tosser0001

I wonder how true this really is if you make an reasonable effort to keep yourself in shape. It wasn't until I hit 60 that I felt unquestionably different, and even then it wasn't terrible.

I know little about farming or harvesting, but I’m curious what types of crops actually require manual harvesting?

Do we really need to rely on stoop labor to hand-pick crops, or has a relatively cheap labor pool allowed farmers to avoid the costs of automation?

If labor is to be in perennial short supply in the future, I wonder if American farmers will simply be forced to turn to crops that allow machine harvesting.

One of the minor subplot points in Whit Stillman's movie "Metropolitan" was a couple of the characters' debate over the merits of "Mansfield Park".

I'm glad to see this material has a home, but I'm curious why it didn't end up at some institution in the Bay Area close to MMR's home

Unlike previous market turmoil (2008, 2020) where the U.S. at least had established global trade order to lean on for the recovery, this feels like the U.S. could be entering a period of sustained damage. I don't see how the U.S. recovers from this in anything like he near term. Americans will have to get used to a long stretch of low economic growth.

The global trade order is going to be reconfigured, but not in the way the Trump thinks. The U.S. is throwing up a wall around itself, but the rest world will continue with the current regime and likely move away from the U.S. permanently.

What's sad is, the Congress could simply revoke the ability for Trump to single-handedly make these tariffs, but they appear too cowed to do anything about it.

Anything that requires hard chewing like nuts, raw vegetables and tough meats.

The first I ever heard of this topic was from reading the book "The Evolution of the Human Head" (2011) by Daniel E. Lieberman. It's an academic book, and parts are not exactly light reading targeted for the general public. I had read it when it first came out, seemingly well before it because such of point of discussion.

The problem with this topic is, if you try to look anything up on line you can quickly find yourself in the "manosphere" with its associated toxicity.

Even the Wikipedia entry on them has the classic bean-shaped diagram. If they are not really like that, why did that become the standard representation? Have they always been know to exist in more network-like structures, and was that why there was initial resistance to seeing their origin in free-living prokaryotes?

An analog of the birthday paradox that gets me all the time is what I think of as The Locker Room Paradox. This is where when I go into the locker room after working out and the guy who comes in behind me ends in the locker right next to mine. So there’s two of us in a big empty room awkwardly jostling away.

The first record Enid looks at is actually by "R. Crumb and his Cheap Suit Serenaders" that Seymour directs her away from to another selection. Zwigoff was a member of that group.

1. There's a fun reference to this book in the movie "24 Hour Party People"

2. Chaucer's translation is referenced in the OED as the first use of the word "twitter" in the English language

Their “fame” certainly well pre-dated that movie. These were the ones I knew as a kid in the 60s and 70s, and would be featured in old stop animation movies even before my time.

There are a small handful of relatively well-know dinosaurs: stegosaurus being one of them. There’s also Tyrannosaurus rex, Brontosaurus (maybe you’re not supposed to call them that anymore), Triceratops and maybe a couple of others. Why were these ones so “famous”? Were they the earliest ones discovered? most common? Just fine examples of their type?

That doesn’t seem particularly fast of a spin and I’m surprised it’s the fastest one observed.

There is a moment in 2001: A Space Odyssey that I’ve always liked. It’s at about 1:13:15 or so, and is just a distant shot of the Discovery One. Suddenly two space rocks silently tumble past. I like the scene because it gives a sense of the scope and silence of outer space, but I suppose it would be incredibly rare to be so close to even one rock, let alone a pair. And they are tumbling at about the pace measured by the one in that article, so perhaps even rarer still.