Sci-Am vs Supreme Court

 

So, Scientific American’ s Editorial Board doesn’t exactliy hold a shining view of the US Supreme Court, or at least of the conservative members of that court, as made amply clear by Sci-Am’s opinion piece (October 2024). Given the Board’s wokishness, one would hardly expect it to feel otherwise on the several cases touched on in the article. All the same, the Board is right in quoting John Adams in his view that “facts are stubborn things.” Indeed, they burst out of the fuzz, as they do when the board proclaims that abortion has saved countless lives, when in reality the adjective “countless” can and should, for sure, be applied to the aborted lives. The conservative members of the Court may have prejudices, granted; but are the liberal members of the court any less prejudiced? Would someone like Justice Jackson, a person for whom males and females are only two of an x number of genders, be a more reliable adjudicator of facts? And, incidentally, if nitrous oxide makes you laugh, nitric (nitrogen) oxide gives you an erection, which sort of suggests that Justice Gorsuch may have been pokingly tongue-in-cheek when he made his assertion.

Kamala’s dilemma

 Dear Editor

That Kamala Harris is a supporter of the Green New Deal won’t come as a surprise to anyone. The Green New Deal, as we also know, claims that by 2050 the world, led by the US, needs to get to net-zero emissions. To get to net-zero emissions the US (the world, really) needs to drastically reduce the use of anything that contributes to greenhouse gas emissions, and it's a pretty good bet that petroleum products are among the top emission offenders.

Ms. Harris also supports fracking, i.e., a method of extracting oil and gas from deep underground with more efficiency and in greater quantities than is the case with more conventional methods.

Given these two positions, Ms. Harris, it seems to me, is in a bit of a quandary. Can she really, and honestly, be in favour of both—fracking and the Green New Deal?

Re Deploying on U.S. Soil: How Trump Would Use Soldiers Against Riots, Crime and Migrants, NYT, August 22/24

 Dear Editor

Anthony Romero, the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union, is quoted as saying that “It’s very likely that you will have the Trump administration trying to shut down mass protests — which I think are inevitable if they were to win.” Mr. Romero’s statement underscores what appears to be the brunt of NYT’s piece—that  a victory by Mr. Trump in November would inevitably result in widespread riots. We may argue over whether the suppression of these riots—by whatever means—would be a good a bad thing; what is hard to dispute is that, as clearly suggested by the article, the anticipated riots would be carried out by sympathisers of one party, and one party only, ie, by the Democrats. (Surely no sane person thinks that even someone as “weird” as Donald Trump would go out and start shooting his own people.) Whatever happened to the insistence that Trump and only Trump is capable of fomenting riots or insurrections?

Ermes Culos

Ashcroft, BC

ChatGPT e il furlàn

 Oservasiòn su la coretesa da li tradusiòns dal ChatGPT.

Il ChatGPT al à na cognosensa cuaši perfeta da la lenga ingleša. Al à na buna cognosensa encja di altri lènghis, coma dal todesc e dal taliàn (encja se màncul buna di chè dal inglèis). La so cognosensa da la lenga furlana a è puc buna. E a è puc buna parsè che in tal traduši da na lenga a n'altra il ChatGPT a si baša su ducju i documìns (miàrs e miàrs—adiritura miliòns—di lìbris) a so dispošisiòn; e lènghis coma il inglèis, il todesc, e il taliàn a à tant da ufrighi, mentri che, in proporsiòn a chisti lènghis, il furlàn al è (par adès) na vura limitàt in ta la so disponibilitàt. Ergo, in tal traduši in lenga furlana il ChatGPT a si cjata spes in dificultàt in ta cuestiòns di gramàtica, di vocabulari, e di pensej. Chej che, òris fà, a àn criticàt il GPT par vej dopràt “vuardà” invensi di “cjalâ” a varèsin da tegni in mins li limitasiòns apena minsonàdis. I podìn èsi abastansa sigùrs che il GPT al cognòs il Grant Dizionari furlan-taliàn, e a è pusìbul che in tal traduši la peraula “guardare” il GPT a ghi fedi fede a li definisiòns di chistu Dizionari, indulà che la peraula “guardare” a vèn tradušuda coma “cjalâ” e coma “vuardà”. A è pusìbul che rivàt davànt di chistu svolt, il GPT a si dedi na grataduta in tal so cjaf digitàl e ch'al decidi di fà na consulta pì largja, geogràfica magari, ch'a ghi confermarès chista realtàt: che “cjalà” a è tant doprada di lâ da l'aghe, mentri che di cà da l'aga la zent (encja la int) a no ghi cjata nuja di stran a vuardà cà e là. A pòl pur dasi che il ChatGPT al sedi al curìnt di chista pìsula poešia dal Pasolini che sinò altri a ni sigura che s'i la vuardàn benòn i no fìn pròpit un grant pecjàt.

[I Vuardi...] 

I vuardi il soreli 

di muartis estàs, 

i vuardi la ploja 

li fuèjs, i girs.

I vuardi il me cuàrp 

di quan’ ch’i eri frut, 

li tristis Domèniis,

il vivi pierdút.

«Vuei ti vistissin

la seda e l’amòur, 

vuei a è Domènia 

domàn a si mòur ».

Buna domènia, buna zent—e viva la varietàt!

Preeminence of the observer

 Re “The Quantum Observer,” Sci-Am, July/August 2024

“Some interpretations of quantum physics,” we read, “argue that even if there is only one world, the outcomes of measurements may still be relative to an observer rather than to an objective fact for everyone.” Strong evidence for this position is really to be found all around us, and not just in the depths of quantum physics. It can be found in relatively trivial things, like in the curfew imposed by parents on a teenager, which appears perfectly reasonable to the parents and totally unfair to the teen. And it can bo found in situations of more consequence, like the bombing of Gaza, an act of the greatest injustice for many university students, and the exact opposite for Benjamin Netanyahu. That a coin toss might result, simultaneously, “tails for one observer and heads for another,” is not therefore true just in a quantum realm, as Renato Renner claims, but in pretty much all aspects of life.

Ermes Culos

Ashcroft, BC

Name change

 Re Lauren Collins article of May 5/24

Hi.

I come from a region of Italy called Friuli, which is called Friuli for historical reasons: a couple of thousand years ago the land (an outpost of the Romans) was called “Forum Iulii,” and has been called Friuli ever since. Located as it is at the foothills of the Alps next to Slovenia and Austria, this land was very likely occupied and used as a sort of buffer zone to ward off the “barbarians” and keep them from coming south into the Italian peninsula. (Needless to say, the native Friulians very likely saw the Romans themselves as barbarians!) Since Roman times, this same land has been ruled by, among other powers, the Venetian Republic, which, I’m afraid, used its forests for underpinning the city of Venice itself. Then, until very recently, much of Friuli was under the dominion of the Austro-Hungarian empire. All along, Friulians had to adapt themselves to the whims and ways of many ruling powers. Yet they all along kept the name of Friuli. In fact, Friulians hang on to their name (and language) with a good deal of stubborness and pride: the name of Friuli, after all, is a reminder, to them, of the good parts of their history—as well as of the bad parts.

I am writing this, of course, in response to what is happening in Powell River. First Nations people want to replace the name Powell River with some other name, presumably an indigenous name, so as to erase from history a name associated with attitudes and acts which they find distasteful. First Nations people will probably get their way and the name will be changed. And their initial reaction will be one of satisfaction, even exuberance. But what will they really have gained other than a refusal to accept the reality of their past? 

Shouldn’t the better part of wisdom (the heart of truth and reconciliation) be to compromise?—that is, to let the name be, and maybe pair it with the name of a beautiful thing, in the native language if so wished, that highlights one of the many positive features of Powell River?

Ermes Culos,

Ashcroft, BC

(former resident of Powell River)

La necesitàt da la š

 S s s s s s s s s s s s s š š š š š š š š š š š š

Tradusiòn:

Visìn di cjaša me 

al era un ašilo,

e dongja di chèl,

na glišia, e lì,

par zent ch'a è curioša

i vevi na volta

na maroša 

estroša

e gološa.

Ma a no è di chista me maroša ch'i volevi tabajà (che se pròpit i volèis savèilu a no à maj vùt vita aldifòu di chisti rìghis). No, i volevi doma diši alc su una da li curiošitàs dal me furlàn—il ušu da la “š.”

Coma ch'i savìn, a ešìst na grafìa standard par una da li variàntis da la lenga furlana, chè clamada “comùn.”

Da chèl ch'i saj jò, a no ešìst na grafìa standard par nisuna di che àltris variàntis. Che cussì a è, a no è par mèrit o par mancjansa di mèrit di chista o di chist'altra variànt. A è cussì parsè che la lenga furlana, par tradisiòn, a era na lenga oràl, e no scrita. Che lì a era e (in ta tancju aspiès) a para via a èsi la lenga e la cultura furlana. Vuej a ešìst un puc di furlàn scrìt, ma, in sostansa, pròpit puc. Di chel puc ch'al ešìst a no è fàsil parlà di mèrit. La rašòn: a ešìstin scritòus di nòn e di cualitàt ch'a scrìvin o ch'a àn scrìt in ta la variànt centràl (Di Colloredo, tant par minsonani un); ma a ešìstin scritòus di cualitàt encja in ta altri variàntis, e Pasolini al è sens'altri un di chìscjus. (S'i pešàn Di Colloredo e Pasolini, in ta un sens lenghìstic e culturàl, cuj al pèšia di pì?) Se vuej, duncja, a è una, e—a è lècit diši—doma una da li variàntis ch'a vèn ošanada, a no è par rašòns di mèrit, ma par rašòns ch'a ghi stàn tant dongja da la politica.

Ma sè'l cèntria dut chistu cu chel sghiribìs parzora di na š?

Èco chì parsè ch'al centra. La variànt furlana ch'i dopri jò a è la versiòn scrita da la parlada ocidentàl di Cjašarsa, o la versiòn ch'a si visina na vura a chista variànt. A è, in ta la so sostansa, la variànt ch'al doprava il zòvin Pasolini—cun cualchi diferensa.

E chista a è la pì granda da li diferènsis: la parlada di Cjašarsa (e circondari) a no dopra cuaši maj consonàntis dòplis. La mancjansa di consonàntis dòplis in tal furlàn scrìt a crèa chista dificultàt, che cuant ch'a si li lasa fòu a è impusìbul fà na distinsiòn fra la “s” sunada (o sonora) e la “s” sorda cuant che la “s” a è in tal miès di dos vocàls. Ešèmplis: s'i scrivìn “musa” (faccia) e “mussa” (asina) sensa la dopla “ss,” i restàn cun “musa” e “musa,” ch'a sòn idèntichis, e nisùn al savarès cuala ch'a è na asina e cuala ch'a è na faccia. Stesa roba cun “cjasa” e “cjassa.” Gjàvighi na “s” a “cjassa” e sè ni rèstia? Il ušu dal sghiribìs “š” (ch'al indichèa na s dolsa, o sunada), duncja, al rìnt clara la distinsiòn fra cjasa (caccia) e cjaša (casa) e, cundipì, al eliminèa la necešitàt da la dopla s.

Dìt chistu, i pòl adès tornà a cjatà la me gološa e permaloša di maroša.