WEBVTT - Listener Mail: Loving You is Easy Because You're Crabs

0:00:02.960 --> 0:00:05.280
<v Speaker 1>Welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind, a production of

0:00:05.320 --> 0:00:11.039
<v Speaker 1>My Heart Radio. Hey, welcome to Stuff to Blow Your Mind.

0:00:11.119 --> 0:00:14.400
<v Speaker 1>Listener mail This is Robert Lamb and this is Joe McCormick,

0:00:14.320 --> 0:00:16.360
<v Speaker 1>a candidates. Monday, the day of the week, we read

0:00:16.400 --> 0:00:18.639
<v Speaker 1>back some messages from the mail bag that you have

0:00:18.720 --> 0:00:22.200
<v Speaker 1>sent into our show account. If you've never tried it before,

0:00:22.239 --> 0:00:24.880
<v Speaker 1>you can get in touch with us at contact at

0:00:24.960 --> 0:00:28.080
<v Speaker 1>stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Whatever you want

0:00:28.080 --> 0:00:29.600
<v Speaker 1>to send. This fair game. If you just want to

0:00:29.600 --> 0:00:32.279
<v Speaker 1>share something interesting, if you want to have feedback on

0:00:32.320 --> 0:00:34.919
<v Speaker 1>another episode, or you just want to say hi, tell

0:00:35.000 --> 0:00:43.120
<v Speaker 1>us your thoughts about the show anytime, right in? All right, Rob,

0:00:43.159 --> 0:00:45.200
<v Speaker 1>I'm going to kick us off today with this message

0:00:45.200 --> 0:00:48.960
<v Speaker 1>about our series on whistling from Renata. All right, go

0:00:49.040 --> 0:00:53.280
<v Speaker 1>for it, Renata says hi, Rob, Seth and Joe. Sorry

0:00:53.280 --> 0:00:55.840
<v Speaker 1>for the late response to the whistling episodes. Have you

0:00:55.920 --> 0:00:59.960
<v Speaker 1>ever wondered how many Ripperton and Mariah Carey hit those

0:01:00.160 --> 0:01:04.480
<v Speaker 1>glass shattering high notes. They do it by going into

0:01:04.600 --> 0:01:09.280
<v Speaker 1>the whistle register, which is physiologically distinct from other sounds

0:01:09.280 --> 0:01:11.760
<v Speaker 1>made with the vocal cords. As far as I can tell,

0:01:11.880 --> 0:01:14.800
<v Speaker 1>it's called the whistle register. Only because it sounds similar

0:01:14.840 --> 0:01:18.200
<v Speaker 1>to a whistle, but is also physiologically distinct from a whistle.

0:01:18.520 --> 0:01:22.840
<v Speaker 1>According to miscellaneous YouTube videos, the whistle register is achieved

0:01:22.840 --> 0:01:26.759
<v Speaker 1>by clamping shut a large portion of your vocal cords

0:01:26.760 --> 0:01:30.679
<v Speaker 1>and only allowing air through a tiny hole. Apparently, babies

0:01:30.720 --> 0:01:34.160
<v Speaker 1>and small children make this noise effortlessly when they scream

0:01:34.200 --> 0:01:38.160
<v Speaker 1>and cry. But something about learning language causes us to

0:01:38.240 --> 0:01:42.000
<v Speaker 1>find producing this sound less natural as we age. Have

0:01:42.120 --> 0:01:46.039
<v Speaker 1>I tried doing it? Yes? Did it sound molefluous? No?

0:01:46.760 --> 0:01:49.640
<v Speaker 1>It also hurt a little afterwards. This makes me all

0:01:49.680 --> 0:01:52.320
<v Speaker 1>the more impressed with singers who have the practice and

0:01:52.400 --> 0:01:55.520
<v Speaker 1>controlled use this range on a regular basis and make

0:01:55.560 --> 0:01:59.000
<v Speaker 1>it sound effortless. Thanks for making me think deeply about

0:01:59.040 --> 0:02:04.400
<v Speaker 1>seemingly mundane topics. Best renata renata, Yeah, this is interesting.

0:02:04.440 --> 0:02:06.440
<v Speaker 1>I don't know that much about Mariah Carey, though I

0:02:06.440 --> 0:02:08.760
<v Speaker 1>think I can hear in her song is kind of

0:02:09.000 --> 0:02:13.519
<v Speaker 1>going into a pitch above normal soprano. But yeah, many

0:02:13.560 --> 0:02:16.240
<v Speaker 1>reportson is great. You can hear her using the whistle

0:02:16.280 --> 0:02:20.000
<v Speaker 1>register on that single. Everybody probably knows Loving You, that's

0:02:20.000 --> 0:02:21.760
<v Speaker 1>the one with line you Loving you is easy because

0:02:21.760 --> 0:02:25.440
<v Speaker 1>you're beautiful? Uh? Robbi I attached a link if you're

0:02:25.440 --> 0:02:27.160
<v Speaker 1>not familiar with this song. But yeah, there is a

0:02:27.200 --> 0:02:29.240
<v Speaker 1>moment where you can hear her go from kind of

0:02:29.280 --> 0:02:33.760
<v Speaker 1>regular soprano voice to to the whistle register. That's kind

0:02:33.760 --> 0:02:36.240
<v Speaker 1>of hard to describe, except that it is higher than

0:02:36.280 --> 0:02:39.440
<v Speaker 1>even the normal high singing voice of a soprano singer,

0:02:40.120 --> 0:02:44.120
<v Speaker 1>and many repretend famous for having an extremely wide range

0:02:44.120 --> 0:02:47.440
<v Speaker 1>of octaves that different notes she could hit. One thing

0:02:47.520 --> 0:02:49.920
<v Speaker 1>I didn't realize until I was looking her up just

0:02:50.000 --> 0:02:53.680
<v Speaker 1>before this. Uh, Mini Repurton was the mother of the

0:02:53.720 --> 0:02:57.280
<v Speaker 1>comedian Maya Rudolph, and that's why apparently at the end

0:02:57.320 --> 0:03:00.440
<v Speaker 1>of the song loving You you hear her sing Maya,

0:03:00.520 --> 0:03:04.120
<v Speaker 1>Maya Maya. That's about her daughter, Maya Rudolph. Oh, I

0:03:04.120 --> 0:03:06.400
<v Speaker 1>didn't realize that. I mean, this is a great song.

0:03:06.680 --> 0:03:08.640
<v Speaker 1>I'm familiar with it, and of course and I like

0:03:08.680 --> 0:03:12.440
<v Speaker 1>Maya Rudolph's work as well. But interesting. Huh So anyway,

0:03:12.480 --> 0:03:20.560
<v Speaker 1>thanks for Nata. All right, here's uh we will see

0:03:20.600 --> 0:03:24.680
<v Speaker 1>some We'll see some listener mail from from folks in

0:03:24.919 --> 0:03:27.440
<v Speaker 1>uh response to our episode on fun and So we

0:03:27.520 --> 0:03:30.560
<v Speaker 1>heard from Jim in New Jersey. Jim in New Jersey

0:03:30.560 --> 0:03:32.960
<v Speaker 1>writes it and says Robert, Joe and Seth. At the

0:03:33.040 --> 0:03:35.560
<v Speaker 1>end of your third installment on Fun, you mentioned how

0:03:35.600 --> 0:03:38.360
<v Speaker 1>to make exercise more fun. This reminded me of a

0:03:38.400 --> 0:03:43.120
<v Speaker 1>Freakonomics episode entitled When will Power Isn't Enough. It featured

0:03:43.200 --> 0:03:47.120
<v Speaker 1>Katherine Milkman, associate professor at the University of Pennsylvania. From

0:03:47.160 --> 0:03:51.200
<v Speaker 1>the podcast. This is a direct quote from Milkman in

0:03:51.240 --> 0:03:54.040
<v Speaker 1>the in the podcast quote, So I struggle at the

0:03:54.080 --> 0:03:56.160
<v Speaker 1>end of a long day to get myself to the gym,

0:03:56.240 --> 0:03:58.080
<v Speaker 1>even though I know I should go. And at the

0:03:58.120 --> 0:03:59.920
<v Speaker 1>end of a long day, I also struggle with the

0:04:00.000 --> 0:04:02.560
<v Speaker 1>desire to watch my favorite TV shows instead of getting

0:04:02.600 --> 0:04:06.240
<v Speaker 1>work done. And so I actually realized that those two temptations,

0:04:06.280 --> 0:04:09.200
<v Speaker 1>those two struggles I faced, could be combined to solve

0:04:09.200 --> 0:04:14.240
<v Speaker 1>both problems. Jim continues. She calls the technique temptation bundling.

0:04:14.560 --> 0:04:18.200
<v Speaker 1>Milkman continues, quote, what I realized is that if I

0:04:18.240 --> 0:04:20.880
<v Speaker 1>only allowed myself to watch my favorite TV shows while

0:04:20.920 --> 0:04:23.880
<v Speaker 1>exercising at the gym, then I'd stop wasting time at

0:04:23.880 --> 0:04:27.000
<v Speaker 1>home on useless television, and I'd start craving trips to

0:04:27.000 --> 0:04:28.720
<v Speaker 1>the gym at the end of the long day because

0:04:28.760 --> 0:04:31.080
<v Speaker 1>I'd want to find out what happens next in my show,

0:04:31.640 --> 0:04:34.640
<v Speaker 1>and not only that, I'd actually enjoy my workout and

0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:38.000
<v Speaker 1>my show more combined, I wouldn't feel guilty watching TV,

0:04:38.400 --> 0:04:40.600
<v Speaker 1>and time would fly while I was at the gym.

0:04:41.000 --> 0:04:43.640
<v Speaker 1>So when I talk about temptation bundling, I mean combining

0:04:43.640 --> 0:04:46.200
<v Speaker 1>a temptation something like a TV show, a guilty pleasure,

0:04:46.440 --> 0:04:49.320
<v Speaker 1>something that will pull you into engaging in a behavior

0:04:49.600 --> 0:04:52.320
<v Speaker 1>with something you know you should do but might struggle

0:04:52.400 --> 0:04:56.400
<v Speaker 1>to do. Jim in New Jersey, Oh yeah, thanks, Jim. Uh,

0:04:56.440 --> 0:04:59.560
<v Speaker 1>this is interesting, and I know we have heard from

0:04:59.640 --> 0:05:02.200
<v Speaker 1>listener is describing this exact same thing, maybe not with

0:05:02.240 --> 0:05:06.400
<v Speaker 1>the terminology of tem temptation bundling, but telling us that

0:05:06.480 --> 0:05:10.120
<v Speaker 1>they listen to our show when they, for example, do

0:05:10.240 --> 0:05:13.080
<v Speaker 1>dishes as a motivation to make themselves do the dishes.

0:05:13.400 --> 0:05:14.839
<v Speaker 1>I think this is a common thing people do with

0:05:14.880 --> 0:05:17.159
<v Speaker 1>their podcasts, right, like you set it aside for like

0:05:17.200 --> 0:05:20.640
<v Speaker 1>when you need to do chores or something else. Yeah, yeah,

0:05:20.760 --> 0:05:23.160
<v Speaker 1>that's that's interesting. It reminds me a little bit of,

0:05:23.720 --> 0:05:26.520
<v Speaker 1>you know, something like flying, where I'm not a huge

0:05:26.520 --> 0:05:29.560
<v Speaker 1>fan of flying, but sometimes I can get sort of

0:05:30.200 --> 0:05:32.520
<v Speaker 1>I'll sort of say, well, okay, flying is the time

0:05:32.560 --> 0:05:34.359
<v Speaker 1>where there's nothing else to do but to like, I

0:05:34.400 --> 0:05:37.599
<v Speaker 1>have free license to just to you know, to watch something,

0:05:37.920 --> 0:05:40.360
<v Speaker 1>to play a game on my phone, to read whatever.

0:05:40.400 --> 0:05:43.080
<v Speaker 1>Whatever I'm gonna do, I have license to do it

0:05:43.160 --> 0:05:45.239
<v Speaker 1>during the flight because it will make the flight easier.

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.919
<v Speaker 1>It's not quite the same as temptation bundling. I guess, um,

0:05:49.680 --> 0:05:52.559
<v Speaker 1>My main exercises are swimming in yoga, and it's really

0:05:53.400 --> 0:05:57.200
<v Speaker 1>it's either not wise or improper to try and temptation

0:05:57.200 --> 0:06:00.400
<v Speaker 1>bundle any of those things. Uh. I get, you can

0:06:00.480 --> 0:06:04.679
<v Speaker 1>get you can get specialized underwater earbuds and so forth

0:06:04.720 --> 0:06:07.000
<v Speaker 1>to listen to music while while swimming. But I don't

0:06:07.040 --> 0:06:09.280
<v Speaker 1>think I could really follow a podcast or something or

0:06:09.320 --> 0:06:11.919
<v Speaker 1>an audiobook while swimming. But that's just me. If you

0:06:11.960 --> 0:06:14.480
<v Speaker 1>fill a swimming pool with sugary soda that you want

0:06:14.480 --> 0:06:16.320
<v Speaker 1>to drink but you know you shouldn't, and then you

0:06:16.360 --> 0:06:18.479
<v Speaker 1>can take a few gulps while you're doing your laps,

0:06:18.800 --> 0:06:22.600
<v Speaker 1>I guess. So yeah, it's I guess it tends to

0:06:22.640 --> 0:06:26.200
<v Speaker 1>work better with like stationary exercise equipment, often with that

0:06:26.200 --> 0:06:28.680
<v Speaker 1>built in screen. Like you were saying, yeah, I think

0:06:28.839 --> 0:06:33.800
<v Speaker 1>you were talking about watching television Preachers or evangelists. Yeah

0:06:33.839 --> 0:06:39.119
<v Speaker 1>on the screen there that's my vice. But temptation, Bunny,

0:06:39.200 --> 0:06:47.839
<v Speaker 1>that's it's worth worth thinking about. Like, I like this concept. Okay.

0:06:47.920 --> 0:06:51.039
<v Speaker 1>This next message is also in response to Fun and

0:06:51.120 --> 0:06:54.640
<v Speaker 1>this is from Lex, like says Joe Robin Seth. Loved

0:06:54.640 --> 0:06:57.440
<v Speaker 1>your episodes on Fun and always enjoy listening to the show.

0:06:57.520 --> 0:07:00.840
<v Speaker 1>I would consider myself a fun Efficiana know, and your

0:07:00.880 --> 0:07:03.279
<v Speaker 1>discussion of fund in the workplace reminded me of a

0:07:03.360 --> 0:07:07.360
<v Speaker 1>previous employer. At this workplace, there was an anonymous person

0:07:07.400 --> 0:07:11.160
<v Speaker 1>who is designated as the Minister of Fun. While I

0:07:11.200 --> 0:07:14.360
<v Speaker 1>love the concept, it was not always effective. For example,

0:07:14.640 --> 0:07:17.200
<v Speaker 1>when there were busy stretches, the Minister of Fun or

0:07:17.440 --> 0:07:20.200
<v Speaker 1>m o F might go silent and thereby add to

0:07:20.240 --> 0:07:24.400
<v Speaker 1>the collective existential dread of the humdrum of work. Additionally,

0:07:24.440 --> 0:07:27.400
<v Speaker 1>the activities may not appeal to all members of the team,

0:07:27.520 --> 0:07:32.160
<v Speaker 1>fostering more division than connectivity. Uh and and as you said,

0:07:32.200 --> 0:07:35.280
<v Speaker 1>the activity maybe time or labor intensive, adding to the

0:07:35.280 --> 0:07:38.080
<v Speaker 1>stress of work. Yeah, it's difficult when you're you're you're

0:07:38.200 --> 0:07:40.920
<v Speaker 1>under under a deadline and then also somebody's trying to

0:07:40.960 --> 0:07:43.960
<v Speaker 1>make you play a game. Lex goes on However, in

0:07:44.000 --> 0:07:47.080
<v Speaker 1>a less stressful work environment like the one I'm in now,

0:07:47.280 --> 0:07:49.840
<v Speaker 1>I think that the value of an anonymous fund master

0:07:50.040 --> 0:07:53.880
<v Speaker 1>is high. It also removes some of the infantilizing connotations

0:07:53.880 --> 0:07:57.280
<v Speaker 1>of having the boss force feed fund I cannot help

0:07:57.280 --> 0:08:00.600
<v Speaker 1>but think about Michael Scott's strong, arming employees and having fun.

0:08:00.720 --> 0:08:03.680
<v Speaker 1>Of course that's on the office, like making everyone go

0:08:03.800 --> 0:08:07.800
<v Speaker 1>to the Dundee Awards banquet despite very little genuine interest

0:08:08.320 --> 0:08:11.840
<v Speaker 1>thanks for the hours of fantastic content. Lex I could

0:08:11.840 --> 0:08:14.120
<v Speaker 1>see this idea. So it's not that the boss is

0:08:14.120 --> 0:08:19.040
<v Speaker 1>planning games and stuff. It's a an anonymous, maybe randomly

0:08:19.160 --> 0:08:22.440
<v Speaker 1>chosen one of the employees whose duty it is to

0:08:22.440 --> 0:08:25.760
<v Speaker 1>to make some fun that that day. It is interesting

0:08:25.760 --> 0:08:28.520
<v Speaker 1>that this it's mentioned that this is an anonymous person.

0:08:29.280 --> 0:08:32.760
<v Speaker 1>Um Like, it sounds like it's possibly official. But also

0:08:33.000 --> 0:08:35.960
<v Speaker 1>you could imagine an anonymous minister fund could almost be

0:08:36.000 --> 0:08:42.079
<v Speaker 1>like vigilante fun person and then in the office and yeah,

0:08:42.120 --> 0:08:44.280
<v Speaker 1>and of course that could be seen as dangerous by

0:08:44.559 --> 0:08:47.680
<v Speaker 1>the powers that be, uh like, because this is like

0:08:47.760 --> 0:08:52.520
<v Speaker 1>pure organic fun. Who is the anonymous fun meister who

0:08:53.120 --> 0:08:55.440
<v Speaker 1>is devising what is fun in the office? And is

0:08:55.480 --> 0:08:58.960
<v Speaker 1>that fun? Like too critical of the mission statement, and

0:08:59.040 --> 0:09:01.720
<v Speaker 1>so forth. Or it could be like which one which

0:09:01.760 --> 0:09:04.120
<v Speaker 1>one of us is secretly ratting to the boss that

0:09:04.160 --> 0:09:15.800
<v Speaker 1>I'm not having fun? All right? This next one comes

0:09:15.840 --> 0:09:18.560
<v Speaker 1>to us from Adam. This was in response to both

0:09:18.600 --> 0:09:23.600
<v Speaker 1>Are Fun Episode episodes and the Paragraphs episodes. Adam writes, Hi,

0:09:23.760 --> 0:09:26.839
<v Speaker 1>Robert and Joe, I love your show because I'm consistently

0:09:26.920 --> 0:09:29.400
<v Speaker 1>excited that you were covering a topic that I myself

0:09:29.400 --> 0:09:31.800
<v Speaker 1>would want to cover if I had my own podcast.

0:09:32.120 --> 0:09:34.880
<v Speaker 1>So thank you for letting me outsource my curiosity to you.

0:09:35.160 --> 0:09:38.040
<v Speaker 1>It's an excellent hands. I'm reaching out because I am

0:09:38.080 --> 0:09:40.720
<v Speaker 1>able to share a book recommendation based on one of

0:09:40.760 --> 0:09:44.679
<v Speaker 1>your conversations. In the paragraph part two, Robert mentioned the

0:09:44.720 --> 0:09:49.400
<v Speaker 1>short story collection The Voice Imitator by the brilliant Austrian

0:09:49.440 --> 0:09:54.280
<v Speaker 1>novelist Thomas Bernhardt, who is known for extended paragraphs. I

0:09:54.320 --> 0:09:59.960
<v Speaker 1>particularly love his novels Gargoyles two four pages, Wittgenstein's Nephew

0:10:00.040 --> 0:10:03.680
<v Speaker 1>You hundred and six pages, and The Loser a hundred

0:10:03.679 --> 0:10:07.880
<v Speaker 1>and ninety pages. If I'm not mistaken, all consists of singular,

0:10:08.040 --> 0:10:11.760
<v Speaker 1>unbroken paragraphs. Joe said that he dreaded the idea of

0:10:11.760 --> 0:10:15.320
<v Speaker 1>reading never ending chunks of prose. But Bernhardt turns this

0:10:15.480 --> 0:10:18.720
<v Speaker 1>horror into a form of art that is truly transcended.

0:10:18.880 --> 0:10:21.440
<v Speaker 1>If you have the patience and commitment to taking the

0:10:21.480 --> 0:10:24.600
<v Speaker 1>work on its own terms, that's fascinating. I really this

0:10:24.640 --> 0:10:25.960
<v Speaker 1>is a book that had been on my shelf for

0:10:26.000 --> 0:10:28.320
<v Speaker 1>a while, and I had not picked it up in

0:10:28.320 --> 0:10:30.960
<v Speaker 1>a while, and I hadn't really looked into the author

0:10:31.679 --> 0:10:34.679
<v Speaker 1>um beyond the voice imitator. So this is this is

0:10:34.720 --> 0:10:36.439
<v Speaker 1>interesting to learn a bit, a little bit more about

0:10:36.440 --> 0:10:39.240
<v Speaker 1>this this author. It's not just a choice for that work.

0:10:39.280 --> 0:10:41.920
<v Speaker 1>It's like a consistent style for this guy. Yeah, I

0:10:42.000 --> 0:10:45.800
<v Speaker 1>gotta respect that, all right. Um Adam continues here on

0:10:45.840 --> 0:10:48.520
<v Speaker 1>another note, I was thinking about what makes creative work

0:10:48.600 --> 0:10:50.480
<v Speaker 1>fun when I was listening to your episode on the

0:10:50.480 --> 0:10:53.240
<v Speaker 1>topic in your The Nature of Fun episodes, and for me,

0:10:53.400 --> 0:10:56.880
<v Speaker 1>Monty Python immediately comes to mind. In particular, I frequently

0:10:56.920 --> 0:11:00.640
<v Speaker 1>recalled particular scenes that bring a smile to my heart,

0:11:00.720 --> 0:11:03.560
<v Speaker 1>such as the Bridge of Death scene in The Holy Grail.

0:11:03.880 --> 0:11:07.280
<v Speaker 1>You're comment about humor deriving often from the resolution of

0:11:07.320 --> 0:11:10.120
<v Speaker 1>incongruities in the Psyche resonated with me and help me

0:11:10.200 --> 0:11:12.319
<v Speaker 1>understand why I keep going back to it in my mind.

0:11:12.880 --> 0:11:16.480
<v Speaker 1>They take a trope answering riddles to avoid supernatural death

0:11:16.800 --> 0:11:19.800
<v Speaker 1>and bridge trolls of fairy tale lore and turned it

0:11:19.840 --> 0:11:23.480
<v Speaker 1>on its head. The central incongruity concerns the difficulty of

0:11:23.520 --> 0:11:27.360
<v Speaker 1>the questions. Comically, Sir Galahad can't answer the simple third

0:11:27.400 --> 0:11:31.320
<v Speaker 1>question about his favorite color. Later author's third question about

0:11:31.360 --> 0:11:34.760
<v Speaker 1>the air speed velocity of an unladen swallow seems impossible,

0:11:34.960 --> 0:11:39.000
<v Speaker 1>but then the role is reversed uh when he knows

0:11:39.080 --> 0:11:42.240
<v Speaker 1>more about sparrows than the Riddler, who then is hoisted

0:11:42.280 --> 0:11:44.560
<v Speaker 1>by his own petard, paying the price for his own

0:11:44.600 --> 0:11:48.000
<v Speaker 1>hypocritical ignorance. There's so much going on here, but twelve

0:11:48.040 --> 0:11:50.120
<v Speaker 1>year old me only got about forty of it. On

0:11:50.160 --> 0:11:52.800
<v Speaker 1>a conscious level. All I knew was it was a

0:11:52.840 --> 0:11:55.400
<v Speaker 1>ton of fun that I could keep returning to as

0:11:55.440 --> 0:11:57.640
<v Speaker 1>my friends and I called back to it in our

0:11:57.679 --> 0:12:00.800
<v Speaker 1>in jokes repeatedly for years. Get back to your thoughts

0:12:00.840 --> 0:12:03.640
<v Speaker 1>about incongruity. This joke is a masterpiece, and that it

0:12:03.720 --> 0:12:06.920
<v Speaker 1>has multiple twists and turns. They create a spring loading

0:12:06.920 --> 0:12:10.440
<v Speaker 1>effect that pays off fantastically well. When the incongruities are

0:12:10.440 --> 0:12:14.160
<v Speaker 1>resolved by the bridgekeeper's death, which follows the deaths of

0:12:14.280 --> 0:12:18.640
<v Speaker 1>Robin and Sir Galahad, But one incongruity remains unresolved. What

0:12:18.880 --> 0:12:21.400
<v Speaker 1>is the air speed velocity of an unladen African swallow

0:12:21.400 --> 0:12:24.439
<v Speaker 1>and how does it compare to that of the European variety?

0:12:24.480 --> 0:12:27.160
<v Speaker 1>We may never know. Thanks for the amazing work you

0:12:27.160 --> 0:12:29.560
<v Speaker 1>guys do weekend and week out, Adam. I think you're

0:12:29.640 --> 0:12:32.280
<v Speaker 1>right about all that, Adam. That seems a classic for

0:12:32.280 --> 0:12:37.640
<v Speaker 1>a reason is almost a perfectly structured piece of comedy.

0:12:41.320 --> 0:12:43.440
<v Speaker 1>All right, we got another message about our episodes on

0:12:43.520 --> 0:12:46.360
<v Speaker 1>the paragraph. This is from somebody who wants to defend

0:12:46.480 --> 0:12:48.559
<v Speaker 1>the honor of the pill crow as a as a

0:12:48.640 --> 0:12:51.440
<v Speaker 1>useful symbol. Uh. And it's from a listener who wanted

0:12:51.480 --> 0:12:54.319
<v Speaker 1>to remain anonymous. She asked simply to be called a

0:12:54.360 --> 0:12:58.800
<v Speaker 1>woman in stem I think because she ends up potentially

0:12:58.800 --> 0:13:02.640
<v Speaker 1>implicating her boss in the message. So uh, listener says,

0:13:02.880 --> 0:13:06.000
<v Speaker 1>I love the show. I've been listening for nearly a decade.

0:13:06.040 --> 0:13:09.640
<v Speaker 1>Now you are the only original show I'm still auto downloading,

0:13:09.640 --> 0:13:11.800
<v Speaker 1>So I hope you know how special that makes you. Sorry,

0:13:11.840 --> 0:13:14.120
<v Speaker 1>this is lagging so far behind the topic, but here

0:13:14.160 --> 0:13:18.560
<v Speaker 1>goes on paragraphs in the workplace in a business environment.

0:13:18.600 --> 0:13:22.560
<v Speaker 1>My three favorite paragraphs each consist of one word yes, no,

0:13:23.040 --> 0:13:25.600
<v Speaker 1>and okay. And then in this next paragraph, I think

0:13:25.640 --> 0:13:27.760
<v Speaker 1>this is referring to the conversation we had about how

0:13:27.800 --> 0:13:31.720
<v Speaker 1>a lot of good writing doesn't just explain what the

0:13:31.800 --> 0:13:34.440
<v Speaker 1>author thinks, but shows you how the author thinks. So

0:13:34.480 --> 0:13:36.120
<v Speaker 1>it kind of takes you along a path of the

0:13:36.160 --> 0:13:40.000
<v Speaker 1>author getting to a thought within their own brain. But

0:13:40.320 --> 0:13:43.760
<v Speaker 1>this listener here says bad writing also sadly displays the

0:13:43.800 --> 0:13:47.800
<v Speaker 1>author's thinking. However, rambling, disordered and oblivious to the interest, need,

0:13:47.960 --> 0:13:51.079
<v Speaker 1>or expertise level of the reader, and a complete lack

0:13:51.120 --> 0:13:54.200
<v Speaker 1>of respect for the reader's time. I suffer a barrage

0:13:54.240 --> 0:13:56.960
<v Speaker 1>of daily emails from one or more coworkers guilty of

0:13:57.000 --> 0:13:59.800
<v Speaker 1>all the above sins, combined with a refusal to edit,

0:14:00.200 --> 0:14:03.120
<v Speaker 1>and egos sufficient to believe anyone cares what they think

0:14:03.240 --> 0:14:07.120
<v Speaker 1>based on the list of c C is generally attached. Unfortunately,

0:14:07.160 --> 0:14:09.480
<v Speaker 1>I report to one of the offenders, so I cannot

0:14:09.600 --> 0:14:12.600
<v Speaker 1>just ignore them completely. Yeah, they're I think there are

0:14:12.600 --> 0:14:15.920
<v Speaker 1>a lot of jobs where the the email is copious

0:14:15.960 --> 0:14:18.320
<v Speaker 1>and uh and and not as well edited as it

0:14:18.320 --> 0:14:20.440
<v Speaker 1>could be, but the message goes on. I wanted to

0:14:20.480 --> 0:14:23.360
<v Speaker 1>close with a defense of the humble pill crow symbol

0:14:23.440 --> 0:14:26.600
<v Speaker 1>in word. Remember this is the symbol that denotes a

0:14:26.640 --> 0:14:30.360
<v Speaker 1>paragraph break. If you have accidentally turned it on and

0:14:30.400 --> 0:14:32.600
<v Speaker 1>desperately tried to turn it off, you are not it's

0:14:32.640 --> 0:14:35.960
<v Speaker 1>intended audience, But as someone who makes their living converting

0:14:36.120 --> 0:14:40.640
<v Speaker 1>random text documents into data, it is invaluable. Definitely, it

0:14:40.680 --> 0:14:43.600
<v Speaker 1>identifies where the line breaks are with paragraph marks, but

0:14:43.920 --> 0:14:46.960
<v Speaker 1>it does much more. Turning the pill crow symbol on

0:14:47.080 --> 0:14:51.160
<v Speaker 1>has helped me identify hidden white space, weird extra characters,

0:14:51.360 --> 0:14:54.800
<v Speaker 1>and all sorts of surprise nonsense that is sometimes lurking

0:14:54.880 --> 0:14:58.480
<v Speaker 1>unseen in documents that can be treated as text. These

0:14:58.520 --> 0:15:02.440
<v Speaker 1>extra symbols inhibit your ability to treat portions of text

0:15:02.520 --> 0:15:05.760
<v Speaker 1>as data fields. This is very important for any business

0:15:05.800 --> 0:15:08.680
<v Speaker 1>process that turns out the same file format over and

0:15:08.760 --> 0:15:12.360
<v Speaker 1>over that has then written to individual files. Only a

0:15:12.360 --> 0:15:15.080
<v Speaker 1>computer has time to read all the files and find

0:15:15.080 --> 0:15:17.560
<v Speaker 1>all the matching data fields, store them in a database,

0:15:17.600 --> 0:15:21.400
<v Speaker 1>and produce a nice, usable summary report for the end users.

0:15:21.840 --> 0:15:23.720
<v Speaker 1>And then if you read this on air, please call

0:15:23.760 --> 0:15:25.920
<v Speaker 1>me a woman in stem since I called out my

0:15:25.960 --> 0:15:27.920
<v Speaker 1>boss and don't know who else at the office might

0:15:27.960 --> 0:15:31.520
<v Speaker 1>be listening. Looking forward to listening for another decade or more.

0:15:32.000 --> 0:15:35.160
<v Speaker 1>Uh a woman in stem Uh. So, yeah, thanks for

0:15:35.200 --> 0:15:37.720
<v Speaker 1>the message. I can absolutely see how Yeah, I think

0:15:37.760 --> 0:15:41.320
<v Speaker 1>the story was that I remember that time when I

0:15:41.360 --> 0:15:43.920
<v Speaker 1>was a kid and I accidentally turned on the paragraph

0:15:44.040 --> 0:15:46.920
<v Speaker 1>markers on on Microsoft Word and then I was like, ah,

0:15:47.040 --> 0:15:48.800
<v Speaker 1>what what are all these symbols? But yeah, if you

0:15:48.920 --> 0:15:51.280
<v Speaker 1>if you're trying to avoid confusion and make sure you're

0:15:51.360 --> 0:15:54.560
<v Speaker 1>just getting the relevant text and not extra stuff, that's

0:15:54.640 --> 0:16:02.360
<v Speaker 1>that's very helpful. All right. This next one comes to

0:16:02.440 --> 0:16:04.800
<v Speaker 1>us from Keith when it has and it has the

0:16:04.840 --> 0:16:07.800
<v Speaker 1>title Crabs. Uh. You know, we we frequently come back

0:16:07.840 --> 0:16:11.120
<v Speaker 1>to crabs on the show. We love a good crab story,

0:16:11.160 --> 0:16:15.440
<v Speaker 1>we love crab movies and and so forth. So Keith

0:16:15.480 --> 0:16:18.360
<v Speaker 1>writes in and says, first time a long time. I've

0:16:18.400 --> 0:16:21.320
<v Speaker 1>been saving up some Pokemon comments for when I had

0:16:21.360 --> 0:16:24.880
<v Speaker 1>a nice cash to send you, but I just got

0:16:24.960 --> 0:16:28.000
<v Speaker 1>knocked off my feet by House of the Dragon, so

0:16:28.040 --> 0:16:30.720
<v Speaker 1>I'll drop one right now. When I listened to your

0:16:30.760 --> 0:16:34.080
<v Speaker 1>Crab series, the hairy crabs excited me because they must

0:16:34.120 --> 0:16:39.000
<v Speaker 1>have been an inspiration for the Pokemon Crabominable. Uh. And

0:16:39.040 --> 0:16:40.640
<v Speaker 1>then there's a picture attached to here and you can

0:16:40.640 --> 0:16:42.880
<v Speaker 1>pull this up. You can also look up crabominable in

0:16:43.200 --> 0:16:47.480
<v Speaker 1>various Pokemon databases, and it is indeed a beautiful beast.

0:16:47.520 --> 0:16:49.160
<v Speaker 1>I don't think I've asked my son about this one,

0:16:49.200 --> 0:16:54.240
<v Speaker 1>but uh yeah, beautiful, beautiful creature here. Wooly crab Pokemon

0:16:54.480 --> 0:16:58.160
<v Speaker 1>is the species. But does this crab not have claws

0:16:58.200 --> 0:17:00.760
<v Speaker 1>that where the clothes would be. I see like almost

0:17:00.800 --> 0:17:03.320
<v Speaker 1>what looks like flowers with the kind of ball in

0:17:03.360 --> 0:17:06.159
<v Speaker 1>the middle. Well, and so many of these creatures they

0:17:06.160 --> 0:17:09.560
<v Speaker 1>are hybrids. Uh you know, they are monsters. They are

0:17:09.600 --> 0:17:11.680
<v Speaker 1>pocket monsters at the end of the day, and therefore

0:17:11.760 --> 0:17:13.600
<v Speaker 1>there there are a lot of chimeras in the mix.

0:17:13.840 --> 0:17:18.000
<v Speaker 1>I would have concerns about putting this creature in my pocket. Anyway,

0:17:18.040 --> 0:17:21.560
<v Speaker 1>they continue. I do wish that the in game explanations

0:17:21.560 --> 0:17:23.720
<v Speaker 1>were as interesting as the real crabs, but I suppose

0:17:23.720 --> 0:17:26.439
<v Speaker 1>it is a game designed to keep kids engage, not

0:17:26.640 --> 0:17:30.080
<v Speaker 1>adult nerds. House of the Dragon, on the other hand,

0:17:30.200 --> 0:17:33.360
<v Speaker 1>is very much not for kids and spoiler light. Episode

0:17:33.359 --> 0:17:36.480
<v Speaker 1>two begins with a horrifying shot of humans being eaten

0:17:36.520 --> 0:17:39.840
<v Speaker 1>alive by crabs as the surf licks their legs. It's

0:17:39.840 --> 0:17:42.159
<v Speaker 1>gnarly stuff, so view at your own risk, but I

0:17:42.200 --> 0:17:45.440
<v Speaker 1>was curious about your take on the prospect these crabs

0:17:45.560 --> 0:17:48.200
<v Speaker 1>even seem to nestle in the flesh of their victims.

0:17:48.800 --> 0:17:50.920
<v Speaker 1>I have been a fan since the days when Christian

0:17:51.040 --> 0:17:53.880
<v Speaker 1>was a co host, and I love how you keep

0:17:53.880 --> 0:17:56.280
<v Speaker 1>the show fresh and exciting all these years. In Thanks

0:17:56.320 --> 0:17:59.920
<v Speaker 1>for all the content and movie recommendations, Keith. Thanks Keith.

0:18:00.119 --> 0:18:03.400
<v Speaker 1>Always welcome more crab content. People out there. You've got

0:18:03.440 --> 0:18:06.159
<v Speaker 1>interesting stuff about crabs, send it on in Well. I

0:18:06.160 --> 0:18:08.879
<v Speaker 1>am current on the House of the Dragon. I've been

0:18:08.920 --> 0:18:11.439
<v Speaker 1>watching it and yes there this is not really a

0:18:11.440 --> 0:18:14.520
<v Speaker 1>spoiler at all, but there is a character that's introduced

0:18:14.800 --> 0:18:17.840
<v Speaker 1>that is like a pirate lord that's threatening the realm

0:18:17.880 --> 0:18:20.760
<v Speaker 1>and is he's called the crab Feeder, and he's this

0:18:21.160 --> 0:18:26.520
<v Speaker 1>horrific looking individual with like copious sunburns and also this

0:18:26.680 --> 0:18:30.480
<v Speaker 1>weird mask, uh mysterious. You don't know much about him,

0:18:30.520 --> 0:18:35.159
<v Speaker 1>but after they defeat a particular enemy, they stake everybody

0:18:35.200 --> 0:18:39.120
<v Speaker 1>to the shore like basically like crucifying them in some cases,

0:18:39.280 --> 0:18:41.760
<v Speaker 1>and they let the crabs crawl on them, sometimes dumple

0:18:41.760 --> 0:18:43.840
<v Speaker 1>a few crabs on them just to be sure. And

0:18:43.880 --> 0:18:47.560
<v Speaker 1>the crabs start eating them. So the question did occur

0:18:47.640 --> 0:18:50.919
<v Speaker 1>to me because we've talked about crabs eating people before.

0:18:51.040 --> 0:18:54.639
<v Speaker 1>That's the kind of show we we are, and so

0:18:54.720 --> 0:18:57.919
<v Speaker 1>I was wondering, It's like, well, would crabs really be

0:18:58.080 --> 0:19:01.800
<v Speaker 1>up for this or they be turned off? Would they

0:19:01.840 --> 0:19:04.359
<v Speaker 1>Would they be far more inclined to eat these people

0:19:04.400 --> 0:19:08.400
<v Speaker 1>after they had died. Uh? I tend to think that's

0:19:08.400 --> 0:19:11.240
<v Speaker 1>the case. Yeah. I would tend to think crabs in

0:19:11.280 --> 0:19:15.800
<v Speaker 1>the real world tend to be more scavengers than than

0:19:16.080 --> 0:19:18.760
<v Speaker 1>hunters of large prey. I mean, when they are hunters,

0:19:18.800 --> 0:19:21.080
<v Speaker 1>I think they're they're grabbing it stuff smaller than them.

0:19:21.440 --> 0:19:23.600
<v Speaker 1>I don't know for sure, but it seems very unlikely

0:19:23.640 --> 0:19:26.000
<v Speaker 1>to me that that crabs would be trying to eat

0:19:26.080 --> 0:19:30.679
<v Speaker 1>like a human sized animal that was capable of moving. Yeah,

0:19:30.920 --> 0:19:35.000
<v Speaker 1>So unless there's a specialized species or ray of species

0:19:36.040 --> 0:19:38.399
<v Speaker 1>in West roast Um, I would tend to say that

0:19:38.440 --> 0:19:42.960
<v Speaker 1>this is just some some grotesque of fantastic dreaming here.

0:19:43.520 --> 0:19:45.400
<v Speaker 1>But I love that they included it. It was still

0:19:45.440 --> 0:19:46.840
<v Speaker 1>it's it's at the end of the day, it's crabs

0:19:46.840 --> 0:19:49.760
<v Speaker 1>eating people, So it's it's kind of fun um and

0:19:49.760 --> 0:19:51.640
<v Speaker 1>it's a good year for that sort of thing, because

0:19:52.200 --> 0:19:56.280
<v Speaker 1>the season three of Love Death Robots has a wonderful episode,

0:19:56.520 --> 0:20:01.760
<v Speaker 1>horrific episode titled Bad Traveling that that is centered around

0:20:02.200 --> 0:20:06.080
<v Speaker 1>a monstrous crab that takes over a ship. So if

0:20:06.119 --> 0:20:09.840
<v Speaker 1>you like your crab monsters, especially you're talking crab monsters,

0:20:09.880 --> 0:20:12.439
<v Speaker 1>that's definitely an episode to check out. That one, uh

0:20:13.080 --> 0:20:15.879
<v Speaker 1>I believe was Yeah, it's a bit based on a

0:20:15.920 --> 0:20:20.240
<v Speaker 1>short story by Neil Asher, and uh it was adapted.

0:20:20.480 --> 0:20:23.240
<v Speaker 1>The screenplay was adapted by Andrew Kevin Walker, So that's

0:20:23.240 --> 0:20:26.240
<v Speaker 1>pretty cool, all right. On that crab note, we will

0:20:26.280 --> 0:20:29.440
<v Speaker 1>go ahead and close out this episode of Stuff to

0:20:29.480 --> 0:20:31.320
<v Speaker 1>Blow Your Mind listener Mail, but we'd love to hear

0:20:31.359 --> 0:20:34.280
<v Speaker 1>from you out there. Do you have crab related thoughts

0:20:34.320 --> 0:20:36.160
<v Speaker 1>to past episodes of Stuff to Blow Your Mind, crab

0:20:36.200 --> 0:20:39.879
<v Speaker 1>related thoughts to Weird House cinema, uh, crab related thoughts

0:20:39.880 --> 0:20:42.480
<v Speaker 1>to any of our episodes right in, We'd love to

0:20:42.520 --> 0:20:45.639
<v Speaker 1>hear from you, and we'll read your your email on

0:20:45.680 --> 0:20:49.120
<v Speaker 1>a future episode of Stuff to Blow Your Mind. Uh

0:20:49.359 --> 0:20:52.239
<v Speaker 1>crab based listener mail, which thanks as always to our

0:20:52.280 --> 0:20:55.240
<v Speaker 1>excellent audio producer Seth Nicholas Johnson. If you would like

0:20:55.280 --> 0:20:57.040
<v Speaker 1>to get in touch with us with feedback on this

0:20:57.080 --> 0:20:59.520
<v Speaker 1>episode or any other, to suggest a topic for the future,

0:20:59.600 --> 0:21:01.400
<v Speaker 1>or just to say hello. You can email us at

0:21:01.520 --> 0:21:11.879
<v Speaker 1>contact at stuff to Blow your Mind dot com. Stuff

0:21:11.920 --> 0:21:14.119
<v Speaker 1>to Blow Your Mind is a production of I Heart Radio.

0:21:14.480 --> 0:21:16.600
<v Speaker 1>For more podcasts for my heart Radio, visit the i

0:21:16.640 --> 0:21:19.439
<v Speaker 1>heart Radio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you listen to

0:21:19.480 --> 0:21:20.280
<v Speaker 1>your favorite shows.