Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2024 March 25

= March 25 =

The facade of San Giacomo di Rialto, Venice
A couple of late 18th-century paintings by and Giovanni Battista Brustolon show San Giacomo di Rialto having a facade in the late 18th century rather similar to that of the modern day iteration of the church, albeit with some minor differences in design. However, a couple of drawings by Giacomo Guardi, presumably either later in the 18th century or in the early 19th century, depict a clock with a square frame. A couple photos and a drawing from the early 1900s confirm a similar clock design, and a bottom window replaced with a decorative painting, persisting into the 20th century. Is there any documentary evidence for how/when the facade designs were changed? GalacticShoe (talk) 07:11, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The only thing I found is a sentence in the French article that says the clock was modified in hte 18th century, and put back in place at the beginning of the 20th century (Cette horloge, réformée au XVIIIe siècle a été restaurée et remise en place au début du XXe siècle). The reference given is "Lo Stradario Di Venezia; Guida anagrafico-toponomastica illustrata e curiosità storico artistiche di Venezia Volume II p.562". I can't find that work on google books. --Wrongfilter (talk) 12:53, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an excellent starting point, thank you very much! GalacticShoe (talk) 17:16, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * A Google Books listing at indicates that the second volume, focusing on the sestieri of San Polo, Santa Croce, and Dorsoduro + Giudecca, was written by Piero Pazzi in 2001, but other than that I can't find any information about the book. Chances are that it's probably rather obscure. GalacticShoe (talk) 17:25, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Lottery annuities and interest rates
As MegaMillions and Powerball jackpots increase, I'm trying to find the interest rate implied by the annuity payouts, but no one specifies it. I assume that it depends on the day the jackpot is won. Is it possible to obtain a good approximation by looking at the yield curve?

The best I can find is that a source, without attribution, says that the lump sum figure is invested in Treasuries to enable a payout that increases by 5% a year. Is that so? Do they buy a bond ladder spanning years 2-30? I don't suppose there's a rule of thumb for figuring the implied interest rate?

Thank you. Imagine Reason (talk) 13:03, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

B.T.H. system for the deaf


I understand the B.T.H. (British Thomson-Houston) system for sound movies (e.g. ); but what is the "B.T.H. system for the deaf", referred to in the 1937 advert, above? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:27, 25 March 2024 (UTC)


 * Apparently a deaf-aid amplifier, with the sound delivered through a headphone. --Lambiam 21:52, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * It is very likely the same design as the GEC system I worked on in the early 70s. A system of hard plastic or metal tubing went from a distribution center to each seat. The distribution center had small speakers that produced sound that was pushed through the tubes (in stereo, one right tube and one left tube). If you put your each next to the two holes in your seat's armrest, you could hear it. But, to be effective, you plugged in headphones, which were just tube extenders that let the sound continue from the armrest to your ears. I know it sounds a bit silly, but it was very cheap and effective. The only maintenance I did was replacing dented or cracked tubing and removing gum and whatnot from the armrest holes. 12.116.29.106 (talk) 17:49, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * 12.116.29.106 -- Those hollow-tube systems were also used to connect the headsets used by airline passengers listening to in-flight entertainment, through at least the 1970s. But I don't think that the plastics that were used in airplane audio systems in the 1970s were commercially manufactured in 1937 (very little was then, except bakelite). AnonMoos (talk) 23:14, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

Legal standing
Question relates to FDA v. Alliance for Hippocratic Medicine. I don't follow this issue closely and I try to stay away from abortion politics, so please forgive errors in my summary. But basically AHM is a group of anti-abortion doctors who, while they don't prescribe mifepristone themselves, say they have had their medical practices burdened by having to treat patients who suffered complications from taking mifepristone that they got elsewhere. Therefore they sued to mifepristone's FDA approval withdrawn/modified. At issue (among other things) is whether they have standing to sue. Two lower courts have said yes, but it is still being contested, with some counter-arguments quoted in the linked CNN article.

My question is basically how this question about standing got to SCOTUS at all. Is it not a "law 101" question rather than a SCOTUS question? Are there analogous cases? E.g. can doctors who treat injuries from lawn darts or motorcycle crashes sue to get those products banned, because of the extra work they create for the doctors? Similarly from home repair workers who have to fix indoor flooding from portable washing machines spilling water on the floor? Is this case special because it's about the politically charged topic of abortion? IANAL and IDK whether AHM does or doesn't have standing, but I'd thought this would be a question that someone with actual legal training should be able to answer in about 2 seconds rather than dragging it through years of litigation. Thanks. 174.160.238.145 (talk) 23:39, 25 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I asked a similar question quite some time ago, and the answer is basically that standing to sue is a complicated issue, as illustrated by the conflicting lower court rulings. That's why the Supreme Court needs to sort it out.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:45, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I don't think the lower courts are in conflict in this case. The district court and the circuit court both said AHM has standing.  But, their opponents have been painting the judges involved as right wing zealots, who decided as they did for political reasons.  Anyway, thanks.  The wikipedia article about the csae doesn't mention this question, and I don't feel qualified to update it, unfortunately. 174.160.238.145 (talk) 01:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * The petition by the DOJ, on behalf of the FDA, argues that the lower courts made "serious legal errors", which is a reason for which the Supreme Court may grant to hear the case. For one thing, the Court has to decide whether the challengers had standing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lambiam (talk • contribs) 12:29, 26 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, the challengers are AHM, and the lower courts (possibly through "serious legal errors") decided that the challengers have standing. But, I mean, federal courts are supposed to be competent organizations whose job is to navigate legal questions of some subtlety.  They might get a question wrong, just like a math proof accepted by a journal can have a serious error in the sense of a subtle but unfixable bug, but a math journal is unlikely to print a paper that flat out says on page 1 that 2+2=5.  So my basic question is whether "does AHM have standing" is really a "research-level" legal question that a competent judge might decide incorrectly, or is it more like 2+2?  As I see it, the possibilities are 1) it really is a complex question that the courts are hashing out; 2) it's really 2+2=4 that AHM has standing even though the FDA wishes otherwise, and the courts so far have affirmed that fact; 3) it's really 2+2=4 that AHM does not have standing, but through partisanship or incompetence, the lower courts decided 2+2=5 resulting in the mifepristone de-approval. The Scotusblog article seems to make about the same argument as the CNN one.  They are not being forceful about it but they seem to say "no standing" is obvious, based on seemingly absurd implications if standing exists.  I had been wondering whether I'm missing something but I guess maybe the above is good enough, and courts really do sometimes do stupid things.  Thanks. 174.160.238.145 (talk) 23:24, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Even supreme courts sometimes issue supremely stupid rulings. --Lambiam 09:36, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
 * That's because the human beings who spend their lives issuing judgements are sometimes lacking in judgement. Always judicial but not always judicious. -- Jack of Oz   [pleasantries]  22:05, 30 March 2024 (UTC)