists which are easily linked to terrorist acts.
Ultimately you either think domestic terrorism is fine or you don't. I don't see a case for the media wilfully and knowingly misleading people and inciting violence.
If this was true, then prosecute for incitement to violent insurrection which is already a crime. We already have the means to police unlawful speech, censorship need not be one of them.
I guess we'll see. They couldn't get it done after he obstructed a federal investigation. They couldn't get it done after he extorted a bribe from Ukraine. Now he's incited an insurrection, so who knows if that's enough.
Sure, but you seem to be implying that government has no place in how we self-police and restrain ourselves. Nothing could be further from the truth.
Government is not an external entity which subjugates us, it is the tool by which we settle our grievances with each other without beating each other to death with rocks. To facilitate that, we give government the exclusive right to police us. And I would argue part of that duty extends to ensuring that the populace is informed and aware of the facts of the situation.
In our rush to condemn the reprehensible aspects of government we have lost sight of the goal, which is to promote civil society and respect for our fellow man.
I mean, Facebook just suspended Trump, so it seems like we are doing something, we’re just arguing about where the lines should be. I don’t think it’s wrong to note that revolutionary ideas both good and bad come from the fringes and that some consequential positive influences might be deplatformed in the future. This is one of the few times in history the “good guys” have had the power to control the narrative. We should acknowledge that.
Would it be possible for you to describe what it feels like to encounter an obvious cheater in chess? Is it simply who quickly they move, the strength of their moves, both, and/or something else?
The way to detect an obvious cheater is when somebody rated like 300-400+ rating points below you, a matchup which generally only occurs in tournaments or the like (normally you wouldn't be paired down to such a large extent), plays incredibly well and beats you. And then you do computer analysis and you see they played near flawlessly. You look at the move timing and make really complicated and deep moves instantly. Then you look at their game history and see they played their last few games nearly perfectly. Then you report them and your rating points are refunded a few minutes later.
Lower rated non-chess players, the kind that are most likely to cheat, can't just pretend to be higher rated people because they don't know what moves are suspicious and which ones aren't. And if you think they'll just cheat for the first few moves and then turn the computer off... it really just doesn't work as well. If they actually have no idea what they are doing they'll still lose, and it's super suspicious anyways based on move timing and computer analysis.
And to my original point, if I were an 1800 player and wanted to sneakily cheat to be a 2000 player, I probably could pull it off, because that is close enough to my skill level that I could pretend. Maybe by using an opening book to make sure I'm getting great positions out of the opening. Maybe by only turning the computer on during certain key positions. But again, if I did this consistently, I'd get a 2000 rating and now I'm going to be matched up against 2000 rated players, and from their perspective I'm just a 2000 player. And what have I gained? I now have to cheat to even be competitive in a casual chess game, whereas if I just had my true rating I could just play normally which would be easier and more fun. This is why sneaky cheating just isn't very common, because the only people capable of doing it really have no incentive to do it. The only people who think cheating would be fun are the people who are easiest to detect.
What if you look at "calling a race" as "reporting on the underlying mathematical trajectories based off of empirical vote evidence"?
Given I believe that's an accurate description of what's involved in a news organization calling a race, they're not making the news, but reporting it, albeit in a form that makes it more palatable to the average reader.
Yes but that isn’t the messaging here. “Biden won the election” is.
If there is some kind of court challenge or recount that changes the outcome, it’s really bad for trust in the democratic system. Better to just be patient and wait - but patience is something lacking these days.
But your premise that this has something to do with peoples patience “these days” is incorrect. The AP has been calling presidential races since 1848.
So perhaps you are right that this is problematic but it is neither new nor related to anything thats happened in recent history. Its hard to see why the rest of your premise is true when the rest of your assumptions are so faulty.
Is part of this due to an academic vs. professional dichotomy? i.e. most CS undergrads are CS undergrads to become professional developers, while most CS undergrad courses are taught with an eye towards further graduate/academic work?
I wouldn't say so; I've taught for a community college, teaching college, and R1 and while there are differences, it seems to be a consistent issue across the board. While there are clearly individuals more interested in graduate work, there are groups with a primary goal of preparing students for industry.
The unique aspect of Jupiter is that the Jupiter/Sun barycenter is outside of the surface of the Sun. This requires an incredible amount of mass in Jupiter.