What is meant when we say that the 3-body problem is "unsolvable" really just means that there is no general solution in terms of finite combinations of standard functions, like polynomials, exponents, trig functions, etc. This just means that there isn't a relatively simple expression where you could plug in any initial configuration of 3-bodies and get their trajectories.

What this does NOT means is that:

• Solutions don't exist. There is a solution for every configuration, we just can't write them using our favorite functions. This is why we can model the 3-body problem with computers, which approximate these solutions

• That all 3-body problems are unsolvable. There are some configurations where we can write the solution using our favorite functions. See here for a list.

• That we can't solve them with more complicated functions. For most situations, the 3-body problem can be solved using infinite power series. This vastly expands the number of functions we have access to and so it shouldn't be surprising that we can solve it there.

This notion of "unsolvability" is really down to our preference for what a "solution" looks like. Back in the olden-days, we could only compute some functions really well and so we favored those functions which came to be known as Elementary Functions. But this is a very small sample of what functions can actually be and they are designed around our preferences, and so it makes sense that math/physics won't conform to such tight restrictions. There isn't really anything special about the 3-body problem, it just doesn't care about these restrictions. In fact, we should see the 2-body problem as having something special about it which allows us to write solutions within these restrictions. And that special property is, likely, that 2-body motion takes place in a fixed plane which reduces the complexity of the problem to something elementary.

So, in the end, the 2-body problem is "special" and "mysterious" because we can write it's solutions down using our favorite functions. The 3-body problem is typical in that there's nothing special about it that reduces its solutions to our preferential functions.

>So we as a society, think it makes sense to compensate the family of a man that allegedly strangled someone, and decided to kill himself?

FTFY

Riker's Island is mostly full of people awaiting trial and, therefore, innocent in the eyes of the law. The state has a duty to ensure the safety of the people in its custody, including humane living conditions where their basic needs are met. Even with convicted criminals, cruelty is not the purpose of prison but rehabilitation under the guidelines of the conviction. The state has a duty to ensure that the basic rights of all - even convicted murderers on death row - are upheld. The state can only infringe on the inalienable rights that are specifically outlined by the judge for the criminal offense. Anything more is cruelty and a human rights violation.

Interesting graph

People complain about the super-thins as being ugly, but Hudson Yards is the most boring and grotesque group of skyscrapers in the city.