A Subtle translation issue [German]

[J. J. Lodder]

Einstein is known to have said:
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Usually translated with:
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.

There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)

Ohanian, who considers himself competent in German, goes on with:
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.

I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
Depending on context it can also mean:

refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.

So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

Jan

[occam]

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

Is this a different instance of Einstein saying 'God does not play dice
[with the universe]?" If so, He [God] does play subtle tricks. It also
means Einstein was wrong about his deterministic view of the world.

What is quantum superposition if not an underhand trick? What was He
thinking? (BTW, 'underhand' is another negative word for crafty, nasty.)

Post by J. J. Lodder
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?
Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

Is this a different instance of Einstein saying 'God does not play dice
[with the universe]?"

Don't think so. Raffiniert ist... is attested to 1921,
well before quantum mechanics. (1926)

Post by occam
If so, He [God] does play subtle tricks. It also
means Einstein was wrong about his deterministic view of the world.

Perhaps. There are still dissenting opinions.
You can see it as a corrolary, if you wish.
The nasty trick is god only knowing what will happen when,
leaving humanity forever in the dark,
without any possibility of finding out.
That makes him worse than the Supreme Fascist.

Post by occam
What is quantum superposition if not an underhand trick?

If you have a wave equation, linearity, hence superposition
is by far the simplest.

Post by occam
What was He thinking?
(BTW, 'underhand' is another negative word for crafty, nasty.)

Yes. Most of these words have cognates in Dutch,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

Is this a different instance of Einstein saying 'God does not play
dice [with the universe]?" If so, He [God] does play subtle tricks.
It also means Einstein was wrong about his deterministic view of the
world.

Those two statements aren't the same. The second one is specifically
about statistical models of reality. The first uses a rather broader brush.

But they're related, in that they reflect Einstein's attitude towards
physics. I would rephrase the one Jan quoted, without mentioning gods,
as something like "The laws of physics are difficult to discover, but
they will not turn out to be a horrible mess". Or perhaps " ...
fiendishly complicated". (I can say that because I'm an atheist. I'm not
sure whether Einstein was.) In that he agrees with the many physicists
who think that Occam's Razor, although not a hard physical law, is still
a good guideline in looking at new theory.

If I'm right about that interpretation, then "subtle" is a good
translation of raffiniert (in that context).

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
  not by playing nasty tricks on us)

Is this a different instance of Einstein saying 'God does not play
dice [with the universe]?"  If so, He [God] does play subtle tricks.
It also means Einstein was wrong about his deterministic view of the
world.

Those two statements aren't the same. The second one is specifically
about statistical models of reality. The first uses a rather broader brush.

Yes, the second is a specific instance of the first, as you suggest.
It's almost as if he [Einstein] does not believe nature would
unnecessarily complicate matters for the heck of it. Yet ...

Post by Peter Moylan
But they're related, in that they reflect Einstein's attitude towards
physics. I would rephrase the one Jan quoted, without mentioning gods,
as something like "The laws of physics are difficult to discover, but
they will not turn out to be a horrible mess".

yet... the statistical nature of the universe does point to a 'horrible
mess'. How else would you describe the wavelength of, say hydrogen,
being a variable, albeit one that is difficult to perceive ?

Post by Peter Moylan
Or perhaps " ...
fiendishly complicated". (I can say that because I'm an atheist. I'm not
sure whether Einstein was.) In that he agrees with the many physicists
who think that Occam's Razor, although not a hard physical law, is still
a good guideline in looking at new theory.

We all try to abide by guidelines. However, they are difficult to adhere
to at all times. This is why we resort to 'fixes', which are nothing but
cunningly deceptive means of giving the illusion of adherence. (I say
this as someone who no longer uses a razor. I have a beard.)

The statistical model of the universe has all the hallmarks of a
'cunning fix'.

Post by Peter Moylan
If I'm right about that interpretation, then "subtle" is a good
translation of raffiniert (in that context).

[J. J. Lodder]

occam <***@nowhere.nix> wrote:
[sorry, article missing, two replies in one]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by occam

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Subtle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

Is this a different instance of Einstein saying 'God does not play
dice [with the universe]?" If so, He [God] does play subtle tricks.
It also means Einstein was wrong about his deterministic view of the
world.

Those two statements aren't the same. The second one is specifically
about statistical models of reality. The first uses a rather broader brush.

Yes, the second is a specific instance of the first, as you suggest.
It's almost as if he [Einstein] does not believe nature would
unnecessarily complicate matters for the heck of it. Yet ...

Yes, it is a nasty view indeed.
Impossible to imagine how he is throwing an infinite number of dice
all the time to decide for example for each radioactive atom
whether it should decay that instant or not.
Moreover, a god who has to throw dice to reach decisions
cannot be all-powerful.
Conversely, supposing he does know it all beforehand
that makes him a slave of the laws of statistics,
so not all-powerful either.

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
But they're related, in that they reflect Einstein's attitude towards
physics. I would rephrase the one Jan quoted, without mentioning gods,
as something like "The laws of physics are difficult to discover, but
they will not turn out to be a horrible mess".

Yes, and god is not throwing deliberately misleading clues around,
like in omphalism.

Post by occam
yet... the statistical nature of the universe does point to a 'horrible
mess'. How else would you describe the wavelength of, say hydrogen,
being a variable, albeit one that is difficult to perceive ?

Post by Peter Moylan
Or perhaps " ...
fiendishly complicated". (I can say that because I'm an atheist. I'm not
sure whether Einstein was.)

Yes, Einstein too. His god and the laws of nature are the same thing.
This has also been called 'the god of Spinoza and Einstein'.
Einstein has explicitly stated that he didn't believe
in some kind of personal god. (that you can for example pray to)

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
In that he agrees with the many physicists
who think that Occam's Razor, although not a hard physical law, is still
a good guideline in looking at new theory.

Up to a point. Einstein is also quoted as saying:
"Make it as simple as possible, but not simpler"

Post by occam
We all try to abide by guidelines. However, they are difficult to adhere
to at all times. This is why we resort to 'fixes', which are nothing but
cunningly deceptive means of giving the illusion of adherence. (I say
this as someone who no longer uses a razor. I have a beard.)
The statistical model of the universe has all the hallmarks of a
'cunning fix'.

"A pillow on which true believers can rest their heads", by Einstein.

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan
If I'm right about that interpretation, then "subtle" is a good
translation of raffiniert (in that context).

Agreed,

Jan

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

Post by J. J. Lodder
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)

[ … ]

[Hibou]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.

They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

You remind me of something else at Wikipedia that has been annoying me.
To my mind "Alma Mater" is a nasty pretentious term that the language
would be better without, but I grit my teeth and leave it unchanged if
there is just one. However, many Wikipedia articles on scientists list
two or more, and those I'm systematically changing to "education". So
far no one has complained, but that may just be that they haven't
noticed. The distinguished scientist Victor Henri (experimental
psychologist, enzymologist, engineer, physical chemist) was brought up
by two mothers, but nearly everyone else has just one.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

You remind me of something else at Wikipedia that has been annoying me.
To my mind "Alma Mater" is a nasty pretentious term that the language
would be better without, but I grit my teeth and leave it unchanged if
there is just one. However, many Wikipedia articles on scientists list
two or more, and those I'm systematically changing to "education". So
far no one has complained, but that may just be that they haven't
noticed. The distinguished scientist Victor Henri (experimental
psychologist, enzymologist, engineer, physical chemist) was brought up
by two mothers, but nearly everyone else has just one.

Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

You remind me of something else at Wikipedia that has been annoying me.
To my mind "Alma Mater" is a nasty pretentious term that the language
would be better without, but I grit my teeth and leave it unchanged if
there is just one. However, many Wikipedia articles on scientists list
two or more, and those I'm systematically changing to "education". So
far no one has complained, but that may just be that they haven't
noticed. The distinguished scientist Victor Henri (experimental
psychologist, enzymologist, engineer, physical chemist) was brought up
by two mothers, but nearly everyone else has just one.

Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I can't recall any reference to foremothers. Are they less important?

[jerryfriedman]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I can't recall any reference to foremothers. Are they less important?

Judaism has four foremothers.

https://www.myjewishlearning.com/article/who-are-the-patriarchs-and-matriarchs/

As for who's more important, it might depend on who you
ask.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[lar3ryca]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[occam]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

Un homme averti twice en vaut quatre?

Je sais pas, je sais pas,

Jan

[Peter Moylan]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

Un homme averti twice en vaut quatre?
Je sais pas, je sais pas,

The saying in English is "forewarned is forearmed".

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

Un homme averti twice en vaut quatre?
Je sais pas, je sais pas,

The saying in English is "forewarned is forearmed".

So Shiva was forewarned?

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

Un homme averti twice en vaut quatre?
Je sais pas, je sais pas,

The saying in English is "forewarned is forearmed".

So Shiva was forewarned?

sed 's/was/is'

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by occam

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

I have two four arms.

Is that because you were forewarned twice?

Un homme averti twice en vaut quatre?
Je sais pas, je sais pas,

The saying in English is "forewarned is forearmed".

Yes, but I was quoting Brel,

Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

I was once forewarned, so I should have four arms.

Move to the Isle of Man and get three legs.

[occam]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

You surely mean you are three up on Goldilocks? She only had the one.

[Snidely]

Post by occam

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by J. J. Lodder
Someone I know is being brought up by two fathers,

We all have forefathers.

I have forebears, which is one up on Goldilocks.

You surely mean you are three up on Goldilocks? She only had the one.

The version of Goldilocks I have long known, in several different
renditions, had 3 ... Mama, Papa, and Baby. Only one of which was just
right.

/dps

[lar3ryca]

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness?
Are they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere
else to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Do you need three?

If I count those that I have deposed as garbage I have had maybe six. At
present I have three, but I only need one.

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Do you need three?
If I count those that I have deposed as garbage I have had maybe six. At
present I have three, but I only need one.

Clarification needed. Is this "routers" as in woodworking? Or
"routers" as in networking?

(However you choose to pronounce them.)

[lar3ryca]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Do you need three?
If I count those that I have deposed as garbage I have had maybe six. At
present I have three, but I only need one.

Clarification needed.  Is this "routers" as in woodworking?  Or
"routers" as in networking?
(However you choose to pronounce them.)

Routers as in networking.

[Hibou]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
[...]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Do you need three?
If I count those that I have deposed as garbage I have had maybe six. At
present I have three, but I only need one.

Clarification needed.  Is this "routers" as in woodworking?  Or
"routers" as in networking?
(However you choose to pronounce them.)

I was thinking of networking.

One thing's certain: those who overprice their routers are chisellers.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Do you need three?

I do. I have two static IP addresses.

One has two computers, a laser printer, two tablets, and two phones on it.

Another one (on my second IP address) has a single computer (a Raspberry
Pi 4), and a few household devices.

Another has a 3D printer and a vinyl cutter on it. It needs a separate
router because I don't want it on the internet.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
If I count those that I have deposed as garbage I have had maybe six. At
present I have three, but I only need one.

[Ken Blake]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness?
Are they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere
else to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Just curious--why?

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting
to>>> make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read
some>>> reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an
account and>>> log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this
bloody-mindedness?>>> Are they worried I shall read a review at Amazon
and then go somewhere>>> else to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting>>
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know
what>> you've been looking at, can add that information to your
account, and>> then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then
they'll>> try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more
than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Just curious--why?

I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have from
Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is.

A router is a device that connects two netgroups (whre one can be a
single computer). Your Livebox is probably a fiberbox and a router built
into one. I have a separate fiberbox and a router.

I don't know how curious you are, but here is an animation that shows
quite detailed how the internet works, and that includes routers.

Lasts 13 minutes.

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.

One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.

The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

It's an interesting exercise looking up what connects to my router. Five
computers, one iPad, two telephones, a printer, two TV sets, and some
other things I've forgotten. Three or maybe four of these things are
connected to the router via ethernet cables, but most of them connect
via WiFi.

(Wigh fidelity? it's a strange name.)

[Snidely]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

Post by Peter Moylan
It's an interesting exercise looking up what connects to my router. Five
computers, one iPad, two telephones, a printer, two TV sets, and some
other things I've forgotten. Three or maybe four of these things are
connected to the router via ethernet cables, but most of them connect
via WiFi.
(Wigh fidelity? it's a strange name.)

Wireless Finagling.

/dps

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the
phone line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days
that story is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line
is really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference
is that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal,
but Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

Complicated only in the sense that there are more possibilities to
consider, and therefore more different kinds of modem.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

That sound like a router with a switch inside.

[Tony Cooper]

On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:05:18 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

That sound like a router with a switch inside.

Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.

The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

That sound like a router with a switch inside.

Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

I have had TP-Link routers and I bought them for my daughters. They were
actually very good at the time, and the concern about China hadn't begun
then (to my knowledge).

Today I have an Asus router. It's great. It covers my house and my
garden - 300 m² in all. As a mtter of fact I do not know where Asus is
based.

Recently I bought a mini-compressor for my car tyres. I chose one from a
noble German company, Osram. And it came with the name "Osram" on the
front. A small sign I later found said "Made in China".

[Snidely]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Tony Cooper

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

That sound like a router with a switch inside.

Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

I have had TP-Link routers and I bought them for my daughters. They were
actually very good at the time, and the concern about China hadn't begun
then (to my knowledge).
Today I have an Asus router. It's great. It covers my house and my
garden - 300 m² in all. As a mtter of fact I do not know where Asus is
based.

Well, the laptop they made for me came from China.

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen
Recently I bought a mini-compressor for my car tyres. I chose one from a
noble German company, Osram. And it came with the name "Osram" on the
front. A small sign I later found said "Made in China".

That information is often on the label with the model #, serial #, and
the most urgent patent #s.

I would signal you that we tend not to use "sign" for information
"permanently" affixed to a product as identification or decoration; but
there may be a sign as part of the display at the store, or just a
shelf label.

(I speak for we in the US, probably Canada, and maybe in the UK.)

/dps

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

Is it possible to buy a router that's not made in China?

[Hibou]

Post by Peter Moylan

Routers are in the news.  Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US.  The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

Is it possible to buy a router that's not made in China?

Our Fritz Box seems to have been made in Germany. Not sure about the
components thereof.

<https://en.avm.de/about-avm/press/press-releases/2024/03/20-years-of-fritzbox-the-heart-of-the-digital-home-is-celebrating-its-birthday/>
:

"Since 2004, AVM has developed around 90 models at its Berlin
headquarters and produced over 60 million devices in Germany and Europe."

(I'm too lazy to take it off the wall and look at the label.)

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

Is it possible to buy a router that's not made in China?

If not, Trump is going to put the whole US population out of internet.
As it stands he will start by banning all TP-Link stuff,

Fritz, aka Jan

[Janet]

Date: Wed, 18 Dec 2024 16:06:49 -0500
On Wed, 18 Dec 2024 20:05:18 +0100, Bertel Lund Hansen

[quoted text muted]

Post by Steve Hayes
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

That sound like a router with a switch inside.

Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense, and
Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of TP-Link
routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability of
hacking.

Too late. The Chinese have already hacked into your
washing machines. Spy nanobots are in your underwear right
now.


Janet UK

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Tony Cooper
Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense,
and Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of
TP-Link routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability
of hacking.

Too late. The Chinese have already hacked into your washing machines.
Spy nanobots are in your underwear right now.

I sometimes wonder how many of these claims are based on verifiable
information.

The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects,
so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

[Aidan Kehoe]

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects, so
why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter agencies
whenever they request it, and it is less likely that TikTok will do that.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects, so
why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter agencies
whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

[Aidan Kehoe]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Aidan Kehoe

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok.
Apparently TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as
Google collects, so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter
agencies whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

I suppose not if you’re a Communist.

It just is. I can’t change it, you can’t change it, the EU appears not to want
to change it. Confer that there were not serious consequences to the revelation
that Merkel’s phone communications were being intercepted when she was German
chancellor.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Aidan Kehoe

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Aidan Kehoe

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok.
Apparently TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as
Google collects, so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter
agencies whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

I suppose not if you’re a Communist.

Are only communists concerned about their personal data?

How do Chinese communists react?

[Peter Moylan]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Aidan Kehoe

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok.
Apparently TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as
Google collects, so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three
letter agencies whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

It's supposed to make you realise that there's no point in complaining,
because people a lot more powerful than you want to keep it alive.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Aidan Kehoe

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects, so
why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter agencies
whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

No. It just shows the hippocracy of the US government.
We collect (meta)data = OK
They collect (meta)data = Not OK
See also Cisco.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Chris Elvidge
No. It just shows the hippocracy of the US government.

Gulliver visited a hippocracy, but it seemed a lot better than the US
governments of this century.

[Snidely]

Chris Elvidge pounded on thar keyboard to tell us

Post by Chris Elvidge

Post by Bertel Lund Hansen

Post by Peter Moylan

[...] The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok.

Apparently

TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google

collects, so

why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because Google almost certainly shares its data with US three letter agencies
whenever they request it,

Is that supposed to make us relax?

No. It just shows the hippocracy of the US government.
We collect (meta)data = OK
They collect (meta)data = Not OK
See also Cisco.

The US government is in particular concerned about US government
metadata being collected by the Chinese government, and even more about
backdoors to US government data being provided to the Chinese
government; there is also concern about being able to shut down US
infrastructure, such as the power grid. Any concern about individual's
metadata is incidental to that.


/dps

[Hibou]

Post by Snidely
The US government is in particular concerned about US government
metadata being collected by the Chinese government, and even more about
backdoors to US government data being provided to the Chinese
government; there is also concern about being able to shut down US
infrastructure, such as the power grid.  Any concern about individual's
metadata is incidental to that.

As it happens, I watched quite an interesting documentary last night:

'Cybercriminalité, des attaques bien réelles' -
<https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/111672-000-A/cybercriminalite-des-attaques-bien-reelles/>
(51m)

Audio and subtitles in French or German, *not English*, and the focus is
Franco-German. This programme (but not some others) plays here in GB
without a VPN.

[Hibou]

Post by Hibou

Post by Snidely
The US government is in particular concerned about US government
metadata being collected by the Chinese government, and even more
about backdoors to US government data being provided to the Chinese
government; there is also concern about being able to shut down US
infrastructure, such as the power grid.  Any concern about
individual's metadata is incidental to that.

'Cybercriminalité, des attaques bien réelles' -
<https://www.arte.tv/fr/videos/111672-000-A/cybercriminalite-des-attaques-bien-reelles/> (51m)
Audio and subtitles in French or German, *not English*, and the focus is
Franco-German. This programme (but not [all ARTE programmes]) plays here in GB
without a VPN.

I should add that there was discussion of attacks on infrastructure and
by states, and of concern that China might build backdoors into software
and hardware.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense,
and Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of
TP-Link routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability
of hacking.

Too late. The Chinese have already hacked into your washing machines.
Spy nanobots are in your underwear right now.

I sometimes wonder how many of these claims are based on verifiable
information.
The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects,
so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

TikTok is Chinese and therefore nefarious. Google is American and above
all suspicion.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Tony Cooper
Routers are in the news. Officials at the US Commerce, Defense,
and Justice Departments are considering banning future sales of
TP-Link routers in the US.
The TP-Link routers are made in China, and have been about 65% of
router sales in the US. The concern is over the possible ability
of hacking.

Too late. The Chinese have already hacked into your washing machines.
Spy nanobots are in your underwear right now.

I sometimes wonder how many of these claims are based on verifiable
information.
The last "Chinese spying" fuss I recall was about TikTok. Apparently
TikTok collects user data. But probably not as much as Google collects,
so why aren't there moves to ban Google?

Because it isn't in China, and so it's data are accessible by the FBI
and CIA.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

ADSL also has a modem, just a different kind.

Post by Steve Hayes
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

Not really. A modem uses a complicated modulatio/demodulation proces
to convert your data to and from modulation onto carrier waves
that the copper wires can handle. (hence the name)
The ONT has no such function, and no need for it.
It just converts optical pulses into electrical ones.
(buffering in between)
It may also offer other functions, such as a router, (aka switch)
WiFi, and analogue phone.
If not, you will need a separate box.
(misleadingly often also called a modem)

Jan

[Snidely]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

ADSL also has a modem, just a different kind.

Post by Steve Hayes
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

Not really. A modem uses a complicated modulatio/demodulation proces
to convert your data to and from modulation onto carrier waves
that the copper wires can handle. (hence the name)
The ONT has no such function, and no need for it.

Oh, come on, surely the lightwave is modulated (PWM is one of the ways
it might be done), and the fibre is probably carrying multiple
frequencies each modulated. Simple on=1, off=0 went the way of the
heliograph long ago, no?

Post by J. J. Lodder
It just converts optical pulses into electrical ones.
(buffering in between)
It may also offer other functions, such as a router, (aka switch)
WiFi, and analogue phone.
If not, you will need a separate box.
(misleadingly often also called a modem)
Jan

/dps

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

ADSL also has a modem, just a different kind.

Post by Steve Hayes
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

Not really. A modem uses a complicated modulatio/demodulation proces
to convert your data to and from modulation onto carrier waves
that the copper wires can handle. (hence the name)
The ONT has no such function, and no need for it.

Oh, come on, surely the lightwave is modulated (PWM is one of the ways
it might be done), and the fibre is probably carrying multiple
frequencies each modulated. Simple on=1, off=0 went the way of the
heliograph long ago, no?

Don't know. As far as I know all those optical transmissions
work with pulses, (of some kind)

Jan

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder
It just converts optical pulses into electrical ones.
(buffering in between)
It may also offer other functions, such as a router, (aka switch)
WiFi, and analogue phone.
If not, you will need a separate box.
(misleadingly often also called a modem)
Jan

/dps

[Snidely]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.

ADSL also has a modem, just a different kind.

Post by Steve Hayes
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

Not really. A modem uses a complicated modulatio/demodulation proces
to convert your data to and from modulation onto carrier waves
that the copper wires can handle. (hence the name)
The ONT has no such function, and no need for it.

Oh, come on, surely the lightwave is modulated (PWM is one of the ways
it might be done), and the fibre is probably carrying multiple
frequencies each modulated. Simple on=1, off=0 went the way of the
heliograph long ago, no?

Don't know. As far as I know all those optical transmissions
work with pulses, (of some kind)
Jan

It is unlikely in the 21st Century that any individual pulse is 1 bit.
It was even unlikely in the last decade of the 20th Century. There is
plenty of modulation going on.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Snidely

Post by J. J. Lodder
It just converts optical pulses into electrical ones.
(buffering in between)
It may also offer other functions, such as a router, (aka switch)
WiFi, and analogue phone.
If not, you will need a separate box.
(misleadingly often also called a modem)
Jan

/dps

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed
by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

[Snidely]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a router
for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed by the
modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

It's possible to have a connection where the nearest router is at the
ISP and not on the customer premises. You might then have a switch on
premises if you need more than one endpoint, but a router is certainly
more flexible than a switch in setting up subnets, and the technology
is as cheap as a switch now, so why not have a router?

[The power supply may be the most expensive part, these days)

/dps

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Snidely

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by?  Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL.  (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.)  The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two
boxes. One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which
was fed by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

It's possible to have a connection where the nearest router is at the
ISP and not on the customer premises.  You might then have a switch on
premises if you need more than one endpoint, but a router is certainly
more flexible than a switch in setting up subnets, and the technology is
as cheap as a switch now, so why not have a router?
[The power supply may be the most expensive part, these days)

I agree with that.
We have a VDSL connection which does need a modem.
In time we are 'promised' a shift to what in the UK is called FTTP
(Fibre to the Premises) which will not need a modem.
If I ask when we might get FTTP, I get the bureaucratic equivalent of a
shrug.

Talking of switches, I now have a (PoE) switch connected to the router.
It is waiting for me to mount & wire the PoE 'Security' camera.

They call it a security camera. I call it a wildlife camera.

[Kerr-Mudd, John]

On Thu, 19 Dec 2024 18:24:06 +0000

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Snidely

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by?  Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL.  (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.)  The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two
boxes. One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which
was fed by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

It's possible to have a connection where the nearest router is at the
ISP and not on the customer premises.  You might then have a switch on
premises if you need more than one endpoint, but a router is certainly
more flexible than a switch in setting up subnets, and the technology is
as cheap as a switch now, so why not have a router?
[The power supply may be the most expensive part, these days)

I agree with that.
We have a VDSL connection which does need a modem.
In time we are 'promised' a shift to what in the UK is called FTTP
(Fibre to the Premises) which will not need a modem.
If I ask when we might get FTTP, I get the bureaucratic equivalent of a
shrug.

Our road was dug up well over a year ago; Lots of other roads since
(including the main bus route through Griffithstown - that was 'fun'), but
still no actual start date from OGI. I shudda renewed my existing
supplier's 18 month contract rather than hanging on waiting and paying
extrs for erm 18 months. Especially as we'll have to give up the landline
number.

Post by Sam Plusnet
Talking of switches, I now have a (PoE) switch connected to the router.
It is waiting for me to mount & wire the PoE 'Security' camera.
They call it a security camera. I call it a wildlife camera.
--
Sam Plusnet

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Post by Kerr-Mudd, John
[ … ]
Our road was dug up well over a year ago; Lots of other roads since
(including the main bus route through Griffithstown - that was 'fun'), but
still no actual start date from OGI. I shudda renewed my existing
supplier's 18 month contract rather than hanging on waiting and paying
extrs for erm 18 months. Especially as we'll have to give up the landline
number.

When were first here I thought that digging up the road around Cannes
was going to be a permanent feature. By the early 1990s, apartheid was
gone, Pinochet was gone, the USSR was gone, Mrs Thatcher was gone, but
they were still digging up the road around Cannes. However, all good
things must come to an end, and the last time we drove to Nice the road
around Cannes was clear of roadworks.

[Steve Hayes]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.

What does it modulate and demodulate?

Post by Sam Plusnet
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed
by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

When we had copper, our router plugged into a splitter which split
voice and data input/output. Now we have fibre it plugs into the ONT,
which I presume does that, and also translates light signals into
electrical ones and vice versa.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes
I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.

What does it modulate and demodulate?

Post by Sam Plusnet
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed
by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

When we had copper, our router plugged into a splitter which split
voice and data input/output. Now we have fibre it plugs into the ONT,
which I presume does that, and also translates light signals into
electrical ones and vice versa.

I am on fibre, and our interface box splits into data in/out, telephone,
and television.

[Ken Blake]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Steve Hayes

Post by Snidely

Post by Peter Moylan

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
I'm not sure exactly what a router is. If the Livebox that I have
from Orange is a router then I have one. Otherwise zero.

The device in this room that connects me to the internet is marketed as
a modem, but when you look into the details you realise that the main
part is a router.
One of the functions of a router is to translate between an external
address -- the IP address assigned to you by your internet provider --
and the internal address(es) of the device(s) inside your home that
connect to the router. Your Livebox is almost certainly performing that
function.
The "modem" part traditionally translated an audio signal on the phone
line to a stream of digital bits, and vice versa. These days that story
is complicated by fibre connections and the like.

Complicated by? Change "audio" to "optical" for fibre, or to
"electrical" for DSL. (Although the "audio" signal on a phone line is
really an electrical signal, too, back AG Bell.) The difference is
that fibre and DSL use analog devices to create a digital signal, but
Old Audio uses analog devices to create an analog signal.

I still have a modem somewhere, but haven't used it for nearly 20
years. It was exchanged for a router when we switched from dial-up to
ADSL for data connections. The "router" refers to a different
function, that of routing signals to different devices in our
household that are connected to it.
Since our landline was switched from copper to fibre we got an ONT
between the incoming line and the router, which I assume performs the
same function as a modem used to perform on a dial-up line for data,
and in addition converts digital optical signals into electrical
impulses that can be heard as sound on the phone handset.

You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed
by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

Convenience? I am perhaps in the minority, but I prefer two separate
devices. If one fails, I only need to replace it, not both.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by Sam Plusnet
You still have a modem.
An ADSL connection requires a modem, but this has been combined with a
router for convenience.
When we first had a VDSL connection, our ISP provided us with two boxes.
One was a stand alone modem, the second box was a router which was fed
by the modem.
The router provided the WiFi and ethernet outputs.
I quickly replaced this mess with my own VDSL modem/router.

Convenience? I am perhaps in the minority, but I prefer two separate
devices. If one fails, I only need to replace it, not both.

When I got my fiber connection a box was fixed to the wall and a router
with two repeaters were supplied which cost a monthly fee, so I quickly
returned the router setup (which also used a lot of power - relatively)
and bought my own router which easily covers my property.

[lar3ryca]

Post by Ken Blake

Post by lar3ryca

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness?
Are they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere
else to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you.
They're not that clever, though. If you buy a router, say, then they'll
try to sell you more routers - but how many people need more than one?

<Raising hand>. I have three.

Just curious--why?

Explained elsethread, but here it is again:

I have two static IP addresses.

One has two computers, a laser printer, two tablets, and two phones on it.

Another one (on my second IP address) has a single computer (a Raspberry
Pi 4), and a few household devices.

Another has a 3D printer and a vinyl cutter on it. It needs a separate
router because I don't want it on the internet.

[Hibou]

Post by Hibou

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden
Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness?
Are they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere
else to buy the book?

Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you. [...]

I think this marks Amazon as toxic. Normally, one buys things from
companies, and that is how they make money. Others, especially these
days, provide services free, and the quid pro quo is that they harvest
our data and use it for marketing. Amazon sell things and simultaneously
try to learn all they can about us. This seems excessive, abusive, and
indeed greedy.

Greed is a powerful motivator, and is the engine of the western world,
but it has to be kept in check.

[Bertel Lund Hansen]

Post by Hibou

Post by Hibou
Yes, that's a recent change. My guess is that it's about collecting
data. If they force you to log in to read reviews, then they know what
you've been looking at, can add that information to your account, and
then push similar products to you. [...]

I think this marks Amazon as toxic. Normally, one buys things from
companies, and that is how they make money. Others, especially these
days, provide services free, and the quid pro quo is that they harvest
our data and use it for marketing. Amazon sell things and simultaneously
try to learn all they can about us. This seems excessive, abusive, and
indeed greedy.
Greed is a powerful motivator, and is the engine of the western world,
but it has to be kept in check.

Aren't we way past the point where that is possible?

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

But why try to read a review on Amazon at all?
They are not impartial: they review the reviews they get.
If you submit a review that is too negative they censor it.
Try it. (done that)
They want to sell things, so "don't buy this one" reviews
are not welcome.

Instead, just ask your browser for: hans ohanian einstein review.
(the Hans helps, there are several Ohanians)

Most of what you you'll find is rather friendly.
Many people like to see an over-sized pedestal hacked at.
My impression of several: journalistic reviews tend to be more positive
than knowledgeable ones by scientists. Some of them are rather negative.
Most reviews also note Ohanian's rather obvious biasses
and inacccuracies.

My take on it:
Ohanian, while quite competent on the technicalities of it
just hasn't understood the basics.
That causes him to see the greatest achievements as 'errors'.
Apart from that it is long-winded, generally unfriendly,
and for much a rehash of things already well known.

Jan

[lar3ryca]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

But why try to read a review on Amazon at all?
They are not impartial: they review the reviews they get.
If you submit a review that is too negative they censor it.
Try it. (done that)
They want to sell things, so "don't buy this one" reviews
are not welcome.

I don't know which Amazon you are thinking of, but I have seen plenty of
1-star reviews, many of which include 'don't buy this', and 'garbage',
and so on. I just did a quick search of 1-star reviews of a product
being sold on Amazon Canada, and it had 90+ reviews (I didn't bother
continuing).

Post by J. J. Lodder
Instead, just ask your browser for: hans ohanian einstein review.
(the Hans helps, there are several Ohanians)
Most of what you you'll find is rather friendly.
Many people like to see an over-sized pedestal hacked at.
My impression of several: journalistic reviews tend to be more positive
than knowledgeable ones by scientists. Some of them are rather negative.
Most reviews also note Ohanian's rather obvious biasses
and inacccuracies.
Ohanian, while quite competent on the technicalities of it
just hasn't understood the basics.
That causes him to see the greatest achievements as 'errors'.
Apart from that it is long-winded, generally unfriendly,
and for much a rehash of things already well known.
Jan

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
  not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

But why try to read a review on Amazon at all?
They are not impartial: they review the reviews they get.
If you submit a review that is too negative they censor it.
Try it. (done that)
They want to sell things, so "don't buy this one" reviews
are not welcome.

I don't know which Amazon you are thinking of, but I have seen plenty of
1-star reviews, many of which include 'don't buy this', and 'garbage',
and so on. I just did a quick search of 1-star reviews of a product
being sold on Amazon Canada, and it had 90+ reviews (I didn't bother
continuing).

I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.

If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some reason,
far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

[Hibou]

Post by Sam Plusnet
I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.
If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some reason,
far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

I haven't dug into it, but have always assumed that those are ratings
without reviews.

The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with varied
ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought it for my
granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I think she'll
like it." Etc..

I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

[Chris Elvidge]

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.
If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some
reason, far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

I haven't dug into it, but have always assumed that those are ratings
without reviews.
The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with varied
ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought it for my
granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I think she'll
like it." Etc..
I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

That is if you trust the AI not to make something up (hallucinate).

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Chris Elvidge

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.
If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some
reason, far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

I haven't dug into it, but have always assumed that those are ratings
without reviews.
The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with
varied ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought it
for my granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I think
she'll like it." Etc..
I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

That is if you trust the AI not to make something up (hallucinate).

I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

[Hibou]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris Elvidge

Post by Hibou
The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with
varied ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought
it for my granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I
think she'll like it." Etc..
I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

That is if you trust the AI not to make something up (hallucinate).

I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

I think it could. The kind of thing I've seen could easily be spotted by
an AI - one-line, well spelt, five-star reviews, at roughly regular
intervals, from people who have reviewed no other products. Ordinary
people aren't like this. They tend to be long winded, make mistakes,
give some products good reviews and others bad. The markers are clear,
but it's tedious checking for them. It's a perfect task for AI.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Chris Elvidge

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.
If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some
reason, far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

I haven't dug into it, but have always assumed that those are ratings
without reviews.
The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with
varied ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought it
for my granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I think
she'll like it." Etc..
I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

That is if you trust the AI not to make something up (hallucinate).

I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

The same problem is also seen in scientific peer reviews.
Plagiarised peer reviews were bad already, AI is making it worse.
It may drive authors to despair.
(they should of course learn to reply to AI reviews with more AI)

The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

Jan

[Hibou]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

The same problem is also seen in scientific peer reviews.
Plagiarised peer reviews were bad already, AI is making it worse.
It may drive authors to despair.
(they should of course learn to reply to AI reviews with more AI)
The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

If they become clever enough, it may be a case of "It takes one to know
one."

[Sam Plusnet]

Post by Hibou

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

The same problem is also seen in scientific peer reviews.
Plagiarised peer reviews were bad already, AI is making it worse.
It may drive authors to despair.
(they should of course learn to reply to AI reviews with more AI)
The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

If they become clever enough, it may be a case of "It takes one to know
one."

They might decide it is easier to change the laws of Physics than to
correct the errors in their work.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Hibou

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Sam Plusnet
I (think I) trust it to not make something up, but it is trying to
aggregate all those reviews (and as Hibou pointed out) a number of those
reviews are fake.
You and I might be able to sort the wheat from the chaff, but the AI
wouldn't even try.

The same problem is also seen in scientific peer reviews.
Plagiarised peer reviews were bad already, AI is making it worse.
It may drive authors to despair.
(they should of course learn to reply to AI reviews with more AI)
The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

If they become clever enough, it may be a case of "It takes one to know
one."

They might decide it is easier to change the laws of Physics than to
correct the errors in their work.

Certainly, on paper.
Unfortunately the laws of physics are not written on paper,
whatever we may write about them,

Jan

[Hibou]

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Hibou

[...] The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

If they become clever enough, it may be a case of "It takes one to
know one."

They might decide it is easier to change the laws of Physics than to
correct the errors in their work.

Ah! Religious AI!

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet

Post by Hibou

[...] The apex of science will be predatory, AI-filled journals,
AI-refereed, with automated editors,

If they become clever enough, it may be a case of "It takes one to
know one."

They might decide it is easier to change the laws of Physics than to
correct the errors in their work.

Ah! Religious AI!

I have seen reports of AI bots that can deprogram conspiracy theorists.
Not yet of one that can take on a jehovah,

Jan

[lar3ryca]

Post by Hibou

Post by Sam Plusnet
I sometimes find an Amazon item which lists a few hundred reviews.
x% (where x is a significant number) of which are (say) one star.
If you ask to see those reviews, very few will show up for some
reason, far fewer than x% would indicate.
I haven't _noticed_ this happening with four or five star reviews.

I haven't dug into it, but have always assumed that those are ratings
without reviews.
The reviews take careful reading anyway. Do they look fake - are they
all in the same style, have the reviewers left other reviews with varied
ratings...? And then there are the unhelpful ones: "I bought it for my
granny. I haven't used it myself, but it looks fine and I think she'll
like it." Etc..

I have seen a lot of reviews that are fake. I once recommended an
Aeropress coffee maker to someone, and he responded that there were a
lot of bad reviews. I looked at the reviews for the listing he referred
me too, and sure enough, there were quite a few. one set of reviews
(there were at least 5, almost identical) that told me that either the
reviewer was terminally stupid, refused to follow directions, or was a
sock puppet for a competing coffee maker.

I reported the reviews to Amazon, but never heard back from them, and at
that time, there was no way to clarify why I reported it.

Of the 90+ bad reviews I reported upthread, I looked at all of the first
40 or so, and found most them plausibly bad, not just star ratings, but
actually commented. After that first bunch, I just skipped through the rest.

Post by Hibou
I'm not a fan of AI, but the new AI summaries look potentially helpful.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by lar3ryca

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by Athel Cornish-Bowden

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.

Unfortunately Amazon has gone the way of many organizations wanting to
make things more difficult than they used to be. I wanted to read some
reviews of Ohanian's book, but I can't, unless I create an account and
log in. What on earth does Amazon gain from this bloody-mindedness? Are
they worried I shall read a review at Amazon and then go somewhere else
to buy the book?

But why try to read a review on Amazon at all?
They are not impartial: they review the reviews they get.
If you submit a review that is too negative they censor it.
Try it. (done that)
They want to sell things, so "don't buy this one" reviews
are not welcome.

I don't know which Amazon you are thinking of, but I have seen plenty of
1-star reviews, many of which include 'don't buy this', and 'garbage',
and so on. I just did a quick search of 1-star reviews of a product
being sold on Amazon Canada, and it had 90+ reviews (I didn't bother
continuing).

The Amazon I wrote a review for.
It concerned a product that requires a paid subscription with the seller
to work at all, without this being knowable in advance in any way.
(not in the product description, not on the outside of the box)
In other words, worse that shrinkwrap-ware,
and illegal in many parts of the world.
I returned it of course.

The negative review mentioning this was rejected by Amazon,

Jan

[jerryfriedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Silvano]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

I'm not a native German speaker, but after forty years in Berlin I think
and feel pretty much like one of them and I agree with your claim that
the given sentence 'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er
nicht.' is not a sufficient context for an appropriate translation, even
if we ignore the irrelevant mistakes.

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

The context is well known.
It is one of the most popular Einstein quotations.
And you surprise me. Do you really believe the necessary competence
to be absent among native speakers of German?

BTW, Abraham Pais has of course been translated into German,
with the original text as title. Raffiniert ist...

Jan

[jerryfriedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

The context is well known.

Not to me. Maybe everyone else here knew it, though.

I looked it up. He'd been told that Dayton Miller had
found a slight ether drift, which would have invalidated
all of relativity. That still doesn't tell us what the
"malicious" possibility would have been. I looked at
the account of the incident in Pais, and he doesn't
say anything either. That God would have arranged for
the ether drift to be smaller than expected but not 0?

According to Pais, Oscar Veblen, the mathematician who
Einstein made his remark to, asked him to explain it,
and Einstein said, "Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis
durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch
List.)" If that's Nature's "essential loftiness"
(Pais's translation) or some such, then "subtle" does
seem better than "cunning" or "crafty".

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is one of the most popular Einstein quotations.

True, but that doesn't make the context well known.
Most English speakers know "thin air", but I'll bet
the majority don't know the context.

By the way, Wikiquote gives an alternate translation:
"God is slick, but he ain't mean."

Post by J. J. Lodder
And you surprise me. Do you really believe the necessary competence
to be absent among native speakers of German?

Certainly, since "crafty" and "cunning" are compatible
with the rest of the sentence.

Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, Abraham Pais has of course been translated into German,
with the original text as title. Raffiniert ist...

No doubt if he'd written "cunning", the German title
would also have been the original text.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

The context is well known.

Not to me. Maybe everyone else here knew it, though.
I looked it up. He'd been told that Dayton Miller had
found a slight ether drift, which would have invalidated
all of relativity. That still doesn't tell us what the
"malicious" possibility would have been. I looked at
the account of the incident in Pais, and he doesn't
say anything either. That God would have arranged for
the ether drift to be smaller than expected but not 0?

That was merely a triggering event for Einstein saying it.
Of little importance.
The remark expresses Einstein's deeply felt ideas
about what nature and its laws must be like:
Of great elegance and simplicity, and guessable
by being clever enough.
Once found, it will be obvious that it is right. [1]

Dayton Miller was just a blundering experimentalist,
with no influence at all on Einstein.
It was obvious what he should find,
and if he came up with anything else he would be in error.
(and Einstein did know about how the experiment was done)

Post by jerryfriedman
According to Pais, Oscar Veblen, the mathematician who
Einstein made his remark to, asked him to explain it,
and Einstein said, "Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis
durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch
List.)" If that's Nature's "essential loftiness"
(Pais's translation) or some such, then "subtle" does
seem better than "cunning" or "crafty".

Yes, my idea too.
But I asked, to see if native speakers (other than Ohanian) would agree.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is one of the most popular Einstein quotations.

True, but that doesn't make the context well known.
Most English speakers know "thin air", but I'll bet
the majority don't know the context.
"God is slick, but he ain't mean."

That's not a translation into Enlish.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
And you surprise me. Do you really believe the necessary competence
to be absent among native speakers of German?

Certainly, since "crafty" and "cunning" are compatible
with the rest of the sentence.

Post by J. J. Lodder
BTW, Abraham Pais has of course been translated into German,
with the original text as title. Raffiniert ist...

No doubt if he'd written "cunning", the German title
would also have been the original text.

You are right about that, I guess,

Jan

[1] [OT]
As you know this idea of Einstein is highly impopular these days.
(in certain circles) Old fashioned, obsolete, nothing but propaganda.
Reality is not simple and elegant, and ugly theories are good.
Or to others looking at these arguments:
the grapes hang too high, and they must be sour anyway.

[jerryfriedman]

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

The context is well known.

Not to me. Maybe everyone else here knew it, though.
I looked it up. He'd been told that Dayton Miller had
found a slight ether drift, which would have invalidated
all of relativity. That still doesn't tell us what the
"malicious" possibility would have been. I looked at
the account of the incident in Pais, and he doesn't
say anything either. That God would have arranged for
the ether drift to be smaller than expected but not 0?

That was merely a triggering event for Einstein saying it.
Of little importance.
The remark expresses Einstein's deeply felt ideas
Of great elegance and simplicity, and guessable
by being clever enough.
Once found, it will be obvious that it is right. [1]

Again if you know that, "subtle" looks like a good
translation.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dayton Miller was just a blundering experimentalist,
with no influence at all on Einstein.
It was obvious what he should find,
and if he came up with anything else he would be in error.

Was that also true of the perihelion of Mercury?

Post by J. J. Lodder
(and Einstein did know about how the experiment was done)

Post by jerryfriedman
According to Pais, Oscar Veblen, the mathematician who
Einstein made his remark to, asked him to explain it,
and Einstein said, "Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis
durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch
List.)" If that's Nature's "essential loftiness"
(Pais's translation) or some such, then "subtle" does
seem better than "cunning" or "crafty".

Yes, my idea too.
But I asked, to see if native speakers (other than Ohanian) would agree.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is one of the most popular Einstein quotations.

True, but that doesn't make the context well known.
Most English speakers know "thin air", but I'll bet
the majority don't know the context.
"God is slick, but he ain't mean."

That's not a translation into Enlish.

Not into standard English.

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
And you surprise me. Do you really believe the necessary competence
to be absent among native speakers of German?

Certainly, since "crafty" and "cunning" are compatible
with the rest of the sentence.

..

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] [OT]
As you know this idea of Einstein is highly impopular these days.
(in certain circles) Old fashioned, obsolete, nothing but propaganda.
Reality is not simple and elegant, and ugly theories are good.
the grapes hang too high, and they must be sour anyway.

Thanks, but I didn't know that. Where is Einstein's
(and Dirac's) view unpopular?

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[J. J. Lodder]

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?

I don't see how even a native German speaker can
answer that without the context, and maybe not even
with it.

The context is well known.

Not to me. Maybe everyone else here knew it, though.
I looked it up. He'd been told that Dayton Miller had
found a slight ether drift, which would have invalidated
all of relativity. That still doesn't tell us what the
"malicious" possibility would have been. I looked at
the account of the incident in Pais, and he doesn't
say anything either. That God would have arranged for
the ether drift to be smaller than expected but not 0?

That was merely a triggering event for Einstein saying it.
Of little importance.
The remark expresses Einstein's deeply felt ideas
Of great elegance and simplicity, and guessable
by being clever enough.
Once found, it will be obvious that it is right. [1]

Again if you know that, "subtle" looks like a good
translation.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Dayton Miller was just a blundering experimentalist,
with no influence at all on Einstein.
It was obvious what he should find,
and if he came up with anything else he would be in error.

Was that also true of the perihelion of Mercury?

Post by J. J. Lodder
(and Einstein did know about how the experiment was done)

Post by jerryfriedman
According to Pais, Oscar Veblen, the mathematician who
Einstein made his remark to, asked him to explain it,
and Einstein said, "Die Natur verbirgt ihr Geheimnis
durch die Erhabenheit ihres Wesens, aber nicht durch
List.)" If that's Nature's "essential loftiness"
(Pais's translation) or some such, then "subtle" does
seem better than "cunning" or "crafty".

Yes, my idea too.
But I asked, to see if native speakers (other than Ohanian) would agree.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
It is one of the most popular Einstein quotations.

True, but that doesn't make the context well known.
Most English speakers know "thin air", but I'll bet
the majority don't know the context.
"God is slick, but he ain't mean."

That's not a translation into Enlish.

Not into standard English.

Indeed. No doubt there are some tribes that speak it.

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
And you surprise me. Do you really believe the necessary competence
to be absent among native speakers of German?

Certainly, since "crafty" and "cunning" are compatible
with the rest of the sentence.

..

Post by J. J. Lodder
[1] [OT]
As you know this idea of Einstein is highly impopular these days.
(in certain circles) Old fashioned, obsolete, nothing but propaganda.
Reality is not simple and elegant, and ugly theories are good.
the grapes hang too high, and they must be sour anyway.

Thanks, but I didn't know that. Where is Einstein's
(and Dirac's) view unpopular?

Like I said, 'in certain circles'.
String theory having been a failure, some people hold
that the whole idea of a beautiful unified theory,
explaning it all, must be an illusion.
Some even say delusion.

So they give you the string theory landscape instead,
with perhaps 10^500 possible theories,
and leave the selection of which universe we actually live in
to anthropic principles.

I find it a bit surprising that complete outsiders fall for it,
(like Richard Dawkins for example)

Jan

[jerryfriedman]

..

Post by J. J. Lodder

Post by jerryfriedman

Post by J. J. Lodder
As you know this idea of Einstein is highly impopular these days.
(in certain circles) Old fashioned, obsolete, nothing but propaganda.
Reality is not simple and elegant, and ugly theories are good.
the grapes hang too high, and they must be sour anyway.

Thanks, but I didn't know that. Where is Einstein's
(and Dirac's) view unpopular?

Like I said, 'in certain circles'.
String theory having been a failure, some people hold
that the whole idea of a beautiful unified theory,
explaning it all, must be an illusion.
Some even say delusion.

Thanks. Seems to me the question of whether there's
a beautiful unified theory may be settled empirically.

Post by J. J. Lodder
So they give you the string theory landscape instead,
with perhaps 10^500 possible theories,
and leave the selection of which universe we actually live in
to anthropic principles.
I find it a bit surprising that complete outsiders fall for it,
(like Richard Dawkins for example)

Physicists can be very convincing.

--
Jerry Friedman

--

[Bertietaylor]

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

No God tolerates lying scoundrels so the bad lots call God names,
projecting their own nasty qualities upon God. But that is too
straightforward. Einstein was being subtle. He played nasty tricks with
physics, literally screwing up the universe with his ridiculous
theories.

Post by J. J. Lodder
Abraham Pais took it as the title of his scientific Einstein biography,
and it is carved in stone with these words in Princeton.
There is a book 'Einstein's Mistakes' by Hans Ohanian.
(not recommended, Ohanian's Mistakes would be a more appropriate title)
Ohanian clearly has an axe to grind.
To the point: Ohanian claims that the usual translation is wrong.
He even quotes 'traduttori, tradittori' to emphasise his point,
and he gives Abraham Pais a put down for accepting it.
(Pais spoke German, so should have known better, according to Ohanian)
'The German word raffinicrt has a rather negative connotation;
its correct translation is "cunning" or "crafty,"
and thus, "The Lord is cunning, but not malicious."
This makes it almost a contradiction in terms.
I disagree. While 'raffiniert' has those meanings in German,
this is not all there is to it.
refined, sophisticated, clever, subtle, ingenious, cunning,
smart, artful, sneaky, shrewd, crafty, fancy, wily, sharp,
scheming, subtile, and no doubt other things.
So question, what do we think, is 'subtle' a good,
and perhaps the best choice here,
or should something more negative be substituted?
Jan

[bertietaylor]

Post by Bertietaylor

Post by J. J. Lodder
'Raffiniert ist der Herrgot, aber Boshaft ist er nicht.'
Sutle is the Lord, but malicious he is not.
(Einstein explained as: god hides his secrets with subtlety,
not by playing nasty tricks on us)

No God tolerates lying scoundrels so the bad lots call God names,
projecting their own nasty qualities upon God. But that is too
straightforward. Einstein was being subtle. He played nasty tricks with
physics, literally screwing up the universe with his ridiculous
theories.

Salvation from Bad physics, below:


****
The physics aphorisms of Arindam
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/8HgH3sbRe94/m/gYzu9OAkAgAJ

The cause of gravity
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/mmigkl3yZYc/m/8Rs16NCXAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories -
1
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/6UIGDNHH7n0/m/U0t-kYqgAAAJ

Explaining the nova and supernova phenomena with new physics theories -
2
https://groups.google.com/g/sci.physics/c/CffbGTXV72c/m/5ONP6J6gAAAJ

*****

Woof-woof,
Bertietaylor