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

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

11 minutes ago, darthgently said:

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

I don't generally disagree with you; but I will point out something that should be bright-line.  The legal purpose of a For-Profit company is to make profits.  That is notably distinct from a 'Corporate Mission Statement' ("Do no Evil") - which has zero legally binding effects.  The corporate mission statement should not be allowed to interfere with another person's legal rights.

[Terwin]

1 hour ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The classification of the company for taxation purposes.

There are specific limits and requirements to be a non-profit, most notably the requirement to fall into one of several categories, each with their own limits and requirements.

You would prohibit me from making a company who's primary purpose is to help people just because it does not fall neatly inside the requirements of one of the federally specified non-profit categories.  Categories that have been specifically made narrow because of the tax-advantages conveyed upon non-profit entities(like tax exemptions and the ability to accept tax-deductible donations).

In any-case, non-profit and for-profit are misleading.  A more accurate description would be Tax Exempt and Taxed.

Lots of tax-exempt organizations make massive tax-free profits, and many taxed organizations are primarily philanthropic in nature, it all depends on how willing the organizers are to tie themselves to this exemption in the federal tax code.

 

[Terwin]

21 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The legal purpose of a For-Profit company is to make profits.  

No, the legal purpose of an organization is to assemble capitol(including people) into a legally distinct grouping.

If a corporation has share-holders, then it often has a fiscal duty to those share-holders to provide a positive return on investment(which may or may not mean making a profit).  If an organization does not have share-holders, then its only real organizational obligations involve following the law, including paying taxes and fees as applicable.

Not all organizations are corporations, or even businesses.  While it is often advantageous for organizations not seeking a profit to seek non-taxed(aka non-profit) status, many are too small to even bother with such a thing.

I was a member of a hobby-group for multiple decades, and while it did successfully apply for non-profit status for part of that time, it was usually not worth the effort because the group just did not handle that much in the way of money, usually on the order of a few hundred dollars in dues a year.  Your definitions would require that that hobby group be a purely profit-motivated organization just because it is too small to bother with the paperwork to be non-profit.

Note: the main reasons for having an organization at all were so that we could rent out park meeting halls for events and people could point to this legal entity as the reason they were carrying a potentially illegal(looks like a knife/sword and > 6" long 'blade', even with no real edge) dress-sword in their trunk as part of their costume when traveling to said events.  (the hobby group was defined as educational so we could have things like 'reenactment props' for a legitimate reason to carry around something that looks like a sword or dagger so long as that was all we used them for)

There you go, a legal organization that did not have a profit motive and was too small to bother with the rules and paperwork to be tax-exempt.  You would prohibit such organizations?

Edited September 12, 2022 by Terwin

[Maria Sirona]

48 minutes ago, darthgently said:

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

Well uh... Not a person, but a thing called Necessity does

[darthgently]

42 minutes ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

The corporate mission statement should not be allowed to interfere with another person's legal rights.

Sure. Now if we could just define "legal right" in a way that it doesn't expand like immortal popcorn every generation based on whimsy and predatory use of government against one's political enemies we'd be golden.  

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 minutes ago, Terwin said:

In any-case, non-profit and for-profit are misleading.  A more accurate description would be Tax Exempt and Taxed.

Lots of tax-exempt organizations make massive tax-free profits, and many taxed organizations are primarily philanthropic in nature, it all depends on how willing the organizers are to tie themselves to this exemption in the federal tax code.

I think we're using the terms in similar ways.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

2 hours ago, Terwin said:

No, the legal purpose of an organization is to assemble capitol(including people) into a legally distinct grouping.

Actually no.  Historically, there were many purposes for creating a legal, fictional entity like a corporation, but within the United States... one legal purpose of organizing a company was to encourage investment by creating an entity that could act, but shield its owners/investors from personal liability for the actions of the company.  Thus, a rich person (or a pool of smaller investors) could create a railroad company, fund it, and start building railroads - but when those railroads caused accidental harm - the injured could only seek redress from the company, and NOT reach into the pockets of the investors/owners.  The person (investor/owner)  could still be liable for their own actions - and thus, have their personal assets subject to the law - but where they were merely a passive investor, no personal liability accrued from the actions of employees acting on behalf of the corporation.

Quote

A corporation is a legally distinct entity that has many of the rights attributed to individuals.[1] These rights include the ability to enter into contracts, take out loans, sue others, be sued, own assets, pay taxes, and so on.[2] A corporation is formed when individuals exchange consideration (usually in the form of cash) for shares of the corporation, which in turn creates a right to a portion of profits.[3] Generally, the losses incurred by a shareholder of a corporation are limited to the amount invested; this concept is known as limited liability.[4] Limited liability allows individuals to avoid personal liability for a business entity’s losses, thereby allowing risk-averse individuals to assume risks they otherwise would not have undertaken.[5] Corporations also allow individuals to pool resources to achieve goals that would be unattainable by a person acting in an individual capacity, and can last longer than an individual’s lifetime

A Brief History of the Corporate Form and Why it Matters (fordham.edu)

I think we're sort of moving away from my point:

• For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to the kinds of activity relative to their purpose: Commercial.  Thus their speech (broadly used term, includes actions) should always be considered commercial, and because Commercial Speech enjoys fewer protections than do Political or Religious Speech, For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to that.
• Not for Profit (Non-Taxable) entities can and should be formed by people for societal purposes other than merely seeking profit.  As such, they should enjoy greater freedoms, including the right to express Political or Religious ideas - or act in accordance with Political or Religious Goals.

Nothing in this limits a For Profit entity from giving to a Non Profit; but the distinction I would draw is that a For Profit entity cannot directly use its Commercial Speech right to limit the rights of its employees (where such rights are held exclusive of the employment relationship), whereas a Not for Profit Entity can require its employees comply with its goals, including limiting otherwise legal rights the individual might hold outside of the employment relationship.

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

EDIT:  We're distracting from the purpose of this thread.  Love to continue this if the moderators would move this to the Lounge!

@Gargamel - I think we've successfully danced around the political/religious topic ban by focusing on the legal aspects of corporate speech.  Any chance of moderating this into the Lounge under a "Corporate Speech" Thread?

 

(Entirely my fault: I started this.  Apologies to the OP!)

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[SunlitZelkova]

22 hours ago, Beamer said:

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

 

 

 

Yes. I recognize that. I am saying that also, Charles is not the King for 30 minutes and Elizabeth is Queen for 30 minutes after death, because Charles and everyone on Earth does not think he is King and they think Elizabeth is Queen.

If I don’t know that I am ruler of the galaxy, and everyone on Earth doesn’t know I am ruler of the galaxy, I am not ruler of the galaxy just because some aliens at Tau Ceti have proclaimed me to be the ruler of the galaxy.

[JoeSchmuckatelli]

8 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

some aliens at Tau Ceti have proclaimed me to be the ruler of the galaxy.

I ALWAYS KNEW YOU WERE SPECIAL!

Wait - Did Mila Kunis play you in that movie?

 

 

Edited September 12, 2022 by JoeSchmuckatelli

[TheSaint]

Whoops.

Edited September 12, 2022 by TheSaint
Didn't see the move

[Codraroll]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

Yes. I recognize that. I am saying that also, Charles is not the King for 30 minutes and Elizabeth is Queen for 30 minutes after death, because Charles and everyone on Earth does not think he is King and they think Elizabeth is Queen.

It would be perfectly possible to be King without knowing about it. It would not matter there and then, of course, but for the purpose of official record-keeping after the fact, no delay happened. The Queen stops being Queen at the moment of death, and the new King is technically King from that very instant, as far as history is concerned, even if it will take half an hour for anybody to learn about it or experience any difference. It's only when the first person asks "what just happened there?" that it will be puzzled together that Charles has technically been King for the entirety of the light speed delay between the Queen's death and the message reaching Earth. Monarchy transfers instantly, even if the universe can't keep up.

Edited September 12, 2022 by Codraroll

[Terwin]

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

Actually no.  Historically, there were many purposes for creating a legal, fictional entity like a corporation, but within the United States... one legal purpose of organizing a company was to encourage investment by creating an entity that could act, but shield its owners/investors from personal liability for the actions of the company. 

I am being very careful to specify organization, as a corporation is only a sub-set of organizations.  Even then, a corporation with with public stock is very different from most other organizations, and even most businesses.

2 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

I think we're sort of moving away from my point:

• For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to the kinds of activity relative to their purpose: Commercial.  Thus their speech (broadly used term, includes actions) should always be considered commercial, and because Commercial Speech enjoys fewer protections than do Political or Religious Speech, For Profit (Taxable) entities should be limited to that.
• Not for Profit (Non-Taxable) entities can and should be formed by people for societal purposes other than merely seeking profit.  As such, they should enjoy greater freedoms, including the right to express Political or Religious ideas - or act in accordance with Political or Religious Goals.

Nothing in this limits a For Profit entity from giving to a Non Profit; but the distinction I would draw is that a For Profit entity cannot directly use its Commercial Speech right to limit the rights of its employees (where such rights are held exclusive of the employment relationship), whereas a Not for Profit Entity can require its employees comply with its goals, including limiting otherwise legal rights the individual might hold outside of the employment relationship.

In the US non-profit organizations and what they can do are narrowly defined to prevent abuse of their tax-exempt status.

If you prohibit all other organizations from doing anything non-profit motivated, then you have just banned people working together on a broad swath orf normal activites and placed a heavy regulatory burden on any group that is not seeking profit.

Do you really thing that the chess-club at your local middle-school really needs to register with the federal government for non-profit status just so that they can reserve a space at the state-level championship?  This is what you are advocating for by preventing any legally created entity without a federal tax exemption from participating in any activity that is not primarily profit based.

You are also making trust funds and many other financial instruments illegal, as they are not seeking profit, but to distribute funds according to the instructions of their founding.

Incidentally, the tools used by  a grandparent creating a trust fund that will pay for the education of their grand-children, are not particularly distinct from the tools used by some other entity(possibly a corporation) putting money into a PAC to advocate for a particular bill/law/policy, or from a scholarship fund set up by an education-minded foundation.

 

Also, you do not need to use commercial speech to limit the conduct of your employees, you publish a code of conduct and fire anyone that refuses to either agree to that code, or fails to abide by that code.  This is a standard practice and is one of the ways an employer can fire someone who sexually harasses others without risking a law-suit from the harasser.  It can also be used to fire someone who falsifies a time-card, is rude to customers, or causes other problems in the work-space.

Putting non-tax laws in place that distinguish between taxable and non-taxable organizations is only asking for problems(and a prompt legal challenge).

 

[SunlitZelkova]

3 minutes ago, Codraroll said:

It would be perfectly possible to be King without knowing about it. It would not matter there and then, of course, but for the purpose of official record-keeping after the fact, no delay happened. The Queen stops being Queen at the moment of death, and the new King is technically King from that very instant, as far as history is concerned, even if it will take half an hour for anybody to learn about it or experience any difference. It's only when the first person asks "what just happened there?" that it will be puzzled together that Charles has technically been King for the entirety of the light speed delay between the Queen's death and the message reaching Earth. Monarchy transfers instantly, even if the universe can't keep up.

I agree that officially (“on paper”) he can be King instantly, but in physical reality, he is not (on Earth, everyone on Mars is aware he is King though).

Unless the throne is regarded as something holy, which means it may transcend space and time, and would be OT/against the rules.

[Terwin]

2 minutes ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I agree that officially (“on paper”) he can be King instantly, but in physical reality, he is not (on Earth, everyone on Mars is aware he is King though).

Unless the throne is regarded as something holy, which means it may transcend space and time, and would be OT/against the rules.

It can be retro-active however.  The easiest way to specify this without any problems with over-lapping reigns is to use the legal stance that the monarchy transfers instantly.  

Also, as far as I am aware, most monarchies have claimed or do claim a divine origin/mandate/blessing/etc. 

 

[kerbiloid]

The relativistic time compression also should be taken into account.

Let alone that Mars. But what if the velocity is 0.5 c?

And the gravity? The gravity well with its sqrt(1-r/R)

What about the Sgr A*?

Maybe the Galactic Empire  is still ruled by the same person since the galaxy birth?

[Beamer]

1 hour ago, SunlitZelkova said:

I agree that officially (“on paper”) he can be King instantly, but in physical reality, he is not (on Earth, everyone on Mars is aware he is King though).

Unless the throne is regarded as something holy, which means it may transcend space and time, and would be OT/against the rules.

There is no physical reality to being King. It is a title, not a physical 'thing', it only exists on paper (if one can call that 'existence'). There may be physical consequences to it, but those physical consequences (say, wearing a crown, or living in a palace, or as I'm sure is still a reality in some kingdoms, determining law) can also be experienced by people who are not King. I.e. the title enables them but doesn't cause them. As soon as you are King 'on paper', you are as much King as you could ever possibly be.

Incidentally, the throne is at least historically indeed considered something holy, this is in fact the entire idea behind most hereditary titles - the idea that some faculty is given to a certain person by a 'higher power', a faculty that is conveniently hereditary, and therefor can't be held by someone elected. At least that's how it was always sold, of course the real reason was usually money/property

 

[SunlitZelkova]

4 hours ago, Beamer said:

There is no physical reality to being King. It is a title, not a physical 'thing', it only exists on paper (if one can call that 'existence'). There may be physical consequences to it, but those physical consequences (say, wearing a crown, or living in a palace, or as I'm sure is still a reality in some kingdoms, determining law) can also be experienced by people who are not King. I.e. the title enables them but doesn't cause them. As soon as you are King 'on paper', you are as much King as you could ever possibly be.

Incidentally, the throne is at least historically indeed considered something holy, this is in fact the entire idea behind most hereditary titles - the idea that some faculty is given to a certain person by a 'higher power', a faculty that is conveniently hereditary, and therefor can't be held by someone elected. At least that's how it was always sold, of course the real reason was usually money/property

 

Very true. I guess the answer depends on what the definition of King is.

I have been using the definition of literally “holding the title” and being considered the King by others, as well as actually having the right to sit on the throne. Under this definition Charles would not be King. If he had tried to sit on the throne in the 30 minute time delay period, he would have been stopped by the palace staff and looked upon as deviant by the people. He is not King.

But if it is more to the definition you describe, then yes he is King instantly even if he doesn’t have instant access to those things and instant recognition as King by the humans.

[kerbiloid]

How did the Australians know that George III was replaced by George IV?

Such time delay, farther than Mars.

And which one was ruling in between?

Edited September 13, 2022 by kerbiloid

[Hyperspace Industries]

10 hours ago, JoeSchmuckatelli said:

EDIT:  We're distracting from the purpose of this thread.  Love to continue this if the moderators would move this to the Lounge!

@Gargamel - I think we've successfully danced around the political/religious topic ban by focusing on the legal aspects of corporate speech.  Any chance of moderating this into the Lounge under a "Corporate Speech" Thread?

 

(Entirely my fault: I started this.  Apologies to the OP!)

 

No problem.

[Beamer]

10 hours ago, kerbiloid said:

How did the Australians know that George III was replaced by George IV?

Such time delay, farther than Mars.

And which one was ruling in between?

It is a well known fact that the Australians live in the future. They would have known George IV was King 12 hours before it even happened!

 

[kerbiloid]

19 minutes ago, Beamer said:

It is a well known fact that the Australians live in the future. They would have known George IV was King 12 hours before it even happened!

 

I was sure that no substantive answer follows.

While I have brought an absolutely correct example from real history.

[Beamer]

14 minutes ago, kerbiloid said:

I was sure that no substantive answer follows.

While I have brought an absolutely correct example from real history.

The substantive answer is the same as has been mentioned above before: someone told them, in due time, and just because the Australians weren't aware of it for some time doesn't mean George IV wasn't King. In practical terms it didn't matter anyway since George IV was already ruling as Regent for a decade before his father's demise.

Segway back to space history: Uranus was originally called "George's Star" after George III when it was named by Hershel. This got Hershel the funding for his famous 40 foot telescope. Clever bit of brown-nosing!

 

[kerbiloid]

Got it. The Australians knew it by watching the star caption.

[tomf]

The only thing known to go faster than ordinary light is monarchy, according to the philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle. He reasoned like this: you can't have more than one king, and tradition demands that there is no gap between kings, so when a king dies the succession must therefore pass to the heir instantaneously. Presumably, he said, there must be some elementary particles -- kingons, or possibly queons -- that do this job, but of course succession sometimes fails if, in mid-flight, they strike an anti-particle, or republicon. His ambitious plans to use his discovery to send messages, involving the careful torturing of a small king in order to modulate the signal, were never fully expanded because, at that point, the bar closed.

Terry Pratchett, Mort