Any of these will do. It's simply a matter of convention or convenience as to which we choose.

Well, first off, a person who calls himself Ciceronius would disagree. As a legal positivist, he would have to argue that upon Socrates' death, profit earned on stock investments should start accruing to his wife immediately, faster than the speed of light.

On the other hand, a realist accountant would say that's impossible if she is on Mars, because the event of his death cannot reach Mars faster than the speed of light, and that profit for the interim duration would still be taxable to Socrates in his last tax filing.

Hmm.
https://thephilosophyforum.com/profile/discussions/10073/ernest-meyer

Think I might stop here. I somehow doubt that reasoned conversation is what you are after.

Most scientists said the same thing when Gamow proposed an alternative to the periodic table. Gamow have a very hard time of it being a Popperian, as have all Popperians in the last few decades.

When exactly does she become a widow? — ernest meyer

This happens at earthy distances too. Your friend, in the same room with you, flips a coin, which lands on the floor. The coin has landed either heads or tails. But the light from the coin takes a finite amount of time to reach your eye. When the light is halfway from the coin to your eye, what is the state of the coin? At that moment, the coin has a determinate value of heads or tails with respect to your friend; but to you, it hasn't quite landed yet.

A clever gambler can take advantage of this situation. The gambler observes the coin at the location of your friend; and then bets you that it's heads (or tails, whatever), already knowing the answer. The gambler would take all your money after a few plays of this game, if only the gambler could get from the coin's location to yours faster than the light does.

That's true. Epistemologically speaking, it is actually unknowable what the state of the coin is because we perceive light as a finite limiting factor. Putting aside debates of whether a being could actually have a better perception of time, it remains for us to resolve how to consider the state of the coin when the event has already occurred, but its state is unknowable.Late Wittgensteinians would hold the coin has no state until it is observed, because all that actually exists is the language we use to describe the world.

Timelike, lightlike, spacelike separation. Google for the answer to the OP.