Be like Pluto.

That stops us in our tracks

Possibly over 100.

To be fair, they could actually be assholes.

the people who decided Pluto’s no longer a planet

Yes. Fuck Mike Brown. I don't know why many people still let him dictate what to think of as a planet. The concept of "planet" is entirely man-made and doesn't follow any god given or universal criteria. While some astronomers argue that our moon is a planet too, the current criteria would even de-classify earth as a planet, should it get knocked out of our solar system.

I see Pluto as a Planet, and have yet to see a good argument against it.

Ceres is between Mars and Jupiter.

Ok so we're adding new arbitrary qualifications to hold onto the simplified image of the solar system that we learned growing up.

Nah, the cutoff is "is it mostly spherical due to its own gravity?" and "has it cleared its orbit from other bodies?"

Pluto is massive enough to be spherical but did not clear its orbit from other bodies. Now its the head of its own family, the dwarf-planets.

Indeed, but Eris is only marginally smaller and a fair bit more massive, and the latter is generally more important in categorization.

78. Compare knowing and saying:

how many feet high Mont Blanc is

how the word "game" is used

how a clarinet sounds.

If you are surprised that one can know something and not be able to say it, you are perhaps thinking of a case like the first. Certainly not of one like the third.

79. Consider this example. If one says "Moses did not exist", this may mean various things. It may mean: the Israelites did not have a single leader when they withdrew from Egypt--Or: their leader was not called Moses -Or: there cannot have been anyone who accomplished all that the Bible relates of Moses-Or: etc. etc. We may say, following Russell: the name "Moses"-can be defined by means of various descriptions. For example, as "the man who led the Israelites through the wilderness" , "the man who lived at that time and place and was then called 'Moses " "the man who as a child was taken out of the Nile by Pharaoh's daughter" and so on. And according as we assume one definition or another the proposition "Moses did not exist? acquires a different sense, and so does every other proposition about Moses. -And if we are told "N did not exist", we do ask: "What do you mean? Do you want to say . . . ... Or . . . ... etc.?" But when I make a statement about Moses, am I always ready to substitute some one of these descriptions for "Moses"? I shall perhaps say: By "Moses" I understand the man who did what the Bible relates of Moses, or at any rate a good deal of it. But how much? Have I decided how much must be proved false for me to give up my proposition as false? Has the name "Moses" got a fixed and unequivocal use for me in all possible cases? Is it not the case that I have, so to speak, a whole series of props in readiness, and am ready to lean on one if another should be taken from under me and vice versa?

Consider another case. When I say "N is dead", then something like the following may hold for the meaning of the name "N": I believe that a human being has lived, whom I (1) have seen in such-and-such places, who (2) looked like this (pictures), (3) has done such-and-such things, and (4) bore the name "N" in social life. Asked what I understand by "N", I should enumerate all or some of these points, and different ones on different occasions. So my definition of "N" would perhaps be "the man of whom all this is true". But if some point now proves false?-Shall I be prepared to declare the proposition "N is dead" false- even if it is only something which strikes me as incidental that has turned out false? But where are the bounds of the incidental?-If I had given a definition of the name in such a case, I should now be ready to alter it.

And this can be expressed like this: I use the name "N" without a fixed meaning. But that detracts as little from its usefulness, as it detracts from that of a table that it stands on four legs instead of three and so sometimes wobbles.)

Should it be said that I am using a word whose meaning I don't know, and so am talking nonsense? Say what you choose, so long as it does not prevent you from seeing the facts. (And when you see them there is a good deal that you will not say.)

Wittgenstein, Philosophical Investigations

Yikes! I was meant to edit it initially but accidentally hit delete. Figured I'd give it a try

Similar to the arbitrarily defined density of other stuff in the same orbit. We need to draw lines somewhere to impose categories on nature.