I think this might be an actual use case for a blockchain like bitcoin. If someone takes an image or video and immediately embeds it into a bitcoin transaction, then at the very least that piece of raw media could be 100% verified as to the time of its creation or at least addition to the blockchain. If an event takes place at 3:52:04 pm and the image is uploaded at 3:52:25... at least you know no one had time to thoughtfully process what happened and create and upload an Ai fake. Or at least it would be MUCH more difficult. And if several images from different sources uploaded to the blockchain agree as to the events, that pretty much verifies it.
Edit: using the new ordinal technology that allows full image/video data to be verified.
Can you explains the knitpicking? They specifically decided that only objects orbiting our star can be Planets. It wasn't an oversight but intentional. How can that be explained? Why do that?
Also, how can mercury be explained? It clearly violated one of the 3 rules with no given exception other than they just decided it can be a planet. Why?
25% of the 8 objects they wrote rules for needed an exception to make the cut. That doesn't seem odd?
There is nothing difficult to grasp. They made rules then decided for no reason to let mercury break the rule. Why? Why not make mercury a dwarf planet instead of allowing it with no rule exception other than...just because.
This is not bioligical... those MUST follow the rules. This was a traditional unscientific list..
Exactly like constellations. Why not start removing stars from constellations because they are too far away? Except a couple of them just because.
This IAU conference vote was not unanimous... it was very contentious and many wanted a more geological and broad definition rather than an earth centered definition that literally ONLY applies to our solar system. "Planets" can only exist around OUR Sun. Think about that.
I understand the exception created for Neptune. But they had to create this exception... for their own brand new rule... in order to classify 8 things. Notice the exception is written very specifically just to keep pluto from "clearing" is orbit.
Another IAU rule is that the body must assume hydrostatic equilibrium(nearly round). Mercury does NOT assume hydrostatic equilibrium. They knew this.
Guess what? They just...decided...Mercury doesn't have to follow that rule.
It was all done very unscientifically.
Edit: I want to add that now there are only 8 planets...in the universe. There are no other planets because the definition includes that they must "orbit the Sun". Not a star but very specifically the Sun. All this with exceptions for just 8 objects? I'm telling you it was a power trip thing more than a scientific endeavor.
It's a fine metaphor but it doesn't work for scientific definitions which are exact. The IAU came up with the rule then had to make an exception to their own brand new rule in order to have Neptune remain a planet but not pluto even though both fail the rule. The exception is real and written down, not assumed.
Yet again another of the IAU rules is the body has to be assume hydrostatic equilibrium (nearly round). Mercury is NOT in hydrostatic equilibrium and they knew this. So they just...decided... that Mercury is a planet anyway and does not have to follow that rule.
So two planets don't even follow the rules they made yet were unscientifically decided to be planets. Why? What was the point of it? Certainly wasn't done for any scientific reason.
If the definition of a planet is that it has cleared is orbit then how is Neptune a planet? It shares its orbit with the dwarf planet pluto therefore they should both be dwarf planets correct?
The definition of planet should be what it is, a traditional unscientific category based on history... like constellations.
Calling Mercury a planet and Jupiter a planet as though they are similar in almost any way is silly scientifically.
Perhaps leave the traditional planets category alone and create new categories that could pertain to all systems not just ours. Maybe something like terrestrial planets, gas planets, dwarf planets... etc. Categories that won't have to change any time a new discovery is made.
I agree except in this instance the goal was to keep Earth's classification important. No other scientific objective. Just seemed very geocentric to me.
Yes, that's the made up exception. And for neptune not clearing its orbit due to pluto crossing that orbit? Well we have to make an exception for that so...um...the resonance between neptune and pluto. Exception achieved!
The rules are so contrived that it would not make sense for almost any other system except exactly ours. Whatever it takes to keep Earth's category of "planet" important... you know... for reasons.
Well of course that was the exception they had to come up with for their contrived rule. The exception is: "whatever it takes to make pluto not a planet". Since the vote was agenda fueled and not a scientific discussion.
Once something new is discovered and breaks the rules they will have to modify the contrived rule to keep pluto not a planet.
Jupiter has a permanent cloud of asteroids that follow it and neptune crosses the orbit of pluto so neither of those have cleared their orbits so of course they made exceptions so that their contrived definition fits.
You would think this is the case but they specifically decided through a vote that a dwarf planet is NOT a planet but a completely separate type of object. The whole vote was ridiculous and done at the very end of the conference so that only a fraction of the members were there to vote on pluto.
Edit: I'm down voted but every word of what I wrote is true. Dig into it and you will find out the same.
You can have a duplicate made for a few bucks. Not free but when the difference is $1 to $1000 or $0 to $1000, no one wants your beanie baby just as much as no one wants your nft monkey picture.
Both can be authenticated to say you own the only blockchain backed copy of an nft or a rare beanie baby. Almost no one cares about either.
I think this might be an actual use case for a blockchain like bitcoin. If someone takes an image or video and immediately embeds it into a bitcoin transaction, then at the very least that piece of raw media could be 100% verified as to the time of its creation or at least addition to the blockchain. If an event takes place at 3:52:04 pm and the image is uploaded at 3:52:25... at least you know no one had time to thoughtfully process what happened and create and upload an Ai fake. Or at least it would be MUCH more difficult. And if several images from different sources uploaded to the blockchain agree as to the events, that pretty much verifies it.
Edit: using the new ordinal technology that allows full image/video data to be verified.