Fun Fact Thread! (previously fun fact for the day, not limited to 1 per day anymore.)

[SunlitZelkova]

1 hour ago, Codraroll said:

Those 30 minutes would be a gap in the monarchy; time when the previous monarch was dead but the new one unaware of it. And monarchy does not allow for gaps. 

Hence, when Charles sees it happening, he will learn he has already been monarch for 30 minutes. Or in other words, the exact start of his reign would be impossible for him to experience. It can only be learned about after the fact.

Yes, but what I am saying is that in another sense he is not monarch for 30 minutes after the Queen has died.

There are no physical “take backsies”, all of the people on Earth were thinking the Queen was the monarch for 30 minutes after her death and therefore she was the monarch for 30 minutes after her death.

In other words, yes, insofar as people can declare a made up thing to be whatever they want, there can be an instantaneous transition that the King doesn’t even realize, but at the same time the past is the past and can’t be changed. So just as I can’t say to my girlfriend “I actually realize I didn’t mean those mean things I said to you” and then be completely cool- because I did mean them at the time and therefore the act occurred regardless of whatever I “actually” feel- the King can’t have been the sovereign for the past 30 minutes during the communication period because he believed that the Queen was the sovereign during those 30 minutes, as did everyone on Earth, and therefore the Queen was the sovereign.

[kerbiloid]

Some are absent long.

https://warhammer40k.fandom.com/wiki/Emperor_of_Mankind

[kerbiloid]

https://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Радий#Получение

Quote

Чтобы получить всего 1 г чистого радия, нужно было несколько вагонов урановой руды, 100 вагонов угля, 100 цистерн воды и 5 вагонов разных химических веществ. Поэтому на начало XX века в мире не было более дорогого металла. За 1 г радия нужно было заплатить больше 200 кг золота.

In early XX to produce 1 g of pure Radium it required to spend several railroad cars of uranium ore, 100 railcars if coal, 100 cisterns of water, and 5 railcars of various chemicals.

1 g of Ra costed 200 kg of gold.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

6 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

1 g of Ra costed 200 kg of gold

8o

[kerbiloid]

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223121643.htm

About the slime mold brainless intelect.

Staislav Drobyshevskiy suggests a slime mold and a tree symbiosis as a scientific explanation of ents.

[Beamer]

On 9/9/2022 at 6:45 PM, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes, but what I am saying is that in another sense he is not monarch for 30 minutes after the Queen has died.

There are no physical “take backsies”, all of the people on Earth were thinking the Queen was the monarch for 30 minutes after her death and therefore she was the monarch for 30 minutes after her death.

In other words, yes, insofar as people can declare a made up thing to be whatever they want, there can be an instantaneous transition that the King doesn’t even realize, but at the same time the past is the past and can’t be changed. So just as I can’t say to my girlfriend “I actually realize I didn’t mean those mean things I said to you” and then be completely cool- because I did mean them at the time and therefore the act occurred regardless of whatever I “actually” feel- the King can’t have been the sovereign for the past 30 minutes during the communication period because he believed that the Queen was the sovereign during those 30 minutes, as did everyone on Earth, and therefore the Queen was the sovereign.

According to special relativity, all observer viewpoints are equally valid. For any 2 causally linked events (like 1. Queen Elizabeth dying and 2. Charles ascending the throne) one can always find an event that is not causally linked to these 2 (say a star in another galaxy going supernova) which is observed at the location of event 2 before it is observed at the location of event 1. That doesn't mean the causally linked events are reversed, it basically means that the past exists and the future exists, and just because we are in a location (in space-time) where our viewpoint doesn't allow us to experience (or observe if you prefer) what we consider the past or the future doesn't mean they are less real. Another way of looking at this is to say there is no absolute measure of time, it is always relative to the observer.

When the Queen died, Charles became King, instantly. Just because he happened to be in a location in space-time where he could not know about it yet does not mean he isn't King, it just means he's King without knowing it. Even without anyone on Earth knowing it, but notably NOT without any possible observer knowing it (the people on Mars in your hypothetical example knew).

So the transfer of the title is instantaneous, which is possible because it doesn't require the transfer of any information. Of course any of the practical aspects do require such transfer of information so won't be enacted without delay, but saying that he wasn't King for those 30 minutes is a bit like saying someone wasn't sick until a doctor diagnosed them.

What we consider 'the past' is for most observers 'the future'. In fact what YOU consider the past is, at least for a very short time, still the future for your next door neighbour. Just because you are 'closer' to an event in space-time doesn't make your viewpoint more valid.

I always found this the most fascinating aspect of special relativity, one that is usually overlooked in typical popular science articles and programs on the subject (for obvious reasons, you want to see people's eyes glaze over at a party, start drawing space-time diagrams on napkins). A shame because it is the most fascinating aspect of special relativity and the one that required the biggest leap of imagination, both in discovery as well as in understanding.

It's probably also something the people who wrote the monarchy laws didn't spend a lot of time thinking over >.>

Of course when you start taking it into the field of philosophy then it's a case of "If a tree falls in the forest..." and I don't think our philosopher friends have reached any agreement on that yet

 

 

 

[kerbiloid]

Countdown to the Schroedinger theory is started.

Edited September 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Beamer]

13 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Countdown to the Schroedinger theory is started.

That's quantum physics which is (quite famously) a different field and as of yet entirely unrelated to special and general relativity. If you have a different idea about that I recommend you publish and collect your Nobel

 

[kerbiloid]

15 minutes ago, Beamer said:

That's quantum physics which is (quite famously) a different field and as of yet entirely unrelated to special and general relativity. If you have a different idea about that I recommend you publish and collect your Nobel

 

Idk about the general relativity but every person which you can't observe directly is alive with some probability.

Edited September 11, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Beamer]

2 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

Idk about the general relativity but every person which you can't observe directly is alive with some probability.

According to special relativity, every person is alive. Just not necessarily in what you consider the 'here and now'.

Dangit, when are these boffins going to come up with some real answers!

 

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

I love how you *nerds* are arguing about the physics of a legal fiction. 

...although, tbh, I live in a country where the Supreme Court said a For Profit Corporation (Legal Fiction Entity) can have a religious exemption from certain laws. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood#:~:text=It all goes back to,a child%2C or to vote.

[darthgently]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I love how you *nerds* are arguing about the physics of a legal fiction. 

...although, tbh, I live in a country where the Supreme Court said a For Profit Corporation (Legal Fiction Entity) can have a religious exemption from certain laws. 

https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/history-corporate-personhood#:~:text=It all goes back to,a child%2C or to vote.

Where in the Constitution does it say a group of religious people lose their freedom of religion if they form a for-profit?   I don't see it so much as a case for corporate personhood as the culture of the company derives from the individuals involved and the government can't curtail their individual religious rights just because they have formed a group, for-profit or non-profit, or a basket weaving society

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 minutes ago, darthgently said:

Where in the Constitution does it say a group of religious people lose their freedom of religion if they form a for-profit?   I don't see it so much as a case for corporate personhood as the culture of the company derives from the individuals involved and the government can't curtail their individual religious rights just because they have formed a group, for-profit or non-profit, or a basket weaving society

When you form a for profit entity, its sole purpose is profit, its sole method of speech is Commercial Speech.  You as an individual working for said company retain your religious freedom under the Constitution. But you should not be able to use a for-profit corporation to force your religious, personal beliefs on people with whom you have a financial (employment) relationship.

It is an absurd farce that the legal fiction of 'personhood' (created to prevent companies from claiming they are not subject to statutes or laws that say "no person shall" or "it is illegal for a person to..." by dent of not being 'persons.' * ) also grants a company a religious persona; the religiously minded can certainly form a non-profit company dedicated to their religious goals (the purpose of the legal entity is thus religious, not profit).  But to claim that a For Profit corporation is for anything other than profit is absurd.

 

 

*The legal fiction of 'personhood' for a company was a convenience to keep from having to rewrite literally thousands of laws

[darthgently]

44 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

But to claim that a For Profit corporation is for anything other than profit is absurd.

Apparently many corporations claim to have many goals other than profit, just look at their mission statements.  They have financial obligations to their shareholders, and obligations to their employees, and obligations to their customers, but the only thing holding all that together is their culture which is presumably described in their mission statement.  I've read a lot of mission statements and can't think of any that were solely about profit.  Hobby Lobby could make a lot more money if they didn't hold the values they do.  Good thing their investors, customers, and employees by and larger have the same values, right?

I totally get what you are saying and am just playing devil's advocate because you made a fairly black and white statement.  I mean should Google not use the motto "do no evil" because sometimes evil is profitable in the short run? Every company is the sum of the people involved. Always.

But your point is correct. The corporation should not be granted personhood.  That is silly.  But at what point do constraints on an organization become synonymous with constraints on the individuals making up the organization if the constraints target the culture of those individuals?  Interesting thing to ponder

Edited September 12, 2022 by darthgently

[wumpus]

7 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2021/02/210223121643.htm

About the slime mold brainless intelect.

Staislav Drobyshevskiy suggests a slime mold and a tree symbiosis as a scientific explanation of ents.

 Nah, that's how Sauron (possibly Morgoth) hybridized trolls from ents.

[kerbiloid]

7 hours ago, Beamer said:

According to special relativity, every person is alive.

According to quantum physics with some probability, like the cat. So, you have to consider both options.

2 hours ago, wumpus said:

Nah, that's how Sauron (possibly Morgoth) hybridized trolls from ents.

No. In another video Drobyshevskiy explains that trolls are an evolved branch of dwarves,

Edited September 12, 2022 by kerbiloid

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, darthgently said:

at what point do constraints on an organization become synonymous with constraints on the individuals making up the organization if the constraints target the culture of those individuals?  Interesting thing to ponder

That's been covered in the law for a long time; when a person is acting in her capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company, the company can be liable for the person's actions/decisions.  When the person is acting solely in his individual capacity - no liability accrues.  Thus, if I am driving the company truck delivering widgets and smash into a Kindergarten, both I and the company are on the hook.  If I am wearing the company uniform while driving my POV during my lunch break and crash into the Kindergarten; no liability accrues to the company. 

Similarly, If I have a personal belief, I can act in accordance with that personal belief; but I don't get to take that personal belief, and tell the employees of my company that they all have to abide by my personal belief in order to stay employed - presuming said employee has a legal right to choose to act in accordance with my belief or in conflict with it.  IOW - the person's actions in accordance with their capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company should be limited to actions that support the company's purpose (if a for-profit company, then the business-purpose of the company) - but not impose my beliefs on employees nor limit their access to things they have a right to... simply because another person's accessing such a right goes counter to my own personal beliefs.

Edit: to add... Do we have to allow employees to proselytize or use religious expressions/greetings? (shrm.org)

People do have a right to express their personally held religious beliefs at work; but only so long as doing so does not place an undue burden on other employees, customers or others engaging with the person as an employee/representative of the company.  What constitutes 'an undue burden' is not always a bright-line rule.  Rod Tanner - Religious Expression and Proselytizing in the Workplace.pdf (laborlaw.org)

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[TheSaint]

47 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

That's been covered in the law for a long time; when a person is acting in her capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company, the company can be liable for the person's actions/decisions.  When the person is acting solely in his individual capacity - no liability accrues.  Thus, if I am driving the company truck delivering widgets and smash into a Kindergarten, both I and the company are on the hook.  If I am wearing the company uniform while driving my POV during my lunch break and crash into the Kindergarten; no liability accrues to the company. 

Similarly, If I have a personal belief, I can act in accordance with that personal belief; but I don't get to take that personal belief, and tell the employees of my company that they all have to abide by my personal belief in order to stay employed - presuming said employee has a legal right to choose to act in accordance with my belief or in conflict with it.  IOW - the person's actions in accordance with their capacity as a leader/manager/employee of the company should be limited to actions that support the company's purpose (if a for-profit company, then the business-purpose of the company) - but not impose my beliefs on employees nor limit their access to things they have a right to... simply because another person's accessing such a right goes counter to my own personal beliefs.

Edit: to add... Do we have to allow employees to proselytize or use religious expressions/greetings? (shrm.org)

People do have a right to express their personally held religious beliefs at work; but only so long as doing so does not place an undue burden on other employees, customers or others engaging with the person as an employee/representative of the company.  What constitutes 'an undue burden' is not always a bright-line rule.  Rod Tanner - Religious Expression and Proselytizing in the Workplace.pdf (laborlaw.org)

 

So, people should not be allowed to use their companies to push their personal beliefs on their employees or customers?

[kerbiloid]

16 minutes ago, TheSaint said:

So, people should not be allowed to use their companies to push their personal beliefs on their employees or customers?

So, Visa et al. starts kindly giving the ability to not miss a firearms manufacturer to support, what's wrong?

[Hyperspace Industries]

The vickers wellington bomber was found to be nearly invisible in daylight if it had its spotlight on.

A bright object on a bright sky, hard to see, once it was close enough you could see the wings, it would also be too late.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Hyperspace Industries

[DDE]

4 hours ago, TheSaint said:

So, people should not be allowed to use their companies to push their personal beliefs on their employees or customers?

LOL, there was MCC codes for liquor stores and nightclubs but not for gun stores? I know the former were there because AkBars of Tatarstan has recently rolled out a debit card that can't be used to shop at confirmed haram outlets.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

4 hours ago, TheSaint said:

So, people should not be allowed to use their companies to push their personal beliefs on their employees or customers?

That does not restrict.  It classifies.  Also, the purchaser can use cash, debit, check, crypto, etc. Not an 'undue burden'. 

Simply having the company identify a class of purchases does not go anywhere near as far as preventing a person from exercising a right. 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[Terwin]

13 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

When you form a for profit entity, its sole purpose is profit, its sole method of speech is Commercial Speech.  You as an individual working for said company retain your religious freedom under the Constitution. But you should not be able to use a for-profit corporation to force your religious, personal beliefs on people with whom you have a financial (employment) relationship.

It is an absurd farce that the legal fiction of 'personhood' (created to prevent companies from claiming they are not subject to statutes or laws that say "no person shall" or "it is illegal for a person to..." by dent of not being 'persons.' * ) also grants a company a religious persona; the religiously minded can certainly form a non-profit company dedicated to their religious goals (the purpose of the legal entity is thus religious, not profit).  But to claim that a For Profit corporation is for anything other than profit is absurd.

How do you identify if a given entity is specifically to make profits, or just happens to make profits due to the activities they engage in?

Why is it impossible to have a company who wishes to 'do X but in a profitable way'?

You seem to be engaging in absolutism, and while fun to think about, I have yet to find a non-physics based absolutism that actually works in the 'real world'

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

1 hour ago, Terwin said:

How do you identify if a given entity is specifically to make profits, or just happens to make profits due to the activities they engage in?

The classification of the company for taxation purposes.

Quote

Nonprofit Organizations are those incorporated not for earning some income from their activities. Rather their primary motive is to enable activities that are generally for aiding or advancement of the society at large and are not required to pay taxes. In contrast, For-Profit Organizations are those entities incorporated with a primary objective of earning economic and monetary benefits either directly or aiding in that process.

(Sorry - the originally quoted piece has a weird behavior when trying to cite it... but I like the concise explanation.  Here's a parallel citation: For-Profit vs. Nonprofit: 9 Key Differences | Indeed.com)

Further, the First Amendment does distinguish forms of speech: Commercial Speech is allowed to be regulated more stringently than others.

 

Quote

Commercial speech is a form of protected communication under the First Amendment, but it does not receive as much free speech protection as forms of noncommercial speech, such as political speech.

Case Categories | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)

also:

Quote

 in Federal Election Commission v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life (1986) by upholding the amendment to the Federal Election Campaign Act (FECA) prohibiting corporations from using general treasury funds for contributions toward express advocacy in the context of an election but exempting non-profits from the regulation.

Corporate Speech | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)

This could have been / should have been extended to precluding the officers of a for-profit entity from enforcing their privately held beliefs upon employees or others.  The problem is that a subsequent, activist Court made bad law (yes, the Supremes do get it wrong):

Quote

 

The Court took a much different position in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, 558 U.S. 310 (2010).  In that case, which invalidated this ban, it decided that there was no constitutional basis for the distinction that it had drawn in Austin or McConnell between corporate and non-corporate speech. 

In another win for corporate speech, the Court decided in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. ____ (2014), that closely held corporations could not be required to provide coverage under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 for forms of contraceptives that violated the owners religious beliefs. 

These and related decisions have stirred considerable public debate between those who believe that widening corporate speech expands First Amendment protections and those who fear that it gives corporate entities undue influence.

 

Corporate Speech | The First Amendment Encyclopedia (mtsu.edu)

Were I on the Court - I would acknowledge the right of Non-Profit entities that have other-than-profit purposes to engage in Political and Religious speech under the First Amendment no different from a human person's: thus preserving the rights of Religious-based groups to form companies, hospitals, advocacy groups, etc. to further their goals, perform 'activities for aiding or advancement of society' and enjoy the protections of 'incorporation' (used broadly) but limit a For-Profit entity's speech to being prima-facia 'Commercial Speech' in every instance, meaning that they can be limited in their influence. 

This would, in no way, limit the officers of a Corporation / For-Profit entity from forming a Non-Profit Subsidiary (or similar/ independent) and funding it and utilizing it to further their political / religious goals.  Employees of that separate/sub-entity could be constrained in their rights/access to act in accordance with the belief structures imposed by the founders... but that is notably distinct from what would occur with the rest of the organization.

With a For-Profit entity, the employees' fundamental relationship to the company is profit-based.  They're trading their time and talents for money.  Their efforts, in turn, are to help the company make money.  They cannot use the company's assets (or the time they've sold) to further their own political / religious / independent financial aims.  Why then, should this be different for the owners/officers of a company?  When the officers of the company impose personally held beliefs (whether political or religious) upon their employees, effectively forcing them to comply with another person's personally held beliefs or be restricted from lawful rights they might otherwise enjoy - the 'speech' of the company is no longer 'commercial'.  

Therin lies the logical fallacy.  The simplest thing is to say a For-Profit company is presumed to always and exclusively engage in Commercial Speech, and then carve out exceptions following the 'undue-burden' analysis I outline above.

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[darthgently]

9 hours ago, TheSaint said:

So, people should not be allowed to use their companies to push their personal beliefs on their employees or customers?

No one forces customers into a store and no one is forcing anyone to apply for a job somewhere.  That said,  Hobby Lobby doesn't discriminate in hiring as long as the applicant will not act against the mission of the company which is basic golden rule stuff.  The employees do tend to self select in the decision to apply in the first place and that is just the market at work

Edited September 12, 2022 by darthgently