Collected Links (06/01/2022)

• Linguistic Relativity (Sapir-Whorf) -- Wikipedia -- well written and thorough.
• "Gravity is Not a Force" -- Veritassium -- really great but does not define what is meant by a "force" -- i.e. the title is misleading because he means "gravity is an effect of space-time, which effect some people might call a "force" but it is not a "force" acting independently from that effect (and let's not get too deeply into gravitons or the Standard Model or gravitational waves)." In the Standard Model bosons are particles that form fields, but bosons are also the consequence of fields. Einstein famously did not believe in "spooky action at a distance," and the idea of a space-time field with a mediating particle (gravitons) is consistent with General Relativity. So, saying "gravity is not a force" is a little misleading since it ignores what might be meant, when closely examined, by "force."
• Newton's method of calculating pi -- Veritassium -- superlative video --  includes getting from πr to πr² -- also includes great stuff on Pascal's triangle in negative numbers and fractions and continuums -- shows (without overtly saying so) why Newton was a brilliant mathematician -- Newton's method developed from integration and series and development of (1+x)².
• Newton's Pendulum (Gangnam Style)
• Göbekli Tepe -- at Reddit -- at Wikipedia -- quote from Reddit: "built around 9500BC while Britain was still connected to Europe and humans hunted mammoths in Siberia. We are closer in time to the construction of Stonehenge and the Giza Pyramids, than [Stonehenge and the ancient Egyptians] were to [Göbekli Tepe]."
• Fox News: "Biden keeps repeating false Second Amendment claim, despite repeated fact checks" --  -- the quoted language that is asserted to be false is "You couldn’t buy a cannon when the Second Amendment was passed." Fox News, of course, provides no evidence that ordinary people could just go out and buy cannons. Fox News, of course, provides no evidence that, in the words of the Second Amendment, that ordinary people would "keep and bear" cannons. It seems absurd to believe (without evidence, natch) that some people kept cannons, say, at their households or even on their person. Cannons at the time were very difficult to make. The only evidence is that cannons were bought and sold for military or quasi-military use. (N.B. "quasi-military" because the U.S. military as a body was loosely organized and depended on state militias and not in any substantial way on a federal military body in the years after the American Revolution. See, e.g.) Fox News, citing Politico. claims all weapons were unregulated because it asserts there were no formal federal gun laws until 1934. That's nuts. There were numerous state gun restrictions before that time. Moreover, restrictions on ownership (and practical inability and common understandings of prohibitions) were a product of the common law not written laws or regulations, as law at that time was driven by common law not statutory law. Fox News's and Politico's suggestions to the contrary  are, frankly, wrong and indicated of legal and historical ignorance. Indeed, the Constitution's explicit provision for issuing Letters of Marque and Reprisal shows the understanding that the use of weapons such as cannons had to be authorized -- it was not some sort of freely floating around right. Fox News also states as a fact "The Second Amendment as it is written does not limit who can 'keep and bear arms' or what kind of arms people can keep and bear." Actually, the Second Amendment does not say any types of weapon or any amount of weapons can be owned. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly made this clear (see specifically Section III of the Court's opinion in District of Columbia v. Heller, which is the watershed "pro-gun rights" decision from the Supreme Court and still makes this clear). Indeed, the clerks for Justices Scalia and Stevens recently made this clear -- Scalia and Stevens wrote, respectively, the Court's opinion and main dissent in Heller -- in a lengthy and detailed op-ed.  The assertion that Biden's statement is false, extends back to Politifact, which called it "dubious," not false, i.e. not a lie. It was "dubious" because Biden did not, gratuitously, point to a specific case where someone was prohibited from owning a cannon. But that is incorrect: it puts the "proof" requirement on the wrong person: if you say private individuals could go around owning cannons, in the sense we mean, not for military purposes as they existed then, then I think the onus is on you to prove it. As discussed above, I think that notion -- that private laypeople owned cannons -- edges on the absurd for several reasons. Having that view, as Biden evidently does, is  not a lie. Fox News's story is intended to cement in the reader the belief that Biden is dishonest. Biden, like all of us, makes plenty of mistakes. He certainly says many things poorly. He has, without question, told lies during his life and long political career. This the statement here, right or wrong (and it may be right) isn't a lie.. Fox News knows that and goes ahead, anyway. Again, this story was pushed to me today by Fox News. It's not like Fox News is also pushing stories that are truthful. 
• Fox News, again! Michael Sussman, a lawyer connected with Hillary Clinton's 2016 Presidential campaign, was found not guilty of lying to the FBI. The supposed "lie" was hawked by Fox News as a major scandal involving Clinton and the Democrats. Fox News repeatedly suggested the supposed "lies" were actual criminal conduct and involved "massive fraud" and was, in fact, "the biggest political scandal in modern history." Sussman was prosecuted by a special prosecutor selected by Trump; the supposed "lie" involved Trump's alleged wrongful conduct in relation to Russia. So, there was a patent conflict of interest from the get-go as Trump appointed a prosecutor to investigate and prosecute a political opponent's campaign over statement's about Trump. According to Mother Jones (on a story pushed to me, BTW), the special prosecutor's investigation has actually strengthened the case against Trump. Anyway, the jury was not out long before ruling for Sussman and rejecting the Trump special prosecutor's prosecution. Fox News's response? The result was due to "jury nullification." "D.C. juries are famous for failing to follow the facts and the law." The jury was "biased" and composed of "Hilary Clinton peers." And more and more. Fox News is not just mendacious but prolific.