WEBVTT - Listener Mail: Rejoice in the Sun 0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:05.280 Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of 0:00:05.360 --> 0:00:10.879 My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow your Mind. 0:00:11.200 --> 0:00:14.960 Listener Mail. My name is Robert Lamb and I'm Joe McCormack. 0:00:15.040 --> 0:00:17.119 In today we're bringing you some of the messages you 0:00:17.160 --> 0:00:19.920 have sent us are loyal mail bot. Carney is right 0:00:19.960 --> 0:00:22.920 here with us. It seems he has developed quite quite 0:00:22.920 --> 0:00:25.760 a card shark habit over the last week or so. 0:00:25.840 --> 0:00:28.840 He's wearing one of those green visors or wait, is 0:00:28.840 --> 0:00:31.680 that what poker players wear? Or is that like accountants 0:00:32.000 --> 0:00:34.560 may have gotten that next time. I think I've seen 0:00:34.600 --> 0:00:37.240 some card sharks wearing those things. Yeah, well they're trying 0:00:37.240 --> 0:00:39.159 to hide their expressions, right, so they wear like a 0:00:39.159 --> 0:00:42.000 hat and sunglasses and who knows what else at the table? 0:00:42.040 --> 0:00:44.720 Did any poker players just full on wear ski mask? 0:00:45.360 --> 0:00:48.160 I think it's frowned upon. I think it's frowned upon. 0:00:48.560 --> 0:00:50.839 But I'm sure that this, this new poker habit for 0:00:50.880 --> 0:00:53.680 Carney has been inspired by the card playing robots of 0:00:53.760 --> 0:00:57.120 Silent Running, one of our favorite films. Oh yeah, that's right, 0:00:57.160 --> 0:00:59.840 there's some there's some great card card playing robots in 0:00:59.840 --> 0:01:03.240 that one Hue we do and Louis Um those are 0:01:03.240 --> 0:01:05.640 some wonderful scenes and in large part because they're like 0:01:05.680 --> 0:01:08.120 a little bit they're a little bit clunky, you know, 0:01:08.200 --> 0:01:12.120 they're not They're not smooth. Those robots are the way 0:01:12.160 --> 0:01:14.800 that they interact with humans in their environment, but in 0:01:14.800 --> 0:01:19.399 a way that felt very real, very endearing. I loved it. Well, 0:01:19.400 --> 0:01:27.000 that'll come back up later on Robbert. You ready to 0:01:27.080 --> 0:01:29.760 jump right in? Should I read this message from Cody? 0:01:30.160 --> 0:01:33.800 Go for it? Okay, here is a sort of correction 0:01:33.880 --> 0:01:37.920 slash clarification on the Jupiter episode. At least from Cody's perspective, 0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:41.800 this starts high Joe plus Robert. I'm currently listening to 0:01:41.959 --> 0:01:45.440 part one of the Jupiter episodes, and as a recovering astronomer, 0:01:45.480 --> 0:01:48.120 I had to dash off this message when talking about 0:01:48.160 --> 0:01:52.240 whether our solar system is unusual or abnormal is compared 0:01:52.280 --> 0:01:55.120 to other planetary systems. It is crucial to keep in 0:01:55.160 --> 0:01:59.040 mind that the detection techniques that astronomers used to find 0:01:59.120 --> 0:02:05.360 extra solar planets preferentially biases their detections toward large planets 0:02:05.400 --> 0:02:08.520 close to their parents star. In other words, planets that 0:02:08.600 --> 0:02:11.239 tug a lot on their star or include its light 0:02:11.600 --> 0:02:15.000 on short periods. And to expand on that a little bit. 0:02:15.200 --> 0:02:17.560 So some of the main ways we've had in the 0:02:17.600 --> 0:02:22.400 past of checking whether another star has an exoplanet orbiting 0:02:22.400 --> 0:02:25.919 it is by things like the radial velocity test, which 0:02:26.080 --> 0:02:29.400 checks to see if the host star is wobbling basically 0:02:29.560 --> 0:02:32.520 by the gravitational pull of a large planet orbiting it, 0:02:33.040 --> 0:02:35.480 or by the yeah, as Cody alludes to hear, the 0:02:35.520 --> 0:02:37.440 occlusion of its light. So like, if there is a 0:02:37.480 --> 0:02:40.720 transit where a planet passes in front of a star 0:02:40.880 --> 0:02:43.680 from our perspective, we will proceed that as a brief 0:02:43.760 --> 0:02:46.440 dimming of the star as the planet passes between the 0:02:46.480 --> 0:02:50.280 star and our observation technology. Uh and and there's some 0:02:50.320 --> 0:02:52.480 other methods as well, but those are some of the 0:02:52.520 --> 0:02:54.000 main ones. And you can see why it would be 0:02:54.040 --> 0:02:58.080 easier to detect planets that are larger and have certain 0:02:58.120 --> 0:03:02.119 types of certain types of orbital orientations based on those 0:03:02.160 --> 0:03:06.079 sorts of methods. But Cody continues, in fact, the upper 0:03:06.120 --> 0:03:09.200 limit on the orbital periods for the current detection regime 0:03:09.280 --> 0:03:13.040 is roughly half the period of a typical postdoctoral fellowship 0:03:13.440 --> 0:03:16.040 go figure. So it just isn't accurate to say that 0:03:16.120 --> 0:03:19.239 our Solar system is unusual, since we simply don't know. 0:03:19.680 --> 0:03:22.000 It may in fact be the most common kind of 0:03:22.000 --> 0:03:25.600 planetary system, but we are as yet completely incapable of 0:03:25.639 --> 0:03:29.760 detecting another one like it, Cody. So thanks for that, Cody. 0:03:30.040 --> 0:03:32.160 So I would say, unless it got left out by 0:03:32.200 --> 0:03:34.600 accidents somehow, I'm pretty sure in the episode we did 0:03:34.639 --> 0:03:37.800 talk about the idea that our current detection methods for 0:03:37.880 --> 0:03:41.720 exoplanets could very well be biasing our surveys of what 0:03:41.800 --> 0:03:44.600 types of planets are out there. Though I believe, if 0:03:44.640 --> 0:03:47.760 I understand correctly, Cody is putting it more strongly here, 0:03:48.400 --> 0:03:50.640 saying not just as we did that they could be 0:03:50.960 --> 0:03:54.200 biasing our picture of how common different planetary structures are, 0:03:54.520 --> 0:03:58.080 but that they almost certainly are biasing it. Fair enough, 0:04:03.520 --> 0:04:05.480 all right, here's another one. This one comes to us 0:04:05.520 --> 0:04:10.120 from Joshua Joshua rides Hi, Robert and Joe, longtime listener, 0:04:10.160 --> 0:04:13.120 first time writing. Really love the show and the symbiosis 0:04:13.160 --> 0:04:17.120 you create between all the best subjects. I was listening 0:04:17.120 --> 0:04:19.960 to the Jupiter episodes and heard you both questioning how 0:04:19.960 --> 0:04:23.719 big the stone Chronus uranus swallowed in place of the 0:04:23.760 --> 0:04:26.960 baby Zeus. Well, I knew I heard about it before, 0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:30.360 and sure enough, there is a historical sculpture held as 0:04:30.360 --> 0:04:35.400 being the same stone see attached picture. Apparently apparently this 0:04:35.520 --> 0:04:38.800 is it also known as the umphal of stone. It's 0:04:38.839 --> 0:04:42.800 an example of a beatless or sacred stone. The mythological 0:04:42.839 --> 0:04:45.520 record says the stone was also used by Zeus to 0:04:45.560 --> 0:04:48.839 decide where the center of the world was no surprise, 0:04:49.080 --> 0:04:51.960 he picked Delphi and that's where he placed this stone 0:04:52.160 --> 0:04:55.440 to market and yeah, indeed you can look up images 0:04:55.480 --> 0:04:57.840 of this. There's a Wikipedia article on this that has 0:04:57.920 --> 0:05:02.800 some yeah, decent music, the photographs of them. Um Anyway, 0:05:02.960 --> 0:05:05.480 they continue. It's certainly bigger than I ever imagined a 0:05:05.520 --> 0:05:07.960 baby god would be. But I guess when you're dealing 0:05:07.960 --> 0:05:10.680 with deities it's probably going to be a bit subjective. 0:05:10.920 --> 0:05:14.920 Thanks guys, keep doing what do you do your friend, Josh? Oh, 0:05:14.960 --> 0:05:18.040 thanks Josh. It looks kind of like a beautifully decorated 0:05:18.160 --> 0:05:21.880 giant stone bullet. Here's the question. Was it decorated before 0:05:22.040 --> 0:05:25.320 it was ingested by a god or did it? Was 0:05:25.360 --> 0:05:29.000 it inscribed like this by virtue of being ingested by 0:05:29.000 --> 0:05:31.960 a god? Also, you're saying not carved by a human 0:05:32.000 --> 0:05:34.960 in recognition of having been vomited up by Chronus. But 0:05:35.040 --> 0:05:37.919 it was actually carved by Cronus's guts, like when he 0:05:38.000 --> 0:05:41.880 swallows a stone it starts making little lacy patterns on 0:05:42.160 --> 0:05:45.960 the things inside. Yeah, why not? I mean the physiology 0:05:45.960 --> 0:05:49.400 of the gods has to be something spectacular. Three cheers 0:05:49.400 --> 0:05:57.480 for god guts. Yeah. Okay, you're ready for Dad Jokes, 0:05:58.600 --> 0:06:01.960 as as ready as anyone ever is. Okay. This first 0:06:02.000 --> 0:06:05.839 message comes from Eden. Eden says, Dear Robert and Joe, 0:06:06.120 --> 0:06:08.400 in your recent Dad Jokes episode, you' all brought up 0:06:08.440 --> 0:06:11.680 the lack of a signifier or punctuation mark in written 0:06:11.720 --> 0:06:15.200 text that conveyed sarcasm. I wanted to shout through my 0:06:15.279 --> 0:06:18.680 phone that there already is an existing signifier of sarcasm 0:06:18.680 --> 0:06:21.279 in written text, and it does not ruin the joke 0:06:21.360 --> 0:06:24.960 to use it. Rules for writing sarcasm have evolved naturally 0:06:25.000 --> 0:06:28.120 on the Internet, and we see them every day. In fact, 0:06:28.279 --> 0:06:31.200 often it is not punctuation so much as a lack 0:06:31.240 --> 0:06:34.760 of punctuation. It's use as a form of rhetorical speech 0:06:34.920 --> 0:06:38.200 is described here, and Eden includes a link to a 0:06:38.240 --> 0:06:42.599 Tumbler post arguing in short that within Tumbler there has 0:06:42.680 --> 0:06:48.839 evolved a linguistic convention that sentences presented without punctuation can 0:06:48.880 --> 0:06:52.840 be understood in an ironic or rhetorical manner. So an 0:06:52.839 --> 0:06:55.159 example kind of like what's used in this post would 0:06:55.200 --> 0:06:58.000 be a sentence like why did Taco Bell give me 0:06:58.120 --> 0:07:01.920 seventeen sauce packets for one taco? The sentence would feel 0:07:01.960 --> 0:07:04.839 very different depending on whether or not you actually include 0:07:04.839 --> 0:07:06.960 a question mark at the end of it. If there's 0:07:06.960 --> 0:07:08.960 a question mark at the end of it, people might 0:07:09.000 --> 0:07:12.160 be tempted to answer the question to say like, oh, 0:07:12.160 --> 0:07:14.320 maybe it's because of this, or you know that they 0:07:14.320 --> 0:07:17.160 could interpret it in different ways. If you don't punctuate 0:07:17.200 --> 0:07:20.160 it at all, it's somehow kind of understood that this 0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:23.040 is just like a joking or rhetorical question, and you're 0:07:23.080 --> 0:07:29.160 probably exaggerating with the number. I'm I'm, I don't know. Yeah, 0:07:29.520 --> 0:07:33.480 I'm just kind of a stickler for including your punctuation. 0:07:33.560 --> 0:07:36.200 I don't know, I I'm. We take a lot of 0:07:36.240 --> 0:07:39.200 convincing to to get me behind the idea of just 0:07:39.360 --> 0:07:42.400 not using punctuation on a sentence, or to just in 0:07:42.520 --> 0:07:45.960 order to use no capitalization, etcetera. You mean you're you're 0:07:46.000 --> 0:07:48.640 not really familiar with this convention on the internet, or 0:07:48.680 --> 0:07:51.640 just that you don't approve of it. Oh well, both mean. 0:07:51.720 --> 0:07:53.720 I mean if I was more, if I was more 0:07:53.760 --> 0:07:55.920 accustomed to it and their apps, I'd be more into it. 0:07:55.960 --> 0:07:58.040 But like my gut reaction is, if we have to 0:07:58.120 --> 0:08:02.720 choose between sarcasm and proper functuation, we choose punctuation, and 0:08:02.800 --> 0:08:08.320 we we erase sarcasm from our our culture. Okay um. 0:08:08.480 --> 0:08:11.640 Eden goes on a lack of punctuation or a period 0:08:11.640 --> 0:08:14.040 where there should be a question mark, or even all 0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:18.320 caps are an immediate signifier of sarcasm. Uh, this linguist 0:08:18.440 --> 0:08:20.880 on the toast can explain it better than I can. 0:08:20.960 --> 0:08:23.680 And then again Eden links to a to an article. 0:08:23.840 --> 0:08:26.680 This is an article by a linguist named Gretchen McCulloch 0:08:27.120 --> 0:08:30.760 who explains several ways that sarcasm or irony is often 0:08:30.800 --> 0:08:34.319 conveyed in written language today on the Internet, often by 0:08:34.400 --> 0:08:39.920 intentionally incorrect spelling, by lack of punctuation and capitalization. All 0:08:39.960 --> 0:08:43.559 these things can sometimes be used to convey sarcasm or irony. 0:08:43.679 --> 0:08:46.880 And yeah, I recognize these conventions. I've seen them on 0:08:46.920 --> 0:08:49.720 Twitter in places where like a where a statement in 0:08:49.760 --> 0:08:53.800 a post is denoted as ironic or sarcastic by being 0:08:53.840 --> 0:08:57.080 presented say, like in all lower case with no punctuation. 0:08:59.120 --> 0:09:01.120 I mean, I can some of these tools. I guess 0:09:01.160 --> 0:09:03.240 I can get more behind the all caps thing. I 0:09:03.880 --> 0:09:06.480 can understand that, and I guess I've probably used that before, 0:09:07.240 --> 0:09:12.520 um and any. I guess even intentional misspellings have a place, 0:09:12.640 --> 0:09:17.440 especially if you're trying to sort of present a a 0:09:17.520 --> 0:09:24.520 specific dialect, you know, or impersonating specific individual um or 0:09:24.600 --> 0:09:26.920 um you know, like say there's a particular celebrity you're 0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:30.920 trying to uh to summon, you know, an image job 0:09:31.040 --> 0:09:33.800 or to invoke in the writing. I think that would 0:09:33.840 --> 0:09:36.720 make sense. I think I've realized one thing I do 0:09:36.880 --> 0:09:39.720 is that often if I'm talking to somebody I work 0:09:39.800 --> 0:09:42.559 with and I want to deny I don't think I 0:09:42.760 --> 0:09:45.079 would ever put this together before, but I've realized I 0:09:45.520 --> 0:09:49.800 often denote sarcasm or irony by including somewhere in the 0:09:49.920 --> 0:09:53.840 sentence a business buzzword that I would never actually use 0:09:53.920 --> 0:09:57.120 in a genuine manner. That that. Yeah, that that could 0:09:57.160 --> 0:10:00.000 work for sure as a as a signify or something 0:10:00.120 --> 0:10:02.360 like that. Yeah, But I guess part of it. I 0:10:02.440 --> 0:10:04.240 guess a lot of this does come down to, you know, 0:10:04.280 --> 0:10:06.160 what we talked about before, about how do we know 0:10:06.679 --> 0:10:10.439 someone is being sarcastic? You know, there's there's tone, and 0:10:10.480 --> 0:10:15.319 there's context. And if you're if if you're using the buzzwords, 0:10:15.360 --> 0:10:17.640 are you perhaps leaning more into context a bit? I 0:10:17.679 --> 0:10:20.840 don't know, Um yeah, I mean that would rely on 0:10:20.920 --> 0:10:23.360 the person sort of knowing me well enough to know 0:10:23.440 --> 0:10:26.840 that these are not terms that I genuinely use, So 0:10:27.000 --> 0:10:29.720 that probably wouldn't work for like an audience that didn't 0:10:29.720 --> 0:10:32.439 know who I was, But so, yeah, I guess that 0:10:32.440 --> 0:10:34.240 that would be a context thing. I think the like 0:10:34.679 --> 0:10:38.360 denoting sarcasm or irony or rhetorical speech by doing say, 0:10:38.440 --> 0:10:41.320 all lowercase with no punctuation, that does seem to be 0:10:41.360 --> 0:10:44.880 an attempt to use a written version of tone. It's 0:10:44.920 --> 0:10:46.840 kind of like when you use the silly voice to 0:10:46.880 --> 0:10:50.040 say something. Yeah, well, I mean I applied people out 0:10:50.280 --> 0:10:52.840 out there in the field trying to to figure this out. 0:10:53.000 --> 0:10:56.120 Even if even though there's some of these tools or 0:10:56.160 --> 0:10:59.480 maybe not for me, uh you know, perhaps they work 0:10:59.520 --> 0:11:02.480 and if they may communication better in these uh these formats, 0:11:02.480 --> 0:11:05.080 then you know, I guess it's a win win anyway. 0:11:05.280 --> 0:11:07.760 Eden concludes, My point is that we will never have 0:11:07.920 --> 0:11:11.880 something as straightforward as a single mark to convey sarcasm, because, 0:11:11.960 --> 0:11:14.199 as you pointed out in the episode, that such an 0:11:14.200 --> 0:11:17.640 obvious pronouncement might spoil the joke. But we do have 0:11:17.840 --> 0:11:21.520 unofficial linguistic rules about how we expressed sarcasm through text. 0:11:21.840 --> 0:11:24.920 Love the show Eaten. Well, that's all good. Thanks for 0:11:25.040 --> 0:11:26.679 writing in and sharing this. Yeah, this a little much 0:11:26.720 --> 0:11:34.640 of this is a world I'm not familiar with. All right, 0:11:34.679 --> 0:11:37.760 here's one from Carlos. Hey there. Just wanted to add 0:11:37.760 --> 0:11:40.640 to your dad joke stories. My dad is from Argentina, 0:11:40.960 --> 0:11:43.000 and often when I was a kid, he would try 0:11:43.040 --> 0:11:46.320 to translate jokes from Spanish. Almost every time, my dad 0:11:46.320 --> 0:11:48.559 would arrive at the punchline only to realize that the 0:11:48.640 --> 0:11:51.640 joke didn't translate. Also, I don't know if this is 0:11:51.679 --> 0:11:54.080 just me, but I have noticed that curse words and 0:11:54.120 --> 0:11:56.439 other languages never have the same kick that they do 0:11:56.520 --> 0:12:00.680 in one's native language. Slang from Argentina, bay In, how 0:12:00.720 --> 0:12:03.560 my dad has explained it to me, can be pretty foul. 0:12:03.880 --> 0:12:06.400 As such, my dad often told dirty jokes or jokes 0:12:06.400 --> 0:12:10.440 that hinged on bad words, impolite company teachers, pastors, etcetera. 0:12:11.000 --> 0:12:14.120 Uh So, not only did they usually fall flat, they 0:12:14.120 --> 0:12:17.720 often were on the vulgar side, embarrassing back then hilarious. 0:12:17.720 --> 0:12:21.600 Now thanks for everything, Carlos. Nothing better than telling dirty 0:12:21.679 --> 0:12:30.959 jokes to the pastor alright. This next message comes to 0:12:31.040 --> 0:12:34.080 us from Jim and New Jersey about part one of 0:12:34.120 --> 0:12:38.240 our episodes on post biological intelligence. Jim says Robert and 0:12:38.320 --> 0:12:42.000 Joe in your Machine Lords of Barnard six, Part one, 0:12:42.480 --> 0:12:46.520 Joe was reading from Susan Schneider's AI comments comparing silicon 0:12:46.800 --> 0:12:52.040 versus organic processing, and she mentioned seven manageable chunks being 0:12:52.080 --> 0:12:55.680 the limitation of a human brain. You mentioned Miller, but 0:12:55.880 --> 0:12:58.080 didn't seem to know the reference yet. She referred to 0:12:58.280 --> 0:13:00.840 Miller as the citation for that seven chunk's claim, but 0:13:00.840 --> 0:13:02.920 we talked about how we didn't follow up on that. Well, 0:13:03.040 --> 0:13:06.560 Jim has the explanation here. Jim rights, she's referring to 0:13:06.640 --> 0:13:10.840 George Miller's cognitive psychological paper the Magic number seven plus 0:13:10.960 --> 0:13:15.480 or minus two. It's referring to short term memory. Humans 0:13:15.480 --> 0:13:18.560 can manage about seven things in their short term memory, 0:13:18.840 --> 0:13:22.080 but it varies per individual by plus or minus two. 0:13:22.520 --> 0:13:25.320 The things we can manage are not just numbers, letters, 0:13:25.400 --> 0:13:28.960 or words. Each slot can manage a single chunk, That 0:13:29.120 --> 0:13:31.920 is it can be a composite idea with several parts, 0:13:31.920 --> 0:13:34.920 but we still consider it a whole. I've heard that 0:13:35.000 --> 0:13:39.160 one of the original tests involved showing chess peace configurations 0:13:39.160 --> 0:13:42.800 to chess novices and masters. They had a fixed amount 0:13:42.800 --> 0:13:45.920 of time, let's say sixty seconds to examine the board, 0:13:46.240 --> 0:13:49.800 and they were tasked with reconstructing it. The chess masters 0:13:49.800 --> 0:13:53.000 did much better than the novices, but then instead of 0:13:53.040 --> 0:13:56.800 actual chess game configurations, both sets of volunteers were shown 0:13:56.960 --> 0:14:00.640 random chess peace configurations, and the novice says and master 0:14:00.720 --> 0:14:03.600 has got about the same number of pieces correct. In 0:14:03.640 --> 0:14:06.600 the chess game portion of the test, a cluster of 0:14:06.640 --> 0:14:09.600 pieces in the corner would appear as six or seven 0:14:09.640 --> 0:14:12.880 pieces and require almost all of the short term memory 0:14:12.880 --> 0:14:16.760 slots for the novice. However, the chess master would recognize 0:14:16.800 --> 0:14:20.760 them as a castling position, and this castling chunk would 0:14:20.840 --> 0:14:25.240 would only require one short term memory slot. Likewise, other 0:14:25.280 --> 0:14:28.720 familiar chess piece configurations would chunk for the chess master. 0:14:29.280 --> 0:14:32.920 The chess master doesn't have more memory. The chess master 0:14:33.080 --> 0:14:37.360 has additional information about the game to chunk it more 0:14:37.360 --> 0:14:42.560 efficiently than the novice. Random configurations contained no chunks, so 0:14:42.600 --> 0:14:45.560 the master could only remember seven pieces, which was the 0:14:45.600 --> 0:14:48.480 same as the novice. And this makes sense to me 0:14:48.560 --> 0:14:51.880 because if you have something that's sort of already understood 0:14:51.920 --> 0:14:54.040 as a whole and and stored in your memory in 0:14:54.040 --> 0:14:57.240 a way, you could store it much more efficiently. Like 0:14:57.320 --> 0:15:02.200 you could probably remember seven whole lines from movies that 0:15:02.240 --> 0:15:04.720 you've watched a million times and you've got the lines 0:15:04.760 --> 0:15:08.680 already memorized, but you couldn't remember as easily nearly as 0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:10.760 much of the dialogue of a film that you were 0:15:10.840 --> 0:15:13.600 unfamiliar with and being exposed to for the first time. 0:15:13.640 --> 0:15:16.520 You could remember, Oh, it was this line from that film, 0:15:16.560 --> 0:15:20.520 and that's one piece of information in your brain. Yeah. Anyway, 0:15:20.600 --> 0:15:23.880 Jim goes on, chunking exists in most skills and hobbies. 0:15:23.920 --> 0:15:27.200 If a concept has its own name, it's probably a chunk. 0:15:27.760 --> 0:15:31.160 Referring back to Susan Schneider, a human short term memory 0:15:31.240 --> 0:15:34.720 has seven slots. A computer does not have this limitation 0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:37.640 Jim in New Jersey, Well, thanks Jim, that that fills 0:15:37.640 --> 0:15:40.160 in something very relevant. Yeah, and it also kind of 0:15:40.200 --> 0:15:44.840 makes spell slots in dungeons and dragons uh less um yeah, 0:15:45.160 --> 0:15:47.680 less of an abstract concept, right, I mean, it's just like, yeah, 0:15:47.720 --> 0:15:49.440 you only have so many slots. You can only have 0:15:49.480 --> 0:15:52.360 so many spells prepared. But each spell is one chunk 0:15:52.400 --> 0:15:59.600 if you know it well enough. Yeah, all right, And 0:15:59.640 --> 0:16:02.320 then we one message about spoon. It's not very long. 0:16:02.360 --> 0:16:05.080 It is just from a listener who signed their email quote. 0:16:05.240 --> 0:16:09.080 Just a signature here, so I hope that works. Uh. 0:16:09.160 --> 0:16:12.240 And the messages saw this and it reminded me of 0:16:12.240 --> 0:16:14.920 your discussion about the sport. I think actually what you're 0:16:14.920 --> 0:16:18.560 talking about is our our refusal to discuss the sport. 0:16:19.360 --> 0:16:23.000 But this listener says you'll enjoy the foon and then 0:16:23.040 --> 0:16:25.600 attaches a picture. One is a sport. So it's the 0:16:25.640 --> 0:16:27.960 bowl of a spoon with some times at the end. 0:16:28.400 --> 0:16:30.840 The foon is a fork in which each of the 0:16:30.880 --> 0:16:34.560 times ends in a tiny spoon bowl. Yeah, it's it's 0:16:34.600 --> 0:16:36.920 pretty weird looking. Even the spork looks weird because it 0:16:36.920 --> 0:16:40.000 looks like it was Perhaps it's it's it's if it's 0:16:40.040 --> 0:16:44.480 a like a fine silver spork, which I guess probably 0:16:44.880 --> 0:16:47.960 it probably exists. But this looks like it was, you know, 0:16:48.080 --> 0:16:50.720 perhaps created in photoshop. Rob. I can tell you're about 0:16:50.720 --> 0:16:52.520 to lash out in anger. Let's let's move on to 0:16:52.600 --> 0:17:00.840 something else. All right, just a uh comes to us 0:17:00.840 --> 0:17:03.880 from brad Um and it's a response to our episode 0:17:04.040 --> 0:17:06.280 Gold Medal of the Sun. Dear Robert and Joe, I 0:17:06.280 --> 0:17:08.440 am writing about your episode on Gold. I don't believe 0:17:08.480 --> 0:17:11.680 you mentioned one of Gold's most interesting properties. It's heat 0:17:11.720 --> 0:17:16.200 shielding prowess. Approximately point eight ounces sixteen grams of gold 0:17:16.240 --> 0:17:19.800 foil is used in the engine bay of each McLaren 0:17:19.960 --> 0:17:23.320 F one because it protects the carbon fiber body and 0:17:23.960 --> 0:17:28.160 the mono cue frame and chassis from heat, the heat 0:17:28.200 --> 0:17:30.000 of the engine. Are we talking about a car here, 0:17:30.000 --> 0:17:32.840 by the way, Yeah, I think this is like it's 0:17:32.840 --> 0:17:35.560 like a racing car of some kind of very very fast, 0:17:35.600 --> 0:17:38.159 high performance car. Yeah, because I was thinking of like 0:17:38.200 --> 0:17:40.080 a like a like a fighter plane. It's like, I 0:17:40.080 --> 0:17:44.000 don't don't recognize McLaren as as as a company that 0:17:44.040 --> 0:17:47.320 makes fighter jets, so I don't. So I'm not familiar 0:17:47.359 --> 0:17:50.760 with this word that mono cock or mono monoc quay, 0:17:52.359 --> 0:17:55.919 whatever that is. Yeah, Anyway, they continue. This was a 0:17:56.000 --> 0:17:58.720 choice by Gordon Murray, the chief engineer of the car. 0:17:59.160 --> 0:18:01.639 The gold foy old lined engine bay is one of 0:18:01.880 --> 0:18:04.600 two distinct design features of this car. The other big 0:18:04.640 --> 0:18:08.040 design distinction is the three seats. Here's a link to 0:18:08.080 --> 0:18:11.800 the Wikipedia article, which they include for us. Um. I've 0:18:11.840 --> 0:18:13.800 been listening on and off for a couple of years, 0:18:13.840 --> 0:18:16.399 but I have started listening frequently since I've been working 0:18:16.400 --> 0:18:18.480 from home. Keep up the great work, especially with the 0:18:18.560 --> 0:18:22.560 Weird House Cinema series. Regards Brad. Thanks Brad. All Right, 0:18:22.640 --> 0:18:25.359 I am looking at the Yep, that's a pretty fancy 0:18:25.400 --> 0:18:33.159 looking car. Um, let's see. Yes, okay, this is Bond 0:18:33.240 --> 0:18:36.560 villain car. Yeah, maybe you have more perspective on this. 0:18:36.600 --> 0:18:38.679 I've got a question here. Is there a point at 0:18:38.680 --> 0:18:42.240 which a car starts looking so cool that it goes 0:18:42.359 --> 0:18:44.960 over the line and it's not cool and instead it's 0:18:45.000 --> 0:18:49.439 kind of dorky? Um? Maybe? I mean, I don't know 0:18:49.560 --> 0:18:52.600 you Occasionally, you know, I guess I see a lot 0:18:52.640 --> 0:18:56.760 of normal looking cars rolling around, uh, the neighborhood. You 0:18:56.760 --> 0:18:59.080 know that you usually don't pay much attention to them, 0:18:59.080 --> 0:19:02.040 and occasionally, like even things like, at least to my eyes, 0:19:02.359 --> 0:19:04.240 even when there's like a tesla there, I have to 0:19:04.280 --> 0:19:07.560 really look at it to realize it's a tesla. Um 0:19:07.560 --> 0:19:10.879 where until I'm finally like, WHOA the student's dropping off 0:19:10.920 --> 0:19:13.840 his kids at school? And a Tesla. What's that about? Um? 0:19:13.880 --> 0:19:17.760 But I guess occasionally you do see a car that 0:19:17.880 --> 0:19:22.040 is like so fancy or so antique that it is 0:19:22.119 --> 0:19:26.359 just I I grabbing. UM. I don't know what extent 0:19:26.440 --> 0:19:30.760 it becomes uncool. I'm I guess it just depends on 0:19:30.760 --> 0:19:35.320 on how judgmental you are about how people, uh you know, um, 0:19:35.440 --> 0:19:37.800 how people spend their money and you know, what they 0:19:37.880 --> 0:19:41.040 choose to drive around in. UM. I guess it's possible, 0:19:41.040 --> 0:19:44.440 but it would be very, very subjective. Except for the headlights. 0:19:44.480 --> 0:19:46.200 I'm not sure I would be able to tell which 0:19:46.320 --> 0:19:49.480 end of this car is the front. Yeah, I don't know. 0:19:49.520 --> 0:19:51.480 It's kind of I imagine. I'm not a car person, 0:19:51.560 --> 0:19:53.800 so I don't really get excited about cars and all. 0:19:53.840 --> 0:19:56.199 But I think one area I might be able to 0:19:56.240 --> 0:19:59.320 compare it to would be like my my interest in 0:19:59.400 --> 0:20:04.360 things like inks and and military aircraft, which, on on 0:20:04.359 --> 0:20:06.399 one level, I can definitely look at a bomber or 0:20:06.400 --> 0:20:08.080 a tank and be like, Wow, that's a really cool 0:20:08.200 --> 0:20:10.640 looking air plants a neat design, And on the other hand, 0:20:10.640 --> 0:20:13.159 I'm like, that is okay, that's that's a weapon of 0:20:13.160 --> 0:20:17.159 war that probably or in many cases definitely caused a 0:20:17.160 --> 0:20:21.480 lot of death, destruction and misery and pain. Um, But 0:20:21.600 --> 0:20:23.600 on some level you kind of separate the two when 0:20:23.600 --> 0:20:28.280 you're considering just pieces of technology like that. Uh. And granted, 0:20:28.600 --> 0:20:30.840 if you're talking about like a Lamborghini or something, it 0:20:30.920 --> 0:20:34.760 probably didn't lead to uh, you know, the same level 0:20:34.760 --> 0:20:37.000 of of death and misery that a uh you know, 0:20:37.080 --> 0:20:40.000 like an M one tank did. But still you kind 0:20:40.000 --> 0:20:42.359 of they're probably different ways that we engage in thinking 0:20:42.400 --> 0:20:43.720 about it. So we might be able to look at 0:20:43.720 --> 0:20:45.280 a car and be like, oh, that's a really cool 0:20:45.320 --> 0:20:49.119 car without thinking is that a wise use of one's money? 0:20:49.160 --> 0:20:51.359 Is that appropriate to drive on these streets? So what 0:20:51.400 --> 0:20:54.680 does that say about inequality in our in our world 0:20:54.840 --> 0:20:57.560 or our nation that sort of thing. Uh? So I 0:20:57.600 --> 0:20:59.560 don't know not to lay all that on this one 0:20:59.600 --> 0:21:03.720 particular their car. No, No, it's a it's it's a 0:21:03.720 --> 0:21:07.040 cool looking car. I will admit if I saw it 0:21:07.119 --> 0:21:08.879 driving down the street, I would say, Wow, that's a 0:21:08.920 --> 0:21:13.240 cool car. I jump right in front of it. It 0:21:13.280 --> 0:21:16.080 would be an honor could get run over by this car, 0:21:16.680 --> 0:21:19.159 something I really get excited about. I live close to 0:21:19.240 --> 0:21:21.480 railroad tracks, and I think one of my favorite things 0:21:21.480 --> 0:21:24.840 in the world are maintenance vehicles on railroad tracks? Yeah, 0:21:25.240 --> 0:21:27.239 I get really excited about those. I point them out 0:21:27.280 --> 0:21:31.760 to my family and mostly they don't care. But but yeah, 0:21:31.840 --> 0:21:34.479 if there's some sort of strange vehicle that's cleaning the 0:21:34.480 --> 0:21:37.880 tracks or enabling the maintenance of the tracks, or even 0:21:37.920 --> 0:21:40.320 just a truck on the tracks, you know, um that 0:21:40.440 --> 0:21:43.679 I that that stuff. That's something I really get excited about. 0:21:43.720 --> 0:21:45.639 So if I imagine there are people who get that 0:21:45.720 --> 0:21:48.520 level of excited about sports cars and all, and I can, 0:21:48.640 --> 0:21:50.800 I can acknowledge that I'm right here with you. I 0:21:50.840 --> 0:21:55.080 think I have much more enthusiasm about reil based vehicles. Yeah, 0:21:55.359 --> 0:21:59.280 oh yeah, yeah, I still occasionally, Unfortunately I don't have 0:21:59.320 --> 0:22:02.439 them every night. I have semi recurring dreams about getting 0:22:02.440 --> 0:22:06.679 to ride special train cars on like the subway or 0:22:06.680 --> 0:22:08.920 our local rail system here in Atlanta, though it's usually 0:22:08.960 --> 0:22:12.480 kind of like an unreal, uh subway system I'm engaging in, 0:22:12.480 --> 0:22:14.600 but like a chance where oh I get to ride 0:22:14.960 --> 0:22:18.720 this like open vehicle that's traveling through the subway tunnels 0:22:18.800 --> 0:22:21.960 or some sort of bizarre say, and it it like 0:22:22.040 --> 0:22:26.359 it occurs with some regular frequency, and my my dreams 0:22:26.359 --> 0:22:28.720 I don't always remember it all that well, but yeah, 0:22:28.800 --> 0:22:31.800