Trump / Musk (other than DOGE)

[Ddseddse]

This assertion from Musk's lawyer is astonishing.

"Gober argued there's a difference between "randomly" and "by chance," which is why he argued that this isn't an illegal lottery under PA gaming laws."

Now, I'm a guy who doesn't mind splitting hairs. Sometimes I like it. I certainly like to be precise with language, and often I'm the guy in the conversation saying, "A and B are similar, but not exactly the same."

And I can't for the life of me discern any significant difference between randomly and by chance. They are exactly the same.

In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".

 

[SnoopRob]

In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".

Yep.

"Randomly" would mean that every entrant had an equal likelihood of winning. "By Chance" would mean that there is some sort of non-pre-determined mechanism for choosing the winner, but allows for weighting so that not every entrant has an equal chance.

 

[aGDevil2k]

Elon thinks people care about him. Most people hate him now.

 

[rodoheel]

Elon thinks people care about him. Most people hate him now.

It's just like Trump - a small but vocal minority is devoted to him; a large group hates him and realizes him for the danger he is; and a group in the middle is apathetic.

 

[superrific]

In theory I could weight the results so that one person had a much higher chance of winning (every one gets one ping pong ball, except my chosen candidate who gets 1 million ping pong balls, and then draw one). I might be able to claim that the result was determined "by chance" but not "randomly".

This is a good try but I don't think it holds up, for several reasons:

1. "Random" does not mean "uniform and equal chance." If you roll a six sided die, the result is random and it's also uniform and equal. But if you roll two six sided dice, you will get more 7s than 2s. So are we saying that rolling one die is random but two dice are not? I don't think that's how we understand the word random.

2. Consider an ordinary lottery like powerball. That's random, right? But not everyone has an equal chance to win. When you buy a powerball ticket, you're buying a random chance to win a jackpot. You are not buying an equal chance to win a jackpot. Maybe you're buying a pro rata per ticket equal chance, but that's not really what we mean and even that isn't necessarily true. Suppose there were two classes of lottery ticket: one costs $5 and it gives you 50 balls in the drawing; another costs $1 and it gives you 9 balls. It's still random, yes?

3. Coming from the other side, does your argument ask us to believe that as long as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome, it's by chance? If we put a million balls in a hopper for one person and one for another, is that really a game of chance? As we would ordinarily use the word, or as we would use it in gaming regulations? Because nothing in this world is 100% guaranteed. Everything has some chance to it.

 

[superrific]

"Randomly" would mean that every entrant had an equal likelihood of winning.

If you open a book without looking and point at a specific passage, is that selecting text at random? There's not a uniform probability distribution. For one thing, longer paragraphs have greater chance of being selected. Also, imagine yourself doing that at home right now. Are you going to really open randomly to page 2? And you're also likely to use your finger to point at something in the middle of the page, not marginalia.

I think most people would consider this to be random.

 

[Ddseddse]

This is a good try but I don't think it holds up, for several reasons:

1. "Random" does not mean "uniform and equal chance." If you roll a six sided die, the result is random and it's also uniform and equal. But if you roll two six sided dice, you will get more 7s than 2s. So are we saying that rolling one die is random but two dice are not? I don't think that's how we understand the word random.

2. Consider an ordinary lottery like powerball. That's random, right? But not everyone has an equal chance to win. When you buy a powerball ticket, you're buying a random chance to win a jackpot. You are not buying an equal chance to win a jackpot. Maybe you're buying a pro rata per ticket equal chance, but that's not really what we mean and even that isn't necessarily true. Suppose there were two classes of lottery ticket: one costs $5 and it gives you 50 balls in the drawing; another costs $1 and it gives you 9 balls. It's still random, yes?

3. Coming from the other side, does your argument ask us to believe that as long as it's not 100% guaranteed outcome, it's by chance? If we put a million balls in a hopper for one person and one for another, is that really a game of chance? As we would ordinarily use the word, or as we would use it in gaming regulations? Because nothing in this world is 100% guaranteed. Everything has some chance to it.

We may be getting twisted up between legal and mathematical definitions here, but I do not see the outcome of 2D6 as random, but rather as the product of two separate random events. The quintessential randomness is in the roll of each singular die, not in any output you compute by combining several die rolls. I would however say that that output is determined "by chance".

Like I say, have no idea about how the meaning of those words would be adjudicated in a court of law by any given judge, but that is the plain meaning of those words to me.

 

[ChapelHillSooner]

Whether or not it falls under a lottery, how is this not some form of fraud?

 

[SnoopRob]

If you open a book without looking and point at a specific passage, is that selecting text at random? There's not a uniform probability distribution. For one thing, longer paragraphs have greater chance of being selected. Also, imagine yourself doing that at home right now. Are you going to really open randomly to page 2? And you're also likely to use your finger to point at something in the middle of the page, not marginalia.

I think most people would consider this to be random.

A drawing shouldn't have various sized entries (like paragraphs) nor should a drawing have entries that are intentionally designed to be on the margins rather than in the center of where the drawing occurs.

For a drawing, I would say that "random" implies an equal chance and that "by chance" does not.

 

[lawtig02]

Whether or not it falls under a lottery, how is this not some form of fraud?

Yeah, that was the main takeaway from yesterday's hearing IMO. The state was seeking an injunction on the lottery theory. Elon's lawyer responded by essentially saying, "this was a fraudulent scam, not a lottery." The judge apparently agreed. So we'll see what happens, and I'm not sure any potential plaintiffs could establish actual damages, but it's always tricky when your best defense is that you're a just an ordinary fraudster, not a criminal.

 

[superrific]

Whether or not it falls under a lottery, how is this not some form of fraud?

Well, this is why the lawyer was making that distinction. He wants to have his cake and eat it too. But most of us can appreciate that if it's not a lottery, then it's fraud, and it's only not fraud if it's not a lottery.

 

[Ddseddse]

If you open a book without looking and point at a specific passage, is that selecting text at random? There's not a uniform probability distribution. For one thing, longer paragraphs have greater chance of being selected. Also, imagine yourself doing that at home right now. Are you going to really open randomly to page 2? And you're also likely to use your finger to point at something in the middle of the page, not marginalia.

I think most people would consider this to be random.

No. Outcomes with uneven probability distribution are, by the very definition, decidedly not random. That's why it's precisely so damned hard to create a real random number generator, Almost every observable phenomena we encounter has some order built into it. Basically the best we can do is use cosmic background radiation as a proxy for true randomness.

 

[superrific]

We may be getting twisted up between legal and mathematical definitions here, but I do not see the outcome of 2D6 as random, but rather as the product of two separate random events. The quintessential randomness is in the roll of each singular die, not in any output you compute by combining several die rolls. I would however say that that output is determined "by chance".

Like I say, have no idea about how the meaning of those words would be adjudicated in a court of law by any given judge, but that is the plain meaning of those words to me.

Welcome to the legal field of statutory interpretation, in which we try to give precise meanings to imprecise words according to a set of vague principles!

There's no question that you are drawing a real distinction. A uniform probability distribution is meaningfully different than one that is not. See technical note below. But then the trick is to figure out how that distinction maps onto our language, and that's not easy because of those words at the end of your post. "To me." Yeah, we're all stuck in that epistemic quandary to some extent.

Brief anecdote: in law school, I took a class taught by John Manning (who, rather improbably, became the Dean of the law school, and then of the whole university. It's not common that Jewishness is an asset on a resume but in this case . . . ). He and I used to spar all the time. He's a textualist; that is, he's a big fan of using only words to discern meaning. And in class, he would say things like, "and this, after all, is what this word means." And I would say "but couldn't you equally argue that the word means this other thing." His response would be, "that's clever, but isn't it really this?" Of course, that raises the question of determining what's clever and what's true. As many students in the class came to observe, that's a question of authority as much as one of language. Interpreting words can be tricky.

Anyway, back to randomness. To get around the "to me" problem, we often try to look at language how it's actually used. For instance:

1. A guy comes up to you in the grocery store parking lot. He says, "I'm starting a business. If you loan me $100, I'll pay you back $200 next year." I think most people would think it appropriate to respond, "No offense, but I don't loan money to random people." Do you? But of course, on your definition of random as uniform probability distribution, it's not random at all. You only ran into this guy because you shopped at this store and not one in a different city or even across town; because you allowed him to approach you instead of walking away briskly; because you go to the store at all, etc.

2. The victims who were killed by the bullets meant for Trump in Butler PA. We call those deaths random, right? But they weren't random at all, per your definition. For one thing, you had to have been at a Trump rally to be shot. Second, you had to in the line of fire from the specific place where a gunman could get off a shot at Trump. Most people at the event had a 0% chance of being shot.

3. When people are asked to name a random number between 1 and 100, the results are not uniform. For one thing, almost nobody guesses 2, nor multiples of 10. I watched a video about this. I think the most chosen numbers (by a considerable margin, even) are 37 and 73. There's definitely a gradient.

But if I ask you to name a number between 1 and 100, any number, I think we'd describe that as random. And if I set the humidity in a commercial greenhouse to that number, my business partner might be justifiably outraged that I just set the growing conditions to a random number pulled out of someone's butt. Saying, "well, it's more likely to be 73 than 2" would not answer the criticism.

In general, I think that people use the word randomly to denote a process in which the outcome is not fully predictable, or if an outcome (or an input) is established by reasons that are not apparent.


Technical note: describing the probability distribution of a 2d6 isn't fully explained as "two separate random events." I could weight a 12 sided die so that its probability distribution would be the same as 2d6. You could say, well that simulates the 2d6 probability, which is true in a sense; but it's also true that the 2d6 actualizes a type of probability distribution that can be actualized in other ways as well. But that's not really important and also I might not be right about this point and I don't want to argue it.

 

[Ddseddse]

Welcome to the legal field of statutory interpretation, in which we try to give precise meanings to imprecise words according to a set of vague principles!

There's no question that you are drawing a real distinction. A uniform probability distribution is meaningfully different than one that is not. See technical note below. But then the trick is to figure out how that distinction maps onto our language, and that's not easy because of those words at the end of your post. "To me." Yeah, we're all stuck in that epistemic quandary to some extent.

Brief anecdote: in law school, I took a class taught by John Manning (who, rather improbably, became the Dean of the law school, and then of the whole university. It's not common that Jewishness is an asset on a resume but in this case . . . ). He and I used to spar all the time. He's a textualist; that is, he's a big fan of using only words to discern meaning. And in class, he would say things like, "and this, after all, is what this word means." And I would say "but couldn't you equally argue that the word means this other thing." His response would be, "that's clever, but isn't it really this?" Of course, that raises the question of determining what's clever and what's true. As many students in the class came to observe, that's a question of authority as much as one of language. Interpreting words can be tricky.

Anyway, back to randomness. To get around the "to me" problem, we often try to look at language how it's actually used. For instance:

1. A guy comes up to you in the grocery store parking lot. He says, "I'm starting a business. If you loan me $100, I'll pay you back $200 next year." I think most people would think it appropriate to respond, "No offense, but I don't loan money to random people." Do you? But of course, on your definition of random as uniform probability distribution, it's not random at all. You only ran into this guy because you shopped at this store and not one in a different city or even across town; because you allowed him to approach you instead of walking away briskly; because you go to the store at all, etc.

2. The victims who were killed by the bullets meant for Trump in Butler PA. We call those deaths random, right? But they weren't random at all, per your definition. For one thing, you had to have been at a Trump rally to be shot. Second, you had to in the line of fire from the specific place where a gunman could get off a shot at Trump. Most people at the event had a 0% chance of being shot.

3. When people are asked to name a random number between 1 and 100, the results are not uniform. For one thing, almost nobody guesses 2, nor multiples of 10. I watched a video about this. I think the most chosen numbers (by a considerable margin, even) are 37 and 73. There's definitely a gradient.

But if I ask you to name a number between 1 and 100, any number, I think we'd describe that as random. And if I set the humidity in a commercial greenhouse to that number, my business partner might be justifiably outraged that I just set the growing conditions to a random number pulled out of someone's butt. Saying, "well, it's more likely to be 73 than 2" would not answer the criticism.

In general, I think that people use the word randomly to denote a process in which the outcome is not fully predictable, or if an outcome (or an input) is established by reasons that are not apparent.


Technical note: describing the probability distribution of a 2d6 isn't fully explained as "two separate random events." I could weight a 12 sided die so that its probability distribution would be the same as 2d6. You could say, well that simulates the 2d6 probability, which is true in a sense; but it's also true that the 2d6 actualizes a type of probability distribution that can be actualized in other ways as well. But that's not really important and also I might not be right about this point and I don't want to argue it.

Not "to me" as in personally to me, but "to me" as in as student of the fields of math and computer science where these words already have very precise technical meanings. I freely admit that jurists, lawyers, and legal scholars will freely either adopt or ignore these pre-existing meanings based on whim (or desired outcome, more likely).

 

[superrific]

No. Outcomes with uneven probability distribution are, by the very definition, decidedly not random. That's why it's precisely so damned hard to create a real random number generator, Almost every observable phenomena we encounter has some order built into it. Basically the best we can do is use cosmic background radiation as a proxy for true randomness.

Are you a computer programmer? Or use computer programming in your work? This strikes me as a definition situated within a technical context. It's not wrong per se (how can definitions be wrong?) but it's not useful because it's invoking a concept of concern to almost nobody. Outside of cryptography application, is the code x:=rnd insufficient to generate something we might call "random"? I've used that method of randomness many times and I've never had a problem with it. Monte Carlo simulations (random walks) are also random per the rnd test; if rnd is insufficient then a lot of scientific knowledge is actually false.

In addition, you've now invoked a different concept. The opposite of "order" is entropy, not randomness.

Here's a dictionary definition of random. Note that the definition your propose is definition 2b. So it's not completely wrong, but it's not the most common usage and the definition 2a is precisely what you are saying can't be random, by definition. Since we are trying to determine the ordinary meaning of the term, I'd say that definition doesn't help your case.

Definition of RANDOM

lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern; made, done, or chosen at random; relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

 

[superrific]

Not "to me" as in personally to me, but "to me" as in as student of the fields of math and computer science where these words already have very precise technical meanings. I freely admit that jurists, lawyers, and legal scholars will freely either adopt or ignore these pre-existing meanings based on whim (or desired outcome, more likely).

Ah, this answered a question in my subsequent post. I figured you to be a programmer or involved in math or comp sci to some degree. And no offense, but this approach is very common among people with technical knowledge. They want their technical definitions to be the actual definitions in ordinary language, as if the relevant process of naming a phenomenon is denotative when in fact it's connotative.

To put the point differently, "random" is a word in the English language. My guess is that it was a word in English before probability theory was ever invented. By contrast, you have a mathematical principle that is actually defined in non-language terms (I don't know how to express randomness in pure math but I'm positive that it can be done). Then you attach that math concept to the term "random," because it's useful for you. That doesn't change the meaning of the word in English, any more than the use of the word compact in topology should mean that all cars can be described as "compact" since they are closed and bounded.

The law usually seeks to recover either the ordinary meaning of language, or sometimes the intended meaning of language. In interpreting words, we aren't ignoring pre-existing meanings so much as recognizing that words in English usually have multiple meanings, full of gradation.

 

[finesse]

No. Outcomes with uneven probability distribution are, by the very definition, decidedly not random. That's why it's precisely so damned hard to create a real random number generator, Almost every observable phenomena we encounter has some order built into it. Basically the best we can do is use cosmic background radiation as a proxy for true randomness.

I don't understand a bit of this so please treat this as ignorant and not stupid. I get lost where random requires a uniform probability distribution. How does that uniformity not affect the randomness? I have trouble reconciling that in my head.

 

[Ddseddse]

Are you a computer programmer? Or use computer programming in your work? This strikes me as a definition situated within a technical context. It's not wrong per se (how can definitions be wrong?) but it's not useful because it's invoking a concept of concern to almost nobody. Outside of cryptography application, is the code x:=rnd insufficient to generate something we might call "random"? I've used that method of randomness many times and I've never had a problem with it. Monte Carlo simulations (random walks) are also random per the rnd test; if rnd is insufficient then a lot of scientific knowledge is actually false.

In addition, you've now invoked a different concept. The opposite of "order" is entropy, not randomness.

Here's a dictionary definition of random. Note that the definition your propose is definition 2b. So it's not completely wrong, but it's not the most common usage and the definition 2a is precisely what you are saying can't be random, by definition. Since we are trying to determine the ordinary meaning of the term, I'd say that definition doesn't help your case.

Definition of RANDOM

lacking a definite plan, purpose, or pattern; made, done, or chosen at random; relating to, having, or being elements or events with definite probability of occurrence… See the full definition

www.merriam-webster.com

Almost every single rnd() function ever coded is correctly classified as a pseudo-random number generator. The correct use of the term "pseudo" here provides insight into what the precise meaning of random is (i.e. it's "pseudo" because it can't provide a perfectly flat distribution function).

But your example still proves MY point. Even though it is pseudo-random, it does it's very best to mimic the essential quality of randomness, which is a flat distributional function. If you want an unequal distribution functions you need to apply additional operation on top of rnd() (because even though it's pseudo-random, it's doing the best it can to provide an flat probability distribution.

If you use the "random" function rnd() it'd never going to do anything other than it's level best to give you a flat distribution function.

When we are sloppy with our language we sometimes increase the scope of the word "random" to include non-flat distribution functions (e.g. "randomly" flipping though a book), but that is a departure from the core meaning of the term.

Again, a jurist will chose or reject whatever definition based on the case they want to make (much as you are doing here, and hey, that's fine, that's the law profession), but none of that changes the essential nature of what randomness is.

ETA: I really don't have a stake in this fight. I'm mostly just arguing because it a) helps keep me sharp, b) is fun (I believe most lawyers share this belief) and c) I need an outlet for nervous energy. BTW, Super, I have an actual legal question over on the Jeff Jackson thread that I feel is right up your alley.

 

[Ddseddse]

I don't understand a bit of this so please treat this as ignorant and not stupid. I get lost where random requires a uniform probability distribution. How does that uniformity not affect the randomness? I have trouble reconciling that in my head.

Every outcome is equally likely. No output is more likely than another.

If one output is more likely than another then there is some order being imposed on the system externally, and it's by definition not random anymore.

 

[superrific]

Almost every single rnd() function ever coded is correctly classified as a pseudo-random number generator. The correct use of the term "pseudo" here provides insight into what the precise meaning of random is (i.e. it's "pseudo" because it can't provide a perfectly flat distribution function).

But your example still proves MY point. Even though it is pseudo-random, it does it's very best to mimic the essential quality of randomness, which is a flat distributional function. If you want an unequal distribution functions you need to apply additional operation on top of rnd() (because even though it's pseudo-random, it's doing the best it can to provide an flat probability distribution.

If you use the "random" function rnd() it'd never going to do anything other than it's level best to give you a flat distribution function.

When we are sloppy with our language we sometimes increase the scope of the word "random" to include non-flat distribution functions (e.g. "randomly" flipping though a book), but that is a departure from the core meaning of the term.

Again, a jurist will chose or reject whatever definition based on the case they want to make (much as you are doing here, and hey, that's fine, that's the law profession), but none of that changes the essential nature of what randomness is.

I think you're missing the point. That historian on the other board, who seems not to have made it here, would do the same thing.

The word random is not co-extensive with a computer scientist's definition of the word. Computer scientists coopted the word random and turned it into a word meaning uniform probability distribution. That's fine for their purposes, but it doesn't mean they now own the word random. They are using a word with broader meaning as a token to denote a more specific meaning.

The word random has its origins in Middle English and French, where it meant "at great speed." That connoted carelessness (I wonder if that comes from a military application), and then purposelessness. But for two centuries, the word has been used in English to mean unpredictable, not uniform probability distribution.

Thus have you inverted the causality. I'm not using some imprecise approximation of the word random. I'm using the word (or trying to) as it has been used in the language for centuries. Your logic here would produce odd results elsewhere:

1. "Work." In physics, work is force * distance. So moving boxes all day involves a lot of work. Seeing patients all day as a doctor actually involves little work at all. Even less work is required when lawyers stay up for 18 hours straight finalizing a merger or drafting a brief. Yet if you told that lawyer or doctor that they haven't done any word today, they would look at you like you were crazy. Or, depending on the extent of sleep deprivation, punch you.

2. "Obese" is defined by doctors as a certain body mass index. By BMI, I'm guessing Lebron James is obese. But if you called him obese, people would look at you like a crazy person. Likewise, most people who BMI considers obese are considered "overweight" in our culture, or not even that.

I don't have time for more examples. Hopefully you get the point.