I’ve heard of nigging but I’ve never heard of this.

Um I hope you mean negging

Even if we were to produce 100 000 000 perfect replicas of our genes they would still hit the same wall— extinction.

Doesn’t matter, had sex.

From their taller exes

“Mogging” as a term originated in the early 2000’s and went mainstream-ish in the late 2000’s when the “pickup artist” community started getting attention in places like the New York Times. The people who originated it are probably like 45-50 years old now.

Quick etymology: comes from these pseudoscientific douchebags trying to name the phenomenon where a man tries to subtly belittle another man in front of women, establishing that he’s the AMOG (alpha male of group), eventually became a verb amogging or mogging, and then various specific types of this behavior earned prefixes: heightmogging, etc.

The fact that it has this kind of staying power, 20 years later, is the surprising part.

It sounds like the thesis to David Epstein’s book, Range. When I read it, it was a game changer for me.

If I recall correctly, the main examples were Roger Federer (who played a lot of sports and didn’t choose to specialize in tennis until much later than the typical tennis pro), jazz legend Django Reinhardt, Vincent Van Gogh, and a bunch of other less famous, but much more typical examples.

Sampling is important, and has value beyond just the things they sampled and abandoned. The act of trying many different things is itself helpful.

Van Gogh wouldn’t have become the artist he became if he didn’t fizzle out of multiple career paths beforehand.

David Epstein’s Range really explores this idea and puts forth a pretty convincing argument that sampling and delaying specialization is helpful for becoming the type of well rounded generalist whose skills are best suited for our chaotic world.

Some daals are spicy, and could arguably be considered British?

The studio laughter (or canned laughter) still adds something. I’m not a fan of any multi cam sitcoms since Seinfeld ended, but as the article mentioned, it still does something for shows like SNL.

COVID showed that some variety type shows normally filmed before an audience still benefit from having an audience. John Oliver’s show without laughter seemed weird. Some standup comics have played around with the genre without an audience, and it’s really interesting.

So I’m with this article. It’s a legitimate style of show that uses the laughter.

Also, it’s not like you’d need the power of the government to make this happen. This is the job of an event planner, not a politician.

If someone wants this to happen, there’s nothing stopping them other than their own resources and their own ability.

not someone you wanna prone bone anyway

I actually laughed out loud at the specificity here. Thank you for this, you’ve brightened my day.

Blues Brothers and Wayne’s World were successful enough that people forget that they originated as SNL sketches. And, because they were the first, they kept on trying.

The category as a whole isn’t exactly very impressive, as movies.

But the originating sketches that developed the characters were…fine.

It’s Pat, the movie, was a notorious commercial bomb, and sold basically no tickets.

It was made, though, because the recurring SNL sketch was popular enough to attract the investment.

There’s never gonna be a universally good unit for energy. Calories work well for heat, watt hours for stored or metered electrical energy, even electron volts for certain quantum physics. Plus the actual SI standard of joules.

I’m a subscriber to their monthly print copy, and a lot of the stories in the print version don’t make it to the website as quickly. I’ve got the February copy on my desk with the following headlines:

• Trump Administration Offers Free At-Home Loyalty Tests: Tool That Diagnoses Disobedience to be Mailed to U.S. Households
• U.S. Military Bans Men With Girl Names From Combat - Wars Will No Longer Be Fought By Male Shannons, Terrys, or Carmens
• Baby Saves Affair: Illicit Relationship Rekindled by Out-of-Wedlock Birth

As far as I can tell, these articles never made it online. And they are funny. Good coffee table material.

You guys are getting diagnosed?!?

It’s immunotherapy that prevents the cancers from deactivating the immune cells that would ordinarily kill the cancer cells. So it’s like a traditional vaccine in that it causes changes to the immune system to better equip it to fight disease, but it’s a pretty new methodology of accomplishing that.

I’m a human! I’m a human male!

In both of those examples, the actors played characters of their own race, pretending to be another race as the plot of the respective movies.

I feel the same way about the first and second Terminators, and the first Rambo and its sequels.

Focusing on ultra processed foods specifically calls out the obvious problem - we were significantly healthier before these foods were invented, and are less healthy after.

But what confounding variables have also increased during this time? Do we have endocrine disruptors in our drinking water or food packaging or in the foods themselves, from microplastics or whatever? Have we been fertilizing our fields with industrial waste containing toxic “forever chemicals”? Have we become more sedentary at home and at work? I mean, probably yes to all of these.

I do believe that nutrition is more than simple linear addition of the components in a food. But insights can still be derived from analyzing non-linear combinations (like studying the role of fiber or water or even air in foods for the perception of satiety or the speed that subject ingest food), or looking towards specific interactions between certain subsets of the population with specific nutrients. We can still derive information from the ingredients, even if we move past the idea that each ingredient acts on the body completely independently from the other ingredients in that food.

And look, I’m a skeptic of the NOVA system, but actually do appreciate its contribution in increasing awareness of those non-linear combinations. But I see it as, at most, a bridge to better science, not good science in itself.