[InfiniteVortex]

Interesting to note that the Justice Minister Lord McNally didn't consider a pardon appropriate, but the Queen eventually pardoned Turing after an outpouring of public support (and with the advice of the Government) [0]. (Turing was convicted for committing homosexual acts. Based on my cursory reading it seems like it was one of the reasons why he likely committed suicide. It's a tragic story of a great man, whom we all owe our gratitude.)

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alan_Turing#Government_apology...

[graemep]

It is far from certain that he committed suicide:

https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-18561092

IIRC part of the coroner's reasoning is that "In a man of his type, one never knows what his mental processes are going to do next."

So essentially they concluded it was suicide because something about Turing (gay? academic? gay academic?) was regarded as indicating instability. I very much doubt a coroner today would follow that reasoning!

[tim333]

From that article he died of cyanide poisoning and while he as doing an experiment with that it is likely "the experiment was a ruse to disguise suicide, a scenario Turing had apparently mentioned to a friend in the past."

[telesilla]

Bear in mind he was given hormones. As I'm from that half of the population who experiences hormone fluctuations but it's part of what women expect so we know about this and plan for it and support each other, I'd not be surprised if he was unaware of how his emotional state might be affected.

Having said that, I'd like to see research on emotional states in male to female transitions, we should have plenty of data?

[dspillett]

And those hormones where specifically intended as chemical castration, reducing or removing libido (or the possibility of acting upon it). I assume this is more likely to have depression as a side effect than the concoctions we use for birth control in early/mid life and treating the effects of menopause later, as it is explicitly damping physical feelings. We also understand the effects of such treatments much better today than we did back then (still not well enough, it could be argued, but definitely better) and many things prescribed back then wound be considered dangerous now, so he may have had a relatively rough ride. This is speculation of course, though with a better foundation IMO than some of the other comments in this thread…

[trealira]

I'll only say this due to anonymity, but: mistakenly thinking I was trans, I once took testosterone blockers and estrogen for about a month (having bought them online probably illegally).

After a week, I was on the verge of tears pretty much 24/7, and I did cry whenever I was alone in my room. It's crazy how much I cried; I had never cried so much before in my life. My mood was much worse, obviously, since I was crying so much; I was crying due to sadness.

I'm pretty sure women aren't on the verge of tears 24/7 when they're menstruating or pregnant. So from my anecdotal experience, I'm convinced that the same hormone levels affect men and women differently.

I have read anecdotes from detransitioned FtMtFs that they had abnormally short tempers while taking testosterone. So, it may go the other way, too.

[joseda-hg]

To some extent, their body might be more "used" to it? I wouldn't whink a month would be enough for the body to actually get used to having a major hormone blocked and replaced with a diferent one

[telesilla]

Natural female hormones are only high a few days a month, yes. And we're so used to it, we get prepared and tell our partners we'll cry and be angry for no reason, and get ice-cream and chocolate in the house and maybe even take time of work if lucky enough. But it's not for very long, and there is a theory that you only get sad and angry if you have something sad or angry to be about, which I partially agree with. But the physical low is real, regardless of what emotions are going on.

[trealira]

You may be right that the body could adapt and eventually I might have just stopped feeling that way. I just decided to stop after a month because I thought I wasn't really trans and because I didn't want to feel so sad anymore.

But, I posted it because it may be that Turing also felt depressed, because they blocked his testosterone and gave him estrogen. Maybe the drugs put him in a suicidal state that he wouldn't have otherwise been in.

[ciiu]

> Having said that, I'd like to see research on emotional states in male to female transitions, we should have plenty of data?

According to subreddits that the MtFs use, it's mostly sexual arousal. "Euphoria boners" and suchlike.

[pwdisswordfishc]

Yeah but that's because "trans" is nothing more than a sexual fetish to these men. They objectify women and get off on it, using their own bodies to construct the erotic target.

[temporarely]

It's possible he was considered a security risk. Turing must have been very upset to keep quiet about precedence in terms of discoveries. I wonder if Shannon got under his skin ..

[croes]

Not simply convicted

>His probation would be conditional on his agreement to undergo hormonal physical changes designed to reduce libido, known as "chemical castration".

[advael]

Yea apparently it was so important to the government of Britain to dictate which consenting adults can fuck each other that they would force hormones and essentially permanent probation on a literal world-changing scientist and undeniable war hero over it

I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults, and it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy. Death to tyrants

[tim333]

>insane that there are zero governments in the entire world that can uphold the basic principle of full bodily autonomy

If there is zero government you get gang rape etc so it's more a question of where you draw the line.

[advael]

Seems reading comprehension isn't your strong suit. By definition, rape of any kind fails the "consenting adults" criterion pretty trivially. I draw the line exactly where I said I do, and the whole "the worst crimes I can think of justify the whole project of authoritarianism because it's simply a matter of degrees" line of reasoning is as puerile as it is unoriginal

[chx]

whao talk about gaslighting

that's not what gp said

> it's insane that there are zero governments in the entire world

He said the subset of governments for which it is true they uphold full bodily autonomy is the empty set.

He did not state anything about a country not having a government

[tim333]

Maybe I phrased it badly but I don't think it's insane that there are no governments that do that because there are obvious problems if they did. I guess you could go for full autonomy as long as the other people involved are not pissed off.

[ozzcer]

> I will never recognize a government's right to tell adults what they can do with their own bodies and other consenting adults

Its almost like that's what they said

[rayiner]

Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public. What can override that? For example, you cite this “principle of full bodily autonomy.” Is that a thing that exists? What’s your proof for it. It sounds like some religious concept, except for libertarians.

[advael]

Proof? So you're telling me you don't understand what a "principle" is basically. I define autonomy exactly how I said it. Adults should be able to do with their own bodies as they see fit, including consenting to any and every act done with another consenting adult. I say adults here because I do believe carving out some small exceptions for people who aren't fully able to take care of themselves is necessary, but I also think minors should have way more rights than most governments give them, just not all of those we afford adults

The entire concept of "human rights" is premised on the idea that there are some principles that should override "the will of the people", which without any kind of protections of rights amounts to simple mob rule. I don't think you should get to lynch someone because the whole village doesn't like them, and I don't think the government should get to tell you what to do in the bedroom or what drugs you can take, regardless of what you can get a howling mob to think. I swear they don't teach people basic ethics these days. Or maybe it's just tech people? No wonder this industry's a garbage fire right now

[rayiner]

But who cares about your principles? Why should your non-falsifiable, non-scientific, non-empirical assertions about the nature of reality matter more than those of the mob?

You're just articulating a quasi-religious belief, and appointing ourself as the clergy of this quasi-religion, without admitting that's what you're doing.

[advael]

Cool analogy didja learn it in middle school english?

Seems everyone and their grandma wants to hold the torch of "rationality" and declare anyone who has an actual belief about something "dogmatic." It's intellectually facile and morally bankrupt

But no, fool, the principle of autonomy, or in this context that "the state shouldn't make decisions about what individuals can do to and using their own bodies" is not an arbitrary moral position, it's a meta-norm that has deep mechanism design implications in a functioning cosmopolitan society, ones that the balance of evidence suggest make that society work better for everyone except for the very lucky tiny percent of authoritarian busybodies that win the inevitable holy wars that come of structuring society around the premise that a state should be able to micromanage your individual life. I say that we have not achieved a state that truly doesn't meddle in this way (and one that are closest have in some senses backslid in the last century or so), but every move in that direction has produced both stability and prosperity

The very mindset you're espousing, that no one person's morals should determine the law, is a derived principle of enlightenment liberality. It's exactly why populism can't create a stable functioning human society

Liberality and consensual autonomy isn't a charter for total nihilist moral relativism and it doesn't call for every decision to be made by pure mob rule, it calls for government to act as a superstructure to allow democracy without lynchings and pogroms against political dissenters and laws against sex you don't like. It's a technology, not a religion

Moral nihilism doesn't imply that you're wise, it implies that you're spineless

[CalChris]

> Ideally, governments just enforce the collective will of the public.

That rank populism is what Franklin warned us against and sounds suspiciously like a Leni Riefenstahl movie, except to libertarians.

[rayiner]

Franklin was religious and believed man was created by God and had an “immortal soul,” and that God created morality as well. https://www.americanheritage.com/benjamin-franklin-his-relig... (“I believe in one God, Creator of the Universe. That he governs it by his Providence. That he ought to be worshipped. That the most acceptable Service we render to him is doing good to his other Children. That the soul of Man is immortal, and will be treated with Justice in another Life respecting its Conduct in this.”). It follows from that thinking that there are limits on what the government can do to a God-created individual. God’s law trumps man’s law.

But what’s the argument that doesn’t resort to the supernatural? There’s a logical, utilitarian basis for saying that governments are created by societies to effectuate the popular will. There’s no God-favored king or clergy, and biology doesn’t anoint some humans to rule over others, as with say bees, so the popular will should be carried out. Insofar as the people have committed to things like constitutions and laws, of course, that can provide a principled basis for limiting what the government can do to individuals.

But OP was talking about some “principle of full bodily autonomy” that apparently transcends any specific constitution or law. Where does that come from? If the people don’t believe in any notion of “bodily autonomy”—or impose particular limits on that concept—what higher law can possibly override that?

[CalChris]

From Franklin's letter, more towards the end: "I have ever let others enjoy their religious Sentiments".

[billyjobob]

Turing's boyfriend was 19, therefore not an adult under UK law at the time.

[foldr]

The age of consent for heterosexual sex was 16 at the time. As gay sex was illegal, there was no corresponding age of consent for it, but it’s misleading to suggest that 19 was not considered a sufficient age for sexual consent in general.

[ndsipa_pomu]

It's a classic example of where legality and morality aren't aligned

[croes]

Back then it was perfectly aligned.

Homosexuality was seen as a perversion in the public eye.

[newswasboring]

I think OP was talking about real morality, not perceived.

[croes]

What is real morality? How do you distinguish it from perceived morality?

There is no ultimate right or wrong, it's all perception.

[newswasboring]

I have written and deleted a few responses to this. Mostly because all of them turned out rageful, these kind of statements are in themselves harmful. If you only assign value to things which have inherent value then what's the point of society or civilization. Some things don't have to be laws of nature for us to treat them as such. If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable then none of any society works.

[croes]

>If the only thing you recognize as valuable are things which are inherently valuable then none of any society works.

Moral and value are both subjective. I doubt there is a single value that all people share across the world and time. So it's always about perceived morality at a certain place and time.

[EnigmaFlare]

There's no such thing. All actions have consequences for other people, so any system of morality includes trade-offs where someone is disadvantaged for the sake of someone else.

[ndsipa_pomu]

> Homosexuality was seen as a perversion in the public eye.

Possibly, but the law was criminalising what happened in private. There's a big difference between prudish laws that ban public displays and intrusive laws that govern what consenting adults do in private.

[rsynnott]

That’s arguably a fairly modern idea. Many western European countries had laws against homosexuality (generally ~dormant) until the 80s. Until 2003, 14 US states effectively criminalised male homosexuality; see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lawrence_v._Texas

Lest you think this is totally confined to the past:

> In his concurring opinion [on Dobbs], Justice Clarence Thomas, wrote, "In future cases, we should reconsider all of this Court's substantive due process precedents, including Griswold, Lawrence, and Obergefell. […]”

Those would be the court cases which legalised contraception, homosexuality, and same-sex marriage across the US. It would be a mistake to think of this sort of intrusive law as purely a thing of the past; the far-right will bring them back, given half a chance.

[jl6]

We now recognize this of course, but I think the point being made above is that society at the time did not, and they thought they were acting morally.

Perhaps the lesson is that actions done out of a sense of moral righteousness should not be immune from challenge. Much evil is committed in the name of good.

[freedomben]

Reminds me somewhat of this great C.S. Lewis observation:

> “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

[kcplate]

This is exactly why I see virtually no difference between the desired tyrannies of the “woke” types today as compared to the religious right of the ‘80s and ‘90s. It’s the same shit with a slightly different script. That inherent desire to criminalize opinions and behaviors that might offend their chosen moralities whether or not it actually affects them individually or even others.

[EnigmaFlare]

We're not on the good side of some clear morality dividing line. Plenty of consensual private actions are illegal today. The most obviously similar one is incest. But there's also consensual violence and euthanasia, as well as all the things you're not allowed to have on your computer, even if you created them yourself in some western countries.

People seem to thing us moderns are more moral but we're not really, we just changed our morals so other cultures look immoral in comparison - and we look immoral in comparison to them too.

[freedomben]

Indeed. One of the most criminalized things today is taking any sort of drug (besides alcohol, and now cannabis in many places) even in the privacy of your own home where nobody else even has to know.

[TotalCrackpot]

Countless humans got their lives destroyed because of this perfectly normal variation of human sexuality, that's atrocious and so we should never forget what happened to Alan Turing because of essentially religious fundamentalism.

[hackerlight]

As a moral realist and liberal humanist, I agree, but the post highlights something important. Evil acts are often motivated by sincere moral systems. These people are mostly not sociopaths acting independent of a moral system. The feelings of moral disgust you feel towards their views are probably no different neurobiologically to the feelings of moral disgust they felt. This is important for us to recognize. Feelings of moral disgust should not be automatically given credence or respect just because they exist. We should also be careful and introspective of strongly held moral feelings that arise in ourselves.

[graemep]

I agree, but then what do you base a moral system on?

We should be introspective, and it helps, but it is far from being a solution. It is very difficult to get away from personal feels, or from you culture.

[freedomben]

> I agree, but then what do you base a moral system on?

I've thought about this way more than I probably should. While I don't have any answers, I do think two very famous attempts are particularly worth studying (and IMHO, blending). Immanuel Kant's exploration, particularly his categorical imperative, and Jon Stuart Mill's Utilitarianism.

IMHO though, it's a very difficult task because we humans tend to base our moral judgments on our emotional reactions to things, and our reactions (such as disgust) are a complex combination of instinct from past evolution, and culture we are raised in. If the outcome from some system/principle disagrees with our emotional reaction, we tend to discard the system rather than examine and question our reactions. I actually find Robert Sapolsky's work (and others in that area) to be just as interesting/illuminating because while they don't provide answers themselves, they do a remarkable job helping us see the challenges involved with trusting our gut.

[notRobot]

It's more a case of mainstream morality not aligning with ethics.

[hazn]

i’d like to add a counter point to your classification, respectfully: i felt like the comment implies that morality can be subjective (mainstream), but ethics is objective.

my point would be ethics is also subjective, and thus morality and ethics can be used interchangeably. in german, they are! (Ethik und Moral/Moralität)

[notRobot]

My subjective definition of ethics is that they're objective :)

Of course if you define both words to be the same thing to the point where they're interchangeable then the meanings change, but that's not what those words mean to me. I don't define ethics to be a socially held belief.

What do words even mean?

Edit: I don't know why I'm arguing with you, I have no strongly held belief and don't care about this at all.

[allsummer]

His death was consistent with both suicide and accident. He left no note, so the reasons for why he likely committed suicide are not clear. His nephew suggests it was "boyfriend trouble" and his friend said he had underwent the "treatment" in good spirits. Turing, on the advice of his lawyer, plead guilty and opted for chemical castration himself.

Of all the men in history charged with "gross indecency", Turing was the only one to receive a pardon. He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

[foldr]

> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

Not sure what point you’re trying to make here. His chemical castration was a condition of his probation following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.

[allsummer]

I'm fine with Turing being a hero or a role model. But people are now writing that Turing was castrated for being gay.

> following his indecency conviction, and had nothing directly to do with his security clearance.

It had nothing directly to do with his being gay. You can be gay without starting relationships with homeless boys and getting your house broken into, exposing yourself to blackmail or coercion.

[freedomben]

> It had nothing directly to do with his being gay.

Do you really (personally) believe that? You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

Seeing the way he was treated by law enforcement, particularly after the facts started coming to light, I can't believe it wasn't a factor. His final charge may have been more for the classified info risk as you say (I honestly don't know enough about the details to have an opinion there), but many parts of the process I think would have gone a lot more differently had he not been gay. Without a doubt in my mind, they would not have treated him so disrespectfully and cavalierly.

[allsummer]

> You don't think his gayness was a factor at all?

It was a factor, but not directly. I believe Turing's gayness is being pink washed. The way I see it, the UK was not castrating people for being gay, but gave this option after breaking indecency laws and being convicted for it.

> particularly after the facts started coming to light

Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

[freedomben]

> Turing went to police to file a report and casually (perhaps ignorantly or haughtily) admitted to breaking a law.

Yes I agree, but (and I'm honestly asking because I don't know) was it one of those laws that nobody really took seriously or that was still on the books even though it was never enforced? Or was it a crime that was enforced at the time?

Edit: Unrelated to above, but from parent comment, I hadn't heard of "pink washing" before so just dropping a link for others who might not have heard of it either: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkwashing_(LGBT)

[foldr]

He was not charged with being burgled (which is obviously not a crime!) or for exposing himself to blackmail (which is also not a crime). He was charged for having sex with another man, and his punishment was a result of that conviction. So his conviction and punishment were absolutely directly to do with his being gay. The very fact that chemical castration was considered as a 'treatment' shows that everyone involved regarded the problem as being 'gay sex', not 'exposing oneself to blackmail'.

[freedomben]

Al Capone was also charged with tax evasion to the fullest extent of the law, even though the gov was rarely if ever that aggressive with tax evaders. Prosecutors/law enforcement go for the charge that stands the best chance of conviction, not necessarily the one that is most accurate.

Personally given how society was at that point in time, I think his gayness was a big factor in how he was treated, but there are better arguments than pointing to what he was charged with as that is easily refuted.

[foldr]

But this is nonsense in the case of Turing. He was simply charged because he admitted to the police officer investigating the burglary that he'd had gay sex. His treatment was in line with that of other gay men of the time who were charged with similar offences (perhaps more 'lenient' if anything). What evidence do you have that there was more to the case than this? I have seen no indication that security concerns entered into the prosecution or sentencing.

Beware that OP's post is full of random nonsense, such as the claim that the younger man in question was 'Eastern European'. (His name was Arnold Murray and he was born in the UK, as far as anyone has been able to ascertain.)

[dxdm]

> He was not castrated for being gay, but for a relationship with an Eastern European 19-year old homeless man, and getting his house broken into, while having a security clearance and access to secret information.

Assuming this is true (I don't know), would a heterosexual man have received the same punishment? In any case, it seems pretty cruel and unusual to me.

[allsummer]

A heterosexual 40-year-old man with top-level security clearance, access to sensitive information, and the skill set of Turing, getting involved with Eastern European strays, at the start of the Cold War, possibly compromising himself, would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.

Cruel? From the lens of modern times, certainly. But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?

[dxdm]

> A heterosexual ... would not have received the same punishment, but likely would not have been spared jail time.

I don't know if we can make the assumption that it was his being gay that spared him the jail time, or if other considerations were at play; and if another man benefiting from the same considerations but with different preferences would have been treated (edit: clarifying) more leniently, i.e. no chemical castration, as you say. And together with the following:

> But don't we still chemically castrate certain sex offenders?

This goes back to the view back then of homosexuality as sexual (and criminal?) deviance. I feel like we're pretty much back at the point of his sexuality being the reason for the chemical castration.

[tim333]

If they are behaving in a iffy manner but have not actually leaked secrets they would probably just be fired or transfered.

[qsort]

The reasoning is interesting though. I don't necessarily agree with it but it's not "lmao gay".

A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence. He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted. It is tragic that Alan Turing was convicted of an offence that now seems both cruel and absurd—particularly poignant given his outstanding contribution to the war effort. However, the law at the time required a prosecution and, as such, long-standing policy has been to accept that such convictions took place and, rather than trying to alter the historical context and to put right what cannot be put right, ensure instead that we never again return to those times.[0]

--- [0] https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201212/ldhansrd/text...

[defrost]

> He would have known that his offence was against the law and that he would be prosecuted.

That specific bit of reasoning is very likely wrong.

The circumstances of Turings investigation and arrest started with Turing going to the police to report that had been robbed by a person considered to be a rent boy.

If he had the slightest notion of how homosexual behaviour was dealt with by the regular police and that he would be the main subject of interest rather than the robber he would not have reported the theft.

Turing very much came from a class isolated from common consequences, he spent his youth at an elite school and then university, later at Bletchley Park, all places where lads with an odd bent were not at all uncommon, largely tolerated although often teased, and very rarely, if ever, arrested.

[082349872349872]

« Et tous les bourgeois du 16ème / Se demandent pourquoi je t'aime »

What's the (north african?)-set movie to which Mika refers in this tube? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_MPtXUeUznY

While I find my eyes and ear (même les américaines comprennent) caught by Mme Mac, and I wouldn't have the foggiest in what context "molly with a Dilly" might usually occur, the video and text make one suspect that MM. Doriand and Mika tended to foreground the other characters (do long guns imply rough trade?).

[come to think of it, an odd bent would probably have been a career advantage at Bletchley, in that one might have been already habituated to picking up on metadata during traffic analysis?]

[defrost]

Hell of a tangent, near non contact but, FWiW I pretty sure it's a Sergio Leone film, many of which had sequences shot in Spain and some in North Africa (IIRC) - the blanket toss back is such a trope.

The following piano man bars just prior to the singing are, to my ear, a definite riff on Moby's Extreme Ways that was repurposed for the Jason Bourne films.

So bouncy .. does no one call back to Arthur Rimbaud anymore? https://genius.com/Paul-kelly-and-the-messengers-the-executi...

Everyone loves long guns, how else can you reach the gate from the house? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7owwTz7Z0OE

[082349872349872]

Viktor Tsoi (XX): Солнце моё, взгляни на меня (my sun[shine], look at me)

Mark and Sam (XXI): Солнце моё, взгляни за меня (my sun[shine], spot for me)

[082349872349872]

> Hell of a tangent, near non contact

All transverse geometries are alike, each non-transverse geometry fails to be so in its singular manner.

[vinnyvichy]

Lawrence of Arabia

Otherwise, it's Sierra Leone alright ("movie-set")

(Or Maltese Falcon for a very loose def of "set" or "N Africa")

[0] fr wikipedia for the song

[082349872349872]

> Lawrence of Arabia

They claim that, but I don't see how it could possibly be true, based on the cast listing at https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0056172/fullcredits : apart from an uncredited nurse (Barbara Cole) it seems like a screenplay calculated to make Ms Bechdel sad.

[vinnyvichy]

But not the (biologically male) gay counterpart of Ms Bechdel?

(Consider the period)

[082349872349872]

Comme je suis bête ! In my defence I saw that one in a 747, so low cabin pressure may not have done my long term memory formation much good. (EDIT: looks like whatever I was remembering as LoA wasn't even that?)

The multivalued functions are a relief — should the sparks/stars lit in my noggin by a comment align in a different direction from intended, it's not that I'm running riot in a deterministic world, but merely finding myself perhaps at the same coordinates, but on a different sheet, in a nondeterministic one?

The Maugham story in which bumble-puppy appears (if slightly later in the decade than in Huxley) is worth reading, especially with the background that WSM worked for MI6 and had (orientation as well as valuation?) reasons to make use of glueings along branch cuts in his personal, as well as his professional, life.

> In a place like the sanatorium where there was little to occupy the mind it was inevitable that soon everyone should know that George Templeton was in love with Evie Bishop. But it was not so easy to tell what her feelings were. It was plain that she liked his company, but she did not seek it, and indeed it looked as though she took pains not to be alone with him. One or two of the middle-aged ladies tried to trap her into some compromising admission, but ingenuous as she was, she was easily a match for them. She ignored their hints and met their straight questions with incredulous laughter. She succeeded in exasperating them.

Being partway through Conflict, War and Revolution(2022)*, I think something may be coming together modelling all your options: Kaczynski and Galois may have been too idealistically violent (the one having done what he could unto others, the other having suffered what he must?) and Grothendieck too idealistically nonviolent (which obviously leads to minimising one's dot product with the world) but Kolmogorov found a nonviolent quadrant inside Machiavelli's pragmatic lead: Fortune provides a martingale process, and virtu consists of minimaxing one's expected interests with respect to her whim.

On a planet like earth it is inevitable that men should seek the favour of Fortune, but it is rarely easy to tell what her feelings are. (or, for that manner, if they even be iid)

* https://press.lse.ac.uk/site/books/m/10.31389/lsepress.cwr/

[vinnyvichy]

s/virtu/epsilon of licentiousness/ ?

EDIT: not "viti"

Going to flip through your recommendations (at least) with an eye (3rd) towards ergodicity (or even Hurwitz spaces)

EDIT: don't worry too much about Galois -- you make me wonder if I had not read his letters (esp the fine print in his last testament) too carelessly.

[graemep]

"A posthumous pardon was not considered appropriate as Alan Turing was properly convicted of what at the time was a criminal offence"

That is what pardons are for. If he was not properly convicted then the conviction could have been overturned instead.

[InfiniteVortex]

I think the Justice Minister's reasoning is that if we pardon every crime in the past that we deem permissible today, it would legitimize people to break laws they find unjust today, stating that they (perpetrator) did it "because the future will see it as ok". It feels like weak reasoning from my part, but I can't get into the Justice Minister's head. It's just speculation.

With that said, and Turing having been pardoned by the Queen (posthumously), I wonder if pardons in the UK also carry the "imputation of guilt" that pardons in the US carry as defined by the SCOTUS [0]?

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burdick_v._United_States