x0137294744532

The solution to the 4 person problem is actually pretty simple. Let's assume that we know the answer to the 2 person problem. We have 4 persons; A, B, C and D. At first the persons guess their colour (without revealing it of course) based on their direct neighbor. So for instance:

    A <-----> B
    
    
    C <-----> D

A and B being neighbors, they guess their colours based on the solution of the 2 persons problem. Same goes for C and D. Without loss of generality, let's assume C guesses correctly his card colour. Since he can see the cards of A and B, he knows who will guess their colour correctly. For instance, if they have the same colour, A will guess correctly, if not, then B will guess correctly. Without loss of generality, let's assume A guesses correctly his card colour. He then sees that C will guess correctly.

The participants agreed beforehand that clubs and hearts are associated with 0 while diamonds and spades are associated with 1. A and C now apply the solution to the 2 person problem to guess their shape group (either (diamonds or spades) or (clubs or hearts)):

    A       B
    |
    |
    C       D

It is guaranteed that at least one has guessed the shape group correctly. Since they both guessed correctly the color, it is guaranteed that one of them will guess the shape correctly.

Many propaganda accounts get closed only to have new ones with similar names created shortly after. Several dozen of those accounts might be linked to one particular person/cell/organisation...

From Wikipedia:

> In the law of some countries, hate speech is any speech, gesture or conduct, writing, or display which is forbidden because it incites violence or prejudicial action against or by a protected individual or group, or because it disparages or intimidates a protected individual or group.

So would you consider it censorship to forbid hate speech?

> Suppression of speech which does not explicitly advocate for violence is oppression.

In your opinion (and that of the US), "violence" in this context is defined as physical violence. However, one can argue that non-physical violence should be considered too. In that case, it could be said that hate speech is a form of indirect threat or intimidation against a minority.

> no government should be allowed to oppress the free expression of ideas

Are you okay then, with an intelligence or military defector (not a whistleblower), revealing all government secrets and publishing it publicly without any selection or redaction?