%%USERNAME%%    %%ACCWORDS%% %%ONOFF%% |
 Items to fit into your overhead compartment |
|
Carrion Luggage  Native to the Americas, the turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) travels widely in search of sustenance. While usually foraging alone, it relies on other individuals of its species for companionship and mutual protection. Sometimes misunderstood, sometimes feared, sometimes shunned, it nevertheless performs an important role in the ecosystem. This scavenger bird is a marvel of efficiency. Rather than expend energy flapping its wings, it instead locates uplifting columns of air, and spirals within them in order to glide to greater heights. This behavior has been mistaken for opportunism, interpreted as if it is circling doomed terrestrial animals destined to be its next meal. In truth, the vulture takes advantage of these thermals to gain the altitude needed glide longer distances, flying not out of necessity, but for the joy of it. It also avoids the exertion necessary to capture live prey, preferring instead to feast upon that which is already dead. In this behavior, it resembles many humans. It is not what most of us would consider to be a pretty bird. While its habits are often off-putting, or even disgusting, to members of more fastidious species, the turkey vulture helps to keep the environment from being clogged with detritus. Hence its Latin binomial, which translates to English as "golden purifier." I rarely know where the winds will take me next, or what I might find there. The journey is the destination. |
| This SciAm article is only half a year old, so maybe it's still relevant. Massive Study Flips Our Story of Addiction and the Brain  Brain differences in children and teens who experiment with drugs early show up before they take their first puff or sip For decades, Americans have been told a simple story about addiction... That by itself should be the first clue that the story is bullshit: it's simple. ...taking drugs damages the brain... I'm not going to argue with this, but I will point out that American football also damages the brain, so banning drugs without banning football is hypocritical as all hell. "Kids can damage their brains in this approved manner that involves violence, but not this unapproved manner that involves feeling good." "But, Waltz, football has other benefits." I disagree, but that's a topic for another time. ...and the earlier in life children start using substances, the more likely they are to progress through a “gateway” from milder ones such as marijuana to more dangerous drugs such as opioids. Okay, first of all, I'll say that kids shouldn't be "using substances" either. But kids do a lot of things they shouldn't do. Source: me, former kid. Second, there is no such thing as a "gateway" drug. If it seems like there's a "gateway," that's only because those so-called milder drugs are far more widely available.Third, no mention of alcohol or nicotine? Nicotine is highly addictive for almost anyone, though the problem with it is probably more its delivery system than the chemical itself. And alcohol is objectively a way worse drug than cannabis, though from what I understand, neither of those chemicals are inherently addictive like nicotine or opiods are. So if you're keeping track, every quote so far has been the "simple story" they mentioned. But a recent study, part of an ongoing project to scan the brains of 10,000 kids as they move through childhood into adulthood, complicates the picture. It found that the brains of those who started experimenting with cannabis, cigarettes or alcohol before age 15 showed differences from those who did not—before the individuals took their first puff or sip. You know how I keep harping in here about the hazards of confusing correlation with causation? Or about getting the causation arrow backwards? This. This is that. Now, as always, I caution against using just one study to draw firm conclusions, even though—no, especially since—it agrees with my predetermined notion. But let's at least acknowledge the possibility that it's not the drugs that are the problem, but the brains. That said, there are obvious issues with the methodology as reported here. In separate interviews, the participants and their parents also provided information on diet and substance use. Nearly a quarter of the children had used drugs including alcohol, cannabis and nicotine before the study began. Self-reporting is one of the confounding factors in nutritional studies. How much worse can it be with kids who, maybe, tried smoking a joint but refuse to tell the scientists the truth? Having a bulkier and more heavily creased brain is generally linked to higher intelligence, though these factors are far from the only ones that matter. Bigger and groovier isn’t always better... This really doesn't have much to do with the point I'm trying to make, but I wanted to point out the amusing absurdity of "Bigger and groovier." Other research has associated some of the brain differences found in the study with certain personality traits: curiosity, or interest in exploring the environment, and a penchant for risk-taking. So, if I'm reading this right, it's not the dumb kids who mess with drugs. It's the smart ones. They only become dumb later if they get addicted. If these early brain differences aren’t caused by drugs, where do they come from? They could reflect certain genetic variations or childhood exposure to adverse experiences—both of which have previously been associated with addiction risk. In other words, it's either genetics or environment. Thanks, that clears everything up! While it’s still possible that substances could chemically interfere with brain development, contributing to the elevated risk for addiction among those who start drinking or taking other drugs early, the study suggests that there are other, preexisting factors at play. I'd assume that, yes, "substances could chemically interfere with brain development." There is no reason why both can't be true. It would be more complicated, sure, but we've tried the simple answers and they don't work. Conrod emphasizes that “risky” traits have pluses as well as minuses. For example, a tendency to seek new experiences can be critical for success in science, medicine and the arts. A willingness to take risks is useful in occupations ranging from firefighting to entrepreneurship. The trick is to help young people manage such predilections safely. Of course, we could also work toward excising curiosity, risk-taking, and intelligence. We're already making great strides in that direction. So, as usual, let's not get ahead of ourselves on the jumping to conclusions train of thought with regards to this article. It's promising that the research is even being done, and at least some people are moving past the "drugs are bad" thing and into a more nuanced perspective. But nothing's certain yet. Except that I'm about 99% sure that there's no such thing as a "gateway drug." |
| Here's Better Homes & Gardens (me: "That's still a thing?") with one of the most important articles of this or any other century: What's the Difference Between Seltzer, Club Soda, and Sparkling Water? Pour yourself a bubbly beverage and study up on the difference between these popular fizzy drinks. You might just find your new favorite! I always looked at it like this: Seltzer is Yiddish, club soda is WASPish, and sparkling water is French. Hm. Maybe I'm not all that far off. Soon after being led to your table at certain sit-down restaurants, you’ll be approached with a question: “Still or sparkling?” Somehow, I've never gotten that question at dive bars. While this seems like a straightforward ask, it’s a deceptively layered query. No. No, it really isn't. Do you want bubbles in your water or not? I'm not judging either way. Still, is it tap or bottled? Bottled water is tap water, for the most part. The only difference is how far away the tap is. I remember people joking about Evian a while back "hurr hurr it's 'naive' spelled backwards." But no, it's worse than that. No one cares about spelling backwards, otherwise no one would ever go to that pretentious Erehwon place. What's worse is that one word for "spigot" or "faucet" in French is "evier." Which would make the associated adjective Evian. Okay, no, the French would probably be like "eau d'evier," for water from the faucet. My point, though, is that it's far more amusing to me that the water is named similarly to a spigot than it's "naive" backwards. They look exactly the same, but “the main difference between seltzer, club soda, and sparkling water is the actual ingredients,” explains Allison Kafalas... Water and vodka look exactly the same, too. Just saying. ...Pradhan summarizes it beautifully for us: “Sparkling water (or soda water) is naturally carbonated and often contains natural minerals, while club soda has added minerals, and seltzer has none.” See that? That quoted part? That could have been the article. That could have been the whole thing. But no, they have to phrase the headline in the form of a question to get clicks and please advertisers. Joke's on them. My ad-blocker works well. If you’re looking for a blank slate, seltzer is it. That bubbly you make in your SodaStream? It’s seltzer. Since it doesn’t contain any other minerals or sodium beyond the hydrogen and oxygen that make it water, seltzer has a very mild flavor, Kafalas tells BHG. Quibble: it may not contain added minerals (though I really do appreciate the acknowledgement that water is, itself, a mineral). But most water has trace minerals, usually calcium, magnesium, and other elements that get picked up from rocks and soil. Water without these trace minerals is called "soft" for historical reasons, and these naturally occurring minerals are generally good for you and make the water taste slightly better. So, mineral water? Either it's a hard water source, or they add the minerals later. Nothing wrong with either one, though hard water can be tough on plumbing. Point is, if you're making seltzer in your SodaStream or whatever, its mineral content will depend on your local supply. We like to use seltzer to stretch full-octane cocktails into low-ABV drinks... You do you, but to me that defeats the purpose. Club soda is also carbonated water, but unlike seltzer, the “recipe” contains “added minerals like sodium bicarbonate or potassium sulfate, giving it a slightly salty taste,” according to Pradhan. Oooooh, scaaaaaary cheeeeeeemicals. Both seltzer and club soda are sparkling, too, but when it comes to a beverage specifically branded as “sparkling water,” the carbonation is natural—as are the minerals in the water. Pro tip: Before a trip to France, learn how to properly pronounce Perrier. Hint: there are no sounds in that word that resemble what Anglophones think of as "r." The article goes into which to choose for what, and that's fine; I do like to enhance my mixological knowledge. Still (pun intended of course), if you're just drinking it for hydration, I think it's a matter of taste. |
| Today, I'm featuring this article from LiveScience. This is not what I'd call a trustworthy source, but I found the article amusing enough to share. What's the darkest place in the solar system? What about the universe? Space looks very dark from Earth. But does the solar system, and the universe for that matter, have an area that's the darkest of all? What's the darkest place in the universe? My heart, of course. ...yes, I did save this questionable article for the sole (pun intended) purpose of making that joke. Look into the night sky, and it might seem like space is a vast expanse of darkness. Making me feel right at home. But are any regions darker than others? Questions like that are what make me distrust this source. It should be painfully obvious to anyone with a working brain that some regions of space would have to be darker than others. The illuminated side of the moon, e.g., as compared to the... you know. In short, the answer isn't straightforward, and it depends on whom you ask, experts told Live Science. I imagine it would depend on one's definition of "darkness." We only see a small sliver of the EM spectrum. Do we limit the answer to light visible to humans, or expand it to include things like radio waves and gamma rays? True darkness, the blackest black, is surprisingly rare and hard to pinpoint. "It's like, how much more black could this be? And the answer is none. None more black." -Nigel Tufnel ...okay, I also saved this article so I could make a Spinal Tap reference joke. My alternative joke for this line involved Vantablack and Anish Kapoor, but I'm going with the Spinal Tap one in memory of Rob Reiner. This is because there is a lot of dust in the cosmos: Dust scatters light, making space glow far beyond stars... That's my excuse for not cleaning: the room's brighter when it's dusty. As a result, there is a background glow that permeates much of the universe. (The color of the universe is actually "cosmic latte," a beige shade not too far off white.) See, saying stuff like that may be true, but you need to explain it better lest people snort and say stuff about "common sense," and dismiss anything science comes up with as a result. Darkness also "depends on how you define it," Andreas Burkert, a theoretical astrophysicist at the University of Munich, told Live Science. Okay, I'm not the only one who quibbles about the EM spectrum. If you consider only visible light, there are some exceedingly dark places in space. And they all work in law firms. Firstly, cosmic objects can be made of light-absorbing material, making them appear very dark. Scientifically, this is known as albedo, or the amount of light reflected off a surface. We think of the illuminated surface of the moon as bright. But it's really rather dark, as anyone obsessed enough to pick up the background dialogue from Pink Floyd's greatest album can attest. The nucleus of comet Borrelly (also called 19P/Borrelly) is one of the darkest spots in our solar system, according to the Guinness Book of World Records. I trust Guinness World Records even less than this source. But wouldn't the interior of any planet be pretty damn dark in visible light? Black holes, too, are dark because they capture light that crosses the event horizon. But interestingly, "that doesn't mean that there is no light," Burkert said. "It simply is trapped." As a result, "when you enter the black hole, it's actually extremely bright," he explained. And stuff like this is misleading as hell, too. If the light is trapped, there is no light, from an outside perspective. And if you "enter the black hole," you're not coming back out to report on its brightness. And furthermore, we've all seen images of accretion disks around a black hole, which are, for various reasons, really bright. So anyway. There's more at the link. Like I said, it's an interesting question, and not one with an easy answer... unless you're a comedian. |
| Short one today, a supposed travel article from TimeOut. These four U.S. cities were voted among the most inauthentic in the world A new study reveals the cities that lean heavily into tourist-trap experiences, according to travelers. "According to travelers." How about according to locals, or, I dunno, neutral parties? Whatever. No one should take lists like this seriously, anyway. If you’ve ever come home from a trip feeling like you spent more time in souvenir shops than local hotspots, you're not alone. Never been to a beach town, huh? The souvenir shops are the local hotspots. A new study from travel insurance provider InsureandGo... How very scientific. ...suggests that several major U.S. cities have earned a reputation for coming off as tourist productions rather than authentic, lived-in places. There is, of course, a little bit more to the world than the US, but this article just focuses on that. The study reviewed more than 1.3 million Google Maps reviews across 144 global cities, tracking how often travelers described experiences as "authentic," "local" or "traditional" versus "tourist trap" or "overpriced." Okay. At least they had criteria in mind and presumably didn't just sit there and brainstorm a list of cities they personally hated. It's still a bit subjective. Chicago topped the global list as the least authentic city, earning a remarkably low score of 2 out of 100. Pfft. The only thing inauthentic about Chicago is their "pizza." Las Vegas landed close behind at number three... Oh, come on. If I were pulling city names out of my ass for "inauthentic," Vegas would be at the very tippity-top of the list. Nashville came in at number four globally. Okay. I have no opinions about Nashville. Boston rounds out the U.S. cities deemed the most inauthentic, at number six in the world. Its rich history and walkability draws millions, but travelers frequently described central areas of the city as crowded and geared toward visitors rather than residents. ...so what? "We want that sweet, sweet tourism money" is an authentic declaration. It's worth noting that these rankings don't mean these cities aren't worth visiting. They're popular for a reason. "No one goes there anymore. It's too crowded." -Yogi Berra The article ends with the full Top 10 list of "inauthentic" cities. Venice, I could see, though I've never been there. But come on. Brussels? Get the fuck outta heah, as they say authentically in Boston. |
| Today's article, from Vox, is about something that really chaps my ass. Airports and airlines have a fake service dog problem Why so many people take advantage of airlines’ service dog loophole. Admittedly, I don't fly all that often. I don't think I was on even one plane last year. And the last flight I took was rather pleasant, because it didn't have that issue. But I remember one flight in particular that, I'm fairly certain, held more canines than humans. The stench was horrific, and made me long for the good old days when cigarette smoke was the worst odor in an airplane cabin. But it's not just airlines that have this problem. As for "why," I'll tell you why, at the risk of mortally offending any readers who might be faking their service dogs: because they're inconsiderate twats. There are people with legitimate need for a service animal. I get that. I'm in no way ragging on them. The fakers make their lives worse, though, because it leads the rest of us to stop taking true service animals, and their accompanying humans, seriously. On the first leg of that trip, from New York to Los Angeles, a dog in a “service dog” vest barked at me at the gate. The dog (not its given name), looked to be a stout French bulldog, paced back and forth, and yapped at a couple of other travelers. Okay, "(not its given name)" is legitimately hilarious. It all made me realize how many dogs traveling these days are designated service dogs, so many that there’s no way each one was a thoroughly-trained working canine. Some of these pooches had to be impostors. Ya think? The trouble is, it's rude (and sometimes illegal) to call them out on this. Which is one reason the humans can take advantage of their Main Character Syndrome. I'm fully aware that conditions requiring service animals aren't always visible. Hell, my ex-wife had epilepsy. She never had a service dog, but other epileptics do, and for very good reason. Point is, you'd never know she was in any way "differently abled" or whatever the current proper nomenclature is, unless she told you or had a seizure (rare) in front of you; she was a belly dancer, for fuck's sake. So yeah, not everyone with a service animal is obviously in need of one. But, again, that just makes the problem worse, because it's easier to fake. Why are there so many? Why and how do so many people have them? Is certification that easy to get? Do this many people need them? Why is this one barking at me? Are these people who just want to take their dog on their trip? Does being suspicious of some of them make me awful? Is a fake service dog really that bad? Because many people are inconsiderate twats, because many other people support and enable inconsiderate twattery, yes, no, because it's not a real service dog, yes, no, and hell to the exponent of yes. Sadly, I could not speak to an actual service dog for an interview regarding this contentious subject. Funny shit like this does manage to dilute my rage somewhat. More and more people want to travel with their pets, and despite airline assurances about safety, owners still harbor some overall worry about traveling with their animals in cargo. That's legitimate. It does not, however, excuse inconsiderate twattery. Also, "want to travel with their pets" is a whole different ball game from "need to travel with their pets." At the same time, traveling in the US with a pet dog in cabin — thanks to a multitude of rules — is actually difficult. We could re-regulate the airline industry, but... hey, why are you laughing? “There are plenty of owner-trained, well-behaved service dogs, and they are training their dogs to do actual physical tasks, and they should be given access. But I think we’re also talking about a lot of people not wanting to leave their dogs at home,” Reiss says. Again—because this comes up anytime someone rants about this on the internet—I am in no way saying that people who actually need a service animal are the problem. I am, in fact, saying the opposite: that the people with fake service animals make the lives of people with real service animals more difficult, and the last thing they need is more difficult lives. That said, it’s even more complicated, because no one wants to be a person who treats someone with a disability with suspicion or doubt. Then tighten the requirements, for shit's sake. “That’s the thing, the rules don’t even matter,” Molly Carta, a woman living with cerebral palsy who has a service dog named Slate, tells Vox. “I feel that way half the time too. I’m like, why did I pay $50 for this vet visit to get this form filled out? This person over here is just going to walk on with their dog.” I just want to say that if that were my name, I'd absolutely change my first name to Magna. For a long time, Carta believed that educating people about how service dogs are a medical need was the answer. But the more and more time that passes, the more she’s realized that more public awareness doesn’t work if people aren’t willing to listen. Words of wisdom, indeed. There's a lot more at the link, of course. And yes, I'm aware that the solution would need to be more nuanced than "tighten the requirements," as I said above. In the meantime, I'm avoiding flights as much as I can. Except, of course, for flights of beer, wine, whiskey, or fancy. |
| Breaking one of my until-now unspoken rules here, I'm going to link to HuffPo today. As a reminder, I browse using ad and script blockers, so hopefully you'll be able to see the content through whatever popups they push at you. What 'Only Children' Bring Up The Most In Therapy From feeling misunderstood to putting unnecessary pressure on themselves, here's what the only child may need help with. I'm shattering my rule because, as a former "only child," I was interested in what they had to say. Of course, it's been over 40 years since I could be considered a "child," but it's not like I suddenly grew siblings as I got older. Okay, that's not entirely true. There are people who I consider brothers and sisters, though I can't be sure if it's the same kind of relationship because all I have to go by are other peoples' stories. And judging by some of those stories, I didn't miss out on anything good. Some, but definitely not all. If you grew up as an only child, you’ve likely heard some of these stereotypical phrases at some point in your life: “That’s sad you grew up all alone.” “Your parents must’ve spoiled you.” “Do you have a hard time making friends?” And yet, they never ask people who had siblings things like "Was it hard, not being the center of attention?" Or, "How did it feel to feud with your siblings over the inheritance?" To address the quoted questions from my point of view: Not sad at all, it prepared me for a life of something close to self-sufficiency; yeah, they kind of did, but so what; and no, what I have a hard time with is meeting people. Yet recent research shows that many of these portrayals of only children are inaccurate. Color me shocked. Even though growing up without siblings is becoming more common, there’s still a long-lasting stigma around only children. And? At least when I was a kid, there was an even bigger stigma around childless people (the concept of "childfree" wasn't a thing yet). My parents could adopt exactly one brat, and that was, to my great good fortune, Me. We talked to therapists about the most common issues they hear only children bring up. What's not immediately clear is that this is mostly about what they bring up when they're older. You're always someone's child, but you're not always a "child." English is weird. In therapy, adult only children sometimes share that they feel lonely because they come from a smaller family and don’t have any sibling relationships. Not meaning to minimize others' experiences, but one thing I don't remember ever feeling was "lonely," either as a child or as a (technical) adult. There was always someone around to interact with. But I am moved to ask, perhaps rhetorically: "What about people with siblings who feel lonely?" In my view, it's better to never have had siblings at all than it is to be in a shitty relationship with the ones you have. “Holidays can be especially lonely for some only children because they often don’t have the big family gatherings that you see in movies and on TV.” Yeah... those movie and TV gatherings are generally idealized (or, possibly, whatever the opposite of "idealized" is when it shows a dysfunctional family). I've been to big family gatherings—both my ex-wives came from more traditional families, though one was also adopted—and while it was never exactly an unpleasant experience, I personally prefer to stay home by myself and relax rather than putting my best face on. As adults, many only children will seek out close friendships that feel like family members to fill that void, Clark said. See, this kind of wording is something I bristle at. It implicitly makes having siblings the "norm" while keeping one-child families as the "weird." Yes, as the article notes, they're a minority. But so are lots of other minorities—gay people, for example—and very few professionals these days would say something like, "many gay people will seek out close friendships with another gender to fill that void." At least not without getting pushback from both gay and straight folks. It's natural to seek out close friendships. Even I do it. It's not an exclusively "only child" thing. “Many adult only children feel overwhelmed and stressed being the only person in their family to handle all the elder care responsibilities for their elderly parents,” Greene said. Well, I had parents and a childfree aunt to deal with. And, to be honest, I couldn't. My parents both developed dementia, and that was way beyond what I was able to handle, so yeah, I hired professionals for that. It wasn't like I could quit my job to care for them full-time. Can I just point out, though, how weird it is that we put all the burden of elder care on the kids? That sort of thing may have made sense in a pre-industrial society, but now, it's just weird. Though having lots of attention from parents can lead to closer relationships with them, some only children may also feel like their every move is being watched. Well, that just prepares them for the reality of a surveillance state. Oh, and again, that's not limited to onlies. “Growing up as an only child can create a large sense of independence, which can be both a strength and a weakness,” said Priya Tahim... While I admit that it can be a weakness, I see it as a strength, at least in myself. I've never been reluctant to ask for help when I truly needed it. Speaking of which, anyone want to come over on Monday and shovel sn*w, so I don't get another heart attack? I'll pay. They may feel misunderstood or judged for being an only child. Okay, sure. But partly, that's because of articles like this one. Further perpetuating these stereotypes, only children are often portrayed negatively in movies and TV shows, such as being spoiled, selfish and having poor social skills, Greene added. I remember doing an article on a similar subject, recently, focused on adopted children. As I was both, my representation in media is fucked. At least until I remember Clark Kent. If you’d like to connect with and seek support from other adults who grew up without siblings, Greene recommends joining support groups on Facebook for only children. No. Therapy can also be an effective place to explore how your childhood is shaping who you are — no matter what your birth order is. I'm not going to rag on therapy in general. I've done it, with mixed results. But here's the problem: one of the things I'd like to talk about in therapy is my lack of motivation to do just about anything. To do that, I'd have to find a therapist. To find a therapist, I'd have to do work. And I don't have the motivation to do work, so I don't go looking for shrinks. Is that a vicious cycle, or a catch-22? I tried reading that book once and got bored very quickly. “Whether you are an only child, [oldest child], middle child or [youngest] child, there are pros and cons to each,” Tahim said. “It’s how we choose to grow, learn and adapt … that truly matters.” While I could quibble about "choose," I'm reminded of one of my favorite quotes of all time, from cartoonist R.K. Milholland: In the end, we decide if we're remembered for what happened to us or for what we did with it. |
| Unlike yesterday's entry, I know exactly why I saved this one from Mental Floss: because words are fun. 15 Words Derived From Mythological Creatures—From “Money” to “Cereal” Characters of ancient Greek and Roman mythologies have worked their way into modern vocabularies. I'm also going to brag that I knew almost every one of these. You can believe me or not; doesn't change anything. As the first month of the year, January somewhat appropriately takes its name from the Roman god Janus, who was associated with entrances, doorways, gates, and beginnings. Knew that one, too, though January wasn't always the first month of the year. 15 more words we owe to the Greeks and Romans are explored here. And I'm not covering all 15. Aurora was the Roman goddess of the dawn... As the early-morning bringer of daily light, Aurora’s name later came to be attached to the famous dawn-like phenomenon of swirling colored arches of light that appear in the night sky at high and low latitudes. Okay, well, auroras aren't very dawn-like, from what little I've seen. And I've been trying to see; there have been reports of auroras being seen all through the continental US due to a recent solar storm but, as usual, I saw nothing. Hyacinth is said to have been a beautiful young man who was struck on the head and killed while the god Apollo taught him how to throw a discus. At least he didn't teach him how to throw a disco. This, by the way, was the one I hadn't been aware of. Both money and the coin-producing mint where it is made take their names from Juno Moneta, an epithet for the Roman goddess Juno specifically associated with an ancient temple erected in her honor on Rome’s Capitoline Hill. What the linked article doesn't say, and is only mentioned in passing at the link given there, is that the actual translation of "Moneta" is "warner," as in "she who warns." I find this, in connection to money, amusing. Derived ultimately from a Greek word meaning a distribution or doling out of something, Nemesis was the name of a Greek (and later Roman) goddess of retribution and divine vengeance, who was tasked with either punishing or rewarding people for their evil or benevolent actions. And yet the "rewarding" part gets neglected. There are, of course, more at the link, for those who enjoy etymology. Just, as usual with MF, don't take anything too seriously unless you've double-checked the facts. |
| This is one of those times when I don't remember the original reason I saved something. But whatever; I'll find something to yap about. From NPR: I guess I might have kept it because it's a word origin thing, and I do like knowing origins. But I've known this word's origin for decades, so I don't know. Since the word was coined in the 18th century, "serendipity" has been used to describe all kinds of scientific and technological breakthroughs, including penicillin, the microwave oven and Velcro. I'll take their word for it. For now. And let's not forget that it was the name of the charming 2001 romantic comedy... I'd already forgotten, thanks. "Serendipity" — as the Merriam-Webster dictionary defines it — is "the ability to find valuable or agreeable things not sought for" or "luck that takes the form of such finding." A dictionary, being descriptive and not prescriptive, is the beginning of understanding, not the end. While the word has often been associated with good fortune or happy accidents, its origin suggests that serendipity goes beyond just happenstance. Some researchers argue that serendipity can be acquired through skill and that opportunities for serendipitous moments occur more frequently than we realize. Okay, but wouldn't that give it a different definition? The term was introduced by English politician and writer Horace Walpole in a letter dated Jan. 28, 1754. Walpole is widely credited with writing the first gothic novel, The Castle of Otranto, but he was also the inventor of dozens of words in the English language, including "souvenir" and "nuance,"... Well, I thought "souvenir" was French, but I suppose someone had to port it to English. "Nuance" is definitely from French. Walpole said he drew inspiration from a Persian fairy tale, "The Three Princes of Serendip." (Serendip is a historical name for Sri Lanka.) No idea why I remembered that word origin over lo these many years, when I've forgotten so much else. Over the years, the definition of "serendipity" has broadened slightly. "I think often now people will use it in a bit more of a generic sense to mean a positive thing that happened by chance," Gorrie said. " It's the same basic meaning, but it's less to do with finding and more just to do with happening." Yeah, words have a tendency to do that. Personally, I don't know if I've ever used the word in other writing (besides today). I don't particularly like it. It's too close to "serenity," for one thing; and, for another, I suppose I was never quite sure of its nuance (see what I did there?) For a third thing, I can't say or even think the word without thinking "Dippity Do." However, to Sanda Erdelez, a professor at the School of Library and Information Science at Simmons University, serendipity involves more than just being at the right place at the right time. " What matters is not just chance, but how people recognize this opportunity and then how they act on that opportunity," she said. "There is actually an element of human agency in it." I could argue that the ability to recognize and act on an opportunity is itself a form of luck: either you start out with that character trait, or you find an article like this one, by chance, and decide to work on that aspect of yourself. (Whether such efforts can be successful, I leave up to the reader.) In her research, Erdelez focused on how people come across information important to them either unexpectedly or when they are not actively looking for it. She called them "super-encounterers." "These are people who have a high level of curiosity," Erdelez said. "[They] have either a number of hobbies or interest areas so they can see connections between various things." Oh. Yeah. That's why I saved this article: I consider myself a curious person with many areas of interest, and for as long as I can remember, I've tried to see connections between disparate things. It is, I think, a good trait for a writer to have. So, for those on the hunt for serendipitous moments, Erdelez suggests carving out time from a busy schedule to give chance a good chance to happen. Yeah, that borders on mysticism, but I'm not going to quibble about that; serendipity or not, I can't help but feel it's important to do that anyway. |
| While LiveScience isn't where I'd go for trustworthy scientific information, this article had enough of interest for me to share. Is the sun really a dwarf star? Our sun is huge, at least compared to Earth and the other planets. So is it really a dwarf? Well, I don't know. Is the Dead Sea really a sea? Are the Blue Ridge really mountains? Is the East River a river? And I won't get us started on Pluto again. The sun is the biggest object in the solar system; at about 865,000 miles (1.4 million kilometers) across, it's more than 100 times wider than Earth. Using linear measurements to compare celestial bodies can be misleading. Sure, you can try to picture 100 Earths edge-to-edge across the sun's apparent disc, or find one of the many illustrations of such that exist. Or you can look up a volumetric comparison to find that its volume is like 1,300,000 times that of Earth's.This doesn't mean that 1.3M Earths would fit inside the thing. Think of a crate of oranges, and how there's always space between the spheres. Despite being enormous, our star is often called a "dwarf." So is the sun really a dwarf star? We could call it a "tank" if we wanted to. So is the sun really a tank star? My point here is that, at first glance, this isn't a science question; it's one of categorization or nomenclature. It's like asking "is homo sapiens really sapiens?" Dwarf stars got their name when Danish astronomer Ejnar Hertzsprung noticed that the reddest stars he observed were either much brighter or much fainter than the sun. He called the brighter ones "giants" and the dimmer ones "dwarfs..." I do like knowing the history of science, and of words. Here, just as a wild guess, Hertzsprung was probably drawing on Norse mythology, which is absolutely crawling with giants and dwarfs. Incidentally, there's some debate over the difference between "dwarfs" and "dwarves." Best I can tell, "dwarves" is generally used for the fantasy race popularized by Tolkien and blatantly stolen by D&D (Tolkien himself stole it from Norse mythology). From what I understand, humans of smaller stature prefer "dwarfs," and it's also the nomenclature for astronomical objects. The sun is currently more similar in size and brightness to smaller, dimmer stars called red dwarfs than to giant stars, so the sun and its brethren also became classified as dwarf stars. Like I said, it's a categorization thing. Also, "currently" is misleading. Yes, based on our best available information, the sun won't stay the same forever; it'll eventually blow up and turn red, or vice-versa. But "eventually" means billions of years from now. Calling the sun yellow is a bit of a misnomer, however, as the sun's visible output is greatest in the green wavelengths, Guliano explained. But the sun emits all visible colors, so "the actual color of sunlight is white," Wong said. One reason some non-scientists can't get into science is the nomenclature, though. For instance, the sun is also described, by astrophysicists at least, as a black body. As in black-body radiation. This confuses the fuck out of people, and they start muttering about "common sense," as if that were something that existed. "The sun is yellow, but less-massive main sequence stars are orange or red, and more massive main sequence stars are blue," Carles Badenes, a professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Pittsburgh, told Live Science. One of the science things that confused me as a kid was that, with stars, red is cooler and blue is hotter. Our bathroom faucet was labeled with blue for cold water and red for hot. Thus began my journey of understanding. Color is probably less confusing than "dwarf" vs. "giant," though one can take those descriptions as being "smaller than average" or "larger than average" without getting too far off track. And yet, as we've seen, color descriptions can be misleading, as well. Whatever box you put the sun in, and no matter how much I mutter about "the accursed daystar," it's still the sun, and while I avoid its direct rays like a vampire, it would suck if it weren't there. |
| Today's entry is a brief introspection that you can blame on "26 Paychecks " [E] Write a 300 to 500 word piece about a writing project that you have been working on, but aren't pushing through to completion. Explain the project: genre, plot synopsis, expected length (short story, saga, epic, novel, series). Tell us how long ago you started writing it. Tell us why you stopped working on it, or why the work is not advancing. Tell us what people in this group or on Writing.Com could do to help you see your project through to the end. By “have been working on,” I suppose “only in my head” counts. There was a NaNo project I did lo these many years ago. It’s meant to be a science fiction novel set in the next century, where human travel outside the Earth-Moon system is still not done for various technical and political reasons. Without giving away too much, the story is mostly about one pilot who breaks that barrier in a newly designed ship, built in secret and in contravention of international laws, in order to retrieve an ice asteroid that will make her orbital community more self-reliant and less dependent on Earth or Luna (such self-sufficiency is, of course, what those laws were written to prevent). How long ago? I don’t know. It’s gotta be going on 20 years now. This is how I know I’m just not cut out to be a real writer: not because of lack of writing ability or ideas, but an utter inability to see things through. Why did I stop working on it? Well, for starters, every time I looked at it as an editing project, I found something less like work to do. For finishers, the political milieu of the story is: a conservative, fascist, racist, protectionist hybrid corpo-theocracy has taken over most of the US, and, after Civil War II, the US is no longer the US but fractured into, basically, Good States (California, New York, etc.) and Bad States (Texas, Florida, etc.) That’s not actually what they’re called, but that’s the idea. Other countries are aligned with one or the other, but the biggest global power in the novel is a different, rival theocracy to the one in the former US. Since I started writing the story, the US started heading for Civil War II, thanks to a conservative, fascist, racist, protectionist hybrid corpo-theocracy, so the milieu I envisioned has gone from “yeah, right” science fiction to “it took no genius to predict that” science fiction. So that’s why I’m not working on it now, apart from sheer laziness: my ability to do so without cackling at just how spot on my political, if not technological, projections were, would get in the way. It pays to be a pessimist; you can always find something to cackle about. Tell us what people in this group or on Writing.Com could do to help you see your project through to the end. If anyone could “help” me, I’d have completed it already. No, at some point, I simply gave up all hope of ever finishing that, or the three other novels I have in draft form, all promising, none actually finished. (And that's still less than 500 words except for the italicized bits, which were just the assignments.) |
| Here's a short one from The Conversation which could perhaps have been a lot shorter. Shorter how? Shorter by saying "Don't go on social media." But, I suppose people are going to go there anyway, so I suppose the article is relevant. When graphic videos go viral, like the recent fatal shooting of Charlie Kirk, it can feel impossible to protect yourself from seeing things you did not consent to see. People have different tolerances for "disturbing" content, so yes, it should be up to the user. Kind of like with the Content Rating System here. The major platforms have also reduced their content moderation efforts over the past year or so. That means upsetting content can reach you even when you never chose to watch it. One could argue that you chose to watch it by being on the platform in the first place. Research shows that repeated exposure to violent or disturbing media can increase stress, heighten anxiety and contribute to feelings of helplessness. And I went to the link to the "study" and it's not enough to convince me that this is the correct conclusion. Still, whatever the reason, if you don't want to see certain types of media, that's your choice. Practical steps you can take I'm obviously not going to copy all of them here. Set boundaries. Reserve phone-free time during meals or before bed. Research shows that intentional breaks reduce stress and improve well-being. This is just going to make you see less content overall, not just less disturbing content. Social media is not neutral. Its algorithms are engineered to hold your attention, even when that means amplifying harmful or sensational material. I have no reason to disbelieve this, but it seems to me to be one of those things where, even if it's not true, it helps to assume that it is. I’m the executive director of the Post-Internet Project, a nonprofit dedicated to helping people navigate the psychological and social challenges of life online. Oh, now I see the author's bias. You can try the PRISM process for yourself with an online class... You know what's worse than the worst, most disturbing content on social media? Stealth ads. |
| I don't remember why I saved this one. I have absolutely no recollection of anything I might have thought about it at the time. But it's funny, so here: I know, I know. What with everything going on in the world, why talk about someone's home invasion by Robert T. Catt? Well, remember what I said yesterday about absurdism? Yeah. "I looked and there's a cat. What I thought was a cat," Aprea said. "It took me a second. I'm like, 'Why is there a cat? And how did it get in?' And then, I stared at it for a second, and, 'Oh my goodness, that's not a cat!'" I mean, technically, it's a cat? It's just not a cuddly one. Well, technically, it's cuddly once. Aprea said her dog had been barking at the bobcat, which was sitting in the corner of the room. That is the actual, literal definition of "not news." Right up there with "dog bites man." It would be newsworthy if the bobcat barked at the dog. Her husband and son managed to coax the bobcat back outside, but not before it scaled the door, leaving scratches on the wood from its claws. To be serious for a moment, I'm glad this encounter with wildlife ended well for the wildlife. Too many times, the humans' answer is "SHOOT IT." "I'm going to leave those scratches on my wall forever so I can say, yeah, yeah, that was a bobcat," she said. Oh, I'd absolutely do that. And the only other thing I can think of right now is this classic xkcd strip. |
| Despite the seasonal nature of the headline here, from Big Think, it's still relevant. What would be a good gift to buy a philosopher? I'm disappointed one of the answers wasn't "Nothing; it's the thought that counts." But as I've said, philosophers have no sense of humor. We have a different name for philosophers with a sense of humor: comedians. But there was one answer that really got me thinking. I am sure it was meant as a joke, but you have to be careful joking with the philosophically minded. Because quite a few people said “purpose” or “meaning.” Case in point. And yes, you do "have to be careful joking with the philosophically minded." Like little kids, they can be annoyingly literal. Source: me, who can be annoyingly literal. In his book, Mortal Questions, [Thomas] Nagel has an entire essay devoted to the “absurd.” Absurdity — traditionally represented by Albert Camus — is the philosophical position that humans are caught in this dreadful existential disappointment: We are a meaning-seeking, meaning-needing species, and yet the Universe is meaningless. We’re wired to want a thing that the Universe cannot provide. Which is not to say that this is right or wrong. Personally, I disagree with some of the premises there, but it's not about whether we agree or not. Nagel, though, thinks that all this talk of “meaning” is a misguided fool’s errand. In his essay, Nagel argues that we can identify three different types of meaning-grasping angst in the philosophical literature, and all of them are logically flawed. Kind of ironic, isn't it? To spend so much time arguing against something that, by your own definition, isn't meaningful? Sometimes I think the only true philosophers are the ones who don't find their meaning in publishing philosophical essays. First, the Argument of Time When we think “everything I’ve done will end in death” and “nothing will matter in a thousand years,” then it is enough to push you into an existential crisis. Or, as I like to put it, "There's no such thing as a happy ending, only stories that end too early." So, imagine that on Christmas Day, you open a box containing a magic amulet that gives you immortality... Is this any more meaningful a life than the one you have now? I think it's already been pretty well established that death is part of what gives life what meaning it has. Second, the Argument of Size But I'm assured that size doesn't matter. Now, imagine you open a present that contains an elixir that makes you the size of the Universe... Would you now have any more purpose to your existence? Purpose? No. Something else to do? Sure. Third, the Argument of Use What is the point of anything at all? We waste our lives trudging to jobs we hate, to talk with people we don’t like, to live in a town we want to leave, and aspire to a future that was never what we wanted. Need a blankie? Nagel’s point to all of this is that when we talk about “meaning,” we often talk about it as a question without an answer. And? Isn't that what Zen koans are, except the questions are at least more poetic in nature? But while Nagel argues that Camus’s scorn and defiance are a little bit dramatic, he does agree that the best approach to “questions of meaning” is to live ironically. Okay, I can get behind that. We need to commit to life seriously while knowing that it has no “meaning” beyond what it is. But I can't get behind that. At least, not for the standard definition of "seriously." I can fulfill my obligations as a human without being all serious about them. In fact, if it's not obvious, my personal philosophy is that everything is, or can be, funny, so a sense of humor is far more important to me than a sense of meaning. As I like to say, if you want meaning, grab a dictionary. |
| Another argument for why science fiction should be required reading, from Cracked: 15 Scientific Breakthroughs That Just Might Not Be Great For Humanity Have none of these people seen sci-fi thrillers?! This is the SF equivalent of that carved bone thing from a couple of days ago. After reading some of these, we might honestly head for the hills and start a new life amongst the trees. And if you also read fantasy, you'd know why that's a bad idea. 15 Hybrid human-AI co-embodied intelligence You know, this, or something like it, is quite literally the oldest theme in science fiction. Researchers have begun deploying robots guided by AI to run chemistry experiments, handle materials, data-analysis, and lab workflows. I don't expect a whole lot from Cracked these days, but that sentence doesn't say "co-embodied intelligence" to me. 14 Lethal autonomous weapons This is one of those things that was going to happen with or without SF. 12 We’re very close to mind-reading Doubt. A recent study reports that a new neurotechnology can now predict preconscious thoughts — i.e. indicating what a person is about to think before they consciously realize it. Yeah, not exactly, and even the article notes that it would need to hold up under further scientific scrutiny. 10 Brain-computer interfaces This is a more modern staple of SF, and it can, like most technology, be either good or evil. My own thought is that they'll immediately figure out how to project ads directly into our brains with it. 6 Social credit & behavioral scoring Yeah, considering how well the actual credit scoring system works, you know that will not end well, even if you haven't seen Black Mirror. 3 Predictive policing algorithms Isn't that, like, the heart of every techno-dystopia? 1 “Chemputation” Speaking of dystopias, I was pretty sure that cutesy portmanteau was of "chemical" and "amputation." Nope, turns out it's about computation. Much less dystopian. Going to leave it at that for today; for some reason, I'm having to wrestle extra-hard with the text editor. There are, of course, more items at the link. |
| Because my schedule got disrupted with jury duty today, I'll talk about that instead of... you know, whatever the random number voices tell me I should talk about. Given the responses to my notebook post this morning "Note: A quick update for my adoring fans: I'm ..." I figured I might as well address them (In reference to the gif I used, which includes "Justice will be served") Always Humble Poet PNG- 📓  : I'll have mine with neeps & tatties, please.And the next comment, Jeromée  : nipps and tats for mine please  To which I feel obliged to say: I'd rather have nips and tits. Preferably someone else's. Cray Cray ☮  : I want to know more! We don't have jury duty here in Malaysia.Okay, well, the short version is that the US Constitution entitles people accused of a crime to certain rights, among them being "presumed innocent until found guilty" and "trial by jury." The jury is made up of citizens selected basically at random from public records, such as voter registration lists. The theory behind it, as I understand it, is to have a suspect's fate determined by their peers: actual human beings and not lawyers. Partly this is because, most times, the law (and a thing a person does) is open to some interpretation; and sometimes, the law is utter bullshit. The jury selection process, at least from my point of view this time, was: Go in, get assigned a number. Wait. Get called into the courtroom and listen to what the judge says. Get sworn in with questions like "Are you a US citizen and a resident of (whatever)?" Then, out of the 40 people who showed, up, they selected 20 at random. I mean, like, they put numbers in a bag and pulled them out one at a time while joking about getting a bingo machine (I don't expect judges to have a sense of humor, but this one did). Those 20 (one of which was not me) go through a striking process, where attorneys for prosecution and defense can disqualify a juror, usually based on their answers to other questions. For example, an attorney in an illegal drug case might ask "do you have a family member or friend with a drug problem?" And if they say yes, that indicates they might have a bias. This wasn't one of those cases, but that's the idea. Obviously it's not possible to eliminate all bias, but they do try to ensure fairness. In the US, the jury determines, based on the evidence provided by the prosecution (and possibly the defense), whether the defendant is guilty of the particular crime or not. I'm not sure about this part, but it's my understanding that a judge can overrule a jury's guilty verdict, but not their not-guilty verdict. Anyway, striking reduces that 20 down to 12. Or maybe even less, so they might pull from the remaining 20, so we had to sit around and wait. Yeah, lots of sit around and wait happened. Bottom line is I got through it without them calling me, so I didn't get to see the courtroom thing play out. On the plus side, I got sent home a lot earlier than the actual selected jurors. On the minus side, there's a superflu going around and I was one of like three people who bothered with a mask. So if I die in the next couple of weeks, that's why. Brandiwyn🎶 v.2026  : You'd better be blogging about your wardrobe.B here is referring to a post I made in her rant forum: "Jury Rigged" , in which I sought fashion advice.You'll be disappointed to know that all I did was put a nice warm shirt, the kind with a collar and buttons up the front, with a solid color, on over my T-shirt, and wore actual shoes with socks. Oh, and I did remember to wear jeans as well. The only people there who were dressed more formally were one young potential juror who wasn't old enough to stop giving shits, and the attorneys and defendant. And the judge, presumably, under the traditional black robe, though for all I know he had his dick hanging out under there. 🌝 HuntersMoon  : At least you're on the right side of the jury box...  ...for now. John  : I've never been chosen for Jury Duty.My wife says it is because I always suggest submerging the accused in a frigid stream. The innocent will float to the top. Ot is it the guilty . . I get confused with that part. And that is an example of why a juror might get struck off the list. One final note: A lot of people complain about jury duty, and go to great lengths (including committing perjury) to get out of it. That ain't me. Maybe if I had to do it more than about once every decade, it would become burdensome, but as it is, it's an opportunity to learn something and contribute to one of the few remaining principles that we have as a country. |
| I saw this at BBC and I just had to make a comment. My comment is this: Don't these people watch horror movies? Come ON! An "extraordinary" artefact believed to date back to the late Roman period has been unearthed in a Worcestershire town. I mean, that's cool and all, but will it improve the sauce? The bone box was recovered from the grave of a young woman with archaeologists believing the find could... ...fulfill the Prophecy by awakening the Great Old Ones to purge the land. Okay, seriously, the article is light on details, but has a picture, and the find really is pretty interesting. Short entry today because I don't really have a lot else to say about it, but I feel like what I did have to say was important. |
| Continuing a theme, by chance, there's this recent anti-doom article from The Conversation. What's a US philosopher? One who thinks before pulling the trigger? Can one individual truly change the world? I've had my doubts about this for a while. US philosophers Michael Brownstein, Alex Madva and Daniel Kelly believe individuals can make a difference. And all you have to do is buy our book! No, seriously, they want you to buy their book. The article says so. The authors aim to show readers how certain personal choices can alter the “structures” and “systems” that govern the myriad decisions we make, usually quite passively. Um, that sounds like just another inspirational "self-help" book. Written for a general audience, the gist of their argument is captured by the words of US environmental activist Bill McKibben. “The most important thing an individual can do,” he once said, “is become somewhat less of an individual.” Pithy and all, but I think it undermines the idea that one person can change the world, at least not by themselves. You might have a good idea or a brilliant invention, but it doesn't do any good if other people don't adopt it. As for changing the world for the worse, well, I think it's trivial to say that yes, for the worse, one individual can make a difference. This book is timely. In the Anglosphere, and further afield, many people are unhappy. Ah, yes, the essence of advertising: You're missing a piece. You're unhappy. I can help, for a price. One response has been a widespread loss of belief that joining an established political party or even voting in an election can achieve change. As they say, if voting could actually change things, it would be illegal. (Yes, I do it anyway.) The authors are strong critics of the “self-responsibilisation” that big fossil fuel, tobacco, betting and other companies have foisted on people to head off real systemic change. Now, on that, I can tentatively agree. I've been saying for years that it shouldn't all be on us. They advocate an approach in which individuals focus on those activities most likely to trigger other people into changing entrenched structures. That, at least, has potential. In many respects, the book is inspiring. The examples show how some ordinary people can become change agents without, metaphorically, having to climb Mount Everest. And that's cool and all, but, first of all, that sounds like those business success stories you always hear: Ordinary people, hard work, grit, determination, getting up at 4am, blah, blah... sure, but what about the vastly larger number of people who did all that and still failed? Second of all, one of my favorite memes is the one that goes "Every corpse on Mount Everest was once a highly motivated person." Anyway, there's a lot more at the article which, despite being a blatant book ad, is an interesting read. |
| From Nautilus, one of those questions whose answers we're never going to agree on. What Is Intelligence? At a church in Italy, we sought to shed an old definition for one that could save us "Save us?" Okay, clickbait. Tell me how it's going to "save us" to define a word. We were in the Tuscan countryside on an impossibly green hilltop, nothing but sheep bleating in the distance, and the creak of iron gates, flanked by carved stone lions, at the end of a gravel drive lined with Italian cypress trees. Okay, now you're just bragging. Gleiser fixed up the 500-year-old chapel with a dream of turning it into a think tank and named it the Island of Knowledge. There is something immensely satisfying about turning a church into a place where knowledge is sought, not repressed. We were here to come up with a new definition of intelligence. The old one, according to Gleiser, won’t do. “We have an ideology of infinite growth on a finite planet,” he said. And? I've been saying this for years, and so have others, and yet no one with the power to do anything about it has ever done anything about it. I guess except maybe once, when China had a one-child policy, but they abandoned that because people are gonna people no matter what. “That’s obviously not sustainable. What kind of intelligence are we using to create this scenario? That keeps me up at night.” Maybe if you were intelligent, you'd know it was out of your hands and get some better sleep. To expand the definition of intelligence, Gleiser brought together cognitive neuroscientist Peter Tse; astrophysicist Adam Frank; evolutionary ecologist Monica Gagliano; philosopher Evan Thompson; technology critic and essayist Meghan O’Gieblyn; and Indigenous scholar Yuria Celidwen. Kind of like one of those carefully diverse superhero teams, I guess. Celidwen handed us each a dried leaf, which she produced from a small pouch, then told us to taste it. “Let it explore your palate,” she said. I pretended to comply but palmed mine, wondering what it would be like to be the kind of person who puts a strange thing in their mouth just because someone tells them to. I think I'm beginning to better understand "intelligence." And, you know, so much for turning a church into a place to explore knowledge. This was not going to be a typical scientific conference. Which I suppose made sense when you’re trying to overhaul typical scientific ideas. Poems would be recited. Tears would be shed. We weren’t allowed to wear shoes. There's a big part of my psyche that is forever salty that I was born too late to experience the sixties in all their glory. But then I see something like this and go, "Nah." Intelligence is usually understood as the ability to use reason to solve problems, skillfully wielding knowledge to achieve particular ends. Crucial point here: Intelligence is not the same thing as knowledge. In 1949, at Manchester University, a computer scientist, a chemist, a philosopher, a zoologist, a neurophysiologist, and a mathematician got together to debate whether intelligence could ever be instantiated in machines. In a bar? Please tell me it was in a bar. Or, wait. Manchester: Pub. Whatever. One of the participants, Alan Turing, inspired by the discussion, went home and wrote up his “imitation game,” now known as the Turing test, where a machine is dubbed intelligent if, through text conversation alone, it can fool us into thinking it’s human. It is funny how no one talks about the Turing test anymore. Thing is, I have met scadoodles of humans who could not pass the Turing test. I figure it's likely that the concept inspired PKD to come up with the fictional Voight-Kampff test to tell replicants from humans in the story that became Blade Runner. Thing is, from what little we know about the VK test, Dick seems to have been more focused on emotion than on intelligence, which, again, I suspect many humans (e.g. sociopaths and some of the neurodiverse) wouldn't pass, either. Seventy-five years later, we’ve got chatbots acing the Turing test, and science conceiving of brains as Turing machines. Is it possible we’re missing something? Of course we're missing something. I'm just not sure that "something" is hippie crap. Inside the church, I could feel Gleiser’s urgency as he launched the discussion. Could the world agree on a new definition of intelligence before our collective stupidity destroys us? It's not our stupidity that will destroy us. Lots of animals are stupid, by at least some definition, and most of them don't show any signs of wanting to destroy the world. And intelligence can be used for positive or negative things, and anything in between. No, if we destroy ourselves, it won't be a matter of intelligence, by any plausible definition, but shortsightedness. And maybe a little game theory: the first person or group who deliberately puts themselves at a disadvantage will be overrun by the groups that don't. When nothing matters, nothing is a problem. Nothing means anything. “People call large language models ‘stochastic parrots,’ ” Thompson said. “But I think it’s insulting to parrots.” Congratulations; you have reinvented nihilism. There's quite a bit more at the link, though I wonder at the intelligence of trying to redefine an old word instead of coming up with and defining a new concept that might do a better job convincing the general public as well as those who might actually be able to do something about the problems. Despite my snark above, and a lingering doubt about their methods, I gotta give them props for trying to do something. And, if nothing else, at least they got to go to a retreat in fucking Tuscany. |
| Words about words, from Mental Floss: 20 Everyday Words and Phrases Turning 50 in 2026 These familiar words and sayings aren’t as old as you might think. It’s easy to forget that new words, just like everything else that comes in and out of fashion, are being coined all the time. One of the things I'm most salty about in life, and no I will not get over it, is that no one recognizes that I coined the word "rad." Well, not the word, but the meaning, as in "that shit's totally rad, bro." Now, it's entirely possible that someone else came up with it independently. Still, it stings to never get the credit I deserved. ...as best as their research can tell us, all the words and phrases in this list were coined precisely 50 years ago, in 1976. I have my doubts. Still, it's probably a decent look at what words/phrases hit the mainstream in '76, which, for context, is the year Jimmy Carter was elected President. As usual, I'm only going to cover a few of these. Athleisure The likes of tracksuits, spandex, and sneakers began to step out of the gym and into everyday fashion in the 1970s, leading to an athleisure trend that has continued to grow ever since. I haven't heard or seen that word, outside of this article, in some time, so I don't know if it's still relevant. What is relevant is that it started, or perhaps elevated, a trend of stupid fucking portmanteaux that all need to die. Butterfly Effect The popular metaphor of the tiny flap of a butterfly’s wings sparking an eventually large-scale chain reaction has been discussed since the early 1970s at least. But both Merriam-Webster and the Oxford English Dictionary have traced the very earliest written record of the butterfly effect to an article published in the scientific journal Nature in 1976. Okay, maybe. That one's related to chaos theory: that a butterfly flapping in the Amazon can, due to the way chaos works, lead to a typhoon in the Pacific. Not that such a thing can be predicted or controlled; that's why it's called chaos. But I'm pretty sure chaos theory was introduced in the early 60s, and even before that, there was Bradbury's "A Sound of Thunder," which speculated on large-scale changes in time thanks to some idiot stepping on a butterfly after time-traveling to the distant past. That's not an obscure SF short story, either; it's one of the acknowledged all-time greats. Couch Potato TV played such a big part in 1970s homelife that this was the era when the couch potato was born. Defined by Merriam-Webster as “a lazy and inactive person, especially one who spends a great deal of time watching television,” etymologically, the term might just allude to the dormancy of potatoes below ground. In the late 70s / early 80s, I proposed alternatives to this one: Bench Fry, and Sofa Spud. Neither of those caught on. French Press The very first kettle—or pitcher-like devices for brewing loose coffee, which can then be pushed to the bottom of the vessel using a metal plunger—were supposedly developed in France in the mid-1800s. You know, with the exception of "fries," I can't think offhand of any phrases that start with "French" that aren't inherently sexual. Okay, maybe fries, too. Meme Richard Dawkins coined the word meme as “a unit of cultural transmission” in his groundbreaking book exploring gene-centered evolution, The Selfish Gene, in 1976. Lest we forget what that word is supposed to mean. That its popular definition has changed since then is one of the finest examples of irony that I know. Radical Derived from the Latin word for a plant’s root, radical first emerged in medieval English in its original and literal sense, to refer to anything growing or deriving from a root, and therefore vital or essential to life or survival. And I'm the one who shortened it, dammit! Wuss No one is entirely sure where the word wuss comes from... Oh come on. As the article suggests, it's a combination of "wimp" and "pussy." My guess is someone started to say "wimp" but his (it was almost certainly "his") tiny brain tried to change it to "pussy" halfway, and behold, a new insult was born. I don't know why "pussy" got associated with wimpiness in the first place, anyway. Those things evolved to be tough. Their male counterparts are far more fragile. |
| Today, we're back to food, but with an article of limited use to those who don't live in pawpaw country. From Atlas Obscura: Kitchen Dispatch: A Quest to Create the Perfect Pawpaw Ice Cream The wild-growing fruit is best found through foraging, and custard turned out to be the key ingredient. And I do live in pawpaw country. Or I did. They grew wild in the woods where I spent my childhood. As the weather got colder last week, I decided it was the perfect time to make pawpaw ice cream. I was wondering why there's a December article about ice cream in the northern hemisphere, but really, ice cream is a forever treat. I tested several recipes I thought would work well with the fruit’s flavor—a mix of banana, mango, and durian. None of which, I must emphasize, are native to Virginia. Not by a long shot. Hell, durian grows on damn near the opposite side of the planet. (I'll refrain from making durian jokes this time after a faux pas in the newsfeed yesterday.) Flavor is flavor, though. My dad always called them "Virginia bananas." I chose a simple ice cream recipe, a mixture of pawpaw puree, sugar, cream, and milk. Unfortunately, Dad never figured out how to prepare pawpaw, and my mother refused to. Just as well, considering her other attempts at cooking. She tried, she really did, but just never got the hang of it. Since pawpaws are notoriously difficult to cultivate, foraging is the best way to obtain a large amount. But that's work. On the other hand, it's probably cheap, or even, in my case, free. The author apparently lives in New York, and honestly, I didn't know pawpaws ranged all the way up there. Nice to learn new things. Making ice cream is, of course, also work, so I won't be doing it. Still, it's nice to know that this relatively obscure wild fruit, connected to my personal history in some small way, is getting the respect it deserves. |
View Portfolio
Visit Notebook
Send Gift Points
Awards
Badges
Send Email
Community Newsfeed
Puzzle Hub
General Discussion
Sponsored Items
Book of Trinkets
Static Items
Books
Groups
Interactive Stories
Audio
Campfire Creatives
Community Notes
Crossword Puzzles
Documents
Folders
Images
In & Outs
Madlibs
Photo Albums
Polls
Product Reviews
Quizzes
Survey Forms
Web Pages
Word Searches
